Goodbyebluesky [later taken over by et] (Axis) vs Gasteris (Soviet)

[Beethoven1]

This is a short AAR I am posting to summarize what I think is probably one of the best WITE2 games ever played (that I am aware of anyway).

The most important point to know about this game is that Goodbyebluesky is a skilled and experienced Axis player, who has played multiple games of WITE1 as well as WITE2 into 1943 and beyond. He understood the game mechanics from he start of the game and knew what he was doing. Whereas on the other hand, Gasteris was a brand new Soviet player new to the game who did not know much about the game mechanics but just jumped straight in and started playing Soviets.



So especially at the start of the game, there was a large experience difference in favor of the Axis. In addition, Goodbyebluesky wanted to go for pockets rather than to just grind the Soviets because it makes the game more fun and historical, and he tried to do so, although he was aware that in some cases at least grinding may have been better. And he was able to do so, repeatedly, because of the fact that he knew what he was doing, but also only because Gasteris was new and learning the game by trial by fire. Looking back on the game so far in Sept 1942 or so, Gasteris seemed to agree in his AAR that this is what made the game so good:





In my view, this is the main reason why the game has turned out as good as it has.

Thus, this game provides some good evidence that WITE2 can deliver a quality game (at least in 1941-42) if the Axis player is a seasoned expert while the Soviet player is a brand new raw recruit (and if the seasoned expert Axis player chooses to play in a certain way, going for pockets instead of grinding).

However, what it does NOT provide evidence of is the idea that the game will be historically balanced if both players are equally experienced and equally know what they are doing. Ideally, the game would be more like his if both players are experienced and know what they are doing from the start of the game (or also if both players are new).

Instead, I think you need a significant skill mismatch in favor of the Axis, at least currently, to end up with a good balanced game. And even then, the good balance part of it may not last beyond 1942, once the new Soviet player has time to improve and the power of Soviet grinding and Soviet herding starts coming to the fore in 1943.

But I think this AAR DOES show that WITE2 has the basic ingredients necessary for greatness. The balance needs to improve in certain ways, but it has the potential there for more games to go something like this, if the right changes and adjustments are made.

In this post below, there are a bunch of screenshots from 1941 and 1942 which should be in sequential order taken from gasteris' discord AAR. If you just scroll through and look at these, you should be able to tell pretty much what happened in the game in 1941-42. If you want more detail than in the screenshots, you can look at the discord AAR here:

discord invite (you may need to view other links) - https://discord.gg/G6bdwxDwxk

Gasteris vs blue AAR - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 0269207672
Blue vs Gasteris AAR - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 1143751781

et vs Gasteris AAR (continuation of game in 1943) - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 4958263296
Gasteris vs et AAR (continuation of game in 1943) - https://discord.com/channels/9438273612 ... 8209278012

Basically, blue repeatedly pocketed the Soviets all over the place and played in a reasonably historical manner. If anything, Blue was more successful than historical than this (particularly because he managed to get pockets in 1942 and not just 1941, whereas historically Soviets managed to mostly avoid pockets in '42. However, even despite blue's successes (and even though he barely managed to take Saratov after overextending just to destroy the NSS there), he never really got close to either Leningrad or Moscow.

By the end of 1942, Blue's successes with repeated pockets had led to a large Axis OOB and a small Soviet OOB. Relative to history in terms of the OOB (comparing to Stalingrad to Berlin scenario), the OOB situation was substantially better for Axis. But again, remember this does not mean that Axis is too strong, it more so means there was an experience mismatch in favor of Axis at the start of the game (which somewhat evened out as it went on and as gasteris has learned more details about the game).


Anyway, here are the 1941-42 summary screenshots. I will have more about 1943 and the changeover from blue to et playing Axis later in a subsequent post or 2.

[Zebtucker12]

Thanks for this post sharing this amazing game.

[M60A3TTS]

The Axis apparently had sufficient VPs to win this as a standard 41GC in 1942. No Early End is probably at it's best for a newer Axis player who might struggle to gain enough VPs early on to stay in the game.

What kind of experience does/did et have as Axis? Are we looking now at two newer players instead of a larger skill difference?

[Beethoven1]

The Axis apparently had sufficient VPs to win this as a standard 41GC in 1942. No Early End is probably at it's best for a newer Axis player who might struggle to gain enough VPs early on to stay in the game.

Interesting, I was not particularly thinking about that. I assume it probably would have been Saratov that tipped it over the top in that case? I am somewhat surprised that it would happen without either Moscow or Leningrad (not to mention Rzhev and Kalinin and Tula and anything else in the center), but on the other hand Stalingrad and Saratov are both 30 VP each, so those would add up quickly, and basically Saratov would be equivalent to Leningrad.

If you don't mind going through the math, would you mind sharing it? I am not used to thinking about VPs because I always play no early end.

FWIW I think gasteris could have defended Saratov and probably held it if he had done some things differently. In the turns prior to losing it he had basically nothing there and more or less did not realize he should defend it.

In this case, I definitely think it is great that the game was No Early End. It would have been a tragedy for it to have ended early because both gasteris and et are enjoying playing it in 1943. For this reason, overall I think the best way to play is to play with No Early End, but at some point in the game you can check what the VPs are and see if the requirements for a sudden death victory would have been met, and then you can give the player the "honorary" victory in that case. But if the game is worth playing on, you still have the option to continue then rather than being forced to quit even if it is a great game worth playing on.

What kind of experience does/did et have as Axis? Are we looking now at two newer players instead of a larger skill difference?

First of all, to be clear, EVERYTHING above this post is from goodbyebluesky playing Axis. et does take over, but that will be in subsequent posts.

et has some experience but is also relatively new. However, I think he understands the mechanics pretty well and is also experienced in playing other similar sorts of WW2 games (for example HOI4) competitively. He is a very good HOI4 multiplayer player for example.

Also, I should have mentioned earlier that goodbyebluesky in addition to playing quite a lot of WITE1 and WITE2 has also played WITW and WITP extensively. So blue is a true Gary Grigsby Game Veteran (more so than someone like me who has only really played WITE2).

So I think it is probably a bit of a grigsby-experience downgrade switching to et on Axis, but on the other hand et is generally quite competent and learns quickly I would say.

[Beethoven1]

FWIW I think gasteris could have defended Saratov and probably held it if he had done some things differently. In the turns prior to losing it he had basically nothing there and more or less did not realize he should defend it.

More info on that. You can see gasteris was initially unaware of Saratov being a NSS/how NSSes work etc, so he was unprepared to defend it until it was pretty much too late, and he was thinking more about launching some sort of offensive in the Caucasus instead:

[Beethoven1]

Gasteris shared the VP situation

This is from the game with et. It is very slightly different from with blue, because when et took over around the start of 1943 (when Africa TB surrendered) they rolled back 10 turns:







So it looks like if it had been sudden death, it would have narrowly exceeded the 750 check due to Saratov being taken in late 1942. Though again, I think that is only really because gasteris didn't realize its importance in time.

[M60A3TTS]

The Axis apparently had sufficient VPs to win this as a standard 41GC in 1942. No Early End is probably at it's best for a newer Axis player who might struggle to gain enough VPs early on to stay in the game.

Interesting, I was not particularly thinking about that. I assume it probably would have been Saratov that tipped it over the top in that case? I am somewhat surprised that it would happen without either Moscow or Leningrad (not to mention Rzhev and Kalinin and Tula and anything else in the center), but on the other hand Stalingrad and Saratov are both 30 VP each, so those would add up quickly, and basically Saratov would be equivalent to Leningrad.

If you don't mind going through the math, would you mind sharing it? I am not used to thinking about VPs because I always play no early end.

FWIW I think gasteris could have defended Saratov and probably held it if he had done some things differently. In the turns prior to losing it he had basically nothing there and more or less did not realize he should defend it.

In this case, I definitely think it is great that the game was No Early End. It would have been a tragedy for it to have ended early because both gasteris and et are enjoying playing it in 1943. For this reason, overall I think the best way to play is to play with No Early End, but at some point in the game you can check what the VPs are and see if the requirements for a sudden death victory would have been met, and then you can give the player the "honorary" victory in that case. But if the game is worth playing on, you still have the option to continue then rather than being forced to quit even if it is a great game worth playing on.

I don't hold a strong bias against No Early End, it's just my preference as Axis to go for the win outright in 1942.

For the uninitiated, the math is pretty basic. Starting turn 16 and every 13 turns thereafter, a quarterly Axis victory check takes place. Only once in a blue moon can the Axis pull out a 1941 win so planning for the win in 1942 is the way to go IMO. You need 750 VPs on the date checks to pull out a win in a 1942. If you hit or exceed 750 on a turn other than a date check continues until a check is due, as long as you retain the initiative. It looks like Blue would have won the standard game on turn 68 and was only like 3vp from winning on turn 81. The latter would have been more impressive as the Dieppe raid event around turn 61 draws off a lot of Axis manpower off the map in the direction of the WE TB and the Soviets are getting manpower reinforcements.



Hopefully et understands the sudden death check exists at the end of 1944, even in the NEE scenario. That should be driving Axis strategy in 1943-44.

[Beethoven1]

Here are some thoughts from goodbyebluesky on the game, which I think are pretty on point.

First of all, there was somewhat of a Soviet winter offensive, but it was not that successful and ended up in Soviets being pocketed:



This means that if Soviets have a good winter offensive, they can likely do better than happened in this game.

Goodbyebluesky: The game started at a somewhat disbalance as Gasteris had little to no MP experience. Usually that is not a huge problem seeing the larger disbalance between Axis and Soviet or rather experience threshold that is needed to be effective as either faction. Started with a rather strong oppening and went with several smaller to medium sized pockets. A few of them down to him not knowing the potential of how far you can break in or how easily it is to rout some units to create an opening. I still experienced a few break ins which due to the nature of binary isolation are always a bad thing. I reached roughly a Luga to Vyazma - Orel - Kursk - Kharkiv - Rostov line in 41 and held it largely despite losing Orel in Winter. Spring was followed by luring him into a large salient at Kursk which got closed during mud and held for the duration before I could destroy it. 1942 saw mostly a grinding battle with a few smaller encirclements and a dash to Saratov to destroy the NSS ( which has made 0 noticeable difference ). Winter 43 just saw the start of what I would call is the Corps deathball where the Soviet player starts to have absolute freedom. He can stack several hundreds of thousands of men in perfect coordination while being secure in the knowledge that the triple stacked Guards Corps cant be punished as they by default of having 3 brigades attached will always have above 100 CV in defense if not more even without forts. The game then devolves into just a grindfest of perfect soviet and (often perfect axis supply). There is no more room at this point for any sort of larger operational play that can even give a short reprieve to the defending side. Supply is perfect. Troops can wheel and turn by disengaging one frontline with close to no penalties to then roadmarch in admin movement to set up a perfectly coordinated attack with no consideration of having to move thousands of troops/guns and supply depots.

WIte2 has due to several major flaws little to no comeback possibility. Supplies do not matter to the soviet side as it will always be perfect (thanks to prio 4 everyone gets perfect supply). There is no need for operational pauses as you can both teleport troops close to the frontline at will and any sort of distance will always be overcome by just sacrificing more trucks to bring supplies forward no matter the distance. Meaning even if you blunt or cut off a spearhead it does not matter. The troops at worst fall back to a fully stocked depot and refit in 2 turns or due to binary isolation could just be freed over and over again. After 41 the soviet player will always have some stuff that can at least puncture a tiny hole and more than that is not needed due to the isolation mechanic.

I played an AAR game in WITE1 to conclusion. It showcases pretty well due to my missplay that even a severly stricken Axis can still put up a fight. In that game I lost the entire South in 1942 and still managed with nothing but romanians, hungarians, respawned units and security divisions to cobble together a line that could at least somewhat stop the soviets when they had overextended. I even managed to blow back huge armored thrusts into Hungary in 44. Stuff like this would be today in WITE2 impossible. The Soviet player could have just marched through all of Ukraine with no rails giving no time to recover at all.

Other games such as War in the Pacific also give the you the chance to even if outgunned to strike at the enemy even if just temporarily by operational surprise or concentration of assets. In WITE2 there is close to no such possibility as even if I lets say break into an undermanned front the Soviet player can:

1. Just disengage rifle divisions with no penalites north and south of the Break in (disengaging the enemy under fire is one of the hardest things to do in War) to push a new front.

2. he can instantly teleport his reserve infront of the break in. A feat that would make every great general blush. To both mobilize and rail plus set up entire armies in less than a week ( the breakthrough happend in the week we are playing so lets say even if the magnitude is known on the day of the breakthrough the Soviets manage to do it in less than 6 days).

3. The key of the german defense namely the counterattack is not feasilbe at least as done historically namely to cut off offensives at the bottom and then isolate it. Here again binary isolation and the near perfect coordination that would make even todays US army blush is to blame.


What could be changed to lower that?

1. Troops that have enemy contact during their supply phase can not use admin movement (simulate the difficulty going from combat formations and setup into roadmarch). Thus they can disengage but not march 7 hexes over terrain to then do a deliberate attack as we see almost all the time now.

2. Movement from the Pool to the reserve arrival hex needs a 1 week delay or at least a railyard above lvl 3 to spawn on or an increase to an enemy unit (lets says 20 hexes stiill very low as they will have their movement points to move up) or have a fixed MP of 5 after spawning in their turn.

3. Supply needs an absolute major adjustment likely to both sides. Soviets from the start especially in 41 (lower it dramatically or at least the chance to aquire it. As it seems now even several admin failures will still lead to perfect supply aquisition). Also lower it for axis in 42 and beyondd. Binary isolation as a thing must go or atleast leave a lasting debuff. Cant be that units instantly tripple in their CV just because there is a 1kilometre breach somewhere they couldnt even feasibly know about at that point.

Also the attachable brigades is a scourge. They dont cost extra CP at all and just baloon combatsizes while not even taking real retreat damage from what it seems.

There should be a clear change to attachables preferably with either banning brigades outright for attachment on both sides or making a tier system of what can be attached. Like each division has 2 CP for attachables while Corps get 3. A brigades takes 3 such CP, a regiment attachable 2 and a battalion and below 1. This way we would combat the bloat and make it a more nuanced decision beyond "attach the biggest and the baddest brigade you can find all the time"...

Beethoven here again --- I would disagree slightly with some of the proposed solutions:

1) I think extra MP to move away from contact would probably hurt Axis more, because Axis has fewer counters and Soviets have more units not touching an enemy typically.

2) gasteris was railing units around, not using reserve box, so changing reserve box deployment time would not really do much except for make it easier for Axis to quickly take Leningrad if Soviets do not have enough time to deploy units there.

But I think Blue's description of the problems he faced is good.



Also here is a link to Goodbyebluesky's WITE1 AAR for anyone interested - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/th ... t.1076877/

[M60A3TTS]

I have to say it.

I can't put a ton of credence into posts by someone who complains about 1943 when he's going for Saratov in 1942. What the heck is that all about? Was there any strategic plan whatsoever?

He got to the Luga. Against a new Soviet player? If you are an experienced Axis player, you ought to have been in Leningrad.

I've said this before, and I'll say it a million times. As Axis, you win or lose in 1942. Either the Soviets are beat up sufficiently so you can win outright in VPs or you win the Sudden Death condition the last week of 1944. I would do everything possible to do the former. The latter isn't fun, I get that, and in rare cases it can be done.

I'm sorry to hear Goodbye quit. From the sounds of it, he was near or at fulfilling the basic game victory conditions. Kudos for that. I would certainly take comfort in that fact, not just go off in a huff and a rampage which has more questionable observations I won't go into.

[Beethoven1]

I have to say it.

I can't put a ton of credence into posts by someone who complains about 1943 when he's going for Saratov in 1942. What the heck is that all about? Was there any strategic plan whatsoever?

I obviously can't speak directly for Goodbyebluesky, but he mentioned in his comments in the previous post that "1942 saw mostly a grinding battle with a few smaller encirclements and a dash to Saratov to destroy the NSS ( which has made 0 noticeable difference )."

For myself, I would say that Saratov is arguably the #2 or #3 most strategically important hex in the game (behind Moscow due to its NSS and possibly Kerch, due to the unbreakable/unisolatable city fort). The only things Axis can permanently destroy in the game are NSSes and non-armaments (tank and plane) factories (since it is not possible to limit Soviet production by taking armaments or heavy industry etc like in WITE1).

So from what I can see, the reasons for going for Saratov were:

1) It has a NSS.
2) It was pretty much undefended.

In addition, Saratov has some plane (Yak) factories which can be permanently destroyed if it is taken.

I bet if you were playing Axis, I bet you would ALSO go for Saratov if you found yourself confronted with this Saratov defense, even if you were not initially planning at the start of the game (or the start of 1942) to go for Saratov. Goodbyebluesky literally was opposed by only empty hexes in his initial march north from Stalingrad:



Other than Moscow, what exactly would you say is more important than Saratov? Nothing else other than a NSS can hope to limit Soviet supply later in the game. Maybe by the time the south advances towards Odessa/Romania etc Soviets will have some problems with freight in the south (remains to be seen).

Whereas if Axis takes any other city, besides Saratov or Moscow, you get no such possible strategic benefit.

He got to the Luga. Against a new Soviet player? If you are an experienced Axis player, you ought to have been in Leningrad.

I dunno about that. I think the north/Leningrad is an area that is all about speed of advance in the first few turns. It depends a lot on how much both players prioritize the area. Axis only has so much rail repair, and a lot of times players will not send an FBD north, in which case the advance will generally be limited in the north.



It also depends on weather RNG. If you randomly get some light rain in the early turns, like Blue got here, that can slow things.It also depends on whether Axis prioritizes speed of advance or if they take pockets. And here you can see Blue chose to take a pocket as well, which slowed down his advance.

After this I think Blue pulled his mobile units from the north and sent them to the center/south. You can question if that was the right move, but it is certainly a move that a lot of other experienced players have also pulled, including well known good players with multiple forum AARs like HLYA and tyronec.

For another example, in the tyronec vs Bread game, tyronec never got much beyond Pskov (despite having mobile units there, which unlike Blue he did NOT pull away until winter). And I think we can agree that tyronec is no slouch. Though of course Bread is also no noob either. But there are tons of other examples of games where Axis does not get far in the north in 1941, either because Axis prioritizes elsewhere, or because Soviets prioritize the north, or both.

more questionable observations I won't go into.

Not sure which of the observations you disagree with, but when a player makes a large number of observations about a long and complex game, it is pretty normal for any given person to disagree with some of them even if you also agree with others or think they are partly right. As I mentioned, I disagree with some of them myself (more on the solution-side).

It's just one player's perspective.

[M60A3TTS]

The two of us can go round and round indefinitely on some of these points. Frankly, I'd rather spend time helping new players with questions about how the game works. But you ask reasonable questions so I will try and give you my reasonable answers. After that, it really would be best to move onto the part of the et-game that was advertised so we can see what makes for this reportedly great story. I genuinely would like to see that.

Leningrad-

In my first PvP game as Axis I did not come all that close to the city. My right hook was effectively blocked and that ended that. Subsequent PvP games were considerably better. I think I've gotten over the Neva almost every time when I was playing strictly as Axis.

Army Group North has far and away the best logistical situation of the other two groups. But you do need that FBD if you are going for the city and in an AI game at Challenging I even used two FBDs initially as a test. Getting an east-west link from Tallinn acting as a supply depot to your AGN spearheads can be a big plus when combined with a super depot south of Leningrad.

But you have to want to take the city. In recent games we saw HLYA and Tyrone elect not to go for it. Fine, they had another strategy. If I was playing RedJohn/Bread I might need one too. Again, if this is an inexperienced Soviet player someone is up against, that has to figure into your strategy. Inexperienced players might not even try and fort the Neva which can be a significant Axis advantage.

The city is worth 36VP, same as Saratov but it's a lot closer. I'm playing for victory points as that is what the game is centered around. Others can feel differently. But that's what I focus on in order to reach a successful conclusion in 1942.

Saratov-

Planning to deny the Soviets that extra NSS means you're already hedging your bets on 1942 and being prepared to fight for the Sudden Death victory condition at the end of 1944. Again, Axis focus needs to be on winning in 1942. And again, with Saratov, goodbyebluesky arguably did win the game, so ok, I've conceded that. But based on what limited screenshots I've seen, since Stalingrad was taken, Astrakhan could have been an equally compelling option for a 1942 victory.

Saratov buys you nothing in the long game compared to other 36VP cities, supply effects notwithstanding. And Saratov generally supplies about half of what Moscow does. I have no clue if an alternate NSS like Kazan kicked in, what would be the effect. I'd play that out against the AI in the long game to get an answer to that. Or maybe someone else can share their experience.

Saratov is too far east to have a meaningful trade-space-for-time long game. You still have the wolf at the door in this case south of the Luga and not all that far from Smolensk. With that situation, sure you're going to have your hands full fending off all these guards rifle corps in 1943. Why compound the problem of slowly fighting the defensive game to the borders of the Reich (1944VC again) by extending your armies to the breaking point in the center?

Being a strategy game, everyone has their own way of trying to win. I have mine, Tyrone has his. HLYA has his. Although I don't regularly chat with Tyrone on Discord, if HLYA has time (which currently he really doesn't) we chat every couple weeks on WiTE2 things. We both seem to feel Tyrone is paying a price for his hell-bent-for-leather approach against RedJohn, but until we see a more recent update on that game, it would make little sense to make any judgements.

One final point. FWIW, I don't play the current patch because like you, I don't approve of the change that disallows units like the RFSS brigades not to be attached. The Axis player needs to have some fun and putting those in SS Motorized units does just that. So if we are talking how to win a game as Axis, my perspective would be based on the 1.02.52 version that jubjub and I are using, and not the most recent one.

Now let's see some of this et-gameplay!

[Beethoven1]

After that, it really would be best to move onto the part of the et-game that was advertised so we can see what makes for this reportedly great story. I genuinely would like to see that.

Fair enough. Although to be clear, the part that I consider to be a great story is mostly the 1941/42 part, and that is all already posted. In particular, the great success story was (in my view) that historical-ish seeming pockets happened at all.

The 1943 and later part is still in the process of happening, so I am not 100% sure what will happen, we will have to see.

HOWEVER, the good thing about the 1943 part is that it is happening at all. et is playing it out and doggedly refusing to give up, whereas something like 99% of Axis players would have seemingly given up on by now, judging by other games anyway. Currently, in September 1943 or so, the Soviets are slowly advancing in particular around Bryansk. Both players are relentlessly deliberately attacking and grinding each other, and as a result both OOBs are declining fairly rapidly. The Soviets are starting to learn how to herd the Axis into small pockets also, and Axis has started losing some units from that. The question that remains to be seen (given Axis started '43 with a relatively large OOB and Soviets with a relatively small one, and given that Soviet morale advantage increases but Soviet manpower decreases in later years) is seemingly who will collapse first from the grinding.

I will do some more posts on it when it advances further, just want to be sure not to give either player an intel advantage by posting anything that may not have a sufficient delay.

I'm playing for victory points as that is what the game is centered around. Others can feel differently.

I think this is the key point. If you are happy just playing for VPs, then great.

For me and for others, we would ideally like (if playing as Axis in '43) the chance to at least try something resembling the Battle of Kursk. And on the defensive I would like to be able to at least hold some strong points and force Soviets to go around, rather than Soviets being able to just shift + click (deliberate attack) with 200k/300k+ man meat wave attacks on the directly closest straight line path to Berlin. And to not be herded into pockets the wrong direction retreating east, away from Berlin and away from HQs, and as a result then not having units to prevent the Soviets from walking forward without resistance into empty space.

For example, I remember reading Ewald von Kleist's "Stand fast or manoeuvre" WITE 1 maneuver:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8&t=338491

What I would like to see is for similar sorts of things to be possible in WITE2 (whether Axis can pull it off successfully or not, this sort of active defense, rather than just sitting back and being grinded and/or herded, seems more fun and also more historical than what we tend to see in WITE2 at the moment).

Saratov is too far east to have a meaningful trade-space-for-time long game.

In my view, that is not really relevant, because trading land for time is not really a thing as long as the Soviet player knows how to stack CV, use assault fronts, and attack with good generals. Unless (possibly) the Soviet OOB is reduced enough, Soviets can just shift + click and advance directly to Berlin on the shortest straight-line route, and Soviets can advance much faster than historical without significant logistical problems that force a stop like the historical pause after Operation Bagration. If this were not true, it would not have been possible for Stamb to reach Berlin as early as late 1943 in a Stalingrad to Berlin game (even granting that a better Axis player could probably hold somewhat longer).

You still have the wolf at the door in this case south of the Luga and not all that far from Smolensk.

Exactly, this is the problem, that is a shorter straight-line route to Berlin. My only difference here is I don't think that advancing an extra 10-15 hexes or whatever it may be in the center does much to help the Axis player, because there is no trading land for time. There is just the late-game Soviet triumvirate of grinding, herding, and swarming.

At least by taking Saratov, maybe (?) they can have some minor supply issues to slow them down a bit.

One final point. FWIW, I don't play the current patch because like you, I don't approve of the change that disallows units like the RFSS brigades not to be attached. The Axis player needs to have some fun and putting those in SS Motorized units does just that. So if we are talking how to win a game as Axis, my perspective would be based on the 1.02.52 version that jubjub and I are using, and not the most recent one.

FYI that was reverted (for some, though not all of the brigade-sized SUs). But to play with that you have to start a game with a new patch because it is a data change.

[Beethoven1]

We both seem to feel Tyrone is paying a price for his hell-bent-for-leather approach against RedJohn, but until we see a more recent update on that game, it would make little sense to make any judgements.

Forgot to reply to this, but SPOILER ALERT, ONLY READ IF YOU WANT TO SKIP THE SUSPENSE (copy/paste or quote to make text larger)

The game ended in either Dec 1941 or January 1942 (not sure the exact turn) with Axis surrender, despite the fact that Soviets did not even make cavalry corps and also had unlucky weather RNG with 1st turn of December not being blizzard and also a break in blizzard in late December

[FortTell]

One final point. FWIW, I don't play the current patch because like you, I don't approve of the change that disallows units like the RFSS brigades not to be attached. The Axis player needs to have some fun and putting those in SS Motorized units does just that. So if we are talking how to win a game as Axis, my perspective would be based on the 1.02.52 version that jubjub and I are using, and not the most recent one.

Wasn't the RFSS change reverted in 1.03.07?
"o Changed OBs 270,302,1190-1194,1196-1197 to Multi-role (RFSS, 900th Lehr, GD Motorized Brigades)"

[M60A3TTS]

One final point. FWIW, I don't play the current patch because like you, I don't approve of the change that disallows units like the RFSS brigades not to be attached. The Axis player needs to have some fun and putting those in SS Motorized units does just that. So if we are talking how to win a game as Axis, my perspective would be based on the 1.02.52 version that jubjub and I are using, and not the most recent one.

Wasn't the RFSS change reverted in 1.03.07?
"o Changed OBs 270,302,1190-1194,1196-1197 to Multi-role (RFSS, 900th Lehr, GD Motorized Brigades)"

Yes, Beethoven pointed that out a couple posts earlier. Glad to hear it.

[Beethoven1]

Report from the front, October 1943:



The Axis and Soviet OOBs are both plummeting faster than (insert your preferred metaphor here).

In short, it is a massacre out there, folks. The grind is relentless, on both sides. Soviets have however also started to get some pockets in various places as Soviet units swarm the Axis units. Axis has in many cases broken the pockets, but they usually get re-formed and re-herded.

STAVKA is optimistic that Axis collapse is right around the corner:



Meanwhile, the Axis high command is also confident that the Red Army is on the verge of collapse:





They can't BOTH be right. One will collapse, or the other will collapse. Or can they both be right? What happens if the Axis collapses but the Soviets ALSO collapse?

It appears that we WILL find out from this game what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.




At some point I will come back and post some actual screenshots of the map, but I just don't want to risk giving anything away before it is safe to do so.

[M60A3TTS]

So whatever happened in this one?

[dankhippos]

So whatever happened in this one?

et gave up, then thistletea played a few turns and then also gave up