The Anti Bolshevik Crusade - Tarhunnas vs Q-Ball (no Q-Ball please)

[daft]

Just dropping in to pat you on the back Tarhunnas. Your AAR's have been a great way into the game for me. In fact, this AAR convinced me to finally take the plunge and buy it, so now I'm two days into my WitE career.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: daft

Just dropping in to pat you on the back Tarhunnas. Your AAR's have been a great way into the game for me. In fact, this AAR convinced me to finally take the plunge and buy it, so now I'm two days into my WitE career.

Thanks, that's good to hear! It's a great game, have fun!

[JocMeister]

How long do you belive you be able to sustain losses like that?

My experience is purely vs. the AI but when the AI started to attack in 44 with around 10-12 attacks per turn I bled very fast with CVs dropping from around 5-6 to 2 in just at few turns. At best I recieved 50k replacements per turn. As soon as losses exceed that it went downhill fast.

Have you considered doing a large withdrawal to force him to wait for railheads? Perhaps there is a chance if you don´t allow yourself to bleed to death this early?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

How long do you belive you be able to sustain losses like that?

My experience is purely vs. the AI but when the AI started to attack in 44 with around 10-12 attacks per turn I bled very fast with CVs dropping from around 5-6 to 2 in just at few turns. At best I recieved 50k replacements per turn. As soon as losses exceed that it went downhill fast.

Have you considered doing a large withdrawal to force him to wait for railheads? Perhaps there is a chance if you don´t allow yourself to bleed to death this early?

I have considered it, though I suspect any repreive will be temporary at best. It might be worth it to withdraw to shorten the front though, but I am not too keen on that either.

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I have considered it, though I suspect any repreive will be temporary at best. It might be worth it to withdraw to shorten the front though, but I am not too keen on that either.

How's your strategic reserve looking in terms of what you've got to smack about any breakthroughs? Being able to start building up a significant reserve might well be a good reason to start considering front length and passing the strategic initiative over to the Soviet player. Tough choices ahead for summer 1943.

As ever, enjoying the aars. Good luck.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee
How's your strategic reserve looking in terms of what you've got to smack about any breakthroughs? Being able to start building up a significant reserve might well be a good reason to start considering front length and passing the strategic initiative over to the Soviet player. Tough choices ahead for summer 1943.

There is no strategic reserve as such. What I do have is most of the mobile units in a second and sometimes third line behind the front, to prevent breakthroughs and dig fall back positions. I can concentrate and push back most Soviet penetrations if I want to, but I usually don't want to, as even a successful rout of a couple of penetrating Soviet corps will only yield a 2-1 loss ratio, and that is not good enough. In fact, attacking at such a ratio will probably only hasten the German collapse, so I tend to refrain from counterattacks. The main reason I do the relatively few counterattacks I perform is to slow down the hex loss ratio, so that I can finish the fortifications in the next line.

Comment: It might be obvious but to me this feels unhistorical. The German army excelled in counterattacks to the point of being almost addicted to them, and the majority were very successful in inflicting losses on the enemy.

The problem is that I have no really good options for small withdrawals to shorten the front. To shorten the front to any meaningful extent in the north I would have to withdraw to the Ilmen line, or even to Riga, and that would be a rather considerable withdrawal, which would also expose Leningrad and the Finns.

In the south, the next feasible line is Cherkassy - Kirovograd - Nikolaev. I will probably have to fall back to that line, but I want to delay it till spring mud, as the rivers will not offer any advantages in winter.

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

As ever, enjoying the aars. Good luck.

Thanks!

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Mechanized corps are scary because they're essentially a reinforced motorized Rifle division with ~200 tanks. A Tank corps is ~200 tanks with, roughly, a reinforced Rifle brigade attached to it. Tank corps have little staying power. Mobile units become a threat when they're mobile, when they can't move anywhere they're not more of a problem than an infantry division, maybe even a lesser problem as there will be fewer men manning the frontline compared to an infantry division. Rifle corps and the artillery backing them caused far more casualties than Soviet mobile formations, and that's the case in the game as well, just like Axis mobile units are, at least after 1941, not likely to cause as many casualties as the infantry formations. For a Panzer/motorized division or a Tank/cavalry corps, mobility is a greater strength than actual combat effectiveness. Mid-war SS PzG/Panzer divisions and Mechanized corps are mobile and strong at the same time. This is represented by the latter units generally losing combat effectiveness at a lower rate than the former units, because they have infantry strength to soak up some losses and still be combat effective.

The extremes the lack of infantry strength of mobile units can cause will probably become even more visible in War in the West, because Commonwealth armoured divisions in particular lacked infantry support considering the (on paper) huge amount of AFV's the divisions had.

I have some serious question marks with these statements. Not the makeup of the Mech/Tank/Inf. Corps but certainly with the combat efficiency of the Russian infantry. And the unefficientcy of the tanks. Let's say the game is right, that poses the question why all WW2 particpants produced the amount of tanks they did? If they're just for exploitation, you don't need that many. Secondly, often in Russain offensives, the tank armies (which normally had the role of exploitation as you mention) were committed to effect the breakthrough when the infantry corps failed to do so. Take for example Operation Kutozov (12 july 1943) to liberate Orel. I'm writing from memory so I probably get some details wrong, but the Soviet threw something like 4 infantry and 2 tank armies against a couple of infantry corps backed up with 5th and 8th Panzer divs and some more armour redeployed from 9th Army. Only in 11th Guards Armies sector did they achieve a clean penetration that was then halted by the reinforcing panzers. On the East side of the Orel Bulge, they got nowhere and a tank army was committed to achieve the breakthrough and failed in this instance.

Frankly, while the Russians certainly envisaged infantry making the breach which then would be widened by tank corps attached to the infantry armies and exploited in depth by the tank armies, more often than not, the tank armies where needed to MAKE the breakthrough, and paid a tremendous price for doing so. In Operation Kutuzov, the Russains lost about a 1000 tanks more than in Operation Citadelle, something in the order of 2500. Simply put, the infantry just didn't get through without the tanks!

Talking about Citadelle, the Russians were forced to commit their tank Corps to hold the line against the attacking Panzer divisions (or Panzer Grenadier divs by name) of the SS and the GD together with the regular army panzer divs.

In Citadelle, against such though defenses (fortifications) heavy German tanks were key to make any progress at all. The infantry just could not follow the tanks as they were subjected to tremendous fire from machine gun, arty, etc.. This in turn made the tanks vulnerable to close in attacks.

Without tanks, the Russian infantry just didn't get anywhere against the German panzer divisions untill well into 1944, perhaps until the end of the war. And until the end the German Panzer divisions inflicted terrible punishment on the Russian infantry.

Certainly, the approach of the game in the way it _SEEMS_ to handle tanks (seems because there is not really transparency) is a clean break away from most if not all other hardcore wargames I've played over the past 20 years. To name the W@W series again, upto +10 shifts for armour. Boardgame FitE/SE +3 attack -2 defense in clear, OCS, CV value doubled against soft infantry.

Finally, when going down to the tactical level, like for example the Close combat series also from Atomic and now through Matrixgames. Have you ever tried attacking a Tank with infantry in clear terrain? It's bloody difficult and bloody costly if it works at all!

I don't want to sound to negative, perhaps I got it all wrong and the engine does do it correctly although from what I've seen tanks are underwhelming. In any case, more information would be good so we can think along with good data.

[JocMeister]

I don´t know if its the tanks that are underwhelming or the infantry that is overwhelming.

Certainly as an Axis player I fear the Rifle Corps alot more. I have seen them with an offensive CV of close to 30. Not much you can do against that. I do question the fact that the game simulates russian guards rifle corps as powerful or even more powerful then for example Grossdeutchland or the SS Panzer Divisions. All of them equipped with the most powerful tanks the world had seen. (Panthers in GD and Panthers and Tigers in the SS divisions).

[paullus99]

Ultimately, just about everyone discovered that a more balanced approach to their tank forces (i.e. filling the gaps with mobile/motorized/mechanized infantry) was the way to go. The more tanks & less infantry - particularly in the attack, the higher losses the tanks would take (look at the fighting the British & Americans did in Normandy) - in the vast majority of cases, unless you were in full pursuit mode, tank-led attacks without proper infantry support were decimated by dug-in anti-tank defenses.

Over the course of the war, the Germans also revamped their armored forces to include more infantry until they reached a much more balanced OOB of about equal battalions of infantry to armor.

[KenchiSulla]

JoCMeister, I would fear 25.000 angry russians with combat experience and attached anti tank capability....

[JocMeister]

Cannonfodder, Anyone would! [:D]

But my point is that I don´t think a russian Rifle Corps should have the same offensive capabilities as an elite Panzer divsion with the same or more amount of combat experience. I don´t think it should have a higher combat value then a Mechanized/Tank Corps either.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: glvaca
Let's say the game is right, that poses the question why all WW2 particpants produced the amount of tanks they did?

Exactly what I have been thinking! Compared to some other troop types, say sappers/engineers or mortars, tanks seem a doubtful investment in the WITE-world.

[mmarquo]

It is really had to know, barring level 9 combat reports and hours staring at the messages to understand what is going on. For sure the tank units have much higher mobility which is crucial for deep operational breakthroughs, which was the cornerstone of Soviet doctrine.

Marquo

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: paullus99

Ultimately, just about everyone discovered that a more balanced approach to their tank forces (i.e. filling the gaps with mobile/motorized/mechanized infantry) was the way to go. The more tanks & less infantry - particularly in the attack, the higher losses the tanks would take (look at the fighting the British & Americans did in Normandy) - in the vast majority of cases, unless you were in full pursuit mode, tank-led attacks without proper infantry support were decimated by dug-in anti-tank defenses.

Over the course of the war, the Germans also revamped their armored forces to include more infantry until they reached a much more balanced OOB of about equal battalions of infantry to armor.

Hmmm, I think the Germans got that lesson exactly right from the start. A panzer division didn't actually change a lot (except on how many tanks and other supporting arms) concerning infantry. Standard, 2 regiments, 4 battalions during the whole war, +1 recon and 1 Engineer batt. They did lose the motorcycle batt mid 1942. SS, 2 regiments, 6 batt. Obviously, the Sovs, and the UK focussed more on tanks with less infantry BUT, their doctrine required the infantry divs to provide the infantry. That didn't always work out though.

Point is however, the tank was the crutial weapon in the panzer division or TC. And, whenever tanks caught infantry in clear terrain and not dugin to the teeth (level 4-5) infantry almost always paid a steep price. As in completely eliminated, like all other games I know except WitE. In this game, tanks route infantry, cause minimal damage, lose quite a few tanks in the process. On the defense it even gets worse, I'm shocked with how easy it is to push a 90 morale/experience 90% TOE panzer division from it's hex, even in 1941! And causing 40% casualties in the process. Just pile up enough crap infantry divisions and poof, there goes your panzer div. Surely, it wasn't as easy as numbers. Again, check out some tactical wargames to see how easy it is to attack tanks.

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?

This probably will sound rude but it isn't intended as such. This is a GREAT game. And I'm having a ton of fun playing both the Germans and the Russians in the 2 pbem's I'm playing. But my honest, unbiased opinion is that as it stands, the game is heavily biased towards the Soviets at this point in time. To name but a few key "rulings" in favor of the Soviets:
1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.
2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?
3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.
7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.
9. No seperate pool which keeps experience for returning disabled soldiers from lowering experience. An experienced soldier returning from hospital is still an experienced soldier. In a system that depends so heavily on experience (or should) this is really a source of annoyance. Especially affecting the German side.
10. No real reason to fight forward for the Russian player.
11. Too easy to move industry and too fast back in production, even if radom and not at full production.
12. Capturing Moscow and all the other cities doesn't have any effect.
13. Losing industry doesn't really matter.
14. Basically zero chance for the German to win the GC 41 game on points.
15. etc... etc...

Again devs, this is intended as positive, constructive critism. I write because I care. [;)]

[Tarhunnas]

Tanks are not the only troop type with mobility. In WITE, the ideal unit appears to be a division composed of motorized engineers supported by plentiful mortars. Note, no halftracks or tanks, they are too vulnerable. Not wanting to sound negative here, but that's what it seems like.

It is a recurring feature of GG-games that they are rather mechanistic but IMHO do not give much attention to more intangible factors. In this case that would be combined arms and having a reasonable mix of tanks/infantry/artillery/engineers, and not just to calculate the killing power of each item taking part in a combat. But maybe the game does handle combined arms effects, I don't know.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

+1

[Tarhunnas]

This is a good discussion but we are kind of sidetracking the AAR.

glvaca, I think your 15 points are good observations, I think you should post that in a separate thread in the main forum, so the discussion can be continued there.

[glvaca]

Sorry about that Tarhunnas. Got a bit carried away [:D][;)]

[ComradeP]

I'd be happy to reply/participate in the discussion, but this is Tarhunnas' AAR so if he wants the discussion to move elsewhere, I'll wait until there's a thread about this in the general forum/war room.

Edit: it seems that thread was created as I was typing.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Sorry about that Tarhunnas. Got a bit carried away [:D][;)]

No problem! I participated myself, and discussion is good, but too much of it tends to dilute the AAR. Also, the discussion is more easily found if in its own separate thread.