1942 Axis strategy? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room



Message

Der Lwe -> 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 11:39:01 AM)

I have found nohting on the 1942 Axis strategy here. Is it an all out offensive, part of the front offensive as historical or hold the line, what is the viable options for the Axis in 1942? Should you go for automatic VP win or hold the line until 1945?



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 12:10:32 PM)

Some more info is needed to answer the question. Do you mean the 41GC going into 42, or do you mean the 42GC? Are you playing against a human opponent or against the AI. Against the AI, you can probably try for an auto victory, against a human, forget it.



Aussiematto -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 12:54:23 PM)

Agree with Tarhunnas. Unless you have done extremely well in 41 against a human, you can't win in 42. Build forts. Aim for minor victory.



Klydon -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 2:00:07 PM)

Pretty much agree with the above vs a human with the state of the game currently. 



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 2:37:43 PM)

Vs Human at the present the flow chart is simple. If you have caused massive casualites (I am speaking here of 4 million by winter - maybe 6 by spring) and have not unduly suffered outside of entrenchments in the blizzard (so morale has not plummeted), a 1942 offensive is possible. Otherwise it seems to be rather tough now.

In a present game I did the Tarhunnas route, captured Moscow and Leningrad (and held them through the winter), caused a bit less than normal casualties, wintered pretty well, and I could not do much in spring of 1942. My best attempt almost breached the lines, but two solid turns of massed offensive caused large scale tank losses and could not finish the job. I am not turtle now, I have cut off units since, but basically it is watching the Soviets start grinding now in August of 1942.

I feel that in part it is my play that leads to this, I am not so adept at smaller-scale counter moves as some.



Der Lwe -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 3:11:10 PM)

Im playing AI at normal and have had a comfortable winter, lost about ten hexes total. Im at round 35. Russian casualties are 5,4 million 3,4 of them is captured. German losses 1,3 million of that 1 million is disabled. But Im not just talking about my game, genarally Im missing discuions about the game after first blizzard. Should you still try to pocket russians close to the front, or should you just try to break free to capture the final VP´s? It is stuff like this Im woundering about.



Klydon -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/5/2011 3:53:35 PM)

From the standpoint of "what to do" in 1942 vs 1941, changes have taken place that change what a German player's goals should likely be.

In 1941, the Germans can't achieve true destruction of the Red army in terms of removing playing pieces from the board because the Russians get their units back as shells. Instead, most Germans will concentrate on trying to destroy as much industry as possible and capture as many population centers along with territory as they can. It is still beneficial to destroy Russian units simply from the standpoint that it helps the Germans survive the winter better if there are fewer good Russian formations around, etc.

In 1942 (well, starting Nov 41), the free replacement of Russian units comes to an end. In 1942, the Germans can't realistically count on getting to any Russian industry as good Russian players will have moved it out over the winter, etc. What is in play now is the true destruction of the Russian army. The Russians must pay for the replacement of any counters that get destroyed. Out of this same pool, they pay for corps formation, so it goes with the thinking that the more units the Germans can destroy, the fewer corps the Russians will have and it is possible for the Germans to cripple the Russian army in terms of number of counters, etc. My own observation/thinking on the topic is a German trying for a win in 1942 needs to first destroy/cripple the Russian army, THEN go for the urban areas that you need to win the game with. Should a German already hold Moscow/Leningrad and most of the mid south (say as far east as Stalino/Rostov, etc), then I think the Germans try to target the urban areas east and southeast of Moscow. This offers the most cities in a smaller space than trying for a huge southern offensive where there is essentially nothing from Rostov to Stalingrad except space.




Der Lwe -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/6/2011 10:29:59 AM)

thanks, then I wil use the snow mounth to create som bridgeheads across rivers and start the summer whit an all out effort to pocket central Reda army units.



randallw -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/6/2011 11:45:46 PM)

Even with a non great 1941 the Axis player should have a few months in 1942 to create some trouble; some strength should recover as the blizzard turns to snow or mud, and the Soviet side is without big effective tank units for many months ( the tank corps merging has the experience penalty ) and a few weeks until rifle corps can be merged.



leehunt27@bloomberg.net -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/7/2011 6:21:07 PM)

I am playing the 1942 GC against a PBEM Russian opponent. As the Axis i am discovering that my best option seems to be wiping out as many Russian units as possible. It is mud, October 1942, and my summer offensive has bagged about 1.2 million Russians, including a large number of Tank Corps. I've lost about 200k Germans. I took Rostov and Voronzeh but backed away from the Caucausus and Stalingrad, instead focusing on the center. I waited a while before launching massive Panzer attacks SE of Moscow (seems a bit gamey to try a Kaluga pocket first few turns, Russian player doesn't have enough AP's to react realistically)-- attacks all focused on destroying the Russian army and not holding any space. The line is generally straight and consolidated.

I'm not sure how good a strategy this is, but the "Clausewitz" option of bagging Russians seems the most promising. Its not impossible I could take Moscow, but only if can lure the Russian 1943 offensive into a trap I think. My PBEM opponent and I agreed that trench warfare, with 5 lines of Fortification 4 or 5 hexes behind each front is gamey and not a choice for us. So the map be a jumbled swirl of offensives and counteroffensives until one side breaks...



Peltonx -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 1:43:17 PM)

Basicly you need to destory at least 100+ Armerment points and about 3 million casualites by January 42. Also you will need to keep your losses at less then 1.5 million by March 42.

If you have managed to do that then you shouldn't have any problem braking the Russian lines during the summer of 42.

I have played 9 41-45 campiagns that I have been able to get the Red player to quit by late 42. I have 3 or 4 other games on going with 1 into the spring of 42 and had no problems braking the red lines other then the 1 game I captured less then 70 armerment pts.

Q-ball vs Tarhunnas started the same time my game vs Arstavidios did.

Tarhunnas was able to take out Moscow and some other citys, but was only able to destory 50ish armerment pts. Tarhunnas was not able to mount a 42 offensive. I was able to destroy about 140 armerment pts and was able to pocket 17 Red units the 2nd winter turn. I did not take out Moscow.

The real keys with the present rule set are keeping German losses to a min during 41/42 blizzard and destorying at least 100 Armerment pts during the 41 summer.

Losses to the red army helps, but destoring industry is far more important.

During the summer of 42 you will need to pocket about 100 units. This should keep the loss ratio above 2.6 to 1 in manpower.

Anything less then 2.6 to 1 in losses means the Russians are winning. The only way to get the ratio above 2.6 to 1 is by pocketing red units.

Now if you dig in during the 42 summer you will have a usless army by April 43. Because even if your dug into level 3 and 4 forts the Red army gets the 1v1 = 2v1 rule. This means that the ratio will never get above 2v1, because of the losses suffered when units are forsed to retreat.

so

1941 Destory industry
1942 Destory units.
1943-45 hang on.

As the game is now its very clear by July 1942 whos going to win. There seems to be no middle ground. The German player was able to destory enough industy and the Red machine cant really get anything going or the German player didn't destory enough and the Red Machine is steam rolling to Berlin by late 42.

Pelton



Q-Ball -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 3:52:37 PM)

I pretty much agree with Pelton's analysis. Some changes are coming, though, that should make it easier for the Germans to mount an effective 1942 campaign.

It's going to take awhile, and a number of games, to get the engine 100% right. The Germans might still be behind in 1.05, or at some point there might be an overcorrection as the Soviets are stalled in Poland in 1945.

The Soviets cannot win without a Wehrmacht collapse at some point. The question really is when that collapse happens. If it's 1945, that's already way too late for the Red Army.



cherryfunk -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 4:00:31 PM)

quote:

The Soviets cannot win without a Wehrmacht collapse at some point. The question really is when that collapse happens. If it's 1945, that's already way too late for the Red Army.

It's interesting to examine what happened historically -- if I understand correctly, the Soviet '43 offensive, while successful, only pushed back the Germans, who managed a fairly effective fighting withdrawal over the course of 6 months or more.  But in '44 the Soviets simply obliterated Army Group Center in a matter of weeks.  Why the difference?  What is simply due to the better quality of Soviet divisions in '44?  Given German armaments production in '43/'44, they should have been at least as well armed in '44, if not even better armed...





Ketza -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 4:35:47 PM)

Part of the difference was the 21 Panzer and Panzer grenadier units and multiple other divisions that were in France and Italy. Also the Luftwaffe was practically non existent on the eastern front in the summer of 44. The 2nd front recipe for disaster truly came to fruition in the summer of 44.



Klydon -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 5:50:34 PM)

Not to mention the 1944 Russians were better than their 1943 counterparts, especially in a extended campaign since they learned a lot from the 1943 battles. The 1944 Germans were not as good from a quality standpoint of view compared to the 1943 units. On top of that, the AGC commander followed orders strictly to the letter and had his units set in hard defensive positions with few or no reserves. The resulting type of defense was a disaster to the set piece battle that the Russians like to fight. 



Q-Ball -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 6:18:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Part of the difference was the 21 Panzer and Panzer grenadier units and multiple other divisions that were in France and Italy. Also the Luftwaffe was practically non existent on the eastern front in the summer of 44. The 2nd front recipe for disaster truly came to fruition in the summer of 44.


No doubt...was it that many? I am unclear on how the Panzers were distributed. I know during the June-July-Aug timeframe, it was approximately:

FRANCE: 2,9,11,21,Panzer Lehr; 1,2,9,10,12 SS Panzer; 17ss PzG. That is 11 in France.

ITALY: 26 Panzer; 3,15,29,90 PzG; HG Panzer; Hoch Und Deutschmeister Div; 16ss PzG. I might be missing a Panzer Div. That's 8 or 9.

I don't think anything was in Yugoslavia or Greece, though some of the SS formations in Yugoslavia were sometimes "upgraded" on paper.



Tarhunnas -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 7:52:55 PM)

Not to be nitpicking here, but the Hoch und Deutschmeister was an infantry division. Still, you have almost 21.



Q-Ball -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 8:19:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Not to be nitpicking here, but the Hoch und Deutschmeister was an infantry division. Still, you have almost 21.


Wasn't sure how to classify Hoch u D.....it was called a "Reichsgrenadier" division, whatever that means, and had a Panzer Kampfgruppe attached to it during the Anzio campaign.



Jakerson -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/22/2011 8:39:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cherryfunk
It's interesting to examine what happened historically -- if I understand correctly, the Soviet '43 offensive, while successful, only pushed back the Germans, who managed a fairly effective fighting withdrawal over the course of 6 months or more.  But in '44 the Soviets simply obliterated Army Group Center in a matter of weeks.  Why the difference?  What is simply due to the better quality of Soviet divisions in '44?  Given German armaments production in '43/'44, they should have been at least as well armed in '44, if not even better armed...


Army group North suffered badly too but that was mostly because of Hitler’s stupid order of not allowing them to pull back when army group center was totally collapsing.

One big difference was that German expected Soviet attack from North and South to Romania and all best SS troops, panzer divisions and panzer grenadier divisions were deployed at North and South. Like Soviet attacked at 43 in North and South. Soviet main attack came from Army Group Center sector and this allowed Soviet exploit as Germans had no proper reserves for counter attack at 1944. This collapsed army Group center. Germans simply had no time to move reserves from North and South to support center.



Balou -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/23/2011 9:33:40 PM)

Hoch- und Deutschmeister Division was from Vienna/Austria, and actually it was the 44 ID. Annihilated at Stalingrad, reformed in 43 and sent to Italy.
Reichsgrenadier was sort of a promotion.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/26/2011 9:46:58 AM)

I alway thought this unit was one of th best Divs in the combined army??



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/26/2011 9:49:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Part of the difference was the 21 Panzer and Panzer grenadier units and multiple other divisions that were in France and Italy. Also the Luftwaffe was practically non existent on the eastern front in the summer of 44. The 2nd front recipe for disaster truly came to fruition in the summer of 44.


No doubt...was it that many? I am unclear on how the Panzers were distributed. I know during the June-July-Aug timeframe, it was approximately:

FRANCE: 2,9,11,21,Panzer Lehr; 1,2,9,10,12 SS Panzer; 17ss PzG. That is 11 in France.

ITALY: 26 Panzer; 3,15,29,90 PzG; HG Panzer; Hoch Und Deutschmeister Div; 16ss PzG. I might be missing a Panzer Div. That's 8 or 9.

I don't think anything was in Yugoslavia or Greece, though some of the SS formations in Yugoslavia were sometimes "upgraded" on paper.


I would be intersting if there were WITE campaign variants such as No Italy, no Normandy etc or more randomness on the date of the ops, would make the situation in Russia much more interesting
cav



glvaca -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/26/2011 12:14:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Part of the difference was the 21 Panzer and Panzer grenadier units and multiple other divisions that were in France and Italy. Also the Luftwaffe was practically non existent on the eastern front in the summer of 44. The 2nd front recipe for disaster truly came to fruition in the summer of 44.


Also, the Germans expected the Sovs to attack in the South and most Pz Divs and/or Pz Gren. Divs were concentrated there. If memory serves only one Pz Div was in reserve at Mogilev or Gomel during Bagration and could do little.

In Bagration, the Sovs got their clean breakthrough, followed with rapid penetration by the tank armies. Something that eluded them in 1943.



Ketza -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/27/2011 1:00:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Part of the difference was the 21 Panzer and Panzer grenadier units and multiple other divisions that were in France and Italy. Also the Luftwaffe was practically non existent on the eastern front in the summer of 44. The 2nd front recipe for disaster truly came to fruition in the summer of 44.


No doubt...was it that many? I am unclear on how the Panzers were distributed. I know during the June-July-Aug timeframe, it was approximately:

FRANCE: 2,9,11,21,Panzer Lehr; 1,2,9,10,12 SS Panzer; 17ss PzG. That is 11 in France.

ITALY: 26 Panzer; 3,15,29,90 PzG; HG Panzer; Hoch Und Deutschmeister Div; 16ss PzG. I might be missing a Panzer Div. That's 8 or 9.

I don't think anything was in Yugoslavia or Greece, though some of the SS formations in Yugoslavia were sometimes "upgraded" on paper.


There was also the 116th PZ posted near Rouen. I recall some other units that arrived in the theatre mainly PG divisions from Germany as well as misc armored brigades that arrived late in August and September.

That is a lot of firepower in the West that would have made a difference in the east for sure.



Peltonx -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/27/2011 4:54:12 PM)

I thought this thread was about 42 and not 43 to 45?

You guys jacked the thread [:-]



Peltonx -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/27/2011 4:57:31 PM)

As of the next patch the 2.6 to 1 ratio will be lower.

Also the ratio can move up or down depending on how much industry is destoryed.

As far as the jacking goes, the fate of the war is detemined during the 41 summer long before 1944. The issue is not manpower, but production.

Pelton



marty_01 -> RE: 1942 Axis strategy? (8/27/2011 7:43:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leehunt27@bloomberg.net

I am playing the 1942 GC against a PBEM Russian opponent. As the Axis i am discovering that my best option seems to be wiping out as many Russian units as possible. It is mud, October 1942, and my summer offensive has bagged about 1.2 million Russians, including a large number of Tank Corps. I've lost about 200k Germans. I took Rostov and Voronzeh but backed away from the Caucausus and Stalingrad, instead focusing on the center. I waited a while before launching massive Panzer attacks SE of Moscow (seems a bit gamey to try a Kaluga pocket first few turns, Russian player doesn't have enough AP's to react realistically)-- attacks all focused on destroying the Russian army and not holding any space. The line is generally straight and consolidated.

I'm not sure how good a strategy this is, but the "Clausewitz" option of bagging Russians seems the most promising. Its not impossible I could take Moscow, but only if can lure the Russian 1943 offensive into a trap I think. My PBEM opponent and I agreed that trench warfare, with 5 lines of Fortification 4 or 5 hexes behind each front is gamey and not a choice for us. So the map be a jumbled swirl of offensives and counteroffensives until one side breaks...


Results from one of my PBEM Games. It’s a GC 1941-45.

Just a little background regarding the 1941 portion of this GC41-45 game: I was severally schwacked in the fall of 1941 by the Partisan errors in one of the patches a couple months back. The massed partisan rail destruction totally threw my Army Group Center supplies out of whack during the critical push on Moscow during late summer-early fall. This continued through much of the blizzard – i.e. not only were my units suffering the blizzard effects but most units were also out of supply for the first half of the blizzard due to the destruction of my rail net by Partisans. However I still managed to destroy about 3.8-million Russians by the time the blizzard hit. I only managed to grab one hex of Moscow due to lack of supplies. I also easily nabbed Leningrad early in the summer of 1941 and most of the Donbass. I promptly lost Moscow and the Donbass during the blizzard. I was basically pushed back to the Dnepr -- Minsk -- Vitebsk -- Rzhev -- to lake Onega in the far north.

We are currently on turn 69 and about to enter the second fall\winter cycle of the GC. I have literally managed to encircle and destroy some 4-million men between Jun and Oct of 1942. Yet the Soviet Army is still enormous. Even with extremely mediocre operational level play during the summer of 1942, my opponent is still going into fall\winter of 1942 with a relatively huge army.


Destroyed Soviet Units as of Oct 8, 1942.

http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=destroyedunits.jpg

Ground Losses:

http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=groundlosses.jpg

Comparison of Overall Strength as of Oct 8 1942:

http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=strengthcomparisonOct1942.jpg

The point being – even if you manage to break the level 4 fort stalemate that seems to inevitably follow the first winter\spring – and get some fluidity back into Axis Summer of 1942 operations, the amount of destruction the Axis seem to have to inflict upon the in-game Red Army during the Summer of 1942 in order to have any sort of effect is nothing less than staggering.

I have literally destroy via a series of large encirclements every Soviet Corps, Division and Brigade from about Kursk southward – aside from 20-odd divisions that were hunkered down west of Kuban. This to include numerous formations railed southward from the Moscow and Torzhok-Vyshny Volochek areas.

This all has me wondering if in-game Soviet Man power production and integration of conscripts into formations and the creation of new Soviet formations within the game is completely out of wack.

On a different note…don’t forget the air war.

Air Losses. My opponent has been doing the click-fest approach to Luftwaffe airbase attacks. As you can see from the figure below, having a strong wrist and the patience to click on the airbase attack button over and over will pay great dividends in terms of gaining air superiority. The overall kill ratio is only about 2.6:1. This in spite of the vast majority of air combat occurring over Axis Territory – i.e. read here his pilots & air crews get shot down over Axis controlled territory. They should in theory suffer a higher rate of attrition in terms of pilots and air crews bailing out of damaged aircraft over enemy territory and subsequently getting captured. Conversely my pilots and aircrews that bail out over friendly controlled areas during airbase attack click-fests should be surviving at a higher rate to fight another day.

Most of my axis operations during 1942 have had to suffer through massive soviet interdiction and ground support as the Luftwaffe just cant keep up with the huge glut of Soviet aircraft and the inability to effectively intercept and attrite Soviet Airbase attack click fests.

http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=airlosses.jpg



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6875