Death Ride to Russia: Q-Ball (Axis) v smokindave(Sov). 1.05 beta

[Ketza]

The only real negative to placing units in static is that once you "wake them up" they cannot attack. They can still retreat out of a potential disaster if need be. As long as you have a reserve of APs you should have no issues waking up a line if the Soviet player launches an all out offensive in an area. You should be doing a fair amount of recon so that much of a strategic surprise should not happen anyway.

Saving 20k troops in attrition every turn is no joke. That is saving a million men in a year as well as obtaining higher fort levels.

Until one of my games proves it wrong I think this is a must for the Axis once they go over to the strategic defensive.

[ComradeP]

The reduced attrition is indeed nice, although I don't know if you'd save 20k each turn with the reduced overall attrition.

However, the benefits of that advantage would all be for nothing if the Soviets encircle some divisions because you couldn't move them more than 1 hex and they couldn't attack.

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Q-Ball, keep the new detection rules in mind, which basically mean you can't identify Guards (and he can't identify the SS) unless they're next to the frontline in most cases.

I'm very happy that the practice of "recon shells" that is sometimes used in WitP is not a standard strategy for WitE, as "recon bombing" presumably shows you what the defending units are and how many men are in the hex. I never do any ground attacks with my air units myself, so I don't know if it would actually work.

RE: Guards, I know he has at least 5 Guards Rifles, but they are all off the front-line now, and I can't see them. That tells me he is probably forming a strategic reserve of his best formations. I'm sure I'll see those guys once the Summer offensive starts!

The "Recon Shells" in WITP was the only way to get any kind of OOB for the ground units in the hex. That didn't bother me as much as "Recon Bombs", which always identify the unit you are bombing.

You never GROUND BOMB? Isn't it a good way to increase fatigue ahead of an attack? I had always assumed it helped?[&:]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Given his lack of offensive tempo, I have to believe his guards count is not real high. I just don't see how it can be to be honest and certainly not in any numbers where it could have a big impact in the early going.

I am very curious to see how this will play out because while you gave up some ground, he really didn't push the attack real hard either.

I agree on the Guards. Conveniently, the Red Army numbers Guards units consecutively, so the highest number I identified was "5th Guards Rifle Division". There may be a few more out there that are now making their die rolls, but I doubt it's a massive number.

I did trade ground to avoid attacks, and I also think B-G didn't press very hard. Maybe he is conserving Red Army strength which may be wise, not sure. Certainly halting the last couple weeks of February has it's merits, whatever you capture you can't figure to hold anyway unless the German attacks elsewhere.

ORIGINAL: CarnageINC

One thought on your command structure. How are your leading assault troops for leadership? You have the creme de la creme in place?

For the Panzer Corps/Armies, YES. The Germans don't have any truly terrible Panzer commanders, but I have sacked mediocre guys like Kuntzen and Stumme and getting Hube and a couple other good ones in play. Same for the Infantry.

I haven't settled on a specific HQ for the assault, so I may change it later. I have sacked the original commanders of 11th and 17th Armies, who kind of suck, and replaced them with Lindemann and Mackensen (not the absolute tops, but cheap replacements)

IMO, getting the top leaders in Panzer Corps is important.

ORIGINAL: Ketza

The only real negative to placing units in static is that once you "wake them up" they cannot attack. They can still retreat out of a potential disaster if need be. As long as you have a reserve of APs you should have no issues waking up a line if the Soviet player launches an all out offensive in an area. You should be doing a fair amount of recon so that much of a strategic surprise should not happen anyway.

Saving 20k troops in attrition every turn is no joke. That is saving a million men in a year as well as obtaining higher fort levels.

Until one of my games proves it wrong I think this is a must for the Axis once they go over to the strategic defensive.

I agree, saving losses over the long haul is job #1 for the Wehrmacht. You forego counterattacks that one turn with Infantry, but chances are a) they aren't your freshest units anyway, and b) true Panzer support is a turn away regardless.

A Soviet counterstrategy is to force you to constantly "wake up" sections of the front, forcing you to spend APs, and increasing attrition losses

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The reduced attrition is indeed nice, although I don't know if you'd save 20k each turn with the reduced overall attrition.

However, the benefits of that advantage would all be for nothing if the Soviets encircle some divisions because you couldn't move them more than 1 hex and they couldn't attack.

Just putting just south (10-15 hexs) of Smolensk north in static will save about 10k per turn. 500,000 a yr.BUT I would keep atleast 200 ap in reserve, this will activate about 30 divisions which should be more then enough to "save" the day. If you have 1 inf and 1 panzer corp in reserve that would ne more then enough to stay safe and save allot of manpower and armaments that can be used during offensive operations during summer.

Also attacking during snow and clear turns during spring will increase moral of all units taking part in attacks and keep his fort belt from becoming 6 ot 8 hexes deep by June.

Pelton

[ComradeP]

Interesting, didn't know the benefits could be that serious now. I haven't played a campaign that got to 1942 as the Axis since the reduced attrition for static units was added.

You never GROUND BOMB? Isn't it a good way to increase fatigue ahead of an attack? I had always assumed it helped?

As the Axis, I feel most bombing missions cause unnecessary losses to my tactical bombers often for a not too impressive result, and I need my level bombers for supply missions. With the reduction in the amount of aircraft that will generally fly, there seems to be even less reason to do so than before. The small increase in fatigue isn't really going to help much, as you won't hit the elements that can really hurt you (mortars, SMG squads) most of the time. I guess the attacks would consume some of the defender's ammo, but I try not to exploit the flaws of the supply/ammunition usage system.

As the Soviets, I could probably use my large and obsolete level bombing formations for it, but as I disband the SAD bases, I don't have nearly enough bases to put them all on the map and keep the bases within reasonable limits of support requirements. I prefer to use my Il-2's just for ground support. With the latest changes, not that many tend to fly most of the time, but I guess by 1943 or so, when you have more groups, it could be useful.

[KenchiSulla]

ComradeP, I bomb for the disruption they cause... it helps get fatigue up. It might just make you succeed the attack! I use it if the attack ABSOLUTELY has to succeed (getting a pocket open)

It might not help the axis a lot though.....

End of Hijack..

[Ketza]

My attrition losses dropped from 35k or so down to 11k in a straight mud turn with no battles. This was consistent for several turns.

Your own mileage may vary.

[Q-Ball]

T37: Last Turn of Blizzard, 2/26/42

Although B-G could attack this turn and run the total up slightly, he hasn't moved in a couple turns, so I don't expect any.

Last turn, I posted a MAP of the theater, and now I am posting NUMBERS.

Assessment:

At the risk of breaking my arm patting myself on the back, I think I had a good Blizzard considering. I halted early in the Summer to construct defenses, had backup defense lines planned and built, and deliberately traded space for time in a methodical way. Basically, I had a plan and executed it, IMO, save for that brain fart in the Crimea. I didn't extend myself, or expose units unnecessarily to attacks or attrition.

I did get some help though; first, that FORT BUG helped me allowing me to use non-combat units to save forts. It at least saved me APs, as I would have built more Fort Zones than I did (I did build around 100 or so).

I was impacted at the end of Summer by the AIR COMMAND bug, which basically wiped out Luftwaffe bombers, so maybe it's a break even on BUGS.

Finally, it could also be that 1.05 has less impactful SOVIET offensive. This is very possible. I will find out when I get there in my game as Soviets, but the days of 100 attacks a turn are probably over regardless.

I think B-G kept reserves and prepped well for Winter. He mustered his forces, and used Cav Corps. I think he played conservatively, but it's always hard to see from the other side. Maybe he felt he couldn't wear his guys out.

Snow Plans:

I didn't want units to stay outside for another turn and lose Morale, so this turn we got everyone moving toward a few attack points.

We are gathering formations to attack around OREL, DONBAS and KHARKOV. These are limited attacks to pocket troops and get across major rivers before clear; also, get him out of his recently dug forts, and in open terrain.

It will take awhile to get it fully going; we didn't have the rail capacity to move everyone at once, but we should have a total of 15 Fresh Infantry, and a like number of Fresh Mobile units attacking.

A major offensive is tough to put together at the end of Blizzard, unless you want units spending time outside losing morale, which I don't.

Numbers:

I am posting extensive numbers for posterity.

There has been alot of chatter around MORALE for Infantry Formations, so I posted a full report of Morale and TOE%. That was pain in the butt to put together, so hopefully it is somewhat helpful.

The averages look pretty good, though if I filtered out the divisions that sheltered for Winter, and the recent arrivals, the average for Morale is probably low-60s, with TOE in the 60s.

[Peltonx]

Wow you look to be in very good shape.

His winter O was really allot weaker then I expected. All Blizzard offensive look good the first month, but his really fell short during mid january.

I think you raiding Moscow really lowered his incoming manpower+ you hit historical Production losses (54). You only killed 3 mil before blizzard which is average now adays.

Eather he is not very good at blizzard O or the loses in manpower and armaments really hurt his winter O.

Nice Job.

Your plan seems very sound for snow and spring, before big O during summer.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Finally, it could also be that 1.05 has less impactful SOVIET offensive. This is very possible. I will find out when I get there in my game as Soviets, but the days of 100 attacks a turn are probably over regardless.

On my first blizzard turn (25) I just have managed 65 attacks, of which 43 retreats [8D] On the turn 26, 51 attacks of which 36 retreats (I am writing down all these numbers on an excel that I will screenshot when I will update the AAR, at the end of Blizzard). Less attacks on turn 26 simply because Marquo is er... running away [:D]

*sarcasm on* this is absolutely intolerable, these hill billy tactics should not be allowed blah blah blah *sarcasm off*

Now I have to make my turn 27. Marquo has ran away again (chicken!), leaving two buffer hexes between my hordes and the victims... I understand this strategy. But at this rate I will be advancing minimum 20 hexes come turn 37 [;)] Oh, I just got the 1st Guards Army this turn.

But of course I am utterly agressive, just like you: you had managed +100 attacks vs Tarhunnas. So I suspect you still CAN attack a lot under 1.05, don't worry. Unless your opponent gives up land. A lot of land.

[ComradeP]

Attacking yourself to death as the Soviets now seems to be a very real threat. My Rifle elements are taking pretty high losses in attacks against the AI's German units, although the losses can be replaced in 1941. With the ~40.000 drop in replacements in 1942, keeping an offensive going becomes more difficult. As the AI's morale is at 110, morale/experience is better than it would normally be for the Axis, but Axis losses when retreating in 1941 have in many cases notably decreased in recent patches, especially for the infantry.

[TulliusDetritus]

disregard [:)]

[Q-Ball]

Another factor may be just personal preference of Bletchley Geek. He didn't have tons of attacks, but had a very high success rate; he was "making sure" on every attack. That is a more conservative approach, but also one which doesn't get as many guys killed. We each lost about 600K in Blizzard.

Against Tarhunnas, I attacked anything close to 1-1, and lost about 30% of my battles: A much lower success rate. All those attacks meant the German losses were higher, but so were mine; we each lost about 1 mil in that game. (a 1.04 game). Both armies were fried. I had about 400K lower as Reds after Blizzard than B-G does now (granted, Wehrmacht was smaller)

So, it may be that B-G experienced what ComradeP said, which is that Rifle units burned out quickly and became unready, which halted him. This is very possible, because it seems like he couldn't sustain hardly any drive. Maybe the units just "burnt".

Its' hard to say until I get there in Blizzard on the other side, which should be illuminating (which is why I play both sides).

[Q-Ball]

T38: 3/5/42: First turn of SNOW after Blizzard:

BLAM!

Snow sure turns things around. In fact, it was a little easy to push the Soviets around first turn. I hope the game balance is OK.

B-G had troops in depth in these areas, but we managed to acheive a good breakthrough near Voroshilovgrad. I didn't have all the units available I wanted, because I am still moving up good units; the limitation is Rail Cap. It will be 3 more turns before all my good units are at the front.

Around OREL, it's basically just a push to get him out of forts, and off my rail line.

Further SOUTH, we are pushing NE from Voroshilovgrad. This was primarily to bag a few units, and also decieve BG a bit. I could go straight for Rostov, but saving that for Spring; I want to unhinge the line first.

We also shot down alot of VVS planes this turn. Like, over 400.

[Baelfiin]

I think you will find that you will be able to generate a lot of movement in the new version in the snow. If you spend some time chewing on the russian army, by august you could be on your way to Stalingrad !!

[Peltonx]

Nice job. Part of why it was so easy:

Your saving troops and his lack of a full offensive during Blizzard. He should have kept pushing and lowered your+ his troop levels, big mistake on his part.

He will still have close to 7 million men by June.

Pelton

[ComradeP]

Even now that the odds modifier is gone, you still have to worry about counterattacks.

Him stacking his units 3 high next to your units is a major mistake.

[Klydon]

Have to make hay before he can get tank corps formed and start breaking pockets easier, although with cav corps, he has units that make it easier for him to break pockets.

Those fresh units do indeed look nasty, but unfortunately there are likely not as many as you would like to see and they will deflate down after mud.

Have to start banging away at his units and make him spend as much AP on new formations as possible. He should be relatively low in that depending on how many cav corps he formed. He can have all the manpower/armaments he wants, but if he doesn't have enough counters for it all..

[Q-Ball]

The above pocket has a couple holes, and I don't expect it to completely hold. I do expect, though, that those units are doomed anyway, it just may take an extra turn.

I didn't have the units to seal it completely. The units at the top, in particular, should re-establish contact next turn. For a turn, anyway.

3-deep stacks is a problem for the Russians. The problem is that units will rout simply because they don't have a retreat path. I think that's the reason for alot of those routed units.

[mmarquo]

"Now I have to make my turn 27. Marquo has ran away again (chicken!), leaving two buffer hexes between my hordes and the victims... I understand this strategy. But at this rate I will be advancing minimum 20 hexes come turn 37 Oh, I just got the 1st Guards Army this turn."

Yeah, but TD is not telling the whole story, a clear case of propaganda reporting.

1. Why in the world would the Axis stand fast a be subject to deliberate attacks which are all going to succeed?
2. A large part of his successful attacks are hasy so not as bad as it would seem.
3. He forgot to fill you in on all of the failed attacks aka "Held."
4. The blizzard effects start to dissipate In January so I will not be retreating 20 hexes, and even if I did so what? It is only 20 hexes and Russia is huge

Marquo