Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Well, I find the comments by both Tarhunnas and Flavio's quite positive. Congratulations to all those involved in discussing this, either "criticizing", "argumenting", or just "suggesting". This means we're certainly going somewhere [:)]

We can only "operate" at the ruleset level: it's written in English, and we've got direct access to the text. The code level is something, as I already mentioned, we can only make educated guesses. Both about from a coder or the business perspective. I would lie if I said I wouldn't be delighted to see this on WitE 1.06 or 1.07, but I agree with that being "wishful thinking" than a "realistic, informed expectation". Having this feature in WitW would be superb, as well. And the option of retrofit it into WitE once WitW is out, would be marvelous.

Possible AI issues are a completely mystery, which is a "bad" thing, indeed. At a purely conceptual level, the question is how the AI would manage that enemy units appeared "out of nowhere" and interdicted its PIM. My guess is that the answer to that lies at knowing how it does already deal with interdiction attacks, or failed attacks. That is, unexpected stuff in general.

I'd really love to hear the opinion of players with more experience playing the Axis, especially in the later war, about this proposed mechanics.

Going back On topic: the AAR will be updated tonight. Believe or not, yesterday evening I found out about this very fine game:

[center]Image[/center]

couldn't help going through the Brigade combat [:'(] That Alabama people is not going to enjoy this July morning, sorry.

And today I couldn't help opening V. Zamulin's "Demolishing the Myth. The Tank Battle at Prokhorovka, Kursk, July 1943: an Operational Narrative" [:D]
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by janh »

You are going to run out of "real life" soon... [;)]  Somebody should develop a 36h day...
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Ketza »

I was just there a few months ago:

haha hold on while I try to shrink it from the size of Texas.

The view from little round top towards Devils Den pretty much the same as your game view.







Image
Attachments
Alpha 3.jpg
Alpha 3.jpg (30.21 KiB) Viewed 278 times
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by M60A3TTS »

Don't get me started on the whole Dan Sickles thing. [:)]
User avatar
Ketza
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:11 am
Location: Columbia, Maryland

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Ketza »

And the reverse view! BTW sorry for the hijack [:(]

Image
Attachments
alpha4.jpg
alpha4.jpg (33.19 KiB) Viewed 279 times
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Ketza

And the reverse view! BTW sorry for the hijack [:(]

Image

No Ketza, very nice pictures, really [:)] These NorbSoftDev guys really got right the lay of the land. Actually that little battle got very funny when I got word from the Division CO - via mounted courier - to proceed northwest and deploy to the left flank of 1st Brigade. I wondered what kind of indian snake oil was that guy smoking, since there was something like a whole Confederate Division between me and First Brigade. The realities - sad realities - of middle 19th century C3I dawned on me all of a sudden.
User avatar
CarnageINC
Posts: 2208
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Rapid City SD

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by CarnageINC »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The reaction stuff, while interesting, is a pretty big change in game mechanics. I don't see something like this happening before WITW, would need extensive testing. I'd certainly hesitate in trying to put this into a mere beta patch. There could be AI issues here as well.

Perhaps it might be looked at for a WitE or a War in Europe 'Field Marshal' edition [:'(]
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Turn 15 – 25 september 1941

Three turns for the rasputitsa, and it does indeed look like some dark clouds are gathering over RKKA fortunes. Q-Ball hasn't pressed as hard as I expected, but that's not a sign of weakness. I'd rather say it's a sign he's planning some major operations to cripple the RKKA before Winter hits.

Combat intensity has gone down all across the front, there have been just 49 battles, 73% of them Axis victories. Comparing with Turn 13, where there was a similar number of battles, Held results have increase by a 50% (proportionally). That's a good sign: the RKKA is regaining some balance. But I need to keep this strength and not let it be easily destroyed by the Axis armies.

Definitely, Axis AFV losses are well under control. Now it has occured to me that this is just a sign of most reliable AFV types “surviving”, that is, becoming the bulk of PanzerDivision TOE's. Trends in air losses have also changed, though I don't know how significantly. Let's take a look at the air battles during the Axis phase ordered by the number of fighters

[center]Image[/center]

and sorted by number of bombers involved

[center]Image[/center]

The AI is doing a more than decent job designing Luftwaffe strike packages: escorts seem to me adequate. Unfortunately, “adequate” depends on what the mission is going against. Three air battles went really bad for the Luftwaffe, in all cases, a reasonable number of fighter escorts were overwhelmed by a mass of VVS CAP. Looks like I can put up in the air enough CAP to dispute air superiority.

Continuing with the air model angle, I've checked how many Interdiction attacks were launched this turn: 2. That with 60% settings on the Air Doctrines. Checking the manual I see that DL is the major factor determining chances of interdiction. Since there's no recon being conducted during the non-phasing player, DL must be low, really low. The chances of a unit with DL = 5 are of 5/10. Hence the very little interdiction we see conducted either by the Luftwaffe and the VVS, in general, and why it makes sense to have low Interdiction settings – and generate a lot of “possible” interdiction missions – sooner or later, some of them will get lucky and strike on moving enemy forces.

Operational Situation Report

I think it's the first time in this game one of my predictions is 100% right

[center]Image[/center]

Q-Ball hasn't managed to isolate Leningrad and link up with the Finns in one turn. But he'll next turn, almost for sure. I'll distribute the units along the fortified hexes, just to make their surrender “interesting”. This also means it's time to think how to pull back from the Svir, before the Finns burst through it.

The plans for Moscow of my opponent are quite obvious:

[center]Image[/center]

I'm not sure of the identity of the two motorized units concentrations east of Rzhev and Kaluga, I think Q-Ball OOB has been thoroughly reformed several times now. Looks to me he brought the XL. PzKorps – which should have already arrived – to pair with 3. PzArmee Motorized divisions in the south. This is going to be dificult. If I pull from the center to the flanks, he can just walk into the city, if I don't, I make the Moscow encirclement to be a parade.

German forces in front of Voronezh have been this turn relatively quiet, a whole PzArmee seems to sit waiting for something in the Krastornoe region and on the eastern bank of the Oskol

[center]Image[/center]

all of these units are out of build up range, according to the UI. I'm not sure what's going on. The infantry has clearly got into position to force a crossing north and south of Voronezh, which can only mean that he's onto trying to encircle Voronezh and the 33th Army defending it.

The situation in the Don bend isn't very good. 1. PzArmee is out of build up range, at least for three turns more:

[center]Image[/center]

I'm pretty sure Q-Ball is carefully considering his future supply situation before striking towards Rostov, which I think is the last major target within reach of the German Army before rasputitsa. I need to reinforce – but also Moscow and Voronezh – and I don't see many divisions available for that.

Industry Evacuation

I have only 7 ARM points waiting for evacuation in the Danger Zone I defined at the start of the campaign, 3 at Moscow, 1 at Kalinin and 3 at Lipetsk, time to move them out. Besides I need to move out the vehicle factories left in Moscow as well as the IL-2 production. I move 6 of the IL-2 factories and leave the vehicles for another turn. That gobbles 60,000 railcap points out of the 82,913 generated this turn by the Railyards I still have.

Logistics & Organization

This turn the Armaments pool dried. The doom of the Soviet Union? Well, perhaps not right now, but it's not a good sign. I've checking the numbers and there's something that doesn't add up at all here. I've still have 316 Armament factories, 53 of them damaged (not taking into account factories moved this turn, next turn there'll be 60 damaged factories). Checking the Logistics Report, I find that 197 factories have produced 49,250 armament points this turn. First, the production multiplier seems to be 250, which is wrong. Second, the number of factories reported as producing is too low, it should be, in the case that all the factories below 50% didn't produce anything, 256. Either the logistics report is reporting the wrong numbers, or I just overlooked something.

Has that been bad for the health of the RKKA? Looking at the TOE statistics I'm tracking, they say that situation of Rifle units and Tank units has improved, but worsened that of artillery, which is not that surprising, since I lowered the TOE's to 50%. The pools look very similar to what they looked like last turn:

[center]Image[/center]

Too similar, actually. Comparing built numbers between this turn and the previous one, I see that quite some stuff is being produced – basically Rifle Division equipment. Interestingly enough, no Cavalry squads.

The data is inconclusive, I need to look at this so close for a longer time. Now I'm damning myself about not tracking this since Turn 1.

Operations

This is the turn I've to say goodbye to Leningrad. I think I have done a reasonable job defending it, but now I can't stop thinking about that turn I could have gained at the very beginning of the game by isolating 4. PzArmee. Too bad:

[center]Image[/center]

The red dashed line is the stop line for my retreat. There's nothing worth fighting here, I just want to have the shortest frontline I can afford.

The goal in Moscow is to make as difficult as possible encirclement, even if this means abandoning some level 3 forts achieved with the relentless effort of Moscow citizens:

[center]Image[/center]

I also abandon Tula: it was becoming a bulge which I don't have the means to fight for. I'm pretty happy about northern flank defense: I brought here 55th Army from Tikhvin. Now I need to find somewhere another spare army to deploy it on the southern flank.

I retreat slightly towards the Don:

[center]Image[/center]

moving most of Southwestern Front along the Don would have been perhaps a better move, but I can't just retreat like that. I am much more to the east that I ever really imagined, and I'm not comfortable with the idea that Q-Ball might get away holding the line on the Oskol, well to the west of Belgorod and Kharkov.

Another reason for not retreating too “aggressively” south of Voronezh is the situation of the Southern Front:

[center]Image[/center]

I need to cover this Front flank. The defense of Rostov is almost ready...
User avatar
M60A3TTS
Posts: 4855
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by M60A3TTS »

Consider drawing off about a dozen divisions from Leningrad and Northwest Fronts to assist in the Moscow defense, particularly in the south. You have nothing worth him taking up north at this stage.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
Consider drawing off about a dozen divisions from Leningrad and Northwest Fronts to assist in the Moscow defense, particularly in the south. You have nothing worth him taking up north at this stage.

Yes, that's the plan indeed. I think I'll take Eremenko's 31st Army south next turn.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Flaviusx »

Here's my Moscow defense.



Image
Attachments
t16.jpg
t16.jpg (711.14 KiB) Viewed 278 times
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

Looks to me that James southern pincer is going to be very uncomfortable at the end of your turn. He'll need a lot of infantry to cover the railroad feeding those forces, as well. I suppose next turn he'll strike eastwards from Tula, to secure it and prepare for a final push during the Snow turns. Looks like a difficult position but actually I think it's pretty good. That bulge you hold around Rzhev is a knife on the neck of AGC.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Flaviusx »

Well, I personally think it's a bit over the top that the Axis can get this far while taking out Leningrad and making historical advances in the south.

I've been fighting non stop in front of Moscow for almost 10 turns now. The entire summer, with no pause. Once he brought up his infantry to the landbridge more or less. I really doubt this was logistically possible in real life. And the Wehrmacht is at 3.2 million going into October, further solidifying my strong suspicion that manpower in this patch is grossly inflated for the Germans. It simply doesn't go down much, or at all. (Even the blizzard only has a temporary effect. By the end of February all the disableds recover, more or less, at least in my AI testing.)

I'm really not sure how you put a dent into this manpower.

Casualty ratios continue to be very high, 4-5:1. I'm not sure where people are getting this 2.6:1 business from. With these kinds of loss ratios, you hardly need to pocket: just pound the Soviet and wait for his stuff to lapse into unreadiness. (The average Soviet unit will not stand up to this kind of attrition very long before needing to be pulled out of the line. I'm spending a quite ridiculous amount of AP on reassignments thanks to this remorseless attrition.)



WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Well, I personally think it's a bit over the top that the Axis can get this far while taking out Leningrad and making historical advances in the south.

Not being able to hold up the German Army in the Northern theater, really derails the historical course of things. I think that the reasons because Leningrad seems to be doomed to fall are two fold. First, there's the Axis-only Fort Level reduction rule when results are Held. With decent Engineer support, even Hasty or Deliberate with 1:1 odds have many chances of bringing down forts. Thus we can see them doubling the assaults and collapsing the whole defense, even if the best defensive terrain. This rule I think should be revised (I'm not sure exactly what is it modeling, and why the Soviet engineer values can't achieve a similar result). Since German experience and morale is so high, and Soviet is so low, even if combats go badly for the Germans they get away relatively unscathed. The second is that I've yet to see - well, Pelton actually did it - anybody removing 4. PzGruppe altogether from the Northern Theater as soon as Turn 10 or so for getting it in position in time for Operation Typhoon.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I've been fighting non stop in front of Moscow for almost 10 turns now. The entire summer, with no pause. Once he brought up his infantry to the landbridge more or less. I really doubt this was logistically possible in real life. And the Wehrmacht is at 3.2 million going into October, further solidifying my strong suspicion that manpower in this patch is grossly inflated for the Germans. It simply doesn't go down much, or at all. (Even the blizzard only has a temporary effect. By the end of February all the disableds recover, more or less, at least in my AI testing.)

I'm seeing something similar in a GC started with 1.04 (and patched all the way) which is currently in March 1942. 1.05 came in just in January '42, and I'm seeing that the Wehrmacht is rapidly growing. However, in this game Soviet units have much better morale and experience than one would get in a "normal" 1.05 game. So when the German attacks, he suffers and Soviet counterattacks are something to reckon.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I'm really not sure how you put a dent into this manpower.

We need to start a thread on the War Room using sock puppets with "Axis fanboy" nicknames elaborating on how necessary and game winning is to launch an attack into the Caucasus in 1942, so Axis player just overextend and one can get something similar to Stalingrad [Just joking]

Really, I've no idea, other than actually pretend you're weaker than you actually are, and seize any opportunity that presents itself if your opponent decides to actually go for Auto Victory.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Casualty ratios continue to be very high, 4-5:1. I'm not sure where people are getting this 2.6:1 business from. With these kinds of loss ratios, you hardly need to pocket: just pound the Soviet and wait for his stuff to lapse into unreadiness. (The average Soviet unit will not stand up to this kind of attrition very long before needing to be pulled out of the line. I'm spending a quite ridiculous amount of AP on reassignments thanks to this remorseless attrition.)

That 2.6:1 figure was certainly true for the Axis in late 1942 under 1.03 and early 1.04. Now we're talking about something else completely different. Axis losses are mostly determined by entrenchment, which is capped by 1.05 rules, and Soviet ground element experience that has been alway capped by morale, but in 1.05 this level in 1942 especially is very worrying. I think it will be all the way into 1943 until we don't see anymore German high experience, high morale units eat for breakfast the average Red Army units. Which "feels" quite historical, btw.

This I think will require an unprecedented level of finesse managing the Red Army human resources. Nurturing high morale units, kept in strategic reserve, seems the way to go. This obviously opens up the frontlines for many reasons, which is, I think, a good thing.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Flaviusx »

For myself, I'm thinking we need to ditch the new fort rules around urban conurbations. Leningrad in particular is just stupidly easy to take now.

Next time I play a GC I'm actually planning to do something very different up north with this in mind: get out the factories ASAP, and abandon Leningrad altogether before it gets pocketed and fall back behind the Volkhov. Once Leningrad is pocketed it is dead meat. It will fall every time to a backdoor assault across the Neva if the German knows his business. You can't stop this.

At the same time put at least two strong armies in Karelia to hold the bottleneck position at the northern edge of the map. The effect of this will be to straighten out the line. Since the Finns are going to come into the thing, there's no point in falling back to the Svir. Just plan on Leningrad falling and keep them well away from the Svir and hold a static line at the Volkhov.

Let the defender build up to level 5s within a certain radius of Leningrad/Moscow and possibly Stalingrad.

I like the idea of limiting these fort soak off attacks so that the only way to clear forts is to actually win the combat.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39761
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Erik Rutins »

Hi Flavius,

In my testing so far with 1.05, Leningrad can be held against the historical AGN force, but not if the German player reinforces it. That's the same as it was in 1.04 and I would argue historically.

I think we need a few more games to get through the blizzard and into 1942 to get a good sense of the balance. There's a tipping point where the Soviets can't conduct a decent winter offensive if the Axis does too well in 1941. As long as most games with players of similar skill don't cross that line, we're likely close on balance.

I can tell you from playing James before in other wargames, he is an outstanding player, not average at all (as are you, but you may have met your match ;-).

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by Flaviusx »

James is very good indeed. He is the best Axis player I have met. He has also vastly improved since our first game.

But for all of that I remain disatisfied with certain aspects of this patch and think there's room for improvement.

I disagree that the German needs to greatly reinforce AGN to take Leningrad. (I had thought this was the case, but it's not.)

It's mostly a matter of organization, having the right leaders and SUs. PG4 can actually do the job. So long as Leningrad gets pocketed, it will fall if you've set up things correctly, period. You cannot prevent crossing the Neva -- and once across the Neva, then it is over, basically. Even a level 3 fort with a good army and reserves won't hold the Germans off forever at the backdoor.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
For myself, I'm thinking we need to ditch the new fort rules around urban conurbations. Leningrad in particular is just stupidly easy to take now.

Could be. Right now Fort level 4 requires the hex to be urban, perhaps this could be extended to hexes adjacent to urban. But in any case I don't think there's enough time to build up enough the zone unless a major investment in AP's is done in building a LOT of RR brigades.
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Next time I play a GC I'm actually planning to do something very different up north with this in mind: get out the factories ASAP, and abandon Leningrad altogether before it gets pocketed and fall back behind the Volkhov. Once Leningrad is pocketed it is dead meat. It will fall every time to a backdoor assault across the Neva if the German knows his business. You can't stop this.

You're right. There's no way that guarantees you to stop that move. Actually, that was a hard-fought position, Nevsky Pyatachok falls roughly on the southern edge of that hex. I don't know why it's deemed as a clear hex, there seems to me to be there a healthy dose of woods and hills. And perhaps another item to revise are assaults across major rivers when there's significant fortification on the other side. The Neva is there about 500m wide... I wouldn't like to be wearing the boots of Pioneers trying to establish a bridghead across that, with bunkers and trenches on the other side./
ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
At the same time put at least two strong armies in Karelia to hold the bottleneck position at the northern edge of the map. The effect of this will be to straighten out the line. Since the Finns are going to come into the thing, there's no point in falling back to the Svir. Just plan on Leningrad falling and keep them well away from the Svir and hold a static line at the Volkhov.

That looks as a sound plan. Four armies - 2 on the Volkhov and 2 on Karelia - is much less than force I usually devote to defend Leningrad and the Svir (in this game I have used something like 6 armies, 23rd, 28th, 7th, 31st, 48th and 27th, almost 1M men). The only problem I see is that would free up 18. Armee and 4. PzGruppe really soon. The pressure on Moscow would be terrible.
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by 76mm »

Speaking of losses, I assumed that when the devs got rid of the 1:1 rule, they would also get rid of the punishing Sov casualties when they lose. This does not seem to be the case, however, and i regularly see losses of 10x or more if my attacks fail. I think if the 1:1 rule is gone, the Sovs should suffer the same casualties as the Germans.

I am also frustrated with the German ability to reduce forts, and the Sov inability to do so. I have lots and lots of practice attacking German fortifications in my game, and if I don't win, the fort level is reduced only very rarely, despite participation of many engineer units, thousands of tubes of artillery, hundreds of bombers, etc. It is rather ridiculous, maybe in 1 of 3 or 4 failed Sov attacks is the fort level reduced, while the Germans go through Sov forts like a hot knife through butter.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Clash of Steel: 1941-1945: Q-Ball vs Bletchley_Geek

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Speaking of losses, I assumed that when the devs got rid of the 1:1 rule, they would also get rid of the punishing Sov casualties when they lose. This does not seem to be the case, however, and i regularly see losses of 10x or more if my attacks fail. I think if the 1:1 rule is gone, the Sovs should suffer the same casualties as the Germans.

Interesting. Pavel confirmed that the Axis defense bonus would go away in hand with the 1:1 rule. In that GC - late March 1942 - I mention this turn I conducted quite a few assaults and I don't see those silly casualty ratios. The only battle where I got a Held result, most of the casualties were damaged ground elements because of attacking across a river line (extra damage if the attack fails due to the Attacker Retreat phase). My estimate of the actual permanent loss ratio was close to 1.5:1 favoring the Axis.

Now we can check this elusive "Attacker Retreat" phase on the combat report details. What I recall from the manual is that high morale (or experience, or both) are really critical determining Retreat losses in general, both in the defense and the attack. Do your combat reports show very high numbers in the Retreat category, 76mm?
ORIGINAL: 76mm
I am also frustrated with the German ability to reduce forts, and the Sov inability to do so. I have lots and lots of practice attacking German fortifications in my game, and if I don't win, the fort level is reduced only very rarely, despite participation of many engineer units, thousands of tubes of artillery, hundreds of bombers, etc. It is rather ridiculous, maybe in 1 of 3 or 4 failed Sov attacks is the fort level reduced, while the Germans go through Sov forts like a hot knife through butter.

What I refer is this Axis 1:1 rule regarding forts:
ORIGINAL: Ammended WitE manual
Fort levels can be reduced during combat if the attacking force contains engineer ground elements (e.g. German Pioneer, Soviet Sapper; any type Engineer or Mech-Engineer ground elements) participating in the battle. This reduction can be fractional, i.e. it doesn‟t have to reduce a
fort by one entire level, and it can just reduce a part of one level. Fractional reductions in fort levels take place in two percent increments. The more engineer ground elements participating, the better the chance for fort level reduction. Engineer values are divided by the fort level when
calculating their ability to reduce fort levels in combat. Fort level reduction caused by engineers can result in the reduction of the final defending modified combat value (15.8).

In addition, if the Axis attacking force is unable to force a retreat on the Soviet defender, but has at least a one to one combat value ratio, there is a chance that the Soviet fort level will be reduced up to one additional level, with fractional reductions once again possible. This additional one fort level reduction does not require engineer ground elements to occur, but the presence of engineers will increase the chances.

If all defending units are forced to retreat, then any fort levels in the hex are reduced to zero.

If the Axis gets a 1:1 fort reduction can happen without engineering support whatsoever. With substantial Eng support - and Axis players who know what they're doing really do pile Pioneers on 18. Armee commands - it's almost guaranteed. I was referring to this sub-rule. I wonder why the Soviets don't get this right from the start, or from some date on. I think the RKKA became really adept at the art of Combat Engineering, both with Sappers and shtraf battalions.

Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”