|
notenome -> RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please) (6/4/2012 6:18:52 PM)
|
Prsonally I believe a forward defense is always possible, but it depends how you define it. If you create a scale, where on one side you have running to the dnepr with everything on turn 1, and sending everything to the frontline as the other extreme, both are stupid tactics. A forward defense to me means contesting the Axis advance and that is altogether a different proposition in each sector of the front.
For example: In the South the Soviets have three strong mechanized formations, one in Southern Front, one by the Dnepr and one near the Prypiat Marshes. Individual divisions of these formations have CV values of 6, which is something the Soviets aren't going to see again for the better part of a year. The problem is that most forward defending Soviet players use these formations to plug holes in the lines, where they inevitably get pocketed and can't bring their offensive potential to bear. In my mind the correct application of these formations is to be held in reserve, behind the MLR, being brought up to punch holes in pockets and then pulled back again. Once a hole is punched divisions in pockets should have their TOEs reduced and HQs stripped of their support assets, to reduce losses when the pocket is closed again.
Another example: A lot of divisions wind up in the swamps, where most players rail them out to feed western front. To me these units should be kept in the swamp, creating long flanks for the Axis. I actually feed units into the swamps and let the German player figure out how he's going to deal with them. Aside from favouring defense, swamps also burn through attacking mps at a prodigious rate, and because of the railroads the supply situation greatly favors the Soviets. Historically this strong northern flank forced the Axis advance southwards, forming the Uman pocket.
|
|
|
|
