Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh

I think the point Michael wants to establish with this match is that even if he just runs for the hills and losses the South, Moscow and Leningrad in 41, he can still stall the 42 Axis summer offensive and achieve a Soviet Major Victory before May 45. Although in that case he shouldn't be holding onto anything except his army. I doubt it will work, but I am curious to see the result. So far I think he forgoes the chance even for a minor victory if the runs in 41, although at least his army may be in better shape for some counteroffensives in contrast to the common state when the Axis player just overruns the Soviets, brute force.

quote:


What would be much much more important in my opinion would be an AAR against one of those extremely aggressive and fast Axis players that shows that given the present conditions and rule sets it is possible to survive as Russian by holding forward and counterattacking vigilantly, as history proved it to be possible. In the end, this whole discussion isn't about whether it is the smartest strategy to withdraw in 41/42 summers as Russian, or in the 41 winter as Axis, but whether there exists a strategy or the means that would allow a good Soviet player to hold something like historical lines by December 41 and have enough means (AP points, pools units) to start a blizzard offensive and also conquer Berlin in the long run.
If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...

quote:

If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega :)

As to the steamroller, perhaps the MP cost of assaulting forts should be higher? Or perhaps the "entering the ZOC cost of a fort" is higher? |The rationale being well planned arcs of fire, fire support, minefields etc. Then the Armored Corps have a role as only they might have enough MP to do attacks on a second line of defence.

quote:

But to demonstrate that historical case would require a German player who arbitrarily decided to siege Leningrad instead of storm it early on, as well as a German player who decided to divert AGC south while it outnumbered the defenders between it and Moscow, only turning back toward Moscow when the calendar was too far along to complete the task. In short, historical outcomes rely on historical behavior by BOTH sides. Pardon me, but I never thought that was the point of these types of games. The point is always to try and do it better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42.

I have pocketed 155 units of which 15 were corp during 42 and the Russian player had many many corps by the end of January 43. I also had killed 4 million by December 41.

I have seen 8 million man armys by June 42 that I cut though like butter and 7.3 million men armys that I never was able to punch through.

I beleive that infantry corp in 42 water down the red army. Your better off with less full strength units and AP/manpower in the bank until January 43.

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42.

I have pocketed 155 units of which 15 were corp during 42 and the Russian player had many many corps by the end of January 43. I also had killed 4 million by December 41.

I have seen 8 million man armys by June 42 that I cut though like butter and 7.3 million men armys that I never was able to punch through.

I beleive that infantry corp in 42 water down the red army. Your better off with less full strength units and AP/manpower in the bank until January 43.

I assume the 7.3 million man army you are referring to was Kamil's. If you refer back to your AAR and look at the screenshot of the front, he clearly has HQs sitting on forts to prevent decay. That no longer works as you know from first-hand experience.

And you were through the Level 3 forts before you called a halt. Under todays rules, you likely get through.

And you'll also note he did have rifle corps built.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.

I'm sorry, Helio, the NATO Doctine that you like to bring up is largely irrelevant. So the Red Army can shift a lot of divisions around between armies in 1941. The result hardly holds any significance. Even Zhukov will get his butt kicked when commanding a neatly organized and "optimal" field army if it is directly in the path of a panzer push. In 1942 when it comes to admin points the Soviet player constantly lives hand to mouth once his divisions need to be replaced and corps created.

Consider the Soviet position at the end of a relatively successful German '42 Summer offensive.

Replace 90 rifle divisions = 900AP = 15 weeks of APs
Build 24 tank corps = 480AP = 9 weeks of APs
Build 6 rifle corps = 120AP = 2 weeks of APs
Any new army HQ = 25hp = .4 week of AP
Any mech corps = 35 hp (3 motor/mech brigades plus corps build cost)
30 artillery divisions = 300AP = 5 weeks of AP

That's over 7 months worth even without the new army HQs and you better hope as Soviet that you don't lose many of those precious 20hp corps units. And to have all this in place in early 1943 is a tall order. You are in such a scenario having to start this build process in May-June 1942.

Want to add an SU to a corps? That's 2AP each, one to buy it at the army or STAVKA and another to assign it to the corps.
Then there's the General-Major Stepan Kalinin lovefest. This guy apparently has naughty pictures of an influential member of the Politburo because the AI constantly picks him to command a newly raised army or replacing a leader gone KIA or replaced. His stats are 3/4/4/5 - 2/5/5/1. The guy really needs to be put in a gulag but the AI loves him. So you have to plan on spending APs usually more than once to get rid of him. And of course you will spend APs to change any new leadrers out that you want.

Aircraft upgrades are also 1AP each, but the AI only replaces those units at under half strength. That generally means waiting until the pool for a particular model runs dry. Meanwhile, where do the most modern planes go? To the new air units the AI raises. With experience in the upper 30's they're more a menace to their own people and these FBs seldom shoot down planes. I'm literally disbanding all newly formed fighter and fighter bomber units to keep modern planes in the pool that I can then spend APs on to redistribute these to the best units.

So yes, maybe the Soviets get too many APs in the narrow focus of what happens in 1941, but when you see the related AP expenses into 1942 and beyond, the same AP numbers appear almost necessary.

quote:

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega :)

quote:

The Russian player should not have any corps built until January 43.
Divisions are more then enough to slow down tanks in 42

quote:

The invaders have struck a strong blow straight at Leningrad. It will most likely be cut off in 1 or 2 more turns. But I will make him fight for it.