How to lose the war - PDH vs Cpt Flam

[kirkgregerson]

Is it just me or does this Soviet player seem not to learn from previous mistakes? This last bulge he had was such an obvious place for an Axis player to attack. Really? Does he not have anything behind the lines near those exposed and OBVIOUSLY places for an encirclement breakthrough? I'm no mastermind WitE player, but that is just too obviously and it's almost as if the Soviet player is telegraphing "Here's a nice bulge of units, come cut them all off".

What am I missing here? Very disappointed in the Soviet players strategy throughout this AAR. Granted the axis players is definitely very skilled and deserves most of the credit. The Soviet player is just outmatched or as I posted earlier isn't taking the game very seriously and doing any analysis before his turns to determine any strategies or counter strategies.

I think the really issue here is the game balance is fine and only getting better with v1.04. But when you put a novice player vs an expert (or just smart) player the outcome is predictable. But for balance in the game, that is a good thing.

[Altaris]

Kirk, you are absolutely correct, IMO, but PDH has asked that no negative comments be made against his opponent's gameplay, and I wish to respect that request. Having tinkered with the Soviets some, and played against a very good Soviet opponent in a PBEM game, I will say the key to good Soviet play seems to be knowing when to pull back and when to stand firm (to potentially trap). I think a far more prudent strategy for the Soviet player in this case would have been to have a good solid line on the very front line, then checkerboard behind that, especially in the exposed areas where PDH ended up linking his attacks. This would have had the potential for trapping PDH with his panzers exposed, and possibly a devastating defeat to the Germans early on. If units weren't available to do this, then he should've pulled back out of the salient rather than risk having so many units lost.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Kirk, you are absolutely correct, IMO, but PDH has asked that no negative comments be made against his opponent's gameplay, and I wish to respect that request. Having tinkered with the Soviets some, and played against a very good Soviet opponent in a PBEM game, I will say the key to good Soviet play seems to be knowing when to pull back and when to stand firm (to potentially trap). I think a far more prudent strategy for the Soviet player in this case would have been to have a good solid line on the very front line, then checkerboard behind that, especially in the exposed areas where PDH ended up linking his attacks. This would have had the potential for trapping PDH with his panzers exposed, and possibly a devastating defeat to the Germans early on. If units weren't available to do this, then he should've pulled back out of the salient.

Ditto. Also note TD's Russian strategy in his most recent AAR: find the panzers then send in the hordes to mob them in a deep carpet BUT while keeping a small reserve on the flanks of the flanks to cut off and isolate the spearheads if only for one-half turn.

[PeeDeeAitch]

First of all, Cpt Flam reads this AAR, and thus my statements are sometimes "in the past" or perhaps not telling all the truth. I don't show shots of strengths when I don't wish these to be know.

I admit it, I also use this AAR not to bounce ideas around but also to show just how wide my range of options are. The arrows on previous pages showed that I had multiple options I felt, not just the one choice.

Thus, when it came time to attack, I had 3 different axes to potentially follow just in the Tambov region. You will note that I didn't follow exactly any of the options I talked about, instead I used the huge air recon ability of the Germans to find the path that had the least resistance. The direct cutting of the bulge had four lines of level 3 and 4 forts. The way I went had two lines, a checkerboard in between, of level 3 and 4 forts. Furthermore, I "widened" the bridgehead at this point 2 turns before but purposefully staffed the front lines with tanks. Why? Everyone knows that the initial attacks will be infantry, not the panzers. I, in effect, wasted a tank corps in my path of attack solely to point out that I most likely would not attack in that direction. Behind the point where the arrows were, I massed the panzers - again further allaying fear because they had farther to go to exploit (including for 4 corps crossing the Don).

As it was, one corps managed to exploit - yes, he was remiss in not having a couple more divisions behind there deep, but they were indeed behind in a checkerboard behind where he thought I would attack. Remember, in this game he only has 4.7 million troops, far less than the Red Army often has in 1942, mostly because of my 1941 campaign.

You will also note that the north (4th and 3rd Panzer) did not do more than link up to the south. They didn't break through.

For all the doubters this was a near run thing, and while do see one thing he could have done. However, I also note that many have not placed themselves in the same position in 1942, many do not seem to use the same type of misdirection, so the arguments are moot. Cpt Flam is playing a nice "carpet and checkerboard" game against another player, he sent me shots. The Leningrad region looks much like TD's...showing how it is perhaps, perhaps the German play that influences this.

[PeeDeeAitch]

When I have two panzer corps I would rather face a carpet of single divisions (even 5 deep) than break three lines of stacked divisions - even if both are level 3 entrenchments. I have learned that rested panzers can 'bounce' single divisions in many cases, but they must deliberat attack stacks. A 40CV stack of panzers with attachments is a demon even in hasty attacks.

[pompack]

Yes. One of the difficulties we "Sidewalk Supervisors" have in avoiding comments that "step on it" is the snapshot nature of AARs in this game: we see the "after" sometimes the "before" and sometimes even the "before" after recce but we don't see the step by step slogging match that routs the defenders neatly out of the picture (in all senses). Thus we have a tendency to see a nice pink area full of Germans with Russians neatly bagged to the side and say "Gee, he really should have put someone there to defend that gap".[:D]

Lesson noted [:)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

In part for the sake of humor, in part storytelling, in part just because screenshots are a pain for me, I present a very 'directed' picture. Part of what the Axis player needs is a sense of invulnerability as long as possible. Thus, how I report.

[cpt flam]

just for some info
in the north where PDH had some problems wes Kalinin Front with 2 Shock armys
in the south where 3 or 4 armys belonging to South Front

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: Altaris

Kirk, you are absolutely correct, IMO, but PDH has asked that no negative comments be made against his opponent's gameplay, and I wish to respect that request. Having tinkered with the Soviets some, and played against a very good Soviet opponent in a PBEM game, I will say the key to good Soviet play seems to be knowing when to pull back and when to stand firm (to potentially trap). I think a far more prudent strategy for the Soviet player in this case would have been to have a good solid line on the very front line, then checkerboard behind that, especially in the exposed areas where PDH ended up linking his attacks. This would have had the potential for trapping PDH with his panzers exposed, and possibly a devastating defeat to the Germans early on. If units weren't available to do this, then he should've pulled back out of the salient rather than risk having so many units lost.

My sincere apologies. I was just trying to make an observation, but I see how it could have been construed as negative. I wish there was a way to help Cpt Flm, it's hard to watch the same pattern of encirclements and I'm really trying to understand what the soviet difficulties are to counter them? In the future I will refrain from these sort of comments. For what it's worth, I believe PeeDeeAitch would kick my ass too.

[kirkgregerson]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Yes. One of the difficulties we "Sidewalk Supervisors" have in avoiding comments that "step on it" is the snapshot nature of AARs in this game: we see the "after" sometimes the "before" and sometimes even the "before" after recce but we don't see the step by step slogging match that routs the defenders neatly out of the picture (in all senses). Thus we have a tendency to see a nice pink area full of Germans with Russians neatly bagged to the side and say "Gee, he really should have put someone there to defend that gap".[:D]

Lesson noted [:)]

This was not the case in my observations of this AAR. You could see it coming, and thus I was not using any sort of 20/20 hindsight. Like I had said, the pattern is there and PeeDeeAitch has been very quick to attempt to encircle/remove any Soviet salients.

[cpt flam]

I must reconize having made a lot of errors
part of my actual problem is railcap around 70 000
not so much to move factories
just arrived in june where Div cost only 10 AP now
all my front HQ where overloaded (not great to have a good movement cap.)
I was to focused about Tula meanwhise [&o]

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

And for those who worried that the 402nd Bicycle Recon might have had a rough winter busting through drifts in their mountain bikes, here they are!

All very well, but where are their bicycles?

[PeeDeeAitch]

Panzerbikes. The solid steel frames of the 402nd Bicycle Recon can deflect small arms fire. Here they are in action:

[PeeDeeAitch]

Perhaps it is time to wind down this AAR.

[Ketza]

Dont stop the AAR!

theres not many left [:(]

[veji1]

yeah keep posting until the bitter or sweet end !

[kirkgregerson]

can't stop, don't stop

[krupp_88mm]

do the panzer bikes get side-skirt upgrades, maybe you should send those bikes for refit to 21 speed

[Encircled]

Attack strength "6" with bikes!

Is it possible to disguise a Tiger Tank as a particularly large bike?

[PeeDeeAitch]

Well, Cpt Flam encouraged me to keep posting this.

The pocket finally held on the "double mud" turns at the end of May beginning of June. Not enough movement points to reopen, though it was close. The first clear June turn allowed reduction of the pocket, and this continued through turn 53, the mud turn. Not done after 2 weeks, and perhaps 800k surrenders so far.

Here is the pocket, now beyond all hope of rescue.