Matrix Games Forums

I watching it myself though at a slightly later date. It doesn't improve at all.

Hmm I know, its truly a dilemma. In order to decrease the size of the Soviet Army,
I need to counter attack. But by counter attacking I inevitable weaken my own
forces...

I too have no illusions about the recovery of the German army at this stage. I just
intend to delay the Soviets as long as possible.

As for retreating more in the south, I would like to, but the Dnepr line isn't ready yet.

I like your AARs! Structured and well presented!

Your army however, it is beginning to look like it's going the same way as mine in the same campaign, despite the 1.04 changes!

ORIGINAL: fiva55

Hmm I know, its truly a dilemma. In order to decrease the size of the Soviet Army,
I need to counter attack. But by counter attacking I inevitable weaken my own
forces...

I too have no illusions about the recovery of the German army at this stage. I just
intend to delay the Soviets as long as possible.

As for retreating more in the south, I would like to, but the Dnepr line isn't ready yet.

I wouldn't wait for the Dnepr line - I did exactly the same thing, got my forts along the Dnepr and the Molochna (to keep the line relatively short) up to level three and by engaging in a fighting retreat all that got me was a bunch of 1=4 units on the Dnepr rather than 1=1 - not nearly enough to stop two stacks of Soviet troops with CVs of 20+. The only thing that sort of worked for me was retreating in stages (4-5 hexes a turn) and keeping my armor behind the new line to smash any Tank Corps that ventured in front of the infantry - attacking tank corps with massed panzers is the only place where you will get good kill ratios on your attacks...which I'm sure you know.

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

ORIGINAL: fiva55

Hmm I know, its truly a dilemma. In order to decrease the size of the Soviet Army,
I need to counter attack. But by counter attacking I inevitable weaken my own
forces...

I too have no illusions about the recovery of the German army at this stage. I just
intend to delay the Soviets as long as possible.

As for retreating more in the south, I would like to, but the Dnepr line isn't ready yet.

I wouldn't wait for the Dnepr line - I did exactly the same thing, got my forts along the Dnepr and the Molochna (to keep the line relatively short) up to level three and by engaging in a fighting retreat all that got me was a bunch of 1=4 units on the Dnepr rather than 1=1 - not nearly enough to stop two stacks of Soviet troops with CVs of 20+. The only thing that sort of worked for me was retreating in stages (4-5 hexes a turn) and keeping my armor behind the new line to smash any Tank Corps that ventured in front of the infantry - attacking tank corps with massed panzers is the only place where you will get good kill ratios on your attacks...which I'm sure you know.

I started pulling back this turn.

I'm curious, did you merge divisions in your game? I believe historically, Hitler kept creating more
formations, at the cost of weakening the remaining ones. I'm thinking to start mass merging my unready
units to bring them back in in fighting form. It's not like I will ever get them all in ready status just
relying on replacements anyway.

Whoever said the +1 Sov odds modifier didnt make any difference in 1943?

The difference it makes is that it is virtually impossible to hold any kind of pocket, no matter how strong the units you commit.

If the german player gets 30CV in a hex to hold a pocket, it's going to be relatively easy anywhere on the map for the soviets to muster 30CV for an attack (not to mention overwhelming air and artillery)

If, as testers have said, the +1 odds modifier is in the game to balance 1942 (when without it, apparently the Sovs would not be able to mount a Stalingrad type offensive), then why keep it in to UNbalance 43 and onwards?

What's your view from the receiving end on this, Fiva?

I did not - I did disband a slew of support units, empty Luflotte HQs and, as the retreat went west, SEC divs. I don't think merging units could hurt you, although the downside would be that you wouldn't have smaller units that you could send to the rear to rest and dig in without leaving a gaping hole in the line.

BEGIN TURN 58
7/31/1943
OKH RECEIVED REPORTS SUMMARY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AXIS OOB
Men: 2.259.383
Guns: 17.356
AFV: 3.292
Air: 1.953

SOVIET OOB
Men: 6.202.76
Guns: 103.011
AFV: 9.057
Air: 14.483

AXIS LOSSES
Men: 2.451.101
Guns: 39.084
AFV: 7.856
Air: 5.296

SOVIET LOSSES
Men: 6.132.780
Guns: 110.617
AFV: 25.182
Air: 32.511

SOVIET ATTACKS RESULTS
09 held
31 retreated
24 AF bombed

PRODUCTION
Manpower pool: 555.446
Armaments pool: 0
Rifle Squads: Rdy 17.655/Dam 717

EVENT LOG
Refit/replacements segment: 68.445 men were added to Germany's front line units
Unready units: 71 German units unready

NOTABLE EVENTS
Most of 17th Army is in ready status again, but at a price. The remaining front has
suffered, with an alarming increase of unready units in all sectors.

Of the Gorlovka-Makeeva-Stalino strongpoint, only Stalino remains in German hands.
To hold only longer would invite disaster, and 17th Army has been authorized to
start a slow retreat.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF TURN OVERVIEW

NOTABLE EVENT
A careful pull back has been authorized for all sectors, starting with Army Group B.

Stalino has been abandoned, after a mass counter attack by our panzers freed the way
for 371st ID to retreat.

ORIGINAL: squatter

Whoever said the +1 Sov odds modifier didnt make any difference in 1943?

The difference it makes is that it is virtually impossible to hold any kind of pocket, no matter how strong the units you commit.

If the german player gets 30CV in a hex to hold a pocket, it's going to be relatively easy anywhere on the map for the soviets to muster 30CV for an attack (not to mention overwhelming air and artillery)

If, as testers have said, the +1 odds modifier is in the game to balance 1942 (when without it, apparently the Sovs would not be able to mount a Stalingrad type offensive), then why keep it in to UNbalance 43 and onwards?

What's your view from the receiving end on this, Fiva?

Well in a way it doesn't make much of a difference, since the Soviets are getting way better odds than
1:1 anyway at this stage of the war. Assuming that the Soviet player took the time to build (guards)
infantry corps, the +1 odds modifier changes little. Having said that, I think that the +1 odds modifier
could safely be removed in 1943 for the Soviets, I have a feeling that it is just overkill at this stage.

In my 43-45 PBEM most soviet breakthroughs happen because of the +1 modifier. Without it the soviets would have an impossible task trying to breach fortified river lines.

ORIGINAL: Aditia

In my 43-45 PBEM most soviet breakthroughs happen because of the +1 modifier. Without it the soviets would have an impossible task trying to breach fortified river lines.

That is assuming that I have divisions with reasonable strength available to guard a river line.

Though admittedly, with the patch changes and the increased armaments pool, the +1 modifier
might be more relevant in newly started 43-45 games. But I doubt that the Soviets need
the extra +1 odds modifier to breach the lines in my game [:D].

Well, the last soviet attack you posted relied on the +1 modifier.

Overkill is exactly what it is.

Yes, the majority of Soviet attacks will be more than 1-1, but there will be some crucial moments if you ever try to create another pocket again in the next two years of fighting, where there'll be a hex you absolutely have to hold. But even sticking 3 x 10 CV panzers in that hex will not be enough, because its a relative cinch for the Soviets to muster 30CV on ANY hex on the map. If that was turned to 60CV, however, things would look a little different. At least the chance for pocketting counter attack would be there in 43-45.

In my 43-45 PBEM most soviet breakthroughs happen because of the +1 modifier. Without it the soviets would have an impossible task trying to breach fortified river lines.

For some reason there is a big difference between the 42 and 43 campaigns - I had the same experience as Fiva, where the German army nears a state of collapse and the vast majority of Soviet attacks get extremely good odds. Once you are forced out of the Level 4 fort line that was in place at the beginning of the scenario, it's all downhill as your collection of 1=1 units flee.

I guess its also possible that the 42 campaign gives the Soviets more time to build an "ideal" army such that it is much more capable of breaking lines than the Soviet army in the same period of the 43 game (plus everything is activated by then, for the most part)

Devs have said that there were some major armaments issues with the scenario that have been fixed and should allow the Germans to maintain the strength in their lines better. I had 900k men in the pool while my army dropped over the course of the summer from 3.5M to 2.5M or less (similar to what Fiva is seeing).

Also, I know the devs are aware of the issue of unbalanced late war combat (or at least, the inability of the Germans to launch effective counterattacks regardless of strength of forces)...hopefully the +1 odds modifier might come up as one path to resolving this to an extent.

late war combat should be tough for the germans. How is attacking supposed to yield bigger losses for the defending russians? 0_o

Attacking is inherently costly because you expose your troops. My main gripe with the v1.03 combat system is that russians do not suffer enough casualties when attacking forts (or the germans suffer too much when forced to retreat). I suspect this has a lot to do with the support unit bug, but still, german infantry in bunkers should be able to exact a bunch of heavy losses on assaulting russian infantry and not get annihilated when retreating. Retreat attrition should be based on competency of artillery, airforce and mechanized forces, but from the numbers I see the effect is roughly equal for both sides. Was Soviet organization of different arms really that effective?

Anyway, the late war combat is a different issue from what 42-45 axis players are experiencing, namely a complete collapse caused by vagueries in the production system.

Broadly speaking I agree (and I also agree that the collapse is a separate issue from the counterattacking issue) - but a successful attack by massed panzer against an infantry corps not dug in should not be virtually guaranteed to result in a 1:1 loss ratio, as the overrunning of enemy positions, artillery units and casualties along the retreat should create a ton of casualties for the defender. As things work now, you are insane to ever attack infantry with your panzers in late war, which doesn't seem quite right.

BEGIN TURN 59
8/7/1943
OKH RECEIVED REPORTS SUMMARY

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AXIS OOB
Men: 2.254.503
Guns: 17.412
AFV: 3.473
Air: 1.840

SOVIET OOB
Men: 6.253.754
Guns: 104.496
AFV: 9.319
Air: 14.761

AXIS LOSSES
Men: 2.474.157
Guns: 39.523
AFV: 8.001
Air: 5.522

SOVIET LOSSES
Men: 6.162.203
Guns: 111.577
AFV: 25.295
Air: 32.928

SOVIET ATTACKS RESULTS
06 held
09 retreated
35 AF bombed

PRODUCTION
Manpower pool: 551.577
Armaments pool: 0
Rifle Squads: Rdy 18.410/Dam 577

EVENT LOG
Refit/replacements segment: 79.040 men were added to Germany's front line units
Unready units: 56 German units unready

NOTABLE EVENTS
Most our troops were able to pull back in good order, as can be seen by the low number of attacks.

However, the presence of the later identified Soviet 1st Tank Army and 5th Guards Tank Army around
Kursk meant that the organized retreat of Army Group A had to be delayed, or else risk getting
overrun on open ground by the mass concentration of Soviet tanks.

In order to rectify this, a plan was proposed. The first line of defence was intentionally
weakened, in order to lure the 2 Soviet tank armies into action prematurely. Once the soviets
took the bait, 2 German Panzer Corps would spring into action and force the Soviets into a tank
battle, which at this stage of the war can still be won with good odds.

Unfortunately, we underestimated the Soviet and overestimated our own strength......



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL: Aditia

late war combat should be tough for the germans. How is attacking supposed to yield bigger losses for the defending russians? 0_o

Attacking is inherently costly because you expose your troops. My main gripe with the v1.03 combat system is that russians do not suffer enough casualties when attacking forts (or the germans suffer too much when forced to retreat). I suspect this has a lot to do with the support unit bug, but still, german infantry in bunkers should be able to exact a bunch of heavy losses on assaulting russian infantry and not get annihilated when retreating. Retreat attrition should be based on competency of artillery, airforce and mechanized forces, but from the numbers I see the effect is roughly equal for both sides. Was Soviet organization of different arms really that effective?

Anyway, the late war combat is a different issue from what 42-45 axis players are experiencing, namely a complete collapse caused by vagueries in the production system.

As I understand it from BigAnorak, the issue has to do with the Russians getting too much more than the Germans getting too little. The Russians have too many men too quickly and cause too many casualties too quickly. This is the problem.

But I could be wrong.

Mynok - my sense of that - at least from my game - was that the Soviets may or may not get too much too fast (probably they do) but that the Germans seem unable, at least pre-1.04, to even put the men that they have into the line at any kind of meaningful rate.

ORIGINAL: Mynok

As I understand it from BigAnorak, the issue has to do with the Russians getting too much more than the Germans getting too little. The Russians have too many men too quickly and cause too many casualties too quickly. This is the problem.

But I could be wrong.

BigA's strategy revolved around creating a backup front behind the main front. IMO this strategy is inherently flawed as it facilitates the Soviet player to execute a lot of attacks, which is basically all he wants: a big pile of bodies.

But let's stop hijacking this thread and discuss 43-45 in your thread or mine