The Russian Front

[canuckgamer]

It seems that the Axis are going to take at least one of the major objectives, meaning Leningrad, Moscow, or Stalingrad regardless of what the Russians do.

I have been very surprised by how little impact the first winter has on the Germans. In our PBEM game they kept attacking in the winter and were still inflicting losses. I know that in the forum it has been said many times that War Plan is not meant to recreate history but based on history. If it is based on history than I would say the effect on the weather should be more of a factor. On the flip side, the Russians still couldn't achieve decent odds with any attempted counter attacks.

[stjeand]

Well the German effect is pretty good...blizzard really tanks their efficiency...but I tend to agree.

The USSR does not seem to have any chance if the UK / US do not invade at every opportunity...

They have to invade Africa a year earlier than they could.
They have to invade Italy a year earlier.
And they have to invade France a year or two earlier.

It seems that the Axis are too powerful for the USSR
And the Allies are too powerful on the backside.


NOW this is for the average player.

Inhuman players it does not seem to matter for...BUT they still understand everything has to be advanced by around 6 months to a year for Allied intervention.
I would like it better if the USSR was stronger and the UK weaker to be more within the flow of history.

Though I am not sure this is possible as we armchair generals know the blunders and try to avoid them.
Not always possible I blunder a LOT...

[canuckgamer]

You are right about invading early with the UK/US. It is September 42 and the Germans have taken Moscow and one of the oilfields in the Caucasus. In Africa there are three fronts, Syria, Libya and Algeria. He only has Romanians and Hungarians on the western front and Brest is ungarrisoned. I am thinking of invading next turn to hopefully draw off some German forces from the east.

I hope I survive long enough to find out about your comment that the Allies are too powerful later on.

[AlvaroSousa]

So if the problem is the Allies have to invade early it means the Allies are invading successfully to stop the Russians from dying.

So perhaps German players are over committing to the Russian Front.

Look at your games. 2/3rds of your forces should be East in 1942 and 1/3rd elsewhere.

[Harrybanana]

There are a lot of factors that affect how well the Axis do in Russia including:

1. How many casualties did the Germans have in France?
2. How strong/weak are the Axis in the West; in other words, are the Axis going All-In on Russia?
3. Did the Russians build and deploy properly?
4. How much Lend Lease is being sent to Russia?
5. How much resources are the Germans spending on the BOA?

I agree that the Germans can if they choose do very well in Russia. But it usually costs them somewhere else.

[stjeand]

Al, correct...the Germans hit Russia hard early and the invasion forces them to pull back some units...not sure 1/3 but at least a 1/5th...IF the invasion is strong enough.

You may have to invade Spain...or go hard and heave at Africa to get Tripoli in order to panic the Italian. Then drop into Italy...but hard to say without knowing what the game looks like.

IF you have lost Moscow and some oil that is not great for Russia.

[generalfdog]

From my experience the Axis do have a pretty good chance of taking at least one of those objectives but historically they should have had both Leningrad and Moscow by the end of 41, of course that is with a very flawed soviet strategy and deployment. The other issue is whether that is the end or not, if as the Russians you lost a lot it can be very bad, but if you did a good retreat and salvaged your high dollar units and western allies are doing good it's not that bad. Imho the key to allied victory is constant pressure everywhere. Maintain UK ms, send lend lease and don't discount strategic bombing, and always threaten Italy.

[CHINCHIN]

Nobody uses strategic bombing against Germany? It seems like a cheap and effective way to weaken to the axis.

[AlvaroSousa]

I do.

[generalfdog]

I do also but I haven't had anyone successfully use it against me, there seems to be an idea that it is to expensive for the Allies, I think some aren't understanding how to do it effectively. The computer for some reason only seems to go after targets in France

[Nirosi]

In our games it happens often. PL1 is using it in the actual AAR and it does make a difference. It does add up when you concentrate on filing a city and then go to another one while the 1st city still remains damaged for another few turns.

[canuckgamer]

When I looked at the cost of strategic bombers I thought they were too expensive but after reading the above comments I will have to give it a try.
I am wondering about another aspect of strategic bombing. In the months leading up to Overlord the Allies bombed the rail network leading in to Normandy and the Pas De Calais (to mislead the Germans as to the location of the invasion) so that the Germans would have a very difficult time moving up reinforcements once they landed. I have been ground attacking Axis units near where I landed since it reduces their operational points. What about when you bomb a city? Does it restrict rail movement through that city?
Getting back to the Russian front, shouldn't there be some rule prohibiting the Finns from advancing too deep in to Russia? I thought there was some historical political factor involved and have seen it in some boardgames on the Russian front.

[PL1]

Those are the first units I usually buy with the US as they are costly and long to appear. As soon I it is safe, I do the same with the UK. I usually build 3 with the UK and 4 with the US. Bring a city to its knees every turn (zero pp). It accumulates with time. The bigger, the better, and the least protected of course. That is why I also invest in escort ftrs so they can escort the H bombers. Unprotected target (no AA) also is a great way to increase exp of those bombers.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: PL1

Those are the first units I usually buy with the US as they are costly and long to appear. As soon I it is safe, I do the same with the UK. I usually build 3 with the UK and 4 with the US. Bring a city to its knees every turn (zero pp). It accumulates with time. The bigger, the better, and the least protected of course. That is why I also invest in escort ftrs so they can escort the H bombers. Unprotected target (no AA) also is a great way to increase exp of those bombers.

Same here, 4 UK strategic bombers and 4 USA strategic bombers. Early, I am using them with Detection and Electronics advancement to track the U-Boats. And, then, I am changing them to Strategic Bombing advancement.

The best is to take Rhodes island because from there, you can attack the oil fields of Ploesti. I am doing this turn after turn against one opponent and I hope this is impacting him.

[PL1]

It also forces the Axis to keep FTR's in Germany and northern Italy, spend PP's on AA guns, and repair FTR step loss. This lessens the pressure on the USSR and to a certain extent Egypt. I think PP as pressure. The less the Axis (or more when I'm playing the Axis) has, lesser will be the pressure in time. Bottom-line, the Axis cant be allowed to replace its losses or even worse, augment the size of its army while actively fighting the USSR. This is the heart of the game and Strat bombing is the first weapon the W. Allies have, followed by the PP pipeline to the USSR. Give them the kitchen sink. They will hurt, but they have to recover and the faster the better.

I'm not quite sure about the pressure of Oil yet... Nirosi will be able to tell as I tried this in our current game. Not sure how effective it was. I went at it for a few month/one year (not sure anymore) with all my bombers removing almost everything in Germany, but I didn't see any effect on the game. Maybe I was not patient enough... But lives were on the line

He will be better placed to say if it had any. When I asked him, he said that it was "annoying". It was not was I was going for... So I changed back to PP. I prefer no troop than a troop with no fuel.

[Nirosi]

It was maybe for about 6-9 months I would guess(on and off for recovery and weather)?. In 42 I had oil problems and was down to about 17% at one point; scary. I got out of it for three reasons (more or less equal value) :

-Started to save and watch-out my consumption more
-Extra production of synthetic went online (and extra 10?)
-Allies switched strategic targets [:D]


So by late 42 (with the Autumn saving time), I was back on track. And then by early 43, then it was the MP problem. Always something [8|]

[Nirosi]

Actually there is a fourth reason oil reserves got better : I lost many mech/armors, so less units to use oil... [:D]

[CHINCHIN]

Ok, what you say about the strategic bombing seems logical to me, much more logical than the invasion of Spain and Portugal, which seems to be very common in the PBEM.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

The USSR does not seem to have any chance if the UK / US do not invade at every opportunity...

They have to invade Africa a year earlier than they could.
They have to invade Italy a year earlier.
And they have to invade France a year or two earlier.

It seems that the Axis are too powerful for the USSR
And the Allies are too powerful on the backside.


NOW this is for the average player.

Inhuman players it does not seem to matter for...BUT they still understand everything has to be advanced by around 6 months to a year for Allied intervention.
I would like it better if the USSR was stronger and the UK weaker to be more within the flow of history.

Well, with the new v1.00.11 patch, the UK is weaker at the beginning:

Change reduced UK starting army by 100 strength reflecting historical starting forces

Also, big scale naval invasions with plenty of infantry and mechanized corps will be longer to perform:

Fixed mechanized landing craft cost 1x -> 2x

They are still possible, of course, but will require more landing ships. More landing ships means more time or means that you need to buy more shipyards. And, if you are buying more shipyards, you are not buying other stuff. Thus, maybe Allies invasion will be a little longer to come... Will see.

[canuckgamer]

In my opinion all the Siberian units that appear in December 41 should be winterized. This is our 3rd PBEM game although the first two were basically learning exercises and there has been only one unit on either side given the winterized specialty and that was one Russian tank corps. Other specialties apply every turn so you get a lot more bang for what you spend. As it is now, the Russians can't conduct any attacks in the winter of 41 because their attack factors are still reduced by the weather. Historically the Russians mounted a winter offensive that drove the Germans back from Moscow. The winter of 41 was one of the most severe up to that time and the Germans were woefully equipped for it.

Pretty well every boardgame I have played on the Russian front has penalized the Germans more than War Plan. For example the last boardgame I played on the Russian front was Russia Besieged. In the first winter of that game, all Axis units had their combat factors halved if they weren't in or adjacent to a friendly city. In the second winter they could be a maximum of two hexes away without suffering this penalty.