Grunhilde gets antsy - 1941 GC

[loki100]

Great to have you back. How do you get a formation inventory for your air units?

+1

...

Indeed


For the inventory.

1. Commander's report.

2. HQs tab.

3. Click on the number of aircrafts (AC).

thank you, Nikel has the answer. its one of those screens I find sometimes useful, especially at the sort of transition stages where a serious upgrade of equipment is coming on line - but I also use it so rarely that I usually have to hunt to track it back down

[loki100]

T86 – 7 February 1943

[last of the pre-written posts, the next one is going to be a big jump, but worth posting as it covers what now happens to AG Don (and its different to before)]

A fairly chaotic turn.

Seems the AG Don sequence is indeed different, so this turn I lost AG-B and Don became AGS. For my own sanity I juggled the army groups so they made some geographical sense – unfortunately this means that Guderian has some tanks again.

Heinrici put in charge of ADK.



On map was a mix of disasters and the first chance to disengage and reorganise. Lets start with the disaster – if the Soviets commit enough, even SS PzrGr divisions in fortifications can't hold the line.





Which gave them a clean breakthrough with 3 Tank Corps exploiting the gap. Had to pull back and weaken the sector to the north and send all new units to Smolensk – again all I can really do at the moment is impose enough friction to exhaust them.



Wider position, had to attack on the 6A sector to free up partially encircled formations but mostly was able to disengage, Seems the Soviets spent the week reorganising as well. I am probably now too strong on the southern sector with 1 Pzr now available but that covers both Kharkiv and Stalino.

Orel is now on the front line and I'll abandon it when that seems sensible.



Caucasus, still pulling steadily back – after the recent counter-attacks the Soviets are being very cautious.

VP situation, current score is 690. Locations that have swapped (or will in the next few turns):



So on that set I gained 50 time bonus points and the Soviets at the moment have (or will gain on initiative change) 26. They might gain a little bit for Krasnodar but not for Maikop but my guess is (at worst), they maybe gain another 13 (say full scores for Smolensk and Stalino and 1 for Krasnodar). Given I am already one city above the historical score, that time bonus means they either really need to make faster progress or take 2 extra cities before the HWM (in addition to their historical gains).

So for the moment, seems that Smolensk is the focus, not just as it anchors my defensive lines but it looks like they really need an early recapture.

Broader point, the small gain from this set of exchanges is welcome but not decisive. I'm of the view there is a cluster of mid-44 losses (Sevastopol, Talinin, Pskov) that are guarenteed time bonuses for the Soviets, so I need all the bonus I can claim at the moment.

Not a good loss ratio, even lost my first Tigers.



Air war cheers me up a little



Manpower pools. The relative build up of German manpower is not actually a good thing, I'm still struggling to push replacements into my main combat formations.



Have supply shortages almost everywhere (added Soviet summary for information)



And that is reinforced by a truck overview (again we've added the Soviet matching data). At one level my truck/unit ratio is good (about 93%) but then lose another 20% to the freight system. Soviets are around 98% truck/unit but then shed around 12% to the freight system.

Combine production + repair and I gained 15,000 that turn and they gained 14,700 (so again roughly equal).

I really need either the deep snow to lift (its crippling my supply and mobility) or to complete my current redeployments.



Summary OOB situation, Soviet reserve is down a lot so I suspect that completes whatever redeployment they were doing.

[loki100]

Catching Up

Since we are into November 1943, I'm not going to do turn by turn posts, so this one will serve as a broad catch up and the next one will capture the situation at the end of October 1943. Increasingly, we'll do these as shared posts – at least as far as data goes.

Ignoring game play, 2 big issues ran across these turns.

First its far too easy to generate Gds Rifle Corps off 3 brigades. In theory this is neutral, same AP cost, the unit needs a refit but its more about creating the structure. We found this by accident as at one stage some test code meant a rifle division built off 2 brigades was being generated as a very weak (non-upgradeable) specialist formation. So my opponent used the old #1 trick of 3 brigades to generate an over TOE division, instead he got a Rifle Corps. The reason it distorts the game is its relatively easier to get Brigades to Gds by attaching them and by mid-43 this gives a steady stream of Corps off 2 such formations (before it would take 4 as they needed to build the Gds Rifle division first).

We've agreed to stop building Corps out of brigades, but the net effect is he does have more Gds Rifle Corps than expected.

The second one is the change of CPP rules. Under the old 50% rule, broadly a Soviet formation could fight 3 times (assuming it wasn't pushed back) before running so low on CPP that actual losses had a real impact. Under the first set of changes it was far too easy for the Soviets to avoid any net CPP loss (ie what they lost they regained at turn end), and this just led to a broad front attritional attack as losses, per se, had no impact. Joel took note of this in the revised version, while I personally liked the 50% rule for its simplicity, the new set seem to have stabilised this game – but it has had an impact on the overall position.

Rest of the Winter

Picking up where the detailed post stops. The Soviets sustained their offensive around Smolensk but only slowly – and mostly to the north and south of the city. In the centre I managed to disengage and reset a line from Bryansk-Orel-Kursk and then between the Donets and Don to the urban bastions around Stalino. At the same time the Soviets reinforced their northern sector. The initial attacks failed badly but over time they started to seriously weaken AGN leading to a steady retreat.

The VP chart below shows what the Soviets have regained. The start of Spring saw a massive assault to try and cut off Stalino, in turn I committed 2 Panzer Armies and fought the Soviets to a standstill (old CPP rules). Then the different thresholds came in and I started to lose a lot of ground to broad front attrition attacks. As you can see between T99-T113 a lot was lost, mostly without a fight.



The new rules came in with me holding the Berezina, rapidly retreating in the Ukraine and just on the outskirts of Kiyev. Which changed things, I've effectively just won a brutal defensive battle for Kiyev (they will get no time points) and even better managed to pin two of their elite formations into the battle. Equally have managed to stabilise the situation at Minsk.



So the summary table I've used before. I lost the initiative (formally) on T100. Given the volume of off-map transfers, its a bit hard to read my on map line but broadly I'm (just) covering my losses. The on map Red Army is down a lot from its high point (some of this is disbanding battalions etc) reflecting the cost I've inflicted. A key part to my approach is knowing how hard the 1944 manpower multiplier will hit the Red Army.

We're both losing a lot of tanks, I still dominate in the air.

One number worth noting, the leap in the volume sent from my NSS. In effect by shortening distance to the front I increase the volume received – or in other words what the NSS send is a function of distance to be travelled and the rail capacity in the Reich.



Trying to understand the task for the Soviets to meet the end 1944 HWM led to the creation of another analysis. I started this just after the loss of initiative.

What I want to track is the trade off between the time points I gained and their gains now for given batches of cities. So by T120 for the cities I lost, I'd banked +64 while they only got +45. But as in the table above, we are now looking at a set of cities where I mostly failed to gain the +6.

If the Soviets match the historical gains but take no more time pts, they will have 674 VP (ie lose). They need that plus 44 more time pts (or off map). At the moment for those cities there are 82 time points in play. So they are still under a lot of pressure but odds on will match the HWM.



Which is why the CPP shift made such a difference – I think the game shifted in those 10 or so turns from being in my favour (re the Dec 1944 test) to being in theirs. If so, it probably goes to Berlin.

As a side note, I've excluded Berlin from the VP values as its meaningless. If its lost then what matters is when, in effect its notional value only interacts with the game in so far as it sets the Axis June 1941 starting VP score.

So next post catches up with the map situation as of T125.

[jubjub]

Is Helsinki included here?

[loki100]

Is Helsinki included here?

yes, I always include in the USSR line (noted on the table), due to its location in a TB its actually a guaranteed time +6 for the Soviets regardless of when it actually falls.

So, not worth committing to delay unless there is a good reason, and, even better, the Axis player gets the majority of the German units in Finland to redeploy as wanted. Its one of those late game German bonuses that gets missed in the fixation with winning by T12.

[loki100]

T125 – 7 November 1943

To place this in context, we have just had 4-5 turns of solid heavy rain, so effectively the Summer battles ended in late September. So two exhausted armies have just had the chance for a major refit.

So AGN, final Soviet offensive of the summer hit this and I fell back again to a prepared line. Finland will surrender in late December as a result (all this links to the CPP discussion in the last post). I've written off all 3 VP cities in terms of the time bonus so any commitment here is purely transactional.

AGN is directly controlling a number of Corps, that keeps my armies under CC.

The LW commitment is linked to L1 covering AGC.



AGC took a real battering in the July-August period but I've managed to rebuild it. 2 Army acts as a sort of reserve in that it rarely faces sustained combat so I can swap formations around. In effect, my opponent really concentrates his main assets and leaves a lot of the front weakly screened – to a limted extent I can turn this on him.

Generally I think he has 3 main assault fronts (which will map to that status) and then 3 more that have a lot of strong assets. With the exception then of the limited attack capacity up in the north, the others seem to be configured purely as defensive assets.

Its riskier for me to to weaken as he has full agency but every now and then I commit enough assets to a counter-attack on one of his quieter sectors – this can inflict heavy losses and sometimes force him to divert (usually he just pulls back).

The direct route to Minsk is heavily fortified but clearly can be outflanked north or south. From the September battles, I think my opponent has lost his earlier enthusiasm for taking the direct route.



AGS has just won a defensive battle at Kiyev, admittedly by using 2 complete Panzer Armies and a large portion of the LW. AGA is intermingled with the Rumanian forces – again one of those gambles, especially as I suspect the Soviets will go for Odessa as their next step.



The good thing here is I think there are 2 of their main assault formations, plus at least one of the others tied up in my defensive belt. The bad thing is they have had 4 weeks to redeploy and reorganise.

More generally, I now lack the AP to deal with e-Adolf's rather bizarre HR decisions, so I just have to put up with his army group/OKH decisions.

Rest of the world, as far as I can, I've sent spare formations off to the other TB to keep that around 100% - I really don't want to lose just due to VP lost here. There are no real shifts in the timelines. As above, Finland surrenders soon and I gain a rather nice batch of reinforcements, some can shore up places like Italy and the Balkans but they will give me a useful reserve.

Remember what I send off map I can't recover.



Manpower reserves – we are all on a shoestring now.



And the big numbers, we've both recovered a fair bit from the low point at the end of September.



Some matching Soviet data.

Their turn summary.



And more detail on their OOB. I think this is the first turn where their new titles come into use.



The concentration of their armoured assets supports my view that (pretty logically) they have 3 main assault sectors. But does suggest that 1 Baltic and 4 Ukrainian also pack some combat power.

Soviet Gds %:



And our respective air assets.

Fighters, Soviets are probably as up to date as they can be. I've a few a generation behind but they are due to withdraw soon. What really matters here is most of my fighter units have experience in the high 70s or low 80s. Till that degrades there is not much the Soviet fighters can do but die.

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.



Tactical bombers. They are still using the U2s for ground attack, I don't like the Stukas at this stage so have flipped most to the the Fw 190s. The bulk of the remaining Ju-87s are due to withdraw.



Level bombers, less to say but they are now far more useful (you can see this if you run a battle at speed 3).

[DesertedFox]

So, not worth committing to delay unless there is a good reason, and, even better, the Axis player gets the majority of the German units in Finland to redeploy as wanted. Its one of those late game German bonuses that gets missed in the fixation with winning by T12.

Absolute gold!

[Beethoven1]

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.

Interesting. However, 2 points:

1) HLYA’s fighters did in fact intercept in our game. However, they only intercepted some of the bombing raids, not all. It was the ones they didn’t intercept that did the damage. The proportion that get intercepted is likely related to settings, but also the number of raids and numbers of planes in each raid.

2) According to HLYA at least, I think he also did in fact have good supply for his airfields.

The effectiveness also possibly may be related to the types of planes bombing. Since in our game it was early war, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet bombers were level bombers, especially SB-2s. If you tried it in late game, more may have been tactical bombers.

With these things in mind, can you post more details and screenshots of your tests? How many bombers were involved with how many separate bombing missions? What altitude/settings/planes etc did the Soviets use? My bombing raids were by thousands of planes in thousands of sorties on 300+ missions. Did you match those sorts of numbers? If we had this information we might be able to draw some inferences, but without it we have no way to see if you tested anything actually comparable.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.

Interesting. However, 2 points:

1) HLYA’s fighters did in fact intercept in our game. However, they only intercepted some of the bombing raids, not all. It was the ones they didn’t intercept that did the damage. The proportion that get intercepted is likely related to settings, but also the number of raids and numbers of planes in each raid.

2) According to HLYA at least, I think he also did in fact have good supply for his airfields.

The effectiveness also possibly may be related to the types of planes bombing. Since in our game it was early war, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet bombers were level bombers, especially SB-2s. If you tried it in late game, more may have been tactical bombers.

With these things in mind, can you post more details and screenshots of your tests? How many bombers were involved with how many separate bombing missions? What altitude/settings/planes etc did the Soviets use? My bombing raids were by thousands of planes in thousands of sorties on 300+ missions. Did you match those sorts of numbers? If we had this information we might be able to draw some inferences, but without it we have no way to see if you tested anything actually comparable.

I have reported loki's post as passive aggressiveness towards me. It is sad that someone of loki's stature stoops to this kind of post.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.

Interesting. However, 2 points:

1) HLYA’s fighters did in fact intercept in our game. However, they only intercepted some of the bombing raids, not all. It was the ones they didn’t intercept that did the damage. The proportion that get intercepted is likely related to settings, but also the number of raids and numbers of planes in each raid.

2) According to HLYA at least, I think he also did in fact have good supply for his airfields.

The effectiveness also possibly may be related to the types of planes bombing. Since in our game it was early war, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet bombers were level bombers, especially SB-2s. If you tried it in late game, more may have been tactical bombers.

With these things in mind, can you post more details and screenshots of your tests? How many bombers were involved with how many separate bombing missions? What altitude/settings/planes etc did the Soviets use? My bombing raids were by thousands of planes in thousands of sorties on 300+ missions. Did you match those sorts of numbers? If we had this information we might be able to draw some inferences, but without it we have no way to see if you tested anything actually comparable.

I have reported loki's post as passive aggressiveness towards me. It is sad that someone of loki's stature stoops to this kind of post.

In the tech forum you can see my base is "well" supplied. So a conversation should have been started instead of demonstrably false accusations to Beethoven and myself. Here is the link to my base supply. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p5030659 Sad just sad. Leaving this AAR unless I am being attacked again.

[tm1]

Has Leningrad been retaken I didn't see a screenshot of the city falling to the Red Army.

Also what are the chances of a Manstein " Back hand Blow " to restore the initiative or is it past that point now in this game ?

[loki100]

So, not worth committing to delay unless there is a good reason, and, even better, the Axis player gets the majority of the German units in Finland to redeploy as wanted. Its one of those late game German bonuses that gets missed in the fixation with winning by T12.

Absolute gold!

There are basically 4 late game gains. For the loss of Tunisia you get some rather nice tactical bombers and can deploy the rebuilding Italian units to the Balkans or Italy - they don't last long but even a few turns at or over the TB requirements can save or even gain a vp.

Finland I think is badly unbalanced. Given it will surrender - and at 36 VP as the time bonus can't be eliminated - its not worth any effort to retain. But you get all (certainly most) of the German units there for a free redeployment, whereas historically the formations in the Arctic couldn't escape except via a retreat to Norway. Some need to be allocated to Norway but even so you get some nice mountain divisions just at the stage when the Carpathians come into the game.

Falaise, the lost German units return, in my AI game at full strength and again are free to redeploy. Some need to be in the West TB but it still works in your favour.

Loss of Paris is sort of balanced and historical. You get a manpower boost in exchange for a drop in NM. As ever, with some care, you can delay the impact of the drop in NM and of course the manpower boost helps with the robustness of your divisions (so less likely to rout etc)

[loki100]

Has Leningrad been retaken I didn't see a screenshot of the city falling to the Red Army.

Also what are the chances of a Manstein " Back hand Blow " to restore the initiative or is it past that point now in this game ?

Leningrad went about T113 when the worst of the CPP effect was in play. I probably could have constructed a stay behind defense but it really didn't seem worth it (links to the Finland point in the response above).

I'm looking for a chance for the sort of counter-stroke that really chews up one of the Soviet offensive formations - if my Kiyev defences hold and he pushes south - I just might be able to bring both 1 and 4 Panzer into action together. They all have 45+ MP and in light snow that is a lot of flexibility. Its worth making that sort of trade as this is the last stage where I have technological superiority but the chances are probably fleeting.

Its where the wider perception of where we stand wrt to the 1944 HWM test matter. One of us might gain from taking a big risk (or lose badly as a result), but if neither of us see the need (ie accept the HWM test will be met) then its probably better (from my perspective) to stick to an 'army in being' approach as we slip into the end game. I think he's now fairly confident he'll reach it, which means he doesn't really need to offer up that sort of opportunity - but we'll see

[loki100]

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.

Interesting. However, 2 points:

1) HLYA’s fighters did in fact intercept in our game. However, they only intercepted some of the bombing raids, not all. It was the ones they didn’t intercept that did the damage. The proportion that get intercepted is likely related to settings, but also the number of raids and numbers of planes in each raid.

2) According to HLYA at least, I think he also did in fact have good supply for his airfields.

The effectiveness also possibly may be related to the types of planes bombing. Since in our game it was early war, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet bombers were level bombers, especially SB-2s. If you tried it in late game, more may have been tactical bombers.

With these things in mind, can you post more details and screenshots of your tests? How many bombers were involved with how many separate bombing missions? What altitude/settings/planes etc did the Soviets use? My bombing raids were by thousands of planes in thousands of sorties on 300+ missions. Did you match those sorts of numbers? If we had this information we might be able to draw some inferences, but without it we have no way to see if you tested anything actually comparable.

Yes according to his screenshot he had minimal supply at the base, but not in the wider region. You can empty a base's own supply in a single flight, so the test is can you refuel for the next time - clearly not.

no, we did a test and agreed not to use the results either way. So my opponent committed pretty much the entire VVS to GA-airbase raids, I slaughtered them with minimal hits, if anything it was more one sided than the GS battles. We never intended to go forward on the basis of that turn. If it was OP, then we wouldn't use it, if it was, as it seemed, an incorrect assertion, well that was interesting too.

The test was in no way comparable, mid-43, the LW in a network of well stocked depots etc.

[loki100]

...
In the tech forum you can see my base is "well" supplied. So a conversation should have been started instead of demonstrably false accusations to Beethoven and myself. Here is the link to my base supply. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p5030659 Sad just sad. Leaving this AAR unless I am being attacked again.

ok, clearly you have no intention to stop the shouty posts. If you would, I'd appreciate you removing the two posts above, they add nothing to the AAR, are meaningless to anyone interested in this game.

returning here was something I did with some serious doubts. It really isn't worth it for my mental health to put up with this sort of thing but it makes my interactions with Joel over game development and documentation so much easier than us having to use emails.

If giving up (yet again) is the only solution, I will - I do hope not to be pushed to that outcome.

[loki100]

T126 – 14 November 1943

Heavy rain still north of Kiyev but cold skies and light snow in the Ukraine.

Worth restating the main effects of the 1943-44 'mild' winter. There will be few, if any, blizzard turns except possibly on the northern end of the front. To my advantage that means that major rivers won't freeze fully – but given where the front line now is, there are no major rivers except the Bug and Dnestr in the south that will really impact operations. The large disadvantage is I will have few weather imposed breaks so the pressure is going to be relentless.

What I am not sure of is the consequence of already being forced back into the western USSR. This may mean some rain turns, especially come late winter/early spring.

Anyway, the not unexpected Soviet winter offensive opened.

Limited attacks on the 4 Army sector north of Kiyev. Not sure of the goal here, the unfrozen Dnepr will make supply very expensive and there are few E-W rails. But on the other hand it does outflank my Kiyev lines. As in the above posts, I'm pretty sure that one of their major formations is still locked into this sector and this may be an attempt to regain operational freedom.



Far more serious attack to the south, the open terrain and the prize of Odessa made this predictable. For the moment not committing the Panzers to a counter-blow apart from to clear a retreat route. 17 and 8 Armies pull back a little to defend the line of the Bug.

My gamble here is connected to the Kiyev position. In effect with that firmly shielded I have 2 Panzer armies that are free to concentrate – if so, have the chance to overwhelm even one of their main assault formations.

More likely, my suspicion is if this assault is heading south, the Soviets will then switch to screening Kiyev (the bonus VP are gone) and bring another assault army south of the Dnipro – which might explain their limited attacks around Cherkassy (not shown). If so that will give them Kiyev from the south, as well as creating pressure into the NW Ukraine.



Soviet losses were high in breaking my fortified lines (especially as the total is distorted by about 20,000 disabled being recovered).



No change to the pattern of the airwar. They seem to run GS till their losses reach a threshold then stop, which I think is keeping their pilot losses around the trained production. But does give me a lot of free hits on their attacking formations as I run GS all the time.



Freight situation, only real gap between need and supply is on the northern edge of AGN. As ever, once you can meet needs, the actual turn demand drops and its easier to sustain. Soviet chart for comparison.

I have most formations on priority 3, as far as I know similar for the Soviets (the obsession with the advantages of 4 being pointless given the secondary rules that need to be met before that generates any feasible advantage.



Overview of the scripted reinforcements for the next phase. Playing WiTW, hate losing that Panzer division but it should help to shore up the Ukraine (or defend Minsk).



Of course, the reverse flow will undermine my position in early 1944. This turn I've sent that SS Pzr division to the reserve to try and gain its medium tank allocation, I don't need it immediately, but I will need it – at full strength – soon.

[Erik Rutins]

...
In the tech forum you can see my base is "well" supplied. So a conversation should have been started instead of demonstrably false accusations to Beethoven and myself. Here is the link to my base supply. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p5030659 Sad just sad. Leaving this AAR unless I am being attacked again.

ok, clearly you have no intention to stop the shouty posts. If you would, I'd appreciate you removing the two posts above, they add nothing to the AAR, are meaningless to anyone interested in this game.

returning here was something I did with some serious doubts. It really isn't worth it for my mental health to put up with this sort of thing but it makes my interactions with Joel over game development and documentation so much easier than us having to use emails.

If giving up (yet again) is the only solution, I will - I do hope not to be pushed to that outcome.

Nothing I saw above was technically against the forum rules, but given the history of bickering I understand how the original post was taken. It's true that there have been many cases where individual mistakes are presented as major game flaws. There have also been many cases where issues from AARs have been crucial in revealing and allowing us to fix major game flaws. It's a very complex game with a lot of moving parts and missing something is definitely possible for anyone, including the development team.

I'd love to see more grace extended here by all involved instead of picking up where things left off. Realize that if you're going to call out an issue report from someone you have a past forum history with, unless you do it as diplomatically as possible it will likely generate a negative response, so do it as diplomatically as possible. Just point out that your results differed and explain what you think accounts for the difference. That would increase the odds that there would be no drama, just a constructive discussion. Similarly, try not to assume that a comment that might be an attack is actually an attack if a valid point is made. I could see that original comment as a more neutral expression of generalized frustration as well, though again I can understand how it came across differently.

Regards,

- Erik

[Beethoven1]

Yes according to his screenshot he had minimal supply at the base, but not in the wider region. You can empty a base's own supply in a single flight, so the test is can you refuel for the next time - clearly not.

no, we did a test and agreed not to use the results either way. So my opponent committed pretty much the entire VVS to GA-airbase raids, I slaughtered them with minimal hits, if anything it was more one sided than the GS battles. We never intended to go forward on the basis of that turn. If it was OP, then we wouldn't use it, if it was, as it seemed, an incorrect assertion, well that was interesting too.

The test was in no way comparable, mid-43, the LW in a network of well stocked depots etc.

Thanks for the info.

However,

Yes according to his screenshot he had minimal supply at the base

This seems inaccurate. I'll repost the screenshots here:





You can see that the airbase is basically 100% (in some cases > 100%) on supply, fuel, ammo, support, and air support. That is not "minimal" supply. That is full supply.

no, we did a test and agreed not to use the results either way. So my opponent committed pretty much the entire VVS to GA-airbase raids, I slaughtered them with minimal hits, if anything it was more one sided than the GS battles. We never intended to go forward on the basis of that turn. If it was OP, then we wouldn't use it, if it was, as it seemed, an incorrect assertion, well that was interesting too.

This is nice additional info, but it doesn't tell us how exactly the Soviet player set up the air directives, how many sorties/missions were actually flown, etc. That is the sort of information that we would need to conduct an actual verifiable, reproducible test from which we could draw firm conclusions. This is the way that proper testing should in general be done. If it is a PBEM game, perhaps you can post a save from before the test, and if we had the Soviet player's permission + password, we could then run tests from it and publicly post the results in a verifiable and reproducible manner.

However, let's nevertheless assume that everything you posted above is 100% accurate, and that the Soviet player was using settings/organization of his air groups/etc in the best way possible. Would this solve the problem of airbase bombing in 1941?

By your own account, it would not. You say that:

Yes according to his screenshot he had minimal supply at the base, but not in the wider region. You can empty a base's own supply in a single flight, so the test is can you refuel for the next time - clearly not.

If you are correct that this is the cause of the problem, then it is a problem which Germany will always have in 1941 (or, at any rate, on turn 5 of a GC!), because Germany will always lack supply "in the wider region" because the lack of supply is caused by the freight penalty and the fact that it takes time to conduct rail repair. If anything, HLYA's supply "in the wider region" would have been better than usual, because he is advancing very slowly and carefully, and also I think concentrating his rail repair in the area with the airbases. A typical Germany player would not even have fully supplied airbases like he had.

So if Germany merely lacking supply "in the wider region," despite the actual airbases being 100% supplied at the end of the Axis players turn, means that Soviets can conduct airbase bombing as successful as when I did it, then that means that Soviets can always utterly destroy the Luftwaffe with airbase bombing in a GC in early 1941.

Clearly, that is not a sustainable or reasonable situation, so either it requires some changes to the game to make it no longer work like that, or alternatively it requires some sort of house rule against airbase bombing, at least until the game reaches a situation like the "mid-43, the LW in a network of well stocked depots etc" situation you describe.



Finally, I normally try to stay clear of this sort of thing and stick to purely game/mechanics issues, but:

As an aside, we tested HLYA/Beethoven's claim that air base bombing is OP. Its not, if the German fighters are on well supplied airbases they will intercept (and mine are basically assigned to GS and auto-intercept) and wipe out any Soviet attempt. As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws.

If you read that objectively, I think any honest reader would have to conclude that (in particular the last sentence) is in fact pretty passive-aggressive. You could have just posted the first two sentences and left out the "As depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws" part, and that would have been more or less fine - it sticks to the game issues, and you would then be reporting your test results, and then we could have gone about discussing the test results in a rational and objective manner. But you felt a need to for some reason gratuitously throw on the "as depressingly often, individual mistakes get presented as major game flaws" bit as a unnecessary side shot, unrelated to the actual merits of the tests and game mechanics etc.

And moreover, that last sentence is not merely passive aggressive, it is also objectively incorrect. By your own account, you say that what is needed for Germany to be able to intercept is that Germany has to have supply "in the wider region" and to have "the LW in a network of well stocked depots etc." But you also know full well that it is impossible for Germany to have that on turn 4-5 or so of a GC in July/August 1941. It simply cannot be done, because Germany does not have enough time to repair enough rails, does not have enough time (and perhaps AP) for construction support units to build lots of depots, and the artificial freight penalty that lasts until 1942 does not allow for delivery of sufficient freight in the first place.

And so, with the respect of the German supply in the wider area, there was no "individual mistake" at all here.

Rather, that is what the situation will always be for any Germany player at that stage of the game. So unless your position is that it is perfectly fine for the LW to get destroyed in early 1941, then it appears that Houston, we have a problem.


Anyway, I hope you don't take that too negatively. My inclination would not normally be to even mention it, which is why I let it slide right by and focused purely on the game mechanics/tests/etc in my original response. So I hope you instead take it as an opportunity to think carefully about what you say, and hopefully we can move forward in the spirit that Erik suggests of constructive discussion focused on the game and the game mechanics. We all make mistakes from time to time (me too), but the important thing is how we respond to them and overcome them.

I am glad that you are posting your AAR again - I think it is very good for the community and our understanding of the game, and you deserve all the credit for going to the effort of making a big AAR and playing games out beyond merely 1941, and for pointing out issues that arise in the later game. But for the benefit of everyone, let's all please try to stick to discussing the game and game mechanics in a constructive and non-personal way.

And perhaps most of all, I also hope you will take up my invitation to, if possible, post a save so from which we can conduct some reproducible and actionable tests, and then draw clear conclusions and perhaps figure out how to solve the underlying issues.

[loki100]

I'm not going to wade through your latest essay, its utterly irrelevant to this AAR, off putting to anyone who might be interested in this game. I fully realise that dissenting from the stated opinions of your group really isn't acceptable but there we are. I think that pushing the LW en masse up the front by T5 is, at most generous, a gamble. That it backfired is in the nature of the gamble not the game engine.

So delete the irrelevant posts, get HLYA to do the same, I'll remove the responses and this thread becomes a vehicle for this AAR. Leave them in and I'll regard it as a deliberate go at sabotaging this thread as a viable AAR.

That I am back to sleepless nights after 2 days back on this forum and dreading the red notifications is all too telling. I probably came back too soon, I wanted to offer this as a second (and unique) take on a GC that gets into the final stages of 1943 - and maybe this time to the end of 1944. It also makes it much easier for me to do some other things around game development. Neither are worth a moment of personal stress.

[Beethoven1]

Before saying anything else, I would note that nothing in your response even attempts to discuss the issue of game mechanics

I'm not going to wade through your latest essay

If that is really your attitude to a good faith effort to have a substantive discussion about your test and your comments on game mechanics, I must say I am disappointed by it.

I fully realise that dissenting from the stated opinions of your group really isn't acceptable but there we are.

With respect, this is a figment of your imagination.

I think that pushing the LW en masse up the front by T5 is, at most generous, a gamble. That it backfired is in the nature of the gamble not the game engine.

HLYA did not move the Luftwaffe up en masse. He merely moved his fighters up - and not especially far, just to Vitebsk, Orsha, Odessa etc. He has not been using bombers other than a tiny amount and has barely even used recon. In short, if how much he has used the luftwaffe is too much, then Germany cannot use the Luftwaffe at all in the early turns (which would be pretty darn ahistorical AFAIK.

So delete the irrelevant posts

I would remind you that it was you, not me or anyone else, who chose to bring up the subject in this thread of airbase bombing in this thread, and it was you who chose to discuss it (again, in this thread) with explicit reference to my game with HLYA. If you didn’t want to discuss that in this thread, or if you didn’t think it was relevant to your game or your AAR, then why on earth did you yourself begin discussing it, right here on this very thread, before me or anyone else did? It is not as though you were discussing it elsewhere (but not here) and I followed you into this thread and thereby disrupted your AAR by bringing it up.

Surely you cannot honestly be surprised to receive a response about something when you yourself are the one who begins the discussion about it.

get HLYA to do the same

What on earth are you talking about? I am me. I am not HLYA or anyone else. I do not control what HLYA or anyone else does or says. If you want HLYA to do something, ask him, not me.

Leave them in and I'll regard it as a deliberate go at sabotaging this thread as a viable AAR.

Don’t be absurd. Responding, in a substantive manner, to a question of game mechanics that you yourself chose to bring up has nothing to do with “sabotage.”

That I am back to sleepless nights after 2 days back on this forum and dreading the red notifications is all too telling.

You are a grown man, not a helpless child. You are smart enough and capable enough to have earned a phd and to have written a thousand page manual. As such, you are also capable of having reasoned discussion in a substantive manner without turning into a puddle of goo melting on the sidewalk in the midday sun.

If you do want to discuss your interception/airbase bombing tests but don’t want to discuss it further on this particular thread, that is reasonable. But if so, the appropriate and mature way to deal with it would be to say something like “why don’t we continue this discussion on another thread in the main forum.” And then we could do that, and perhaps resolve the substantive questions about airbase bombing that you raised in this thread, e.g. under what circumstances it gets reliably intercepted.