Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

Please don't put them into the AAR my ocd will set off again

Changing unit colors could be more effective than blaring rock music !

Turn 20 Army Group South

Mud, snow, and more mud. Very little to report other than the Red Air Force...in all its might, was able to send 3 IL4s to do some ground bombing. The first time we have seen them make an appearance in quite a while and they were totally ineffective.

Long range recon spots a Soviet assembly area near Saratov and Stalingrad. Quite a few armor formations and we suspect they will try and use these for the upcoming winter. All quiet on the Eastern Front.

Operation Yellow Snow.

ORIGINAL: AFV

Operation Yellow Snow.

Or, 'Don't eat the yellow snow where the huskies go' (Frank Zappa). [:D]

Turn 20 5-November-1941 Air

The following AAR post is inspired by the AARs of Dinglir to whom this is dedicated

Situational assessment
There is no enemy air force

Planning
We plan nothing

Execution
Nothing happened

(well alright just a little bit of recon and some factories bombed)

Turn 20 Allocations
For information only - team allocations for turn 20.

Turn 21 12-November-1941 Team

Crackaces joined the team last turn and has now taken on the position of Centre!

Our team is now
Stelteck - North
Crackaces - Centre
thedude357 - South
lowsugar - Purveyor of the downfall of SparkleyTits
Telemecus - Supreme

My first turn moving units. I have a sector that extends from Moscow to Tula and a bit south. My orders are to simply hold Moscow. Turn 21 is mud so it is not very likely Moscow will fall this turn to the Soviet onslaught [:'(]

What I have decided to do is spend some AP's and build a fort line. I have discussed this extensively with Telemecus. The digging will be slow, and it is not for building up a fort level. It risks 2,000 men per fort that will surrender if the battle is lost. However, a fortress zone with artillery attached delivers registered fire at a great advantage. Attach that to the HQ of the units in the fort and more artillery joins the fray. Artillery that will disrupt attacking squads and devices. That is the crux of the defensive plan. Next turn is snow .. a little offense to gain time would be nice [;)]
The red line from Tula represents are "Alamo line". I have no intent to retreat this far.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
I have discussed this extensively with Telemecus. The digging will be slow, and it is not for building up a fort level. It risks 2,000 men per fort that will surrender if the battle is lost. However, a fortress zone with artillery attached delivers registered fire at a great advantage. Attach that to the HQ of the units in the fort and more artillery joins the fray. Artillery that will disrupt attacking squads and devices. That is the crux of the defensive plan. Next turn is snow .. a little offense to gain time would be nice [;)]
The red line from Tula represents are "Alamo line". I have no intent to retreat this far.

Interestingly I was thinking of the Alamo line being further back, with the most likely advance being to Orel-Kaluga and the need for forts being there.

So far I have only used forts to preserve or build fortification lines. Perhaps if you are very sure that it will not be lost it can be a top up to forces defending that hex. So it will be interesting to see if the bonuses given to artillery from forts is worth the risk of losing the men inside.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
I have discussed this extensively with Telemecus. The digging will be slow, and it is not for building up a fort level. It risks 2,000 men per fort that will surrender if the battle is lost. However, a fortress zone with artillery attached delivers registered fire at a great advantage. Attach that to the HQ of the units in the fort and more artillery joins the fray. Artillery that will disrupt attacking squads and devices. That is the crux of the defensive plan. Next turn is snow .. a little offense to gain time would be nice [;)]
The red line from Tula represents are "Alamo line". I have no intent to retreat this far.

Interestingly I was thinking of the Alamo line being further back, with the most likely advance being to Orel-Kaluga and the need for forts being there.

So far I have only used forts to preserve or build fortification lines. Perhaps if you are very sure that it will not be lost it can be a top up to forces defending that hex. So it will be interesting to see if the bonuses given to artillery from forts is worth the risk of losing the men inside.

There is naivety (me) and experience (everybody else on the team) [8D]. In my mind I am planning to hold a line from Moscow to Tula and then bend back from there. Thus the building up of fortress zones. At this point I do not think the Soviets have enough stuff to breach a big hole that has a determined defense.
The story develops from here.

It is also of note that I have the 9th Army at this point. It is simply adjusting boundaries this turn.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
In my mind I am planning to hold a line from Moscow to Tula and then bend back from there. Thus the building up of fortress zones. At this point I do not think the Soviets have enough stuff to breach a big hole that has a determined defense...

At the time Crackaces joined the Tula area was a worry - the forces we had there were very sparse indeed. And we were starting to come to the view that the area between the Oka and Tula would be the main focus for any Soviet attack. So a priority was also shoring up the defence between the Oka and Tula.

It is also of note that I have the 9th Army at this point. It is simply adjusting boundaries this turn.

Since points are no longer being spent on buildups they have gone into building forts, getting rid of command penalties, and getting better leaders. Transferring an army from AGN to AGC means eight armies can fit inside the two army groups and all see their command capacity used to the maximum without giving their army groups a command penalty. And hence it also made sense to give them good leaders. As good leaders also generally have higher political it also meant replacing their subordinates was cheaper points wise and so on down the command chain. Changing leadership in the right order considering their political scores can be a big points saver.

Optimising command structure has also meant that our North, Centre and South commanders forces no longer necessarily correspond to army group North, Centre and South.

Optimising command structure has also meant that our North, Centre and South commanders forces no longer necessarily correspond to army group North, Centre and South.

I think this was a big plus from a team standpoint. We distributed roles and made things interesting for everybody to the level of interest desired. At this point I have no clue what I am getting myself into [8D]

Amazing AAR that points to an even more exciting 1942. If only it updated a bit faster [:'(]

Don't worry bud turn handover starts speeding up dramatically pretty soon [:D]

Wait that was dumb.......

What I have decided to do is spend some AP's and build a fort line. I have discussed this extensively with Telemecus. The digging will be slow, and it is not for building up a fort level. It risks 2,000 men per fort that will surrender if the battle is lost. However, a fortress zone with artillery attached delivers registered fire at a great advantage. Attach that to the HQ of the units in the fort and more artillery joins the fray. Artillery that will disrupt attacking squads and devices. That is the crux of the defensive plan. Next turn is snow .. a little offense to gain time would be nice
The red line from Tula represents are "Alamo line". I have no intent to retreat this far.

Looks like a very bad idea to me. You can only really be sure not to lose the fort if it is in a city. If the Soviets can get to attack the forts in strength you are risking a lot for a moderate increase in combat value. If they don't attack them you have good SUs tied up doing nothing, and it will take APs to get into them action again for the Summer offensive.
The 'usual' way to use forts is for building fortifications, and disband before they get to be in the front line.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

What I have decided to do is spend some AP's and build a fort line. I have discussed this extensively with Telemecus. The digging will be slow, and it is not for building up a fort level. It risks 2,000 men per fort that will surrender if the battle is lost. However, a fortress zone with artillery attached delivers registered fire at a great advantage. Attach that to the HQ of the units in the fort and more artillery joins the fray. Artillery that will disrupt attacking squads and devices.
The red line from Tula represents are "Alamo line". I have no intent to retreat this far.

Looks like a very bad idea to me. You can only really be sure not to lose the fort if it is in a city. If the Soviets can get to attack the forts in strength you are risking a lot for a moderate increase in combat value. If they don't attack them you have good SUs tied up doing nothing, and it will take APs to get into them action again for the Summer offensive.
The 'usual' way to use forts is for building fortifications, and disband before they get to be in the front line.

To be fair to Aces this was debated a lot. And as we have challenged a few old orthodoxies this was really to see if this paradigm needs to be challenged. So perhaps also an experiment. Until now I have also always disbanded forts if there is a risk of losing them as the boost to CV is less than you could get for the equivalent manpower in another unit.

However the point being examined is not whether forts are useful at boosting CV - they rarely are. But there is the point about the bonuses given to artillery in forts which would mean a lot more disruption. Disruption of course happens before the final cv calculation and, could, be more effective than a CV boost. My honest answer is I do not know if this would make it worthwhile. But I know Crackaces has been testing these things on battle message level 7 and thinks there is a case. I am not sure if we will have enough evidence to demonstrate whether this is right or wrong in this game. But I do feel we need a better measure on whether the bonus to fort artillery given in the manual is really significant or not as opposed to the CV of the fort itself.

BTW if you disband (1 point) the fort with SUs attached, the SUs automatically get reassigned to the HQ with zero extra points spend! :[:)]

There is also a debuff to Axis disruption in first winter that should probably be taken into account so even if this did work and a system was found that helps battles that much and lowers the risk of manpower lose from messing up I imagine in blizzard it would not be the optimal time to use it

I can think of some nice uses to stop major river crossing especially in clear weather

Army Group South Turn 21

Mud, mud, and more mud. Rasputitsa has finally come and muddy boots, wheels, and tracks overtakes the entire front. Not much movement or action this turn other than trying to push the rail line as far forward as possible.