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

[82ndtrooper]

while I agree that whole divisions where never destroyed by airpower alone they where crippled however, both in strength and mobility. ESPECIALLY mobility.  the german armor columns where mauled so badly that they where reduced to moving only at night.

If they had tried to continue moving during daylight hours whole divisions would have been eliminated , it was only this tactic that saved them from destruction by airpower. But this wasnt due to carpet bombing it was due to air patrols and ground support/attack aircraft.


Its a mistake to think that you have to destroy the tanks in an armored division to destroy the division. This isnt the case at all, all you have to do is destroy the support for the tanks to destroy the division. The majority of a armored division handles ammo,fuel,food,medical etc.... eliminate this and you destroy the division.

so to claim that air power was ineffective because they didnt kill many tanks is false.

[BK6583]

I would certainly like to strongly chime in regarding some mechanism to allow arty to save enough APs to 'scoot' out of harms way.

[BK6583]

A second strong endorsement for some type of limitation on the advantage of attacking from multiple locations. I've had to institute a house rule that the Soviets can't laubch attacks from multiple locations at least for the first year. David Glanz's books make it clear that the Soviets failed dismally every time they tried any large scale coordinated attacks. Right now as the German player I'm finding myself risk averse as the Soviets are capable of launching these types of attacks and rather effectively at that (particularly with the large number of infantry they can produce).

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

while I agree that whole divisions where never destroyed by airpower alone they where crippled however, both in strength and mobility. ESPECIALLY mobility.  the german armor columns where mauled so badly that they where reduced to moving only at night.

If they had tried to continue moving during daylight hours whole divisions would have been eliminated , it was only this tactic that saved them from destruction by airpower. But this wasnt due to carpet bombing it was due to air patrols and ground support/attack aircraft.


Its a mistake to think that you have to destroy the tanks in an armored division to destroy the division. This isnt the case at all, all you have to do is destroy the support for the tanks to destroy the division. The majority of a armored division handles ammo,fuel,food,medical etc.... eliminate this and you destroy the division.

so to claim that air power was ineffective because they didnt kill many tanks is false.

I recommend Zetterling's "Normandy 1944" (Chapter "The Effects of Allied Air Power") for starters before moving to heavier stuff (Gooderson etc.) regarding how the effects of air power have been traditionally exaggerated, regarding both tank killing and supply crippling capabilities. Nobody's claiming that air power was ineffective, but its true effects were more indirect in nature.

[Widell]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (without getting into the historical debate reg. what was/wasn't hit by air attacks): Air attacks kill too many ground units in the vanilla master. Air, and to a large extent also arty, should reduce readiness and prepare for infantry and armour. I have been working on introducing air units with these changes in a few scenarios I'm working on, but it's very slow due to real life based time constraints. For those wanting to have a look, check the sandbox and the "Modified third reich" which has these modded air units in the game. http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=55 I like the results so far, but has only play tested in very limited settings.

[rominet]

ORIGINAL: Widell

I've said it before, and I'll say it again (without getting into the historical debate reg. what was/wasn't hit by air attacks): Air attacks kill too many ground units in the vanilla master. Air, and to a large extent also arty, should reduce readiness and prepare for infantry and armour. I have been working on introducing air units with these changes in a few scenarios I'm working on, but it's very slow due to real life based time constraints. For those wanting to have a look, check the sandbox and the "Modified third reich" which has these modded air units in the game. http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=55 I like the results so far, but has only play tested in very limited settings.

Hi

i have tested your scenario a couple of turn and i greatly appreciate the work you made about aviation and artillery. This time they don't really destroy SF but rather disrupt them.
I completely agree with the fact that with most AT's scenarii, aviation and artillery are too effective.
I am at that moment finishing a game on GPW in the south. I am the russian.
I made use of 2 technics:
* first, the attack/withdraw technic which consists of making normal attack (in fact, counter-attack on german units nearer my front) and after, if my units are exposed, i make strategical withdraw with a great LANDCAP. I have already speaken of that here and i consider it completely unrealistic. But the game allows it.
* second, following Grymme's advice, i managed to reach air superiority and i made great use of both aviation and (famous) russian artillery.

Indeed, to my opinion, the scenario is not well balanced and the Wehrmacht is too weak but if you want to have an idea what it gives, i suggest you to have a look of our AAR.
Balder and i, we are french so ours AAR are in french but there are a lot of maps easily understandable by everyone. (In fact, i supposed it is the case for Balder's one as i don't have the right to read it yet[:D])

Here is Balder's AAR:
http://forum.jeux-strategie.com/index.p ... opic=60483

Here is mine:
http://forum.jeux-strategie.com/index.p ... opic=60750

The conclusion is clear: the results is unrealistic.[;)]

So, when i will have enough time, i will take care of your scenario and see if it is possible to adapt it to GPW scenario.

When this game will be over (a couple of turn[:'(]), i am going to begin a Russia 41 game but with some HR: the reason is that this scenario is not modifiable [:@]
1) First, i want to balance again the ratio Attack/Defense and to give defense a better chance. And i want a greater dispersion of aviation.
So, considering that there are 3 units type: ground units (including combat units and HQ units), air units, naval unit:
NO MORE THAN 1 UNIT PER TYPE PER HEX
NO MORE THAN 100 SF PER HQ UNIT
NO MORE THAN 50 SF PER COMBAT UNIT
NO MORE THAN 10 SF PER AIR UNIT
NO MORE THAN 5 SF PER NAVAL UNIT
2) Second, to avoid the Attack/withdraw technic,
NO STRATEGICAL DEPLACEMENT (of a whole unit or of SF) FOR A COMBAT UNIT WHICH HAS ALREADY MADE TACTICAL MOVEMENT DURING THE TURN

I hope this will give better results.

Well, to conclude, this post is not a criticism of great "Georges and Seille" game and AAR (which gives me the wish to buy this game and i don't regret it[:)]) but just a try forwards realism.

[henri51]

I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars).Accounts of Soviet artillery attacks on the late Eastern front make it clear that artillery did a lot more than disrupt enemy units.

An interesting idea might be to implement counter-battery fire, that is any artillery unit firing would become visible to the enemy, who could than fire back at it with his own artillery. In scenarios with the 2-hex artillery range, this would not work unless cunter-battery fire was increased to 3 hexes. Another idea could be to let the computer figure out the counter-battery fire, that is when an artillery unit fires, it takes damage depending on how many enemy artillery units are within a certain range. Just an idea to munch....

I do agree that (at least in the WaW scenario), there should be a limit on stacking of air units (armies never put most of their air units in a single air base - even during the Battle of Britain that took place over a relatively small area). This is a manifestation of the famous "killer stack syndrome". However I am not sure that not allowing air units to stack with ground units is a good idea-how would the aircraft be protected? - the weakest unit could waltz in and destroy any air force near the front.If that rule were implemented, then air power should be given some intrinsic protection against ground units, after all, airfields near the front were not left totally unprotected.

Anyway if killer stacks are not allowed for ground units, I don't know why they should be allowed for air units.

Henri

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: henri51

I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars).

True. Artillery (of all types) was responsible for 60-80% of all casualties during WWII. Truly the god of war.

[seille]

@henri
 
When we talk about stacking we talk about having all the planes at a single base.
BUT: If i put them at lets say 4 different airfields close to eachother and use all planes
together for a concentrated ground attack i should get no penalty.
 
A max number of planes per airfield would have been a good idea.
Jesus, why i did not have this idea while alpha testing ?
small airfield : max 10 planes
medium airfield: max 20 planes
Above overstacking penalty in attack and defense.
 
But now it´s too late for things like this (maybe a idea for a new game, Vic ?   )

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: seille

@henri

When we talk about stacking we talk about having all the planes at a single base.
BUT: If i put them at lets say 4 different airfields close to eachother and use all planes
together for a concentrated ground attack i should get no penalty.

I fully agree[:D]

Henri

[Widell]

ORIGINAL: Keke

ORIGINAL: henri51
I am not sure if it unbalances the game or not, but it is well known that artillery killed more soldiers in WW2 than any other arm (I don't know whether or not artillery kills includes mortars).

True. Artillery (of all types) was responsible for 60-80% of all casualties during WWII. Truly the god of war.

I can of course not disagree with these facts from reality, but the question now becomes one of implementation in a game/simulation. I also want to say I may have been overstating the de-nerfing I did for arty compared to air. I only propose minor reductions in artillery efficiency to avoid seeing complete formations wiped out in single artillery attacks, while I did significant changes to the air efficiency and kind of liked the result from the initial testing.

It would also be interesting to see some further details to the 60-80% casualty rates you mention. How many of these were the results of Kesselschlachts on the East front of immensely condensed arty attacks on limited areas in the Pac? How many came from massive preparatory arty strikes on poorly dug in German forces on the collapsing East front etc. Not saying the stats are wrong, only to put them in context of the arty attacks that are possible in different AT scenarios.

For example: A large scale East Front scenario needs arty with a high kill ratio while, for example, a Guadalcanal scenario cannot have that as it would make the arty more important that it actually was in that campaign (again, not saying it was not important and did not kill many soldiers, only that it can't wipe out entire formations in sort of an über mode in such a setting). The good news is that the editor allows for this kind of tweaks and optimization of scenarios.

[JJKettunen]

ORIGINAL: Widell

I can of course not disagree with these facts from reality, but the question now becomes one of implementation in a game/simulation. I also want to say I may have been overstating the de-nerfing I did for arty compared to air. I only propose minor reductions in artillery efficiency to avoid seeing complete formations wiped out in single artillery attacks, while I did significant changes to the air efficiency and kind of liked the result from the initial testing.

It would also be interesting to see some further details to the 60-80% casualty rates you mention. How many of these were the results of Kesselschlachts on the East front of immensely condensed arty attacks on limited areas in the Pac? How many came from massive preparatory arty strikes on poorly dug in German forces on the collapsing East front etc. Not saying the stats are wrong, only to put them in context of the arty attacks that are possible in different AT scenarios.

For example: A large scale East Front scenario needs arty with a high kill ratio while, for example, a Guadalcanal scenario cannot have that as it would make the arty more important that it actually was in that campaign (again, not saying it was not important and did not kill many soldiers, only that it can't wipe out entire formations in sort of an über mode in such a setting). The good news is that the editor allows for this kind of tweaks and optimization of scenarios.

By the sounds of it, I think you are on the right course with your tweaks. One should keep in mind that against well prepared defences, arty's effectiveness was more indirect (and less deadly) in nature. IIRC, those casualty percentages are an estimation from all the fronts, the highest numbers coming from North Africa (obviously most chances to catch troops out in the open there).

[Vic]

Thanks for all the great feedback overall in this AAR and its conclusion, guys!

First of all in the next title (will give some more news in a few months) i am adding options to scenario designers to make defense and delaying tactics feasible in actual gameplay.

ORIGINAL: george1972
[*] Destroying an HQ has no effect on the units it commands, they are 100% effective on their turn. Obvious bug in the engine in my opinion. If transferring to a new HQ costs you 50% readiness in peace-time conditions, then having your HQ being overrun by the enemy should have at least the same consequences to the subordinate units if not more. In my opinion it should cause a morale loss as well as not allowing the unit to add to a concentric attack bonus while not attached to a HQ.

Destroying a HQ causes the units of the HQ to no longer receive staff bonus in comabt. This can easily weaken them by 50-100% in your scenario.
In the next turn if the enemy re-assigns a HQ to the HQ-less units, it will cause a readiness bonus. I made a not of the concentric attack bonus for units not attached to a HQ (it should be half the bonus)

[*] There seems to be no stacking limit for air forces... (Or I missed it...) Putting it in would prevent the "mega-air-groups" from forming and forcing you to build more airfields and spread out your air power. A little more realistic in my eyes.

I'll consider this

[*] The stacking limit for ground forces seems to be a bit harsh, again favoring the attacker by penalizing the defender for putting a lot of troops in the front line. In my opinion, cities and fortifications should have the ability to house more troops than other terrain types. After all, they were built to house troops and allow them to fight effectively in limited space and deny this ability to the attacker. Desperate house-to-house or trench-to-trench fighting with high losses for the attackers never happens in AT.

I'll consider this too.

[*] The "burn rate" for troops in the field seems a little high, troops melt away rather fast, this is a basic feeling I have, no real empirical evidence.

Yeah.. but thats not really an engine issue. You can fix this by for example multiplying all hitpoints of all SFtypes by 2 or 3.

kind regards,
Vic

[seille]

Any other AAR-related questions/comments ?
 
If not i want to thank George and all the faithful readers of this AAR.
You kept me motivated to continue this.
But to be honest now i´m happy all the work is over [;)]

[seille]

Sounds good Vic.
 
I think a few basic problems/weakness has been discovered here.
 
If you rework the air overstacking pls allow bigger number of planes
in the attacked hex.
A impact for overstacking should only be used when the airfield
the planes started from was overstacked. Means i can still use bigger number of planes
on one hex without penalty when they came from different airfields.
 
To limit the number of attacking planes in general would be no good solution since the
defender would have a ultimate advantage in most cases using fighters (with 25% bonus) and
flak for air defense. Imho divebomber would start to be useless then.
Successful air defense would be too easy.

[george1972]

Destroying a HQ causes the units of the HQ to no longer receive staff bonus in comabt. This can easily weaken them by 50-100% in your scenario.
In the next turn if the enemy re-assigns a HQ to the HQ-less units, it will cause a readiness bonus. I made a not of the concentric attack bonus for units not attached to a HQ (it should be half the bonus)

Yes, this is true, but the readiness hit happens after you assign them to a new HQ. In this specific case, Seille first attacked with 100% readiness, then assigned them to a new HQ and took a readiness hit to his "post-attack" readiness, which was far smaller. So yes, he suffered a handicap but a far smaller one than originally intended (I think).

Maybe putting in a "HQ-changed" check after each player's turn would solve this problem, although... it might cause a dual readiness hit if you're not careful (speaking as a programmer who knows where bugs can come from).


But, these are all minor quirks in an already great game which I will be playing even if they are not addressed. I would like to thank Vic for making the game, Seille for this great match and of course our wonderful audience who pushed us on to keep writing this mammoth AAR.

And now... let's play!!

[Vic]

ORIGINAL: seille

Sounds good Vic.

I think a few basic problems/weakness has been discovered here.

If you rework the air overstacking pls allow bigger number of planes
in the attacked hex.
A impact for overstacking should only be used when the airfield
the planes started from was overstacked. Means i can still use bigger number of planes
on one hex without penalty when they came from different airfields.

To limit the number of attacking planes in general would be no good solution since the
defender would have a ultimate advantage in most cases using fighters (with 25% bonus) and
flak for air defense. Imho divebomber would start to be useless then.
Successful air defense would be too easy.

I think that would be the best way. It also avoids involuntary overstacks with auto intercepts.

[LazyBoy]

Really interesting comments.
I am just adding my Thanks for this game and AAR, well done guys[:)]

[george1972]

By the way, there's one issue I forgot to mention that might have influenced the campaign a little bit: as far as I can tell, my U-Boats did not sink a single ship from the convoys headed for Russia. Not one. Now of course this is random generated, so I cannot complain or anything, but luck was not on my side in this matter. Had my U-boat captains manage to score a few hits during some of the crucial phases of the campaign, things might have turned out differently... (I just love "what-if" stories...)

[seille]

This bad luck was egalized by the more R&D events you got especially in the hot phase of the game.
I had no fighter III and i was forced to PRODUCE my PP´s to egalize your rifle III advantage [;)]
 
Usually the sub event happens a few times per game, but i wouldn´t call it decisive.
Only little annoying when it happens in VERY early game.