41 Grand Campaign Me(sov) vs ComradeP (axis)

[Schmauser]

I asked a similar question in ComradeP's AAR and would like your perspective as his Soviet opponent. Your side is important to me because the counters on the map only represent a small part of the choices you have to make.

Do you think he is employing sufficient infantry mass to open holes that could be better and deeper exploited by his panzers?

My opinion is that he is attacking on a limited scale like a Soviet rather than hammering deep with concentrated Schwehrpunkts and leaving the rest to thinner infantry screens.

Thanks in advance.

[notenome]

Complex question.

Comrade clearly screens a large part of the map with infantry, which is the right thing to do. Of course, there is a down side to this as it makes strategic surprise much harder to achieve, but as the Axis you need to screen in 41 or you'll never be able to concentrate force.

As far as punching holes, except for the North von P has always been able to blow the front open with his infantry. That is why I have a defense in depth, forcing him to make a dozen attacks before he can achieve strategic maneuver. On most turns I will suffer inbetween 40-60 attacks, and only 4 or 5 of them will be holds. The defense in depth is not meant to win battles, but soak up MPs. My long list of dead and dismissed generals can testify to that (western front is on its 5th commander, IIRC). For the Axis, its all about MPs, not CVs.

As for how to break a defense in depth, I can only mention my experience vs the AI, which drops a carpet of units on the Axis advance. I believe that there are two ways, either you attempt a grand encirclement or you use the death by a thousand cuts strategy. Every turn needs to pocket part of the defense or else, as you can see from the previous turns, it is fairly easy to throw up a bandage around the spearheads and then they'll have to make many attacks so as to achieve maneuver again. Personally I favour grand encirclements, as paradoxically they are harder to counterattack since there are less units outside the pockets. When I play Axis I use a three turn cycle of encircle, reduce, rest. This generally ensures the panzers always have 40-50 mps as they rest for two weeks for every one in which they fight.

As for von P especifically, in the Center my only complaint would be that he is attempting to break the line in three places, which I find wasteful. The Axis, imho, should never have more than 2 breakthroughs, as that just dilutes your forces, and the Axis must constantly maneuver to achieve a local superiority in numbers. In my view Comrade's greatest preocupation is force preservation, which is diferent from most of the Axis players out there, and that has led him to be misunderstood. As for the schwerpunkts, well I'm certain he would like to be able to penetrate deep into my lines with them, but my number one priority on defense has always been to keep the schwerpunkts in front of my lines. I have on numerous ocasions abandoned very strong (lvl 3-4 forts) defenses and pulled back, precisely to prevent any major encirclements.

That said I have suffered considerable losses to be sure, last turn alone I lost 160k men during Comrade's turn. Also keep in mind that the Soviet Army is about to go through some horrible changes. Most of the Rifle Divisions are getting slimmed down, the cavalry divisions are getting squezed to a threadbare force and in 2 turns all my tank divisions bara couple will have been withdrawn to form brigades, which due to stacking limitations are fairly useless. This is the exact opposite direction of the late war Red Army, which concentrated firepower in units (the famed corps) instead of diluting it in f*ing brigades. This alone will continue to guarantee that von P will win 80-90% of battles till blizzard comes around, but hopefully he won't have the mps to put it to good use.

[raizer]

Once this game is over, I think you both should switch sides =the aars are very instructional as is the comments from others who are watching it. I have learned more from your aars, and the comments from others in this thread, than anything in the manual

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: notenome
That said I have suffered considerable losses to be sure, last turn alone I lost 160k men during Comrade's turn. Also keep in mind that the Soviet Army is about to go through some horrible changes. Most of the Rifle Divisions are getting slimmed down, the cavalry divisions are getting squezed to a threadbare force and in 2 turns all my tank divisions bara couple will have been withdrawn to form brigades, which due to stacking limitations are fairly useless. This is the exact opposite direction of the late war Red Army, which concentrated firepower in units (the famed corps) instead of diluting it in f*ing brigades. This alone will continue to guarantee that von P will win 80-90% of battles till blizzard comes around, but hopefully he won't have the mps to put it to good use.

To me those changes in the RKKA organization reflect accurately the historical transition from an offensive doctrine to a defensive one. The Red Army one gets by the third trimester of 1941 is one meant for defense, not to conduct "deep battles".

My point of view on the TOE changes is that:

* Slimmer Rifle Divisions mean you get more of them and they're nimbler (morale allowing of course). And having more of them allows you to defend more in depth.

* Same for Cavalry Divisions: I don't see much value on having the rough equivalent of German Light Divisions but with mounted infantry. I'd rather have fast, light cavalry divisions that allow me to throw ZOC's on enemy motorized formations and threaten their LOCs.

* Tank Divisions were a concept that failed for the Soviets because they hadn't the time to adequately implement it. What's the point of having as many Tank Divisions as Panzer Divisions have the Germans, if you can't fill up their ranks? On my PBEM GC we're at turn 13 and I have 20 of them. Only five of them have TOE over 70%. I have five of them under 50% TOE and in perpetual Unready state. Also, it's very common for me to have two or three tank divisions with their full tank complement, and two or three with barely any tanks so they're best considered as "light Rifle Divisions".

* Tank Brigades aren't very useful for attacking, but they are very useful used as either defensive or offensive reserves (increased chance to intervene in combat due to smaller size). They also allow you the flexibility to add armor support to a counterattack spearheaded by Rifle Divisions. Edit: The fact that you can use units in reserve mode in the attack as well looks to me as one of the most unjustly overlooked aspects in the game. Of course it requires to have a good leader at the Army level with high initiative and is chance-based, which might look weak when compared with a good stack, but until - or even after - one gets Tank Corps is not that bad in my opinion.

I toyed with the concept of massing tank divisions and Flaviusx sternly warned me that the Soviet main offensive assets were Rifle Divisions. He was right, very very right. I doubted of his advice until I looked carefully at the production figures and the TOEs. And now I am handling my tank divisions as "heavy brigades" rather than thinking of them the Soviet version of a PanzerDivision.

[Flaviusx]

Pieter's force preservation concept is the wrong one for the Axis, imo. He's doing a very good job implementing a false doctrine. The German has to force the pace and take chances.

[notenome]

I tend to agree with you Flav, but the truth is that we'll only know in 43, I don't think any Axis player has taken this approach, so I'm very curious as to the long term implications of it. That said, I believe that Pieter needs to take Kiev before the winter. To give me a solid bridgehead across the Dnepr as a jumping off point for the winter counteroffensives... That will be very complicated for him and I've already begun to contemplate some possbilities should that continue to be the case.
 
As for the doctrine changes Bletchy, I agree they are historical I just think they suck. They were done as much out of necessity (shortage of trained officers and specialists) as they were a doctrinal shift. The problem is that armor with a 15mp requirement to attack for deliberate attacks is basically relegated to an exploitation role, as there will always be an infantry division with a higher CV and there can only be 3 per hex. Also with such a threadbare force, assigning armor brigades as reserves runs a serious risk of having them rout when they enter battle, which ruins the defense in depth. Not to mention that having so many units overloads our HQs, reducing the already dubious quality of the Red Army.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: notenome
As for the doctrine changes Bletchy, I agree they are historical I just think they suck. They were done as much out of necessity (shortage of trained officers and specialists) as they were a doctrinal shift. The problem is that armor with a 15mp requirement to attack for deliberate attacks is basically relegated to an exploitation role, as there will always be an infantry division with a higher CV and there can only be 3 per hex. Also with such a threadbare force, assigning armor brigades as reserves runs a serious risk of having them rout when they enter battle, which ruins the defense in depth. Not to mention that having so many units overloads our HQs, reducing the already dubious quality of the Red Army.

Indeed, these doctrine changes give motorized forces a secondary or support role whose merits can be debatable. You got three points there [:)]

I'd like to make a few observations on the issues you raise:

* Regarding Tank Bdes and defence in depth: such a light formation as a Tank Bde is not really giving any depth to your deployment, it's rather giving you the illusion of depth. Tank Divs are useful to back up your main line of resistance, since they have more staying power than Tank Bdes because of their infantry complement. In that respect, yes, I agree that Tank Divs > Tank Bdes.

* Regarding the MPs: Flaviusx made the following remark: "Tank Divs generally lack the MPs to make a deliberate attack and advance after combat". Exceptions being the case when an Axis unit just "stumbles" into their ZOC exhausting their movement. My best Tank Div has about 18-20 MPs, and that's just because they're under one of the few outstanding 1941 Soviet generals. My best Tank Brigade has 25 MPs under what I can't qualify as other than a perfect nullity.

* Regarding stacking and raw "power" on the attack: There are many x's in the tactical combat simulator embedded in WiTE which we don't really understand. I have to look during a few turns combats with high detail enabled. But I tend to think that "raw" CV can be very misleading when evaluating the offensive capability of your units. Is it always better to attack with an stack of 12 CV of infantry than a stack of 7 CV with infantry and tanks? I'd say that if it's clear terrain the latter will have better chance of success than the former, because of the obvious fact that tanks have a longer engagement range than infantry, so chances that defenders get disrupted by fire will be higher. Which would mean that you will get a quite good chance to reach the 1+:1 odds that force a retreat on defenders.

* On Army HQ overloading: Overloading is an issue, but for me has become manifest at the Front level rather than the Army level. There's no penalization to cases where you have units in Reserve mode added to a different HQ than those of the units being attacked (or attacking), beyond those which are already covered by the increased difficulty to leader checks due to distance (if I understood correctly the rules).

Just food for thought [:)]

[Schmauser]

Thanks for the in depth answer.

I'm not sure that force conservation favors the Axis in 41 anymore. I think I am better off in three ways by losing 600K for killing 6000K as compared to losing 400K for killing 4000K.

1) Each dead German is worth 10 dead Russians. Don't think those same ratios can be achieved in 42. (Yes, this sounds very Falkenhayn-ish).
2) Based on blizzard effects, you want as few Axis forces on the map. The bigger the number, the higher your blizzard attrition. I'd rather lose a German killing Soviets that watching him doing nothing in the disabled pool for the rest of the game.
3) More dead Russians slightly delays the winter counteroffensive and slightly reduces the overall effects.

With this in mind, concentration of the infantry would be essential to me in providing enough units to hammer through your carpets. I would also think this necessary even at the risk of allowing the Soviet local success against thin infantry screens elsewhere on the map. Just a theory.


On a lightly different note.

I saw somewhere a suggestion to reduceblizzard toe's to 50% and will look at that in my test game. I am also considering an approach that sacrifices the allies on the winter lines allowing the german units to stay snug in the cities. I believe this would only work if the morale and MP limits of the Soviets would limit breakthroughs until the mountain divisions can firebrigade the openings. A Soviet viewpoint on this would be appreciated. (P.S. Some might find this strategy a bit distasteful as it would look like the Axis Kurt von Robinberg compared to the Soviet Comrade Robinovich.)

[notenome]

Beginning of Turn 12

[notenome]

Quick update:
 
So I stupidly ended the turn before taking screenshots. The bug in the version me and P were using proved pretty devasting, about 20% of my units had no move, which means I had to leave 18 divisions in the South to their fate. Oh well. We isolated the northernmost spearhead near Smolensk and put a large bandage around the southern one. In the Crimea the pullback went as planned and a checkerboard was formed in the South. I'm railing some 40 formations to that area, I just need to buy a little bit of time.
 
So we have 5 more weeks of clear weather for the Axis, and the scenario I'm working with right now involves loosing the 3 Donbass cities, Poltava, Smolensk, Bryansk and maybe Vyazma. considering the direction of the Axis attack, it is quite possible I will hold on to Kiev. I didn't expect to (no one playing the Soviets does, or should) but if the situation keeps developing as I expect it to, all Axis gains in the South will become irrelevent. Once we hit the mud I will make/post some comprehensive maps to ilustrate my apraisal of the situation.
 
As I begin planning my Winter counteroffensive, I need to know about frozen rivers. At what turn does the Dnieper fully freeze?
 
Good lord, just noticed i have some horrible typos in the mega pictures ('I had building since turn 3'; lovely).

[kfmiller41]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I just use paint and glue my screenies together and then save them as jpegs. So far haven't had any problems. Thanks for the complements.

Are you talking about paint from windows? I can't figure out how to glue them together (call me simple I guess[:D])

[randallw]

I see a tendency to have a division forward then 2 right behind it; this turns out unfortunate for some places, since it adds extra divisions to be encircled.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: miller41

ORIGINAL: notenome

I just use paint and glue my screenies together and then save them as jpegs. So far haven't had any problems. Thanks for the complements.

Are you talking about paint from windows? I can't figure out how to glue them together (call me simple I guess[:D])

You can use cut and paste to put together several screen shots in paint. Helps to have two instances of paint open while you are doing it.

[notenome]

I pretty much never stack divisions when I defend in depth, randal, that's either an HQ, a routed unit or lack of mps.

[CarnageINC]

I must pay more attention to your AAR, your counter attacks have been very good for the most part.  Good work on the AAR, keep it up sir.

[Flaviusx]

Major rivers will fully freeze over the first turn of blizzard.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Schmauser


On a lightly different note.

I saw somewhere a suggestion to reduceblizzard toe's to 50% and will look at that in my test game. I am also considering an approach that sacrifices the allies on the winter lines allowing the german units to stay snug in the cities. I believe this would only work if the morale and MP limits of the Soviets would limit breakthroughs until the mountain divisions can firebrigade the openings. A Soviet viewpoint on this would be appreciated. (P.S. Some might find this strategy a bit distasteful as it would look like the Axis Kurt von Robinberg compared to the Soviet Comrade Robinovich.)

You'll lose the axis minors. They don't come back from the deadpile, btw. You'll miss those in clear weather in terms of garrisons once the Germans in winter quarters return to the field.

What's more, the Soviet is going to run up the score and massively inflate his morale and experience slapping around these weak units. And they won't take as heavy losses fighting the minors. You can expect the Red Army to hit the cap on guards rifle divisions, and have plenty of guards cavalry (which has no cap.)

The Red Army will come out of the blizzard strong and experienced.

[notenome]

The best Axis defence is probably a strong spoilling attack coupled with a pullback. That should allow you to minimize the effect of the December blizzard. That, judicious use of mountain divisions and a rotation policy of units to towns and cities (rarely seem to see Axis players do that).

On a related note I've been thinking about starting an Axis PBEM but a) just the thought of that opening turn 1 move (especially in the South) gives me the chills and b) I'd have to play another tester or else I'd have version compatibility issues with Comrade's version.

[notenome]

So let's head straight for the money shot. ComradeP isolated 31 formations in the center along exactly the same axis I predicted he would. The weak link in the chain was a 13-13 panzer division with only two hexes of frontage, of which one involved crossing a major river. Now I knew I could never muster up the CVs to get decent odds, so I improvised.

I launched 4 different hasty and deliberate attacks, all under different armies, in an effort to wear down the panzer division (and make it spend ammo). Then I sent in the main attack under 20th Army (under newly appointed Rokossovky) with half of Western Front's artillery. Despite only being able to muster 5 divisions for the assault, the panzer division retreated with fairly heavy losses (53 out of 122 AFVs lost). I figure that I made the overstretched division spend so much ammo that it really couldn't fight for very long, as it lost 2029 men to my final assaults 571, despite the initial CVs being 120 to 73. Even better, the attack had final odds of 3.3:1, which means it would have worked even without the +1 bonus. Its a purely temporary victory, and those troops will be reisolated next turn. But it's one more turn the Smolensk bloodbath continues, and ComradeP will only have 4 more turns of clear weather. I'll play the rest of the turn out tommorrow.

[Flaviusx]

You are truly doing a first class job with the tar baby by Smolensk, Notenome. It's a nail biter, and you're on the edge of a disaster, but keep pulling the big attacks out of your butt and having Pieter bogged down. And the clock is ticking.

If Pieter can ever lock you down, it will get ugly. Nevertheless, I like your style. Make him work for it.