|
M60A3TTS -> RE: Newbs in the East: Psych0 (Axis) vs Drakken (Sov) - NO AXIS ALLOWED (10/1/2017 4:32:49 PM)
|
Always stack your airbases on or adjacent to rail lines when practical.
The game limits a player to bombing an airbase hex twice a turn. If you have 9 airbases, each on one hex, your opponent can bomb them 18 times. On the other hand, if they are stacked in 3 groups of 3, they can only be bombed 6 times. Airbase bombing can be very effective for the Axis player particularly in 1941. You want them close to rail hexes to minimize the number of trucks being used each turn to supply them.
You have more potential trouble in the north, as I see the Finns have flipped hexes in eastern Karelia close to the no attack line. To review, the Finns cannot attack you south of that line as long as Leningrad holds, but they can still move into unoccupied hexes across that line. That means they can move south where you have no ground units, forcing your airbases to displace, and making it easier to cut off your forces by Sviritsa. Abandon Novaya Ladoga, it buys you nothing. If Osinovets falls, you will be out of supply there regardless of any eastern port along the lake.
Since you don’t show much in the way of combat results or information from the commanders screen, it is more difficult to see how you are organizing, but you’re on the right track thinking in terms of an army commanded by General X or Y. Why Kulik as the defender of Moscow? He’s a weak general in terms of his combined score of morale, admin, initiative and infantry rating.
Here are side-by-side comparisons of the two leaders with their respective ratings added up. Zakharov comes in with a value of 27, among the best in the Red Army. Kulik is only 18, really not what you are looking for. In general, anyone with a combined value under 20 is on my short list for replacement. To make things worse, Kulik has a high political rating because of his friendship with Stalin, so it costs more admin points to try and replace him. You see this similarly in the VVS where there are a number of mediocre air commanders replacing better ones courtesy of the AI, all because they have a better political rating.
[image]https://i.imgur.com/qB9wNTP.jpg[/image]
Here is an example taken from the Kursk scenario of the 51st Army, led first by General Zakharov and then by Marshal Kulik. Better CV math is used here just as in your game. See how much better the CVs are with a really good commander as compared to a middling or poor one? It’s about 25% and that is quite a difference.
[image]https://i.imgur.com/EotS6KG.jpg[/image]
Semyon Krivoshein is similarly a second tier general, although if I badly needed a mech commander in the late game, he might be considered to lead. But with infantry, he rates no better than Kulik.
You say you badly want T-34s but Stelteck is right. T-34s right now are of very limited use. They will join units with no experience, hence no real combat value. They will not have a real part to play until 1942, when they have a chance to build up experience and morale and can then be formed into corps.
Remember the difference between replacement units and reinforcement units. I dare say the units arriving on and after T10 are a lot of replacement units. They are shells with little combat value. You need to largely defend with what is on the map plus reinforcement units that come onto the map with real troops and experience.
|
|
|
|
