Back in the East STEF78 (Axis) Oshawott (USSR)

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:41 am

I salute your grit, STEF, and the fact that you are completely cleared eyed about this and not under any delusions as to where the game is headed.

I do disagree that this game was lost as early as turn 17, though. I'd place the inflection point in spring of 42. Am also wondering if it is worth it to stand your ground in the blizzard as much as you did, even with the new rules.

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:01 am

ORIGINAL: smokindave34

You seem to have a lot of units broken down into regiments - is there a reason for this?

2 reasons for this:
- reserve activation is better with units broken into régiments. But at this time of the game it's useless.
- creating entrenchement behind my first line of defense

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:03 am

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Osh almost chose me, but he picked you instead, very good choice

I hope you we will have the opportunity to play against Oshawott. It's a good way to progress.

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:13 am

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I do disagree that this game was lost as early as turn 17, though. I'd place the inflection point in spring of 42. Am also wondering if it is worth it to stand your ground in the blizzard as much as you did, even with the new rules.

One of the key of WIte as german is to inflict a max of losses to the soviet in 1941.

In this game, at turn 25 losses were

In all but one of my other games as german, I inflicted more than 2.7M losses to the russians. It makes a huge difference during the blizzard.

Concerning the area South of Kaluga during the blizzard you're right but it was only my second "mild blizzard" and the previous was relatively quiet. Obviously, it was a mistake not to give more ground in the South.

morvael · Post by **morvael** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:29 am

Performance in combat is also better from smaller units like regiments, because the initiative roll is also used when firing.

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 10:11 am

It is remarkable how sensitive the game is to minor shifts in performance. 600,000 men isn't really that much in the larger scheme of things. But yeah, that's the difference between, say, a respectable 5.5 million red army going into winter, and a 6+ million one which is a monster that can easily blow up to 7-8 million by spring.

It's extremely hard to make up for this sort of thing against a first class player and once you fall behind the curve the tendency is for things to keep piling on relentlessly. A small edge becomes a bigger one and then snowballs from there. It's not just replacements, either, I think APs are part of the problem. They are either too low or too high; too low to respond to moderate pressure and historical losses, but at the same time too high if the Red Army can stall the Axis early on. The Red Army here is very much ahead of where it ought to be on a simple count of corps. Which is what happens if it can start pumping out 2-3 corps a turn from mid 42 on without interruption. This is just too much too fast.

charlie0311 · Post by **charlie0311** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:54 pm

Flav, doesn't seem that hard to me, if the players had the option to adjust the game setting as the game proceeds.

Oshawott · Post by **Oshawott** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 2:18 pm

It is remarkable how sensitive the game is to minor shifts in performance. 600,000 men isn't really that much in the larger scheme of things. But yeah, that's the difference between, say, a respectable 5.5 million red army going into winter, and a 6+ million one which is a monster that can easily blow up to 7-8 million by spring.

Raw numbers are very important especially POWs. If you don't have enough prisoners you don't get many Hiwis. But equally important is in my opinion morale. I was able to build a high quality army in 41 with a large number of units in the 50-60 morale range. This makes counterattacking easier and easier the longer the game goes on. Eventually, the game spirals out of control.

The game lacks any caps which is a real problem for both sides. For example why not limit morale gains due to combat to 5 above national morale? Or why not cap Rifle Corps to one per turn in 42? Same goes for the Germans. Is it really realistic to have 99 morale/99 experience infantry /Panzer divisions which is relatively easy to achieve in this game?

I am glad that STEF continues to play. The game is still very interesting and I enjoy it very much. Also, I keep finding little bugs. Currently, I am tracking a possible bug that has to do with rifle squads being sucked out of my Rifle Corps for no apparent reason. I had two Rifle Corps so far which lost 80% of their rifle squads in one turn without combat. [&:]

caliJP · Post by **caliJP** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 3:47 pm

I would tend to agree with you STEF, with only 1.8M russian casualties as of T17, you were in a bad spot already. And of course I would imagine having so few casualties means the russians must have had a better win/loss ratio overall and more units with good moral like Oshawott said. It would have taken a combination of excellent play by you in 1942 and errors by Oshawott to reverse that I think, which if of course is always possible, so it was worth going for 1942 I suppose. But I noticed you only had 1800 tanks in May 1942, so you must not have wintered your Pz units? I think that's a mistake: I don't see how the Wehrmacht can reverse a bad 1941 with that few tanks, Oshawott already had over 7.5M men It takes a lot of Pz to carve out a significant chunk of such an army!

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:13 pm

ORIGINAL: caliJP

But I noticed you only had 1800 tanks in May 1942, so you must not have wintered your Pz units? I think that's a mistake: I don't see how the Wehrmacht can reverse a bad 1941 with that few tanks, Oshawott already had over 7.5M men It takes a lot of Pz to carve out a significant chunk of such an army!

I wintered my Pzd with the old blizzard rules because the penalties on morale were very hard. I don't do it with mild blizzard.

Regarding the number of AFV available, I don't think that it is the key point. As already stated 1941's AFV have no value in 1943. The decisive point is the amount of losses suffered by the russian player in 1941.

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:23 pm

Turn 79, 10th december 1942

Leningrad

Oshawott decides to free Leningrad: the first step

Sumy

A typical successfull counterattack, not a good ratio.

Fighter bombers

Hard to get morale climbing

jwolf · Post by **jwolf** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:16 pm

I see we found out what he wanted to do with his new artillery divisions. [X(] That assault was massive, awesome, and terrifying. Good luck fighting against that!

Oshawott · Post by **Oshawott** » Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:52 pm

That assault was massive, awesome, and terrifying. Good luck fighting against that!

The one on T77 was even bigger. [X(]

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:01 am

This one from turn 81 (operation "die for Leningrad") is bigger.

We will reach in a few months attacks with 500k+ men to take city hexes

timmyab · Post by **timmyab** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:07 am

Stef, the battle reports will always show forts being reduced to nothing if the attack is successful. It doesn't necessarily mean that those forts were reduced during combat. I think that's right?

morvael · Post by **morvael** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:14 am

Yes, fort is always shown as reduced to 0 when defender retreats, even if artillery and sappers didn't reduce it as much in combat.

Oshawott · Post by **Oshawott** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:37 am

Stef, the battle reports will always show forts being reduced to nothing if the attack is successful. It doesn't necessarily mean that those forts were reduced during combat. I think that's right?

Correct, only the attacker sees how much the fort level is reduced before actual combat. In most cases they just get reduced by one level despite all those sappers. That's why these combats are still relatively tight despite 10:1 in men and artillery.

Flaviusx · Post by **Flaviusx** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 1:00 pm

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Flav, doesn't seem that hard to me, if the players had the option to adjust the game setting as the game proceeds.

Yes and no. I think some aspects of the game flat out need a redesign in order to really fix various feedback loop problems. These feedback loop issues are such that no single set of settings can ever address every game since every single game will have its own unique feedback results -- you cannot predict ex ante where the feedback will occur. And once you get locked into it, then it's too late. It's off to the races.

Oshawott mentions caps. We do need more of those to prevent things from spinning out of control one way or the other.

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:27 pm

Turn 79, 10th december 1942

Thanks to Timmyab and Morvael for the explanation about forts.

The best part of my army

STEF78 · Post by **STEF78** » Tue Jul 22, 2014 4:32 pm

Turn 80, 24th december 1942

No map from this turn. Oshawott is methodically hammering my defence in 4 points.

A view of my fighter bombers, some are now efficient fighters like the 1/STG77, the II/STG77 still has difficulty to reach this level