Once Upon a Time (somewhere) in the West

[Seminole]

I forgot to then open and take a picture of the vp score etc but the turn before I was on -170, so I lost at least 730 right at the end to take the score to at least -900.

If you could open up a save and show the VP breakdown I'd be interested to see how the various factors balanced out over the course of a campaign. The graphs on points per turn, etc for the various elements put some meat on the bones of arguments (with the noticeable caveats to player and opponent skill sets). Especially to see those charts and go back and see what strategy was producing those results.

[Devonport]

Thanks for the AAR loki 100, very interesting and informative. I only play the AI and have decided not to be too bothered by the VP score, just see it as a relative rather than absolute indicator of success. I would like to see more overt payback for strategic bombing but that argument is being rehearsed elsewhere.

Again, thanks for taking the trouble to share, I have learnt a lot.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AWGreif

Turn 106 means at least 9 turns later than history, and thus 900 VP penalty.
Yet the question is ... why in a game against the AI the Soviets did not reach Berlin at turn 96?
Was not intended that against the AI the end (Soviets in Berlin) would have alwuys been within the historical date?
Or it is possible, although not written in the Rules, that the AI plays with the EF box on?

Btw according to Rules, with the end at turn 96-97, this would have ended correctly as a Draw.

I think that is what caught me out. I assumed that against the AI, the game ended in early May, so was really surprised to find it carrying onto into the summer. I'd have hoped that meant the AI was operating without the EF box.

ORIGINAL: whoofe

well that's disappointing...

Certainly was a surprise - I thought I had 3-4 more turns and it would depend on how strong the Berlin garrison was ...

ORIGINAL: jwolf

Rats that is a rotten ending. I can't comment on the VP system as I don't know the details, but your comment:

If you can't win with the VP system then the VP system no longer works as an effective constraint on your planning or options.

sounds right on the money and it is an ironic and maybe even perverse outcome.

Still, it was great to read and follow your game and thanks very much for a great AAR.

Now the final question: what does Anna say about the whole thing? [;)]

glad it was enjoyable. It is a very interesting game, there is a lot more planning ahead than in WiTE and working how to exploit the allies' airpower is a challenge in itself.

Anna is clearly now on my side (final post below)

ORIGINAL: Seminole

I forgot to then open and take a picture of the vp score etc but the turn before I was on -170, so I lost at least 730 right at the end to take the score to at least -900.

If you could open up a save and show the VP breakdown I'd be interested to see how the various factors balanced out over the course of a campaign. The graphs on points per turn, etc for the various elements put some meat on the bones of arguments (with the noticeable caveats to player and opponent skill sets). Especially to see those charts and go back and see what strategy was producing those results.

have done a final post, its based on T106 but it makes little difference apart from the 900 point fine for Uncle Joe being late to Berlin.

ORIGINAL: Devonport

Thanks for the AAR loki 100, very interesting and informative. I only play the AI and have decided not to be too bothered by the VP score, just see it as a relative rather than absolute indicator of success. I would like to see more overt payback for strategic bombing but that argument is being rehearsed elsewhere.

Again, thanks for taking the trouble to share, I have learnt a lot.

thanks for the comments, it is, as above, a really good game. When it was first under discussion I couldn't see how they could make an interesting game of an essentially one-sided campaign but it works really well.

It does seem as if the relative robustness of the German economy is under consideration. Don't want to see the opposite - where no matter how well the German player does, they lose as a predetermined economic collapse occurs - nor that hitting a particular link in the industrial chain is an 'I win' button - but something needs to reflect allied pressure on land and air (plus losses to the Soviets) leading to real constraints on the Germans in the late game.

[loki100]

Overview and Comments

All this data is from my end of turn for 106 as I forgot to save the final outcome. Don't think it makes all that much difference.

Industry

The chart below looks at the two key resources for on-map operations: supply and fuel. I know that the full industrial chain is needed to generate arms points and named vehicles/planes but the ability to actually fight comes from having enough supply fuel.

To put it in context, from late 1944 I've struggled to find strategic bombing targets and started hitting things like generic vehicles, resource points and non-essential named vehicles to give my bombers something to do. Accept that the fog of war means that the reported damage is possibly false but it should be broadly correct.

Supply clearly never became a problem as it dropped from around 11,000 in T21-31 to 9,000 at the end. Fuel was no constraint either until after T101 when it ran out – this fits with what I was seeing as the German mobile units did not react to my very risky breakout.



Here's my key pools. As you'd expect at the global level I have no problems, the challenge with the allies is delivery to the front line. None of the manpower pools are a constraint – though I have been disbanding AA units and spare HQ formations.



Losses

Not really sure how to interpret these outcomes – in WiTE I have a feel for how this information feeds into an assessment of overall performance.



As I mentioned in the AAR, my feeling was that the Luftwaffe started to weaken by early 1944 and fell apart in late 1944.

List of destroyed units, also shows the results of my disbanding and scrapping.



Perhaps the main thing there is I was too careless with the paratroops. Deep 'Market-Garden' style operations clearly do not work and just lead to your paratroops visiting South Armagh.

VP

Here is the total position. The only time I was positive was at the start of 1944 when there was no ground fighting and I'd finally worked out (helped by the current patch) how to maximise the strategic air war.



VP for city occupation never really took off. Mainly due to the different time modifiers I suspect as it reached 17 per turn at the end of 1944 and then fell back to 12-14 even as I started to capture German cities.



Bombing, as above, is one area where I now know how to gain a much higher score in the early game. So as opposed to managing around 4 per turn in 1943 could reach 8-12 on a regular basis. That feeds in across the game as that is more damaged targets that in turn give VP till they are repaired.



Losses were probably too high. As above, a few times I was very careless with the paratroops. The spike around T51 was when the AI counterattacked in Normandy. The 'other' losses for about T21 were the results of the landings near Rome when a couple of French divisions were badly chewed up.



U-Boats, managed to keep to around 4 per turn. If anything, in a new game I'd be less focussed on these and instead use 1943 for hitting the overall German industry. V-weapons, I was reasonably happy about. It seems easier to hit the bulk of the production sites and the launch sites are in easy range of UK-based airpower. The only time this was out of control was when I invaded Northern Europe and had to divert all my airpower to supporting my landings.



Since this was an AI game there are no VP charts for partisans or for the East Front.

AI

Few comments. I think it general its good, with a few bonuses it will produce a challenging game. Its main mistake was to keep too much in Italy (it must have had 8-10 more divisions than needed) and to over-defend NE France (again there were 8-10 divisions here that were not needed as a regimental defence would have worked).

Reason for saying this is those 16-20 divisions, deployed into Belgium/Netherlands, would have ended my offensive in that sector in late 1944, leading to a complete stalemate. I think this comment relates to the overall issue that the German economy does not really weaken over the game.

I think its 'stay behind' mindset was effective. By hanging onto key cities and rail junctions it really slowed my supply. A player can better judge when to do this and when to preserve units but its a good basic tactic. I think from the supply maps I've shown how often I couldn't create forward depots as it was hanging onto a key location.

With the allies, you really have to rest your units. This is far more important than with either side in WiTE. I thought this game was going to end in May 1945 which is why I over committed the allied armies in the poor weather. Had I realised I had a complete summer I would have rested units and perhaps managed a better end game sweep into Germany.
Final word of course, has to go to Anna. Here she is trying to convince the game to award me more victory points:



Scene is from Bellissima, probably her best film.

[Helpless]

Thank you for the AAR! Well done and very valuable for us.

[soeren01]

Thanks for the good AAR

[Seminole]

As I mentioned in the AAR, my feeling was that the Luftwaffe started to weaken by early 1944 and fell apart in late 1944.

What's the story with those operational losses?




65%(!) of Axis losses?
Is the AI just getting wasted flying training missions? Hard to chalk it up to auto naval patrol as LB losses are but a fraction of that...

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Thank you for the AAR! Well done and very valuable for us.

thank you, glad it was useful. One reason I took it to the end was to provide some evidence on the basis of a completed game rather than assertions based on playing up to T12

ORIGINAL: soeren01

Thanks for the good AAR

Thanks, glad it was useful

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

As I mentioned in the AAR, my feeling was that the Luftwaffe started to weaken by early 1944 and fell apart in late 1944.

What's the story with those operational losses?




65%(!) of Axis losses?
Is the AI just getting wasted flying training missions? Hard to chalk it up to auto naval patrol as LB losses are but a fraction of that...

Not sure, it was running up a relatively high ratio of op losses: combat losses all game, esp after about T50 when I think it was using inexperienced pilots a lot, Some figures:

(combat/op losses for axis)

T4: 720/567
T27: 4194/4483

its not a screen I often saved as I tended to use the report on the air phase to discuss losses/impact of air operations

[Seminole]

It just seems absurd that the Luftwaffe lost over twice as many aircraft to just 'flying around' than to fighting.
Maybe training is too destructive?
I turn down training values on the first turn (especially for the Italians, they die in droves if you let them 'train').

[soeren01]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

It just seems absurd that the Luftwaffe lost over twice as many aircraft to just 'flying around' than to fighting.
Maybe training is too destructive?
I turn down training values on the first turn (especially for the Italians, they die in droves if you let them 'train').

I could not find my reference, but as far as i know there where much more losses due to training accidents then to combat.
Crashlandings because of combat damage also count as ops loss in game, I think. That would increase the numbers further.

[whoofe]

ORIGINAL: loki100


With the allies, you really have to rest your units. This is far more important than with either side in WiTE. I thought this game was going to end in May 1945 which is why I over committed the allied armies in the poor weather. Had I realised I had a complete summer I would have rested units and perhaps managed a better end game sweep into Germany.

so when you say rest the units - not attacking with units every turn? I often just attack with just one or two corps at a time but still seems like the rest are not recovering their full CV very much

do you have to not even move them at all to rest them? or can be readjusted and moved a few hexes and still be considered rested?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

It just seems absurd that the Luftwaffe lost over twice as many aircraft to just 'flying around' than to fighting.
Maybe training is too destructive?
I turn down training values on the first turn (especially for the Italians, they die in droves if you let them 'train').

ORIGINAL: soeren01

ORIGINAL: Seminole

It just seems absurd that the Luftwaffe lost over twice as many aircraft to just 'flying around' than to fighting.
Maybe training is too destructive?
I turn down training values on the first turn (especially for the Italians, they die in droves if you let them 'train').

I could not find my reference, but as far as i know there where much more losses due to training accidents then to combat.
Crashlandings because of combat damage also count as ops loss in game, I think. That would increase the numbers further.

From the in-turn air results, I'm sure they were picking up substantial air losses from operations per turn. I think that damaged aircraft (esp with untrained pilots) are prone to op losses which sounds right. However, I do think the AI over-commits its airforce but that was just a rough impression compared to my current PBEM

ORIGINAL: whoofe

ORIGINAL: loki100


With the allies, you really have to rest your units. This is far more important than with either side in WiTE. I thought this game was going to end in May 1945 which is why I over committed the allied armies in the poor weather. Had I realised I had a complete summer I would have rested units and perhaps managed a better end game sweep into Germany.

so when you say rest the units - not attacking with units every turn? I often just attack with just one or two corps at a time but still seems like the rest are not recovering their full CV very much

do you have to not even move them at all to rest them? or can be readjusted and moved a few hexes and still be considered rested?

I think there are two problems. Later in the game,even well rested units seemed to struggle to push their basic ToE over 60% or so - I suspect this is an equipment delivery problem not an equipment shortage. Or it may have been my fault in that even units I pulled out to rest were still quite near the front. But you seem to seeing the same thing (that even rested they don't return to an early game CV?).

But even with this constraint, I noticed that once fatigue got to 50+ a British infanty division struggled to produce 4 cv, US about 2-3 and armour <6, while a turn or so to let that run down could get these to say 6/4/8 respectively. Given the late game the Germans seem stuck with 1-1 ants, that small gain is important, not least in allowing you to make more use of hasty attacks to clear a road to Berlin.

[soeren01]

It should not matter how near to the fromt you are, as long as you are not adjacent to enemy units.

9.4.1
Units adjacent to an enemy unit during
their logistics phase gain 4 times as much fatigue
and there is 16 times more probability that damaged
ground elements will be destroyed during this phase
compared to units not adjacent to an enemy unit

[whoofe]

well I notice when I move units - armored units in particular, I lose about half the CV in a long move. (even just moving them around in Britain, for example) is that from fatigue? why would they have so much fatigue if they are armored/motorized? I would think the foot units would suffer the fatigue more from long moves

[soeren01]

Check the fuel status of your units. If you use up your fuel for the march to the front, you have less for combat.

15.6.2.5. Ammunition and Fuel Impact on CV Values
All units with less than 100 percent of their ammunition
needs, and motorized units with less than 50 percent
of their fuel needs will suffer a reduction in CV (not
to exceed a 50 percent reduction in total from these
two modifiers). First a unit loses 1 percent for each 1
percent they are short of their ammunition needs.
Next motorized units lose 2 percent for each 1 percent
they are short of 50 percent of their fuel needs. A unit
cannot lose more than 50 percent of their CV value due
to the combined effects of these modifiers. Example 1:
a motorized unit with 90 percent of ammo needs and
40 percent of fuel needs would have its CV multiplied
by .9 and then .8 (or .72, thus losing 28 percent of its CV
value). Example 2: The same unit but with 90 percent of
ammo and 25 percent of fuel needs would have its CV
multiplied by .5 as .9 times .5 is less than .5 which is the
maximum combined penalty. These CV reductions are
accounted for in the printed on-map CV values.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: whoofe

well I notice when I move units - armored units in particular, I lose about half the CV in a long move. (even just moving them around in Britain, for example) is that from fatigue? why would they have so much fatigue if they are armored/motorized? I would think the foot units would suffer the fatigue more from long moves

It's a combination of things, but using up your fuel is one of them and gaining fatigue is another. A third is that we recently found that long distance moves were causing huge damage to AFVs. Of course we wanted some attrition, but not to the level we were seeing. So we reduced the level of attrition on these long distance moves and that change is in the 1.00.37 public beta version. That will help, especially since AFVs are worth a lot of CV. Even so, you will see your units drop in CV if they move a lot. One thing you can do is refuel them on the move. Great if you can move adjacent to an airbase and then fly in some air transport to the airfield. You can drop directly on the unit, but it's much more efficient if there's an airbase to land on. Also, keep in mind that during combat you have a chance of being resupplied, so if you're logistics situation is good, you may end up fighting much better than your stated CV indicates. Of course if you've just moved a long way, you're probably a long way from your depots. Units are most vulnerable to a counterattack after one of these long marches far from depots.

[whoofe]

excellent info - thanks guys!