AAR – Ronnie vs. Dan (GSv2.01.32) (The War is Over).
Moderators: Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core
Turn 41. November 9, 1941 Axis.
If you look at the odds of getting severe winter before a given November turn it's actually 9% since severe winter will NOT happen if it's a fair weather turn (10% chance) for the axis. Though that doesn't really make me feel any better about getting that result. My hope is that Dan isn't in great shape to take advantage of such an early severe winter.
If you look at the odds of getting severe winter before a given November turn it's actually 9% since severe winter will NOT happen if it's a fair weather turn (10% chance) for the axis. Though that doesn't really make me feel any better about getting that result. My hope is that Dan isn't in great shape to take advantage of such an early severe winter.
-
Peter Stauffenberg
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4745
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Oslo, Norway
Doesn't this AAR show that we might have overcompensated and made it too easy for the Axis to get deep into Russia in 1941? We have to see the result of the Russian winter offensive for the verdict. What do you think? Has Dave many any mistakes you've exploited or is this Axis progress something we should expect now?
I think that one of the reasons why Ronnie has arrived so early to Moscow is because he has had 4 supply level all the time. It seems to me that changing this rule has pretty much affected the balance in 1941 Eastern front scenario. So IMO we should consider to implement the option (asked for voting recently) in which the germans have supply level 4 from OCTOBER instead of having that supply level from the start of Barbarossa. Let´s keep in mind that if Ronnie would not have had supply level 4 he would not have been able to assault russian positions in Orel as he has done which has been crucial IMO for his successful conquest of Moscow.Stauffenberg wrote:Doesn't this AAR show that we might have overcompensated and made it too easy for the Axis to get deep into Russia in 1941? We have to see the result of the Russian winter offensive for the verdict. What do you think? Has Dave many any mistakes you've exploited or is this Axis progress something we should expect now?
May be Dan has spreaded excessively his russian forces (Finland, etc) but I think that the main reason has to do with the changes in supply level rules.
Last edited by gerones on Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Crazygunner1
- Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
- Posts: 959
- Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 4:13 pm
I think we should wait and see what severe winter brings, Ronnie did push on Moscow quite hard and with almost no regard to winter aproaching. Let´s see if he will be punished for it...
I think Dan caused the Red airforce unecessary PP losses that he could have used on more units instead, other than that i think he did what he needed to do...
By the looks of it this can be a tough winter with high losses for Axis
I think Dan caused the Red airforce unecessary PP losses that he could have used on more units instead, other than that i think he did what he needed to do...
By the looks of it this can be a tough winter with high losses for Axis
1. Personally, I think we've got it close to being right if this game is a good indicator.Stauffenberg wrote:Doesn't this AAR show that we might have overcompensated and made it too easy for the Axis to get deep into Russia in 1941? We have to see the result of the Russian winter offensive for the verdict. What do you think? Has Dave many any mistakes you've exploited or is this Axis progress something we should expect now?
2. I will lay out in detail my reasons why I think that's so in order for you and others to better judge this. You do have access to Dan's AAR and his perspective which may either bolster or refute my hypothesis in 1.
3. A key assumption that I'm making, which you the community are in a better position to judge than me, is that Dan and I are fairly equal in experience and skill with respect to GS.
4. Let's examine the historical record. We all know that the axis invaded Russia on June 22, 1941. My understanding was that Guderian's panzers and army group center, which had easily broken through the Russian main lines, could have easily continued on and captured Moscow. And that's what Hitler's generals wanted. However; Hitler saw an opportunity to move those panzers south and bag a tremendous number of Russians in and west of Kiev. And that's what happen. As we all know when Guderian and army group center got these panzers back and pushed on Moscow they got to within 60-km before winter and the Siberian reserves stopped them cold and drove them back.
5. So, in my opinion, the historical record supports a '41 capture of Moscow by a determined player. However; if an equally skilled and experienced opponent to that player puts up a modest fighting retreat defense of the center and Moscow, similar to the one that I've outline below, then my experience teaches me that it's near impossible to capture Moscow in '41.
6. Is this historical? Well, I guess based on the historical record we could conclude it's too difficult for the axis; however, I contend that if the Russians had used a fighting retreat strategy instead of a forward defensive one that they actually used then they probably would have held Moscow even if Guderian's panzers hadn't been diverted south for a while against Kiev. I'll leave this to our historians and the community to judge whether or not I'm off base here.
7. Now to our game. Dan did not defend the Dnepr (yellow) or Desna (green) rivers lines to any extent. I was able to blow right through them quickly. Also, he aggressively employed the Red air force and a number of mech units and taking, in my opinion, unnecessary losses to both types of units. Finally, he devoted significant air and ground resources apparently to go after Finland. I was able to parry this foray using the at start Finnish forces and was glad that the forces Dan used there weren't used to defend Moscow instead.
8. I also executed a Moscow-centric strategy by skipping the Balkans, launching Barbarossa on May 13, 1941 (2 turns earlier than historical) and focusing the majority of my offensive firepower (air, tanks & mech) pushing toward and going after Moscow.
9. Even with Dan allowing me to blow through the yellow and green defensive lines with little resistance it took a 50/50 weather roll on turn 40 (October 20, 1941) for me to even have a credible attack against Moscow in '41. This attack failed leaving the defenders at 1-step. Of course this was only 1-sample so I don't know if this result was expected, good luck or bad. I can send that turn to any one interested in Monte Carlo'ing that attack. Who knows a more tactically skilled player than me, and there's a lot of you out there, may have easily captured Moscow. Regardless my October attack against Moscow failed. At that point I was looking to pull back my quality units, reinforce and get ready for the '41 winter unless I got a 10% fair weather roll for the next turn, which was November.
10. Then came that turn (November 9, 1941), which is the last one I've posted above. Sure enough I didn't get the fair weather. I got mud. However; Dan in my view made a huge tactical (or even strategic) error by swapping out the 1-step Moscow survivor with a 10-step adjacent infantry corps. In his situation I would have reassigned the Russian leader attached to the 1-step corps (5 PPs & 1 turn), attacked with the 1-step corps in the worse odds attack possible to lose it and railed in my highest effectiveness available mech unit to Moscow. This would have left a full strength and entreched infantry corps in place southeast of Moscow and protecting a high effectiveness 10-step mech corps defending that city in mud/rain. If Dan had done that I wouldn't even had tried to take Moscow last turn.
11. By the way, having the normal supply level even with the possibility of severe winter gave me the confidence to push so hard on Moscow. Without it I would not have even tried.
12. So that's why I think our changes with respect to all this are correct. What do you all think?
Last edited by rkr1958 on Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Moscow was not seriously defended in this game
I think it's fair to say that Dan did not seriously defend Moscow in this game. Besides the points that Ronnie made, while Dan had a lot of units in the vicinity of Moscow, they were mainly behind Moscow (to the North and East), not in front of Moscow where they could have impeded the German advance. Ronnie was able to march right up to the gates of Moscow virtually unopposed. And still Ronnie was only barely able to get Moscow, so I agree totally with Ronnie that we should not conclude that it's now too easy for the Axis to get Moscow.
It is really a great AAR ! Much much better than mine !
I wonder if Axis can hold the defence line while Russia make strong counter back from this turn in the north . If I play it , I will make Russian counter back from the north immediately. If Russian may break the line in the north & take Moscow back while making Axis lose enough unit , pp,manpower , I will win the upper hand of the rest game . ( At meantime, send troops to get in touch with the southern Axis's defence line sothat Axis could not transfer troops to enforce northern compaign ).
But maybe Dan has better strategy .
Good luck Ronnie !
I wonder if Axis can hold the defence line while Russia make strong counter back from this turn in the north . If I play it , I will make Russian counter back from the north immediately. If Russian may break the line in the north & take Moscow back while making Axis lose enough unit , pp,manpower , I will win the upper hand of the rest game . ( At meantime, send troops to get in touch with the southern Axis's defence line sothat Axis could not transfer troops to enforce northern compaign ).
But maybe Dan has better strategy .
Good luck Ronnie !
Re: Moscow was not seriously defended in this game
This.petertodd wrote:I think it's fair to say that Dan did not seriously defend Moscow in this game. Besides the points that Ronnie made, while Dan had a lot of units in the vicinity of Moscow, they were mainly behind Moscow (to the North and East), not in front of Moscow where they could have impeded the German advance. Ronnie was able to march right up to the gates of Moscow virtually unopposed. And still Ronnie was only barely able to get Moscow, so I agree totally with Ronnie that we should not conclude that it's now too easy for the Axis to get Moscow.
Changes in supply level rules seemed to work and we saw that this rule proved effective against fast and strong Barbarossas and against the german armoured blob. Not sure if coming back to vanilla game supply level rules has been good in terms of game balance. That´s why my suggestion of trying with an intermediate solution (supply level 4 only from october) that sounds to be accurate both from a historical (one of the reasons that germans stopped in Smolensk was supply issues they started to have and not only Hitler decision to go south) and from a game balance POV. A fair weather turn in october will allow the german player to launch Typhoon with supply level 4 but it will be up to him to do that. Now, guaranteed supply level 4 all the time seems to make the germans excessively confident about a Moscow campaign.
Ronnie has had their panzers available for assaulting Moscow positions as early as 1 August turn and no need to say that having supply level 4 in his starting offensive surely has helped much (ZOC, forest areas, etc).
Ronnie has had their panzers available for assaulting Moscow positions as early as 1 August turn and no need to say that having supply level 4 in his starting offensive surely has helped much (ZOC, forest areas, etc).
Victor, I guess I don't understand why the axis shouldn't be confident about going after Moscow. I invaded 2 turns (i.e., 40-days) earlier than historical and yet I barely made it. And at a cost of being severely exposed during '41 severe winter.leridano wrote:Now, guaranteed supply level 4 all the time seems to make the germans excessively confident about a Moscow campaign.
Ronnie has had their panzers available for assaulting Moscow positions as early as 1 August turn and no need to say that having supply level 4 in his starting offensive surely has helped much (ZOC, forest areas, etc).
To capture Moscow in '41 everything had to gone "right". In the majority of games I think this would not happened unless the allied player was setting a trap in order to punish the axis in severe winter. The supply level change that we have now gave me the confidence to be more aggressive and mix it up more with the Russians in '41. Without it I wouldn't have an opportunity to try.
I believe the chance to get Moscow in '41 is still very small. To change the supply level would take that small chance away. I guess I'm struggling with why you believe having that small chance is not historical and why you believe it needs to be taken away?
You really have had an unusual early severe winter but in normal conditions of a severe winter in december or january 1942 you would have had enough time to properly dig in around Moscow for severe winter.
Furthermore, with better luck (russian unit held at 1 step), Moscow could have fall in 20 october 1941 turn: this would have meant more turns for gaining effectiveness and entrenchment levels around Moscow.
Anyway, I kind of agree that we should wait to severe winter results for finally making any change.
Furthermore, with better luck (russian unit held at 1 step), Moscow could have fall in 20 october 1941 turn: this would have meant more turns for gaining effectiveness and entrenchment levels around Moscow.
Anyway, I kind of agree that we should wait to severe winter results for finally making any change.
At the start of severe winter I did think Manstein's tank corps at 8-steps was dead. I fully expected it to be attacked by two air strikes followed by three ground attacks (2 infantry & 1 mech corps). Instead, Dan decide to go after the airborne division and while I don't relish its loss I was happy it drew the focus of the Russians that turn.trulster wrote:In terms of testing, the Russian is by far not aggressive enough in the winter turns, with mech and armour at the frontline he should have made wholescale attacks to burn manpower and oil.
Well, looks like a nice 42 summer is at hand!
