The Great Patriotic AAR III (No glvaca please)

[Peltonx]

Its been done.

A few bad dice rolls in the same turn (turns 3-10ish) for Germans can spell disaster even for the best GHC player.

I think the key is Moscow. The SHC player is forsed to fight forward, skillful play and a little luck and it can be held.

North and South delay and no huge pockets.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
As MT has stated all things being equal the SHC player should win every time with no fighting forward house rules for SHC and then I would still give the upper hand to the SHC player.

I don't think he said that he could win every time, just that he couldn't be beaten.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Regarding Sov defensive techniques, I agree that they are less advanced, for a couple of reasons: 1) no one really had to worry about it much during earlier versions of the game; and 2) the on-going patches have changed the balance enough that what worked well previously (eg, Tarhunnas' and TD's forward, aggressive defenses) may no longer be effective.

I am not using that defence anymore. I did that vs 2ndACR. Versus Marquo I used a successive lines defence (3 lines minimum in the center). Not because I thought the former was worst. Simply because I trusted Sabre21 (much more experienced than me).

If anything, these lines give you depth (up to 15 hexes in the 3 lines thing area). Not sure this would have made any difference though [:)]

I'm convinced that a fight à la Red Army does not make any sense (make no mistake: not the players's fault). Because of some reasons I have stated lately [8D] So if needed I will run away and don't look back. And let people talk [:D]

[M60A3TTS]

Give credit where credit is due. IMO with Pelton in a retired state, glvaca and Michael are the best of the active Axis PBEM players at least among those featured in an AAR. Flavius may want to throw James in there, but we haven't seen so much of his work.

In terms of the current game balance, I'd tweak 76mm's assessment and say between players of equal skill, the more skilled they are, the greater the advantage to the Axis player.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

It can be done, but it's difficult.I think that Soviet defensive techniques are still relatively poorly understood as compared to German offensive techniques which people have perfected to a greater extent.
I believe that Glavca is going to play Axis against MichaelT's Soviet next.I predict that you'll see in that game how it can be done,(assuming there's an AAR).Michael himself confidently proclaims that he can't be beaten playing the Soviet side and I believe him.
The main thing is that you must prevent major pockets from forming.This is particularly vital in the early turns.To do this whilst maintaining a forward stance you need really good defensive technique combined with a feel for when it's time to pull back and how far.This 'feel' is just as important as good technique and comes from good military intelligence combined with knowing more or less what the German mobile units are capable of in a worst case scenario.
If you can prevent major pockets from forming the size of the Soviet army snowballs and it will already start to become a monster by the end of the summer.Obviously this can be achieved by simply running away, but for the win you need to fight as far forward and cause as much damage to the Axis as possible.

Sigh. Surviving 1941 doesn't make the Soviet "invincible." There's the whole rest of the war to fight and Berlin to get to. That's the problem with Michael. He's totally and myopically focused on 1941 and doesn't know anything about the rest of it. He's won his blizzards against very bad Axis players, btw, doing it all wrong. (I'm sorry, but this must be said. The last game I saw him play was practically a textbook case of how not to conduct a blizzard defense. You either run away, or do a linebacker. You do not do a stubborn forward defense based on divisions only. This will fail every time.)

This isn't a one year game.

So far as surviving 1941 goes, my formula is simple enough: don't defend forward unless you reach a certain critical mass and density of force. You can only achieve that density in a very limited area of the front early on, preferably one with bad terrain. Yep, the north. The rest of it is just a delaying action. Eventually the center gets thick enough to defend up front (hopefully before Moscow falls.) The south will never be defensible in 1941 against a good German player during clear weather, not after the Lvov opening, which more or less wrecks the whole thing down there and warps the entire strategic flow of the game, but this is another rant.

Down south it's just about slowing the German long enough to pull out the factories, and then flat out running out of his supply range. You can't really do a forward defense down there west of Voronezh and Rostov, not before mud hits anyways.

[Seminole]

I'm convinced that a fight à la Red Army does not make any sense

It doesn't make sense if the German player fails to make the same strategic diversions that Germany did, that's for sure.

I don't really follow the logic that German players gets to make better decisions than their historical counterparts, but the Red Army should fight like it did historically.

[notenome]

The problem Seminole is that the diversions the Germans made had a basis. The Germans simply could not crack Kiev's defenses, and after Smolensk the Axis ran up against a wall of Soviet reserves guarding Moscow, whilst their supply lines were hundreds of miles away. If the Germans hadn't gone south the Soviets would have had an extra million men. The problem right now is that the German player can do everything, attacking towards Moscow whilst simultaneously sending panzers south to encircle southwest front in a double envelopment together with AGS panzers. The game doesn't model the Soviets ability to throw up stong defenses that the Germans cannot circumvent, which means the Axis don't have to make the hard choices they did in 41

[Seminole]

The problem Seminole is that the diversions the Germans made had a basis. The Germans simply could not crack Kiev's defenses, and after Smolensk the Axis ran up against a wall of Soviet reserves guarding Moscow, whilst their supply lines were hundreds of miles away. If the Germans hadn't gone south the Soviets would have had an extra million men.

But the move south by Guderian extended his supply lines further than a move on Moscow at that time would have. Then he had to turn around and cover the same distance back to get in position for Typhoon.
He was confident that the Soviets were strategically and tactically inept enough to not take decisive advantage of him exposing a southern flank.

Basis or no basis, house rules that force the Soviet to fight like he did but leave the German free to revise and improve upon historical action are simply designed to create a German win, and they did.

I realize Barclay was a gamey Scot, but sometimes strategic withdrawal is the best option.

I still lots of people not building much with respect to defense in depth, or taking advantage of terrain (particularly rivers!) to drive up the MP cost of German operations. Too many 'thick crust' defenses that panzers can go joyriding behind in open terrain again and again. Once the Soviet loses a critical mass of map counters it just snowballs.

[notenome]

I don't disagree, what I'm saying is that right now the Axis can do both, continue to advance on Moscow whilst simultaneously sending panzers to encircle SW Front. That's the problem. The Axis had a choice: Keep driving on Moscow OR encircle a million men and break the south wide open. They went with B (Glatnz thinks it was the right idea). Right now Axis players go with C (all of the above).

[Seminole]

Isn't option C the consequence of Lvov taking so many counters off the map, denying the Soviets the ability to give AGS a better fight?

[notenome]

Partially, but a drive on Moscow should require all of AGC's forces. Also a large amount of SW front was pocketed west of the Dnepr in the Uman pocket, when the Germans shifted the direction of their advance. Not as much as the unholy Lvov Pocket, but a sizeable amount. The real problem for the Germans was a combination of a strong Dnepr riverline and constant harrasment on the left flank from the pripyat marshes (which, by the way, need more love from most Soviet players.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

After reading Stahel's books on the German offensive July-August 41 it amazes me to see how easy it is for German offensives to go so far.

I guess Von Bock should have ordered a HQ build-up! Duh

[Flaviusx]

Stahel is great, isn't he? Can't wait for his next book on the battle for Moscow.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Stahel is great, isn't he? Can't wait for his next book on the battle for Moscow.

Outstanding. I have Barbarossa and the Kiev book so I will definitely own the Moscow one. He really gave an outstanding insight to how beaten Germany was by late August. Obviously nothing is certain, but had SW Front pulled back from Kiev and across the River than the war may not have lasted nearly as long as it did.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Seminole


But the move south by Guderian extended his supply lines further than a move on Moscow at that time would have. Then he had to turn around and cover the same distance back to get in position for Typhoon.
He was confident that the Soviets were strategically and tactically inept enough to not take decisive advantage of him exposing a southern flank.

Not as far as it looks. By moving his moving south instead of east, he wasn't moving away from the rail heads, but perpendicular. By the end of Sept, the railheads were east of Smolensk. Thus a better logistical base for the advance on Moscow. That and that by then Panzer strength had risen from 50%, (end of Aug), to 70%

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Disgruntled Veteran

After reading Stahel's books on the German offensive July-August 41 it amazes me to see how easy it is for German offensives to go so far.

I guess Von Bock should have ordered a HQ build-up! Duh

He's rolling over in his grave wondering "Why couldn't *we* have logistics like that?!?!"

[Tarhunnas]

I have not had time to update this AAR due to vacation and various IRL matters, but the game is still going on. No whining and no quitting

I brief summary of events. After the Moscow debacle, not much happened. First mud, and during the snow period, the Axis did not make any offensive operations, instead withdrawing in the center opposite Voronezh and to the south southeast of Stalino and in the Crimea, and generally consolidating their positions. I was grateful for that, as the Soviet army was too battered to offer much resistance. I think that was maybe a mistake by the opposition, because the Germans could have hurt me badly, but maybe preparing for Blizzard was the wise choice. On the other hand, it also let the Red Army recover somewhat for the blizzard.

The winter offensive started in early december, hitting a rock of strong resistance centered on Moscow and east of Stalino, but making god progress in the center, recapturing Orel and Kursk. There was also local successes near Vyshni Volochek. The Red Army is in a weak state due to earlier disasters, and all in all it has been a rather mild winter offensive so far. Map below is from turn 28 before Soviet moves, and shows the main areas of advance.

[Peltonx]

Yes I think it is a mistake not to keep hitting russians.

As GHC you can still with draw needed forces, build a fort line and cause 60k losses per turn. Allot more if you pocket anything plus ap loses.

You still have a shoot, but the killer will be the manpower crunch followed by the ap crunch.

This game started before the mule nerf so Germans doing that good vs equall peeps is going to be much harder now.

Very good game for sure.

[Farfarer61]

The Axis Player can't do "everything". Two thrusts - take Leningrad in time to swing south past that verdammt Reservoir and threaten Moscow - or be stopped. Go like hell to get the Don Bas - or be stopped.