Helio's Axis AAR (v Cannonfodder Soviet)

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

For the Moscow area, I can only repeat my advise of not pushing further east with the units at Ryazan, but instead wheeling towards the units trying to encircle Moscow from the north. Pushing further east gets you nothing whilst making your supply situation even more problematic than it will probably already be when the mud comes. I also repeat the warning of units losing morale when either out of supply or poorly supplied, so pay very close attention to those MP to railhead costs, particularly across the Oka.

Unless I can get one of the two rail lines that run north-south across the Oka to Moscow in the next 2 turns (which I doubt), the units on the eastern side of the Oka are more feint than threat at this point. I understand that as soon as the mud arrives, supply won't be going across that river without railroad.

CF sent me a message when I shared my misery at the Ju-52 mission, saying he thought Moscow was untenable given the threat to its supply line. I don't think he realizes that I don't have the ability to supply enough mass to cut that last line. I just can't see that situation working to my advantage in the north, either, but it might unhinge the center enough that the attack from the western side can continue to make progress.

I don't see Moscow falling before snow, and thus, probably not at all.

I would like some advice on setting up forts: when, and starting where?

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Helio, if you take Moscow, I am going to laugh my ass off. You've spilled a lot of electrons lecturing us how the game is broken and biased in favor of the Soviets. A lot of nonsense, quite frankly. Games where both Leningrad and Moscow fall will become relatively common in this patch.

Mostly I wish you'd start cultivating a bit more sangfroid when playing these games. It's very difficult to take your criticisms seriously when looking at how you are actually doing.

Well, if you read my post below yours, you'll see I don't think that will happen.
Remember, too, that CF over-reacted to the Kursk pocket and has 50% more divisions than he needs between Ryazan and Voroshilovgrad. That's an area of 20 hexes that he could pull probably 25 divisions from (since an experienced Soviet player would know that the Axis can't muster much supply capacity in that region, but CF is on his 2nd PvP game). So he's diluted his front at Moscow and I don't deserve much credit for "taking what the Soviet gives me"

Moreover and most importantly:
My success at driving east was fostered by the bug affecting railhead supply distance. I could build up to 5 hexes away from the existing rail line. Remember that starting on turn 2, I doubled up rail FBDs in the south. In the center I doubled-down around turn 9. These have had enormous dividends.

No factor has contributed more to my success than the railroad bug, so again, you're right that the game was broken in the Axis' favor (my ability to admit my own biases up front and to revise my positions in face of contradictory evidence appears to me to be a superior to yours, which I think makes my arguments stronger than what I see you positing). So this game's Moscow threat, certainly, has to be seen in that light of a bug and an opponent mistake that I have taken leveraged.

Note that despite these bugs, in the South I'm not going to touch the all-important armaments, and my devotion to trying (and probably failing) to take Moscow will cost me a lot of medium-sized population centers in the south. Population denial was the strategy I was attempting (through casualties and population centers). The Soviets don't lose the game in 1941, right? Germany sure can. And my strategic choices may have been misguided for the long-haul game. Now, I give CF full credit here for good play. My offensive was compromised significantly by the force and time it took to hold 57 divisions in a pocket.

I'm pretty sure I will have a relatively easy blizzard, but as a result of failing at Moscow and on armaments, I expect to have a very difficult 1942 (particularly if his blizzard is small-scale, meaning he has units in strong forts by June 42).

[Flaviusx]

Stop obsessing over armaments. Please. The entire factory raiding business is terribly wrongheaded. The people who are winning games now aren't chasing factories. They're doing it the old fashioned way: they are demolishing the Red Army. This is at it should be.

[ComradeP]

supply won't be going across that river without railroad.

In that case, you should seriously considering pulling your mobile units back across the Oka on turn 17, as you can't afford them losing morale due to not receiving enough supplies (if they're getting enough now to begin with) and you also can't afford having them start the winter with barely any fuel.

On a similar note, the push you're making north of Moscow is also probably not logistically viable.

I would like some advice on setting up forts: when, and starting where?

That depends almost entirely on what you want to do in the snow turns, the last remaining clear turns and in 1942.

[Peltonx]

Make sure you have 1 or 2 divisions on north and south side of Moscow hqed up and ready to roll if you get a opening. High moral mech units only need a 1 hex opening.

Get the tanks that are in front of Moscow and move them to the flank, north or south it don't matter at this point.

Your not going to take it with a frontal assault, you have to cut rail heads.

You have more then enough time. You are much closer then I was at this point.

Pelton

[Encircled]

Reading this thread and comparing it to just how well you are actually doing is actually quite bizarre.

Its like the words and the pictures don't match

Face facts, you are doing well, and causing the Soviets massive problems

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

Reading this thread and comparing it to just how well you are actually doing is actually quite bizarre.

Its like the words and the pictures don't match

Face facts, you are doing well, and causing the Soviets massive problems

Well, that's good to hear. I'm ignorant of a success level both this 'high' (from what veteran players are telling me) and in this manner (prior successes were in the arena of factory captures).

I don't really know what I'm supposed to expect, since I've never gone into Blizzard in this successful a fashion.

Another issue of my pessimism is that it's for future games more than this one. The benefit I've gotten from the rail bug is enormous and it won't be repeatable for future German players, and I fear the advantage Soviets will soon be seeing (in games that start this way; it's too late for games like mine) as a result of German supply being further west.

[Baelfiin]

Helio:

Go for Moscow!! Most of the crap that he can get there quickly is going to trashy newbie shells that just showed up on the map. It might take a couple of turns but if you can generate a pocket there ........

[Peltonx]

42 is what matters now.

Your lack of bagging armament pts will hurt latter in war, no matter who trys to gloss it over.

Yes destorying the red machine is important, but doing both is better then doing only one.

As German you have to do both.

You still have a chance to pull the game out of the fire, but you need a good 42.

Atleast 1.05 is getting game into 42-43 zone now. As German if you have a good 41 and 42 you will never see 43.

Pelton

[Peltonx]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton

Nice quote never seen that one before.

[heliodorus04]

This is why I’m quitting playing the Axis: Behold, a 1986 NATO defense appears in the south. By virtue of game design decisions for friendly morale loss making it harder to move, for shells of divisions (and brigades) exerting the same ZOC as full Soviet corps (double-punishment of Axis), for free return of destroyed Soviet divisions, for route mechanics that causes units to be in better position than before they were attacked, the game has whittled away all semblance of weakness from the Soviet army until there is nothing Germany can do to overcome these game design points.
This is a 500-mile north-south defense in a depth of 100 to 200 miles, with perfect efficiency in terms (only) of costing the German maximum movement costs per hex. It is anathema to Soviet doctrine as an offensive-first army.

This isn’t about sour grapes for this particular game, but had CF not made the mistake of the Kursk pocket, and if I hadn’t had the bug bonus of rail advancement, I would not even be this far. In the future, Germans won’t do nearly as well as I have. And my excellent ‘breakthrough’ in taking out all the divisions I have is an advantage that could not be turned into a more effective advance because just as I accomplished this success, shells of divisions I forced to surrender in turns 1-3 started arriving back for free, and despite being shells with fractional TOEs, they were able to set up the 1986 Nato defense that keeps me from being able to advance faster.

My success of isolating 57 divisions in 1 pocket was blunted by game design mechanical failsafes that ensure the Soviet can maintain the same effectiveness of defense regardless of the manpower in his units.

[Encircled]

So what exactly do you expect?

I told you, as a Soviet player, that you were doing well and that you had the Russians on the ropes.

You are facing a weak and extended checkerboard. His reinforcements are not great, and he has a great deal of land to cover.

You will blow through that if you plan, and execute that plan correctly. I'm a Soviet player, I know just how weak that checkerboard must be.

Sorry if it sounds a bit harsh, but you are living in a dreamworld if you think the Soviets should be destroyed by what is just a big Kiev pocket.

[Flaviusx]

All I see is a bunch of swiss cheese in the south. This is a defense borne of desperation.

Helio, you're throwing away a game where you are doing perfectly fine. I cannot fathom what exactly you want here.

The real problem you're having down there is simply a lack of mobile forces. I actually think the defense is all wrong in the South given the paucity of panzers.

[heliodorus04]

Flavius, I'm calling you out on this aspect of the Nato 1986 defense:
You can't have BOTH a doctrinally-defined C&C transfer mechanic for  Soviet divisions (the inexpensive transfer of Soviet divisions to anywhere in 1941 compared to the Germans) AND a defensive mechanic that simultaneously incentivizes defensive strategy that is the anathema to that same doctrine.  It's giving the Soviet everything without a strategic downside (or viewed from Germany's side - it's double-punishment of Germany).

As far as what I expect, I expect, at a minimum, consistency in philosophy. This is a fine example.

I've decided I won't give up the Turn 1 Lvov pocket until Soviet divisions no longer come back for free (and attached to Stavka for free re-allocation) in the first 17 turns.  Doing so would be capitulating to yet another double-punishment for the German.



 

[ComradeP]

If it were 1942 already, and if those divisions would all be full strength in level 2 forts: OK, I would be annoyed too, but now? It's so late in the campaign season that any kind of defence won't really matter for him. It's all about whether Moscow will fall or not now, the rest won't matter until spring/summer 1942.

Also: it should be very easy to attack most of the frontrow divisions twice.

You're also presenting this as a purely Soviet strategy. You can do the exact same thing, for the exact same effect. In fact, you can do it more effectively as you could use regiments. I don't understand why you continue to insist that some tricks that can be used by both sides are only beneficial to the Soviets.

[Flaviusx]

Pieter, it would be very difficult for all those units to be sitting in level 2 forts given the new fort rules. He'd have to sprinkle quite a few FRs in order to do this. This makes the checkerboard quite a bit more expensive to do much more than merely delay.

Helio: if you had more than 3 panzer divisions in the entire AGS, you could go through that like sh*t through a goose. The Soviet actually doesn't need to do a checkerboard down here. He could actually do better with a linear defense given your extremely limited ability to pierce through a line. I don't think the defense is particularly economical given the balance of forces.

[ComradeP]

Pieter, it would be very difficult for all those units to be sitting in level 2 forts given the new fort rules. He'd have to sprinkle quite a few FRs in order to do this. This makes the checkerboard quite a bit more expensive to do much more than merely delay.

A lot of that depends on when he starts digging. If he digs in for the remaining clear turns, moves the divisions to the frontline during the blizzard but moves brigades back in place, he'll have level 2 forts.

The new fort rules have changed how quickly such a defence can be established, they have not removed the possibility of such a defence being created.

[Flaviusx]

I think throwing away a bunch of APs on FRs in the mid Ukraine in 1941 is extremely dubious, Pieter.

BG tried this, and look how well that worked out for him.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

If it were 1942 already, and if those divisions would all be full strength in level 2 forts: OK, I would be annoyed too, but now? It's so late in the campaign season that any kind of defence won't really matter for him. It's all about whether Moscow will fall or not now, the rest won't matter until spring/summer 1942.

Also: it should be very easy to attack most of the frontrow divisions twice.

You're also presenting this as a purely Soviet strategy. You can do the exact same thing, for the exact same effect. In fact, you can do it more effectively as you could use regiments. I don't understand why you continue to insist that some tricks that can be used by both sides are only beneficial to the Soviets.

Let me argue for the last sentence you post:
It's the synergies of multiple aspects that benefit the Soviet the most, and they are specific synergies that are unavailable to the German.

Soviets get units back for free in the first 17 turns
Germany gets units back for free the whole game

Soviets are going to benefit a lot more from this than Germany for two big reasons (and two small ones):
A) they will lose more divisions in the first 17 turns than Germany is likely to for the whole game
B) The free divisions are sure to come back (as in my game here) when they are exactly the most needed (turns 15 through 25).
c) Soviets can create divisions and Germans cannot, so it's a moot point saying this mechanic benefits both sides equally. Germans can't create new units, ever.
d) Destroyed German units scheduled to withdraw will come back, eat reinforcements/replacements, and leave anyway

One could argue that the artifice of charging much higher costs for creating units in 1941 is a big part of the problem for the Soviet Union which drives the decision to allow units to come back for free later.

My answer to this is that then, realistically and given the way the game is played, the higher cost for creating units isn't exactly punishing the Soviets since the units come back for free by other means (it's a constriction without significance in gameplay terms), or you could argue that some other approach would be superior to the status quo. What comes to mind for me is that Soviets have the ability to create destroyed divisions for a normal cost rather than replace them at higher cost or wait for them to come back for free. This gives Soviet players some control back, and forces them to think about how best to use APs.

To which Soviet players will say "But we have so few APs to create SUs and forts" to which I reply: Germany also has to be conscientious of how it saves and spends APs, whether it's transferring SUs from HQs into units (something Soviets don't get until corps combat units), using HQ Buildup, or replacing some of the bad leaders in infantry armies with better ones. But we can never spend them on new SUs or units...

I have had to spend at least 60, probably 80, and possibly as much as 100 APs alone moving pioneers and artillery from the awful places where they started hisorically into AGN units to support Leningrad and then to get them out of Leningrad to other important places. Taking Leningrad required a strategic tradeoff for me, but it's what Flavius dismisses as something 'any decent German player can do.' Yes, I'm a decent enough German player to do it, but it cost me two turns worth of APs and it took a lot of attention to my army. A Soviet player conducting such an operation could just create SUs out of thin air for half the cost in APs.

Germans certainly don't get enough APs in 1941 with which to overcome their 1941 historically-based inefficiency (think of 8.Corps, 9.Army and the SUs it starts with). The Soviets, however, have failsafes that Germany doesn't. Cheap transfer of units between armies and fronts immediately blunts the effects of chaos made by Germany's surprise attack. The ability to create any SU in any HQ avoids the need to spend APs transferring SUs (and the nightmare of managing the physical locations of HQs so everyone is in range when necessary).

All divisions destroyed in the first 17 turns come back exactly 11 turns later so you can schedule everything accordingly. The units that come back for free will be attached to Stavka, again blunting the chaos from Germany's successful surprise attack, meaning there is no downstream negative consequence to organizing the Soviet Army. Germany again and again is punished for not being the Soviet side...

Germany is not allowed to be successful beyond a narrow mean of parameters. Mechanics ensure it.

[ComradeP]

I think throwing away a bunch of APs on FRs in the mid Ukraine in 1941 is extremely dubious, Pieter.

BG tried this, and look how well that worked out for him.

I must be missing something here, who's talking about Fortified Regions? I'm not, in any case.

B) The free divisions are sure to come back (as in my game here) when they are exactly the most needed (turns 15 through 25).

This is where you're wrong, as you can as the Axis decide when to make pockets. There's nothing stopping you from trying to create big pockets in September, as opposed to trying to create as many pockets as possible early on. At least some of those divisions you just pocketed and destroyed, for example, will either have worthless morale/experience during the blizzard or won't be there to begin with.

To which Soviet players will say "But we have so few APs to create SUs and forts" to which I reply: Germany also has to be conscientious of how it saves and spends APs, whether it's transferring SUs from HQs into units (something Soviets don't get until corps combat units), using HQ Buildup, or replacing some of the bad leaders in infantry armies with better ones. But we can never spend them on new SUs or units...

You're seriously underestimating the AP costs that would be associated with recreating all the divisions that were lost. If I had to pay AP's, there's a good chance a lot of the divisions would never be recreated as the Soviets have a surplus in any case.

Cheap transfer of units between armies and fronts immediately blunts the effects of chaos made by Germany's surprise attack.

Not necessarily. The individual units are still weak, the HQ's would need to be available and personally I consider it to be a waste of AP's to reassign units like you describe. The gains are not really worth it in most cases.

Unit transfer also becomes a lot more expensive when corps-sized units arrive, but then you still have the problem of the Soviets being able to rail ~2-3 armies around each turn. I agree that makes Soviet backhand blows too easy and too effective, but that's mostly something you'll notice in later years and not in 1941.

All divisions destroyed in the first 17 turns come back exactly 11 turns later so you can schedule everything accordingly.

You must've misread the manual, only Tank divisions come back as Tank brigades on a fixed schedule of 11 turns, the rest is variable.

Germany is not allowed to be successful beyond a narrow mean of parameters. Mechanics ensure it.

So, according to you, penalties in terms of leaders, TOE's and getting their behind handed to them in 1941 all allow the Soviets to be more successful than their historical counterparts? Cannonfodder isn't in Berlin.

Just because you're having difficulty with advancing a few more hexes (I'm not sure why you'd want to, given your current dispositions) doesn't mean you've lost the game.

It's been a while since you posted OOB and loss figures, and I doubt those are not in your favour.