ZA RODINU! (Kamil vs Mike) March 1943!

[KamilS]

Michael T

Kamil, this is not pure German Production. You have not selected just German production here. The factory figures are too high for just Germany. For example IIRC German Arm factories are only 89, Not 145.

You are right. thanks. German Manpower pool is 260k.

If I knew that, I would have play a bit different. Well, to late now.



I applied patch.

[Flaviusx]

260k manpower for the Germans is still extraordinarily high.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

260k manpower for the Germans is still extraordinarily high.

Wow, yes thats really high IF you have stuff set right. I have been able to keep the manpower pool below 50k in all my games now winter/mud or summer, once I got settings right.

You should have AA/Poineer/AT/Arty,Con all set at 81%. Your going to produce them so u might as well have them on line.

I set forts at 81% also now. HQ's at 100 for a turn then drop to 81 until it gets below 90 then back to 100.

The rail units should all be disbanded, but save 1.

You can also start disbanding 1 Corp per turn. Air bases ect.

The current system really sucks as divisions that need replasements will get none even if you turned refit off to every single unit on the hole front other then 1 division it will get very little even sitting on a railhead and only unit on refit. Its really a disaster from 42 to 45 for GHC and a wet dream for SHC.

I dont expect any changes, because of the wet dream part for some.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, who are these Soviet players praising and defending the replacement system? I'm not seeing them. I have been complaining about it since the last iteration of changes to it came out and greatly dislike it. It's worse for the Axis than the Soviet, true, but it causes headaches for everybody. It isn't in place because of some kind of concerted lobbying effort by the Soviet mafia. The designers wanted to simulate replacement friction, which is a good idea in principle. But they went overboard.

Let's criticize it on objective grounds and leave the political nonsense out of it, please.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, who are these Soviet players praising and defending the replacement system? I'm not seeing them. I have been complaining about it since the last iteration of changes to it came out and greatly dislike it. It's worse for the Axis than the Soviet, true, but it causes headaches for everybody. It isn't in place because of some kind of concerted lobbying effort by the Soviet mafia. The designers wanted to simulate replacement friction, which is a good idea in principle. But they went overboard.

Let's criticize it on objective grounds and leave the political nonsense out of it, please.

I see none of the guys I am playing having any issues. Hugh has a huge army in north and has been attacking with same units every single turn and they are max toe every single turn for months now, summer or blizzard. Brian, Bobo and myself in my game as SHC. Units are at max toe 90+ turn after turn after turn after turn and they are in front. There is zero replasement issue for SHC.

German units gain 2 to 5 %, but are lossing 5-20%. So even if they are winning there toe is dropping. Also even with +40 battles attacking and losing 5 -10 to german counter attacks SHC OOB is growing turn after turn.

There is zero manpower or armament issues for SHC, I have no idea what you guys whine about as far as SHC goes. Complete BS from my exp as SHC.
Its a never ending manpower and armaments with a steadly growing OOB manpower/guns/tanks. I lost 30 armament pts to GHC and more then historical manpower centers and its a cake walk as far as arm/manpower goes. I dont get what all the whining is about. You have far more then you will lose per turn and far more men and armaments that you can possibly use up.

More Middle Earth fairy tails. When Bomazz/MT/Katza and yourself loss a game or for that matter get a game past July 42 then I might leason to some of the fairytales.

The game completely ignores the historical facts that during the 41/42 more SHC were pocketed then GHS.

It completely ignores the historical facts that the russians took more losses in 42 then 41, 43 then 41 and 44 then 41. The losses were straight up fighting.

[Mike29]

Pelton I do not agree with you. I think you once again simplify situation. This is far far not zero issues for SHC. For example, all our game is on the knife edge for both sides, especially regarding manpower and armaments. I play all 42 with zero armaments reserve+half a million in pool, and my army never exceed 6,5 mln. I recognize this as consequence of very intensive fight all over the fronts. If structure of my losses during this campaign would be other than current (some more elite units in pockets) I was not be able to offense. BTW as I see same situation in GHC - zero armaments and growing pool of people. 
 
This is not Middle earth.
 
BTW - I have a suggestion, lets reduce production of Soviet planes. Have developers taken into consideration number of training, reserve planes and planes what was engaged in Far East theatre against Japan? This is simply dont interesting, endless planes allow to bomb german airfields with losses 1 - 5 and Luftwaffe smokes in 41 with unlimited bombings and in 42 with limited (we have home rule no more than 3 bombings per hex)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Mike29

Pelton I do not agree with you. I think you once again simplify situation. This is far far not zero issues for SHC. For example, all our game is on the knife edge for both sides, especially regarding manpower and armaments. I play all 42 with zero armaments reserve+half a million in pool, and my army never exceed 6,5 mln. I recognize this as consequence of very intensive fight all over the fronts. If structure of my losses during this campaign would be other than current (some more elite units in pockets) I was not be able to offense. BTW as I see same situation in GHC - zero armaments and growing pool of people. 

This is not Middle earth.

That is the key Mike as Hoooper knows and I am sure Katza/MT/Bomazz.

SHC can attack endlessly starting in 1942 and OOB remains static, while GHC OOB/arm/ect tank very quickly.

Yes its a knifes edge, but a game that many understand can't not be lost.

Why some games seem so surreal. Complete smoke shows by late 42.

The players that understand this have no issues very quickly going on the offensive as u have in early 42.

It is Middle Earth, SHC in early 42 was almost as usless as 41 army. But in wite it is easly going over to offensive in July 42.

Your not kidding anyone with the knifes edge BS, its a cake walk once you understand how easy it is to atrite the GHC. SHC 42 units are so over arted it silly and a complete joke. As can be seen by so many guys easly going over to offensive in mid summer 42.

Unless your like Bobo playing a newbie GHC doesn't stand a chance in 42, because of Middle Earth Blizzard rules sets.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, who are these Soviet players praising and defending the replacement system? I'm not seeing them. I have been complaining about it since the last iteration of changes to it came out and greatly dislike it. It's worse for the Axis than the Soviet, true, but it causes headaches for everybody. It isn't in place because of some kind of concerted lobbying effort by the Soviet mafia. The designers wanted to simulate replacement friction, which is a good idea in principle. But they went overboard.

I see none of the guys I am playing having any issues. Hugh has a huge army in north and has been attacking with same units every single turn and they are max toe every single turn for months now, summer or blizzard. Brian, Bobo and myself in my game as SHC. Units are at max toe 90+ turn after turn after turn after turn and they are in front. There is zero replasement issue for SHC.

Vs Smokindave in 4/43 Belphegor and I as soviets have 2M men + 700K arms but can't get new arty divs sitting in Moscow with Stavka or in other major citites to fill up at more than a snail's pace so I'm not praising the system.

[Mike29]

T69. 08.10.1942. North

[Mike29]

T69. 08.10.1942. Center

[Mike29]

T69. 08.10.1942. Orel!!

[Mike29]

GHC surrendered. If someone wants to defend Germany in this game please contact Kamil for password.
 
I thank Kamil for honest and clever game and everyone who read this AAR for attention. Good luck!

[KamilS]

I surrendered and I would like to congratulate Mike [:)]

I was bested, but I think I didn't play particulary bad.


In '41 I haven't managed to get Leningrad, Moscow or destroy industry, but I have succeded in inflicting way over 3M losses.

Blizzard wasn't tagic either. Losses were light, neither of strategic locations lost.

March and May were quite good as well. Few small pockets help reduce size of Soviet Army and rebuild my morale.


Then came summer and battle of Orel.

I expected to beat Mike where he was strongest and then continue damaging his army on turn-to-turn basis.

It didn't worked out the way I expected. It was combination of Mike clever play and my not underestanding of game mechanics (Germany CV is inflated, not reflecting battle reality - both in offence and defence - despite good commanders and great amouny of pioniers my units struggle with level 1 and 2 forts and Red Army in opposition to me was often fighting with increased CV when defending).

Orel was bait I was willing to take, because I was confident of victory. It was begining of my end.

I managed to pocket around 10 divisions, then untill end of summer I destroyed 30 more, but due to intensive fighting my units were melting away. So to have any chance of draw I started to play more risky way, exposing flanks and pushing as long as I could.

Once again I overestimated potential of my forces and understimated opponent and it ended in spectacular defeat. I was confident my troops in Orel area were strong enough, and my withdrwawal from salient will be safe. [;)] My next planned steps were withdrwals in centre and south and counter-offensive near Riga - that is why I let front near Riga take such wierd shape. It was dangerous, but gave some options too.

Generaly speaking, creating salients and faking withdrwals was my was of conduting agressive defence. It didn't work, but I enjoyed it.



I could have go on defence and slowly withdraw west, but I saw no point of playing 100 turns of dull game. It was all or nothing.

It turned out to be nothing in the end.



Generaly speaking I think game beyond summer of '42 is ... loosing most of its charm. It forces German player to play boring trench warfare, punishes active defence and I find it dull and unrewarding.



Once again respect for Mike.

[Mike29]

Yes all correct. In this game Orel become Stalingrad for Kamil.

I made my bet on many counterattacks, saving elite units at all cost, intensive fight and maximum tank and infanrty corps in 42. As a result I had small but veteran army with many guards with average morale 60. I think the most important matter was Leningrrad, GHC must take it first of all - without Finnish guys Germany has another Soviet front in Blizzard. 360 armaments were effective, so I could rebuilt my army relatively fast. Kharkov and Leningrad tanks were evacuated in full amount, so I have 3500 T34-41 in factory lubrication which did not made a single shot. I lost a lot in pockets but I did not lost even one "yellow morale" unit in 41 and very few guards were pocketed in 42. War is war, we pray for their soles.

I tried to micromanage aviation, so I had a lot of IL2 guards and 2 guards airbases, but no guards interceptors (best group on La5 killed 89 planes). Final rate of losses in the air is 10 000 to 29 000. Kamil why the hell you did not switch off interdiction??

Finally, I would like to say that I saw that GHS did not prepared for defensie war neither in 41 nor in 42. This is quite historical but there is no fun to suffer 70 turns of retreats and pockets to see German surrender after first serious successfull operation.

Anyways, this is my longest PBEM game and thanks to Kamil for this.


T 68 situation. Kamil you saw all of this, why you needed that damned salient?

[KamilS]

Mike29

T 68 situation. Kamil you saw all of this, why you needed that damned salient?

What can I say? hmmm

I didn't grasp situation correctly and wanted to save infantry encircled in Orel. I made mistake and paid price.


Btw. It is not, that I abandon game because I am annoyed and can't suffer being defeated. I just see no point of dragging you through all of this dull offensive actions of '43. But, if you want to do it I am happy to continue, for the sake of respecting your time put in this game.

Up to you. I would prefer not, but I almost don't mind playing untill bitter end.

[Mike29]

No problem it is all clear now I think. GG!

[Flaviusx]

The game was up for Kamil and he did the wise thing in conceding.

Definitely pounding your head against the massive brick wall of Soviet reserves around Orel wasn't the best idea.

I remain very concerned about the replacement system. Once you are on the back foot as the German it seems almost impossible to push the stuff forward. Ironically, it is easier for them to top off formations when they are on the offensive than than on the defense, because less of their army will actually be in contact with the enemy at any given time. This isn't exactly an obvious result, it is an artifact of the replacement system.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: Kamil
Generaly speaking I think game beyond summer of '42 is ... loosing most of its charm. It forces German player to play boring trench warfare, punishes active defence and I find it dull and unrewarding.

And I thought this game is about East Front 41-45, not about Operations Barbarossa and Blue [:)] It's a pity that victory conditions in this game does not give more incentives for the Axis players to enjoy the defensive part of war.

[Flaviusx]

It's not the victory conditions that are causing the problem. It's the game mechanics. You can pick any set of victory conditions you want and we will still see problems. It is almost impossible to recreate the late war conditions in this game. A late war Red Army simply steamrolls over any historical Axis equivalent at a rate well beyond historical. Don't believe me? Try out a 44 GC and see for yourself. Or even a 43 GC. The game is severely biased towards the offense.

[morvael]

I played '44 as Axis against AI and it was good game. Of course human player would have steamrolled me. I also agree that offense is overpowered (perhaps due to supply being too generous, perhaps due to retreat losses being increased by stacking, perhaps due to quirks in the replacement system working only when you have the chance to send units for refit). However I will defend to the death my idea of victory point system that IF it would be encouraging historical play and offering immediate gratification, would make players play for the "VP result", nevermind if the Germans are attacking or the Soviets are attacking.