|
EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Turn 64: The ending (5/25/2019 11:18:31 AM)
|
After the end of the game, the Axis shared the password for the saves with me, and following a look at some saves these were some impressions regarding the game I sent to Telemecus, who asked to post them here in the thread as well, which I will do.
I had a look over some turns. While playing as the Soviets, I constantly worried about encirclement of different scale, and playing some quick and dirty test runs, feel confirmed now. I think there were quite some opportunities for eincirclement, e.g. snow turns 1941 and the snow turns after the blizzard, to create 3-6 unit pockets, especially along the Moscow-Tula front.
Again I am inclined to think there are considerable differences in doctrine between your Axis team and me along the lines security&own preservation vs. aggressiveness&maximal enemy losses, long term management vs. full focus on operations and their short term needs, air force for many purposes vs. air force for support of operations, focus on penetrations and operations with added strategic goals vs. strong focus on encirclement (Vernichtungsgedanke), tendency to form coherent frontlines vs. liking to strip weak places to the utmost even if risky as Axis. Somewhat exaggerated, as high command I would have fired some people for "lack of aggressive spirit, and attempts to hide the lack of natural initiative behind administrative considerations", while I as a field commander would have been fired for "inability to consider other means to win than ground combat, taking unnecessary gambles, overt rashness under-appreciation of firepower" 😂
I do not claim to have the superior approach (it works better for me, otherwise I would have changed my mind already, but do not claim to be it a better final/general answer than yours), but it is interesting to note the differences.
Looks very much like British military theory/history vs. Prussian/German military theory/history as far as I have read about them so far 😂
I was surprised to see many motorised units on low TOE, especially manpower. Your Army looks very well fine-tuned (withdrawal TOEs, Airforce in general, AP handling, city occupation requirements etc.), but this is a point I would handle very different, details are outlined in the "total war" guide, the key point being to create a small (<10k) surplus of manpower so motorised untis fill up even if not on refit. Saving vehicles is an argument but I would rather send some level bombers to reserve than starve the motorised units for manpower.
It was not very nice to demote Ewald von Kleist to a Corps commander. I hope it was no punishment for a failure. But to be honest I would probably have done the same eventually, best commanders generally are for corps, not armies.
The fortified zones. IMO building forts for blizzard is a waste. They have low construction value, low morale and XP and will as such take huge attrition losses. Their firepower bonus, if existant at all, is neglible IMO. I see the value as an experiment, but not as a measure to win the war.
Manpower management: Generally speaking, a well managed army does not need refit mode to fill up the key units. Refit mode is to send scarce special resources (AFVs) to the very best units.
Not sure if it was for supply-saving reasons, but usage of construction points was not always optimal, especially prior to the blizzard. 55 const. value is the most that can be used per hexagon, if a units has more than that, split it up to cover more hexagons. Especially the Tula area would have benefited of better fortifications in the blizzard.
Regards
|
|
|
|
