|
brian brian -> RE: MWiF Global War Hot-Seat (AAR) (2/9/2012 12:09:53 AM)
|
[an essential problem with WiF is that it doesn't force you to spend as much on your navy as so many of the powers did in real life. I'm not sure there is a way around that.]
well folks I still have a very very hard time ever getting started on my QuickBooks work, so I spent a pleasurable afternoon composing the following instead. It is about the same as what I have posted in the past in the Russian AI thread, though I am always working on my thoughts on this subject, and hopefully always improving them:
I would like to discuss the 1941 Barbarossa a little bit or a whole lot. I would ask anyone who followed this one on a hex-by-hex basis to consider this. I think the thought that the Russians should always be forming a "line" is the wrong way to approach their defense. There is no line they can make in 1941 that the Germans can't break (even on the Dnepr), and in so doing, eliminate lots of Russian units. The Russians need those units in 1942, the year that usually decides the outcome of Barbarossa. Also in this game, the Barbarossa here was somewhat underpowered compared to other possibilities, such as when the Axis ignore the Mediterranean and let the Italian Army passively hold Italy while Italian SUBs and aircraft bend the action limits in the Axis favor. I would say such a Barbarossa could be as much as 1.5x more powerful than this one.
And in this game the operations in Persia are a red herring. Guderian's Panzer Army and it's medium bomber support would have been a bit more devastating in the Ukraine against Russians trying to form up on the Dnepr, even with Zhukov and his few units up there to help. In my opinion. And also you just won't ever expect to see the western Allies completely ignore the strategic importance of the Mediterranean and Middle East so thoroughly, which makes this game a very isolated data point. Allied powers that ignore the fate of Russia will lose the game, and deservedly so; it is a great and perhaps scary what-if? of history to contemplate the Soviets' fate without Lend-Lease.
So I have written an essay like this before, and some responses have been to dismiss it. We are discussing a game of World in Flames, not history. The game Germans are probably more powerful than the real life Germans as the logistics in the game are a bit too loose and the attritional nature of combat operations is not modeled in fine detail, only in binary detail of disorganized units with very rarely one removed from the map. Indeed, a 1941 Barbarossa of the 'kitchen sink' variety is considered by some players to be such a powerful strategy choice that the game is currently irretrievably broken. I disagree. There are lots and lots of things the Russians could have done differently on the defense, and the AI will have to do differently on defense if it has any hope to hold off such a Barbarossa.
First, the Russians have to accept two things heading into a 1941 Axis attack: they are going to lose all of their units they commit to the combat front with the Axis, and they are going to lose most of their European territory. Playing WiF you learn that you can't fight over territory just out of pride. Taking ground from the enemy has to have a strategic purpose and shouldn't be done just because the enemy has it. That purpose revolves around the resource hexes first, the factories second, and in the Russian case the ability of the Axis to add the Turks to their side.
Then recall what I mentioned about the futility of hoping to somehow stop the Germans in 1941. The Russians can't do that until 1942, and will never do that if they don't take the appropriate steps in 1941. The Russians have to build up the combat power of their units to the point where they can WIN BATTLES. Fighting too much with less than 2 combat factors / BP will quickly favor the Germans, who are fighting with generally more than 2 factors / BP (most of this re: the bulk of the units - the infantry). So the first thing the Russians should do is scrap their low power units as they are lost. Not before the war; even the 2-1 GARR in a city costs the Axis an impulse of activity in that local area, and excepting the MOT with equal or less factors than BPs . But as the 3, 4, and even 5 factor infantry units are killed, they should be ruthlessly scrapped. Maybe the 5s can be rebuilt once, depending on how the Force Pools are looking. The 5-1 GARR are worth keeping. Each year the Soviets get several powerful Infantry formations added to their pools and they won't run short.
The idea that they will need all of their INF to come back is a ghost of WiF Past. In WiF:FE, combat power flows only partly from mass. Combined Arms and specialized units and offensive chits supply much more of it. Here is a devastating WiF tactic that can replicate the real life 'Destruction of Army Group Center' in 1944. In a summer 1944 turn, the Russians start with an air action. They fly 19 air missions against the German front and then re-org all 19 planes with all of their HQs. They then spend an O-chit to reorganize all of their HQs and proceed with a land action, during which their specialized tank-destroyer units, the ones with red factors, land or air, feature in all of the most key battles, as well as all the planes flying a second time. Most any German line will stagger and buckle under such a blow. 3-3 and 4-3 INF contribute little to this tactic's success. It is fun and a worthwhile tactic to use masses of Soviet infantry to take on the panzers at even 1-1, which can really spook the Germans, but on a factor/BP basis, it is not that economically efficient. Also the low factor INF are not elite units, and thus not winterized. 2 hexes fully stacked with elite units can operate in Snow weather as if it were Fine, and this too can be very powerful, so the Russians want as many elite units as they can get. And a final point - as the Russians head west, their front narrows due to geography. If they have spent too much on low factor units, these become just camp followers of all the various Guards units blitzing their way into Poland. Far better to have an extra O-Chit to spend doubling GBA armor and especially the tank-destroyer divisions (quadrupled with O-chit vs panzers) as they exact their revenge on the I SS ARM than to have five extra pre-war infantry armies that can rarely find maneuver room to get into a battle.
Hand in hand with managing the Infantry force pool comes deciding how much MIL to build. It seems comforting to build all of the MIL out in one go the first instant this is possible. But what you get is a bit of a mess; lots of low factor units, many of them far from the front lines when the Russians effectively only have one rail move / impulse while they move their factories east. Most MIL units can not cause the Germans to lose a battle (disorganized), especially ones disorganized from their train trip to the front. They can soak up a little time, but that is about it. The biggest downside of the 14 MIL build comes 2 turns later, when most of those MIL have been vaporized and now there are very few reinforcements arriving at a critical point in the campaign. I think it is a bit better to only build a half-dozen MIL at once to minimize this problem (MIL do have their uses). Also that way some of the weaker MIL will have their recruiting base cities overrun before the Russians waste 2 BP on them, though of course they will also lose some good MIL units that way too.
Some of these same principles apply in the air. The Red Air Force should not spend a single ruble until 1941, when it should begin building one FTR-2 / turn. Until the 1941 force pool additions, BPs spent in the air aren't worth it. 3 air-to-air factor fighters and 2 ground factor bombers just aren't worth the risk to the 2 BP pilots flying them, nor the limited Russian air missions it takes to fly them. Just because they have some planes in the force pool doesn't mean they need be used on the map. It can be worthwhile to put all of their planes on the map for garrison points as you then effectively get a point for only 2 BP. But this should ONLY be done if you are going to follow through with a "Stuff the Border" strategy all the way into 1941, which is it's own separate concern I am not discussing here; 'stuffing' is a valid strategy choice but should be considered separately. What is important is that the Communists were no better at predicting the success of aircraft designs before trial by combat than the Western powers were, so there are a heck of a lot of Russian FTR you have to draw from. Best to start on that late so you can get some 5 factor FTRs that at least can fight at -1/+1. Flying pre-war biplanes against cutting edge Me-109 at +3/-3 (or worse, FW-190) is just frittering away precious Russian combat strength with little chance of success. Those same bi-planes also frequently can't even master German medium bombers unescorted on deep penetration raids. You will need the Migs and Yaks for that.
And one last thing on the builds: Build ALL of the tanks! Or at least, all of the full size units; the divisions are an extravagance for use on the offensive later on in the war. I have though been thinking about building a Mech division in Nov/Dec 1940, so I can get both of the 1941 MECH and ARM on the track in J/F 41, probably also with some BP savings as 1940 moves along for that purpose, although I do like a couple specific Fort builds as well. Always tough choices building units. But in this AAR, the Russians never had but one ARM unit, and instead had too many pilots.
Now that you have your force structure sorted out, just what should the Russian units do in 1941? They have to do two things - get the factories to Murmansk, Archangel, and Siberia, and preserve the powerful mobile corps of the Red Army. To get the factories out, units will have to be sacrificed. But never ever their ARM, MECH, and HQ units. Those should be kept ALWAYS out of range of the Luftwaffe FTRs and especially Stukas, and under cover of the newest Russian FTRs possible, to discourage Axis medium bomber raids on these formations. The Russian air missions each impulse should be used for rebases to maintain air superiority over their key units, not in vain hopes of winning a battle via committing 2 or 3 points of ground support, or a low chance of flipping a German HQ via Ground Strike. Later in the war you can do both of those with the wonderful Sturmoviks, but not in 1941.
In this Barbarossa just completed, the Germans generally ignored their chances to ground strike and kill the few Russian tanks. This would have to come at the expense of the rate of territory gained, but would pay off big in 1942 as once war starts, the Russians can't afford to build tanks for quite some time. Working stacked in pairs with a hex between pairs, outside of German Stuka support, make for an actual line the Germans can't generally break without taking very big risks to their own tanks, and generally won't try. So I just contradicted myself about forming a Russian "line", but this line of MECH/ARM stacks is NOT the front line, and indeed should be some distance from the front line as the turn gets later and one has to consider the risk of an Axis double move. The infantry hold the front line, where they will all be killed. Any and all players should have the basic grasp of the combat system to have this death happen in terrain where the German tanks can't just wipe them out essentially for free. This means stacking two good units in each and every city in their path. The German infantry can reduce them one by one without too much trouble, but eventually they will roll low somewhere. It also helps to use an occasional third unit on top of a "Hero City" (and this sometimes despite the extra penalty for disorganized units), especially where the Russians still have a retreat path, so their best combat unit comes back the next turn on any Shatter result. This is frequently the case on the "Factory Line" - Kursk/Kharkov/Stalino, and sometimes even in Dnepropetrovsk or Kiev. The two Russian anti-tank guns are very good for this purpose at the Factory Line as by that time the German infantry are spread out quite a bit and the Germans have to start calling in their armor formations to help reduce cities, but doing so with an AT gun present increases the defense strength. The AT guns aren't fast enough to participate in a sweeping mobile battle anyway.
So this tactic means the retreat starts IMMEDIATELY. You can't sit around and waste units forming a line, dithering over when to finally start the retreat. The Stukas fly up and paste that line and then those units can't retreat. The retreat is permanent until winter at least, and/or retreating units reach the Caucasus. On the central front, you can just keep retreating. It's a long way to the Urals, and you want to draw the Germans off the European map anyway. As I have typed several times on here, if it doesn't help you get a factory out, don't risk a unit that can not win a battle. Retreat. Now. This is where lots of Allied players fail and go on to lose the game.
Seeing that map of the regions of Russia the AI will use intrigued me in terms of how it might align with the historical Russian system of Military Districts. But that is just a bit of curiosity. How the districts actually lay on the map concerns me less than how they will work. Each district will be given units to defend it. But will there be a mechanism to ever release those units to another district? If the only factory in a district has been railed out, why should units still be there? Somehow, a force protection strategy has to kick in somewhere, somehow. What I am suggesting for preserving the Russian tank forces is something that would operate across several of these districts.
And how important are the factories? I think you can actually afford to lose 2 or 3, perhaps even 4. The reason is the Russian resource base in central Asia. All of their extra oil, with an exception for some to run the red factory in a surrounded Leningrad, should go deep into Asia from early on in the game. But there is a finite amount of oil that can be saved, and a finite amount of resources in Asia. So losing a few factories won't hurt too bad and you don't have to sacrifice every infantry class unit to get them all out. Just get most of them. Once the saved oil runs out, you might wish you had a few more units back. And don't forget to get that oil saved by having CPs in the Caspian, four of them. The Germans can cut the key rail junction between Penza and Saratov fairly quickly. Probably worth building a few CP as they are nice to have in all of the other seas around European Russia as well, even the Arctic if the Finns decide to go to war with you.
It is, however, critical that you get two factories to Murmansk, where they operate year-round, as well as Archangel, which will lose a turn or three of ocean access per year (have the West deliver oil there and save it for winter). They don't just allow the delivery of two Western resources to convert to Russian BPs in Russian factories. They also allow two more BPs to be delivered to the Murmansk hex. It is difficult to protect the rail link to Murmansk, but not impossible; you only have to do it for two impulses of Germans being across the boundary of Mother Russia. This is where Russian policy towards Finland comes in. Ignore some exaggerated desire to have more defense space for Leningrad. Leningrad is one of the hardest hexes in the game to take, and trading in a unit or even two on it's northwestern porch won't improve it's defense; I would even say any units spent defending a Russian held Vyborg are just wasted, unless they sucker Mannerheim into staying in the south, but that's pointless because that is the only part of Finland with inherent local supply. What you really want from the Finnish borderlands is a bit of breathing room for the rail to Murmansk. To get it, you have to demand the Borderlands in M/J 40, backed by overwhelming force. Otherwise, you might never reach Helsinki on time, as the Germans can just continually land a pair of 2 BP units in front of your assault force (you did remember to stack a Motorised division with Zhukov, didn't you?). And the Arctic weather is coming on soon. So a demand in J/A 40 might be too late. You don't need Helsinki, though if the Germans will let you take it that is a big win. But they seriously need to stretch your northern flank, and will have to think very hard about the value of that vs 2 US Entry chits. If they pick the 2 USE chits and go to war, you don't actually have to go all the way to Helsinki; you just have to bluff that you can. Your goal is to get 2 factories to Murmansk, and not take any casualties before Barbarossa. And then get all the pointy bits of your forces back to the main front.
In the game in this AAR, it might have really helped the overall Axis cause, with a USA gearing up so incredibly early, to take the chits. Also in this game the Axis blew a key Finnish opportunity by aligning them during 1940, putting all of their units on the map. A canny Axis player won't align them till just before Barbarossa starts, and the Russians have no way to know where Mannerheim will strike. So it will take a few CAV, one of the slow HQs (Timoshenko), and even a few precious INF armies to get those two factories to Murmansk, but this is critical to Russian survival in the long term. Their long range LND can also operate very effectively in this region where the Axis is unlikely to spend precious air missions to advance their FTR cover. There is another key Allied tactic in this region I will return to momentarily.
But overall that about wraps it up for what Russia can do in 1941. They also have one other asset, their at-start offensive chit. I like to use it to have their HQs re-org their REServe units, and then flip the HQs up so they can stay out of harm's way on a long summer turn. But then as the Axis I prefer a M/J 41 attack, as compared to a M/A 41 attack where getting the REServe units into battle isn't as complicated. [For the Axis I think M/A gives the Russians too much time to organize their reserves, production strategy, and factory movements.] If not used for the HQ/RES idea, it can perhaps still be used to salvage that critical mobile corps should the Axis break through and partially disorganize it, say after a double move.
And all of this, dear Comrades, is just half of the battle for the Motherland. The other half unfortunately lies in the hands of those capitalist Devils in the West. If Uncle Joe goes down, they go down with him. And Uncle Joe is quite a bit of a mess in 1941. If the Axis don't build any lift on the first turn of the game, the western Allies should start thinking about how they will help the Russians. They can start immediately in Nov/Dec 39 with two decisions. They can send their first oil point to the Russians even before USE option 19 is played, and keep sending them unless the Axis shows signs of veering in to the Med, and they can lay down a CW AMPH unit. These are the first two steps of a three-pronged strategy (the third can't start until Barbarossa does).
The main thing the West must do is pump resources AND Build Points in to Russia. They can do this via the Middle East, the Arctic, or perhaps Siberia. The Axis can easily sever the Siberian option and indeed is easy pickings for the Japanese, well inside the realm of very good play for them if Hitler attacks Russia in 1941. The Japanese can also interfere with some of the Middle East routes via their own campaign in the Persian Gulf, though they can't cut routes through the Red Sea without going to war with the CW. (They can take plenty of 20% risk shots via the Search & Seizure tactic). If the Japanese launch their own campaign here, the CW can at least send in some peacekeepers to block them, but otherwise must wait for US Entry into the war to contest that, which they then should, vigorously. One key is Syria - it if goes Vichy, the Allies need it back right away, which shouldn't be that difficult. As I commented during this game, Egypt is part of the Russian front line if the Axis decide to try and open that front. The CW should defend it accordingly.
That leaves the Arctic route. Here, the Royal Navy can get the job done if it so desires. They will need ASW assets, surface assets, and even fleet CVs at times perhaps. The Allies probably just can't have too many Convoy Points during a 1941 Barbarossa. They are especially stretched if the Germans are leaving the Netherlands neutral until Japan is ready to attack the USA. The USA might be able to help out via the Refute Naval War Zones option, though that only usually helps for a turn or two before they enter the war anyway. Hopefully with a nice surplus of convoy points to send Ford trucks to Russia with.
Speaking of US Entry options, if the Germans just start building tanks, tanks, and more tanks, the US should save up for Russia, Russia, and again Russia. And by that I mean saving their political capital (chits) to get an American Lend-Lease bill for the Soviet Union through a highly skeptical US Congress. That means playing both kinds of entry options, for Resources and Build Points. Otherwise the West can send only one of each until the USA joins the war, and by then Russia's fate might be sealed.
The second western Allied strategy tack to save Russia is through their builds. They have to be able to intervene somewhere in Europe in 1941. The first building block to do that is an AMPH unit, so they must start one or two of them in 1939. One shouldn't count on the Americans joining the party until 1942, so it will have to be a CW one. After that, all Allied countries need boots on the ground, to borrow a regrettable 21st century phrase from regrettable recent American military history. Boots on the ground resist the Axis advance, costing them time and units, aiding the Russian defense before it even starts. And that landing in Europe somewhere has to have tanks of some sort coming in during a second wave; the CW starts with only a single MECH. In WiF far too many Allies can't resist the glittering allure of the fun to be had with the nifty "toy" units such as bombers and carriers. The Allies need these eventually for victory, but if the Axis take over all the resources on the map, no amount of Allied toys will be able to get them back, and there won't be any Russian boots on the ground to bleed the Wehrmacht for them. Even the USA has to build for a decisive entry into the war ON THE MAP, not on the production spiral. A USA that lays down all five Essex class CVs in J/F 1941, just because they can, while the Russians are about to disappear, is a dead giveaway that the Allies aren't taking the threat to Russia seriously.
Where exactly the West uses what ground troops they can build up (after insuring they will have a robust convoy line to Russia), is less important. As much as Axis units, you want to cost the Axis their action limits - rail moves and air missions that otherwise go to advancing their cause on the eastern front. There are a number of places you can attack the Axis, but think in terms of action limits. If the Luftwaffe in Russia seems to be all speaking Italian, strike at an Italian area so they can't use as many of their missions on the eastern front, and have less chance to take an air impulse. If the Med is closed, threaten the Gibraltar region, where the Axis response will require rail moves. A direct cross-channel attack into France or one in to Denmark costs the Axis a bit less as they can just respond via marching units; too easy and not enough help for the Russians. [It is ridiculously simple for the Germans to protect Denmark using just the Kiel and Hamburg MIL and a single Mech division. But if they do leave Frederikshavn easily obtainable, the Allies should snatch it any opportunity, and activate Winnie's dream of a glorious end for the R class BBs thrashing the Germans in their own private lake.]
So that leaves the third prong I mentioned. This is to land a significant Expeditionary Force in Russia (and keep it there), which will have to be in the Arctic in almost all cases. There are two possibilities. Alexander (the only choice to lead this effort) can land in the Murmansk region to both protect Murmansk and drive on nearby Petsamo and perhaps on into Finland (the UK CAV is ideal, as is the wrath of Khan, i.e. the Mongolian CAV), or he can land at the western edge of the White Sea and help ensure those two factories make it to Murmansk on the critical first turn of the German attack. Generally the Russians will have to handle one area and the CW the other. Alexander should be ready to land the instant the Germans issue the DOW. Time is running out. It will be hard to operate an British army in Russia while also attempting a landing on the European mainland, but it can be done by disciplined impulse option choices, advanced planning and pre-positioned forces. If you can't figure that out, you probably shouldn't have been promoted to Field Marshall. Building for a good convoy line and decent ground forces will leave another Allied desire a bit short - the construction of Free French forces. They too will have a role to play in the war from the middle onwards, but it will be irrelevant if the Germans take the Urals.
So if you do all of these things, Russia might survive a 1941 Barbarossa. Only "might", because it is an extremely dangerous Axis strategy. A lot will still come down to the initiative and weather rolls in September 1941. You did pass on all chances to go first until the summer of 1941, didn't you? But things can start to turn there for the Allies. A bit of weather slows the Axis advance, the Russians complete their final factory moves, they seal the passes in the Caucasus with two units in each hex while the mobile corps of tanks in front of the mountains pivots off the clear weather in the deserts around Astrakhan to become the central pillar of a Red Army rebuilding in the Urals. 1942 sees the Germans launch vicious assaults on the heights of the Caucasus with no guarantee of success. Their panzer spearheads now far across the Volga finally run into a line of Russian tanks, aircraft, and high factor Infantry units that they can't break. The march to Berlin begins.
|
|
|
|
