1:1 odds, counterattack casualties etc

[cookie monster]

The example of how to break a linear defence with Armour/Motorized is not particularly new. It's childs play!

How to break a defence in depth is where it's at.

Regarding HQ's hoarding fuel dumps :-

Most motorized forces will only have near 50 MP when fully rested as in 10 fatigue and they have passed most of the ADMIN & INITIATIVE leader rolls

I find my armour needs 2 turns rest after a deep lunge before having 40 MP's again

Highly fatigued units have a lot less MP after the fatigue deduction from BASE MAX

Therefore they are only given enough fuel to sustain for example 20 MP's worth of travel.

Note I have seen this get as low as 6 MP's to a tank corps next turn due to the previous turns exhaustive use.

Hope I didnt get off-topic just thought I would give my observations on tank/motorized Movement Point allowance

[ComradeP]

The amount of units in an area matters a lot, notenome's frontline is held with lots of units, aside from between Dnepropetrovsk and Stalino, which is also exactly why I attacked in that area. In JAMiAM's examples, I see less than 20 divisions (divisions present+visible routed) in his breakthrough area. Under such circumstances, breakthroughs are very easy.

Describing a breakthrough against a lightly held single line, with a minor checkerboard behind it and saying the same principles apply to a situation where there are dozens of divisions in an area isn't convincing. I can invade Romania in July as the Soviets against the Axis challenging AI and possibly against the hard AI, but that in no way means I'll be able to do so against a human. The situation is completely different.

My mobile divisions fairly often have enough fuel to approach 40 MP's due to the quantities I drop, so it's a serious handicap when HQ's start hoarding dumps.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Well I played about 10 turns in spr 42-sum 42. Here's what I found:

Sov had:

7 million men
defense lines in depth of 3-4 hexes w/fort 3-4 in most
total of about 60 corps units by turn 55

I was not able to make any real breakthroughs in 42. I could fight a few hexes with my infantry (got best units in a few spots for a push). I could force retreats, but my loses even though usually half the sov still drained my inf. Then my opponent could just counter attack my gains (fort 0) and push me back with high loses on both side. Sov player can afford the loses when he has 7 million men.

So if you're expecting to make gains in 42 as axis anything near what was accomplished in 42 historically.. sorry to disappoint you. If you play against AI or maybe your sister (as sov), you could maybe do something in 42.

I was scratching my head in 42 trying to see where any of the axis advantages were?

I've always thougth 1941 would be very hard to simulate. I've also suggested from my very first posts here that Axis players are going to be happy with starting things in 1942. I don't see the problem with starting the campaign in 1942. It guarantees a completely historical 1941 and puts the Axis in a pretty good situation.

Anyway, I'm running my Blau I test using the Blau scenario in the game. I expect the 6th army to get to Voronnezh in about 2-3 weeks and I'll be very surprised if they don't.

Meanwhile, I don't see the point in finding that an ahistorical 1942 results from an ahistorical 1941. If you want a historical 1941, you should start in 1942, which is what I have been doing.

I think people appreciate your post now. I remember when you posted it people were picking on you. So i think more might agree with your views on it now.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Hi Smirfy. I'm not sure we are really saying different things, possibly just focusing on different facets of the problem.

Yes, my opponent did divert large forces into the Crimea, but once I spotted his movement I was able to halt it without too much difficulty before the blizzard struck.

He is using a more flexible defence than Hitler, but our losses are on par with history (see my later post) while my gains on the ground are probably about twice what they were historically. His commitment of armour to stop my advance around Lake Ilmen also tells me that he is very stretched, flexible defence or no.

I don't have a million extra men - I have lost almost exactly the historical number, as have the Axis - I just lost them in different ways and in lots and lots of smaller pockets. I do agree that I was able to evade pockets way too easily. When I made this observation 1 day after buying the game I was dismissed in these forums, but every game reconfirms it.

Carnage's result at Leningrad was only historical if you take a snapshot in Nov 41, but it's surely not historical now - he is being pushed steadily away from the city. I don't buy the argument that this is an example of a flexible defence in that sector - Carnage has fought tooth and nail to hold the line there.

Something just doesn't feel right about the balance of forces in Jan '42. I have too many divisions and too many options for manoeuvre, IMO. I don't really mind (it's fun) but unless the Axis turns around and kicks me back to the Volga or Moscow come summer, I will be sorely disappointed.

Enjoying the AAR Red

In diverting forces into the Crimea your opponent wernt putting them somewhere else and with the frontage in the Crimea that kinda of plays to the Russian strength ie zero frontage. My point you cant expect the axis to cover all the bases, 40 miles from Moscow against a player in September is pretty imateriel of what happens through the winter of 41.

As for the million men I'll give you an example from my game I destroyed AGN in 2 weeks surrounded and destroyed say 50-60 divisions. Your million men instead of meekly surrendering took Germans with them. Russian casaulties are horrendus in this game. (I have lost 11,000 T34s of all types by Mud 1944 yet beat up continually on the AI).


I have flagged up the problems numerous times but all I hear is German v Russian when the actual problem is mechanics. Interdiction does not work so airforces cannot be used to induce pockets, CiC is too good so units function too well, logistics are too generous. There are too many sources of supply for units. The mechanics need tightened up its that simple. The player can get himself out of virtually every problem when the reality was so different.

As for 42 like I said if the German player pockets more Russians in 41 less Germans die in the winter its that simple. Logistics should act as a break for both sides and they dont it is a simple as that. At various stages each side has way too much supply and can operate too many offensives.

I agree the interdiction seems very ...lacking.

I don't get interdicted early in the game as soviets. Which seems weird. I expect to have my trains coming to the front bombed. I expect to have my tank divisions blown to dust.

I also expect anti tank planes like the stuka and il-2 to kill a lot more tanks then they do now. I'm sure it will all get ironed out in due time.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

ComradeP you are so correct. We can try and explain to people that haven't played against a human or decent human sov player in the 41-45 campaign, but they will never understand the issues we're tried to convey without 1st hand experience.

I know only of one other game besides yours, abulbulian's which is deep in 41 or start 42. We all seem to agree that problems facing the axis in balance are very real and very substantial.

IMO, the latest changes will help, but not solve the balance problem entirely.

I agree (as the soviet) player who got his butt handed to him in 41 that having 60 rifle corps in 5/42 was odd. Satisfying but i wouldn't call it anywhere near what should be happening.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

ComradeP you are so correct. We can try and explain to people that haven't played against a human or decent human sov player in the 41-45 campaign, but they will never understand the issues we're tried to convey without 1st hand experience.

I know only of one other game besides yours, abulbulian's which is deep in 41 or start 42. We all seem to agree that problems facing the axis in balance are very real and very substantial.

IMO, the latest changes will help, but not solve the balance problem entirely.

I agree (as the soviet) player who got his butt handed to him in 41 that having 60 rifle corps in 5/42 was odd. Satisfying but i wouldn't call it anywhere near what should be happening.

+1 Somehow satisfying and disappointing at the same time...

[raizer]

I have harped about the ability of the soviet player to use rail mode to move fresh units up right into fighting positions, into swamps, rough, detrain them and BAM! they are ready to fight.  You can even rail units up one hex from the enemy, detrain them and move them the one hex into the zoc of the enemy-and you can move fresh units up along the same rails that you are evac'ing other units/factories.  And the smaller scenarios this is even more powerful because who cares about evac'ing an armaments factory in a 10-17 turn game.  And with the fewer units and smaller distances in the small games, rail turns the soviets into a truly mobile fighting force in 41.  In 2 pbem games-small scenarios, Ive run out of rail capacity in only one turn...you can zing units all over the map-and I have never had anyone in rail get hit with interdiction, thou I have had interdiction hit normally moving ground guys several times

and yah I complained about it and was told to stop complaining and play russians if I dont like-so thats what Im doing [:)]

[karonagames]

agree (as the soviet) player who got his butt handed to him in 41 that having 60 rifle corps in 5/42 was odd. Satisfying but i wouldn't call it anywhere near what should be happening.

We have been discussing this issue in the development forums, and there are some self balancing factors that need to be taken into account. Firstly, you probably did not play with the amendments to brigade conversions and the increased costs of creating divisions, so there will be fewer divisions available to turn into corps.

Also corps are a double edged sword, in that yes you will have higher troop density for places like Stalingrad, but you will have fewer units to hold the lines, so you will have to get the balance right or risk thinning the line too much especially if the Axis does go for the Caucasus, and you are desperate to man a very extended line.

A change is AP costs for creating corps is being seriously considered.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Well I played about 10 turns in spr 42-sum 42. Here's what I found:

Sov had:

7 million men
defense lines in depth of 3-4 hexes w/fort 3-4 in most
total of about 60 corps units by turn 55

I was not able to make any real breakthroughs in 42. I could fight a few hexes with my infantry (got best units in a few spots for a push). I could force retreats, but my loses even though usually half the sov still drained my inf. Then my opponent could just counter attack my gains (fort 0) and push me back with high loses on both side. Sov player can afford the loses when he has 7 million men.

So if you're expecting to make gains in 42 as axis anything near what was accomplished in 42 historically.. sorry to disappoint you. If you play against AI or maybe your sister (as sov), you could maybe do something in 42.

I was scratching my head in 42 trying to see where any of the axis advantages were?

I've always thougth 1941 would be very hard to simulate. I've also suggested from my very first posts here that Axis players are going to be happy with starting things in 1942. I don't see the problem with starting the campaign in 1942. It guarantees a completely historical 1941 and puts the Axis in a pretty good situation.

Anyway, I'm running my Blau I test using the Blau scenario in the game. I expect the 6th army to get to Voronnezh in about 2-3 weeks and I'll be very surprised if they don't.

Meanwhile, I don't see the point in finding that an ahistorical 1942 results from an ahistorical 1941. If you want a historical 1941, you should start in 1942, which is what I have been doing.

I think people appreciate your post now. I remember when you posted it people were picking on you. So i think more might agree with your views on it now.

It's true that if you start in 1942, things run very much like 1942 for a while. I ran Case Blue (first 4 weeks) as the Axis against normal AI and sure enough the Axis got to Voronezh and the Don
while cutting off most of the Soviets (line after line in six pockets). down south the Soviets were routed and the way to Rostov was open.

Anyway, I still recommend starting in 1942 if you want to be sure that a totally historical 1941 must have happened.

[Zort]

Sorry didn't read above well enough so no comment.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

agree (as the soviet) player who got his butt handed to him in 41 that having 60 rifle corps in 5/42 was odd. Satisfying but i wouldn't call it anywhere near what should be happening.

We have been discussing this issue in the development forums, and there are some self balancing factors that need to be taken into account. Firstly, you probably did not play with the amendments to brigade conversions and the increased costs of creating divisions, so there will be fewer divisions available to turn into corps.

Also corps are a double edged sword, in that yes you will have higher troop density for places like Stalingrad, but you will have fewer units to hold the lines, so you will have to get the balance right or risk thinning the line too much especially if the Axis does go for the Caucasus, and you are desperate to man a very extended line.

A change is AP costs for creating corps is being seriously considered.

I am slightly sceptical about this because I feel that I am already too powerful as the Soviets in Jan '42, long before I start creating Corps units. However, I really need to see how summer '42 pans out before I can make truly sensible remarks. Maybe I will get kicked off the map come June... I really hope I do

[karonagames]

We are discussing things based on the version Joel outlined for the next patch, and unfortunately the changes to manpower can't be retro-activated. Nor can the experience and Morale "bonuses" that the soviets have received, and the under-experience and morale that the Germans have suffered. So the handicap that has been created to date won't vanish with the next patch, I know some players are introducing house rules to allow for the changes, such as moving X number of armies to the map edge, but stuff like this is not always going to be practical.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Certainly, supplies are too forgiving for both sides in terms of the quantities reaching the frontline. In 1941 for the Germans and later in the war for the Soviets.

There are many mechanics that could use some further finetuning, but the developers are aware of that and numerous things are being tested currently. Of course, major changes require a lot of data and a lot of testing.

Yea it will be nice when germany actually has to struggle for supplies through 41.
And the same for russia.

[Redmarkus5]

I still feel that key facets of the problem are not related to experience and morale but to other aspects of the model or scenario design. For example:

1. The Soviets are able to evade pockets too easily in '41, if they choose to. Shock and confusion need to be better modelled. Many historical Soviet commanders simply lost all comms with their subordinate units in June '41 and were unable to exercise the control that the game allows.

2. The ability to move troops all over the place and right up to the front by rail (mentioned above) is a real problem.

3. Reserves arriving ready to fight is another. They should be forced to do their battle prep, etc. or suffer massive penalties if thrown directly into combat. Something akin to the "Planning for" feature in WiTP, but stronger, is needed. Expert players have posted that you have to keep attacking every turn to have a chance of winning. This tells me that there are design issues. The east front saw extended periods of relative quiet, running over several months, while preparations were in train for major operations. Apart from the mud turn, these periods seem to be missing.

4. The fact that losing or capturing cities seems to have a very limited impact (except during winter) seriously affects the way the game is played.

5. The non-interdiction of soviet units in transit also adds to the movement problems.

6. The tenacity of many Soviet units, while historical, is excessive when abstracted over a 1 week turn. Units that fought hard for 3 days and then shattered fight hard all week in the game. There is an absolutist feel to combat results and unit retreats - either they hold or they flee, at least in '41. I would like to see more granularity, such as pull back - retreat 2 hexes - retreat 3 hexes - rout 4 hexes - shatter and leave the map to reappear as a formation in refit 1 turn later 10 hexes east or west. Just a thought.

7. The impact of partisan rail attacks is too dramatic. It needs to be more incremental, growing weekly in a given area until troops are deployed and then declining incrementally based on the relative strengths and quality of forces.

The game needs more than tweaking of morale etc. or the comments will just keep on coming from the dedicated players.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: raizer

the i do this, you need to do that thread

flav says notenome is the first soviet player he has seen on the forums that "gets it" as a soviet pusher...I believe him, and therefore, note is a better player than your competent opponents, its like comparing apples and cashews.

Wrong and very wrong. I can tell you first hand bwheatley gets it too. Play him if you don't believe me. [:'(]

christ man stop pimping me out I'm going to find out i'm not that great and i'll have to cry.

[karonagames]

Well, we have data that proves experience and morale and manpower numbers are not what that should be. If you have good data that proves your points, then you have my e-mail address, and I'll pass it on to Joel.

edit: 4. Cities generate manpower, so if you don't capture enough, Soviet manpower gets out of control - hardly limited impact.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: bwheatley
That is weird. With my game i am having a super easy-ish time of beating back panzer corps with rifle corp & cav corp stacks. Seems almost two easy at times. I wonder if it's just how i played the russians thats different? I cared less about making sure my C&C was right in early 42 and more about getting tank and rifle corps so i horded AP's.

Well it is easy to provide a test soviet 42 attack ability.

Demonstration 8 tank corps and 5 tank brigades (This is something like 20 Tank Divisions) attacking against 2 panzer divisions and 1 motorized division. Soviet have almost 3 times more tanks attacking than Germans have defending. Soviet attacking with 4 full stacks.

German losses 512 men, 16 art, and amazing number of 4 tanks.
Soviet Losses 10592 men, 176 art and amazing number of 448 tanks.

If this is result from 4 full Soviet stacks attacking I would like to know how many full Soviet Stacks I need to beat those German Stacks back easily?

Those are pretty low strength 2 cv tank corps. Most of mine now are 8-12 by august/sept 42.
And my best rifle corps are 15-18 cv. I wish i had taken screens. Next time i get a large successful attack i'll let you know.

But it was typically on 3 sides with 9 rifle corps. I keep my tanks corps back and only use them when i want to try to breach and isolate a german unit. Which actually failed miserably when i tried it in july 42. I wound up almost losing 5 tank corps by being stupid and underestimating the bite the german army still had left.

[Zort]

I wonder how blizzard would play out if the Dec penalties were reduced to the Jan ones and Jan reduced to Feb?

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: randallw

You are taking the term Tank Corps and assuming it's really the size of a corps; the 42a Corps is certainly not even close to it.  It's about 6k men and about 160 tanks, maxed out.  That's not even the size of a full division.  The whole force is about the value of 6-10 tank divisions, not 20.  Also the corps may have absorbed the 25% experience drop from formation; the experience difference between the Germans and Russians may be huge.

I also notice a 70% modifier, apparently from the Russians being from mixed commands.  All this adds up to a slaughter.

In this demo it is 15 Soviet tank corps against 3 German panzer divisions. All soviet troops in same command now. This is deliberate attack of 5 stacks soviet tank corps. Soviet got lucky and was able to destroy 24 German tanks and 1000 men.

I mean this is supposed to be a counter attack of 1600 soviet tanks. Soviet lost third of their assault forces and this is 541 tanks and 15k men. I could keep up attacking 6 full stacks of soviet tank corps but that doesn’t chance result much. In this game 6 full stacks of Soviet tanks corps this is largest force that soviet can use in counter attack even in theory but in practical even 5 full stacks of tank corps in counter attack is maybe too much.

Soviet have zero counter attack ability against these German uber panzer stacks at 1942 it doesn’t matter if Soviet deploy largest number of tank corps that stack rules allow that is 18 tank corps in the counter attack or have that +1 bonus what some people complain.

I'm going to quote flav for a moment and agree the real striking power of the soviets in 42 is rifle corps. Tank corps are pretty good only for mobilities sake. And they can NOT go toe to toe with panzer corps.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

include some mobile units in support of an infantry heavy assault

What do you mean by "in support"? Are you saying reserves will join an assault...on the attack?

Reserves can join an attack up to 3 hexes away under the right conditions.