OKH Plan 1942 - Alpha AAR

[Pford]

But Moscow has vast symbolical value. The lost of that city would have repercussions beyond the loss of millions of troops. At minimum a loss in national morale if not a political earthquake. No?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

but that is wrong Flav, the Germans could only win with a knock out, a long war, works to the SU/Allied favor

In this situation, in my estimation, the Germans have already lost the chance to "win" the war. The 1942 scenario start necessarily puts the Germans somewhat in the hole here. They would need to go into the 2nd campaign season in far better shape, instead, much time is wasted ironing out salients, taking out Sevastopol, etc. By the time all these preliminaries are out of the way, you're already deep into summer.

Pyledriver has done a fine job knocking these preliminaries out, but having done that the question becomes: what next? Taking out Moscow? At what cost and to what gain? I'm no pro at this game (obviously having never played it) but I'm looking at the map and seeing a lot of increasingly threadbare German units. An offensive driven too hard will simply burn out the Wehrmacht.

Vernichtungsgedanke seems completely out of the question to my in these circumstances. I'd be more inclined to preserve the German army strength and bleed the Red Army via attrition via backhand blows and creating strong reserves to do so.

Now, a totally fresh game with a 1941 start with the Germans going into 1942 in reasonable shape, that would be a different story.

[PyleDriver]

Joel I didn't now about the land bridge rule at Leningrad. I could have closed it agian. It may be my time to take a move back...Oh and I will. I've had so many AI redos It's my turn for once..

[Hard Sarge]

Flav

well, I didn't say they had a chance in 42, they were already stuck into the long run war, they needed a knockout in 41, to have a chance, once they failed that, then it was a war of attrition which they couldn't win

once they lost the chance, they are stuck and need to keep fighting, but any "real" chance of winning was gone already, but they still made it a near run thing

what nation could lose, what 229 Divs in 6 months and still remain fighting, and then even more losses the next year

[Zorch]

PyleDriver, can you estimate what the casualties are over the past 8 weeks?

It is possible that the Russians may run out of reserves if the Germans can maintain that same loss ratio for 8 more weeks.
If that happens, then the AI will have nothing to attack with when the mud comes.

[PyleDriver]

Well heres a turn 9 start losses...Alot higher than I want to see...But I still plan to press on to my goal...As far as Moscow it's such a key, industrial, population and transportation. Its the center, and any chess player will tell you, control the center of the board you control the game...

[PyleDriver]

A comment, seems like theres alot poping up now...It's all about balance, can you keep the other on there heels, if you can you will win...So I press everywhere, and I have more up tricks up my sleeve. I will beat this bear...lol...

[Flaviusx]

I'd be interested in seeing the industrial and manpower potential in play here for both sides.
 
Roughly speaking, the Germans are killing 3 AFVs for every one they lose, and 6 men for every one lost, as well as 4 guns for every one lost.
 
Impressive figures, taken in a vacuum. But perhaps not enough. The Russians may actually be in a position to absorb such losses and spring back once the weather turns.
 
I actually think Pyledriver in many respects is doing the right thing and is handling his forces exceptionally well. (The real life Fall Blau plan was imo absurd and imposed tasks on the Wehrmacht beyond its strength to achieve.) Kill the Sovs while the killing is good. But where I disagree is in the idea that a knockout blow is in the cards, or that taking Moscow is any kind of strategical end point. This is not, in fact, chess. Moscow isn't the king, nor is any single postion on the map. I'd have to look at detailed production and manpower figures, but based on Joel's comments, if you really wanted to permanently cripple the Soviet warmaking potential, you'd need to go much further than that.
 
However. Even leaving Moscow aside, the Germans are in much better shape than in real life simply because there is no Stalingrad situation in play here. They are in excellent position to parry any Soviet counteroffensive mounted during the winter if they don't burn out the Wehrmacht. It's a question of knowing when to stop.

[kfmiller41]

Seems to me that victory for the Germans could be based on a combination of taking strategic places, and inflicting heavier losses on the red army than were done historically. From the many things I have read even the fact that soviet Russia was a dictatorship didn't mean if couldn't be bled down (it was historically) and if the Germans conduct a spirited defense with more freedom of action than they had in real life I would think Russian losses could be so bad that the army could have collapsed. Just my humble opinion. Without some kind of incentive for the German player to keep fighting the good fight then I could see players throwing in the towel if they don't think they have any chance after 1941/42.

[Flaviusx]

If you calculated victory in a relative fashion to real life performance, I'd say Pyldriver has won (or at any rate is in an very good position to win since he will almost certainly avoid a Stalingradesque brainfart.)
 
If you determine victory on an absolute basis...not so much. (And by absolute I mean just that: the war is won.) But that's probably not a fair metric: he inherited the scenario conditions which are not favorable to the Germans.
 
Which brings up an interesting design philosophy question: how should we determine victory in these games? Starting from 1941 the absolute metric is probably best, but in a scenario? How do we define victory in, say, a Bagration scenario?

[Wild]

I think that taking Moscow is critical.
It is the main hub for the rail netwok, divides the soviet forces, has the largest population, probably still has a number of factories (even after evac), and like Jon said it's the center of the map.
Even though it's not chess, i think thats a good analogy. Given a choice i would always prefer to control the center of the board/map.
Also the morale boost to the germans plus the reverse for the soviets (don't know if thats factored in the game) makes moscow a target worth risking alot to take.

[PyleDriver]

(DAR)...Armin's XXXIX PzC, alot of power there now. Spanked two Corps like there mother would. You'll see their routed and in the rear... I haven't even started with Model yet. This pressure should free Hoth, which shoud free Kleist...And Rostov is about to fall...

[ComradeP]

I see you've burned through a few years of recon vehicle production in a few weeks again, those vehicles shouldn't be coming back until late 1942/1943 when production increases.

I doubt you can keep up the pace if you have only a 3:1 exchange rate in AFV's, your Panzer III losses are pretty bad.

Your motorised/Panzer Grenadier squad losses are also ugly, for every 3 regular Riflemen you're losing a motorised/mechanized soldier, which looks like it's completely disproportionate to the relative amount of those squads in the Heer currently.

As you're losing so many quality troops, you're basically screwed if you can't take the objective you're aiming for (Moscow) and are forced to halt the advance short of the objective.

The Soviets losses are pretty bad too, though, so you should still have a chance.

How's the Luftwaffe holding up in terms of readiness/fatique?

[Hard Sarge]

off hand, from what I remember, the numbers at start are around 3,600,000 troops for the Ge (not counting the Allies) and 6,200,000 men for the Russian

it looks like Jon is having to use his Armor as the hammer to open up his advances, that always hurts

for the LW, it is still 42, he is going to be having more losses to Flak and Oper, then to pure enemy fighters, but, bombers or transports that happened to get caught by the Russian fighters will have trouble, so the edge should still be with the LW

[PyleDriver]

I should have post there was a 77 to 7 ratio in AFV's in Armin's attacks. Alot of those losses you see were breaking the hard crust of level 4 forts at the start...Were in open field attacks now and the Germans are starting to really kick ass...Alot of these (ss) show the value of units after they moved and attacked. The next turn they regain there strenght...

[janh]

As for scenario victory conditions, I'd vote for "combination criteria". Obviously loss of Moscow alone, or Leningrad, or Stalingrad would be not be enough. Speculative though what would have really led to a collapse of the red bear. But since it is after all a game with the possibility to change history, and supposedly not just a straight reenactment of history, the criteria can well be speculative. I'd vote for a WiR similar system, enhanced by losses: i.e. cities get points based on population, production facilities, railroad importance and maybe even political aspects. And then losses should be counted, too.

You'd win if held a line from Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad (inclusive), or by holding two of those and the oil to the south and a certain number of casualties while your forces are still above a certain threshold strenghts. Breaking the two lend-and-lease routes (Murmansk and the arabian) should also give points. If you'd hold less, you still be able to force surrender or a cease-fire if the red army gets bled down badly in >=42, having say two major cities plus only 30% more men left than axis at lower difficulty and maybe equal numbers at challenging. Then these thresholds for losses should also be a function of the year, i.e. in 42 the Germans need less force left over than in 44. And depending on the outcomes in Africa/Italy, or the Western Front, the Russion criteria for surrender should also change over time. So in late 41, or at the height of the Africa campaign in summer 42, the Russians should me more inclined to surrender than after the Normandy or Sicily events, for example.

Question: Can you still influence replacement rates in this game? Say more reinforcements and supply for the Panzers and Grenadiers? How exactly does the production system work? Is it static, or is influenced by events? I.e. after the events of winter 41 and summer 42, the Germans substantially cranked up their production, which subsequently lead to peak production rates in 44. If the summer 42 is better for them, will the production increase be slower? Or if 42 is an even worse disaster, will the production be pushed harder to reach peak already by late 43? It would be nice if that old WiR feature would still be dynamic, or even adjustable by the player since it is one of the major factors that can help you make a alternative history and see how the Germans fared if their economy had been cranked up earlier etc...
Similarly, is the player still in control of what new equipment gets put where, or is it all automatic in the TOE?

[PyleDriver]

Ok guys this whole victory debate thing needs to move to a new thread. Start one and talk the night away. We would like to hear your veiws, but please not on my AAR...Also alot of this is Q&A stuff... Agian one more time, keep responces or questions to S&T here only. Jim and others will be glad to answer things elsewhere. I have my hands full with this AAR and my wife...lol...

[PyleDriver]

(DAR) Manstein's 11th army assalted Rostov this week, and it is in German hands now. The XIV PzC was pulled back across the Don. The goal here now is to press to the Donets, secure the north south railline, and dig-in afterward. Oh yes I do know when to dig in...

[wmcalpine]

PyleDriver,

Is your aim in the South to push to the Don and Donets and use that major river as a defensive line for the upcoming winter?

Bill

[PyleDriver]

Yep, and pulling all my trucks up north for the push on Moscow. XIV PzC will remain in the area just incase...Sorry for the slow posts I've been under the weather this week...