1941/2 Soviet supply and 1944/5 Axis supply

[jasonbroomer]

The current meta is for Soviets to run all their HQs with supply priority 4 during 41/42, there is a feeling that the Axis may be able to do similar in 44/45.

While these nations had the benefit of falling back on their supply centres during these periods, constant supply 4 does seem excessive (I note that the Soviet AI runs supply 4 everywhere in 1941 in the GC).

It results in a very agile force, brimming with ammo which is capable of striking very hard when counterattacking and recovering quickly thereafter.

While Soviet supply in 1941 historically was not too bad, it was far from perfect. I find to hard to believe that the chaos caused by losing a good part of its economy, fleeing refugees and factories, and the general panic would allow the Soviets to fire off ammunition with total abandon. It was certainly not the case for the Axis in 44/45. There may have been plenty of supply, but getting the right supply item to the right place at the right time is a tough ask at any time, not least when the world is falling in over your head.

Is Soviet supply in 41/42 and Axis supply in 44/45 overstated?

[OctopusEV]

I am fully supporting you making this claim, but I have lost hope, it will be tweaked.

Unfortunately, there seems to be more support for the opposing position, against downgrading the Soviet supply in the early war period. The topic had been raised already in 2018 be Jeff_Ahl in the "Good game but..." thread. Just read the conversation there.

"...
The logistical unrealism

How is it possible that the soviets have so exceptional good logistical situation in 1941? The Soviet logistics in '41 was utter trash. But in the game? Just spam depots level 4 and always be sure that a new frontline will be formed solid and well supplied - as solid as it can be '41 of course, not talking about walls but unrealisticly good obstacles. Hell, even throw divisions around the rail network and there is still no problems with logistics. Try railing a divison with Axis and you have to postpone the planned offensives. Combined with throwing trash formation to drain CPP and the combat delay, this problem is a poison for the GC Campaign.

Solution? Increase cost drasticly for depot-building in '41 for the soviets and then decrease it as the game moves on. Maybe have a constant cost increase for both Axis and Soviets when building alot of new depots in the same turn. So, for example, one depot in a turn costs one point to build, the next costs two and so on, to simulate the fact that it is affecting the logistical staffs negativ to plan and re-plan the logistical grid. To easy to build a logistical grid as it is now in my opinion."

[DesertedFox]

When discussing the logistics system it might be an idea to follow the trail to the end.

Having supply located in a depot is all good and well but for a unit to receive supply, 5 checks are made against a leader's Administrative rating with each successful check allocating up to 20% of the supply requested.

Given the low value of Russian leader's Admin ratings, generally, as well as having overstacked HQs, one might conclude

this is indicative of their poor ability to actually deliver supplies to the units. Swapping out Russian leaders takes some

time as AP are required to build depots and forts as well.

The Germans of course have no problems late game passing their Admin checks given the quality of their leaders.

[Stamb]

occasionally Soviets do not get supplies in some of their troops due to a missed checks, while mostly there are no problems with it, even with a relatively low admin ratings of 4-5
and missed supply checks are easily fixed by a transport planes if unit just got onto map
or if unit was already on the map then not having supply for 1 turn is not a problem since it has 100%+ from a previous turns

[DesertedFox]

The logistical unrealism

How is it possible that the soviets have so exceptional good logistical situation in 1941? The Soviet logistics in '41 was utter trash.

You are basing your comments on what? Gobbels book entitled "How We Won the War".

When Titans Clashed. Glantz
The Soviet defenders shared many of the logistical problems of their opponents but had the inestimable advantage of fighting on familiar terrain and retreating toward their supply bases. Long before the hardships of the Russian winter arrived, the Soviet soldier would exhibit his ability to continue living and fighting with far fewer supplies than other soldiers would require. As the battle rolled eastward across European Russia, the Soviet supply lines became steadily shorter and easier to support, whereas the Germans were faced with ever-lengthening lines of communication.

Although the Soviets relocated hundreds of factories east of the Urals, they could not do the same for key mineral sources. This inevitably disrupted wartime production during 1941. In addition, the rapid German advance overran forward Soviet supply depots before their contents could be evacuated or distributed to the troops.

Both sides every in every theatre in WW2 experienced periods of localized supply problems.

Stalin insisted on many counterattacks in 41, especially at AGC during its halt after Smolensk when its two Panzer Groups headed north and south. This is a very good indication that sufficient supplies were on hand for the operations, otherwise they would not have been able to conduct them.

For example.

Operation Barbarossa. Glantz
The offensive plan also ordered the front to fulfill its ambitious missions by 15 September. Given the confused operational situation, the complex regrouping required and massive supply problems, the Briansk Front could not meet its offensive timetable. Therefore, Eremenko asked for and received permission to delay his attack until 3 September.

Turning point for Soviet logistics - 28th July 1941

H.G.W. Davie 9 May 2017

https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2017/5/8/ ... -july-1941

Khrulev was given just 3 days until the 1st August 1941 to get his plan into shape and start to implement his reforms. It was a crucial decision but all went well and the Main Directorate of the Rear of the Red Army would be a key element in the Soviet Union's ability of defeat Germany. There were still many trials and tribulations to come, inefficiency and incompetence were rife in the system and it would take much effort to eliminate these, but at its heart was a means to concentrate supplies at the point of decision that the Germans did not possess. This ability would be a major factor in the Red Army's ability to halt the German advance in front of Moscow that winter and agai at Stalingrad in 1942.

Artillery ammunition requires a large dedication of logistical support and it is known that this ammunition was frequently in short supply even during the 41 Russian winter counter-offensive. This has been dealt with by the following rule.

23.6.3. SovIEt ARtILLERY LIMItAtIoNS
Before 1944, Soviet artillery and rocket ground elements
(i.e. both those in units and specialist Support Units)
will have a notional requirement for only 60% of their
ammunition needs. In turn, this will reduce the rate of fire.
Units reporting (directly or indirectly) to a Front set to
Assault Status (21.11.2) will have a notional requirement
for 90% of their ammunition.

[DarkHorse2]

I haven't played as the Soviets in GC41, so it is hard for me to speak to it.

But will say that just because you have all your HQ running at supply level 4, does not mean they all get supplied at that level.

That is more of a request to the logistics AI - not a guarantee. Are you seeing the Soviets running around, amply oversupplied in '41?

[Jango32]

Once the logistics phase doesn't need to send as many replacement men to bring up divisions to strength, so around turn 3 or maybe turn 4, the Soviets (with priority 4 on everything) will become oversupplied for the rest of the game until presumably they reach the 1941 border.

This is simply because of how the logistics phase works. By the same token the Axis in Vistula to Berlin can also put everything on priority 4 and their supplies and ammunition should be very high. Supposedly the fuel percentage won't be as high because of little production by that point in the timeline but I haven't checked.

[DarkHorse2]

I am surprised the Soviet logistical system would allow (or has the capacity) to oversupply the Soviet force in 1941.

It simply did not have that ability (not on a global scale), while simultaneously contending with factory relocations, mass population exodus, interdiction of logistics / supply centers, complete disruption of command and control across the board.

In many cases, the Wehrmacht was better supplied than their Soviet counterparts, especially prior to the bad weather later.

Documented cases of Soviet forces having to withdraw simply because they were out of supply.

Soviets suffered massive vehicle shortages in 1941 as well. That was all before America sent its Russian ally the following military equipment:

400,000 jeeps and trucks (greater than all the vehicles in Britain in 1939)
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks

and supplies:
More than 1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petroleum products (to fuel airplanes, trucks, and tanks)
4.5 million tons of food

57.8 per cent of aviation fuel requirements, 53 per cent of all explosives, almost half the wartime supply of copper, aluminum and rubber tyres. Arguably the most decisive contribution was supplies for the strained Soviet rail network, much of which was in the occupied areas in 1941. From America came not only 56.6 per cent of all the rails used during the war but 1,900 locomotives to supplement the meager Soviet output of just 92, and 11,075 railway cars to add to the 1,087 produced domestically. Almost half the supplies, by weight, came in the form of food, enough to provide an estimated half-pound of concentrated nourishment for every Soviet soldier, every day of the war.

The laundry list of items supplied were a result of things the Soviet Union requested and were in dire need of.

[DesertedFox]

In many cases, the Wehrmacht was better supplied than their Soviet counterparts, especially prior to the bad weather later.

Documented cases of Soviet forces having to withdraw simply because they were out of supply.

Soviets suffered massive vehicle shortages in 1941 as well.

Please provide the references for these.

In many cases, the Wehrmacht was better supplied than their Soviet counterparts, especially prior to the bad weather later.

I am sure there were just as many cases where the Russians were better supplied than the Germans facing them. Thus

the Axis need to halt for resupply, rest, and refitting of vehicles and equipment.

Documented cases of Soviet forces having to withdraw simply because they were out of supply.

There are many more documented cases where the Russians didn't retreat and even sometimes fought to the last man because they had sufficient supplies. But yes, let's use the far less frequent occurrences as the main yardstick to shackle the other 4 or 5 million soldiers.

Here is an instance of a successful Russian counterattack. Does that mean every or even most Russian counterattacks in 41 were successful? No, Certainly no more than the odd instance of Russians retreating or the Germans Panzers stopping due to lack of supplies.

In mid-July the battered Fourth Panzer Army reached the Luga River, 96 kilometres south of Leningrad. The Germans closed on Lake Ilmen also. At this point, Army Group North was subjected to the heaviest air attacks thus far. Novikov had concentrated 235 bombers from the North and North-Western Front. It supported an offensive by Alexsandr Matveyev's Soviet 11th Armyon 14 July. Flying 1,500 sorties they helped push back the Germans 40 kilometres and inflict heavy losses on the 8th Panzer Division.[122

The poor German logistical state in 41 is of course well documented to the point that winter uniforms and gear were the lowest on the priority list. Ammo and weapons were seen as the first priority.

But the game's logistics allow the Axis to transfer 19 (Editied down from 23) German Panzer divisions to a western TB for the winter and send a similar CV value in infantry divisions to the eastern front. Seems to me this would have been impossible in reality.

But hey, let's keep pushing the Russian bias angle.

[Jango32]

Providing historical references for this or that does not matter too much for the game because the current logistics model does not take them into account, in my opinion. The reasons why the defender* (1941-1944 Soviets and 1944-1945 Axis) enjoys such advantages in the logistics phase are because of relative proximity to railyards and the NSS hexes, depot spams (and anticipated depot locations) and the horse supply rule from a 3-hex proximity to the depot all taking place in a fully functional railway network. Even without the horse resupply rule there can be so many depots relatively close to the front line (less than 10 hexes distance) that supplying the defender via trucks is typically a trivial matter.

The freight that gets generated every turn is "infinite" and how much is sent to units on the map is determined by demand. If all your on-map units are on priority 4, it means that there's going to be a lot of demand for freight and the game accordingly will send a lot of freight to meet demand. The attacker period (see asterisk) for each side will usually operate relatively far from depots and those depots will in turn be farther away from the NSS hexes every turn. This can be mitigated by pulsing freight and/or super depots.

EDIT: in a nutshell the game's logistics system is centered around freight demand (HQ priorities) and NSS-depot distances via the railway with trucks playing a transportation role, nothing more and nothing less. The only solutions that I can see are to either add arbitrary rules for each side during different periods in the game or possibly remaking some aspects of the logistics system. Both of these, I'm quite certain, are unfeasible with the former being a dirty patchwork of a "solution".

*Defender in this case means relatively close(r) to the NSS hex(es), adjust for attacker.

[DesertedFox]

Is there a need for these changes as the game currently stands?

There are those on the forum who will never believe the game is balanced until the capture of Leningrad and Moscow in 41 is guaranteed.

For most others, the game is pretty well-balanced. I do see an issue up to and including turn three where Russian mobile units have the ability to inflict some pain, break pockets etc when I believe their historical fuel supplies wouldn't generally allow this. See my thread on this.

Whilst I don't think this is a game breaker, it would allow the Axis a more realistic rate of advance and a chance to pocket

some Russians without having to worry about getting their advanced mobile units smashed.

Most Russian counter-attacks in 41 were pretty horrendous failures. In the early few weeks at best, they may have caused a

short delay on the axis/location they attacked.

You won't find references to widespread supply shortages (artillery excepted) for the Russians post mid-July that affected their ability to fight.

Complaining about the Russians setting their supply status to 4 and never mentioning that the Axis do exactly the same

when the initiative changes are typical of an ignorant and myopic viewpoint.

[DarkHorse2]

Is there a need for these changes as the game currently stands?

There are those on the forum who will never believe the game is balanced until the capture of Leningrad and Moscow in 41 is guaranteed.

For most others, the game is pretty well-balanced. I do see an issue up to and including turn three where Russian mobile units have the ability to inflict some pain, break pockets etc when I believe their historical fuel supplies wouldn't generally allow this. See my thread on this.

Whilst I don't think this is a game breaker, it would allow the Axis a more realistic rate of advance and a chance to pocket

some Russians without having to worry about getting their advanced mobile units smashed.

Most Russian counter-attacks in 41 were pretty horrendous failures. In the early few weeks at best, they may have caused a

short delay on the axis/location they attacked.

You won't find references to widespread supply shortages (artillery excepted) for the Russians post mid-July that affected their ability to fight.

Complaining about the Russians setting their supply status to 4 and never mentioning that the Axis do exactly the same

when the initiative changes are typical of an ignorant and myopic viewpoint.

Two references, just off the top of my head....

1. Operation Barbarossa: The Complete Organizational and Statistical Analysis and Military Simulation
Volume IIB pgs 291-311

2. https://ww2clash.com/logistics

The German supply organization proved a match for the challenge, maintaining a steady flow of supplies during the battle that proved superior to its Russian counterpart during Barbarossa. The Russians found themselves losing many engagements because its supply organization was breaking down allowing the Germans to attain fire superiority.

[DesertedFox]

Did I miss the part where it stated there was widespread shortage of supplies for the Russians so much so they had to constantly retreat?

The winner in a battle is usually the side that achieves fire superiority !, so it is essential to keep the stream of ammunition and fuel flowing smoothly.

From my experience, this is exactly what happens in 41, the Axis kick arse. If your experiencing something else then the problem lies not in the current game system.

Although it was not perfect, the German supply organization achieved significant accomplishments. Time and again it permitted the projection of force along the selected axis of advance providing the combat troops with the supplies needed to prevail in battle.

Absolutely true but the further they advanced this became more difficult for the Axis and easier for the Russians.

When Titans Clashed. Glantz
The Soviet defenders shared many of the logistical problems of their opponents but had the inestimable advantage of fighting on familiar terrain and retreating toward their supply bases. Long before the hardships of the Russian winter arrived, the Soviet soldier would exhibit his ability to continue living and fighting with far fewer supplies than other soldiers would require. As the battle rolled eastward across European Russia, the Soviet supply lines became steadily shorter and easier to support, whereas the Germans were faced with ever-lengthening lines of communication.

I don't have Nigel Askey, but given the blurb on the volume (below) you mentioned it's all about the Axis, not the Russians.

Volume IIB also includes chapters (each with analyses and data tables) on the following: German weapons, equipment and personnel distribution across the Reich in June 1941; German mobilisation, war production, reinforcements, replacements (including the Replacement Army), casualties, logistics, supply distribution efficiency, and naval forces on the East Front during 1941.

Where are references saying the Russians had a constant theatre-wide shortage of supplies after mid-July 41 that made the German advance towards Leningrad and Moscow a walk in the park?

You have mentioned it's "documented" Russians retreated because they were out of supply.

So, please show the documents.

1. I trust they were out of supply because the logistical system had broken down and not because they were isolated or the Germans had cut across their supply lines, because this is already handled in the game.

2. If it is a breakdown of the logistics system, then how many times did this occur, and how many troops are we talking about? 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 or even 1 million?

The subject is Russian logistics, not German, unless someone wants to chime in and validate the ridiculous cheesy transfer of 19 armored divisions to France in Nov 41 and simultaneously transferring approx 19 infantry divisions to Russia and reversing the operation in Apr 42.

Recently a Russian player did a naval invasion of Rumania in 41 making them join the Russians. It seems people will do anything, however unrealistic, to win a game.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Recently a Russian player did a naval invasion of Rumania in 41 making them join the Russians. It seems people will do anything, however unrealistic, to win a game.

Surely you mean 1942? The manual says it just can't happen in 1941. Or maybe my comprehension of the manual sux too

RumSur.png (1.57 MiB) Viewed 1633 times

[DesertedFox]

Unfortunately it actually happened in Dec 41, as per the thread below.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... a#p5009401

Dennis I believe is going to fix this such that the cheese doesn't escape the Cheddar factory in this instance again.

An easier fix would be to find an honorable opponent.

[Denniss]

I did add a for to the two romanian black sea ports but human players may always find ways to work around them. Plus AI tends to disband them in 8/41.
Amphib landings should be prohibited in 1941, at least for soviets.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Unfortunately it actually happened in Dec 41, as per the thread below.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... a#p5009401

Dennis I believe is going to fix this such that the cheese doesn't escape the Cheddar factory in this instance again.

An easier fix would be to find an honorable opponent.

Well darn, the dastardly Germans find another way to save on supply in 1941 by having the Rumanians surrender. What will those Germans think of next?!

All kidding aside that is an interesting thread. So at the moment the "manual" is not correct then? Based on the thread you linked that is.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

I did add a for to the two romanian black sea ports but human players may always find ways to work around them. Plus AI tends to disband them in 8/41.
Amphib landings should be prohibited in 1941, at least for soviets.

The decalouge house rule, no amphib invasion works wonders. I agree with the earlier posters on this.

[Denniss]

They may have advanced and captured Bucharest, maybe I need a combat division to be frozen in Bucharest

[AlbertN]

I did add a for to the two romanian black sea ports but human players may always find ways to work around them. Plus AI tends to disband them in 8/41.
Amphib landings should be prohibited in 1941, at least for soviets.

I suggested that long ago! Glad it came true. -- I hope they do not count for the max number of Fortified Zones though!

Tbh Naval Invasions should have a rather limited range from the launching port. It would solve a lot of issues.
Historically Soviets did landings? Yes. But they were pretty much Murmansk to slightly behind the German lines in the far north; and from little east of the Crimea Peninsula to about the south-eastern end of the Crimea Peninsula itself.

I believe the main problem here is that ships pretty much can disregard baseline naval patrols (that player anyhow cannot perform due to tragic OP losses), and if a troops convoy was sighted at distance they'd be in severe trouble.