What is the benefit of going south as the Axis?

[CarnageINC]

Is there any benefit for going the southern route as the Axis? It seems that playing any Soviet player there will be no factories to capture and only minimal cities to capture to take way manpower. I haven't tried the Soviets yet so maybe I could answer my own questions if I did but I just can't bring myself to become a "Communist" yet...I guess its all those years of service against Communism that have me brain washed. [:'(] I hear of this 'oil' option but how far do you have to push to reach the goal?

[jomni]

To divert forces from the North?

[Flaviusx]

Lots and lots of population centers. Even if they get the factories out, they'll lose the manpower and also the resources. Between Karkhov and the Donetz, there's a lot of cities down here.

There's also a lot of victory points down here between all those cities.

Clear terrain. Your panzers can run wild down here. There is no real good natural line of defense between the Dnepr and Don. But logistics will be challenging.

And if you set up for it, you can increase your initial bag of prisoners by pocketing large chunks of southwestern front.

[ool]

Eventually Baku and 90% of the Russian source of oil.

[randallw]

Going to the southeast is bad for the defender and attacker; wide open spaces hard to fend, and three potential directions for the Axis: east, south east, south.  That's a lot of miles/hexes to hold in one area while attacking in another direction.

[ool]

You are right about the difficulties. However the reward is also great, if you survive! Need the guts of a river boat gambler to pull this off.

[karonagames]

After seeing how Leningrad has toughened up, I am considering a "Southern Blitz" strategy, which is opposite to my normal strategy of Leningrad in 41, Moscow in 42 and Stalingrad/Baku in 1943.

I think the steppes will make pocketing large chunks of the Red Army much easier, and if I can punch through the Crimea to Krasnador(sp?) where there is some Oil, I will have a good jumping off platform for Baku in the summer of 1942. Kharkov, the Donbas cities and Rostov do take out a good chunk of population and industry.

[heliodorus04]

Newb here:  Just curious for GCs, how are oil fields factored into the game?  Are they THAT worthwhile to capture in terms of improving your operational situation?

[karonagames]

You would not see an instant difference, but as I noted in another thread the side that can produce the most MP's for it's units will be able to attack more and advance more over the course of 200+turns and therefore be more likely to win. So, if the Soviets have 30% less Oil/Fuel than they had historically, then their units will get less MPs to attack and advance with.

[mavraamides]

@BigAnorak:

So just to clarify, are you saying that capturing the oil fields will eventually lead to lower MP's across the board for all Soviet forces?

Or just air and motorized?

[ComradeP]

Mostly air and motorized, as Soviet infantry unit vehicle usage is minimal by Western standards. However, Tank and mechanized corps running out of gas isn't a good situation for the Soviets, just like Axis mobile units running out of gas is bad for them.

[karonagames]

One of my boring from the Manual posts - but anything that slows down a mechanised or tank Army in 1943 is a good thing in my book. If the SU is prevented from making 3 extra attacks and advances per turn, over the course of a full campaign is the difference in the whole front line being 5 hexes further East - that could make the difference between holding or not holding Berlin. Of course you can't deprive him of the fuel for the whole campaign, but I am just trying to illustrate the importance of MPs.

From the manual.

1. Start with base MPs (14.1.1)
2. Calculate average fatigue of the unit based on the number and
fatigue of each type of ground element. Reduce the number of
MP’s by the average fatigue divided by ten, rounded down.
3. Check for leader initiative. If all leaders in the chain of command fail the
initiative check, then multiply MPs remaining by 80 percent, rounding down.
4. Check for leader admin. If all leaders in chain of command fail
the admin check, then multiply MPs remaining by 80 percent,
rounding down. Note that units that did not move in the previous
turn will automatically pass their next turn’s admin check.
5. Determine if fuel (motorized unit) or supplies (non-motorized unit) is
sufficient to enable the unit to use the remaining MPs it has. For example,
if a motorized unit has only 50 percent of its base MPs remaining after
steps 1 through 4, it will only require 50 percent of fuel needed. If fuel
on hand is 60 percent of what the unit needs to use its remaining MPs,
then it can only move 60 percent of those MPs, rounded down.
6. If a non-motorized unit, reset the unit’s MPs to six if determined to be lower
than six. If a motorized unit with zero MPs, reset the unit’s MPs to one.
7. If the movement point allowance is greater than 16 and the unit is
motorized, check to see if the vehicle shortage penalty applies. This penalty
creates a maximum number of MPs the unit may have during the turn.
For motorized units the maximum is equal to 16 + (34 * (vehicles in unit/
vehicles required by unit. The maximum will never be less than 16.

As an example of the above rules, a motorized Axis unit that has 80 percent of its required
vehicles will start with a base MP of 50. If average fatigue were 22, then the unit MP would be
reduced by 2 to 48. If all the leaders in its chain of command failed their initiative and admin
checks, the unit’s MPs would be reduced first to 38 and then to 30. As 30 is 60 percent of the
base MP of 50, the unit would need at least 60 percent of required supplies in order to move
30 MPs; if it had only 45 percent of its supply needs, its MPs would be lowered to 22. Since
the unit has 80 percent of its vehicles, it has a maximum of 16 + (34*.8) or 43 MPs. Since the
unit has only 22 MP, it is not affected further by the vehicle shortage. Had the unit had 100
percent of its fuel and had passed the leader and admin checks, instead of having 48 MPs the
unit would be reduced to 43 MPs

[heliodorus04]

Can I have a simpler heuristic, please!  [;)][;)]

[karonagames]

Oil good; No Oil Bad. [;)]

[comsolut]

Yup. That sums it up.

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Oil good; No Oil Bad. [;)]

But how long can the region be held? I guess that depends on a lot of factors but having your armee being cut off near Rostov must surely be terrifying prospect.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC
...I guess its all those years of service against Communism that have me brain washed....

You and me both, but becoming a National Socialist because you hate communism is glorifying a distinction with little real difference.

Regards,
Feltan

[karonagames]

But how long can the region be held? I guess that depends on a lot of factors but having your armee being cut off near Rostov must surely be terrifying prospect.

You are right, there are a lot of factors, but isn't it why we play these games- to get answers to those questions? If the Axis get Baku and can exert some control of that single rail line on the right bank of the Volga, I think the SU would have a hard job getting Baku back. The next question that would need to be answered would be how quickly the Soviets could gain sufficient strength to get across the Don and threaten Rostov. Not repeating Stalingrad would give 20 "extra" divisions to hold the Don.

I'm working on plans to give it a go - I'm trying to figure out how far AGN and AGC would have to advance and what resources they would have to give to AGS to make it possible.

[CarnageINC]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

But how long can the region be held? I guess that depends on a lot of factors but having your armee being cut off near Rostov must surely be terrifying prospect.

You are right, there are a lot of factors, but isn't it why we play these games- to get answers to those questions? If the Axis get Baku and can exert some control of that single rail line on the right bank of the Volga, I think the SU would have a hard job getting Baku back. The next question that would need to be answered would be how quickly the Soviets could gain sufficient strength to get across the Don and threaten Rostov. Not repeating Stalingrad would give 20 "extra" divisions to hold the Don.

I'm working on plans to give it a go - I'm trying to figure out how far AGN and AGC would have to advance and what resources they would have to give to AGS to make it possible.

I guess there is always the Crimean to evac you u need to. Are you playing against the AI in your plans to take Baku? I think that will be my next objective in 43, but that late in the war may be to late at all.

[karonagames]

I will test it on the AI first, and hope my next PBEM opponent doesn't read this!