The USSR did transfer more tank corps into the narrow strip south of Bukarest. We harbor plans to cut them off form the south, but realize that we have barely the strength to do so. We will need luck - a very unreliable planning device.
It is ominously quiet in the Atlantic and air attacks have not resumed. Does the US shift focus and will strike somewhere totally different?
The USSR removes one tank corps from the area south of Bukarest and blocks effectively our intended attack northwards along the river. Instead we attack a mech. corps near the coast. Lacking sufficient air support, we get only marginal odds and fail to penetrate. Bukarest is still under a severe threat.
Things are moving very slowly but definitely in the wrong direction. The USSR has arrived at a hex just outside besides Bukarest. We brace ourselves for the worst. All quiet in the Atlantic. What is the US up to. I am sure they did not invade Sweden to lower their outrageous beer prices.
The worst case scenario for Romania just happened - Bukarest and Romania are in the hands of the red hordes. An Axis campaign riddled with, mismanagement, poor decision making from the beginning comes to a gloomy end. Because of the idiosyncrasies of international law in RtV, all of our units in Romania were politely but firmly shown out of the country for redeployment elsewhere. While we did not actually loose any units in this process (with the exception of the Romanians of course), this causes a complete collapse of the front line which we will have to reestablish - much further west naturally. We feel already in early 1943 the strain to fight a superior air force and larger numbers of high end USSR attack units while the average unit quality is still on par. What will happen if the US decides to open a second front? Or does the strong USSR and inactivity of the US indicate that most US resources end up via lend lease in the USSR?
We rush east towards the former Romanian border with our redeployed Axis units and the USSR heads west to establish a new front line. In the process we manage to get good odds on a Sovjet tank corps near Craiova and destroy it. Even though we destroyed several tank corps by now and lost only one, the USSR is not deterred at all and can apparently afford those losses easily.
It looks like your forces are more powerful than the enemy's, in terms of strength points. Why not consider a concentration of your air and armor, with some powerful infantry support, and take the initiative. It may take a few turns to organize your forces at a given spot, but sometimes the best defense is a daring offense.
Gary, thanks for the good advice. Looking back at my own posts, I come to the same conclusion. But when I play I seem not to be able to pull it together. Of course I asked myself for the reason and I came up with three:
- I have yet to learn the patience to pull out my good units for a few turns out of the front and prepare behind the lines. Instead I use them up (fritter them away) every turn in some perceived emergencies or local mini-opportunities. That is inexperienced play and I am to blame of course.
- Lack of air power. That is not visible in the post pictures and is hence misleading on first glance. The reason the USSR is able to attack all the time is its heavy use of air power that I cannot match. Otherwise the USSR would face the same obstacles than I do.
- With the exception of a few opportunities (as just has happened), my opponent never allows for anything higher than 3-1 attack odds based on land units only. But that is not enough to be successful and looses on average quite a bit. That is the reason for my poor loss ratio actually. This situation requires that you can attack with air first - which I cannot at the moment.
To overcome the last two reasons, I had to pull out air and tanks, transfer them to a totally different location to make sure my air is not eaten up in defense, let the USSR go at it for a while and attack at a totally different spot, far enough to escape his air units in the south. But then there is still reason number 1.....
We were shown by the USSR that the time for German attacks is over and our mini-breakthrough was rebuffed quiet vehemently by the Red team. We lost one of our precious tank corps in the process. The USSR demonstrated further south how it is done correctly. Still quiet in the Atlantic.
Sounds like an awful lot of air power got to that armor. The reports for the turn will probably show multiple, perhaps 6-10 air strikes, followed by assault. Air power is a great misery when you are on the receiving end.
By the way Gary sent me an estimate that my naval raiders may have cost him 1,500 to 2,000 PP. I think you asked about this. That is a lot of damage.
It is not peaceful and quiet in northern Germany any more. The US has decided to take the shortcut to Berlin and has landed in Rostock which was defended by a single but good quality Infantry corps. Landing at a Baltic port was the logical next step after taking Sweden.
The Axis Atlantic fleet moves into the Baltic Sea with the idea to destroy supply for the US attackers which is probably shipped from US controlled Sweden (assuming supply convoys cannot pass the Axis controlled Skagerak narrow). We hope also to pick up possible further amphibious units for attacks elsewhere along the Axis Baltic coast. We did this with some concern, though since taking Copenhagen now would bottle up the Axis fleet in the Baltic in a similar fashion that the loss of Gibraltar had on the British fleet in the Mediterraneum. We will stay only as long as necessary and hope the US does not yet in 1943 have the means for two landings at the same time.
Troubled by supply problems, the US withdraws to Rostock. Maybe the Kriegsmarine and her allies are doing their job after all. Not shown here, but we have also dispatched a few forces to move in on Poznan to retake it as well. For once it is quiet instead in Romania.
The US heads back to wherever they came from (Sweden?) and just leaves a single tank corps as rear guard in Rostock. It looks as if we have survived the first onslaught of the western superpower. But it is just summer 1943 and they will have plenty of opportunity to renew their efforts. We also try our luck with a second little breakthrough near the former Romanian border.
Just guessing (or wishful thinking) of course. But I thought the US L2 tank corps should have been stronger than 5. Another explanation for the weakness could be that they were damaged of course.
Etienne and I don't exchange much analysis comments per email during our moves (I hope we can have a postmortem later). But in one of the few exceptions he stated that he used the last STPs to get people shipped back out of Germany despite stockpiling many STPs over the course of the game. I interpreted that as a STP shortage and supply issue. But it may just have been borderline.
Edit: I would be interested to learn about your experience on how effective Axis supply raiders are in the Atlantic. I understand that you are subjected to their attentions in SuD. Chuck gave me an estimate already. Was this equally distributed over the length of the war? How does the STP price change if you have to buy a lot? If you buy them in one move they price goes up but may be adjusted later. I'd be curious.
Oh man! Chuck is hitting me hard in the Atlantic. I lose anywhere from 10-30STPs per turn because he has dominance on the sea. As a rough estimate, since the US invaded France in our game, I think the US and UK have expended perhaps 2000+ PPs on STPs. Certainly that's one reason my US force is so small.
As for STP purchase costs, one odd thing is that they are higher for the US than the UK. I can currently purchase 10 STPs as the UK starting at 40 PPs. For the US, that usually starts at 58 PP. It does go up for each PP purchase consecutively, and gets reset back to some minimum at the start of the month, I believe. (One reason Chuck's a better player than me is that he analyzes these things better.) So each turn right now, late '45, with the US pulling in 400 PPs a turn, it is spending 200 of that on STPs PER TURN! Ruinous.
Of course if in the real war, the Allies were taking these kinds of losses in the Atlantic, some kind of armistace would have had to be arranged. (According to Weinberg, Churchill was willing to consider a peace with Hitler in 1940! under the right conditions related to colonies, and if that is the case, then certainly he would have considered such a peace if the war in the Atlantic were lost.)
Thank you for the feedback on the raiders. That is very encouraging from the Axis point of view. I guess it has to be balanced against any investments of the Axis into his fleet. But if that is small it clearly reduces the PP gap between the two factions.
