Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Description of your first forum.

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Ben Turner » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:59 am

xandamere wrote:Worth noting that the Boston bridge bombing is so successful largely because of the seriously short distance - I can use my shorter-range bombers, of which I have a huge number. Even with some airfields nearer to Texas, if I stuff those with fighters, I can still only hit the Texas bridges with my long-range bombers. Those are rarer and more precious. Basically, I think I can bomb the Boston area bridges indefinitely (and at this point in our match I am basically bombing them to prompt air engagement to attrit the Luftwaffe, because even with 15 German fighter units in range, I have 30+ Allied fighters in range on my side). I don't think I can bomb the Texas bridges unless I have a LOT of airfields nearby. Just a couple won't do it.

That said, if development on Fall Grau continues, the bridge bombing situation has to be looked at. The way supply is calculated is, of course, stupid (bridge bombing shouldn't generate such an all-or-nothing binary result), and it's too easy to shove enough bombers in to all but ensure key bridges go down.


I am thinking that the Axis player should, perhaps, have a series of inland supply points. These would appear on a time delay from capturing the city (take Wichita and you get a supply point there c. 4 turns later), and the supply rating would be inversely proportional to the distance from the sea. This would be explicitly the Axis setting up an advanced supply dump to deal with problems back down the line.

For example, supply points along a rough line Oklahoma City - Nashville - Cleveland with a 75% rating. Kansas City - St Louis - Louisville would have maybe 50%. This way, your supply will be pretty miserable up at the front if you don't have a completed rail line- but it won't be like turning off a tap. We can debate how exactly this ought to be distributed but this is the general idea.

The only problem with this is in a weird situation where the Axis grabs one of these locations without having the intervening territory at all. Let's say they get Cleveland having driven all the way from Galveston. However that would be a pretty extreme match anyway.
User avatar
Ben Turner
 
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby xandamere » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:45 pm

I think that makes sense and I think it was discussed in another thread somewhere. The current situation is just too binary. 75% seems pretty aggressive for no rail connection, but 40-60% maybe?
xandamere
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:39 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Ben Turner » Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:24 pm

xandamere wrote:I think that makes sense and I think it was discussed in another thread somewhere. The current situation is just too binary. 75% seems pretty aggressive for no rail connection, but 40-60% maybe?


I'm thinking some combination of;
a) bridge bombing is so overpowered that we have to consider the bridge being out all the time in TOAW does not mean the bridge is out all the time in the real world
b) the Germans would set up a ferry service to cover the gap
User avatar
Ben Turner
 
Posts: 3183
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:59 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby xandamere » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:06 am

Yep, absolutely. Even an aggressive bridge bombing campaign doesn't result in 100% downtime, and in reality there would be trains in service on both sides with ferries or whatever else moving supplies across. Less efficient, yes, but not just a total negation of the rail line as it is currently.
xandamere
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:39 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:59 pm

Turn 39
Well not much good coming out of this turn. Boston is mainly the back and forth, but I seem to be maybe capturing an extra hex here and there in the northern part of the line. That said I am concerned enough about losses that I am not pushing hard in the south, instead advancing to the Hudson and then spreading the units out so that whole stacks are not caught in the counterattack.

Frustration around Richmond this turn as Matt kills a couple of Divisions I think and throws me back to my starting line. Here I have cycled through my whole army and it is now just the case that I am pulling low supplied units off the front in a cycle. The real frustration is that I have barely gotten off the start line on this front despite a really solid push. It is just so absolutely clear that numbers and quality of the forces involved are so significantly less important then artillery. I mean I have the better army here and yet it has barely moved in a 6 turn offensive because Matt easily blasts me back to my starting lines irrespective of what my army is made out of. I notice this in the attacks as well. I really don't give much of a crap if I am using Infantry or SS Panzers...they are kind of the same. The artillery does the work.

This is on my mind while thinking about the West and the crossing of the Mississippi. I am not ready to cross this turn and with still some bridges to repair it won't be next turn plus not all the stacks or set up for a major attack and some launch off points are further away. End result is I am getting scared about how long it will take before I am ready to attack. I was considering starting the attacks in each area as they became ready but artillery is so clearly the dominant decider of battles that I have to hit the whole line at the same time for fear that Matt will be able blunt one attack with artillery and then shift the artillery to the next attack. The more attacks going on at the same time the best chance I have. That however means that I might not be ready to try a crossing until turn 43. I can really hear the loud banging of the clock in this scenario and that seems like a long time. Hopefully I can shave that down to turn 42.

Mexico seems like an area with a fair bit of action. Matt follows up with some more attacks on his turn but, while I am driven back, I don't lose any units. On my turn the Finns are finally beginning to arrive in force, and I begin a counter attack. We will see how this turns out. The American Armour on this front is obviously excellent but Mexican Divisions are pretty poor. In fact here I worry less about the all consuming artillery as against Mexicans I feel I need it less unless they Fortify.

Meanwhile the supply line down here is done as far as I plan to push it at this point. I need rail repair over the Missouri desperately and all these units will aim to rail out next turn. Same story in the East where the rail repair is done for the time being and will head for ports next turn.

I was a bit distressed when I opened the turn and for the first time in the match the spread was negative. I have taken higher losses then Matt. I was a bit mollified when it became clear that I had a unit with 2000 German Rifle Squads evaporate off map. That will bump up the loss rate but it should fall again next turn when those rifle squads flow into the units. That said even with the fall of Denver this turn Matt's replacement rate goes to 75% next turn and even if I can recover the spread a bit the situation is going to be a problem.

Denver 51%

Turn 39.png
Turn 39.png (2.52 MiB) Viewed 52 times

The attacks around Boston continue more because attack is the only effective form of defence then because there is any chance of success
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby xandamere » Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:17 am

Turn 39:

Well, looks like the Japanese are indeed coming all the way around - I see some have landed at Galveston. That is an incredibly interesting strategy to me. My money is on them heading down to Mexico, as it seems like quite a few other Axis units are going that direction. Jeremy is also building out his rail line down here, which makes me wonder if I just need to abandon the country….with the Axis in Albuquerque, I don’t have great rail links down to Mexico, and I’m not sure how much I really want to fight over what is now just a single industrial city left down there (albeit a major one). It’s not like I have a massive force down here but I don’t want to keep sending more units on multi-turn rail journeys to this out of the way front. I don’t think it’s time to abandon Mexico just yet….but I want to be mindful of it so I don’t get trapped down here if, say, Jeremy uses his paratroopers to cut the last rail link on the western coast.

Something has to be coming to a head soon here. It feels like we’ve been fighting back and forth in the east for so long without anything really changing, but out west there’s more fluidity….until now, when I have to actually stop retreating and not let Jeremy walk into Chicago. It’s amazing how this match looks so much like our last match, with the key differences being that Jeremy is behind his timetable out west, but in return he has the Boston beachhead.
xandamere
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 6:39 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:36 am

Turn 40
Not super clear on what happened with the Spread. It did shift back as expected but a surprisingly small amount of the Rifle Squads managed to flow back into the German Divisions. I went from 2000 in the pool last turn to 1500 in the pool this turn.

Meanwhile in the East Matt was quite aggressive at both Boston, pushing back hard and the Richmond area. On my turn counter attacks pretty much retake lost ground but, particularly in Boston, I despair of ever actually getting anywhere. Near Richmond I lose a couple of Regiments which is annoying as I am not to certain what to do with the rest of the Regiments that now can’t join a Division. One option would be to relieve some Brigades from the South, another is to have them take over rail guard duty.

The West, outside of Mexico, remains pretty quiet as I continue to build up for the big attack. This turn the rail units everywhere else on the map start actively heading to the West where the supply line is clearly well behind the front and needs to catch up – while also creating enough alternate routes that Matt can’t easily cut supply by taking out a single bridge.

I also have a couple of Engineers heading back to the West, which along with arriving Japanese Engineers ought to provide a pretty substantial force of Engineers to fix blown bridges and cover the Mississippi crossing. Japanese begin to move up to the front and Matt comments that he has seen my Japanese Landing and begins thinning out the Coastal Garrisons a little. Even with all of this going on I am at least two turns from the Mississippi crossing and will have to seriously consider at that time if I am ready. I remain pretty convinced that I have to make a lot of crossings at the same time or risk Matt being able to shift reserves. Of course every turn delayed is bad news at this stage in the game. Matt is about to start receiving heavy reinforcements and the replacement rate just jumped to 75%. On turn 50 if I don’t make some progress it gets truly out of control.

Mexico is in some ways the most interesting of the fronts. Matt pushes hard with American Armoured Divisions but they mostly just advance into the Paratroopers which had landed last turn and thus became a kind of reserve. On my turn I drive him back and surround and mostly destroy one of the American Armoured Divisions. It is also pretty clear that the Mexicans are not truly up to snuff in the open and unfortified as I am able to start pushing them back. With more Italians due to start arriving on this front I begin to have dreams of a push all the way south to Mexico City. Admittedly right now the supply line is right at my front line but those rail units just left so it is not getting any further forward anytime soon.

Allied Production Boost 76%

Loss Rating (Axis/Allies): 192/197
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:37 am

Axis North East Front Turn 40
Attachments
Turn 40 North East Front.png
Turn 40 North East Front.png (1.33 MiB) Viewed 41 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:37 am

Axis South Front Turn 40
Attachments
Turn 40 South Front.png
Turn 40 South Front.png (1.91 MiB) Viewed 41 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

Re: Fall Grau 2.25 Jeremy (Axis) v.s. Matt (Allies) Match 5

Postby Jeremy Mac Donald » Sat Aug 03, 2019 1:38 am

Axis West Front Turn 40
Attachments
Turn 40 West Front.png
Turn 40 West Front.png (2.55 MiB) Viewed 41 times
“Such subtle covenants shall be made, till peace itself is war in masquerade.”
―John Dryden
Jeremy Mac Donald
 
Posts: 1131
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron