1939 Storm over Europe - AAR

[Ivanov]

By now, both sides in the AAR have incurred a fair amount of losses.

Have you guys (the players) noticed any effect on National Morale? Do you feel/predict/fear National Morale, or lack there of, could become a factor in the game?

I don't thing that the fall National Morale should be to relevant in case of WWII. If the "fall of morale" certainly lead to the capitulation of France, I doubt tha anything but total military defeat could cause the colapse of Great Britain and especially Soviet Union. During first few months of Operation Barbarossa Soviets took heavier casualties and lost more territory than the Tsarist Russia during the whole First World War, yet they kept on fighting. As long as comrade Stalin and his terror apparatus were alive and well, dozens of NKVD divisions behind the frontline were the efficient remedy for the fall of the morale of citizens and soldiers of the Soviet Union.

By the way, I think that there should be some event decision for the Soviet Union in 1942 regarding "Not a Step Back" directive of Stalin, that would affect the combat performance of the Red Army.

[Ivanov]

By the way, I think that there should be some event decision for the Soviet Union in 1942 regarding "Not a Step Back" directive of Stalin, that would affect the combat performance of the Red Army.

I think "Not a Step Back" directive had huge impact on the fighting performance of the Red Army and subsequently led to it's victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. How it could be reflected in the game? I see two possible ways. First, a simpler one - after deployment of Siberian troops and loss of some important cities ( e.g Moscow or Kiev, Kharkov and Rostov ), Stalin simply automatically issues the directive which increases morale and readiness of the Soviet units. Second possible way in which it may be done, would be a decision event for the Red Army. In exchange of some MMP penalty, Soviet player deploys some NKVD detachments, actual units which placed next to the combat units, would increase their parameters but cause them rather to stay in place and die, preventing their retreat. The second option is of course more interestig but it would probably require some major changes in the games engine.

[Kuniworth]

Already from 1941 Stalin ordered "not a step back", the formal order at Stalingrad did not make a difference.

There is unfortunately a misunderstanding of the war in 1942 that the Red Army fell back towards the Volga to make a stand. That is not the case, the Red Army counterattacked during fall blau and sought to halt the invader numerous times during the later half of 1942.

[Kuniworth]

I think "Not a Step Back" directive had huge impact on the fighting performance of the Red Army and subsequently led to it's victory in the Battle of Stalingrad.

No. The reason the Red Army held Stalingrad was due to other reasons. First of all the STAVKA fed troops into the meat grinder just enough to hold the city, this exhausted the germans that had one chance to capture the city and that was on march in july-august. Remember that most of the 6th Army was locked on the flanks, just some of the divisions fought inside the city itself. In the end perhaps an infantry corps.

There are also other explanations when the battle well commenced inside the city. Paulus problems to capture the northern suburbs locked up a lot of his tanks and erradicate him more attacking options than from the west. Luftwaffe turning the city to rubble was another important factor why Chuikov's troops held on in september, along with unprecedented bravery.

[Ivanov]

Already from 1941 Stalin ordered "not a step back", the formal order at Stalingrad did not make a difference.

There is unfortunately a misunderstanding of the war in 1942 that the Red Army fell back towards the Volga to make a stand. That is not the case, the Red Army counterattacked during fall blau and sought to halt the invader numerous times during the later half of 1942.

Red Army was actually counterattacking all the time since the commencement of Operation Barbarossa and it was one of the reasons it suffered such a tremendous casualties. 1942 also began with Soviet offensive actions which culminated in the Second Battle of Kharkov, a crushing defeat of Red Army after which Fall Blau got its momentum.

[Ivanov]

No. The reason the Red Army held Stalingrad was due to other reasons. First of all the STAVKA fed troops into the meat grinder just enough to hold the city, this exhausted the germans that had one chance to capture the city and that was on march in july-august. Remember that most of the 6th Army was locked on the flanks, just some of the divisions fought inside the city itself. In the end perhaps an infantry corps.

There are also other explanations when the battle well commenced inside the city. Paulus problems to capture the northern suburbs locked up a lot of his tanks and erradicate him more attacking options than from the west. Luftwaffe turning the city to rubble was another important factor why Chuikov's troops held on in september, along with unprecedented bravery.

In my opinion the Order No.227 had some important practical implications, for example the creation of "blocking detachments" mentioned above, which changed the performance of the Soviet troops. Red Army was a demoralised and incoherent organization which reflected well the condition of the whole Soviet state and society, which without terror aparatus and coercion would fall appart, just the way Hitler was predicting it. Hundreds of tanks and airplanes lost during the first months of the war, were not destroyed by the Germans, but simply left behind by retreating in panic troops who didn't know how or had no intention to use them against the enemy. It is a generalization and oversimplification, but I though a "not step back order" event would be a cool thing in the game.

Stalingrad Battle had a huge importance for both sides from the propaganda point of view, but we cannot forget that is outcome wasn't decided in the ruins of the city, but on the frozen steps around it, when operations Uranus and Saturn were unleashed.

[ev]

I don't thing that the fall National Morale should be to relevant in case of WWII. If the "fall of morale" certainly lead to the capitulation of France, I doubt tha anything but total military defeat could cause the colapse of Great Britain and especially Soviet Union.

I was not arguing it should. I was only asking whether it had become a factor in the game.

[Ivanov]

I was not arguing it should. I was only asking whether it had become a factor in the game.

I know:) I just made a general digression about National Morale in regards of WWII.

[abukede]

Sorry for the delay in getting a turn in for the AAR. I did some traveling this weekend and the rest of my time was consumed getting the latest episode of my history show out. I've finally completed the final installment of the Battles of Lexington and Concord... Next topic will be WWII.

I will get a turn in tommorow morning.

[abukede]

Finally got a turn in. Destroyed that amor Al landed in England. We have one hell of an air war going over Southern England. Reformed my line in Russis just north of Stalingrad. Al is pushing hard and the assault on Lenningrad should begin this turn. I am trying to regain the initiative but it is hard.

[Catacol Highlander]

OK - second half of summer 1943 and a sitrep for you all. We have 4 battlefronts at present - I had wondered if we would have 5, but Marc has not so far advanced towards Moscow.

Here is the first, and increasingly interesting one in England:

You will remember that really I did this to try and occupy Marc. I am wondering now if I might actually get a permanent hold here and be able in 1944 to breakout and try and conquer the island. I destroyed an armour myself - disappointed about the loss of my own just south of London, but Marc mobilised what looked like most or all of the RAF to do it and I hope my jets wreaked havoc - and also drove another off to north of London on strength 1. I destroyed a battleship in the Med with Italian air power and damaged that US battleship in the Thames Estuary. I wonder how strong the Allied Navy is in real terms? This is a fascinating part of the game for me, as a newcomer to the setup of this scenario.

Elsewhere I am driving north out of Stalingrad and harrying the Red Army as it retreats:

You can see here the towns to the north of Saratov that I have now set as an objective for the summer. The power of the Red Army in the South is broken now.

To the north I waited one more turn in Leningrad to get my arty in range like this:

3 artillery units now ready to heap misery on the defenders.

The last battlefront concerns the bottled up Russian army around Grozny, but I am not ready yet to deal with that. Still hitting other areas first.

All in all I am in a very strong position now, even though I have sustained significant losses over the summer. As of yet I am not rebuilding any of these - it is all about reinforcement, upgrade and advance still. My Mpps are such that 2 turns over winter will be enough to buy everything back.

Finally a slide showing losses over the course of the war:

What is significant here from my angle is the armour losses. They are the killers in this game - my 2 armours near Saratov killed 2 full strength armies last turn between them with almost no loss in return. If you command the skies as well it becomes a fairly easy task to smash an enemy line. My Panzer Divisions combined with air tech (Marc seems to have had very bad luck in growing the tech level of the Red Air Force) have thusfar put me in front: when I next fight as the allies I will certainly be putting together a long term strategy for trying to nullify their effectiveness... Notice also how little damage the Italians have sustained - I think the Mediterranean is a superflous sphere of action in terms of victory overall, but from my angle my Italian troops have been very valuable in combatting partisans and defending key points. They are even now attacking Leningrad. Were Italy put under pressure it would put Germany under pressure in Russia through unit use. Something to consider.

[Fintilgin]

Yeah, in grand strategic WW2 games I've always felt the war is won or lost in Russia. So, as the Germans I don't usually 'waste' my units in North Africa - instead trying to throw everything at the Soviets, and as the Western Allies I tend to play very aggressively (maybe too much so) during the critical phases of the campaigns in Russia to try to pull German strength west.

[Catacol Highlander]

Yeah, in grand strategic WW2 games I've always felt the war is won or lost in Russia. So, as the Germans I don't usually 'waste' my units in North Africa - instead trying to throw everything at the Soviets, and as the Western Allies I tend to play very aggressively (maybe too much so) during the critical phases of the campaigns in Russia to try to pull German strength west.

Yep - that is how I would see it too. I think if the Mediterranean has any value it has to be in trying to take Italy out of the war. Alternatively the oil of the middle east might be an attractive objective. I definitely got intel a few turns ago that British units were gathered ready to attack for that oil, but curiously it hasnt happened. I wonder what devilish scheme Marc has up his sleeve...

But Russia is absolutely the key. Even now, with only one capital left, they still represent my biggest threat because they can put much more armour and infantry into the field than the Western Allies.

[abukede]

I disagree. I mismanaged the allies this game. Had I taken a different strategy I think the med would have played huge.

As to the turn... destroyed another army in England... and landed in Southern Spain.

[Blashy]

Hi The K Man

Anti-tank upgrades are now incorporated into the upgrade for Infantry Weapons, so it no longer has its own unique slot.

This has freed up a slot which is now used by Anti-Aircraft, so that many units, both land and naval, can now be upgraded with AA. This serves as a potential counter to the power of the Tac Bombers that you mentioned above.

Bill

I see my long ago nag finally made it in, I never liked the addition of AA guns, AA upgrade of units seemed more sensible and made for less clutter on the board.

Same goes for anti-tank unit and TAC bomber (should be an aircraft upgrade instead).

Blashy the minimalist

[Blashy]

i hope that there will be an option to turn off that you can see these graphs from your contrahent.

they are giving away far too much information for my taste.

perhaps investing in intelligence could give you some insight of this kind...

Agreed, I really don't like that this is giving out so much information, that's what "intelligence" investing should be for...

WAAAAYYYY too much information and not required for this type of game IMO (Strategic).

[Catacol Highlander]

The end of August 1943 and it is a question of driving as hard as possible before winter comes. I took Saratov, destroyed 3 or 4 units there including an HQ and in England destroyed another 2 ground units. I am bottled up in the SE for now and dont see any easy way out at present, but at least it is keeping Marc honest and unable to plan any proper D Day assault.

I also assaulted Leningrad but was unable to reduce the defending corps to less than 3. For all my artillery and armies up there what I really need is some German armour, but it is all busy elsewhere.

Soon I will need to decide to call a halt for winter, and then deal with the second Spanish landing which has occured plus perhaps at last get around to taking Yugoslavia. I will also need to rebuild some lost units soon too as I am quite a few down now, but on the plus side the Italian Army has just outgrown the British one, so that cant be a bad thing. :-)

[aesopo]

Agreed, I really don't like that this is giving out so much information, that's what "intelligence" investing should be for...

WAAAAYYYY too much information and not required for this type of game IMO (Strategic).

Agreed. This snap shot intelligence should be optional and should provide rough estimates only. As you increase your intelligence level, you get a clearer estimate as long as your intel level is greater that your opponents.

[abukede]

I surrender! I am conceding the match. Al has thoroughly beaten me. It's been one hell of a game and very enjoyable. I hope everyone who followed us enjoyed the game as much as I have.

Some quick thoughts: I made a few key mistakes which I think lost me the game.

1. I did not strike Al from the north when he invaded Russia. His entire power was in the south and I took him head on. I should have invaded East Prussa when I had the chance and forced him to respond.

2. I mismanaged the allies. I should have invaded Italy instead of Spain. I had the force and may have been able to knock Italy out of the war. Beyond that I just could not get the allies going... they only achieved advanced tech in 43 and by then it was too late. Combined with my mistakes in Spain I could not recover.

3. I failed to invest in air defense tech early enough in the East. This hurt me very badly. By the time I did and got the tech it was too late... the damage had been done.

I want to commend Al for an awesome match. As I said he is the only player who can regularly beat me. Do not underestimate him!

[ev]

I am a long standing fan of SC. In the past, Hubert has adopted some of my recommendations - THANKS FOR LISTENING HUBERT.

I have one more recomendation. I hope HUBERT looks into this one too.

Since the begining of the SC series I have had mixed feelings about how best to represent air-to-ground combat. Reading this AAR, I have the feeling TAC air is still an unresolve issue. These are my thoughts and my two cents:

When I read WWII historical accounts I get the feeling airpower was a big issue when troops were caught out in the open. Advancing troops were a great target for tactical airpower. However, tactical airpower were not quite as effective against entreched units, and, particularly, against entrenched infantry.

When you read these accounts you noticed TAC was used for two things: (a) To attack enemy formations on the move (like the German Panzer formations try to reach the Normandy Beaches, or the German spearhead in the Battle of the Buldge; or ( to suppress enemy fire while trying to advance (like Guderian's crossing of the Seine in 1940).

Hence, the question: How can we make TAC in SC best represent this historical accounts we hear?

FIRST: Note I am talking about TAC's, not Bombers; Dive bombers, not carpet bombing; Stukas, not B-17's.

(a) Since TAC's were most effective against units caught out in the open, I thought it would be best to eliminate the "de-entrenchment" value of TAC's. In that way, TAC's would remain effective against units caught out in the open, but become somewhat less effective against entrenched units.

( But, since TAC's were good suppressors of enemy fire, I would keep or even increase the effect TAC has on Morale/Readiness.

In fact, I think TAC's main effect should be to reduce Morale/Readiness, while having a smaller attack value. TAC's main contribution is that it forced the opposing side to take cover, so that they would not be killed out in the open. It forced units to march at night, to take the long route to avoid open spaces, etc. Thus, the effect TAC's had on readiness was much higher than the actual losses caused. TAC's combined with ground attack was so important because TAC would suppress defensive fire, allowing your ground troops to be much more effective in thei attack, while taking lower losses.

A fleet of TAC's should have a very hard time destroying an entrenched ground unit that is sitting accross the channel, unconfronted by ground troops. The true value of TAC's should be in lowering the morale/readiness of a defender so that the attacking ground units are more successful.

[Blashy]

Good points EV. Takes were not proficient in what they carried to destroy fortifications or well entrenched forces.

[Catacol Highlander]

Since the begining of the SC series I have had mixed feelings about how best to represent air-to-ground combat. Reading this AAR, I have the feeling TAC air is still an unresolve issue.

I think one thing the AAR did not manage to illustrate was the potential of the max 5 point AA upgrade for all ground units. I can tell you that adjacent AA units to the Allied units I hit hard in England did more damage to my Tac Air in the course of the attack than any of Mac's air power ever did. I have not played enough myself yet, but I imagine that a unit on AA3 or 4 or 5 may well do quite a bit or return damage and also be more resilient to Tac Air so I would hesitate to say that it is still an unresolved issue.

[Catacol Highlander]

Thanks to Marc for the game - I enjoyed it immensely.

Doing my own debrief these were the strategic bits I was most happy with:

1. Focus on Russian economic resources in the South

2. Tech advance in Tac Air which became my most powerful asset.

3. Harvesting of my Armour

Things I am less certain went well:

1. Invasion of Spain. Was it wise? I got away with it because it distracted Marc, but it meant I never got Greece and Yugoslavia and had potentially much to defend. Gibraltar was an asset though.

2. U boats. I held them back a long time, though when they did strike I was surprised how long they were able to sit on the Arctic convoys and eat up mpps. Was it wise to hold them back? Unsure.

3. North Africa was lost too quickly, but again I got lucky and it didnt lead to an early attack on Italy.

4. Beefing up my Italian Navy at the expense of sending them out to maraud in the Med. Not sure... Might have done much to distract the RN, but I cant help thinking they were a big asset I never used.

Hope everyone enjoyed the AAR. Thanks to Marc and also Hubert/Bill for the opportunity.

[harry33]

Could you post the world map with all units?

[lhughes41]

Very good analysis. I think of Stalingrad where in fact entrenchments were improved by bombardment :-)

Dug in troops are very hard to effect. Looking at the shocking lack of impact naval bombardments in the Pacific had on even small atolls if the defenders were dug in.

My experience with the game in earlier versions was it was always about TAC. The only way to survive as soviets was to master AA and then then Air Force. The only way to survive as UK was to build AA early.

So a second here for something along these lines.