NKVD supermen

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

A couple more points about sec units.
Because you can keep them out in front during 41, they're ideally placed for reconverting hexes in front of Axis spearhead units, especially infantry.It's only 1 or 2 MPs usually but it's anoying for your Axis opponent and can occasionally make a big difference.
Because of their ZOC they can cover quite a lot of ground defensively, forcing the Axix player to either waste time going around them or whacking them.I think that taking away this ZOC advantage for smaller units would be one sensible way of solving the problem.

Are you willing to eliminate ZOCs for German breakdown regiments?

[timmyab]

Yes.
What would be ideal is if you could vary the ZOC effect according to the CV of the unit.The same could then apply to divisions.Strong division = strong ZOC, weak division = weak ZOC.

[Ketza]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: timmyab

A couple more points about sec units.
Because you can keep them out in front during 41, they're ideally placed for reconverting hexes in front of Axis spearhead units, especially infantry.It's only 1 or 2 MPs usually but it's anoying for your Axis opponent and can occasionally make a big difference.
Because of their ZOC they can cover quite a lot of ground defensively, forcing the Axix player to either waste time going around them or whacking them.I think that taking away this ZOC advantage for smaller units would be one sensible way of solving the problem.

Are you willing to eliminate ZOCs for German breakdown regiments?

I am willing to take away ZOCS for all ants. I am for what makes sense not what one side or the other may get as an advantage.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
I have never really worried about this from the Soviet end. I know how to wreck an ant defense by the Germans and even invite them to do this. All this does is give the Red Army a superb opportunity to grind the Werhmacht to powder.

The real problem for the Red Army is grinding through forts and breaking out into the open.

Many cases it takes multiple turns to open up well fortified German line even with large number of red troops. Reason for this is that red army have delibarate attack so many stack of troops to clear eatch well fortified hex that they cant clear many fortified hexes per turn. This gives german multiple turns to react or pull back.

Removing ZOC of german regiments would allow red army to exploit German rear areas with mobile units a lot faster than what is currently possible. I would love to rule that I only need bust one German regiment to be able to roll half of German line isolated in one turn with my two dozen tank corpses supported with one dozen mechanised corpes along with couple cavalry corpses.

Instead of having to grind trough the line multiple turns.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Are you willing to eliminate ZOCs for German breakdown regiments?

I am willing to take away ZOCS for all ants. I am for what makes sense not what one side or the other may get as an advantage.

You spend far more MP's doing several hasty attacks in the direction of your axis of advance than by getting into position so that you can attack it from a direction orthogonal to your axis of advance. Recalling the retreat rules:

ORIGINAL: Manual (paraphrased)

Defending units that have not shattered or routed will then attempt to retreat to a friendly
controlled hex using the following priorities:

1. Retreating units will tend to retreat to hexes not adjacent to enemy units.

2.They will try to avoid retreating into an over stack condition (i.e. a hex that already has three friendly units), but if they do, they must continue to retreat and take additional retreat attrition losses for each additional hex that they retreat through.

3. Retreating units tend to retreat to hexes that cost fewer MPs to reach, have rail lines, have fort levels and contain fewer friendly combat units.

4. Retreating over unfrozen minor river hexside causes double retreat attrition, while retreating over an unfrozen Major river hexside causes triple retreat attrition.

5. At the conclusion of the retreat, the retreating unit suffers retreat attrition once for each adjacent hex that contains an enemy combat unit.

I highlight the three most relevant items. While there's indeed something odd going with casualties - see ComradeP remarks regarding disrupted ground elements not taking losses on the "Toss Us a Bone" thread - with maneuver you can render "ants" irrelevant by maneuvering around the enemy to make it go away from your axis of advance.



Assume that your attacking unit starts the at hex #6. Hex #1 and Hex #5 are in your ZOC (and if the "ant" is a regiment, then they're converted to your side). Break down into regiments. Move one regiment to hex #5 (now you have ZOC on hex #4). Attack (hasty should do with NKVD "supermen", ants with more "stuff" into them, might require deliberate, such as low experience Rifle Divisions with 10,000 guys etc.). If everything goes well - might not, of course - the "ant" will be retreating into either #2 or #3. You can further constrain this by laying ZOCs as opportunity and material means allow.

This is, by the way, the way to deal with hedgehog defenses, it justs costs some MP, but far fewer than mindlessly bulldozing your way!

[Ketza]

I agree with the above mentioned way to play. I often "herd" units into pockets in such a fashion in particular when facing checkerboards. In many cases a directional hasty attack will lead to the units being pushed in such a fashion that they do not rout but retreat into the cauldron that is being set up.

My main issue which started this thread was that these NKVD units take an amazing amount of punishment and survive multiple attacks at enormous odds. Some do not think its a problem and some do. As with other items that I have had an issue with I post the perceived problem here just to give others a chance to comment on it.

[timmyab]

Don't forget though that your unit can't move like in that diagram without incurring heavy movement costs because of the ZOC especially if they're broken into regiments.Also well placed sec units will by definition be surrounded by friendly controlled hexes.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Don't forget though that your unit can't move like in that diagram without incurring heavy movement costs because of the ZOC especially if they're broken into regiments.Also well placed sec units will by definition be surrounded by friendly controlled hexes.

As I said, opportunity and material availability are key, very much as in any advice on tactics for a wargame. This was a general comment on tactics, certainly not an attempt to come up with a perfect, "I WIN" all the time strategy

EDIT: High morale breakdown units can enter enemy ZOC's quite well. These high morale units tend to be the norm for the Germans. For Soviets it's much harder, of course.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Ketza
My main issue which started this thread was that these NKVD units take an amazing amount of punishment and survive multiple attacks at enormous odds. Some do not think its a problem and some do. As with other items that I have had an issue with I post the perceived problem here just to give others a chance to comment on it.

Indeed, and I actually think there'll be some changes in that department soon, since now it's easier for testers and devs to collect data on tactical combat simulation.

I had the feeling that people were overlooking or not getting the point of what Flavius was referring to as "brushing away", so I thought that citing the rules and coming up with a diagram would help everyone to better visualize the argument.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
High morale breakdown units can enter enemy ZOC's quite well. These high morale units tend to be the norm for the Germans. For Soviets it's much harder, of course.

But they can't move 'through' ZOC as in the diagram without paying a high cost.A good infantry division can do this for sure but it would mean using it's entire turn, in which case I would be quite happy that the sec unit had done it's job very well.

[gargoil]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
High morale breakdown units can enter enemy ZOC's quite well. These high morale units tend to be the norm for the Germans. For Soviets it's much harder, of course.

But they can't move 'through' ZOC as in the diagram without paying a high cost.A good infantry division can do this for sure but it would mean using it's entire turn, in which case I would be quite happy that the sec unit had done it's job very well.

There are simple tactics that do not require a move from ZOC to ZOC. If you watch the battleline, you many times will see that an attack several hexes from the point of focus will automatically lead to the right hexes being occupied at the right moment to ensure herding the enemy retreat/rout in the direction you desire.

Here are a few tips:

1) Use any troops that are way behind the line that can reach it before troops closer to the line. That way they get their attack at those enemy they can reach BEFORE they are pushed further away.

2) Use troops with less MPs (as long as it is enough) before using troops with lots. Combined with 1) above, this makes for an enemy line being cleared while you still retain high MP units close to the opening created.

3) Watch the terrain. If your direct route is a swamp behind a river, realize that a longer route will most likely still take less MPs.

4) While the rules remain as they are for regiments having ZOC (which I favor), consider breaking down a division near the end of its move if it will be easily surrounded otherwise. Your 3 regiments can span out, created a perimeter, and help reach back to other units to form a continuous line of units and/or ZOC.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Gargoil

ORIGINAL: timmyab
But they can't move 'through' ZOC as in the diagram without paying a high cost.A good infantry division can do this for sure but it would mean using it's entire turn, in which case I would be quite happy that the sec unit had done it's job very well.

There are simple tactics that do not require a move from ZOC to ZOC. If you watch the battleline, you many times will see that an attack several hexes from the point of focus will automatically lead to the right hexes being occupied at the right moment to ensure herding the enemy retreat/rout in the direction you desire.

Here are a few tips:

1) Use any troops that are way behind the line that can reach it before troops closer to the line. That way they get their attack at those enemy they can reach BEFORE they are pushed further away.

2) Use troops with less MPs (as long as it is enough) before using troops with lots. Combined with 1) above, this makes for an enemy line being cleared while you still retain high MP units close to the opening created.

3) Watch the terrain. If your direct route is a swamp behind a river, realize that a longer route will most likely still take less MPs.

4) While the rules remain as they are for regiments having ZOC (which I favor), consider breaking down a division near the end of its move if it will be easily surrounded otherwise. Your 3 regiments can span out, created a perimeter, and help reach back to other units to form a continuous line of units and/or ZOC.

Nice tips Gargoil. We should compile part of this discussion on a thread in the War Room.

@timmyab: yes, I tend to choose a "sacrificial" unit to expend the MP's. Units as per Gargoil's 1) usually. I'm pretty sure it can be done more efficiently... and well, if I have to choose between have one motorized division (or other) not to advance too much and gaining freedom of maneuver with a larger force, I choose the latter. And the "ant" will have miserably failed, especially if it ends up in a nice pocket along with a bunch of comrades.

PS: I messed up with the

tags
PS2: Just noticed I messed up with the content of the "quote" tags

[Flaviusx]

So long as we are on the subject: this is why, if you are going to do a checkerboard, you ought to always leave two spaces between units, rather than one. Minimizes your liability to being herded into pockets.

[DorianGray]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

They tend to disband after such heavy losses. After a few turns used in this manner, most of them go away.

Honestly, guys, this entire issue seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. German players are doing quite nicely in 1941, and exceeding the real German army's accomplishments, notwithstanding the NKVD supermen.

I can't take these complaints seriously, unlike the maginot line 1942 stuff -- that's a genuine game balance issue, this is just German bellyaching.

I don't think it is fair to dismiss these complaints as "bellyaching" when someone has taken the time and effort to support their arguments with screenshots and examples of the extreme NKVD Texas-Alamo-like behavior.

For me, I would like to see this addressed and corrected as it is subject to exploitation by a savy RU player.

And, for-the-record, I was in favor of nerfing the HQ Build-Up function that was getting exploited by savy GE players as well.

NKVD troops were not some super resilent delaying rear-guard left behind to blow bridges, etc. In operational military terms, they were, for the most part, BEHIND the RU lines to bolster RU formation "morale" by meeting retreating formations with a a machine-gun delivered incentive to stand fast.

If anything, formations stacked with NKVD troops should get a bonus to morale or require a greater ratio to force a retreat.

The current way the NKVD troops are currently modeled in the game system is improper.

[Jakerson]

Now I must admit that even I have started to think that NKVD security regiments are too powerful. I hasty attacked isolated sec regiment 4 times this turn in one of my game without surrender (with full powered german infantry div that CV is about 8). This is nuts I have never seen any unit even german surviving that much attacking while isolated without surrender.

[Michael T]

Now I must admit that even I have started to think that NKVD security regiments are too powerful. I hasty attacked isolated sec regiment 4 times this turn in one of my game without surrender (with full powered german infantry div that CV is about 8). This is nuts I have never seen any unit even german surviving that much attacking while isolated without surrender

Careful, or you will be labled a bellyacher [:D]

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

Now I must admit that even I have started to think that NKVD security regiments are too powerful. I hasty attacked isolated sec regiment 4 times this turn in one of my game without surrender (with full powered german infantry div that CV is about 8). This is nuts I have never seen any unit even german surviving that much attacking while isolated without surrender.

In these attacks while isolated, did it ever retreat into an Axis ZOC?

[ComradeP]

Units with above 50 morale tend not to surrender after one battle unless it can only move into enemy ZOC, which seems to give an undocumented higher chance of surrender, possibly because the retreat priority system views it as a poor location to retreat to. "Herding" surrounded units in a way that they will generally move into ZOC when they retreat can be a real challenge.

The NKVD units behave no differently than, say, the better quality units in the Lvov pockets, as unlike their counterparts of Northwestern and Western Front, they don't roll over and die after 1 attack most of the time.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: jaw
In these attacks while isolated, did it ever retreat into an Axis ZOC?

Nope because I bypassed those NKVD sec units and left them deep behind German lines as possible. I left only one unit behind to deal with isolated NKVD regiments so it was not possible to push them to ZOC while isolated.

I probably should have just attacked them until they rout isolating them don’t help to deal with them faster. Isolating them with multiple units and ZOC from all sides instead of advancing is a waste that’s why I bypassed them as deep as possible.

[jaw]

Pavel seems to indicate that if you make a deliberate attack on an NKVD regiment it is more likely to shatter/rout. I haven't yet tried this myself but that seemed to be what I gathered from email back and forth with him on this issue. We are currently studying it.