Matrix Games Forums

One question is how well does the StB start map to a 1941 game - assuming one where both sides are still viable. I think the honest answer is badly, StB is seriously good fun, but it puts the Soviet player in a much better position, especially after the near inevitable destruction of 6A. So it allows testing and exploration of the mid-game but from a very different premise. This, in turn, is why I have no time for the endless demands from a few to reduce the agency of the Soviet side in the early game, get the German side right and you don't need that boost.

The German player is in a better position to defend over the second phase of the game than the Soviet side was in 1941.

First thing is that both sides are a lot stronger, and the Germans will shortly be losing around 200,000 men and 300 tanks associated with 6A at Stalingrad. My view is that a German army that is nearly 1m stronger (without 6A) is a bigger gain than a Soviet army that is 1.2m larger.



HWM is higher for the same base city score. By definition in StB everything so far has exchanged on the historical date.



Clearly I need to make that +32 work for me, but combined with a larger army, it adds to the challenge back to the Soviets.

Equally since this turn sort of reflects the first serious Soviet offensive of the war, a good time to revisit the summary chart.



Limited comparison to StB just reflects the comments above. I'm surprised my truck situation has improved given where the front line is. Given that till this turn, combat has been limited, not a surprise my per turn losses have been low.

Lost guns is a good proxy for pockets and/or routs.

NSS are clearly struggling with the length of my rail net but most is reaching front line depots (as before defined as having a red trace to them). Army demand is down, mainly as most of the front has been static for the last 4 turns, so units not looking for too much.

So useful to take forward as a baseline, both to compare to StB and as the first turn when the Soviets really tried to take the initiative.

GI's in Casablanca ? all the evidence I see is that The Vichy french are still in charge


Of course maybe there pinned down on the beaches

A interesting mix of Commanders ( my view of course ) with some of there best Panzer Generals Commanding Pz Armee's.

Schoerner, Keitel and Halder commanding Army Groups, not my first choices but I am no expert, again a personal view.


A lot of Russian 3 stacks, looks tough there along The Don River.

tm1 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:01 pm GI's in Casablanca ? all the evidence I see is that The Vichy french are still in charge
...

Of course maybe there pinned down on the beaches

A interesting mix of Commanders ( my view of course ) with some of there best Panzer Generals Commanding Pz Armee's.

Schoerner, Keitel and Halder commanding Army Groups, not my first choices but I am no expert, again a personal view.

A lot of Russian 3 stacks, looks tough there along The Don River.

Ah, just seeing that image reminds me I want to watch it again

E-Adolf loves shuffling the Army Group/OKH layer of commands, so even with the advice to get a high political score into OKH I can spend a lot of AP just undoing his latest brainwave or put up with it. I do my best to repair his more silly decisions at the army level. At this stage I have a large AP surplus (370 or so) but in the last game the constant setting up and dismantling of fort lines ended up leaving me very short (each costs 5 for the build/scrap). Now I have a lot in a particular sector, so at some stage want to be able to mass scrap and shift, I'd rather not lose the associated assets if I can help it.

I fear my opponent has been reading Soviet operational doctrine ... where he attacks its done in force. So as my recon improves there are sectors stacked high both on the front line and in reserve just waiting for their chance

T75 – 22 November 1942

North of Smolensk its mostly blizzards, everywhere else snowfall/snow.

On the main Tula-Lipetsk sector, some shifts of tactics by both sides. Heavy Soviet attacks on key sectors often failed but where they broke the German line their exploitation was limited. In turn, the German response was mostly defensive, with attacks only where needed to seal off a breakout or enable exposed formations to drop back.



To the south, the expected Soviet offensive was mostly held by the German trench lines. Their 2 Gds Army managed a small bridgehead over the Don but this was eliminated by elements of 41 Pzr Corps.

South of the Don, they launched a series of cavalry raids most of which were easily dealt with by the forces on the sector. As a precaution 1Pzr A shifted its centre of gravity to provide a reserve in case of a more substantial effort next week.



At Grozny, this time the encirclement held but decided against an assault till its been isolated for at least one full turn.

There is a clear time pressure – I need to take it before abandoning Tula – but its too strong to take out when still well supplied.



Heavy losses again, especially for the Soviet armour.



Major commitment of the VVS saw heavy losses



More intense fighting put my logistics under a bit more strain



My opponent's logistics summary by way of contrast. We've agreed to put this up and some other Soviet logistics information as we go forward. There are a lot of assumptions about this in the next phase of the game and precious little reported data.



Even for the partially isolated forces around Grozy received>need.

At Grozny, this time the encirclement held but decided against an assault till its been isolated for at least one full turn.

There is a clear time pressure – I need to take it before abandoning Tula – but its too strong to take out when still well supplied.

It's great the victory conditions give players these kinds of conundrums.

Just went through majority of the AAR. Very well written! I wish I had more time to put as much care into making as good of a AAR as you do.

Regarding Axis tank losses I am mixed about it on one hand it seems like human players are usually more cautious when it comes to using their panzer divisions which leads to lower panzer losses. But on the other hand even I am scratching my head a few times when I win close battles with minimal tank losses but this doesn't happen very often. I think It's moreso that people still avoid tank v tank combat and pick more on the inexperienced soviet rifle divisions in clear terrain which are just delaying cannon fodder for pz divisions. But you can also see that if both sides use their tanks pretty aggressively like in the GC41 game I have going on losses are looking much more historical.

I’m amazed how little supply the VVS needs in comparison to the LW!

jasonbroomer wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:53 amI’m amazed how little supply the VVS needs in comparison to the LW!

It is not that they actually *need* less per se, it is just that some of the terminology in the reports is a bit misleading/counterintuitive.

The "Supp Need" number is reporting how much supply is needed to bring units up to 100% of their notional "supply need."

However, supply priority 4 tries to get up to 130% of the notional "supply need." the result of this, is that on the previous turn, most of the VVS will have stocked up extra supply, above the 100% notional "need." If hypothetically, they had stocked up to 130% last turn, and consumed 30%, then they would need 0% new supply delivered to get back to the 100% that is supposedly "needed."

Consequently, this turn they don't need much delivered in order to get to 100% of what is "needed." Similar to how, if I filled up my car with gasoline yesterday (so I would have a large stock stored in the car), I don't "need" much to get it to 100%, whereas if I didn't fill it up for several days, I would "need" more (because I would not have much stocked up).


This is assuming that the Soviet player is using supply priority 4. It would also be the case, however, if he were using priority 3, but simply had not used his air force much the previous turn, in which case the stock of supplies they had on hand the previous turn would not have been run down much. Consequently, less was "needed" to bring it up to 100%.

Beethoven1 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm

jasonbroomer wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:53 amI’m amazed how little supply the VVS needs in comparison to the LW!

It is not that they actually *need* less per se, it is just that some of the terminology in the reports is a bit misleading/counterintuitive.

The "Supp Need" number is reporting how much supply is needed to bring units up to 100% of their notional "supply need."

However, supply priority 4 tries to get up to 130% of the notional "supply need." the result of this, is that on the previous turn, most of the VVS will have stocked up extra supply, above the 100% notional "need." If hypothetically, they had stocked up to 130% last turn, and consumed 30%, then they would need 0% new supply delivered to get back to the 100% that is supposedly "needed."

Consequently, this turn they don't need much delivered in order to get to 100% of what is "needed." Similar to how, if I filled up my car with gasoline yesterday (so I would have a large stock stored in the car), I don't "need" much to get it to 100%, whereas if I didn't fill it up for several days, I would "need" more (because I would not have much stocked up).


This is assuming that the Soviet player is using supply priority 4. It would also be the case, however, if he were using priority 3, but simply had not used his air force much the previous turn, in which case the stock of supplies they had on hand the previous turn would not have been run down much. Consequently, less was "needed" to bring it up to 100%.

I am also quite confident the Soviet supply 'needs' per soldier are sensibly inferior to the Axis supply 'needs' per soldier.

Like 1000 Axis soldiers need the same supplies that 500 Soviet soldiers require (Numbers are example. I am not sure of which ratio but I am more than confident Axis need way more suplies per individual than Soviets)

Which accrues the issue of what is needed and delivered.

DesertedFox wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:15 am

At Grozny, this time the encirclement held but decided against an assault till its been isolated for at least one full turn.

There is a clear time pressure – I need to take it before abandoning Tula – but its too strong to take out when still well supplied.

It's great the victory conditions give players these kinds of conundrums.

yes, its one of the many reasons why I wouldn't play without them. Without them, the second phase of the game becomes as mechanistic as when Pelton formed his straight lines on the map and counted 'hexes to Berlin', this creates so many different variables. Also reinforces the view the player is not Stalin or Hitler but head of OKH/Stavka

Rosencrantus wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:00 am Just went through majority of the AAR. Very well written! I wish I had more time to put as much care into making as good of a AAR as you do.

Regarding Axis tank losses I am mixed about it on one hand it seems like human players are usually more cautious when it comes to using their panzer divisions which leads to lower panzer losses. But on the other hand even I am scratching my head a few times when I win close battles with minimal tank losses but this doesn't happen very often. I think It's moreso that people still avoid tank v tank combat and pick more on the inexperienced soviet rifle divisions in clear terrain which are just delaying cannon fodder for pz divisions. But you can also see that if both sides use their tanks pretty aggressively like in the GC41 game I have going on losses are looking much more historical.

thanks, yes about the tank issue. Similar to how Soviet players complain they have so many Il-2s in the pool when they carefully horde their on map assets. I think your game with Tyrone shows that you can drive up tank losses (for a good reason) towards historical numbers. The reason I started picking that up was this started soon after the patch that lowered the effectiveness of low experience AFV elements and wanted some data on what it was doing. So the comparison, deliberately, is to my last HtH since I was the axis in both (so at least some broad similarity of operational usage)

[/quote]

jasonbroomer wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:53 am ...

I’m amazed how little supply the VVS needs in comparison to the LW!

Beethoven1 wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 2:17 pm ...

It is not that they actually *need* less per se, it is just that some of the terminology in the reports is a bit misleading/counterintuitive.

The "Supp Need" number is reporting how much supply is needed to bring units up to 100% of their notional "supply need."

...
This is assuming that the Soviet player is using supply priority 4. It would also be the case, however, if he were using priority 3, but simply had not used his air force much the previous turn, in which case the stock of supplies they had on hand the previous turn would not have been run down much. Consequently, less was "needed" to bring it up to 100%.

Beethoven has answered that, the table is not reflecting some base need due to the unit types as if they had 0 supply (which would be interesting - If I recall from some experiments a while back you *can* extract this from the CR) but what they need to meet the supply % you have set. Its one reason why I put units on quiet sectors to 1 - it stops them grabbing trucks and looking for supply they really don't need.

From discussions, the Soviets aren't using 'all on 4', but a spread according to location and operational goals. I think he's still worried about the situation going forward but (as in the next post) even by late 42 his truck situation is no problem at all - and he's got a lot of Tank/Mech corps in action (in comparison the last time I played the Soviets I only built a couple of Mech Corps as I couldn't afford the truck cost)

@AlbertN

I don't have a clue what your post is saying. Given the pretty foul anti-semitic and homophobic abuse (plus stalking) from 'Kenny', for the moment I have blocked seeing posts from everyone associated with Zebtucker's little Discord group. If, I decide I can re-engage with the main forum discussions, then of course I will read your insights with great interest but for the moment ...

more general point, I am not opening PMs. Given how they can be used (and are - as above) I'm just ignoring them - sorry for anyone using them for a genuine query.

Roger

T76 – 29 November 1942

Blizzards pretty much everywhere north of Rostov, ground a mix of light and heavy snow.

Really only one event mattered, finally committed all of 4 Pzr A to an attack on Grozny. Its been fully isolated for 2 turns and in poor supply for a while.



Which creates a series of decisions. The wider Soviet offensive is not making many gains but its pressed me firmly onto the defensive. I might, but its unlikely, be able to add the VP city on the Caspian but I think thats unlikely – not least the screen to the north is being hard pressed by fresh Soviet formations.

So essentially I can cash in my HWM and go for a late 1944 win (always the most plausible) or gamble on pushing it a bit higher.

Tula is at risk (but whenever I lose it I remain +6 on the time bonus exchange) and so is Voronezh (where I have +6 on my side but if I hold it to T82 then I start to gain on the trade). Outside the Caucasus its an easy choice – I've lost the strategic initiative, in the Caucasus need to decide whether the best plan is to retreat towards Maikop now or gamble.

But if I lose Tula then any more gains in the south are meaningless (for the HWM).



One important part to my short term planning is I am due a lot of reinforcements over the next set of turns, seems that E-Adolf thinks I may need them.





Also, even where they win, the Soviets are taking heavy losses



Despite this both AGC and AGB are under severe pressure for the moment. Pull back around Tula, I had a good line in places but I can't drive off the Soviet formations that have pushed into the gaps.

Start to defend in Corps level stacks to deny the Soviets options.

The attack towards Smolensk is probably a one-off but not sure. I doubt they have many more first rate units than they have committed to the Tula-Voronezh battles but that could become a nasty surprise.



Around Lipetsk-Voronezh most Soviet attacks were heavy defeats but they managed a significant break out directly east of Voronezh. Pulled back 4A, need to free up more of 2PzrA, in an emergency can use 48 Pzr Corps (commanded by 1 PzrA) which is currently holding the Don bend. No sustained Soviet effort here but I really don't want to use my last reserve and feasibly risk Rostov.



Basically, the Soviets have paid a high price but have convinced that the Tambov offensive is over. The threat is that one of these thrusts escalates into a clear breakout. But they only have a few turns to achieve that as I can fill out the gaps fairly soon in coming turns as fresh units arrive.

They are paying a huge price, even where they win and especially where an attack fails



Their combat losses and the Grozny pocket means their on map numbers staying static.



They are running down the last manpower dump



Not looked at trucks for a while. Over 95% truck/unit looks good but have around 12% then pulled into the freight system.

Just for interest, we've created this as a composite image with matching Soviet data (as close as possible).



Supply traces for AGC and B. Not too bad, and Orel has become the main hub for AGC.



AGA is an odd mix of the neat (4PzrA) and rather long (the forces screening the Caucasus) – am trying to improve the rail net here.



Elsewhere 2 FBD form the basis of super depots, and another one has moved back West to fill out the few gaps in the border regions, especially around Lviv.

Edited to correct turn number in the title

loki100 wrote: Sun Jun 26, 2022 5:30 am
more general point, I am not opening PMs. Given how they can be used (and are - as above) I'm just ignoring them - sorry for anyone using them for a genuine query.

Roger

You can set message rules so that PMs from certain users are automatically deleted.

Although given your concerns about people using 'alt accounts' I can understand why you might want to just ignore the PMs entirely to safeguard your mental health.

It's great to see you still posting here Roger

T77 – 6 December 1942

HWM reset at 718 (630 base city points). Weather is mostly snowfall and snow with bits of deep snow.

Around Grozny, some Soviet attacks, drove off a small scale offensive from the north.

In the Don bend, some limited attacks by both sides, have a Pzr reserve and its hard not to want to move it elsewhere.

Not least as ....

Made a serious mistake at Voronezh. Trying to minimise the damage of another major Soviet breakthrough (and not commit everything) led to a costly hold – fortunately costly for us both, But that is the first major defeat for the Pzrs in the war so far.



While I'm still able to hold off most Soviet efforts, I am starting to doubt I can cling to Voronezh.



Around Tula managed to limit Soviet gains and sealed an important breach to the west of the city.

For the moment, trying to hold this line – its not of any particular importance but it controls when I start to fall back on the Bryansk-Kursk positions.



Losses escalate for both sides and that was really costly for my Pzrs.



Especially as I was already using up all my production.



Key part of my choices is I have 2 Mot and 2 Pzr divisions arriving next turn – should help to stabilise some of the critical sectors,

So have taken a gamble of weaken 1 PzrA for now to improve 2 Pzr and then replace the missing assets in the south with the reinforcements. That is 2 turns with a very vulnerable sector. But am entering the phase where I need to accept being weak somewhere, fortunately the Soviets too need to concentrate on particular sections of the front.

Are all your Panzer Divs upgraded to the latest models, and what about Tigers they have to be close to being deployed to the Eastern Front.

My memory is a bit foggy at the moment, I know 3 heavy battalions go to the west first.

At this stage I only have 1 Tiger company in action, if I recall a second one comes out of the reserve at the end of December. They tend to build up a bit in the pool till some of the 1943 PzrGr TOE's kick in - I think they then become core to GD and the SS PzrGr divisions. That tends to clear the pool - especially as the Soviets start to deploy more SU-122/152 which can do significant damage. So usage and losses claim production.

Getting an actual handle on what tanks are in use isn't easy, not helped as I have 2 main TOEs and plenty of less common variants.



That gets worse as its not just variation in what the TOE says but swapping (or retention) pretty much means every Pzr division is unique

Here's some TOE-actual usage for a random selection of each main type:









At a wider level you can get a bit of a handle but then this mixes in what the handful of Pzr SUs are also deploying:





so, to use a good Scots word, its a guddle. But somewhere near 10% of my medium tanks are still the pre-war Czech stuff. There is also that specialist French battalion with 135 Char-B and S-35s supposedly taking on T34s and KV1s. At least that is due to be pulled out in early 1943 so they never have to test themselves against the IS-2 et al.

T78 – 13 December 1942

One of those turns that demanded a lot of thinking before any moving. In effect the 'should I stay or should I go' question that so frames the rest of the war came up for the first time.

On the one hand, I've just had 2 motorised and 2 Pzr divisions as reinforcements (but it will take say 3 turns for them to deploy into combat). On the other the Soviets have ripped apart my lines on the Tula-Lipetsk-Voronezh arc.

Even though I can counter-attack to some effect in the end have no choice but to abandon Tula -if I was close to other VP location then maybe worth trying to cling on, but the net effect is that will freeze the current HWM.



Its a decent score, but best to accept that the challenge now is defending it, not adding to it.

The main Soviet offensive was split into two sectors. They clearly want Tula back (and in the context of this game that makes sense – lose that and they hold the initiative in the sense they fix the HWM.

What I have come to see as their elite formations (1GA, 24A, 57A, 30A) broke through to the east of the city only to be partially checked when 3 PzrA was committed head on against their spearheads.

The counter-attacks allowed partially bypassed formations to retreat in good order and the city, that had taken so long to capture, was abandoned without a fight.



The retreat at Tula was partly dictated by the need to commit the whole of 2 Pzr (with its fresh formations drawn from 1 Pzr) to stall their drive on Voronezh (being pragmatic, there is a +6 time bonus in play here) which I need to hold to T82 (to come out even marginally ahead on the time swap).



Stripping the reserves from 1 PzrA left the entire southern flank at risk. All the reinforcements are being sent to Rostov to replace what has just been lost but for the moment the army group retreated.

4PzrA still holds Grozny but will start to pull back next week to align with the Rumanian and Italian forces covering the Caucasus and fill in the massive gap that has now opened up between the two Pzr Armies. So far there is no evidence of a build up here, or that the Soviets have anything more than cavalry formations for local mobility but the scope for near disaster is clear from the map.

Just I can't bring myself to quite accept my last chance of a gains has gone.



To maybe restate the obvious, this is all rather scary. That echeloned offensive east of Tula has disrupted almost all my defensive line – I simply can't risk a pocket – and in the short term I am relying on density of defense rather than fortifications to hold the line. I have a fall back position but ideally that is where I want to stall them in late Spring, not as the last gasp of 1942.

There is good news in all this – they are paying a huge price in men and tanks for their gains. Even the Soviets can't sustain this.



Given my broad view that losses in the 90-100k a turn more than consume their replacement capacity.



Of course, as in so much else – I could well be wrong about that.

Stalingrad would have gotten you the win. But it is incredibly hard to take against a competent Soviet player.

Any regrets not moving in that direction?

If you can, can you please post any screenshots of you using defensive GS? I get almost 0 disruptions when I used it, but I was told that it could be due to cloud coverage (air weather was rain) making my bombers miss.

I like that the logistics system allows you to leave a flank completely empty because it would be impossible to exploit that weakness for more than 1-2 turns.

I continue to enjoy your (as always) high quality AAR and youratch seems very balanced/tense, if somewhat in favour of the Axis atm.

Best regards
EvK