GC 76mm (Sov) vs Ketza (Ketza Welcome)

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
If they're low on morale, pulling them out, I think at leats 10 hexes away from enemy units, with a good leader, is key for them getting back morale. Morale is key for gaining experience upto nationale level.

When units are attacking I tend to rotate them in and out, but when they are just sitting in fortfications I guess I have been too lazy to do. Maybe I should go look at a quiet sector (NW or Kalinin Fronts) and compare the morale of the first line and second line rifle divs, would be mildly interesting to see.

[76mm]

Turn 74 over, snow turn, finally got to attack!

I had my powerful fronts positioned on the front line during the mud, so they were ready to go when the snow finally hit; here are the attacks I launched, with the results shown top to bottom, below. All of my corps attacks were successful, but I got a little frisky and my attack with the SW Front was stuffed:








A couple of notes:
1) somehow my ground support was turned off for the first few battles, didn't realize what was going on. They won anyway.

2) I'm sure the 1:1 haters will go on and on about these results, but the fact is that I massively outnumbered him in men, arty, aircraft and if I couldn't push him out of these positions there would not have been too much point in continuing the game. As it is, my losses were very high. Seems about right to me...

A few more things: I bought some arty divisions but did not have time to deploy them this turn. Is it best to attach them to armies, to a front, or leave them with stavka? Also, at least so far they seem kind of puny, at 250 tubes--is that as big as they get?

I looked at the morale of several of my units which have been sitting on the frontline for months vs the morale of those one hex back. the bottom line is that the morale of the units on the front line was generally as high, if not higher, than the morale of the units lounging in the rear.

Not sure if I have ever shown a picture of the entire front, so here it is:
NORTH:

CENTER:

SOUTH:

CRIMEA:


A few words on the Crimea: I totally expected to open the turn and find that he had conducted airborne attack on the eastern end of the Crimea, which I think would have cut off the corps at the neck. That didn't happen, so this turn I moved a rifle division back to that hex, and moved the airbases around a bit. He has moved about 15 airbases out of crimea this past turn, but still has very powerful ground forces there. I have to say that I'm a bit mystified by what he's up to...

Once again, he flew no recon north of Kursk, so I've got a small surprise planned for him next turn (yes, I am fixated on the north!). I have been relentlessly, and successfully bombing all of his recon assets everywhere but the south, where I get punished pretty badly when I try to do so. I might just have to give him air superiority in the south, or at least parity. everywhere else I think I'm in good shape air-wise.

One more air question: I looked at some air units this turn, and some were set to manual upgrade. I did not change them to manual and would rather have them upgrade automatically to save AP. But I couldn't see how to do this from the air unit detail screen, any tips?

[M60A3TTS]

If you're talking the air groups tab on the cdr's report, click the AC change mode under functions.  Set the value to 1 for automatic upgrades.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

If you're talking the air groups tab on the cdr's report, click the AC change mode under functions.  Set the value to 1 for automatic upgrades.

Got it, thanks, I was trying to do it from the air regiment detail screen, didn't work. Turns out that for some reason, about half of my air regiments were set to manual upgrade, and I wasn't manually upgrading. Oops!

[76mm]

Also, take a look at the aircraft losses in those battles. I hate to go on and on about this; while my losses were not massive, he did not suffer a single loss despite being outnumbered about 50:1 in these battles. This is why I've started bombinb his air bases, it is the only way--I repeat the only way--to inflict any aircraft losses on him. It's just not right.

And before you start with the biplanes again [:D], these fronts generally have the best planes. In any event, even biplanes should be able to knock down an enemy plane every now and then when they outnumber their opponent by 50:1.

[timmyab]

Those combat results are interesting.I think they illustrate how wacky the WITE combat system is.In all the successful attacks the forts are reduced from 4 to 0 presumably because of the sappers.Do engineers really reduce a defenders combat strength by 80%?I don't think so.If forts were really this easy to dismantle they wouldn't be worth building.
I think the whole fort thing needs totally revising.Make forts more difficult to build beyond level two, but also make them more difficult to reduce with no more than one level per week and not at all below level one.At the moment the success or failure of an attack seems to rely mainly on engineering values.

[76mm]

I can't speak to how the combat system works, because I have absolutely no idea, but I will say that Ketza seems to slice through fortified positions very easily. IIRC Ketza often had six engineering points in his attacks earlier this year, and I think once he had as many as 9!

This is my first experience with attacking fortifications using engineers, so don't really know what conclusions to draw.

[Klydon]

Interesting results.

Here is what I would comment on the 1:1 thing and its honesty meter on time. Did you take advantage of the 1:1 to rule in cutting down the size of some attacks so you could make more attacks in the same area? This is one of the hidden consequences of the 1:1 rule. It allows the Russians to make more attacks over a given space than they could have otherwise. You went 6 for 6 on attacks over a 12 hex stretch of the line. Another observation is he had reserves show up at two of those battles and they would have held except for the 1:1, yet most players view the "reserve" as a broken thing that doesn't really help much. This is one of the reasons why.

Either way, interesting to see what will happen. I am sure Ketza is going to be dismayed at the relative ease of how many level 4 forts he lost over such a small section of the front.

[timmyab]

I'm playing him too as you know.What he's taught me so far is that you absolutely can not rely on forts.Nearly all of them get demolished first time which means that you have to base your defence on terrain only.I'd much rather have a level 1 fort that I can rely on than a level 4 fort that I can't.As a commander you have to have at least a rough idea of how strong a vital position is otherwise the whole thing becomes meaningless.One minute it's a massively strong level 4 fortress and then a few engineers come along, wave their magic wand and the next thing you know it's leveled to nothing.That's just mental, and actually makes having fortifications a liability in some situations.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: timmyab
I'm playing him too as you know.What he's taught me so far is that you absolutely can not rely on forts.Nearly all of them get demolished first time which means that you have to base your defence on terrain only....As a commander you have to have at least a rough idea of how strong a vital position is otherwise the whole thing becomes meaningless.One minute it's a massively strong level 4 fortress and then a few engineers come along, wave their magic wand and the next thing you know it's leveled to nothing.That's just mental, and actually makes having fortifications a liability in some situations.

This is EXACTLY how I felt earlier in 1942 when he launched his attacks which cut through my fortified carpet with great ease. While I didn't expect these positions to hold up to determined attack, I thought they should at least slow him down, but they did not seem to do so.

I was extremely frustrated, so much so that I considered giving up the game.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Here is what I would comment on the 1:1 thing and its honesty meter on time. Did you take advantage of the 1:1 to rule in cutting down the size of some attacks so you could make more attacks in the same area? This is one of the hidden consequences of the 1:1 rule. It allows the Russians to make more attacks over a given space than they could have otherwise. You went 6 for 6 on attacks over a 12 hex stretch of the line.

hmmm, I looked at the screenshot above and can't remember exactly, but generally I had two or three stacks of rifle corps participate in every attack; I don't have a hard and fast rule but generall try to get at least 1.5:1 in "back of the envelope" pre-combat odds. IIRC in the failed (non-corps) attack, I had a bit more than 1:1, but when I launched the attack it was much worse. FoW I guess.

As for the 6 for 6 comment: yeah, I went 6 for 6, but mainly because I have spent enormous time, effort, and AP to build up and deploy these two Fronts to play this assualt role. (lots of artillery, aircraft, SU, etc.). I certainly expected them to win, and the fact that the wins were all within 12 hexes is because I decided to concentrate these two fronts in these locations. Frankly, I don't see anything strange or broken about this result. Other than in these two Fronts, I have hardly any rifle corps anywhere else in the Red Army (a couple in Crimea and a couple up north).

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Another observation is he had reserves show up at two of those battles and they would have held except for the 1:1, yet most players view the "reserve" as a broken thing that doesn't really help much. This is one of the reasons why.

Yeah, I was worried when the reserves were committed, but as point out it didn't seem to help. But not sure if it should have helped, dunno.

[veji1]

As a spectator I hadn't realised this.. it makes you think that Forts really should be changed... Forts 4 or 5 should be really hard to get in any place, and represent massive fortifications built around strategic towns or chokepoints, with Bunkers, Forts, cross supporting artillery positions, minefields, antitank ditches, etc... These should, if properly manned, take a while to reduce or cause massive casualties... On the other hand, field fortifications, even built over an extended period of time like when frontlines don't move much, are just this, equivalent to WWI trenches where you have trenches, barbed wire, dug in positions and a few chosen concrete positions, but not many...

Basically there should be a big cut-off point between forts 3 and 4, 3 being the maximum one can get to on open terrain even with time and engineers, without committing all the extra ressources of fortification... and then level 4 and 5 would be real strong hard fortifications... Actually when you think about it, it would be good to Have two different tiers : field fortifications and Forts...

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Also, take a look at the aircraft losses in those battles. I hate to go on and on about this; while my losses were not massive, he did not suffer a single loss despite being outnumbered about 50:1 in these battles. This is why I've started bombinb his air bases, it is the only way--I repeat the only way--to inflict any aircraft losses on him. It's just not right.

And before you start with the biplanes again [:D], these fronts generally have the best planes. In any event, even biplanes should be able to knock down an enemy plane every now and then when they outnumber their opponent by 50:1.

Tempting! [:D]
Can't resist [;)]
Actually, imagine you're driving a bicycle, in fact you and 50 friends are driving bicycles. I'm driving a ducati 1100cc. Do you think you're going to catch me even once?
It gets even more complex. In air combat, you can't think only horizontal, but also vertical. Thing is (although perhaps not modelled?) everything the german has outperformes anything the Soviets have above 4000m in a big way (including Yak, Mig's and Lagg's, etc...) . So if I'm in a 109G2 or F4, I'm at 4000m and your 50 Biplanes are at 2000m, I'm untouchable, there could just as well be 1000 it doesn't matter, you can't get ot me unless I'm an idiot and the german pilots weren't. All that German pilot needs to do is keep an energy advantage (kinetic or potential) and boom& zoom (come in high 6 oclock, take a shot and go back up and repeat) those 50 biplanes till he's out of ammo. Trust me, numbers don't count, unless the german pilot would be stupid enough to start turning and even then, with the vastly superior performance, he could most likely still get out.

With Yaks etc... the margin is smaller obviously, but the same principle applies. Air combat is complex and experience is the most important.
Until Citadelle and the introduction of the LA5-FN, the Soviets were outclassed and especially their pilot quality was not up to the German standard. For example, during citadelle, the Germans managed a 6:1 exchange rate on fighters while having a 1:3 disadvatage in numbers combined with serious aviation fuel problems. If anything, having 90 experience aircrews for the Russian in 1941-42-43 is totally unrealistic! IL-2 pilots for instance wnet into front line duty after 10hours of training! Only 7% of the IL-2 pilots at Kursk had previous combat experience!

In a large part this is also caused by tactics and orders. For example the Soviet pilots for the most part didn't have 2-way radio's even in 43, and were ordered to fly close escort with the bombers matching their slow speed and stay within a few hundred meters and not higher than 2000m. They were sitting ducks...

[76mm]

While we're on the topic of fortifications, a few more words about my defense in the Crimea: I've got a stack of three rifle corps in a level 4 fort. I am reasonably confident of holding this position, but nothing to do with the forts, which I assume will do little good--he can only attack my stack from two hexes, and even if he succeeds in that attack, my defenders will retreat another hex to another level 4 fort, which he can only attack from one hex. If he can break through all of that, I think this game is a bit off.

I'm still a bit concerned about an airborne attack in the area, but have never seen one used so don't know how much of a threat it really is (I assume that any units he dropped would be isolated rather fragile, or even how many airborne units he has, if any.

[Flaviusx]

You are overcommitted in the Crimea, imo. I wouldn't have a single rifle corps down there being wasted on mere defense -- those 3 guys could be elsewhere pounding on the Germans.

There's no need to put so much stuff down there west of the Kerch straights. I'd thin it out and fortify the eastern side of the straights if the Germans want to push you back across them. The Crimea is a sideshow.

You'll get it back when you push the Germans past the Dnepr. The fate of the Crimea is decided in the Ukraine.

The artillery divisions will get bigger. As for attachments, that depends on what you want to do. What's your plan? Concentrate them on your main strategic direction. Don't be afraid of using 3 or more of them on a single attack if need be. Quick and dirty rule of thumb: use one arty division per enemy unit in a hex. More if urban. (I've had attacks with as many as a half dozen artillery divisions on urban terrain.) If you've got guns to spare, throw them in even regardless of said rule. Nothing exceeds like excess.

I'd be inclined to attach them on the Front level by and large, to give them some flexibility but not take too much of a hit on CC. That being said, very occasionally you will want to make a super strong rifle army with lavish artillery attachments and use this as a shock formation. In the 1943 scenario, 11. Guards is my favorite for this and by far the strongest such army. Commanded by Bagramyan, filled up to the command limits, and 3 arty divisions attached. It could punch through anything. But you cannot make many such formations.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Actually, imagine you're driving a bicycle, in fact you and 50 friends are driving bicycles. I'm driving a ducati 1100cc. Do you think you're going to catch me even once?

hmmm, you obviously know more about air combat than I do, but I think the better analogy would be if me and fifty friends are on bicycles with machine guns, and you're on a Ducati with a machine gun--do I think as you zoomed by me or one of my 49 friends, might, once in a while, be able to pump some rounds into you? I would think yes.

Again, I don't know much about air tactics but would expect that in the course of any dogfights, some of the German planes might occasionally find themselves in a disadvantageous position in relation to one of the biplanes, and might, maybe, sometimes, get shot down.

If you insist that they could simply sit and blow the biplanes away without risk by staying at higher altitude, I'll take your word for it, although it seems a little odd...

[glvaca]

Well, probably yes, the chances of probability are in your favor.
Problem is, the more inferior the plane is the less chance this will happen.
You're analogy is better [:D]
But to refine, the machine guns are mounted to the front not the back [:)]
Secondly, if I'm coming from behind it takes a lot of guts (or maybe foolishness) not to try and evade, once you do that and I'm passing at 200km/h difference the window of opportunity will be very small...

Also, armed with only machine guns, even if you do get a hit or 2, it's unlikely you're going to do much damage. The 109's and especially the 190's are vwell armoured. With 20mm cannons that's a different matter.

It's not sitting at a higher altitude, it's converting that altitude into an advantage (speed and position, ie your six) that makes the difference. In ground combat there's always something that can hit you. In air combat, if you're high enough (or have a good energy advantage) there's really not much the other side can do if the high guy doesn't make a mistake and has a simular or better performing plane...

Just get ride of them or I'll keep pestering you [:'(][:D][;)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Just get ride of them or I'll keep pestering you

Aaaiiieee! OK, they are gone. Or at least I won't mention them in this AAR anymore![;)]

[cpt flam]

one more world about fort
were defender hold the level didnotchange
but if you retreat automatically it will go to 0 as there is a conversion of the owner of the hex [:-]

[M60A3TTS]

In terms of the air losses, perhaps few if any of your fighters spent time engaging enemy planes, but flew protective escort and hugged the bombers.  Bottom line is you had major air superiority and that may be reflected in the modified combat results. 
 
In one battle with 400+ bombers your combat value went from 374 to 775.  In another with 300+ you went from 591 to 847.  Conversely, his modified values were siginificantly down.  So if you wanted airpower to be impactful here, it looks as though it was.