The Screams of the deceased Soldiers, HLYA(G) vs Gunnulf(S)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

Central Heavy Forest

1. Made a Leadership change on this part of the Map.
2. More reinforcements have arrived for 2nd PZ
3. Rail close to front now.
4. Allocated support units for the first time to two different Corps.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

Vitebsk Area

12 more Divisions surrounded.

Rough count is 28 confirmed divisions & possible 48 divisions (if counting the 2 city forts in Leningrad area)

****Soviets never seem to run out of units****

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

North of Kiev (real time update on turn)

Nothing much really happened in the center of the map other than movement forward. North Kiev I consolidate and move to Enemy

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

Kiev South East Area

1. Forced route on AB guarding minor river East of Kiev. Then surrounded units from the top by one hex ZOC walking my unit forward.

2. Found Soviet Armor and forced two retreats. Then Surrounded another mech and armor Division.

7 more divisions and 2 Air Borne Brigades in pocket here

total= 35 Divisions, 2 Airborne confirmed surrounded (55 Division if using the Leningrad projection amount)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

South

7 more Division surrounded plus NKVD detachment and an HQ.

total = 44 divisions, 2 Airborne brigades, 1 NKVD detachment, and an HQ. (possible 64 divisions if the 2 City forts in Leningrad are packed)

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

Air Losses

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

OOB


Air force is back on the map for the Soviets. Bet it is time for me to be bombed again somewhere.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Turn 7 End of Turn

Ground Losses

And finally the ground losses for the turn for the Soviets.

232,319

I am always about surrounding the Soviet Army. I have also set up for the Grind with two Corps in the Center. Lets get the Soviet number more under control.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: sil01


As a permanent Soviet player, I am very worried about the Soviet side.
Of course, it is impossible to keep the blow on any one target chosen by the Germans (Leningrad or Moscow).
It is not in the power of the Russians at 41.
But to keep one thing is possible and we must fight for it.

The Stavka must be subjected to merciless criticism.

Having delved into the Soviet side I can say, "Not to worry" about the Soviet Side. They are fine.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: sil01


1) How was it possible to allow on the 5th move the unhindered spread of tanks along the line Staraya Russa >> Valdai >> Bologoye through forests and swamps (!) in regimental formations (!)?
This risky undertaking of HLYA was successfully realized only with the complete inaction of the Russians.

I have done it twice now in two different games using different tactics on both. Threatening certain spots on the map forces different people to react differently. You never know what your opponent will do & wont necessary do what you would do.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: sil01



3) Encirclement of Russians in Kiev.
This can be avoided altogether.
But even if even deliberately go for it, then there should be just enough troops in Kiev to lure and hold the Germans.
Only 5 divisions enough, and the rest behind the Dnieper (see p. 2).

4) Unhindered spread of Romanians in Central Ukraine?
Yes, central Ukraine cannot be held, but the Germans must be made to run.
The Russians should force 1-2 tank corps to engage in the center of Ukraine, and not rest and replenish!

3. My opponent stayed too long I concur with you. But this has also kept me busy just dealing with this for 4 turns. Yes I have a ton of dead Soviets to show but I am no deeper into Russia.

4. I don't think he would have done much even with a Tank Division against the Rumanians. But of course he could have.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: sil01


5) Encirclement of the Russians in the Vitebsk region on move 7.
We are constantly calculating undetected tanks.
If two moves are not visible, then they are refueling.
In the North and South, a large number are involved and they can be seen. So the tanks are being prepared in Belarus.
After stabilizing the front, the Russians count 1-2-3 and retreat 5 hexes.
The blow - and in the pocket of 3-4 divisions, and the fuel is burned.

I can't speak for my opponent but there are pros and cons to the forward defense. It is using up all my resources to take them out

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: sil01



This is what we see surrounded by Lepel-Borisov on turn 6.
The result of the blow of the refueled and replenished German 4 TDs was the encirclement of the 4 SDs of the Russians.
At the same time, the tanks did not move east, but south, into swamps and forests.
This could be considered an example of Russian tactics in 41, but it looks like it happened by accident (((

It is clear that even if all my wisdom is realized, the position of the Russians will not improve.
But the position of the Germans must deteriorate. And this should happen all the time!
In any case, even with such mistakes, the war has not yet been resolved.

Dont understand exactly what you mean here??? If you are talking about my Pz's going south to get 4 Soviet divisions then yes I did that on purpose. My infantry was not in position to do what I really wanted to do so my recon showed an opportunity. I took it. Plus this surround here was extremely close to my supply lines. The next turn, turn 7, my infantry was in position to support an attack into the Vitsbek area from both the south and the North. I always try to think ahead and different possibilities.

Why does my position as a German "must deteriorate" and happen all the time?

Ya, even with all the things the Soviet side has done the Soviets are "not" out of this game. If I start taking the center map area he may be out then Stay tuned to turn 11-18 for that

[TheFerret]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: sil01


1) How was it possible to allow on the 5th move the unhindered spread of tanks along the line Staraya Russa >> Valdai >> Bologoye through forests and swamps (!) in regimental formations (!)?
This risky undertaking of HLYA was successfully realized only with the complete inaction of the Russians.

I have done it twice now in two different games using different tactics on both. Threatening certain spots on the map forces different people to react differently. You never know what your opponent will do & wont necessary do what you would do.

This would get Sun Tzu's stamp of approval. From The Art of War:

"How victory may be produced out of the enemy's own tactics - that is what the multitude cannot comprehend. All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.

Military tactics are like water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.

He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning may be called a heaven-born captain."

[Gunnulf]

Despite HLYA's insistence that this AAR was open and he had nothing to hide I have avoided the temptation to see the other side of the hill until now, partly wanting to do things FoW properly and partly lack of time too as I could see the pages racking up fast from the folder view. However I have a bit of time and decided to catch, partly to find out why I am doing utterly terribly and partly to have a good old fashioned gripe. Firstly though before I start I want to be clear that HLYA has been nothing but a true gent, is clearly a master of the game and doing everything right. I thought when I picked up the game it was his first run through like me but clearly I bit off more than I bargained for. I have played WITE1/WITW a number of times so not a novice to the overall concept, and into 1942 as the Axis in WITE2 but first attempt at the soviets and I'm sure it shows.

That said I have to say I have been waiting like many for a couple of years for this new edition and I have to say its been a bit disappointing from a balance perspective so far. Clearly I am doing everything wrong and HLYA fully understands how to get the best out of his units. Its very impressive to watch. But I can't help thinking there is something at the core of this version that is not fully balanced so far. Just a look at the dates cities are falling raises some serious testing alarm bells. Fine I get it that he's thrown 3/4th of the Panzers into the northern push but cutting off Leningrad in 4 turns just doesn't add up for me. I was let to believe that logistics and terrain had been reworked massively to make the swamps and forests of the northern flank pretty tough and restrictive. But apparently not so much. Tallinn falls on turn 2 rather than turn 10. As said Leningrad completely cut off on turn 4 rather than 15th November, but also 2/3rd of the way to Moscow via the back door too.

But then elsewhere too does Odessa hold out in a massive siege until Oct? Nope just a single attack in turn 6. Kiev until 15th Sept? Nope turn 7 in a single week. This particularly got my morale as one turn the Axis are 2 hexes from the major river, but in a single turn they cover 20 miles, fight a contested crossing, build enough pontoons to push 3 or 4 panzer divisions across (who were even further back from the river) and advance another 50 miles. I gripe about this example as I think its maybe a key to whats wrong with this version, and its maybe particularly prevalent in the early game. I think it doesn't take proper account of concurrent activity and time/space congestion (which of course is always tough in games like this. But the reason panzers can push so far ahead of any historical schedule is they can all act with a full weeks movement, even if a preceding series of battles has taken a full turns actions for another unit. And multiple divisions can all squeeze through the same space at the same time to rush on into the distance.

Once things start to slow down in later turns maybe this is less noticeable but in the early game things are supercharged if the player knows how this CPP works. Even if he doesn't the axis is moving too fast I think. As mentioned above I have an axis game in progress too, I certainly didn't fully get the CPP thing to start with but even as a WITE2 novice just trying to do the right things tactically/strategically I was 2 hexes from Moscow in mid Aug, kiev start of Aug, captured Leningrad in early Sept, Odessa I had no idea how to do it and was nervous of the city fort thing so it lasted to Oct but I clearly should have just gone in hard early. So anyway, wrapping that little gripe up is it just me being an idiot or is something not right here? Because it feels like any other Barbarossa simulation where the above was breathlessly possible would be back testing. Am I missing something critical or just sounding like a bad sport? In which case I apologise. I get that its an avalanche for the Soviets, I'm not expecting an easy ride, I usually take suffering well as the Axis in WITW and Japs in WITP but this feels like either needs more work, or I am fundamentally messing up everything, except so far there really hasn't been anything I have been able to do to influence anything.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

Despite HLYA's insistence that this AAR was open and he had nothing to hide I have avoided the temptation to see the other side of the hill until now, partly wanting to do things FoW properly and partly lack of time too as I could see the pages racking up fast from the folder view. However I have a bit of time and decided to catch, partly to find out why I am doing utterly terribly and partly to have a good old fashioned gripe. Firstly though before I start I want to be clear that HLYA has been nothing but a true gent, is clearly a master of the game and doing everything right. I thought when I picked up the game it was his first run through like me but clearly I bit off more than I bargained for. I have played WITE1/WITW a number of times so not a novice to the overall concept, and into 1942 as the Axis in WITE2 but first attempt at the soviets and I'm sure it shows.

That said I have to say I have been waiting like many for a couple of years for this new edition and I have to say its been a bit disappointing from a balance perspective so far. Clearly I am doing everything wrong and HLYA fully understands how to get the best out of his units. Its very impressive to watch. But I can't help thinking there is something at the core of this version that is not fully balanced so far. Just a look at the dates cities are falling raises some serious testing alarm bells. Fine I get it that he's thrown 3/4th of the Panzers into the northern push but cutting off Leningrad in 4 turns just doesn't add up for me. I was let to believe that logistics and terrain had been reworked massively to make the swamps and forests of the northern flank pretty tough and restrictive. But apparently not so much. Tallinn falls on turn 2 rather than turn 10. As said Leningrad completely cut off on turn 4 rather than 15th November, but also 2/3rd of the way to Moscow via the back door too.

But then elsewhere too does Odessa hold out in a massive siege until Oct? Nope just a single attack in turn 6. Kiev until 15th Sept? Nope turn 7 in a single week. This particularly got my morale as one turn the Axis are 2 hexes from the major river, but in a single turn they cover 20 miles, fight a contested crossing, build enough pontoons to push 3 or 4 panzer divisions across (who were even further back from the river) and advance another 50 miles. I gripe about this example as I think its maybe a key to whats wrong with this version, and its maybe particularly prevalent in the early game. I think it doesn't take proper account of concurrent activity and time/space congestion (which of course is always tough in games like this. But the reason panzers can push so far ahead of any historical schedule is they can all act with a full weeks movement, even if a preceding series of battles has taken a full turns actions for another unit. And multiple divisions can all squeeze through the same space at the same time to rush on into the distance.

Once things start to slow down in later turns maybe this is less noticeable but in the early game things are supercharged if the player knows how this CPP works. Even if he doesn't the axis is moving too fast I think. As mentioned above I have an axis game in progress too, I certainly didn't fully get the CPP thing to start with but even as a WITE2 novice just trying to do the right things tactically/strategically I was 2 hexes from Moscow in mid Aug, kiev start of Aug, captured Leningrad in early Sept, Odessa I had no idea how to do it and was nervous of the city fort thing so it lasted to Oct but I clearly should have just gone in hard early. So anyway, wrapping that little gripe up is it just me being an idiot or is something not right here? Because it feels like any other Barbarossa simulation where the above was breathlessly possible would be back testing. Am I missing something critical or just sounding like a bad sport? In which case I apologise. I get that its an avalanche for the Soviets, I'm not expecting an easy ride, I usually take suffering well as the Axis in WITW and Japs in WITP but this feels like either needs more work, or I am fundamentally messing up everything, except so far there really hasn't been anything I have been able to do to influence anything.

In my game Germany is doing a similar northern strategy (see AAR in the other thread), with extra Panzers sent north (also using temporary motorization to get extra infantry up quickly with the Panzers). Based on that, I don't think it is really that much your fault. Yeah, no doubt could have done things better in various places, but it seems to be very hard to stop Germany early in the game if they want to go somewhere. And to a significant extent, that is a good thing tbh and how it should be for this stage of the game.

In my case, in some ways I had an easier time than you also because Germany routed out more units and encircled less (and also I could break the Bialystok pocket with my own temporary motorization of the NKVD border guards). Although those extra units that were not encircled could not fight well, they nonetheless could force a battle, had zones of control, and reduced German movement points and therefore slowed them down more.

I also benefited from reading the early part of this AAR prior to my game, so I knew to react strongly in the north. I railed literally every single reserve unit that I possibly could to the north on turn 2 (including ones in the Caucasus, though those ended up for the most part only in the Smolensk area, but still well to the north of where they started). Everything went to the north of where it started. However, seemingly one result of this was it used a LOT of rail capacity. Soviets simply can't seem to get enough troops into position around Pskov to really slow down the German advance there quickly enough without overloading the rail capacity, which then seemed to contribute significantly to pretty bad supply issues. So then the units fight badly with poor supply even if you do get them in place; to some degree damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In the south, I likewise lost Odessa in a single turn on turn 5, in my case before it was even isolated!!! And I am expecting to lose Kiev, at the minimum, on turn 7 coming up. I didn't even face as good of a German attack in the south as you, but nevertheless decided it was prudent to withdraw and not really viable to try to fight significantly in front of the Dnieper.

[tyronec]

I thought when I picked up the game it was his first run through like me but clearly I bit off more than I bargained for. I have played WITE1/WITW a number of times so not a novice to the overall concept, and into 1942 as the Axis in WITE2 but first attempt at the soviets and I'm sure it shows.

HLYA was on the testing team so has some experience of the game. He also studies it in detail so his initial skill level is well above that of most players who just jump in and start playing. No doubt he will win all the four games he has started but maybe someone can prove me wrong there !
As with WITE1 I think playing the Soviets in '41 is difficult and it will take time for all of us to learn the right balance of retreat and hard defence, I think it is too early to say if the play balance is right or not.

[tm1]

Well all i can say is your doing better than me after looking through the game situation it looks tough however you chose to play a human so you get plus 1 for that alone.

I just started my 4th game against the AI as the Axis, the first 3 I abandoned though I did better each game. no 3 being the best so far.

Still I would not dare to play against a human, it would be even more embarrassing for me.

cheers

[carlkay58]

Soviet players who base their strategies on WitE1 experience have a definite downside in WitE2. Many changes are not evident until you play a human opponent. HYLA is a good opponent. His southern opening is probably the best I have seen to date and he will usually have caused 1M Soviet losses by the end of turn 2.

The Soviets need to send reinforcements to the Leningrad front right off the start of the war. If the Axis player is going all out for Leningrad the Soviets will need a lot more help than you would think based on WitE2. The Soviets MUST view the road system in the Leningrad front in order to properly plan their defense. There are several key roads that will negate much of the terrain movement costs in the area for the Axis player and if those routes are not defended properly then the Axis will surprise them with their mobility. This is also true in the Valdai Hills and in front of Moscow.

The Axis are much more mobile in WitE2 than in WitE1 and is able to keep the supply up in certain areas. The Baltics is one of those easily supplied areas for the Axis in 41. Since they can capture rails that are ready for use up to the end of Turn 4 the Soviets have to do some sort of defense or slowing down if possible to keep the Axis from capturing almost intact rail lines.

I will however tell you that I am probably not the best advisor. HYLA won a Sudden Victory against me in playtesting.

[dudefan]

So we need hyla vs tyronec to figure out if balance is right?