George vs. Seille - A Russia 1941 AAR over 60 turns

[seille]

ORIGINAL: george1972

I wanted to take these last two attacks on my troops to utter some criticism on AT's combat engine. Don't get me wrong: I really like the game and it incorporates a lot of features not seen in other games and does these very well, but I personally found this the most obvious example of a deficiency in the combat resolution system.

My forward units were attacked from 3 sides by an enemy inferior in numbers, troop experience, staff experience and mobility. The formulas clearly show what went wrong: the attacker got a 75% combat bonus due to concentric attacks and my forces got penalized for over-stacking. The result was a disastrous defeat.

But this result clearly goes against my "gut feeling". My troops outnumbered the attackers 3:1 in tanks and 2:1 in infantry. I had 1 motorized and 2 horse-drawn units, the attackers one mechanized and 2 on foot. Looking at historical evidence, my units should have been able to score a decisive defense success by employing a proper mobile defense in both cases shown in the screenshot. The defending force was sufficiently strong and mobile to do that. However, the combat routines don't seem to take those factors into account.

Overall I think the concentric bonuses are too high. They assume the attackers always manage to fully exploit their position. This however is not a done deal, history is rife with accounts of where coordinated attacks failed to materialize as planned due to poor communications, bad staff work or defensive enemy action (most notably, defensive artillery fire breaking up massed infantry attacks). I think staff experience/influence as well as relative mobility should be taken into account when determining the concentric combat modifier, and perhaps a big part of it should be randomized to reflect one sides good or bad luck in coordinating the attack and/or defense.

The stacking limit is another point that seems to be too arbitrary. It is true that when attacked from a single direction, the defender should not be able to bring his full force to bear on the enemy due to spatial constraints. However, when attacked from multiple directions, an over-stacked hex should be able to deal with those more easily. Since the hex contains more troops, it should be more capable of fighting on multiple fronts (hex-sides) simultaneously, negating the attackers concentric bonus to some degree.

Please note that I'm only talking about the simulation capabilities of AT. Seille beat my forces using the rules of the games and I was stupid to not pay more attention to them, so I'm the only one to blame for that. My little talk is more geared toward improving an already great wargame engine further.

I can understand this too good, George. XboronX did the same to me and my beloved Leningrad defense in a game long time ago.
I overstacked the hex and thought: he can never drive back all the infantry and tanks/guns. But he did !
I thought this must eb a bug [:D] , but it´s a feature.
Vic simply wanted to keep the game fluid, no hexes which are not to take for the attacker for a long time due to a iron defense
(in other words putting the hex full of troops). So the overstacking rule is VERY ok with me. If the value is that good (100) is an other question.
It is adjustable in the editor...and if you fear a attack you can optimize the stack by removing ineffective troops which just eat up the
stack points and don´t defend well. So i would keep some mortars/machineguns and remove some infantry (just as a example)
As i said it´s all editable, the stack limit and if i remember right also any penalties.

Concentric bonus is high yes, but i don´t think too high. Maybe a increase in stack limit to 125 or 150 would solve the problem.

Overall i agree the success of this attack was "too much" looking at with neutral eyes.

[seille]

I had and have MANY problems during this game.
Had to defend on many fronts against Germans which took VERY small losses
most of the time. My 1942 winter offensive was a failure. No kills, just some terrain won.
 
Then came the german artillery (II) and the whole time George talked about russian air superiority
he had himself [;)].
The disastrous artillery that pounds my lines turn for turn resulted in hundreds
of dead infantry (direct or in following mop up attacks).
 
I had never the production to replace my losses AND build a defense which can stop the germans.
This worked only partially. And the biggest problem is i found no way to really hit the Luftwaffe
and artillery in the south.
 
Just finished a other game as russian player where my opponent played very similar to George
for a long time, but then i played more agressive and nearly always counter attacked
(he evaded my bonus turns well). Even i lost often 500 infantry i was able to do enough damage
over a longer period to force my opponent to surrender.
He survived VERY high losses for a couple of turns and still did a huge amount of damage to me.
I talk about losses like
10 trucks
5 light tanks
18 mortars
180 rifle
10 artillery (including flak).
plus some other stuff.
 
Just to show what real losses are for the germans which hurt
and eat up their ability to attack.
But it needed many turns like this until he surrendered.
Hard piece of work.
 
Ok, enough smalltalk.
My turn will follow in some hours.

[seille]

Russian turn 35.

As usual production first.
I focus on my new air base(s) in the south near Stalingrad.
Want to fill it with planes fast as possible.
New built planes and as soon as i can experienced
from the north and the center. Right now i still need
air power in the north to support my attack to
Riga/Helsinki.
Knowing the air threat is limited in the north i could have sent the
new planes to the north and all my experienced to the south....

[seille]

The north.
I want Helsinki. My artillery allowed me to go one hex closer to the city.
But my artillery is without aircover.
My planes protected assets of less value more south....
I did not know George had so many planes in Helsinki ready to jump at me....
Thought they would be more between Riga and Königsberg.

[seille]

The south.
The pic says more than 1000 words

@Archduke
No, i was NOT able to get any benefit from my attacks last turn.
The fun was over there. George shifted his troops well
while my own has been totally tired after all the hard fights.
The Baku defenders are real heroes !

[TheArchduke]

So the attack on Helsinki failed but Baku was kept by the SU? I seem to make bad predictions.

Seille and George anyway you could provide me with the two sprites you use in your screenies? (Seille´s airattack and george´s explosion)

Would make my own AAR easier to make and better. Thanks.

[seille]

Lol, of course i´ll not tell you what will happen.
No way.
 
I´ll send you my air attack graphic.
It´s a modified graphic out of the game.
Changed the size and added the yellow ring.
 
George is the better artist of course [:)]

[george1972]

I've compiled another force overview for turn 35. The following conclusions can be derived from it (some good, some not so good):

• My Fighter strength now surpasses the Red Air Force's by 35%.
• Russian Infantry strength has grown with only 1%. Mine has fallen by 8%.
• The Russians are still busy upgrading all their Rifle/SMG II, 75% of their ground troops have already been upgraded.
• Russian tank strength is rising quickly, they outnumber me 3 : 2 now.
• Russian artillery is catching up as well, but not as fast as the tanks.
• The Russians found the PP to upgrade to Light Tank II, putting my meager tank forces in peril. I need to find some PP's to negate this advantage.

I had expected Seille to have a much bigger advantage by now, especially since his army had grown much faster during the previous overview. I attribute that to the fact that I kept the initiative in battle and Seille's defensive tactics meant a high number of losses in infantry. Nevertheless, it will not be long before the relatively small advantage will translate itself into too many losses for me to keep up.

[george1972]

German Turn 36, May 23, 1943

I'm low on PP's, that means diverting a rather large portion of production to those, something which the situation on the ground actually doesn't allow, since I need nearly all my production to keep my forces intact. Growth is already out of the question.

Seille's attacks were few but effective and Helsinki looks like a lost cause. I will start shipping out the artillery pieces with my merchant navy soon.

[george1972]

The overview in the North shows the seriousness of the situation. The strong Russian artillery makes any attempt at throwing back the enemy in Finland a futility. I send my Luftwaffe units into the attack, taking out 6 of the 16 artillery pieces. One hex beyond are another 5. If I could manage to execute two more of these sorties, I could perhaps turn the tables, but the Red Air Force is just one transfer away...

AG North tries to look determined before Riga, but they lack ground strength and engineers to dig trenches. The Russians have much more troops, tanks and air planes. If Riga falls, AG Center will have to withdraw, possibly giving up Minsk as well.

[george1972]

An "wide-screen" overview of the situation for AG Center, Kursk and the Crimea. Not much to report here, except for one peculiarity:

After Seille's air attacks on my SS units I though I would strengthen them with some Rifle III. To my astonishment, the infantry gets its own slot in the unit, instead of merging with the existing infantry. Upon closer inspection, my SS units are composed of RUSSIAN people and these don't mix with Germans. A small mistake on the scenario designer's part.

[george1972]

In the South it's time to get creative. AG South has withdrawn behind the Volga and the Don. The Stalingrad Front still needs to make a crossing before they can deploy for a proper attack on my forces, so this turn I need to do something about the Baku Front. And there seems to be just the opening I was looking for:

2 hexes behind the front-line is the Baku HQ, situated on a road. The two units in front of it have been weakened by my previous turn's attacks. The HQ itself is not very strong, so I'm thinking it should be possible to take it out. If I succeed, I cut the Baku Front in two, deprive them of their HQ, which should have some serious repercussions on their readiness. Then next turn, I can deal with the survivors and take them out of the battle for a few turns so I can focus myself on the Stalingrad Front crossing the Volga. A sound strategy, if I say so myself.

Around Baku, I continue my flanking maneuver and create a bridgehead across the river. As usual, I reinforce the bridgehead with strong units, together over 300 strength points worth, to discourage counter-attacks. Average Russian unit strength is 30-50 and there seem to be just about 3 units in range. A job well done, or so I thought...

[seille]

turn 36 russia.

First i want to thank George for the troop overview.
Good to compare the troops strength and how it changed over the
last turns ( a missed feature in AT among all the graphs !!! )
-> total troop strength chart

I had a mixed turn. During Georges very high losses for me.
In my own turn i was able to launch some hard counterattacks
that hit three german units hard and eliminated another. Step back for Germany,
but german units in exposed position which allow me high concentric bonus
i´ll ALWAYS attack.
More than 200 german infantry died plus a lot of other equipment.
It will help us to get back Stalingrad, but i think it won´t save Baku.

[seille]

The north.
Mainly i bombed Helsinki by artillery to destroy it´s port and airfield.
After the terrible german air attacks last turn it was no full success.

Here i made a mistake myself: Instead of moving my 60 fighter unit up north
i kept it near Riga and flew attacks there. Probably i feared counterattacks against my
Riga group, but i´ve set wrong priorities here looking at the threat for my Helsinki artillery.

I´m sure George will use my mistake event he artillery has some flak protection.

[seille]

The south.
Very hard counterattacks after George leaved some units in very exposed positions.
Near Baku i softened up by artillery and air attack and i had full HQ support
+ 3 side concentric bonus (in case somebody will complain....). Target hex was overstacked
again.

For the attacks near Stalingrad i had no HQ support, but my units had supply reserves to generate
the readiness for the attacks and they had very good positions.
For both attacks i was sure i would be successful. George underestimated my ability to fight back [;)]
And he had to pay for [:)]

[george1972]

A short message from me on this particular battle, I hope to be able to post my next turn tomorrow, but I'm a bit short on (spare) time this week.

Now in AT, your units get penalized for switching HQ's: 50% of their readiness is lost. I find it strange that units becoming orphaned by enemy action that takes out an HQ do not suffer any penalty whatsoever. Only their supply is cut, but they retain their full readiness and are "ready for action" on the enemy's turn. In my opinion units that lose their HQ through enemy action should suffer some kind of penalty, be it in readiness, morale or perhaps both.

My attacks were actually inspired by Herman's first "AT Academy" document which was released at the time. There I saw how devastating first-turn attacks on HQ's were in this scenario. I didn't realize then that it only works if the enemy units already are at zero readiness (oops).

[TheArchduke]

This really cleared something up. They suffer a penalty though, but small enough for supplies to compensate for it.

But attacking without a HQ should have severe penalties. Seille should have been forced to reassign them to a HQ, thereby taking a hit.

I did this often enough in the GPW as to get a better concentration bonus.

[seille]

The concentric bonus i get because i attack from different directions. Has nothing to do with
HQ´s. All i lost was the modifier from staff (support).
And reasigning the unit to a new HQ makes this unit losing all AP for this round as far as i know,
so attacks would have been impossible. That´s why i attacked and THEN reassigned.
 
If the disadvantage after losing the HQ is too small or not is not my problem.
I simply used the current game rules (like George with his artillery hit & run).
Btw, losing a HQ can be a very bad thing:
1. in case production was routed to (complete loss then)
2. no other HQ is near
3. the enemy is attacking and player is under high pressure already.
 
In my case i had none of these problems. My forces had a very good strength and awesome position
and especially this good position was ignored by George.
He simply did not expect i would be able to do something with my troops. One turn later without HQ
and it would have been the case (no supply).

[TheArchduke]

Hmm, I am quite sure you can reassign then attack. I do it all the time. You only loose some readiness not APs. And as the concentric bonus becomes very high and is halved! if you use two HQs to attack, it is worth it.

[seille]

You´re right. You can change the HQ without bad consequences
if the unit is not already attached to one.
In my case i had enough attack power plus the concentric bonus.
 
Do not forget:
This is a AAR we write out of memory. These turns were played
6 month´s ago. It´s not a discussion about game rules.
If anybody don´t like special rules he may open a extra thread.
I´ll not longer comment any game rules stuff here. It´s simply
not the right place for. Let´s agree the game setup is fair since
both players use the same rule set. That´s it.