Taming the Tiger or Slaying the Bear......loki100 (Axis) vs Speedy (SU)

[Speedysteve]

Yup...the Axis UFO's and Alien Tech is certainly significant [;)]

It certainly feels like a slug fest right now...I imagine 2 Heavyweight Boxers throwing hook after hook at each other. This is how this phase feels right now. Am I the best player ever = no of course not, nowhere near. I know what I'm doing though and I think Loki has handled the last year of defence fantastically.

Tank pools are 'Ok' but nowhere near ideal. IF this carried on for months more then it would be a problem but.....

[Stamb]

Wow. That 303 t34-76 or t34-85 per turn is impressive!

Overall it is around 500 tanks/turn.

[Speedysteve]

Here's the result of the recent slugfest....both AFV levels decreasing...I can take this more from 1944 onwards though vs the Axis (IMO).

The reason why I say 'but' above is right now (AFV wise) I'm in the worse phase before the end of the war...Axis AFV's are markedly superior to mine...come 1944 I get IS-2's which are excellent and T34-85's which are either superior or level the playing field....NM's shift more in my favour.....and the Western Allies attacks on land and in the air will gradually erode the Axis tank pools and production.

I think Loki is doing the best and right thing right now...massing forces on the crucial sectors....keeping his Armour off the frontline.....counter-attacking to stop my momentum etc...

[loki100]

T119 – 26 September 1943

The promised rain arrived, next turn is down for much the same – so no real constraint but a hint of nice things to come.

oh well, bye bye Italy, it was nice knowing you – but that is a nice boost to my on-map numbers (bit misleading as it includes a lot of construction battalions).



In terms of bonus VP (my current fixation), Smolensk is down to a max +2 (so that is going to exchange with no bonus for either of us) and Zaporozhye +5 (so hold to T121 and I come out ahead, more than that and I gain a small but real advantage).

So that is Italy gone, good thing is the relative garrison demands dip too. But it seems I've managed to send enough additional bits and pieces to stay just on the line – good as ideally I don't want to see any VP escape. Balkans are at 98% so I'll see if there is something I can spare – or just hope.




Carried on with my limited strategic airwar, each remains a 1 day a week raid but swapped over to Stalino (and returned to Tula).

Not sure why I'm sometimes taking out manpower too, but its a nice bonus.




Must admit, I'm glad that a weather enforced break is on the way. More and more units need to be pulled off the line for a refit and in the south Soviet pressure starts to tell.

So that led to more thinking than doing this turn, want to optimise the delay, minimise my losses and make sure I don't shed my relatively good position due to over-optimism. In the end decided to hang onto the current line west of Bryansk, no reason to risk anything here but I may as well delay any Soviet move towards the Dnepr as long as I can – it also means my good line on the Desna can hold for a while.

There was one serious Soviet breakthrough that seemed worth dragging my exhausted Pzrs from their beds. Usual tactic, first cut off the spearhead and then rout it. Should be the last I see of them till late October.




Despite that, give up a fair bit of ground around Sumy. That line is going to break so I am trying to channel the Soviets into a supply problem as their reward. I want to hold Poltava till I'm ready to give up the Dnepr bend.



Here, I decided to gamble on holding with 8A for one more turn (links to the VP discussion above), this close to a real reward I don't want to risk it by allowing open movement – but equally I really can't risk losing 8A if I get outflanked. My hope is my recent attacks down here has left the Soviets very short of mobile units.

There are weak spots all over the place but I can still (just about) force back any attempts at infiltration.

Fairly clearly the phase that opened when I lost Stalino is going to end soon.



Another reasonably solid bite out of the Soviet manpower.

VVS mostly had the week off so no point showing the air loss table.



Not really been paying much attention to the destroyed units chart but seems I've been culling Soviet SU on a regular basis. Doesn't make that much difference in they must be awash in Admin Pts but the replacements will appear with low experience which will delay their return to action.

I'm disbanding and repurposing my FZ formations on a regular basis. Once the front reaches them, I tend to disband unless they are hosting an assault army and are still < 2.



No surprises here



My main storage depots, have just adjusted a few to shake out the freight. Find these irregular reviews of this screen quite helpful. Broadly the system functions as I want but no point wasting resources – and if the depot is reliant on few decent railyards there is a risk of too much being abandoned to the Soviets.

[Stamb]

You have a pretty big surplus of received freight, and still 200! divisions low on supply. What is going on there? So much freight is converted to ammo/fuel?

[AlbertN]

What's Italy situation for what concerns units; pools and the like, post surrender?

Do Italian unit trucks got destroyed or returned to pool?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

You have a pretty big surplus of received freight, and still 200! divisions low on supply. What is going on there? So much freight is converted to ammo/fuel?

that is a bit misleading, its all on-map units. Now most of my FZ formations miss their supply rolls (since they are using OKH and its out of range), as long as enough supply is nearby to create the fortifications I don't care about the state of the FZ as such. Same goes for construction SU. So most of the low supply numbers are non-combat, there are a few, such as 16A in the Valdai where individual divisions are short and I have a few armies on pri 2, so they tend to gain what they need (chart in the logistics report) but not enough to go over 75%.

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

What's Italy situation for what concerns units; pools and the like, post surrender?

Do Italian unit trucks got destroyed or returned to pool?

As in TB in the post, I'm at 100% - remember we are playing with locked TB but I've sent a few bits and pieces there to get ready for this.

at worst, Italy will now fall on schedule but at least I can't lose VP there.

you don't lose trucks that way, every turn enough are allocated to meet what is needed (subject to global shortages). By early 1944 I will start to gain RSI formations

[Stamb]

One more question:

I'm disbanding and repurposing my FZ formations on a regular basis. Once the front reaches them, I tend to disband unless they are hosting an assault army and are still < 2.

If unit is in the same hex as FZ - it contributes its construction value to a fortification building even if it is in an assault army?

[AlbertN]

I meant the trucks in Italian Units - not in the TB.

In general I am unaware of what happens precisely to Italian units once Italy as nation surrenders.
What happens to their equipment, etc!

[RedJohn]

How do you have so many on-map units? Is that just naturally what happens without enhanced TB on? Compared to turn 109 of the 43 game I'm in, I have 313 on-map units vs your 427 (albeit 10 turns later) on-map units.

A mix of a lot of fortified zones/axis allies?

[Lovenought]

I'm excited that we have multiple AARs that are making it into 1944. It'll be really interesting to see how the dynamics of the late-war are different in these "Alternate Histories" where both sides are competent, just like how Operation Barbarossa is always a lot different with pragmatic Soviet tactics.

It'll be very interesting seeing an intact, co-ordinated German defence all the way through the frontier and Poland/The Balkans.

What is your gut feeling about this at the moment? Do you feel like it will turn into a slow-motion rout like IRL? Or do you feel like you'll be falling back in good order line by line all the way to Seelow?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

One more question:

I'm disbanding and repurposing my FZ formations on a regular basis. Once the front reaches them, I tend to disband unless they are hosting an assault army and are still < 2.

If unit is in the same hex as FZ - it contributes its construction value to a fortification building even if it is in an assault army?

yes, its why as the Soviets you can have say Western Front as an assault command and mix them with units of say Moscow District to increase fortification levels, what happens is the 'assault' unit doesn't dig over 1 but the other unit(s) can. If you get the FZ to around 60% TOE it has a lot of construction value, especially if you then have a stock of construction SU in OKH

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I meant the trucks in Italian Units - not in the TB.

In general I am unaware of what happens precisely to Italian units once Italy as nation surrenders.
What happens to their equipment, etc!

well I'm playing with locked theatres, so as historically, the Italians went off map early in 1943 - of course that has helped me in Italy and is one reason for a few VP and that theatre being to time. So no idea what would happen if Italy surrendered and I still had Italian formations on map.

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

How do you have so many on-map units? Is that just naturally what happens without enhanced TB on? Compared to turn 109 of the 43 game I'm in, I have 313 on-map units vs your 427 (albeit 10 turns later) on-map units.

A mix of a lot of fortified zones/axis allies?

Not sure, certainly using the FZ stock, I have most of the LW divisions broken into regiments - some working with the FZ for digging, some guarding a FZ line just in case the Soviets break out to stop it being dismantled by hasty attacks, some preparing my positions in Rumania for the inevitable surrender (being a natural pessimist, best to get this in place early)

same with the Rumanians, quite a few broken out as regiments to give some rear area security, my idea is if the Soviets do really breach the line I want HQs, pre-dug lines etc with a minimal amount of protection.

In a test game of StB I lost a defensive line I'd spent an age preparing simply as the Soviet player cleared it with hasty attacks as it was just FZ - so have become a bit skittish about that happening again.

ORIGINAL: Lovenought

I'm excited that we have multiple AARs that are making it into 1944. It'll be really interesting to see how the dynamics of the late-war are different in these "Alternate Histories" where both sides are competent, just like how Operation Barbarossa is always a lot different with pragmatic Soviet tactics.

It'll be very interesting seeing an intact, co-ordinated German defence all the way through the frontier and Poland/The Balkans.

What is your gut feeling about this at the moment? Do you feel like it will turn into a slow-motion rout like IRL? Or do you feel like you'll be falling back in good order line by line all the way to Seelow?

The turn we've just played had the inevitable outcome to the recent battles - a major Soviet breakthrough in 3 places, at a time when my Pzrs are relatively run down by their recent attacks.

I don't think that Steven can get an auto-win, at least not till something like April 45. Again for next turn the VP situation is that he already has an auto win target > HWM.

So given the HWM requires either Rumania or every bonus pt the auto-win drifts out of reach till he can start grabbing the 30 VP cities such as Budapest, Vienna etc - now in the end game that gives the Soviets an alternative to Berlin but its not relevant here.

I think my HWM is too low to give me a 1 Jan 45 win, if I had it up around say 630 I could see a route by trying to time out every location but its 30 too low and the USSR + 80% of the time gains or the USSR+Rumania matches it.

So at the moment, my goal is to at least come out ahead on the time bonuses. This is for next turn (ie the one I've just sent back)



key is neither of us will gain a bonus on Smolensk, we'll both get +6 for Sevastopol (I can't hold it for 30 odd turns), I'll get a net +6 on Kiev (the reverse, he's not going to reach it in a few turns), the two cities in the Dnepr bend I gained a net +8, they are worth +10 to the Soviets next turn but neither will fall then, so at worst I come out even, more likely with a small bonus (esp as this now coincides with the autumn rains).

Beyond that, really hard to say. I think the scope to really hold a line for 4-6 turns is slipping away but I have the Red Army under 6m and not that well off for manpower reserves, so I think front wide pressure is beyond their capacity.

My instinct is he'll pick up speed in the Ukraine - not least the VP system pretty much forces him to this, north of the Pripyet will remain constricted. He'll meet the HWM (I can't see how to deny this given the target value), so it goes to 1945 and Berlin? But it could all flip radically as 1944 progresses and the Western Allies finally start eating into my resources.

I'm certainly not going to play passively, while it becomes harder to mass for a counter-attack they remain essential, in the end I've just taken a net 400k Soviets off the map mainly with the battles in the south over the last 5 turns.

edit - the other bit is the mild winter rules for 43-45. In addition to StB I've now played this 3 times and have some idea of the broad impact. There are very few blizzard turns (even in AGN's sector), so that means that there are few imposed operational pauses and MP costs remain relatively low. Which can see sustained combat (ground and air). The flip side is that major rivers tend to reach ice #6-7 (ie the worst MP cost) so are near impossible to clear directly. Given map geography, they can always be turned, the Dnepr bend to the south or north, Kiev to the south, Orsha/Mogilev via the land bridge, but that channels options - and not all those channels run where the rail net allows sustained combat.

[Speedysteve]

Following on from Loki's post above....here's he result of my following turn and actions....Loki is far more eloquent than me at this but as alluded to the pressure finally told in the South.

I can't categorically say what (definitely) led to this...over the past month I had decided to change several things in my approach (when and where to refit units, on what depots, what to schedule to send to the reserve, ensuring I had a merry-go-round of enough force refitting, in reserve and at the front...coupled with a new approach of applying pressure with strong forces in several local points since the Axis can't defend with Panzers in reaction everywhere.) Was it this that led to this? Was it just the gradual pressure? Was it the change in NM having an effect overtime? Maybe some or all of them! Nonetheless at last some kind of momentum....The Axis either withdraw from this or my reserve forces will ensure some enemy divisions are encircled. I hoped Loki would counter-attack and stay on scene to allow this (he didn't).

Re: Loki comment on SU's - not a problem at all. The Hvy Tk Rgt's and SU Bde's cost 0 AP. I try to build a lot of all of them to ensure a constant shift of those on refit (Reserve), in Reserve (not refit) but gaining experience and those on map (either as SU's to Tk/Mech Corps or in HQ's.

[Speedysteve]

In response to the success of this last turn I have my first 3 x Guards Tk Corps and another Guards Mech Corps! Huzzah! I take credit for this since I promised my Company Commanders a bottle of my finest Snow Queen Vodka if they succeeded to increase their National Morale by becoming Guards! Huzzah it worked!

All joking aside, and mainly in response to many whines on the main forum and also some people saying the Soviet are OP and Axis nerfed.....I really don't see this. Do I think the game could be improved = yes but I think it offer an amazing simulation of this most brutal of Wars with incredible depth and complexity. I think both sides have pros and cons vs the 'Real War'. Axis substantially gain from some major TB events (loss of Italy, Finland and France), they flu UFO's, Hitler doesn't meddle to F things up. Soviets have better organisation and supply due to Omnipotent God control (us). I can't comment as well on the Axis constraints (as Loki) can as I haven't played them past 1941 but I can comment on the Soviet side.....All this talk of being swimming in Guards....I've posted screenshots and data on this which is conveniently ignored. I'm not swimming in them as I've said repeatedly....I've just got my first Guards Tk Corps now in October 1943 (Note those Tk Cps concerned had over double the number of needed wins (15-19 range) and been there smoking cigars for months like that)! Manpower is a real problem. The Manpower production modifier dramatically drops for the Soviets in 1943 onwards....if the Axis can attrite them and be aggressive it's no joke for the Soviets. I still need to master the VVS for sure but plane pool levels are still a massive problem due to high losses. Loki can comment on the Axis woes if he desires [:)]

Just my opinion and 2p! I think it's a great game, both sides have pros and cons (in play and vs reality) but I really feel more people need to STICK WITH PLAYING RATHER THAN QUITTING EARLY and get into 1943 onwards to judge the game as a whole.

[Rosencrantus]

I agree with your comments, though my complaints of too many guards applied mostly to the StB scenario. That scenario with how the Soviets basically start with the initiative end up with the Soviets having too many guards. Tyronec showed that he had 50 Gds rifle corps by June 1943 (though that doesn't mean I will give up [:D]) when in the 1945 VtB scenario they only have 38 gds rifle corps.

Thing I agree absolutely with is the fact that players need to continue playing even when they suffer heavy defeats. The Germans suffered massive encirclements through the war and still held on to mid 1945 despite so. Quitting a game after a single setback is a waste of time for both players. This especially when I see in some games that the Axis already has achieved massive strategic benefits such as making Moscow a non-NSS and still refuse to play on the strategic defensive. The game is much more fun when you play through your mistakes and have the game flow the way the devs intended for it to be.

[loki100]

T120 – 3 October 1943

So pass another VP check point, these are pretty irrelevant at this stage, the Soviet player has a chance at them in early 1943 but now they need to be picking up locations in the Reich – as you can see the Sudden Death is well over the HWM and HWM is met by regaining the USSR plus Rumania. All of which suggests this is going into 1945 (unless everything falls apart during 1944).

Off map, Sardinia is liberated.

More worried about my losses to be honest – fortunately when I checked they were mostly Rumanian, which I can't complain about as I've been leaving them as bait.



Since we approach a bad weather period, dumped a load of low experience airgroups back into the reserve, best to get them up to NM while I can spare them.

Still no massive switch in the weather, probably at least one more week till heavier rains arrive.



Airwar, carried on with the railyard campaign, I'm not using something I really miss as the heavy bombers aren't great in a GS role. For some reason the L1 mission didn't happen – may have been that the railyard selected was already fully damaged. The other delivered, less flak as I don't think there were any ground units at Voroshilovgrad.

Might hit Moscow for a laugh next turn.



Things start to fall apart – inevitable but hopefully bad weather gives me a break. Abandon Sumy – no point taking losses for something I don't need to hold – as before making gains here can lead to problems for the Soviets in terms of rail links.



This is worse, in its implications for the Dneipr bend, so I reinforced the southern sector and trampled on an over-enthusiastic Soviet formation, gave ground north of Poltava – its still a long way to Kiev.



Had to happen, more or less a complete Rumanian army now needs to refit, decided to pull 8A out of its fortifications and back to the Dnepr. The counter-attacks will have stripped any mobility out of a cluster of Soviet tank/mech corps.



VP chart is relevant here. Smolensk will now give no time bonus (so it exchanges at base value), that is handy in case I need to re-organise AGC – this depends on what the Soviets do around Bryansk.

The 2 citiies in the Dnepr bend, I gained +8 time bonus and at the moment, they are worth +10. Neither will fall next turn, so still hopeful I can come out ahead. New focus is not so much on that sector as the subsequent implications for the central Ukraine.

Fairly sure Kiev will be a net gain for me – key is where can I stop the Soviets by next April as my attention now shifts to the T150+ cluster of VP cities.



Ground losses – and another reason to give ground, can't sustain 1-1 exchanges, even if the great majority were Rumanian. I can refit them, and its worth using them this way, but that level of damage will take a few turns to recover.

VVS refuses to come out to play.



Big numbers suggest I'm not the only one feeling the tempo.

Compared to T118, Germans are down 80,000 men (some were scripted transfers) and 300 tanks. My allies are down 50,000 men – mostly the Rumanian disaster.

But I have the Soviets under 6m with a net drop of 400k men and 1,200 tanks. Their reserve is up 160k, so a fair bit has gone to refit but generally the increased tempo has hurt them too.



One bit of good news, at the moment, they actually lack the manpower to recover, oddly I can. It'll take a few turns to refit the Rumanians but its doable – and they are, now, a finite resource as far as I'm concerned.



But even off recovering some large cities, its hard to see the Soviets going above 6,5m on the map and they won't do that till places like Minsk and Kiev are retaken, so I suspect the next phase they will be around 6m. Not that overwhelming but still rather scary. One benefit from here, they can't risk deep salients as they lack the formations to keep pressing, guard the flanks and keep me worried elsewhere.

[1] 'Should I stay or should I go'

[loki100]

T121 – 10 October 1943

So lets start with the good news

I'm winning



Losses back to what I can afford as huge numbers of new units arrive – both on map and in TB.



But no heavy rains next week – boo.



Since 3 Rumanian was pretty much destroyed last turn I quite agree, not sure why Leo got himself killed though.



Can't claim either rail raids were very effective this time, but there is fun to be had from bombing Moscow.




So my gamble is at most 2 Soviet turns before the mud sets in, most likely one. Want to refit as much as I can in the next few turns so gave ground here – apart from in the 3 PzrA sector where drove back some Soviet rifle Corps that were being too nosy.



More pressure here and I want to hold Dnepropetrovsk for a few more turns. Not just the VP issue but its a key rail junction, without it, both south and north the Soviets lack many options.



Same map with the units off makes this a bit more clear. They can't go that far E-W on the north side of the Dnepr without that railyard as the only feasible line is the single track past Poltava.



The gamble of course is that 17A gets into trouble but I've redeployed 1 and 3 PzrA to cover for this.

Ideally I want as much refit as I can from now till early November, being very aware of the problem of the mild winter.

Zaporozhye is now in the front line, while that makes it vulnerable I doubt the Soviets can take it off the march and then (hopefully) mud intervenes.

In any case, the worst I can now lose in VP terms is the +8 I gained, if I hold both cities next turn the max Soviet time bonus is +6, at that stage (at the most reductionist) I've got what I really needed from this phase.

To the south, Rumanian 4A holds a screen while 3A licks its wounds and prepares for the next phase.

Ground losses. No sign of the VVS.



So the Dnepr bend itself is secure, the south flank is weak but the supply for the Soviets there is terrible. Since I've written off the Crimea I'm not factoring that in. The threat on that sector comes from the north and while the terrain is open (and its some distance to my next fort line) there are supply problems all over the place for an E-W advance.

I can help myself in the short term by shortening my lines in the Smolensk sector. This is a matter of timing as I have a good fort belt set around the city but I need to control the hinge to the formations facing Bryansk.

The other bit is I have a Pzr Corps due to arrive by November. That gives me either a much needed means to rest the current formations or to create a critical mass somewhere.

The infantry arrivals are balanced by 3 scheduled withdrawals or disbands (incl the Blue Division).

[Jango32]

von Schweppenburg probably died from the random chance that any leader can die if they are still within a certain distance from enemy hexes. On turn 6 for example I've had a Romanian general die whose HQ was sitting in Iasi.

[Stamb]

One leader from an army itself died in something like 9 or 10 hexes from a closest enemy, not even a battle, in my case.

loki100

You told that you will provide some info about mild winter. Can you share your thoughts about it in comparison to a standard winter? Or it might benefit comrade Speedysteve?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Jango32

von Schweppenburg probably died from the random chance that any leader can die if they are still within a certain distance from enemy hexes. On turn 6 for example I've had a Romanian general die whose HQ was sitting in Iasi.

aye it was a random chance, don't think his formations were in action, just the AI found possibly the least competent replacement it could [:@]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

One leader from an army itself died in something like 9 or 10 hexes from a closest enemy, not even a battle, in my case.

loki100

You told that you will provide some info about mild winter. Can you share your thoughts about it in comparison to a standard winter? Or it might benefit comrade Speedysteve?

this is from the next post, so its a little bit out of context but it sets out how the mild winter rules actually apply in practice - some of the discusion follows on from the normal report but its not too confusing:

Mild Winter digression

Like the first winter, in the end you have to play this to grasp the impact of the description in the manual. It also helps to understand the combat effect of river crossings.

So the big change in practice is south of Pskov there will be very few blizzard turns. Now blizzard turns tend to push river freeze levels up and generate deep snow. One in the end reduces MP costs and the other increases them. Obviously blizzard turns also force a pause on the air war.

On one hand we are entering a solid period (say November-April) with few weather imposed breaks on operational tempo. We both retain a fairly high MP/cost ratio. To me, that makes it easier to concentrate Pzrs for a task, for the Soviets it allows sustained combat operations. From experience, this period will wreck the German army due to that combat intensity and lack of breaks – which is why I'm doing so much refit etc at the moment.

But its not a given as to what is the consequence of that wrecking, it could combine with the sort of territorial gains that remove all interest in the HWM test or it could leave that test as a very real end game point.

The key to this is that major rivers are not going to freeze, in fact they are going to reach the worst ice level for MP costs – see the tables in the manual for this. So any cross-river attack is going to shred Soviet MP, and make it really hard to advance afterwards (clearly map layout and ZoC lines matters here).

Its also worth remembering the main impact of a cross-river attack is a large batch of imposed disruptions before the battle starts – with this worse for mobile units and from the ice-levels.

So a river is not a hard defensive line, it can (& will) be breached but its going to be hard to cross and secure and even if the bridgehead holds, they are going to face a large supply problem.

So lets look at 2 key sectors. The Dnepr below Smolensk only has 2 hexes where the Soviets can attack from 3 hexes – and thus have a ZoC free exploitation route (marked 'x'). One hits a city the other dumps you into swamp.

So the land bridge becomes incredibly important and I can stack a corps in each hex if I really commit – the discussion of Minsk above being relevant. Also this is the last point where AGC helps AGN to hold its current lines, once I am pushed behind the land bridge I need to start pulling AGN out.

Its possible I've even pre-dug a fortification line.

The Gomel-Kiev sector isn't too relevant, not least its such poor terrain and rail links that the impact of the Dnepr is secondary – neither side can make an offensive via the Pripyet a core part of their strategy. Of course it does force me to split between Belorussia and the Ukraine.



In the Ukraine its more complex, at a purely tactical level there are more points where the Soviets can generate a ZoC free crossing and some don't have good defensive terrain.

The Dnepr bend is relatively easy to defend, the sector down to the Black Sea is hard to defend (too long) but its a supply black hole from the east and all the swamps give some protection (and increase the cost of supply lines).

The long stretch east of Kiev is indefensible as a whole but clearly the focus will fall on small sub-sections – and even when I can't defend it works in my favour – all those MP costs add up, especially where admin movement is denied.



The other important issue is my opponent only has a 3-2 manpower advantage, long flanks are as risky for him as for me.

In effect, the river rules create a series of set piece battles and constrain the Soviet options. When in reality they are at their most dangerous when they can create multiple crisis points at the same time.