Two Celts Walk Into a Bar - Tyronec vs RedJohn

[Zebtucker12]

I don't think I have any knowledge worth sharing, really, and categorising anything I might have is pretty time consuming. Discords are insular and cliquey by nature, but I don't think that's much different from the forums. Just look at the elusive beta tester forums.

Im not sure i would say open discords are insular and cliquey tbh.
And i would say that the high engament level is good i a way there is always someone aroubd to quickly answer any question you have about wite2.

Anyways lets not deraill this aar to much might be best to start a new thread about the topic or discord vs forum or maybe knowledge that needs to be more public.


Regards Antti Lahti

[tyronec]

Post by RedJohn » Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:59 pm

I don't think I have any knowledge worth sharing, really, and categorising anything I might have is pretty time consuming.

Clearly you have demonstrated skills and knowledge in this game that would be valuable to many players.
Just looking at it from the Soviet perspective, here are a few questions:
How do you maximise CVs ?
Are you disbanding stuff, if so what and when ?
Are you building units, if so what and when ?
How are you managing leaders and promotions ?
Best use of built Forts of both types ?
How are you using the VVS to do most damage both for air combat and ground kills ?
How are you managing the VVS between front line and rear/RESERVE ?

[RedJohn]

Post by RedJohn » Tue Dec 19, 2023 9:59 pm

I don't think I have any knowledge worth sharing, really, and categorising anything I might have is pretty time consuming.

Clearly you have demonstrated skills and knowledge in this game that would be valuable to many players.
Just looking at it from the Soviet perspective, here are a few questions:
How do you maximise CVs ?
Are you disbanding stuff, if so what and when ?
Are you building units, if so what and when ?
How are you managing leaders and promotions ?
Best use of built Forts of both types ?
How are you using the VVS to do most damage both for air combat and ground kills ?
How are you managing the VVS between front line and rear/RESERVE ?

I don't think you quite realise what lengths I go to, to avoid micro in this game. My playstyle is only to be emulated by people without much time! To answer your questions though,

I maximise cvs by identifying high morale units at the start and refitting a lot. That's pretty much the extent of it.
I do not disband anything besides some types of support units that end up clogging the reserve. The better move is to disband some and micro the TOE of the rest, but I don't bother.
I replace army leaders every turn, and prioritise units that'll see combat defensively or offensively. The better way to do this is to find the highest political rating front and rotate armies in and out to minimise costs. I do not do this.
I do not build any units besides a couple of mortars and the 24 machine gun units. Both don't cost any AP. Mortars are to make use of that particular type, and MGs are a nice attachable.
City forts are only worth it in kerch, Moscow, and leningrad. Kerch because of the oddities of the hex, Moscow for obvious reasons, and leningrad (if fully stacked) because it can be a real bitch to take if it is stacked. Ideally you'd never have forts in either though. I only build fortified zones in rear cities, at lake Ilmen, and on light forest hexes on the luga to maximise the defence there.
I do not manage the vvs. Every directive is default settings, I only modify air superiority to increase altitude. My management of the vvs is setting up the western front with the modern planes, only using trained pilots, and hoping for the best.
As above, I don't do any of that. I just use default directives and hope for the best.

In general I slap supply priority 4 on as soviets and win in spite of my vehement attempts to avoid micro. The soviets are generous like that.

[RedJohn]

Turn 5.

Not much happening in the south besides a few pockets of units I don't care about. Tyronec is basically just filling in empty hexes here.

At centre we get a blessed reprieve at Bryansk, while the Germans move up to our defensive lines in front of Vyazma.

A couple of hexes taken here in the north, and our lines at the Narva reached.

Quiet turn, low losses.

Besides the air, of course.

A very WAD battle here, usually you only see this in urban battles. That it resulted in a shatter was very frustrating.

The Germans did cross with a motorised unit, but with bombing + Purkaev commanding we beat it back with healthy odds.


In the south we continue to retreat in the face of German advance.

Ditto for here. A lot of these units were unready/useless.

Reinforced the glaring gap in my defences here, and also used my reinforcements to take up forward positions at Vyazma.

We spot a regiment up here and punish it.

And for the north we shift our lines slightly but otherwise hold. I considered this a bit risky, but figured it'd be fine due to the forts and defensive values.

FE garrison continues to soak up valuable men!

[RedJohn]

Turn 6.

A smattering of hexes taken here, but otherwise very quiet.

The reprieve at centre didn't last long however, and the Germans encircle 2 units in the swamps east of Smolensk.

I continue to very much underestimate German pushing ability, and pay for it with this encirclement.

And in the south the Germans meet our lines and actually attack a few hexes.

The Dnepr is also crossed in the far south, and I threw away a cavalry division for no real reason!



Bombing losses for the week.

We break open the pocket, albeit barely. Obviously the units inside are still dead though.

Hit a panzer division that was a bit too forward. Can also see my bold cavalry raids on the left there.

Unfortunately my opponent is very good at not allowing this to happen. I used a unit to move across all of the hexes on our side of the Desna, and nothing flipped - indicating there was suitable ZOC to avoid a glorious encirclement.


At Vyazma we counterattack in earnest - a very, very close win.

Totenkopf is hit by 1600 AFVs under Vatutin - a much better win.

Rout a regiment here, which let me dive deep with the cavalry up above.

Also hit a panzer that crossed the river here. Not the best win, but if I recall the on map CV was 17 or something so I rationalized it as depleting his CPP. I then book it behind the next river.

A dreadful win here, but a win is a win I guess.

You can see my attempts to cut his spearheads off are usually dreadful failures.

More running.

I'd have retreated further here but lacked the MPs due to my counterattacks.



I start getting antsy up at VL. He's not committed any mobile to encircling me, but I'm far too forward for my liking. At this stage I still hold here though.

Let my people go.

We abandon Pskov and shift units northwards into better terrain.

Narva holds strong.

In the far south, we abandon Crimea minus kerch.

Many panzers gone this turn!

And many trucks.



Our airforce has been abused.

[Jango32]

Can you take a screenshot of your actual supply situation in the south for turn 18, tyronec?

[tyronec]

This is where things started to go seriously wrong.

Since T2 have been setting up AS to cover the front. However around Bryansk I was not able to, either airfields not available in the right place or I wasn't able to get supplies forwards. As a result the Soviets have been able to GA my lead units and then follow up with the occasional critical attack.
It is my mistake, I had assumed this issue would have been resolved after a couple of years away from the game but clearly not. Things are much better than before because AS (which is the only real protection against GA) is available to use most of the time, but not always. I should have checked this more carefully before starting the game. Or I could have paced my advance to go no faster than the Luftwaffe.

IMO GA is a nonsense. The VVS was not able to deliver sustained unintercepted ground bombing against Axis spearheads in '41, let alone later in the war. The Luftwaffe was able to provided fighter cover where they wanted to; not everywhere not all of the time but at least at the lead of the main offensive. In '41 the VVS was mostly harassing attacks by small flights of aircraft.

So house rule out GA. If a Soviet player is not agreeable then either they don't know how to make best use of GA OR they are intending to.

Can you take a screenshot of your actual supply situation in the south for turn 18, tyronec?

Have done, will post when we get up to there.

[AlbertN]

This is where things started to go seriously wrong.

Since T2 have been setting up AS to cover the front. However around Bryansk I was not able to, either airfields not available in the right place or I wasn't able to get supplies forwards. As a result the Soviets have been able to GA my lead units and then follow up with the occasional critical attack.
It is my mistake, I had assumed this issue would have been resolved after a couple of years away from the game but clearly not. Things are much better than before because AS (which is the only real protection against GA) is available to use most of the time, but not always. I should have checked this more carefully before starting the game. Or I could have paced my advance to go no faster than the Luftwaffe.

IMO GA is a nonsense. The VVS was not able to deliver sustained unintercepted ground bombing against Axis spearheads in '41, let alone later in the war. The Luftwaffe was able to provided fighter cover where they wanted to; not everywhere not all of the time but at least at the lead of the main offensive. In '41 the VVS was mostly harassing attacks by small flights of aircraft.

So house rule out GA. If a Soviet player is not agreeable then either they don't know how to make best use of GA OR they are intending to.

Pretty confident many players (in the Discord) house rule the function of Ground Attack on Unit (and not sure of Interdiction); if someone wants to have their planes bombing an enemy unit they match it in ground support; leaving free the other options to bomb airfields, ports and railyards, etc.

[M60A3TTS]

Three things on this.

First off, AS is indeed an effective counter to GA. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, that has already been demonstrated. If you are going to play an aggressive movement game, you have to accept some vulnerability to go along the increased rate at which you are gaining ground.

Second, GA disruption effects are removed upon completion of the air phase. So level bombers have limited effectiveness in that role as they do less destroying and damaging as tac air. Supposedly some fatigue is added to the affected units though I have no idea how much. Soviet tac air shouldn't be ignored, but it's not plentiful in 1941, especially if the Axis player is covering the ground with AS missions.

Third, GS as a whole for the Soviets doesn't provide a great deal of help in 1941 as the bombing aircraft committed # isn't overly impressive. This is as it should be. If you don't allow unit GA, then count me out. There's almost no point in having the VVS then outside of recon and resupply missions. The one thing you could make an argument on is that the air leader rating continues to be of limited value. The worst leader like Kopets still seems to have no problem bringing up the numbers needed as long as the default in GA Aircraft Required field is changed to the max of 200.

[tyronec]

Three things on this.

First off, AS is indeed an effective counter to GA. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, that has already been demonstrated. If you are going to play an aggressive movement game, you have to accept some vulnerability to go along the increased rate at which you are gaining ground.

Second, GA disruption effects are removed upon completion of the air phase. So level bombers have limited effectiveness in that role as they do less destroying and damaging as tac air. Supposedly some fatigue is added to the affected units though I have no idea how much. Soviet tac air shouldn't be ignored, but it's not plentiful in 1941, especially if the Axis player is covering the ground with AS missions.

Third, GS as a whole for the Soviets doesn't provide a great deal of help in 1941 as the bombing aircraft committed # isn't overly impressive. This is as it should be. If you don't allow unit GA, then count me out. There's almost no point in having the VVS then outside of recon and resupply missions. The one thing you could make an argument on is that the air leader rating continues to be of limited value. The worst leader like Kopets still seems to have no problem bringing up the numbers needed as long as the default in GA Aircraft Required field is changed to the max of 200.

First. Yes, AS is an effective counter to GA if it is within range. However what you are have said here is that if Axis play an aggressive movement game then they can get penalised by an unhistorical use of the VVS. If the game allows for one side to advance too fast, and I am not sure if it does or not, then that should be addressed by fine tuning the factors that allow for it to happen, not by being nuked by massed GA.

Second. True. GA is much less effective than GS per sortie. However GS has some sort of historical balance as to how many aircraft can be brought to bear for a given combat. GA allows thousands (yes, thousands) of sorties against against one hex. I don't think you are someone who plays that way, however it is available and it is effective.

Third. True, GS is not great for the Soviets in '41. Maybe it should be more effective for the VVS early war. All the time I have been playing this game the air war has not been right in '41. It does seem to play better from '43 onwards.

You say otherwise there is no point in having the VVS in '41 outside of Recon and Supply. The same for the Luftwaffe, there is not much point in '41 other than T1 bombing, Recon, Supply and AS to counter the unhistorical VVS GA - but that is more against history than the VVS being ineffective early war.

GA is never going to work in this game, it allows players to concentrate force on a particular target rather than spreading their air assets across the front. I am not really interested in testing it again but there used to be the possibility for the Soviets to exploit it later war too, though it didn't have so much impact. I would say house rule out GA and if players were only using GS then there would be more prospects of fine tuning it.

Pretty confident many players (in the Discord) house rule the function of Ground Attack on Unit (and not sure of Interdiction); if someone wants to have their planes bombing an enemy unit they match it in ground support; leaving free the other options to bomb airfields, ports and railyards, etc.

Maybe GA Interdiction would be OK, that could match more with what happened historically. Though it has killed a few games in the past, not sure how effective it is with recent patches.
GA Airbase was houseruled out at RedJohn's suggestion in this game. A good way to kill a game if the Soviets managed to pull off a good turn !
GA against the infrastructure would be fine if it's effects were moderate, but I suspect it is subject to the same overkill as GA Unit.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Three things on this.

First off, AS is indeed an effective counter to GA. Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, that has already been demonstrated. If you are going to play an aggressive movement game, you have to accept some vulnerability to go along the increased rate at which you are gaining ground.

Second, GA disruption effects are removed upon completion of the air phase. So level bombers have limited effectiveness in that role as they do less destroying and damaging as tac air. Supposedly some fatigue is added to the affected units though I have no idea how much. Soviet tac air shouldn't be ignored, but it's not plentiful in 1941, especially if the Axis player is covering the ground with AS missions.

Third, GS as a whole for the Soviets doesn't provide a great deal of help in 1941 as the bombing aircraft committed # isn't overly impressive. This is as it should be. If you don't allow unit GA, then count me out. There's almost no point in having the VVS then outside of recon and resupply missions. The one thing you could make an argument on is that the air leader rating continues to be of limited value. The worst leader like Kopets still seems to have no problem bringing up the numbers needed as long as the default in GA Aircraft Required field is changed to the max of 200.

First. Yes, AS is an effective counter to GA if it is within range. However what you are have said here is that if Axis play an aggressive movement game then they can get penalised by an unhistorical use of the VVS. If the game allows for one side to advance too fast, and I am not sure if it does or not, then that should be addressed by fine tuning the factors that allow for it to happen, not by being nuked by massed GA.

Second. True. GA is much less effective than GS per sortie. However GS has some sort of historical balance as to how many aircraft can be brought to bear for a given combat. GA allows thousands (yes, thousands) of sorties against against one hex. I don't think you are someone who plays that way, however it is available and it is effective.

Third. True, GS is not great for the Soviets in '41. Maybe it should be more effective for the VVS early war. All the time I have been playing this game the air war has not been right in '41. It does seem to play better from '43 onwards.

You say otherwise there is no point in having the VVS in '41 outside of Recon and Supply. The same for the Luftwaffe, there is not much point in '41 other than T1 bombing, Recon, Supply and AS to counter the unhistorical VVS GA - but that is more against history than the VVS being ineffective early war.

GA is never going to work in this game, it allows players to concentrate force on a particular target rather than spreading their air assets across the front. I am not really interested in testing it again but there used to be the possibility for the Soviets to exploit it later war too, though it didn't have so much impact. I would say house rule out GA and if players were only using GS then there would be more prospects of fine tuning it.

Pretty confident many players (in the Discord) house rule the function of Ground Attack on Unit (and not sure of Interdiction); if someone wants to have their planes bombing an enemy unit they match it in ground support; leaving free the other options to bomb airfields, ports and railyards, etc.

Maybe GA Interdiction would be OK, that could match more with what happened historically. Though it has killed a few games in the past, not sure how effective it is with recent patches.
GA Airbase was houseruled out at RedJohn's suggestion in this game. A good way to kill a game if the Soviets managed to pull off a good turn !
GA against the infrastructure would be fine if it's effects were moderate, but I suspect it is subject to the same overkill as GA Unit.

1st - even an aggressive German can have AS on the front lines. People dont know how to do it, maybe I should show how. Or someone smarter than me can do it.

2nd - the amount of bombers have been toned down from before. But yes you could fly mission limits. Just house rule out if a player doesnt like as you said.. But see #1 on counter with AS or look up my notes on AS in War room

3rd- GS for Soviets in 41 is freaking AWESOME. So sounds like some people dont know how to set up. Maybe I should show this too. Or someone better than me can show.

I disagree the VVS is worthless in 41. It is VERY effective. I will show it in my AAR. Same with Germany using their Air Force in 41. It can be used and should be used. The hurdles of supply are better understood now.

What i have seen so far in this AAR is WITE1 tactics used in a WITE2 game where the tactics have changed that work and old ones that dont work.

[RedJohn]

GS for soviets I would agree is generally solid, but it can be very hit or miss. I suppose because the bombs hit or miss!

As for GA, I think it's fine. Spoilers for 10 turns ahead, but here's what happens to my bombers after the Germans get their planes up.



There are arguments about its impact on pockets and German pace, for sure, but the act of GA itself is counterable. I think I've lost 15000 planes or something so far.

[tyronec]

1st - even an aggressive German can have AS on the front lines. People dont know how to do it, maybe I should show how. Or someone smarter than me can do it.

Maybe that is the way to play, in general only advance where you can cover it with AS.

[AlbertN]

1st - even an aggressive German can have AS on the front lines. People dont know how to do it, maybe I should show how. Or someone smarter than me can do it.

2nd - the amount of bombers have been toned down from before. But yes you could fly mission limits. Just house rule out if a player doesnt like as you said.. But see #1 on counter with AS or look up my notes on AS in War room

3rd- GS for Soviets in 41 is freaking AWESOME. So sounds like some people dont know how to set up. Maybe I should show this too. Or someone better than me can show.

I disagree the VVS is worthless in 41. It is VERY effective. I will show it in my AAR. Same with Germany using their Air Force in 41. It can be used and should be used. The hurdles of supply are better understood now.

What i have seen so far in this AAR is WITE1 tactics used in a WITE2 game where the tactics have changed that work and old ones that dont work.

I am not exactly the best player around; what I tried for the 1st point is to setup an AS mission on a forward airbase (that needs to be existing already and already yours at the start of the turn) - say for Turn 2 from Daugapulis, or Minsk, or Lepel. That while my own fighters are still in other bases far behind.
It is meant to be executed only in the Enemy Air phase. - And then it's a matter of bringing planes there during your turn, and air supply the base.
I even tried to bring a LW HQ ontop of an airbase to see if it helps.

I still got bombed into oblivion by the GA with 1 intercept each 30ish GA missions.

I am more than up to learn more of the game but too fiddly / excess of micro things, I'd rather house rule business out and keep it to Ground Strike only (which is quite powerful for the VVS, far more than the LW)

The only other thing I can think is to setup a new airbase, somehow manage (if that's even possible) to assign to it a Construction Unit ... but I doubt that will allow -in the same turn it is placed new at 0% build up - to have an AS mission using it as staging base.

[Zemke]

A Zemke Rant: Usually due at least yearly for WitE. (Sorry for jacking the thread, move this if you want.)

Tyronec is my hero, he destroyed me as Axis. RedJohn is also very good and destroyed me as Soviet.

There is way too much mico in the game for me to get that far in the weeds, so I don't think I will ever be an "expert" player.

My comments below are based on my professional career as an Officer in the US Army for 30 years and a student of history. Take it how you wish.

The micro-management within the game is very unrealistic. Commanders then and today have Staffs and many levels of subordinate commands and organizations that handle all that, and most certainly at the level that is the player's role in the game. I mean should we be assigning what depot gets what construction Battalion or how many? Or better still, what bomb load a plane has! Get real! I mean why is so much of this micro stuff included in the first place? I know why, because a lot of people out there want it included because they want to micro-manage at that level, and frankly just don't know any better or just the fun factor to be able to do it. (Not fun to me, more a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat I guess.)

So much of the game has to be miro managed that it detracts from playing. Also, the entire CCP thing is a total misrepresentation of how units prepare for combat and execute combat. Could it take weeks to be 100% ready for an operation, not likely, (unless your units were very inexperienced with Officers who did not know what they were doing, oh wait, sounds like the Soviet Army). Modern Armies, (I consider both combatants in WitE2 to be modern), have many methods to accelerate planning and preparation for an operation, and it goes on continuously through Standard Operating Procedures and basic unit discipline that all units use from lowest to highest to take care of all the mundane functions to conducting war.
Operation Orders within experienced units can be issued within 24-36 hours at the Division level, and even faster if the situation calls for it. How a unit responds to that kind of rapid planning and execution is a product of the experience and quality of the Officers within the various Staffs of the parent and subordinate units. So I feel like CCP was a swing and a miss by whoever came up with the idea.

The only thing I can even think of that CCP could replicate is already replicated in the game, unit fatigue and supply replenishment required to conduct an operation.

Anyway regardless of the computer methodologies used to simulate war, I think this game or any wargame should always be measured on how it replicates what took place historically, but understanding that after the first few turns, history is out the window because we are playing a game after all.

WitE2, (for all its many flaws) is the best Eastern Front game we have. The computer is a wonderful tool, but can also present opportunities to go down some deep rabbit holes. Game developers should re-look at some old board games, but use the computer to create the realistic depth that board games cannot do.

The game could have been a lot simpler, clearer, and playable, but then would be a different game, wouldn't it?

[M60A3TTS]

My comments below are based on my professional career as an Officer in the US Army for 30 years and a student of history. Take it how you wish.

If you are telling us you're David Glantz, you could just come out and say it.

[Zemke]

No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once. (Bad American Joke)

COL Glantz was\is an Artillery Officer, Red Leg, Cannon Cocker as we say. I am but a humble (retired) Infantryman.

[Wiedrock]

I still got bombed into oblivion by the GA with 1 intercept each 30ish GA missions.

Try using the right order of Capturing Airfield, Air Supply, AG Movement and clicking the magic button.

The micro-management within the game is very unrealistic. Commanders then and today have Staffs and many levels of subordinate commands and organizations that handle all that, and most certainly at the level that is the player's role in the game. I mean should we be assigning what depot gets what construction Battalion or how many? Or better still, what bomb load a plane has! Get real! I mean why is so much of this micro stuff included in the first place? I know why, because a lot of people out there want it included because they want to micro-manage at that level, and frankly just don't know any better or just the fun factor to be able to do it. (Not fun to me, more a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat I guess.)

So much of the game has to be miro managed that it detracts from playing.

Using

• AI Depot,
• AI SU assignments,
• only bother about FBD/NKPS construction units,
• leave TB movements as they are,
• Auto Plane Loadout,
• AI Air Assist

reduces micro a lot.
Whats left is rail repair, managing OOB/arrivals and moving troops. So exactly the game you want it to be, or?

Also, the entire CCP thing is a total misrepresentation of how units prepare for combat and execute combat. Could it take weeks to be 100% ready for an operation, not likely, (unless your units were very inexperienced with Officers who did not know what they were doing, oh wait, sounds like the Soviet Army). Modern Armies, (I consider both combatants in WitE2 to be modern), have many methods to accelerate planning and preparation for an operation, and it goes on continuously through Standard Operating Procedures and basic unit discipline that all units use from lowest to highest to take care of all the mundane functions to conducting war.
Operation Orders within experienced units can be issued within 24-36 hours at the Division level, and even faster if the situation calls for it. How a unit responds to that kind of rapid planning and execution is a product of the experience and quality of the Officers within the various Staffs of the parent and subordinate units. So I feel like CCP was a swing and a miss by whoever came up with the idea.

The only thing I can even think of that CCP could replicate is already replicated in the game, unit fatigue and supply replenishment required to conduct an operation.

Gameplay:
I will not try to defend CPP in general, sinc I see plenty of people having an issue with it, but

• first of all, it is a bonus.
• second, every units is hanging around the frontlines with 100-130% Ammo as long as freight is available. That's completely unhistoric and if one should complain about something, it it Supplies. Adding CPP to make up for a often pretty unrealistic Supply situationa is a way to interpret CPP. After all, "(-) x (-) = (+)".
• third, is closely related to the second point. Track the ammo of an artillery Division supporting attacks and see its ammo decrease per supported attack. Or do this for other Divisions doing attacks. It barely drops, which is completely nuts. One could argue that Divisions need some stock left for Defense (due to IGOUGO), but theres the function to require Ammo from depots during Defense and also the point that it wouldn't anyways be a good idea to attack two days in a row and thinking of being able to defend the next day. Just take HOI4 it's mechanic of losing Defense Bonuses when doing attacks as an example to get a sense of what I mean by this.
• fourth, there must be something making a Unit being spawned from Reserves or telepoted as an SU from Moscow to Sevastopol within a second have less value/preparation than a unit standing there for 5 turns. After all the whole SU teleportation and free spawning locations for Reserve arrivals is far, far from realism and further negatively affects the whole supply situation which I already mentioned.

IRL:
I don't want to undermine your educated/experienced assessment.

• As you teased, rapid planning has/may have effects, but I guess that more planning is better is something everybody could agree upon, or? If the answer is "yes", then CPP as said, being a bonus itself, gives this preparation bonus you can put effort in or just ignore it using rapid planning. So increasing chance to success, lower casualties is what CPP gives you,...and noone forces you to "plan" to 100%, 25CPP already means 25% more CV since it's a 1:1 percentage incease.
• Something you may be well aware of is the decrease in combat efficiency (if that's the correct term), for soldiers at the frontline. Wasn't it like losing half the efficency withing first 3 days or so (don't pin me on that numbers, I am too lazy too google for the latest modern and/or historical numbers)? That's imo also part of the CPP system, since you regain CPP faster in friendly Hexes (yes it also partially doubles with Fatigue)....but as many things in the game everything is interconnected and increases of certain values decreases other values quicker and so on.

[Jango32]

Using

• AI Depot,
• AI SU assignments,
• only bother about FBD/NKPS construction units,
• leave TB movements as they are,
• Auto Plane Loadout,
• AI Air Assist

Leaving anything to the AI in this game will massively screw you over.

[RedJohn]

Turn 7.


Dnepr thoroughly breached.


An extremely depressing sight at Bryansk!


The approach to Vyazma also saw combat.



As did the north.


Ouch!

Another thousand planes lost, due to GS mostly.



Bombing victims.



We hit back at Vyazma, with Vatutin's 20th doing good work.


One major issue this game has been routs like these. A combination of closed TBs + hasty attacks has meant units often end up in this routed state, despite having decent TOE's otherwise. Very very frustrating.

We pull back in the south somewhat. In hindsight, should've went east instead of north, but I was sure the germans wouldn't continue east without cleaning up Kharkov.

I abandoned pretty much everything between Kursk and Kharkov, a gap I wasn't too pleased about but both the north and south demanded more men.

We also take up new defensive positions in the area. A lot of these units are not in good shape.

In the north, a steady retreat.




Overall a pretty rough turn.