Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: pbhawkins

For the large scenarios (DNO, FiTE etc) is it better to go slow and destroy Russians by surrounding them and thereby reducing the replacements in later turns or go hell
for leather for distant objectives and deal with the added replacements then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Here is an animation I made from my last DNO game, turn 1-11. As you can see the most important thing for the Axis is to keep on moving forward, every defence the soviets threw up was quickly breached and either destroyed or he retreated. The southern defence line you can see in the last picture of this animation was breached in turn 12

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

It's been said in other posts that the Russians don't have enough units in this scenario and that therefore the scenrio is broke. to do a don't think this is a scenario design problem but is quite historical. All through 41 the Russians simply didn't have the troops to form a decent front line accross the whole of the Soviet Union.

quote:

Unfortunately TOAW does not allow for blowing up rail lines and airfields making it easier for the Luftwaffe to keep up.

quote:

Also not modeled in TOAW is regauging which is a rail pain for the Axis in the Boardgame.

quote:

I'm not saying that you cannot leave rearguards in Kiev and Odessa, and other places, far from. But fighting along the whole length of the Diepner through to Gomel, Vitbesk, Velekiey Luki unto Leningrad in the summer of 41 is just asking for trouble. As pointed out before, a competent Axis player will concentrate his forces on 3-4 spots, break through and surround the rest. Quite historical.

quote:

If the Axis runs far in front of his supply local counter attacks can put him in his place. This is called the runaway defence and works very well in the boardgame equivalent. I haven't had the chance to test in in TOAW3 but I see no reason why it shouldn't work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

It's been said in other posts that the Russians don't have enough units in this scenario and that therefore the scenrio is broke. to do a don't think this is a scenario design problem but is quite historical. All through 41 the Russians simply didn't have the troops to form a decent front line accross the whole of the Soviet Union.

The problem, then, is not so much that the Russians don't have enough units to do this, but that the Axis does. They can indeed reliably man the entire front. So it's just a matter of pushing forward wherever the Russian player isn't.

GLVACA:
Which makes it a point for the Russian to buy enough time by delaying the advance as much as possible with small rearguards well dugin while preparing his line further East. The Russian is more then capable of making a strong defence in depth just before Moskva through to Leningrad and Voronezh. It seems to me it is virtually impossible for the German to get to Voronezh properly supplied before the fall mud.

quote:

Unfortunately TOAW does not allow for blowing up rail lines and airfields making it easier for the Luftwaffe to keep up.

a) rail lines are automatically damaged when a hex is converted
b) German single-engined fighters generally had no difficulty operating off highly improvised airfields.

GLVACA:
a) not all railroads are damaged in FitE. There is a good chance they are captured intact. After time that chance is gone and rail damage is set at 100%
b) that still leaves the bombers.

quote:

Also not modeled in TOAW is regauging which is a rail pain for the Axis in the Boardgame.

Rail repair is quite a problem in several of the East Front scenarios (DNO being one). Less so in others.

GLVACA:
Rail repair and then having to convert from broad to narrow was one of the key problems the Germans faced in the first year. They simply couln't keep up. Obviously, that's a double action required and thus a more lenghty process. As is, even with the repair only, if the Germans advance to quickly they will run out of supply. If they then bumb into a properly defended line all fortified they will have a serious problem unentreching the defenders (because their arty becomes ineffective) and pay heavily in lives and turn burns.

quote:

I'm not saying that you cannot leave rearguards in Kiev and Odessa, and other places, far from. But fighting along the whole length of the Diepner through to Gomel, Vitbesk, Velekiey Luki unto Leningrad in the summer of 41 is just asking for trouble. As pointed out before, a competent Axis player will concentrate his forces on 3-4 spots, break through and surround the rest. Quite historical.

What's striking is that in the 10km/hex scenarios, such concentration doesn't have to be very serious. The German player merely needs to pour enough infantry in to be able to stick one regiment next to every Russian division and have some left over to stretch the flanks. Since the Russians can never have a continuous line everywhere at once, they have to keep retreating incrementally; and due to the shortage of units and inability to divide, retreats usually turn into collapses.

GLVACA:
That's the whole point. As the Russian you cannot afford to fight before your main line of resistance which I would place 100-150KM of Moskva. Here you will hold or die. To that effect you need to sacrifice terrain in the South because the vastness of the geography will take care of the Germans there. At least untill you get sufficient numbers to also hold there comfortably. Leave troops in Odessa and make sure Sevastopol is protected. Build your line further away, Stalino or even Rostov if need be. The most important battle is around Moskva and Leningrad. The South is expendable.

quote:

If the Axis runs far in front of his supply local counter attacks can put him in his place. This is called the runaway defence and works very well in the boardgame equivalent. I haven't had the chance to test in in TOAW3 but I see no reason why it shouldn't work.

Units on low supply in TOAW tend to be too effective- especially if they have high proficiencies, as the Germans do in this situation. I suspect you will find yourself unable to deliver effective counterattacks against the Germans in these scenarios- at least not until the designer slams shock penalties onto the whole front. Even then it's iffy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Without wanting to imply you are not an excellent player, which you obviously are, I would wager a guess your opponent has fought to close to the German border and in essence addopted what is called the forwards defence. This style of play has benifits if it works but is also the potentially most dangerous when it fails. As it clearly has in your example.

quote:


It's been said in other posts that the Russians don't have enough units in this scenario and that therefore the scenrio is broke. to do a don't think this is a scenario design problem but is quite historical. All through 41 the Russians simply didn't have the troops to form a decent front line accross the whole of the Soviet Union.

quote:


Also not modeled in TOAW is regauging which is a rail pain for the Axis in the Boardgame. As you need to repair all the rails first and then regauge them.

quote:


In fact, by running far enough the Axis will run out of supply and certain objectives will just be unreachable untill the rail lines get repaired.

quote:


It seems to me that most Sovs make the mistake of fighting to close to the border, get their lines pierced and then cannot disengage fast enough, and get surrounded, and killed leaving gaps which cannot be plugged. A common mistake I seem to see is fighting heavily for the South while in the boardgame it is common practice to leave the South to the Axis while using the troops to help defend Leningrad and Moskva. I'm not saying that you cannot leave rearguards in Kiev and Odessa, and other places, far from. But fighting along the whole length of the Diepner through to Gomel, Vitbesk, Velekiey Luki unto Leningrad in the summer of 41 is just asking for trouble.
As pointed out before, a competent Axis player will concentrate his forces on 3-4 spots, break through and surround the rest. Quite historical.

quote:


When all is said and done, remember that the Russians lost Kharkov, Kiev, Smolensk, etc... and still managed to win the war. The Russian should conserve his strength untill winter when he has the advantage. Alternating the tune "run, run away" by "run, run away and delay"

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca


Which makes it a point for the Russian to buy enough time by delaying the advance as much as possible with small rearguards well dugin while preparing his line further East. The Russian is more then capable of making a strong defence in depth just before Moskva through to Leningrad and Voronezh. It seems to me it is virtually impossible for the German to get to Voronezh properly supplied before the fall mud.

quote:

a) not all railroads are damaged in FitE. There is a good chance they are captured intact. After time that chance is gone and rail damage is set at 100%

quote:

b) that still leaves the bombers.

quote:

GLVACA:
Rail repair and then having to convert from broad to narrow was one of the key problems the Germans faced in the first year. They simply couln't keep up. Obviously, that's a double action required and thus a more lenghty process. As is, even with the repair only, if the Germans advance to quickly they will run out of supply. If they then bumb into a properly defended line all fortified they will have a serious problem unentreching the defenders (because their arty becomes ineffective) and pay heavily in lives and turn burns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Quite on the contrary, in DNO a soviet forward defence has actually quite good chances of succeeding, thanks the the enormous soviet reinforcements and replacements. In quite a few DNO games I stalled the german thrust by turn 10+ in a bloody stalemate!
Only when the Axis player really knows his business will the soviets be forced to flee, but than again they will get so many reinforcements and reconstituted units and replacements that from turn 4 forward its not uncommon for them to get several pages or reinforcements each turn.

quote:


Are you mistaking DNO with FitE? In DNO the soviets are swimming in units, in fact they have hit the 2000 unit limit and you are therefore unable to divide their division, (that's in a game which only simulates mid 1941- Feb.1942, and not like FitE 1941-45) but thats no problem, as you'll get almost 2 divisions for every regiment the germans can throw at you :)
In one DNO where the germans surrendered at turn 6 I had 760 units who were able to man a front from the baltics down to the black sea, while still having units in reserve.
In another DNO where the germans surrendered at turn 14 the soviet had already 970 units, manning approximately the same front as in the above mentioned game.
I haven't counted the length of the front in hexes, but as most soviet units are full rifle divisions and with utilizing the nature given good defencive positions, those 750 units can form quite a formidable defence.

quote:


Oh, the Axis will run out of supply by turn 4 or so and from that point forward advance at continuously 1% supply, but thtas just because of the TOAW supply system weakness and there is really nothing you can do about that.

quote:


If you think it's that easy, care to play a game of DNO agianst me, you can take the germans if you want
I don't have TOAW III yet, but as the scenario isnt converted to TOAW III yet that should be no problem, my trusty CoW will still do the trick

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

This is all fine, but this isn't what the Russians did. In point of fact the Russians did exactly what you advise a Russian player not to do- and in spades. Yet they won anyway. Would you say this points to problems with the way the Germans conducted the campaign, or with the scenario?

quote:



The rail repair capacity is far too effective in this scenario anyway. I'm thinking mostly of DNO, since that's not handicapped by the need to compromise with the rest of the war in the East.

quote:



Less of a problem. The Stukas can operate from ad-hoc airfields too, whilst the rest have the range to fly from airfields which have had time to be worked up. Obviously not ideal, but not exactly crippling.

quote:



The artillery isn't that badly affected. If we take a look at DNO, even though Daniel's been good enough to set the artillery to 60% proficiency, it will still have half as much firepower at 1% supply as it does at 100%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'd say that question is impossible to answer with any certainty, and I strongly suspect you know that all to well
Guidelines to strategy are never fullproof. Every action has a reaction. The fact that the Russians got away with losing army after army can be credited to certain decisions the Germans made which gave the Russians time to get their line back in order by the time when the Germans did march on Moskva. Not to mention the weather giving a helping hand and the fact that Japan decided against attacking the Soviet Union and went for the Pacific instead.

quote:

Hmmm, Don't quite follow that. I haven't compared the amount of RR engineers in DNO with those in FitE but I do know that the German supply radius in FitE is 4 while in DNO it's 10. That gives the Germans a lot more flexibility in DNO then in FitE I would think...

quote:

Imagine you need to first repair and then regauge raillines. While still having to rebuild bridges and repair airfields. Those engineers (note that engineers can repair but not regauge raillines)

quote:

I think that you will agree that adhoc airfields are less effective in maintaining the operational strength of a unit, lack of facilities, etc... Perhaps this should be reflected in reduced readiness?

quote:

That's interesting, I'm not sure about that and I think I read somewhere that arty on low supply is less effective (not only less strong) in giving support and untreching bombarments. Can someone confirm one way or the other?

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Perhaps the Germans you seem to defeat so easily don't care enough about supply?

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

Hmmm, Don't quite follow that. I haven't compared the amount of RR engineers in DNO with those in FitE but I do know that the German supply radius in FitE is 4 while in DNO it's 10. That gives the Germans a lot more flexibility in DNO then in FitE I would think...

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

The point is that by making it necessary to repair all that damage by engineers you delay the German advance. Making it easier for the Russian to survive. Remember that I actually referred to comments made by Industrial and others in Larry's AAR where they stated that the Russians had the worst of this encounter. Only to find Industrial now saying more or less the opposite

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'll accept that challenge as the Russians in FitE. It has to be TOAW3 as I do not own COW, unfortunately. If you accept send me the opening turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious


ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'd say that question is impossible to answer with any certainty, and I strongly suspect you know that all to well
Guidelines to strategy are never fullproof. Every action has a reaction. The fact that the Russians got away with losing army after army can be credited to certain decisions the Germans made which gave the Russians time to get their line back in order by the time when the Germans did march on Moskva. Not to mention the weather giving a helping hand and the fact that Japan decided against attacking the Soviet Union and went for the Pacific instead.

quote:

Hmmm, Don't quite follow that. I haven't compared the amount of RR engineers in DNO with those in FitE but I do know that the German supply radius in FitE is 4 while in DNO it's 10. That gives the Germans a lot more flexibility in DNO then in FitE I would think...

quote:

Imagine you need to first repair and then regauge raillines. While still having to rebuild bridges and repair airfields. Those engineers (note that engineers can repair but not regauge raillines)

quote:

That's interesting, I'm not sure about that and I think I read somewhere that arty on low supply is less effective (not only less strong) in giving support and untreching bombarments. Can someone confirm one way or the other?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

I'll accept that challenge as the Russians in FitE. It has to be TOAW3 as I do not own COW, unfortunately. If you accept send me the opening turn.

Too bad, but I don't have TOAW III yet, and don't plan on upgrading unless I see some real improvements over CoW. The changes so far point in the right direction, but for me as a PBEM only player there still isn't that much of improvement to be found, the fixed AA bug maybe, but not enough as to convince me yet :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

True but they are given, i.e. out of control of the players whilst strategy _is_ under the control of the players. Quite obvious, why play otherwise? And this is what, for me, the discussion is all about. What is the best strategy for the Axis and Sovs? Your point was, that whilst the Sovs made the "mistakes" I would advise against they still won the war. My point is that while it is true the Sovs made those mistakes their is no guarentee that the Axis will make his same mistakes (i.e. divert the main drive to Kiev) and if he doesn't make the same mistakes he made historically, you could find yourself in a bit of a pickle. So therefore I would advice the Sovs, not to make the same mistakes that where made historically in the first place.

quote:

Yes, at turn 21 it goes down to 8 and 34 (mud) to 2 for both sides. Still better then FitE.

quote:

Hmmm, I think it involves more then that. You need special equipment as the woden bills (don't know English translation)

quote:

on which the rails rest don't have the correct profile. They are broader then those used for narrow rails and thus the profiles in which the rails rest are to far appart. You also need to make sure it is positioned correctly, etc... Far more clever people then me have devoted a lot of study on the subject and their conclusion was you need specialist troops to do it. Who am I to argue?

quote:

And that means that being in supply is imperative if you want to tackle a well fortified line. Un-fortifying before an assault will save you a lot of troops and, not to forget, turn burns. If you want to crack a line you need patience and a lot of combat phases. If either is lacking you will end up in WO1 trench warfare and lose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

Too bad, but I don't have TOAW III yet, and don't plan on upgrading unless I see some real improvements over CoW. The changes so far point in the right direction, but for me as a PBEM only player there still isn't that much of improvement to be found, the fixed AA bug maybe, but not enough as to convince me yet :)