Axis defence-only strategy (Full Version)

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



Message

EwaldvonKleist -> Axis defence-only strategy (7/24/2019 6:44:43 PM)

Public continuation of a discord discussion regarding a very defensive Axis strategy. All invited to add their thoughts!

The points below are more of a thought experiment, I have no definite opinion if it will be successful, but I tend to think the Soviets will eventually get the upper hand.

So here is the recipe for a defence only Axis strategy.
Play an opening optimised for unit morale gain. Continue the summer 1941 with a morale farming approach by favouring frontal assaults and installing high morale leaders quickly. If possible, destroy Soviet airborne formations to deny later guards conversions. Take care not to gift any victories to the Soviets.
During mud and snow 1941, retreat west of the line of the hardcoded blizzard effects. The idea is not justto reduce losses from blizzard fighting, but to avoid the blizzard effects completely.
After the Blizzard compare the comparative strength of the forces. If the force ratio allows the push to a more forward defensive line (especially the Dvina-Dnepr line), go for it. Otherwise simply fortify and leave the initiative to the Soviet player.
The Finns will be set up such that they surrender without giving many wins to the Soviets, e.g. by disbanding the units.

The frontline to defend is approximately 65-80 hexagons for a line located somewhere between the Dvina-Dnepr rivers and Axis-USSR border. At-start number of German divisions is approximately 150, and reinforcements considerably outnumber withdrawals/disbands considerably. With reinforcements triple-stacking along the short line almost everywhere should be possible, with low-quality units and Axis maintaining fallback fortifications.
Having avoided the blizzard, the Axis should have almost 100% TOE in most categories and retain their high morale units in all categories.
Here is a map showing possible defence lines by date.
[image]local://upfiles/54093/B4EDCFF00B664C01A80E7F80C0623B8E.jpg[/image]


If we assume 80mrl for the average infantry division and 100% TOE, it has around 11CV.
If we assume 90mrl for the average motorised infantry division and slightly below 100% TOE, it has around 11CV.
If we assume 90mrl for the average Panzer division and somewhat below 100% TOE, it has around 20CV.

To account for damage, fatigue and no triple stacking for a few hexagons, we assume 10CV per unit while calculating with triple stacking everywhere.
30 offensive CV in lvl 3 forts result in 120 defensive CV, 90 if in lvl 2 forts before any bonus due to terrain.
Lvl 2 forts in swamps for example will give defensive CV, lvl 2 in clear terrain behind a minor river 180 CV etc.


That is not easy to crack for the Soviets. A 60mrl 60 exp 1944 Soviet rifle corps has around 15 CV, the number of Guards rifle corps will be very limited and almost no unit will be above the NM. Triple stacked and attacking from two hexagons, the offensive CV brought to battle are 90CV, barely matching the defensive CV of a clear lvl 2 hexagon, and 2:1 odds are needed to force a retreat. And that is for 1944, 1942-1943 morale/exp values and hence CV are considerably lower. If it is possible to build a massive wall of steel, absolute Soviet numbers do not matter much, because the CV can’t be concentrated sufficiently for a breakthrough.

So what can the Soviet player do? As he has abundant numbers of dead and living (soon to be dead) material, whittling down the Axis forces by hundreds of failed frontal attacks is a possibility. The problem is that the frontline is comparably short and well fortified, so making the weight matter is difficult. It is less of a problem in the summer, but during mud, snow and blizzard, rotating units for multiple waves of attacks becomes a problem, even more given the recent introduction of a +1 cost for each successive attack on a hexagon.
Furthermore, the Soviets can accept a huge number of RNG fails, while each bad roll resulting in a Soviet break-in will be a major problem for the Axis player, even with multiple echelons of fortifications.

Overall, I think a well-constructed Axis line taking advantage of Eastern Europe mountains or the Dnepr-Dvina river can very well hold out CV-wise, if it is possible to attrit the Axis forces sufficiently has to be tested, but I think so. It might be possible to sit out the summers behind rivers, but the winters will be difficult.






GoodbyeBluesky -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 8:11:56 AM)

I imagine it to be very effective but most likely to end up in a gigantic waiting game especially in 42 when the Soviets are gonna be busy repairing the rails before making contact and then being unable to break the line till 44.
Doesnt sound very exciting to me



Shalkai -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 8:51:33 AM)

Interesting thoughts. I think my money would be on the Soviets in such a World War I - Round 2 scenario. All those good - OK, less bad - units around Leningrad get to consolidate and prep for winter offensives, lessee, what else? SOV would be able to gain air superiority where desired and carpet bomb sections of line. Eventually guards will appear. Add in Artillery divisions later. Probably by late 43 SOV will be able to buzzsaw a nice chunk of hexes each turn and start pushing slowly. With only 80 hexes of strategic depth, that won’t keep Berlin safe past May 45 I’m guessing

Would the attrition during logistics phase be nastier with 200+ divisions on that front line? Not sure how that scales.

Air war would take on more importance. Every Bf and Fw lost would hurt, and if they have to pull back...bombitybombbomb. Strat bombing of airplane factories. Paradrops on Jagdgeschwaders. Bet Telemecus would have fun running either side!

Yeah, I don’t think avoiding blizzard by accepting static attrition warfare is gonna work better for the Axis.



Telemecus -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 11:39:25 AM)

I have to thank EwaldvonKleist for putting this idea in to black and white. I know it has been spitballed and alluded to for a long time. Here we can start to put into concrete what it would be.

I guess no one will ever want to do this strategy because it does lose a lot of the fun times for the Axis player - although this is not an argument it would not be effective. But I think it is a worthwhile academic exercise anyway. Testing the extremes might show another hybrid strategy that is less extreme but takes lessons from what is possible here. And just in case when you meet a unknown player you can still have a house rule saying do not do this and point to this forum thread!

I think it is worth looking at the Stef78 versus Stelteck game where high fort levels meant the Soviet Union could not retake Leningrad or knock Finland out of the war in 1944 or 1945. Instead they banged their head against a brick wall turn after turn and made no advance at all. Indeed they gave up and abandoned those front lines anyway - we saw there that there was no Soviet buzzsaw. So if that could be done with just Finnish units on only a double line, why not with German units on a triple or more front line?

The Soviet Union could make progress even with attacks of 1:1 odds by doing a very large number of attacks which by natural variation would mean they get a few wins. So the question would be do they have enough time and blood to win that way. The assumption is they have the manpower, but I am guessing not enough time to get to Berlin in 1945. Advancing on only a few hexes every turn would be very slow progress, territorially, indeed. I suspect the Germans would not have a manpower problem for this kind of warfare - their losses would be lower than the normal game?

The only other question is would this game be based on points, as in Bitter End, or just time to Berlin. If a Bitter End scenario it would probably be a Soviet victory. But if time to Berlin, my bet is on Germany ...



Dinglir -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 5:48:03 PM)

I think this strategy would devolve into an early defeat for the Germans, if played against a competent Soviet.

I think that the Soviets will be able to build the Red Army to such a strength over the fall and winter of 1941, that a German 1942 offensive would be a lot less feasible than we normally see. From the fall of 1942 onwards, the Soviets will then have 2.5 years (or 125 turns) to smash away at the Germans.

Strategy Con's for the Germans:

1) The limited advances would mean that the Soviets will not lose much industry to the Germans and would then effectively play the game with 20 or 30 extra AP. Those points would be effective in building a Red Army with some punch (ie lots of artillery), and that would force losses upon the Germans over time.
2) The limited advances would mean that the Soviets lose little time from evacuation buildup of industry. Because of this, production of T-34's, IL-2 and fighter aircraft will be high already from the late fall of 1941 allwoing for some pressure to be put on the Germans very early.
3) The limited manpower means that the Soviets lose little artillery etc. to encirclements and will be able to replace such losses far sooner than otherwise.
4) The limited advances would mean that the Soviets lose little manpower to encirclements and thus can reinforce to a correct manpower level very quickly.

Strategy Pro's for the Germans:

1) Few losses to attacking. Honestly, the savvy Axis player will not lose that much in the fall of 1941. Much of what is lost is lost to attrition and will be lost anyways. The importance of losing a little less is not that high.
2) Higher Morale. Avoiding the effects of the blizzard will mean that the Germans have higher morale. Unfortunately, this will slowly drop back towards National Morale. Once the National Morale drops, this will worsen considerably. This benefit is certainly only temporary.
3) Higher Experience. Taking only the sure wins and farming EXP will work wonders for the Germans. However, the Soviet airforce and artillery units will soon begin pounding the German lines relentlessly and having stacked three units pr frontline hex will cause attrition levels to remain high. Those losses will have to be replaced, leading to a drop in experience, although not by much.

All things considered, I believe that the benefits for the Germans would soon be negated by leaving so much of the initiative to the Soviets.

But as for testing the theory: I'm not interested, I would much rather play a "real" game.



joelmar -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 7:01:11 PM)

Interesting how opinions differ dramatically!

But maybe this is too extreme... what if 1941 and 42 were played more "normally" but with unit conservation in mind, with a full runner strategy (2-3 hexes) in the first winter to keep the idea of minimizing the effects and soviet wins, and limited offensives to push back the Soviets a bit in 1942, so without giving back all this terrain too fast and the defensive stance started only in the winter 42-43 much farther east with very strong mobile reserves instead of trying a last summer offensive?



xhoel -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 7:02:41 PM)

I believe that such strategy would put the Germans in a much worse place than if they had just soldiered through the blizzard of 1941-42. There are many reasons for this.

The meager offensive that you see planned means that the Germans will destroy only a few Soviet formations and will be unable to make a lasting impact on the Soviet Army. This goes for industry and manpower centers too, which grants the Soviets a major bonus. The fact that the Soviets will be left with an army that is more or less intact means that they will be in a much better position to start their own offensive against the Germans. Said offensives will be supported by the full might of the Soviet industry (which has not suffered any disruption) and by the Soviet manpower reserves (that are more or less intact).

Once German national morale starts dropping, the morale of the units in the front will gradually start decreasing, the higher the difference between morale and NM the more likely it is that a units morale will decrease. Thus all those "good" units that are at the front will slowly turn into 70 and <70 morale divisions and you will have a hard time building that up because the Soviets will have strong units at the front so farming attacks will be harder to achieve.

The Soviets at full capacity generate around 196.000 men a week in 1941. In 1942 that number would drop to 157.000. That means that it is highly improbable that the Axis player would be able to inflict anything even remotely close to these numbers through defensive fighting alone. So the Soviet OOB will grow and grow and grow, while the Germans will have to sustain constant attacks with their dwindling manpower reserves.

Also, the Soviets can attack week after week and will be only paying in blodd and bodies (which they have plenty of). There will be no morale loss for failed attacks and the Germans won't gain morale for holds. And since the Germans cannot form guard units, the number of wins in such defensive battles will be useless.

The combination of men, guns, tanks and aircraft as well as the increasing NR of the Soviet armies will mean that they will be in a much much better position than historically and they will break the Germans back. I predict Berlin would fall earlier than 1945 even.



Dinglir -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/25/2019 9:07:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
But maybe this is too extreme... what if 1941 and 42 were played more "normally" but with unit conservation in mind, with a full runner strategy (2-3 hexes) in the first winter to keep the idea of minimizing the effects and soviet wins, and limited offensives to push back the Soviets a bit in 1942, so without giving back all this terrain too fast and the defensive stance started only in the winter 42-43 much farther east with very strong mobile reserves instead of trying a last summer offensive?


I think this is probably a more viable strategy. In fact, historically it was the one suggested by the military command of the third Reich in 1942 - only to be trumphed by Hitler's obsession with the Caucasian oilfields.

Personally, when thinking of my games, I think more in terms of relative strength and exchange rates over terms such as "Red Army numbers" and "Has Moscow fallen". I have been comtemplating doing a lengthy post on this for a while now, but never gotten around to it.

As a small part of this, I believe that the objective for the Wehrmacht in 1942 are as follows:

1) Use the temporary superiority in Panzers to inflict losses upon the Red Army that will delay their buildup of forces for 1943 onwards. This must be done without losing the integrity of the attacking formations. Losing tanks that will be obsolete half a year later is not important, losing panzer units that will return without Experience or manpower is.
2) Limit manpower losses. With the Germans producing maybe 15.000 men each turn (manpower, reinforcements, Hiwi's, Diabled returns etc), losses will slowly bleed the Germans to the point where they can't present a stable front to the Soviets in 43-45. If this happens to soon, the Germans lose the game. They need to limit manpower losses in order to prepare for the later years.

This will effectively translate into a number of objectives for the Germans, with a couple of examples below:

1) Take Leningrad (if not done already). Taking Leningrad will free up a number of German Infantry Divisions from the line (replaced by the now active Finns), and will probably mean a net gain of 200-300.000 manpower for the Germans.
2) Prepare defensive positions. I have yet to see this enacted very much, but a well planned defensive position built on high fortification level Fortified Zones could be manned by static infantry at the front. Combined with mobile reserves to the rear, such a defensive line could limit the amount of attrition taken by the Germans. Whenever a line is finally breached, the Germans should then fall back on the next line. Setting up 20% ToE Fortified Zones and using Rumanians (for example) to dig will help towards this.

Combine this with other attacks (if time, terrain and strength permits) to destory Red Army formations, the Germans will have a full plate for 1942.



joelmar -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 2:56:46 AM)

quote:


ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I think this is probably a more viable strategy. In fact, historically it was the one suggested by the military command of the third Reich in 1942 - only to be trumphed by Hitler's obsession with the Caucasian oilfields.


Might be a little more interesting to play as the Germans in any case.

quote:


ORIGINAL:Dinglir

Personally, when thinking of my games, I think more in terms of relative strength and exchange rates over terms such as "Red Army numbers" and "Has Moscow fallen".


I like this thanks! I am playing a game against a runner in which it helps a lot to think in these terms. It certainly brings morale back up a bit! lol!

Anyway, this thread is very interesting with all those out of the box ideas, many things to think about.



Michael T -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 4:14:12 AM)

Pelton tried this strategy against my Soviets way back in the day after his 1941 Summer Offensive failed. There was an extensive AAR from both sides but it seems they have been removed for some reason.

Different rules I know but would have made interesting food for thought. I guess the AAR's were too toxic for the sensitive types now running the forums.



joelmar -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 11:08:22 AM)

quote:


Original: Michael T

Pelton tried this strategy against my Soviets way back in the day after his 1941 Summer Offensive failed.


did it work?



Bear1888 -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 1:35:34 PM)

I had once a soviet opponent who lost badly in summer 41. He simply cancelled his blizzard offensive and his army strength rose from 4.5 m to 6.5 at the summer of 42. So I had no chance to break through his level 2-3 fort lines and went to defense in mid summer 42. Crazy and unique game for me.

If I remember correctly, Hitler himself said that he is optimistic to defend Germany from the red army as the front line got shorter and shorter the more the soviets advanced.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 10:23:52 PM)

@all: Thanks for adding your thoughts!

The idea of this strategy can never be to win over loss ratios. For all practical purposes, we can assume the Soviets have almost infinite resources.
The only limited resource is the space on the frontline, MPs to attack and to swap units and the achievable CV density. Maybe trucks too (distances will be small but ammunition and general supply use will be HUGE).

@Shalkai:
quote:

Air war would take on more importance. Every Bf and Fw lost would hurt, and if they have to pull back...bombitybombbomb.

The frontline and the number of hexagons with units will be smaller than usual. As bombing is limited to two missions per hex, opportunities are less,not more compared to standard games. In addition, flak assets will be more concentrated and cover more units at the same time, so effectivity of bombardements is lower.

Late war Axis fighter production is quite high. The fighters will be used exclusively defensively, and I see no reason why it should be easier to kill them then in standard games.
Strat bombing of factories will not have much effect IMO, as the Axis has fighters and flak to defend, and strat bombing has been nerfed in 1.11.03 IIRC.



@Dinglir:
quote:


2) Higher Morale. Avoiding the effects of the blizzard will mean that the Germans have higher morale. Unfortunately, this will slowly drop back towards National Morale. Once the National Morale drops, this will worsen considerably. This benefit is certainly only temporary. The central point of this strat is to almost never lose battles due to CV concentration. If that works, fine, if not, the strategy is not going to work.
3) Higher Experience. Taking only the sure wins and farming EXP will work wonders for the Germans. However, the Soviet airforce and artillery units will soon begin pounding the German lines relentlessly and having stacked three units pr frontline hex will cause attrition levels to remain high. Those losses will have to be replaced, leading to a drop in experience, although not by much.


Regarding morale, unless you lose battles (which you will barely do if the strategy works out as it should), you will never lose points. Auto morale loss starts only if 20 points above NM for the unit type, so 1945 60 morale still allows 80 morale infantry and 90 morale 90 morale motorised units.
Regarding experience, it will always climb back to morale, even with constant losses experience will stay very close to the NM. Only wipe-outs (like multi hex retreats) kill enough stuff in one turn to reduce exp considerably.

quote:

and having stacked three units pr frontline hex will cause attrition levels to remain high

The share of the army located at the front is not very different from standard games with long frontlines. Your frontlines are stacked higher, but also much shorter.
However, being close to the Germany, supply will be very good, and unit morale/exp will be considerably higher->less attrition. And you will avoid the 1941/42 special winter attrition completely by sitting it out in Germany. So overall I would expect less attrition.

@MichaelT: I think I read the AAR once but do not recall many details. So you wrote an AAR too? Maybe it is still there as only Pelton's AARs were deleted IIRC?

@all: There even is an AAR about this strategy with an older version by Stef78: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3366529
Unfortunately, it has lost its images. In the game the strategy "worked" if I remember it correctly by delaying defeat into 1945 when it likely would have come much earlier with conventional play. But it was under a different ruleset.






xhoel -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 11:02:30 PM)

@EvK: Thank you for posting this! It is a nice "what if" exercise.

I wanted to correct what you said about morale. Even without losing battles there is a chance that your units morale will drop. I have seen it more than once and it should be easy to test if you are in a GC. The morale loss is random and usually drops by 1 point. I am seeing this happen even for units that are only 1 or 2 points above NM (70 in my game). Infantry divisions at 72 or 71 are reverting to 70 morale. This is mostly happening to units that are in static parts of the front and haven't seen combat in a bit. The manual does not make any mention of this however so it may be a bug or something that is not working correctly.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/26/2019 11:27:39 PM)

@xhoel: I know it can happen when supply levels are low, even if not isolated. I have yet to notice random morale drops of units with okish to good supply which are not isolated and not >20 points above NM and not under first blizzard conditions. Maybe I haven't payed enough attention.



xhoel -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/27/2019 12:12:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

@xhoel: I know it can happen when supply levels are low, even if not isolated. I have yet to notice random morale drops of units with okish to good supply which are not isolated and not >20 points above NM and not under first blizzard conditions. Maybe I haven't payed enough attention.


I know there are rules for when a unit is in poor supply but the units that we are talking about were in good supply and had low fatigue. It surprised me but I brushed it off as something that happens. Maybe someone else can offer some insight on the matter.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/27/2019 12:44:03 AM)

Understood, thanks for the info.
When you notice it again make sure to take a Screenshot, maybe we can find out if there is another reason. Or it really is a RNG wad drop as you said.



xhoel -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/27/2019 12:47:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Understood, thanks for the info.
When you notice it again make sure to take a Screenshot, maybe we can find out if there is another reason. Or it really is a RNG wad drop as you said.


Will do, but I sure hope it doesn't happen again :P
Cheers!



Telemecus -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/27/2019 9:08:11 AM)

Just to add the point about morale drops. You may need to correct what I have picked up here - the issue is can infantry divisions with morale above National Morale lose morale without losing battles? If this is the question I have seen this happen so my answer would be yes. I assumed this was due to replacements diluting the expereienced troops with base morale troops. The drop can especially be seen with low ToE units when they increase their ToE by a lot during a turn. As I understand the rules dilution is only partial so it still makes sense to send replacements to high morale units. Have I got the point of the discussion right?



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/27/2019 11:09:01 AM)

Correct, the question is if a unit with okish to good supply which is not isolated and not >20 points above NM and not under first blizzard conditions can lose morale randomly.

If it will have a significant impact depends on how likely it is.



Michael T -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/28/2019 4:00:20 AM)

The AAR was there a ways back. It was called 'Razing the Reich'.

It was an infamous clash between Pelton and I. He tried his Left Hook around the south of Leningrad through the Valdai. It failed. His whole 1941 strategy was based on the success of that operation. I think I was the first to foil it. He then ran back to Poland in the fall/winter of 1941. I pursued and he turned turtle in 1942. I attacked in 1942 to simply bleed him dry. I lost many troops but he lost many as well. I began 1943 with a monsterous Red Army, with many Guard INF Corp. Slowly crushing him and pushing him back. A mysterious bug then stopped the game. He later admitted defeat and resigned as it was obviously going to be a Red Army victory. The bug that ruined the game was also later found.

Anyway the AAR was ok IMO and I spent a long time doing it. So I am not pleased it has been deleted. I doubt I will bother with anymore AAR's after that. What a waste of time.

As I said above, different rules back then but still would have been an interesting discussion point for this thread.



Telemecus -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/28/2019 1:08:29 PM)

+1

I think I remember skimming through Razing the Reich a long time ago. It is a real shame that has gone. I can understand why so many War in the East AARs are now appearing in other forums outside of Matrix.

I saw a similar thing last year where a very large number of people who had done absolutely nothing wrong were told everything they had written in AARs would be wiped. Even if what is held in these forums is up to a private company to decide on, you still assume some responsibility from the individual entrusted to undertake that policy. Whatever the rules and laws there is common decency for the people who have spent so much time doing something to help others with the game. That should not be thrown away because of one individuals caprice or because of someone else's actions.

I guess we can only take the conclusion that this strategy probably would not work even if we cannot see it in an AAR.



Michael T -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/28/2019 9:16:21 PM)

Yes, and if some posts in the AAR were deemed to be non PC, by todays standards, surely give the OP the option to delete the offensive content so the AAR can remain. To just delete it without notice is very heavy handed. I note there are also some great old threads that have been deleted as well.



xhoel -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/28/2019 9:29:06 PM)

Ouch that is really messed up. I would lose my **** if my AAR was just deleted without giving me any noticed.



MattFL -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/29/2019 6:07:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

Public continuation of a discord discussion regarding a very defensive Axis strategy. All invited to add their thoughts!

The points below are more of a thought experiment, I have no definite opinion if it will be successful, but I tend to think the Soviets will eventually get the upper hand.

So here is the recipe for a defence only Axis strategy.
Play an opening optimised for unit morale gain. Continue the summer 1941 with a morale farming approach by favouring frontal assaults and installing high morale leaders quickly. If possible, destroy Soviet airborne formations to deny later guards conversions. Take care not to gift any victories to the Soviets.
During mud and snow 1941, retreat west of the line of the hardcoded blizzard effects. The idea is not justto reduce losses from blizzard fighting, but to avoid the blizzard effects completely.
After the Blizzard compare the comparative strength of the forces. If the force ratio allows the push to a more forward defensive line (especially the Dvina-Dnepr line), go for it. Otherwise simply fortify and leave the initiative to the Soviet player.
The Finns will be set up such that they surrender without giving many wins to the Soviets, e.g. by disbanding the units.

The frontline to defend is approximately 65-80 hexagons for a line located somewhere between the Dvina-Dnepr rivers and Axis-USSR border. At-start number of German divisions is approximately 150, and reinforcements considerably outnumber withdrawals/disbands considerably. With reinforcements triple-stacking along the short line almost everywhere should be possible, with low-quality units and Axis maintaining fallback fortifications.
Having avoided the blizzard, the Axis should have almost 100% TOE in most categories and retain their high morale units in all categories.
Here is a map showing possible defence lines by date.
[image]local://upfiles/54093/B4EDCFF00B664C01A80E7F80C0623B8E.jpg[/image]


If we assume 80mrl for the average infantry division and 100% TOE, it has around 11CV.
If we assume 90mrl for the average motorised infantry division and slightly below 100% TOE, it has around 11CV.
If we assume 90mrl for the average Panzer division and somewhat below 100% TOE, it has around 20CV.

To account for damage, fatigue and no triple stacking for a few hexagons, we assume 10CV per unit while calculating with triple stacking everywhere.
30 offensive CV in lvl 3 forts result in 120 defensive CV, 90 if in lvl 2 forts before any bonus due to terrain.
Lvl 2 forts in swamps for example will give defensive CV, lvl 2 in clear terrain behind a minor river 180 CV etc.


That is not easy to crack for the Soviets. A 60mrl 60 exp 1944 Soviet rifle corps has around 15 CV, the number of Guards rifle corps will be very limited and almost no unit will be above the NM. Triple stacked and attacking from two hexagons, the offensive CV brought to battle are 90CV, barely matching the defensive CV of a clear lvl 2 hexagon, and 2:1 odds are needed to force a retreat. And that is for 1944, 1942-1943 morale/exp values and hence CV are considerably lower. If it is possible to build a massive wall of steel, absolute Soviet numbers do not matter much, because the CV can’t be concentrated sufficiently for a breakthrough.

So what can the Soviet player do? As he has abundant numbers of dead and living (soon to be dead) material, whittling down the Axis forces by hundreds of failed frontal attacks is a possibility. The problem is that the frontline is comparably short and well fortified, so making the weight matter is difficult. It is less of a problem in the summer, but during mud, snow and blizzard, rotating units for multiple waves of attacks becomes a problem, even more given the recent introduction of a +1 cost for each successive attack on a hexagon.
Furthermore, the Soviets can accept a huge number of RNG fails, while each bad roll resulting in a Soviet break-in will be a major problem for the Axis player, even with multiple echelons of fortifications.

Overall, I think a well-constructed Axis line taking advantage of Eastern Europe mountains or the Dnepr-Dvina river can very well hold out CV-wise, if it is possible to attrit the Axis forces sufficiently has to be tested, but I think so. It might be possible to sit out the summers behind rivers, but the winters will be difficult.






Interesting. 50k foot view - incredibly boring game, massive soviet victory. Seems to me that the overwhelming majority of casualties in the game, particularly for the Germans, are taken during the logistics phase. I'm not sure the engine is designed to handle this type of strategy as the German army would still be pretty small and the Soviet Army would be massive and incredibly close to it's objective.



Seminole -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/29/2019 8:22:11 PM)

quote:

Seems to me that the overwhelming majority of casualties in the game, particularly for the Germans, are taken during the logistics phase.


Turn 25, beginning of the turn:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/wVdUtdF.png[/image]

Turn 25 after conducting almost 40 attacks, over 90% of them successful:

[image]https://i.imgur.com/RvdMg8p.png[/image]



Michael T -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/30/2019 1:35:16 AM)

FWIW Razing the Reich is back. Also the issue that ended that game prematurely has been fixed.



Michael T -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/30/2019 3:10:37 AM)

I recall that it made a very boring 1942. So much so I simply refused to ever entertain playing against such a strategy ever again. So I only henceforth played with Sudden Death victory conditions. Which makes the ploy game ending in late 1941.




EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/30/2019 11:00:35 AM)

Link to Razing the Reich: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3162325



timmyab -> RE: Axis defence-only strategy (7/30/2019 12:27:32 PM)

The early turtle strategy was doomed to failure back in those days. With current game balance I think it would be a much better prospect. unfortunately (or fortunately) I don't think you can prevent the Soviet player from producing between three and five guards corps from converted para brigades and as soon as these start getting wins the Soviet guards corps numbers will snowball.
The key might be holding the Dvina-Dneiper line through the winter of 42-43 with minimum Soviet wins. If succesful then hold through the Summer of 43 followed by a Winter 43-44 retreat to the Summer 44 line which would be prepared to in depth fort 3.

I'd love to see it played out. My bet would be that the Axis could hold into 45 if they can prevent the Soviet wins snowballing.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.219238