Directive 21 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> After Action Reports



Message

Fungwu -> Directive 21 (8/13/2010 12:40:58 AM)

The plan is to strike east along 3 axes. The northern strike will contain Tank group 3 and 4. Their mission will be to penetrate opposition between the border and Saransk, 1410 km distant. The next leg of their journey takes them north west to Lake Lagoda, another ~600km.

The calculations behind this plan are to stick to open country where maneuvering is easiest. Especially to be avoided is urban fighting in Moscow which will be bypassed. By maintaining a great speed of advance it is estimated that enemy reinforcements and supplies can be cut off from the rear and the entire region Moscow-Gorky-Leningrad can be taken without a protracted fight.

The second and middle axis passes south of Minsk and ends at Saratov, ~1600km. This mission is assigned to Tank group 2. This mission is the most open ended. The intention is that Tank group 2 can swing either north or south to support either of the two flanks of the advance. This could be accomplished by moving the group entirely, or in part off of its marked axis. This group will potentially send its entire force at the end of its advance to support the northern advance to envelop Moscow and Leningrad. In addition to, or replacing entirely such a move, Tank group 2 could continue on to the Ural mountain range and completely sever North-South rail communication, preventing opposing forces from shifting from one side to the other. This second move would greatly support any operation to completely clear the southern portion of the map.

The Southern axis of advance will fall to Tank group 1. The mission will be to proceed south of Kiev to Stalingrad, ~1600km. Ultimately the goal is cut off the Caucasus region from the north, potentially with the assistance of tank group 2. This could happen in several ways, so nothing too specific is marked here. Sharing the exact principles with the northern group, the southern axis will concentrate on advancing only through open terrain and strictly avoiding fights in any cities.

The overall plan has two favorable outcomes. One is that a partial victory is achieved if the Caucasus region can be cut off. This is because such an advance will have overtaken most of the opposing capacity to produce war material. Any future advance will be made possible by this fact.

If the northern attack can succeed completely in conjunction with the southern attack then a complete victory can be achieved. In this case the large majority of opposing armies and factories will have been captured and continued resistance will be untenable.

If any situation of uncertainty develops, it is favorable to reinforce the Southern attack at the expense of the northern. The completion of the southern advance would make possible a second attempt at the illustrated northern campaign after the first winter is over. The northern advance is the more ambitious of the two, without a solidly corresponding benefit, so it is the most likely to be scaled down in case of difficulties.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/AD05513B60064477AD2CC24E3B947155.jpg[/image]



Santayana_slith -> RE: Directive 21 (8/13/2010 2:46:30 AM)

If this is a 3.4 game it should be interesting to watch the PO response and the new rules effects.
Keep the updates coming.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/13/2010 11:09:27 PM)

This picture is after both sides' first moves.

I will make some remarks concerning tactics.

The strategic aim is to make advances. Advances must be made along existing rail lines for logistical reasons. Tactical moves can be made anywhere, but ultimately rail lines must be cleared for the advance to continue.
The ground forces first advance through holes in the lines to probe the enemy second echelon. Based on this attacks are made against the first echelon by infantry, and then the tanks follow through the holes, aimed at those spots where the second echelon is thinnest. Attacks can be developed along 2-4 different routes to split the defenses, but as soon as one route is clear to advance, the other routes are consolidated into one.

Generally combat is avoided as much as possible, and the combats that develop consequently have a greater share of artillery and air support available. Casualties for this first turn among the infantry were 1303 rifle squads. Opposing units not selected to be assaulted are generally pinned in place by division split into two to await reduction at a future date.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/3EE5BFB009FD43D7A10DF547D0EC8704.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/14/2010 5:44:57 AM)

The end of my second turn.

Here you can see the basic outline of my plans. Infantry have corralled opposing mechanized corps into pockets north and south of my penetration. Tank units are scouting out several different rail lines while a large reserve of tank
divisions is behind the front lines waiting for a clear route to advance on the next line of defenses.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/FEA040FB8C8D40519F4E5FCFF8FC4CFA.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/15/2010 1:37:09 AM)

This is the south, end of turn 4.

The tanks are snaking through the lines, clearing a way ahead.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/BD48B941528E4FD18701909E8AD4DE08.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 5:19:20 PM)

Turn 5: The view in the south as well as an inset of the rest of the action.

Losses in rifle squads are at 1773. 1303 were from the first turn, so an average of 100 per turn since then.

As I move, the forward units wind around any resistance. Secondary units secure the flanks from attack. When forts are encountered the first move is to cut the supplies. The second move is to bombard with heavy artillery. The final move is to assault.

In this picture I am trying to cut off the supplies while the artillery and reinforcements move up after success against a Soviet division defending Tarnopol. In the picture are several pockets, and several Soviet units on either flank being engaged frontally. I will wait for the troops in the pockets to surrender. I will continue to pin down the units and the flanks and surround them when I get a chance.

In the north I have 2 columns, according the the overall plan, that are marching forward. There isn't much resistance so far.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/FBF1FE728FD84D1D8CEBDA9200FD692C.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 6:43:36 PM)

Tank group 2-4 are making their approach march on the Dnepr River. A significant force of red units await them there. The plan is pretty simple. Tank group 3&4 are on the northern end, and tank group 2 is on the southern end. Together they will converge on Tula, passing through the area in between the arrows.

The equations here depend on the concentration of forces, in this case 3 out of 4 tank groups fighting together. Equally important is the terrain, which is mostly open with only a few rivers or forests in my path. The biggest part of my strategy is to avoid fighting protracted and difficult battles, in favor of maintaining momentum. To that end I will try to 'spread' the Russian forces instead of crushing them. My attacks will only focus on clearing a road or two for each wing of the attack. Any survivors should be encircled in the middle, or pushed to the outside where they should stay out of trouble.

Another big point here is that my troops are not going to attack Moscow at all. As far as I am concerned it is just a name on a map, and I can even turn that name off if I want. An attack against a fortified city is the most difficult of all attacks, and even if it succeeds, too much time and energy is lost. After Tula is reached, I will decide what the next stage will be.



[image]local://upfiles/26251/22EFD0EEB85141498B6EA6D6BDADA35F.jpg[/image]



Silvanski -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 8:01:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fungwu

Another big point here is that my troops are not going to attack Moscow at all.

Moscow is indeed a difficult target which may need a lot of units to accomplish. Several Soviet formations have their tracks running through or near Moscow at some point, so you can expect trouble everywhere in that region
In my game I took Moscow -albeit at the price of being left with exhausted and depleted units. I pulled out after a few turns to form a stronger front and fend off the Soviet winter offensive



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 8:15:03 PM)

Here is turn 7 in the south. I've easily broken past the Stalin line and my tank divisions are on the march to the Dnepr River. My plan is to cross around Dnepropetrovsk. After the river there is a passage of open ground with only a few small streams as obstacles running from the area between Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov, south east to an area east of Rostov. The idea is to stick to the open ground and keep headed east till Army group South reaches Astrakhan. At that point all reinforcement to the Cacaucusus area will be cut off and my infantry can reduce that area more easily.

In the northern section of the map my two groups have made contact with the Soviet line running N-S along the Dnepr. Next turn my assault on that position begins and then my troops will continue moving towards Tula. Once tank groups 2,3 and 4 have reached Tula, tank group 2 will send some troops to make contact with AGS along a line running N-S from Voronzeh. The rest of tank group 2 will head E to cut off soviet reinforcements between the Caspian and the Urals.

After Tula tank group 3 and 4 will head North toward Gorky and continue on to envelop Moscow and eventually Leningrad.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/7EBC46F3E4204FEEAEB109EFD85B31C5.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 10:21:15 PM)

The spearhead of tank groups 3 and 4 suffered a powerful counterattack by soviet tanks and was forced to retreat in disarray. To remedy the situation I launched a powerful counterattack south of the soviet tanks and am now pushing for some bridges over the Dnepr after routing some soviet infantry.

Tank group 2 met much lighter resistance form some infantry divisions and was able to destroy most of these. Now the plan is to carry on the attack into the Soviet rear before the enemy tanks can slow me down.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/499A97992EFC439BA938DF34C014FD9E.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/16/2010 10:54:52 PM)

quote:

In my game I took Moscow -albeit at the price of being left with exhausted and depleted units.


Yeah, I was taking notes, Moscow, Stalingrad, the Caucasus mountains, you got stopped at a couple of tough places. I'm betting on just going round all of them, instead of straight through.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/17/2010 12:09:11 AM)

Turn 9, not much to say. Losses at the end of my turn are ~3000 rifle squads. Less than I have produced actually.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/C5DAAB18C10A43FE8E99B2B610CB8724.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/18/2010 3:40:09 AM)

Turn 11:

I've driven around the first wave of Russian reinforcements in the north and 3 routes are being scouted out for an advance on to Tula. There are strong Russian forces opposite my own. My plan is to dig in and absorb their attacks until they tire out. I have already cut their supplies and created routes around them.

My tactics for this battle are to create several possible routes to advance down, and then probe the enemy until the weakest defended route is found. Then I attack down only that route and defend everywhere else. I shift my units around so reserve units take up positions facing the enemy units and the motorized units can be then released to advance further.

The Russians have made many counterattacks with their tanks. The typical situation is that the forefront of the advance is only 2 or 3 tired units. The Russians move into contact and often try to surround these exposed units. These attacks have been pretty effective in chopping up some of my units. I have avoided attacking the tanks as much as possible and just shift my forces around them. In more than one case the enemy tanks chew themselves up attacking my defensive lines of infantry backed by artillery and aircraft.

In the south the advance is still headed to Dnepropotvsk, there is very little resistance so far between my forces and the Dnepr River.

At this point I feel totally satisfied with the progress of the advance and the level of losses. infantry losses are around 3800 squads, which is 2500 squads between turns 2 and 11. That figure indicates the low rates of attacks that I make each turn and the ultimately weak nature of the Russian counterattacks.



[image]local://upfiles/26251/184421FE4AA94750B1BC7124F92FEC3A.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/19/2010 1:37:08 AM)

This turn I advanced on 2 out of 3 routes of attack. There wasn't any assaults. Here is my plans for the attack in the southern area. The blue arrows is the main route, the green arrows are sub missions to be carried out if there are extra units.

The concept is to probe the defenses along the Dnepr river to see if they are solid or not. If they are not then the forward units will infiltrate any gaps. The attack of the rear elements will develop from this bridgehead into the rear and bypass as many of the forts as possible.

If the defense is solid, there will be a delay to allow the assault infantry, heavy artillery, and bombers to move up and support the breakthrough by an infantry assault, followed by tank units. There is a role for paratroops in this second operation, to jump behind enemy positions and cut supplies to the forts as the assault takes place.

In either case my breakthrough forces will navigate a key section of terrain that has very few rivers or rough terrain, and also contains a railroad line. An attack down this axis will steer south of Stalingrad and proceed down toward the SE.

This advance makes possible many secondary advances to cut off different groups of opposing forces. I will undertake this secondary operations as forces become available. There are many divisions coming along from the rear at different speeds. Many are occupied defending against surrounded Soviet forces. As these surrender over time new divisions progressively become available.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/3D546D51FA2241B0A3BD29DF02228777.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/20/2010 12:13:36 AM)

Turn 17:

Losses ~4500 squads.

It seems the computer is about finished. After Surrounding and bypassing the first wave of Russians at Smolensk, tank groups 3 and 4 have found no major resistance and have surrounded Tula. Tank group 2 met some light resistance, but it was not necessary to attack, and after surrounding the Russians they should be able to continue their advance soon enough.

With no more Russian lines and completely open terrain I don't see any way the Soviets can stop any advance.

In the South tank group 1 found some holes in the Dnepr line. A group of Russian infantry divisions moved in to block the crossing, but with planes, tanks, and artillery support, and the failure of the Russians to take a defensive stance, a firm bridgehead has been made. One Russian fort remains to be reduced to secure a rail bridge over the Dnepr.

I have made a brief outline of my plans from here. Surround and then reduce several large areas of territory. The completion of this phase should end the campaign.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/A124B6662BB44D6294C385952307F833.jpg[/image]



TPOO -> RE: Directive 21 (8/20/2010 3:59:32 AM)

Are you playing with 3.4 supply rules turned on? It is tough to imagine that those units near Tula would be in supply at only turn 17. It is tough to just get the rail repaired to Smolensk by that turn.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/21/2010 9:49:17 PM)

Your assessment of the supply is accurate. As of turn 20 I haven't advanced further, waiting on the rail heads to catch up.
t



TPOO -> RE: Directive 21 (8/21/2010 11:41:11 PM)

That is good to here. I was hoping we did not have any supply glitches with 3.4 . I was only able to run a couple of tests in 3.4 to make sure the supply features of 3.4 were working and we have not had any AAR until yours. Thanks for the good postings. Be aware that the scenario is sort of set up to force the German player to follow the Fuerer's directive. Certain reinforcements will not be available until ceratin historical locations are captured. All in all looks like a good strategy. Hopefully Elmer will keep up.
We have a lot more things to change and add for the next version as soon as Steve can get a special build of 3.4 for his computer.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 3:15:27 AM)

Turn 22: In the far north a little development. I basically wrote off Finland and did not move anything. The defenders at Murmansk came to launch an attack. I consolidated the German divisions in northern Finland and moved in behind them. Now I have eliminated all the Soviet divisions and am ready to attack Murmansk.

In the area South of Moscow I am receiving probes and attack all along the line. It is pretty exciting. Mostly I have just set up my infantry to watch and push back these moves. My rail crews are banging away but the rail line isn't to Tula yet.

Tank group 2 has been sitting around for awhile, but now the Soviets between them and Tula have been cleared out and they are fully supplied and ready to move. Due to supply constraints, I am going to limit the aims of my northern arm. For now, all I am going to do in the big picture is to push on to Saratov. This move is impossible for the Soviets to stop, and will ensure that everything South of that line falls into my hands. It also provides a good start line for a later attack north.

Between the area north of Kiev and just east of Bryansk my infantry units are slowly pushing Soviet units back away from my rail lines, and securing jumping off points for more moves against the Soviet center positions.

In the South the Romanian and Hungarian forces are getting ready to take over for the still strong Russian troops around Kiev. Its important that I force them back to keep them from raiding south and screwing up my train schedules. A similar story is taking place around Odessa and the lower Dnepr.

The main strength of my force is assembled at Dneprovotpsk and has begun to move out in the general direction of Stalingrad. My aim here is to advance to a spot where I am in position to launch a follow up operation into the Caucasus at a later date. I also want my northern and southern forces to link up at the limit of their advances at the Volga and cut all supplies to any Soviet forces in the central area.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/576CB3878B4E45D688554EFA89CE6300.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 3:30:56 AM)

Here are a couple of self imposed rules I am using and a suggestion for future development of this scenario:

1. I either move, or dig in. I don't move and then dig in. If I dig in, I just do it once, I don't go to fortified or entrenched.

2. I use my divisions as one piece. I don't subdivide and I try to keep the HQ in the same hex as the main part. For panzer divisions I might split it into two hexes because they are bigger.

3. I don't move aggressively, attack, or bombard with orange units.


The AI makes many attacks, and I thought by not digging in too much it gives these attacks more of a chance. The scenario works best I think with fewer axis units. I started out subdividing my infantry and spreading out my panzer divisions, but it was too easy to surround everything without fighting. I try not to abuse the fact that there is no 0 supply.

This is a fun scenario, and I could suggest 1000 different things, but here is the one I would choose first. I thought making the regiments into divisions for the axis infantry was the right move, and I think to take it a step further. Make the infantry and the headquarters/artillery one unit and then make the formation the army korps and not single divisions. This way I can actually keep track of all my army korps hqs and they are not just useless. The axis have a lot of artillery units that are between 2-6 strength. Combine these units into a bigger ones, and then I can subdivide if I want the smaller ones back. For panzer divisions combine the regiments and HQ/arty into one unit and make one separate unit with the recon and engineers. Then you can subdivide the panzer division if you still want regiments, or use it as a big unit. Then you can have the formation be the panzer korps, and just like the infantry korps, now I can keep track of which HQ belongs with which units.

There one other thing I will mention for your thoughts. In many cases the Germans can find different Soviet units that will retreat, and then surrender if challenged by an infantry division. This makes things too easy, because you can destroy many units without fighting. Motor cycles and tank brigades would be at the top of the list here, but cavalry and infantry divisions are easy prey to this method as well.



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 5:10:15 AM)

quote:

Make the infantry and the headquarters/artillery one unit ...


We've been over this before but no harm in covering it again - there aren't enough equipment slots in the units to be able to combine them.

quote:

... make the formation the army korps and not single divisions.


I've considered this several times but haven't pulled the trigger on it. I can't think of a reason not to do it.

quote:

In many cases the Germans can find different Soviet units that will retreat, and then surrender if challenged by an infantry division. This makes things too easy, because you can destroy many units without fighting.


Not really sure what you mean by this, because units don't surrender and how do we destroy units without fighting?

A change will most likely be made (mentioned below) to have the panzer divisions, when upgraded, return as one unit. It seems fairly necessary to make this change for the later part of the scenario. When the Axis are facing larger numbers of Soviet units that are organised better, the German regiments are very vulnerable. If you peek into the German 'OKH' formation, you will see two possible examples of the late pz div's (Model A and Model B).

Here are some notes on the drawing board, for when I can get 3.4 working so that Rick and I can get to work on D21 v2.0.

Redo all 5 objective tracks. Remove OKH unit, give AG HQ's a movement of 1 [or remove], roll all independent artillery into Army and Corps HQ's based on Neihorster.
Change the ER guns to regular guns? (reduces range from 3 to 2). Give the Soviet Mech Corps 'none' replacements. Make a decision on the later Pz Div's being one unit. Change 150mmPzW production to 2 from t170 to t290. Fill 'flooded marsh' in hex 145,145. SS Reich has 99 StgIII's. Give 214th Inf Pz I's and Char's instead of Stug's and Hetzers. Change 'German Garrison' formation to 'Volkssturm' ? AG Supply Units - change their trucks from 300/300 to 300/??, so they lose some asset sharing capability.

From the guys at TDG, we got some suggestions for Soviet units:
At start units - 40% prof, 0% supply, 33% ready, veteran.
Reinforcement units up to 11-42 - 0% prof, 33% supply, 33% ready, untried.
Reinforcement units after 11-42 and Gds units - 50% prof, 50% supply, 50% ready, veteran.

Thanks for the comments Josh, very good.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 7:00:06 AM)

T23:

Captured Murmansk.

Pushing forward on wide front.



[image]local://upfiles/26251/53539E92657048ABB05210086C5F404C.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 8:06:34 AM)

...
I meant that in the case you right click on a unit and it retreats before combat until such a point that it evaporates. So for instance tank brigades will retreat before combat until evaporating when confronted by infantry divisions. The tanks don't force a round of combat, they retreat until they evaporate, which I interpret as surrendering. The effect on the game is to make it much easier for the Axis.
...
Any suggestion that the Soviets should be weaker makes me think, how much weaker could they be? The game is a challenge so far, but the Soviets are really weak in the beginning turns, any weaker and it wouldn't be enough of a challenge to be interesting to me.
...



There is a really interesting spot in this scenario for me, that I haven't seen explored.

If you ask the questions:

How many troops does the enemy have?
How many can we make available?
Where are they deployed?
Where can we deploy?
What are their plans?
Do they know our plans?
Are they prepared?
Are we prepared?


How many variations could there be?
The next development I hope would be in these questions.

For instance:
Take the same map and general balance of units as 'Directive 21'.

When the game begins portions, or the entire army of either side is available, prepared, equipped, or alternatively not. Minor countries have armies allied to either side or neutral, stronger or weaker. Certain territories are possessed by one side, or neither side.

The scenario then could be, an overwhelming German attack, coordinated with its allies against a totally prepared Soviet Union. Or it could be An overwhelming Soviet attack with its allies against a totally unprepared Germany. Or it could be several variations in between.

What battle am I about to fight? Barbarossa or Bagration?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 9:57:32 AM)

quote:

...for instance tank brigades will retreat before combat until evaporating when confronted by infantry divisions.


Ok, understood. Good point about the Soviet tank brigades being rbc'd all over the map. We are aware of it and are working on them in two ways, 1) combine some of them together where it is reasonable to do so, 2) give them better objectives so they will travel along with other formations (hopefully). I originally tailored them to run around on their own rather ineffectually as I felt this was the best way to represent them. Maybe historically correct, but in the game you see the issues this created.

quote:

Any suggestion that the Soviets should be weaker ...


I also agree. This matter can get real deep. On the surface, the Soviets were overall really weak up until around Stalingrad/Uranus. What you are experiencing in your game may be easy, but it should be. Any changes that will weaken the Soviets makes me look hard at the Axis for a reciprocation. For example. if those outlined changes are made to the Soviet units, I'm inclined to further knock down Axis trucks, and to consider changing some of the German infantry divisions (namely the 300 series) back to three regiments. This suggestion (I forget who made it) makes sense as these units and some others were considered defensive only. However, it could create the issue of making them helpless to hold a hex by themselves, forcing the player to stack them, which defeats the purpose of the change.



TPOO -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 3:59:16 PM)

The version released in the 3.4 beta does have the Soviet Mech. Corps replacements set to "None".

In regards to the RBC of some units, I believe Ralph mentioned in another thread that having formations orders set to ignore losses makes it easier to RBC a weaker unit than if it were set to other orders. We may have to consider setting some formations to something else, especially in the open terrain of the Steppes. In the north where there is more difficult terrain it is not as much of a problem. Also, when you do RBC one of the tank brigades in a sense it is really not eliminated. Because of there unit make up they reconstitute almost immediately near the front although weaker.



MechFO -> RE: Directive 21 (8/23/2010 6:43:38 PM)


I hope Fungwu doesn't mind the cluttering of the thread but while you guys are at it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

Make the infantry and the headquarters/artillery one unit ...


A change will most likely be made (mentioned below) to have the panzer divisions, when upgraded, return as one unit. It seems fairly necessary to make this change for the later part of the scenario. When the Axis are facing larger numbers of Soviet units that are organised better, the German regiments are very vulnerable. If you peek into the German 'OKH' formation, you will see two possible examples of the late pz div's (Model A and Model B).



To be honest I don't think a single Pz Div unit is a good idea. One looses a lot of flexibility attacking and one can't use them defensively as a mobile fire brigade due to prohibitive stacking penalties.

What I would do instead is to split them up into 2 KG's instead of 3 Regiments. Best of both worlds IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Here are some notes on the drawing board, for when I can get 3.4 working so that Rick and I can get to work on D21 v2.0.

roll all independent artillery into Army and Corps HQ's based on Neihorster.



I would leave it like it is. Sometimes one would like to mass Korps/army artillery units, or give critical fronts artillery while denuding others. Deleting independent Art units would force players to constantly shuffle HQ's, instead of placing them to help keep an organisational overview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Change the ER guns to regular guns? (reduces range from 3 to 2).


I wouldn't do this for the Korps Art units. While technically accurate, considering the scale and granularity of the Scenario, I think a 3 hex range is more appropriate.



IMO there are 2 additional areas which one should look at.

First, shock. I know it's supposed to help the scenario have a historical flow, but IMO it makes things too deterministic at the moment. I would normalize both sides to 100, and instead confine shock bonuses to theatre events. The exception being 41 up to first mud, with maybe a smaller bonus up to winter.

Second, the air war. Right now, the Soviets have air superiority in late 41 and general air supremacy in 42 due to attrition and weight of numbers. Maybe the proficiency of the air units coming in 41/42 should be looked at.



An idea for using a 3.4 feature might be to give certain key Soviet cities a very limited supply point (for both sides?). Right now it's fairly easy and cheap to take even large cities by isolating it for a few turns. Battles like Brest Litowsk, or for that case, Stalingrad, showed that even cut off forces can have considerable staying power, right now this isn't very well represented.



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/24/2010 1:12:00 AM)

Captured Kharkov, Stalino, Riazan, looking to complete intermediate objectives before the rainy season.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/AF99A57418904347947B5ADB4EA4AF03.jpg[/image]



Fungwu -> RE: Directive 21 (8/25/2010 4:08:17 AM)

Turn 28:

The Soviets launched many attacks this turn. The most important were two attacks through my lines that cut the rail lines for both the north and the southern forces. This had a large and negative effect on the supply situation for both fronts.

It was important to regain the initiative and push the Soviets further away from the rail lines to prevent more attacks like this. Many axis units that had been on the defensive switched to attacking. Soviet forces were especially weak after their latest round of attacks, and the axis attacks achieved results.

Around Moscow the situation developed in such a way that all the Soviet forces in this area were put in danger. Now it is time to see the response, and to follow up the initial attacks with advances to secure a good jumping off point for an attack against Moscow after the rainy period. In attacking Moscow the plan is to avoid the fortified line to the south and west of the city and to launch an encircling attack reaching the less defended northern and eastern sections.

[image]local://upfiles/26251/1612EBEA005B4A3CABDF599E5D6D8EE5.jpg[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625