Operation Barbarossa 1941

[Anonymous]

Is TAOW III too hard? I have been playing for a number of years since TAOW 1 mainly Barbarossa scenarios. On this one I cannot progress much beyond Smolensk. It takes me 4 or 5 times just to capture Minsk which has fortifications around it. I notice that Soviet artillery in defense appears to have a range of 2 or 3 hexes as opposed to german artillery only range of 1? I cannot capture Smolensk till mid September which is rediculous. When I played COW I usually reached the outskirts of moscow but at least I had an overwhelming victory. now I cant get out of overwhelming defeat, and I have a huge air superiority and interdiction and playing on Human advantage +1!

Soviets have a constant flow of reinforcements and it is hard to prevent them building up a two line defence, therefore I often have to put units on tactical reserve and defensive artillery just to hold my lines. In Sept/Oct 1941 the Soviet forces were severly depleted after Kiev but this does not appear to be reflected in the game. Have tried other Barbarossa scenarios with similar results. So just how realistic are they? Are other scenarios this hard? I appreciate PO is better but should not make the game unplayable. The game is addictive but also very frustrating to lose all the time after investing many hours.

Am I missing something? Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject?

[Dr. Foo]

I have found this out the hard way, after having my a$$ handed to me time and time again, that the key to winning as the Germans is multiple combat rounds.

If you are not getting two (three is best) combat rounds in any Barbarossa scenario you are playing at a disadvantage.

I hear what you are saying about Operation Barbarossa 1941 I feel that the Soviets are too strong in this scenario I once played the Soviets and had three lines of defense from Orsha to Moscow by the time my opponent reached the second line his units were completly exhausted.

DNO is better as most Soviets divisions are on internal support making counter-attacks harder while reinforcements come in very weak requiring time to build themselves up. However, it is much harder to win as the Axis in DNO than in Operation Barbarossa 1941; therefore, I think all the Barbarossa scenarios are going to tough for the Axis player.

[Anonymous]

Yes, you are right. I start for the the first 2 or 3 opening turns with losses minimised thereafter limit losses then I hardly get any extra turns. Or should I start with Ignore losses?
 
I tried playing DNO but there are errors as the Slovaks do not move, and anyway these larger scenarios like DNO I thought were all PBEM. Only PO I can find is Barbarossa at Tactical Level. What do you think of this one, is it worth playing?

[SMK-at-work]

The standard FitE scenario is probably too hard for the Axis.  Zort is in the process of modding it to give them a chance to get to Moscow, hopefully without making them too overpowering & it sems to be working OK - mainly by freezing most of the Soviets at het border in place for a couple of turns and keeping their shock value low for a bit longer.

you can see teh results of his first effort in the AAR forum - the Soviets have a good line at Moscow, but the Germans have gone past it to the north and south where defences are weaker....

[Zort]

You should also look at the AAR between Larry and Karri. This is the stock version and Karri is just a great player. It will be interesting to see if Larry can stop him.

[Dr. Foo]

ORIGINAL: tony.uk

Yes, you are right. I start for the the first 2 or 3 opening turns with losses minimised thereafter limit losses then I hardly get any extra turns. Or should I start with Ignore losses?

I tried playing DNO but there are errors as the Slovaks do not move, and anyway these larger scenarios like DNO I thought were all PBEM. Only PO I can find is Barbarossa at Tactical Level. What do you think of this one, is it worth playing?

Why would you start with losses minimized? You have the Frontier Army on the ropes you should be at limit losses in order to endue its total destruction. I never use ignore losses unless I am faced with well rested, over supplied, dug in forces and even then sometime a good artillery pounding can soften them up.

If you are attacking with minimum losses, your units are most likely breaking off the attack before the job is done, and if you are attacking with units on ignore losses they are engaging for too long and you are burning your turn. It is a balancing act between when to and when not to set losses at a level other than limit losses.

If you always use the planning attack option you will have more control over what units attack and how much of you turn is used, then again there are a lot of factors that go into a turn so don’t be surprised when the best planning results in an early ending of your turn.

As for DNO, yes, it is PBEM only and the Slovak thing is an easy event fix (there are other as well). I like Operation Barbarossa 1941 and I think it is a fine introduction to some of the larger more complex Barbarossa scenarios. I started with the TOAW classic Barbarossa 41, then OB 1941, then I moved to DNO, and have yet to even try FitE.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

DNO is better as most Soviets divisions are on internal support making counter-attacks harder while reinforcements come in very weak requiring time to build themselves up. However, it is much harder to win as the Axis in DNO than in Operation Barbarossa 1941; therefore, I think all the Barbarossa scenarios are going to tough for the Axis player.

It really depends on the players, but overall I suppose for the Russian player there is a fairly straightforward formula for victory in just setting your defensive line far enough to the rear whilst putting roadblocks on key river crossings etc. There again a good German player will know how to push his panzertruppen hard. Turn 6 and I am at Dno and past Smolensk (16 divisions encircled there). Unfortunately, I have run out of slots to divide units!

[KoenigMKII]

Run out of slots to divide Divide units?

Is that because its better to have lots of regiments than the divisonal equivalent? I have noticed that because of the way armor units cant move arround infantry (without getting tagged and possibly routed) I end up using MP's and pioneers to complete the traps arround Soviet Units. Thats not very realistic - but I must be missing something...

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: KoenigMKII

Run out of slots to divide Divide units?

Is that because its better to have lots of regiments than the divisonal equivalent? I have noticed that because of the way armor units cant move arround infantry (without getting tagged and possibly routed) I end up using MP's and pioneers to complete the traps arround Soviet Units. Thats not very realistic - but I must be missing something...

Why not to do it vice versa? First the engineers and the the Panzers?

And: If there is a friendly unit in a hex adjacent to an enemy unit you can move a friendly unit through it without getting a disengagement hit, but still with paying the higher movement costs.

And yes, the purpose of Ben's (the golden apple) method is to have more counters on map thus having more units to complete encirclements while the rest of the force and the Panzertruppen (hehe Ben, at least one english guy here who masters the german plural) can push further on. Doing this myself in FitE to complete encirclements and convert hexes, block partisans, secure railroads against partisans etc...

[KoenigMKII]

The engineers just have a high movement allowance, so they seem to make it to gaps first.

I am pretty sure some of my armoured combat units moving through friendly units hexes still get the disengagement penalty on occasion. German Armour doesn't work properly when its moving past the flanks of enemy infantry thats allready heavily engaged.

Its as if all the anti-tank guns were suddenly shifted onto one flank of the infantry unit hex, and ambushed the armour unit as it passes. Have you any idea how hard it is to limber up towed PAK's and move them in a fluid, hostile combat situation? All games are an abstraction but this is way too strong.

If the moving unit is armour and its moving through a friendly combat unit occupied hex adjacent to an ememy infantry unit IMHO the disengagement penalty is wrong. If the infantry unit has a battalion of tank destroyers then thats totally different. The movement penalty in the same situation is also incorrect - it is too severe and negates the advantages of armour.

Thats why Barbarossa can't be simulated, the hex sizes are too big [FITE is different] to allow armor to skirt arround enemy infantry units - you would need a corridor three hexes wide between two enemy infantry units to allow the middle channel to guarantee a amoured breakthrough - that is a HUGE gap.

In reality, in 1941 german armoured units would find holes and pour through like water. Leaving a gap in the line is a horrible mistake if your enemy is armoured.

Have I got that right? Can anyone show that it is an enemy armoured unit causing these "disengagement penalties."

I apologise if this is arrogant, but it seems to be a flaw to me. [or I am a lazy lazy gamer and missed enemy armor in hex with a lot of units in it ]

[JAMiAM]

The main problem here is the disparity of scales between the two forces units. The Soviets are running divisional sized units, with all the trimmings, while the German units are regimental, and smaller. The disengagement penalties are scaled for the relative size and recon abilities of the unit(s) pinning (with ZOC) and the unit moving out of the empty hex. If you want to avoid disengagement attacks, then leave someone behind in the hex to be vacated. If this scenario is revisited by the designers, or by intrepid modders, they may want to set up a special database for the scenario that utilizes Ben Turner's (aka Golden Delicious) technique of giving recon ability to German armored equipment. It seems to work well in his Poland 1939 scenario. This will offset both the movement penalty, as well as the effect of the disengagement attacks that you are sloppy (or desperate) enough to allow your enemy to gain against you.

[B/snafu]

ORIGINAL: Dr. Foo

I have found this out the hard way, after having my a$$ handed to me time and time again, that the key to winning as the Germans is multiple combat rounds.

If you are not getting two (three is best) combat rounds in any Barbarossa scenario you are playing at a disadvantage.

I hear what you are saying about Operation Barbarossa 1941 I feel that the Soviets are too strong in this scenario I once played the Soviets and had three lines of defense from Orsha to Moscow by the time my opponent reached the second line his units were completly exhausted.

Currently in the middle of this against a good soviet opponent---first turn or so I had multiple combat rounds---now around turn 6-I'm beating my head off his strong first fortified line from pskof(sp), smolensk, and so forth---averaging only two rounds and suffering from "ant" attacks I guess even when my first probing attcks only show 20% of turn being used--my result windows on a few of the attacks showing the dreaded "cont attks, cont attks,...) with turn ending right after. Looking at it a little more--Iv'e noticed that it seems to be the black counter ss units---mainly the norway one--that are repeated culprits in this-------as anyone else seen this result?

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

And yes, the purpose of Ben's (the golden apple) method is to have more counters on map thus having more units to complete encirclements while the rest of the force and the Panzertruppen (hehe Ben, at least one english guy here who masters the german plural)

Danke. Sadly I did French at school- German would have been much more fun.

Doing this myself in FitE to complete encirclements and convert hexes, block partisans, secure railroads against partisans etc...

Really works wonders in the early going. On about turn 15 of DNO now and am finding that a battalion is no longer enough to contain Russian pockets- especially when said pocket contains Moscow

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: KoenigMKII

I am pretty sure some of my armoured combat units moving through friendly units hexes still get the disengagement penalty on occasion. German Armour doesn't work properly when its moving past the flanks of enemy infantry thats allready heavily engaged.

German tanks in early war scenarios should really be given the recon flag in the equipment editor. As JAMIAM noted, I did this for my Poland scenario and they behave excellently.

Thats why Barbarossa can't be simulated,

Not at all. Barbarossa can't be simulated- but for entirely different reasons.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: B/snafu

Currently in the middle of this against a good soviet opponent---first turn or so I had multiple combat rounds---now around turn 6-I'm beating my head off his strong first fortified line from pskof(sp), smolensk, and so forth---averaging only two rounds and suffering from "ant" attacks I guess even when my first probing attcks only show 20% of turn being used--my result windows on a few of the attacks showing the dreaded "cont attks, cont attks,...) with turn ending right after. Looking at it a little more--Iv'e noticed that it seems to be the black counter ss units---mainly the norway one--that are repeated culprits in this-------as anyone else seen this result?

You'll probably find these units have proficiencies in the 90s, making them very reluctant to break off combat. These units are practically unuseable for attacks for this reason, but make excellent defenders.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

German tanks in early war scenarios should really be given the recon flag in the equipment editor.

Would it be a reasonable alternative, in battalion scale units, to combine the 'Aufklarungs' and panzer battalions in order to get a similar effect? Or would this be a silly thing to do??

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Would it be a reasonable alternative, in battalion scale units, to combine the 'Aufklarungs' and panzer battalions in order to get a similar effect? Or would this be a silly thing to do??

No matter what scale you do it at, the panzer units are going to wind up having 25-40% reconaissance, because there is only one battalion of armoured cars for three battalions of tanks. Adding motorcyclists would reduce the proportion of hard to soft equipment and make the units less resilient.

Go for the recon tanks. Why not?

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

Go for the recon tanks. Why not?

I like it! It makes perfect sense. But I have to bite on a worm you dangled earlier. 'German tanks in early war scenarios should really be given the recon flag '. Only the early ones, I guess because of tactics changes on the Allied side? And what would you think the cutoff date would be? Or could the 'recon' tanks be left in thru 1945 as the Allied units have increased AT capability to offset them?

Thanks as always for your expertise.

[B/snafu]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
You'll probably find these units have proficiencies in the 90s, making them very reluctant to break off combat. These units are practically unuseable for attacks for this reason, but make excellent defenders.

Thanks for that-----makes me look a little different at it now. At first, figured due to their abilities they would be excellent in making that initial first hard hit ---wasted a lot of position opportunities due to turn burn in the first few rounds due to these guys.

[Wolfe Tone]

I think the problem is in many Barbarossa scenarios that the Soviets have too many units thus giving them an operational flexibility on par with the Germans that historically was not there in 1941 (not till Dec. anyway).

A scenario that had less Soviet units with low movement points but good fighting (esp defensive) capabilities might reflect the Campaign more realistically.