STAVKA - 8 player multiplayer Soviet thread

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

Clear weather dominates the north and south zones as the month of May arrives.

The Germans in a single battle manage to crush the defense at Sevastopol. A level 5 fort no less. A repeat performance sees mountain divisions in a rough hex and a level 4 fort beaten. More than anything, a very frustrating result to see.

This is two VERY interesting combat result here. Interesting in the fact you had to be EXTREMELY lucky to get both of these hexes in just two combats against Guards in one hex and Soviet Mountain divisions in the other. I can see M60's frustration since you pretty much have the best capable Soviet units(Guards & Mountain Divisions) pretty much swept away in excellent fortification. So, I am going to see what other miracles the southern most commander pulls off in future turns.

I would be interested to understand your threshold for “extremely lucky?” P(x) < .50 ? < .25 ? < .10 ?

From my albeit inexperienced worldview but with some knowledge of the firepower system I see big siege guns clearing out the fort levels as the first action. Note, pioneers do their thing after combat .. seige guns right after AirPower.. now with reduced fort levels in both cases you can note a huge advantage in firepower .. a lot of big artillery.. the Soviet is out gunned and I would suspect when the smoke cleared not enough undisrupted CV to hold the position. The first combat was close for sure but given a deliberate attack I might propose on the low end of the variance not the high en
If one were to propose there is a problem .. seige Artillery is quite effective at fort reduction ...

The other problem might have been a strategic decision to face up everything vs the center. What would the results here be if this was 3 rifle corps instead of 3 divisions?

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
The other problem might have been a strategic decision to face up everything vs the center. What would the results here be if this was 3 rifle corps instead of 3 divisions?

That question is rather irrelevant in this case as rifle corps are unavailable until June, but the manpower differential would be significantly narrower.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
The other problem might have been a strategic decision to face up everything vs the center. What would the results here be if this was 3 rifle corps instead of 3 divisions?

That question is rather irrelevant in this case as rifle corps are unavailable until June, but the manpower differential would be significantly narrower.

Good point .. I forgot rifle corps do not start until June. What about Artillery SU’s? (Match the number of tubes) my helds have been when I have failed to match the number of tubes and lose a close contest ). It does look like one more Guards division might have made a difference here. Although a second attack would be against no fort defenses.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
Clear weather dominates the north and south zones as the month of May arrives.

The Germans in a single battle manage to crush the defense at Sevastopol. A level 5 fort no less. A repeat performance sees mountain divisions in a rough hex and a level 4 fort beaten. More than anything, a very frustrating result to see.

This is two VERY interesting combat result here. Interesting in the fact you had to be EXTREMELY lucky to get both of these hexes in just two combats against Guards in one hex and Soviet Mountain divisions in the other. I can see M60's frustration since you pretty much have the best capable Soviet units(Guards & Mountain Divisions) pretty much swept away in excellent fortification. So, I am going to see what other miracles the southern most commander pulls off in future turns.

I went back to the file save at the start of the turn and had a go myself today. Without changing anything most of the time the attacks failed. When I reassigned two divisions so that the lead commander was Model most of the time the attacks succeeded but only just. It is not a proper test or simulation but it does indicate it is not off the wall. I assume spending time during the turn assigning SUs, ground bombing with all the stukas that had been moved to Crimea, reassigning units and so on would improve the odds.

The surprising result was the 8.8 to 1 - if that had not occurred I doubt there would have been an attempt on Sevastopol that same turn. Certainly the team plans had assumed it would take longer. I was asked by a member of the Soviet team to send the full detailed battle report. Their query was they could not understand how 23 axis support units got committed as they assumed that was beyond what was possible according to the manual. Having that much super heavy artillery and that many pioneers had an impact. They also thought putting the three mountain units under the same HQ would have prevented the CV penalties of up to 30%, and not putting them under a front HQ would have avoided any CV penalties altogether. The other comment was on the prior ground bombing - the full 14 dive bomber airgroups were used, they started with very high XP and morale and had been left waiting there for turns and so started with no fatigue. The comment made was that flak should have been directly assigned to Sevastopol to at least provide some distraction. As it turned out you had the maximum possible ground bombing and no interference with the ground support.

There was a more general debate about the chances of taking Sevastopol generally in games. Others seemed to think it was too difficult or took too long. My impression from the forums is that most others think the same way. My experience is that most of the time it does fall and fall quickly. It is easier in my mind than crossing the Neva to take Leningrad say. The difference seems to be one of commitment. If you send a corps on the hoof to attack Sevastopol it will take many turns of bashing and reducing the fort levels. Here we made a committment of 13 divisions (and one brigade) in 11th army, rested and waiting on refit over many turns, each with 3 pioneers directly assigned plus more and other SUs in the HQs and with the leaders changed to the best including Model. If you spend that quantity of points, that time getting units in place and ready in advance, and with every other support including air and artillery fully maxed out, then you should be able to get Sevastopol and fairly soon.

At least in other conversations on this result we have had in the past the issue seems to be the myth of Sevastopol invincibility, which leads to the surprise of seeing it fall at all. My experience is that Sevastopol falls and falls easily. And if others made the same commitment to get Sevastopol they would also be able to capture it. In this light it should not be seen as so extraordinary.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS
Clear weather dominates the north and south zones as the month of May arrives.

The Germans in a single battle manage to crush the defense at Sevastopol. A level 5 fort no less. A repeat performance sees mountain divisions in a rough hex and a level 4 fort beaten. More than anything, a very frustrating result to see.

This is two VERY interesting combat result here. Interesting in the fact you had to be EXTREMELY lucky to get both of these hexes in just two combats against Guards in one hex and Soviet Mountain divisions in the other. I can see M60's frustration since you pretty much have the best capable Soviet units(Guards & Mountain Divisions) pretty much swept away in excellent fortification. So, I am going to see what other miracles the southern most commander pulls off in future turns.

I went back to the file save at the start of the turn and had a go myself today. Without changing anything most of the time the attacks failed. When I reassigned two divisions so that the lead commander was Model most of the time the attacks succeeded but only just. It is not a proper test or simulation but it does indicate it is not off the wall. I assume spending time during the turn assigning SUs, ground bombing with all the stukas that had been moved to Crimea, reassigning units and so on would improve the odds.

The surprising result was the 8.8 to 1 - if that had not occurred I doubt there would have been an attempt on Sevastopol that same turn. Certainly the team plans had assumed it would take longer. I was asked by a member of the Soviet team to send the full detailed battle report. Their query was they could not understand how 23 axis support units got committed as they assumed that was beyond what was possible according to the manual. Having that much super heavy artillery and that many pioneers had an impact. They also thought putting the three mountain units under the same HQ would have prevented the CV penalties of up to 30%, and not putting them under a front HQ would have avoided any CV penalties altogether. The other comment was on the prior ground bombing - the full 14 dive bomber airgroups were used, they started with very high XP and morale and had been left waiting there for turns and so started with no fatigue. The comment made was that flak should have been directly assigned to Sevastopol to at least provide some distraction. As it turned out you had the maximum possible ground bombing and no interference with the ground support.

There was a more general debate about the chances of taking Sevastopol generally in games. Others seemed to think it was too difficult or took too long. My impression from the forums is that most others think the same way. My experience is that most of the time it does fall and fall quickly. It is easier in my mind than crossing the Neva to take Leningrad say. The difference seems to be one of commitment. If you send a corps on the hoof to attack Sevastopol it will take many turns of bashing and reducing the fort levels. Here we made a committment of 13 divisions (and one brigade) in 11th army, rested and waiting on refit over many turns, each with 3 pioneers directly assigned plus more and other SUs in the HQs and with the leaders changed to the best including Model. If you spend that quantity of points, that time getting units in place and ready in advance, and with every other support including air and artillery fully maxed out, then you should be able to get Sevastopol and fairly soon.

At least in other conversations on this result we have had in the past the issue seems to be the myth of Sevastopol invincibility, which leads to the surprise of seeing it fall at all. My experience is that Sevastopol falls and falls easily. And if others made the same commitment to get Sevastopol they would also be able to capture it. In this light it should not be seen as so extraordinary.

Lots of German rhetoric in this post Poor Germans have it so bad.....

Unfortunately on defense of this area the Soviets get hosed with HQ's either being in a defense hex or out of range. Either way it is a big plus to the German side.

If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles.

I will be looking for other interesting things in the south to come I am sure I will see some soon since the die has been cast for a southern offense with this commitment of troops.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Lots of German rhetoric in this post

I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)]

I know you have been involved in a greater debate about the balance of Axis versus Soviets in the game setup - but that is not something I am commenting on at all here.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Lots of German rhetoric in this post

I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)]

The post reads Pro-German. But maybe it is just me.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Lots of German rhetoric in this post

I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)]

I know you have been involved in a greater debate about the balance of Axis versus Soviets in the game setup - but that is not something I am commenting on at all here.

Oh! You added a second sentence I see now. No, this isn't a debate about the game balance. Everyone believes the losses are just 100% "A" ok so I have left it alone.

[SparkleyTits]

A big stack of AA in Sevastapol would of been a great help for some extra support and guns

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Lots of German rhetoric in this post

I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)]

The post reads Pro-German. But maybe it is just me...

Everyone believes the losses are just 100% "A" ok so I have left it alone

Just you! [:D] My knowledge of the loss statistics comes from what you and others have written in these forums so nothing I could add. On the battle result though more will be in the Axis AAR when we catch up.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

I am very surprised at the comment - I went out of my way to make factual statements. I cannot think of a less rhetorical post? [;)]

The post reads Pro-German. But maybe it is just me...

Everyone believes the losses are just 100% "A" ok so I have left it alone

Just you! [:D] My knowledge of the loss statistics comes from what you and others have written in these forums so nothing I could add. On the battle result though more will be in the Axis AAR when we catch up.

Then it is probably just me then.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf.
The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop.
The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here.


Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

So there is no German "Extreme Luck" in any of this since these battles are a forgone conclusion a Soviet loss pretty much every time. So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies!

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf.
The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop.
The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here.


Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle.

Excellent Post EvK. I might propose that manpower is a real problem for the Soviets on Turn 54 that began to be noted by the German team at this point. From what I can see by Recon my intuition tells me that the TO&E at 100% might be over 7M? The Soviets have around 5.6M total in units with around a high 5.4M undamaged. That tells me that maybe a lot of Soviet units are lacking manpower. By turn 54 it has become very apparent. AGS snatched a bunch of units had shown prior to this turn in question. The Soviets went up tempo a few turns and by turn 54 have not grown in active TO&E. We can post a graph.

My play has been more aggressive thinking that a critical point has been reached worth the attrition costs.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies!

Well I think the point is the Soviet side made choices. If they had put their best commander with units close to full ToE in Sevastopol, I think it would still have been taken. But it might have taken turns of sequential fort reduction before a final successful result. And it would be questionable whether the losses could have justified the victory. We had 14 units in the Crimea partly to make reserve activations more likely, but also to replace units depleted in the first attacks. And we had more on their way by rail already to add to the 14. We would not have got the 8.8 to 1 first battle result and not even risked a second attack in the same turn on Sevastopol. Instead the Soviet team invested in guards units that spent the last few turns chewing up 1st Panzer Army at the Don Bridgehead. You can see the previous posts of our Panzer and motorised divisions being routed there by Soviet cavalry corps. You can debate whether they would have been better off spending more resources in Sevastopol instead of the Don Bridgehead - but there are strong arguments that they took the right decisions. I assumed the criticism was going to be we put too much into a marginal battle in Crimea, not that we won it as a result?

Where the Soviet team invest in they get results, where they do not they do not. Strategy is about making choices - and this is a game of strategy.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
So instead we have the word of GOD (Model) and when he speaks everyone just dies!

Well I think the point is the Soviet side made choices. If they had put their best commander with units close to full ToE in Sevastopol, I think it would still have been taken. But it might have taken turns of sequential fort reduction before a final successful result. We had 14 units in the Crimea partly to make reserve activations more likely, but also to replace units depleted in the first attacks. And we had more on their way by rail already to add to the 14. We would not have got the 8.8 to 1 first battle result and not even risked a second attack in the same turn on Sevastopol. Instead the Soviet team invested in guards units that spent the last few turns chewing up 1st Panzer Army at the Don Bridgehead. You can see the previous posts of our Panzer and motorised divisions being routed there by Soviet cavalry corps. You can debate whether they would have been better off spending more resources in Sevastopol instead of the Don Bridgehead - but there are strong arguments that they took the right decisions. I assumed the criticism was going to be we put too much into a marginal battle in Crimea, not that we won it as a result?

Where the Soviet team invest in they get results, where they do not they do not. Strategy is about making choices - and this is a game of strategy.

I understand all of this. Plus I know all the lessons given by other members in this thread which I learned long ago. It is like everyone and his brother comes out of the woodwork to substantiate why this was a forgone conclusion and shouldn't question what is going on. IT WAS NOT a FORGONE conclusion. It is lucky that BOTH hexes were taken IMO and I haven't changed my opinion. YES, I know the mechanics of the game AND I know that decisions have consequences. But thank you for a refresh on the lessons. I will be keeping an eye on the Southern Commander, I hope he has more good stuff to look at since I like lucky people.

***NOTE*** I have no part in this game other than a bystander looking in.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Debate 1: Result is odd in game terms. The Axis did what they can to maximise chances as Telemecus described , their CV tripled but it is Model with 9 morale and 9 inf.
The Soviets rolled bad, but it is Chibisov with 5 morale 5 inf. OTher than stated above the distance of the army HQ has no impact on leader rolls. If you look at the detailed battle report, 480 out of 2800 Soviet ground elements were destroyed/damgaged/disrupted before the battle, most likely above the overall share elements with CV instead of artillery and support squads. So Chibisov rolled so that the initial CV were reached, but many elements not being counted in the calculation caused the drop.
The Soviet units in Sevastopol on average had around 68% TOE, so definitely not the strongest resistance the Soviets can put up here.


Do mountain units give an advantage in rough terrain? I do not think so. Nevertheless, their C&C and everything said before ensured they lose the battle.

Excellent Post EvK. I might propose that manpower is a real problem for the Soviets on Turn 54 that began to be noted by the German team at this point. From what I can see by Recon my intuition tells me that the TO&E at 100% might be over 7M? The Soviets have around 5.6M total in units with around a high 5.4M undamaged. That tells me that maybe a lot of Soviet units are lacking manpower. By turn 54 it has become very apparent. AGS snatched a bunch of units had shown prior to this turn in question. The Soviets went up tempo a few turns and by turn 54 have not grown in active TO&E. We can post a graph.

My play has been more aggressive thinking that a critical point has been reached worth the attrition costs.

My impression is that the Soviets have a manpower problem in this game. They are likely to lose the war in late 1942.

[chaos45]

yes if the soviets lose Moscow/Leningrad the game in this current patch is basically a loss for the soviets. This is doubly so with the increased combat losses added in this last patch.

the Patch team has tweaked to many levers on soviet manpower over several patches now as I told them long ago when they reduced it by like 20% when it is already drastically lower than historical and while in general the German OOB stays about 25% higher than historical almost the entire war.

Statistics from recent games are showing very high combat/attrition losses to the soviet army 1941/1942 easily as much if not more than total soviet manpower recruitment. Which leaves the soviet army having a massive manpower crunch almost the entire war while the germans have almost no manpower issues in comparison. Soviet losses would be fine if soviet manpower recruitment was closer to historical...but with drastically less men than historical its proving an issue with game balance IMO.

Also not saying it needs to be historical as the game engine cant handle that...but it probably needs returned to prior to the approx. 20% reduction.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

A big stack of AA in Sevastapol would of been a great help for some extra support and guns

What in your opinion qualifies as a big stack?

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
If I were the Soviet I would have put some P40's within range of Sevestopol. Unopposed bombers are not a good thing. That was a big tipping point in those battles.

This was a consideration well before the city fell. The challenge here is that Telemecus uses recon as a weapon better than anyone I have seen. He will saturate an area around Soviet air bases with recon until they can be bombed with minimal loss to the attacking force. It was no mistake that in one particular week he launched over 800 recon missions. So these P-40s would have been subject to similar attacks. There may be solutions to this challenge, but I was unable to find it during my tenure. Perhaps the new management will some up with something.