AAR Jon vs Soviet AI 41

[PyleDriver]

T14 Moscow...The envelope is complete. 4th army has moved in for the assault. 3rd PzG pushs eastward from the north, as 2nd PzG closed the gap...

[randallw]

Them Moscovites are in big trouble!

[wosung]

Ok, in your AAR it’s just Oct. 1941.
Leningrad, Moskow and Stalino all are surrounded.
No defenses at Rostow.
Almost complete success in all three sub-theatres
And all this was paid with “only” 30.000 men casualities and some 800 Afv losses (which includes APC, armorerd cars and so on).

Congrats for this achievement!

But:
Is this the way the game is designed to be? Or might there be some more balancing desirable?


Note:
-IRL losses of the German Ostheer (June to End of Sept 1941).
-Human losses: 655.346 (including KIA, MIA, wounded and ill, excluding the ill in Sept.)
-KIA alone: 111.853. (Personnel reinforcements: 277.000).

Source: Ten-day Reports, Heer, Bernd R. Kroener Die personellen Ressourcen des Dritten Reiches ... 1939-1942, in Deutschland und der 2. Weltkrieg, Vol 5.1, Stuttgart 1988, p. 693-1001, see p. 885.

Tank and assault gun losses of the German Ostheer (June to End of Sept 1941): 1745 (141 newly allocated)

Source: Rolf-Dieter Müller, Das Scheitern der wirtschaftlichen "Blitzkriegstrategie" [The failed economic Blitzkrieg strategy], in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg, Vol. 4, Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion, pp. 936-1078, see p. 977.

So basically, you achieved far more than those Generals with 25% of the personnel losses and with less than 50% of the AFV losses.

Regards

[PyleDriver]

Well theres a major revamp going on. Trey (el hefe) and others have brought up that replacements are too high, mainly armor...I don't think playing a good Soviet player it would go as such. Remember I'm an expert player playing the AI on normal. I will say that you'll have to get many games under your belt to do what I do...Btw I'm having fun tearing it up...lol...

[PyleDriver]

T16 Tula...Guderian's XXXXVI corps surrounded Tula.

[PyleDriver]

T16 Orel...Without armor 2nd army had to create break throughs. I held 96th ID back then sprung it into the rear to isolate the city...

[janh]

ORIGINAL: wosung
And all this was paid with “only” 30.000 men casualities and some 800 Afv losses (which includes APC, armorerd cars and so on).
...
-Human losses: 655.346 (including KIA, MIA, wounded and ill, excluding the ill in Sept.); Source: see above
Tank and assault gun losses of the German Ostheer (June to End of Sept 1941): 1745 (141 newly allocated); Source: see above
...

300.000 men, if I did see it correctly. Keep in mind that PD not only seems to know the game and the AI like it was his own, but he also of course has the hindsight of historical knowledge, not making the same mistakes as happened and employing the lessons from the past. Given that, I find 300k personnel losses quite acceptable for an AI on a "normal" level.

Regarding the tank losses, which definition of loss did your sources apply, whereas which definition is used in the game? If I recall correctly, Wehrmacht, for example, also counted tanks as losses that were disabled, and could be repaired again for action. I assume in game terms "destroyed" means "destroyed irreversibly"?

[pinebull]

Yes, but the AI isn't making any historical mistakes either.

300k casualties for the amount of progress he's made just doesn't look balanced - it looks like the AI on normal isn't capable of a competent defense. I understand it's still a work in progress, but it still looks pretty unbalanced. The optempo looks unrealistic as well - well past Leningrad and past Moscow at the end of September?

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: janh

ORIGINAL: wosung
And all this was paid with “only” 30.000 men casualities and some 800 Afv losses (which includes APC, armorerd cars and so on).
...
-Human losses: 655.346 (including KIA, MIA, wounded and ill, excluding the ill in Sept.); Source: see above
Tank and assault gun losses of the German Ostheer (June to End of Sept 1941): 1745 (141 newly allocated); Source: see above
...

300.000 men, if I did see it correctly. Keep in mind that PD not only seems to know the game and the AI like it was his own, but he also of course has the hindsight of historical knowledge, not making the same mistakes as happened and employing the lessons from the past. Given that, I find 300k personnel losses quite acceptable for an AI on a "normal" level.

Regarding the tank losses, which definition of loss did your sources apply, whereas which definition is used in the game? If I recall correctly, Wehrmacht, for example, also counted tanks as losses that were disabled, and could be repaired again for action. I assume in game terms "destroyed" means "destroyed irreversibly"?

Yeah, sorry, 300k human losses instead of 30k. Too many unsegmented digits for me.

Those 1745 German tank and assault gun losses from June to September 1941 are those totally lost, "Totalverluste". Those numbers, even split up by tank type, are found in the said work. They are pretty solidly researched (10-day reports OKH/General Quartermaster, Federal German Archive, Military Archive, II W 805, pp. 5ff.)

But that still makes it superb & better-than-life player performance by Jon with 50% of IRL human and tank losses. And I know it's some sort of benchmark AAR.

Sorry for hijacking this AAR thread.

Regards

[kevini1000]

It's ture that the axis losses in the AAR are less than the historical outcome however PD has outperformed his historical counterparts at this point. This is a game and should reward excellent play and punish bad play.

Sath

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: wosung
Is this the way the game is designed to be? Or might there be some more balancing desirable?

This is the way the game set at Normal will play out between a player with over 2 years of experience with War in the East and the AI. All of our experienced testers are asked to test at at least the Challenging level, and those with a lot of experience often play at the Hard level. Jon wanted to play at the Normal level (I think he enjoys crushing the AI), but it is in no way a good test of the game's balance.

[notenome]

I think the main problem more than anything is that rail repair is just too fast. Pyledriver is managing to keep his troops supplied far far too deep into Soviet territory, which just shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that although the rain season didn't get cranking until much latter, there was still alot of summer rains in Russia at that time, and they slowed the Axis advance considerably.

[SGHunt]

I just played this scenario on Challenging, I'm new to it - I took Leningrad, Moscow and Stalino by game's end but just missed Rostov (the Russians evacuated it on their last turn!!!)   I got a draw because of the butcher's bill I paid in getting that far.   And I had to work really hard to do that!  

I promise that, unless you are an ubergrog (like Flavio [;)]),  you will find it ... well ... challenging, and certainly when you are still quite new to it.

Ooopps, Jon will be cross with us now...

[knilli]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

ORIGINAL: wosung
Is this the way the game is designed to be? Or might there be some more balancing desirable?

This is the way the game set at Normal will play out between a player with over 2 years of experience with War in the East and the AI. All of our experienced testers are asked to test at at least the Challenging level, and those with a lot of experience often play at the Hard level. Jon wanted to play at the Normal level (I think he enjoys crushing the AI), but it is in no way a good test of the game's balance.

Hi Joel,

I see your point. But it is good to see, how far you can get in this game. That you are able to win as axis too (or at least come close to it ).
Not so good for testing purposes but wonderful to lift my/our spirits

[stewartbragg]

When are we getting on with this a$$ whipping?

[BK6583]

I think the main problem more than anything is that rail repair is just too fast. Pyledriver is managing to keep his troops supplied far far too deep into Soviet territory, which just shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that although the rain season didn't get cranking until much latter, there was still alot of summer rains in Russia at that time, and they slowed the Axis advance considerably.

Well I've been following this game's development for a while and of course have been drooling waiting for its release. That said, this post bothers me. David Glanz's books make it clear that the German logistic's system was doomed to suffer a complete break down before the first shot was ever fired. The German supply transport infrastructure in particular was not even close to being up to the task. In addition, the availability of German replacement tanks was ridiculously small, with even basics like spare parts also being in the same category. Factor in that the Russians already had a well developed mobilization infrastructure in place that allowed the Russians in Glanz's words, to put infantry divisions in the field literally faster than the Germans could destroy them, and you should have a game where the German's chances of winning in 1941 should be slim at best. I hope the game will be further developed to reflect this reality.

[PyleDriver]

Well I really don't see me repeating what I did in this game now. The replacment armor has been tweaked way down now in 41...

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: PyleDriver

Well I really don't see me repeating what I did in this game now. The replacment armor has been tweaked way down now in 41...

Well, now I know whom to thank when my Germans don't get far

[Redmarkus5]

If the game is designed so that an Axis attempt to win outright in 1941 is almost doomed, but with a tiny chance of success, while the possibility of a win by Summer '42 (e.g. Moscow falls and Stalin is deposed, followed by a truce) has a fair chance of happening, I would regard that as playable and historically acceptable. This allows the German player to adopt the two year strategy actually proposed by the German General Staff, instead of driving on to Moscow through the snow.

Winning against the Soviet Union was not merely a matter of time, space and materiel - the Soviets accepted 20 million casualties and in the face of such losses there was always a chance that they would simply sue for peace. In fact, I recall reading in "The Court of the Red Tzar" that Stalin tried to make peace overtures to Germany via a third party in 1941, but he was advised not to continue with this attempt to negotiate. The game could reflect that possibility with an event of some kind, triggered by an unknown set of conditions (losses plus territory) and random chance.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

If the game is designed so that an Axis attempt to win outright in 1941 is almost doomed, but with a tiny chance of success, while the possibility of a win by Summer '42 (e.g. Moscow falls and Stalin is deposed, followed by a truce) has a fair chance of happening, I would regard that as playable and historically acceptable. This allows the German player to adopt the two year strategy actually proposed by the German General Staff, instead of driving on to Moscow through the snow.

Iwas only teasing. No fun if it's easy. Not the second time anyway