tyronec (Axis) vs Grognard1812. Grognard welcome.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

IMO Zhukov is historically not the best Soviet leader and over rated in the game, however much like the 'top' British general good at self promotion.

Which generals do you rate higher?
I am a vasilevksy fan but I am not really an expert on this topic.
Even higher I rate marshal tuchatchevsky, but unfortunately he was executed in the 1930s purges. I believe he could have made life very difficult for the Germans.

Very much agree if refering to Montgomery - was lucky to be in the right time and the right place. When Auchinleck was sacked his replacement was Gott, not Montgomery. But he died in a plane crash getting there, so Montgomery took his place. Otherwise we would now be talking about Gott of El Alamein being our top general.

It is a weakness of the WitE system that only the generals who lived and succeeded historically get the top scores. Surely there were top generals who would have had the top rankings if they had lived. Perhaps at least one early historical victim who survives in the game should have a random chance of getting very good ratings - the "Zhukov" we never had?

[tyronec]

Having started this am now going to admit my ignorance, I don't really know much about Soviet generals.
However Zukov had a big part in the initial deployment before Barbarossa and he also oversaw Operation Mars, so that is two huge disasters to his name.
What he did do was persuade Stalin to use some common sense and he should get some credit for that. But mitigating the effects of a difficult dictator is perhaps not what the ratings should represent.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

IMO Zhukov is historically not the best Soviet leader and over rated in the game, however much like the 'top' British general good at self promotion.

Which generals do you rate higher?
I am a vasilevksy fan but I am not really an expert on this topic.
Even higher I rate marshal tuchatchevsky, but unfortunately he was executed in the 1930s purges. I believe he could have made life very difficult for the Germans.

Very much agree if refering to Montgomery - was lucky to be in the right time and the right place. When Auchinleck was sacked his replacement was Gott, not Montgomery. But he died in a plane crash getting there, so Montgomery took his place. Otherwise we would now be talking about Gott of El Alamein being our top general.

It is a weakness of the WitE system that only the generals who lived and succeeded historically get the top scores. Surely there were top generals who would have had the top rankings if they had lived. Perhaps at least one early historical victim who survives in the game should have a random chance of getting very good ratings - the "Zhukov" we never had?

Yes, the game is molded around "actual" history from the past. I presume it was done to give a nice yard stick measuring device on if the game is historical. But as always the one outlier is/are the player(s) and that will always change the equation immeasurably with a varying degree in both directions. I personally always like a system that isn't rigid and the consequences in the game directly relates to affected stats of your units and leaders.

[tyronec]

T17
Weather all clear but mud predicted next turn.

Cherepovets. The Finns are two hexes away, will attack this turn and just possibly have a chance of taking the city during the snow.

Gorky area. STAVKA is strong to the north but still seems weak around Murom so will launch my main attack there. Moscow and Vladmir should fall.

Voronezh. Will continue the attack and perhaps I can take one or two cities during the snow.

Rostov. One of my panzer stacks has been pushed back across the Don. Has probably killed my prospects of taking Rostov before the blizzard unless I get some lucky weather. Will continue to attack but without taking unnecessary risks.

Air war. 342 for 15. None of my fighters bothered to stop supplies being flown in to Moscow despite being on the flight path.

[tyronec]

Cherepovets. The Finns get up to the city.

Gorky area. Moscow falls to the first attack. We make a breakthrough just north of Murom, over running the Soviet air force. If there hadn't been mud last turn could possible have made a loose 80 unit pocket here (could have advanced another 4 hexes where the yellow arrow is) but now with mud predicted next turn I would not be able to seal it off, so we make 3-hex wide intrusion. Would expect all the threatened units to retreat before the snow turns.

Voronezh. Make a loose pocket, many of the units facing our left hook were shell armoured brigades. Should take Lipetsk and possibly Voronezh/Tambov in the snow.

Rostov. Change of plan, in view of the victory conditions there is little to be gained in taking Rostov now that chances of a pocket are minimal, so we retreat to West of the Don and start entrenching.

Axis have 245 VPs (Sudden Death is 242 at the first week of April), so STAVKA will need to recapture a net 4 cities worth. Probably requires either an Axis collapse around Tula/Kursk/Kharkov or taking the Stalino complex; all around 12 hexes from the front line.

Mud predicted for next turn.
I won't post again until the start of the snow turns.

[Balou]

Whats the status of your railheads ? Units east/south-east of Ivanovo won't get far when mud hits.

[tyronec]

Whats the status of your railheads ? Units east/south-east of Ivanovo won't get far when mud hits.

I have a rail head just past Moscow. Attacking around Ivanovo is just to either kill a few soviet units (if they hold position) or make a buffer for Moscow (if they retreat) during the blizzard.
In the south the rail head is at Stalino.
The problem one is in the center where the rail head is some 20 hexes from Voronezh.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Whats the status of your railheads ? Units east/south-east of Ivanovo won't get far when mud hits.

I have a rail head just past Moscow. Attacking around Ivanovo is just to either kill a few soviet units (if they hold position) or make a buffer for Moscow (if they retreat) during the blizzard.
In the south the rail head is at Stalino.
The problem one is in the center where the rail head is some 20 hexes from Voronezh.

This gives a "clear" indication just how far the Germans can conduct an offensive in 41 with current rail to supply network in the game.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: tyronec
It looks to me like the supply mod in the latest patch is making a difference, am getting around 30% fuel for panzer divisions within 150 miles of the railhead. Can anyone say what it used to be with the previous patch ?

30% seems like a good number, considering how far east you're roaming

150 miles distance factor is something like 66% (15 hexes, 20 MPs, the formula being 10/15(hex)*20/20(MPs)).

Railway supply modifier is quite harsh in the current patch, it's (100-20-X)%, with X being the distance east in hexes from X=50, base level 100 comes from the logistics difficulty level and -20 is modifier before November 1941. That goes down to -10 until April 1942.

Minimum for the modifier is 10%, so in theory in front of Rostov you should be getting less than 10% (66% * 10%) of supplies needed.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Whats the status of your railheads ? Units east/south-east of Ivanovo won't get far when mud hits.

I have a rail head just past Moscow. Attacking around Ivanovo is just to either kill a few soviet units (if they hold position) or make a buffer for Moscow (if they retreat) during the blizzard.
In the south the rail head is at Stalino.
The problem one is in the center where the rail head is some 20 hexes from Voronezh.

This gives a "clear" indication just how far the Germans can conduct an offensive in 41 with current rail to supply network in the game.

Considering that Grognard has made several whopping 80 mile retreats a turn, it should be called "conducting an advance", rather than an offensive

Cautious gameplay is an efficient way to spare the Red Army, no doubt about it, but this AAR is hardly a good example of straining the German supply in 1941, I'm sure you all can agree on that?

[tyronec]

Cautious gameplay is an efficient way to spare the Red Army, no doubt about it, but this AAR is hardly a good example of straining the German supply in 1941, I'm sure you all can agree on that?

Soviet army was around 4.4m at the start of T17, so although casualties have been low there has been a drop in recruitment.
Would feel that against a robust and well structured defence there is little chance of taking Voronezh or Rostov. Leningrad is a probable, Moscow maybe a possible.

30% seems like a good number, considering how far east you're roaming

150 miles distance factor is something like 66% (15 hexes, 20 MPs, the formula being 10/15(hex)*20/20(MPs)).

Railway supply modifier is quite harsh in the current patch, it's (100-20-X)%, with X being the distance east in hexes from X=50, base level 100 comes from the logistics difficulty level and -20 is modifier before November 1941. That goes down to -10 until April 1942.

Minimum for the modifier is 10%, so in theory in front of Rostov you should be getting less than 10% (66% * 10%) of supplies needed.

That is what I was wondering about. With the minimum base rail modifier for Axis being reduced from 25% to 10% will that have a reduction down to 40% in supplies (compared to previous patch) for any advance to the far East ?
For example Stalingrad is at X=142, which is the maximum reduction down to 10%.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: tyronec


I have a rail head just past Moscow. Attacking around Ivanovo is just to either kill a few soviet units (if they hold position) or make a buffer for Moscow (if they retreat) during the blizzard.
In the south the rail head is at Stalino.
The problem one is in the center where the rail head is some 20 hexes from Voronezh.

This gives a "clear" indication just how far the Germans can conduct an offensive in 41 with current rail to supply network in the game.

Considering that Grognard has made several whopping 80 mile retreats a turn, it should be called "conducting an advance", rather than an offensive

Cautious gameplay is an efficient way to spare the Red Army, no doubt about it, but this AAR is hardly a good example of straining the German supply in 1941, I'm sure you all can agree on that?

What would be your "good example" of straining the German supply line in 41 be?

[tyronec]

What would be your "good example" of straining the German supply line in 41 be?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
At hex row 74 (Pskov) Axis will be at '100-20-24' = 56%
At hex row 95 (Vyazma) will be at '100-20-45' = 35%
At hex row 105 (Moscow) will be at '100-20-55' = 25%
At hex row 123 (Rostov) will be at '100-20-73' => 10%
So fight them East of Vyazma and the Panzers are not going to be moving too fast.
More significant for AGS given the way the map works.

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain




This gives a "clear" indication just how far the Germans can conduct an offensive in 41 with current rail to supply network in the game.

Considering that Grognard has made several whopping 80 mile retreats a turn, it should be called "conducting an advance", rather than an offensive

Cautious gameplay is an efficient way to spare the Red Army, no doubt about it, but this AAR is hardly a good example of straining the German supply in 1941, I'm sure you all can agree on that?

What would be your "good example" of straining the German supply line in 41 be?

Forcing the panzers to fight, work their way through ZOCced rivers, use some frontal screening to enable more chances to cut the supply lines now and then.

Grognards strategy is clearly to first and foremost preserve the units by retreating actively. There have been several 60+ mile retreats that might have worked even by staying closer to the enemy. I'm not saying they necessarily were bad choices. I've been caught off guard several times in my Soviet game while trying to defend some river lines or bottlenecks too aggressively.

A good defense strategy in my opinion for the Soviets is really walking on that thin line between retreating just enough, but still aggressively delaying the German advance by not giving up too much ground, and creating some serious friction for the German mechanized forces. That friction is the strain I'm looking for, and I think Grognard's strategy doesn't impose that much of it. Being close to Sudden Death conditions certainly is a proof of that. The preservation strategy might work better in the Bitter End long campaign?

[Nix77]

ORIGINAL: tyronec

What would be your "good example" of straining the German supply line in 41 be?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
At hex row 74 (Pskov) Axis will be at '100-20-24' = 56%
At hex row 95 (Vyazma) will be at '100-20-45' = 35%
At hex row 105 (Moscow) will be at '100-20-55' = 25%
At hex row 123 (Rostov) will be at '100-20-73' => 10%
So fight them East of Vyazma and the Panzers are not going to be moving too fast.
More significant for AGS given the way the map works.

That's what it theoretically should be, haven't checked the numbers in game really. But that's ony the strain created by the game engine, the friction on the German supply created by the Soviet units is completely another issue

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Nix77

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Nix77




Considering that Grognard has made several whopping 80 mile retreats a turn, it should be called "conducting an advance", rather than an offensive

Cautious gameplay is an efficient way to spare the Red Army, no doubt about it, but this AAR is hardly a good example of straining the German supply in 1941, I'm sure you all can agree on that?

What would be your "good example" of straining the German supply line in 41 be?

Forcing the panzers to fight, work their way through ZOCced rivers, use some frontal screening to enable more chances to cut the supply lines now and then.

Grognards strategy is clearly to first and foremost preserve the units by retreating actively. There have been several 60+ mile retreats that might have worked even by staying closer to the enemy. I'm not saying they necessarily were bad choices. I've been caught off guard several times in my Soviet game while trying to defend some river lines or bottlenecks too aggressively.

A good defense strategy in my opinion for the Soviets is really walking on that thin line between retreating just enough, but still aggressively delaying the German advance by not giving up too much ground, and creating some serious friction for the German mechanized forces. That friction is the strain I'm looking for, and I think Grognard's strategy doesn't impose that much of it. Being close to Sudden Death conditions certainly is a proof of that. The preservation strategy might work better in the Bitter End long campaign?

Yup, I agree with that. You have to have that balance.

[Grognard1812]

Soviet GT 17

After a one month siege, Moscow finally fell to an attack led by Gen Model. I think the best two leaders in
the game are Gen Model for the Axis and Gen Zhukov for the Soviets.

The strategy I have been following since game turn one of retreating quickly and avoiding any large pockets I feel
has been effective. The Soviet OOB presently at the start of GT 18 is about 4.5 million, which is a relatively
large Soviet army. As mentioned in some of the recent posts, the major problem I am encountering now is avoiding
the automatic victory conditions. I feel that with a successful blizzard campaign the game can still
be interesting and competitive.

The Axis do not appear to have any supply problems in the Moscow area, but do appear to be far from their
rail supply in the Voronezh and Rostov areas.

[Grognard1812]

The situation in the Voronezh area at the start of GT 17, with a large Axis breakthrough towards Tombov and
the formation of a pocket of units north of Voronezh. Of interest is that the Axis have placed a very light
screen of units to the north of Tombov, an infantry regiment every 2 hexes - its time for an aggressive high
risk move by the Soviet army.

[Grognard1812]

North of Tombov the 3rd and 52 Soviet armies supported by the 5th Cavalry Corps breakthrough the light Axis
screen and attempt to link up with the Soviet armies north of Voronezh, in an attempt to surround 2 German infantry
Corps and a panzer corps. The next four turns are most likely to be mud, but there is a 5% chance that snow
could occur which would be disastrous to the Soviet army, but also a 5% chance each turn of an early blizzard.

[Nix77]

What a delicious move to execute on the last clear turn Too bad the cavalry couldn't wrap up the pocket!

My OOB on turn 18 as the Soviet was 4.51M, and I think I've been taking quite heavy losses. There's of course the difference in HQ support changes that lowers the Soviet OOB in 1941 considerably.

I hope Grognard will be able to hold off the Sudden Death conditions so we would see an interesting blizzard season!