Ground Strike:observations from a new player

[jboldt007]

As a newb it has become clear how ground strikes are the key to winning on the ground- barring overwhelming odds or offensive chit use (which is expensive ), ground strikes are critical for success. One needs to maneuver (or clear a sea area of enemy supply) to put opposing units out of supply and then disorganize them (or vice versa) so that they defend with 1 or 3 if elite. Attacking is tough in MWIF and risks are high with the 2d10 chart so this is the only way to defeat an enemy which is roughly at parity with you. And this becomes magnified in later turns- that fancy pants '11' factor mechanized unit becomes a gibbering wreck with a defense of 1 (or 3) if OOS and disorganized. The 1 or 3 value doesn't change over the course of a game.

New players I think will tend to pile on units in ground support because ground strikes mean you have to marshall your units between the two options and guess how your opponent will respond. The handboook warns against this- ground support is only efffective when the defence value in a hex is low. The beauty of ground strikes is that if they don't go well, you can always "cancel" an attack whereas with ground support you are committted.

Another revelation is the importance of Artillery- something the handbook also notes. At first artillery units just seems to be expensive divisions. But artillery have some distinct advantages- they can ground strike with no limit in terms of actions,, and unlike air units, cannot be intercepted. This makes them key in mounting effective offensives. One can even use them to disorganize oil dependant units along a stalled front forcing an oil starved nation to have to consider using oil to reorganize them.

[jboldt007]

One final observation - an out of supply unit only becomes disorganized if it moves. An OOS unit can stubbornly sit there waiting to get rescued- if so you need to ground strike it so it becomes disorganized so you can take it out .

[Centuur]

Ground support however, is very valuable when you are on defense. A sudden increase of 2 or 3 points when you are defending means that the attacking side needs a multitude of that number in attacking factors...

[jboldt007]

Yes - the handbook notes this and I've learned from bitter experience that ground support can be used effectively in defence for that reason - particularly when the combat values involved are low (nasty jobbies those long range soviet bombers- come out of nowhere). This is where a player needs to balance the chance to disorganize units in ground strike versus adding support to combat value. Even if one gets an OOS disorganized unit down to '1' or '3' , if the defender can pile in support then you've got a problem. This makes it clear that one needs an effective fighter screen - fighter superiority- to keep ground support aircraft from gettIng through. This is something the handbook notes too but which isn't obvious at first.

[paulderynck]

Of course ground support can only double the defender's modified value (i.e. due to disruption and or terrain) and can't react to an overrun.

[jboldt007]

Oh right - I forgot about that! Good point.

[brian brian]

The Fractional Odds rule makes a big difference in Ground Support. Without it, Fighter-Bombers are a key unit, even early war FTR2 with 1 factor. But then I will never ever play a game without that rule ever again.

Also it is easy to forget that Ground Strike is a _chance_ to improve your land attacks, not a certainty. It is 100% pointless to Ground Strike a single 5 factor defender, that is in supply, with a 5 factor bomber.

[jboldt007]

Thanks- playing with fractional odds is preferable so I'll look at that.

In reference to the '5' unit I believe you are saying one should ground support with the 5 unit bomber instead of ground strike because in this case it would be better to increase the odds with the '5' value, for which there is no risk of it not being applied, versus getting a +2 (2d10) with a chance the strike would fail. I guess the one consideration otherwise would be whether the target can also be put out of supply (prior to the land attack so the defender would be reduced to '1' or '3', for the upcoming land attack but that probably is not a common situation).

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007



Another revelation is the importance of Artillery- something the handbook also notes. At first artillery units just seems to be expensive divisions. But artillery have some distinct advantages- they can ground strike with no limit in terms of actions,, and unlike air units, cannot be intercepted. This makes them key in mounting effective offensives. One can even use them to disorganize oil dependant units along a stalled front forcing an oil starved nation to have to consider using oil to reorganize them.

Field ART is interesting only when attacking, when defending you can not use them is you are going to retreat because they will disorganize and be an easy (and expensive prey).

For defending purposes they only make sense if you have a key hex/es and leave the ARt behind, ready to give support, be it to be reorganized later by a plane (an HQ is too much of a possible loss cause it becomes disorganized as well) or sacrifice the unit because of the importance of those key hexes. Example: sometimes in Kiev area/city, in the French border (not Maginot line).

For the same 5 points you can select FTRS and bombers that will help you have superiority or diminish your enemy's. However, FTRS often are easy preys as well when disorganized if the front moves a bit because most have a range of 3 or 4 ... anyway they survive much better in semi static fronts.

And of course, ARTs are slow.

Not that I disagree with what you wrote, more just pointing some aspects.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007

Thanks- playing with fractional odds is preferable so I'll look at that.

In reference to the '5' unit I believe you are saying one should ground support with the 5 unit bomber instead of ground strike because in this case it would be better to increase the odds with the '5' value, for which there is no risk of it not being applied, versus getting a +2 (2d10) with a chance the strike would fail. I guess the one consideration otherwise would be whether the target can also be put out of supply (prior to the land attack so the defender would be reduced to '1' or '3', for the upcoming land attack but that probably is not a common situation).

With an OOS unit of course it is more "rewardable" to use a ground strike.

But Brian's example is with a unit not OOS, it would mean that with a bomber with 5 factors you get one more level (like 4:1 ---> 5:1) so you get a +2 in the 2d10 table, exactly the same -2 you get if you disorganize that lonely unit provided it's not OOS, but in that case the Ground Strike would have a 50% possibilities to get that +2, not the 100%.

[jboldt007]

Thanks - yeah I think that is what I was thinking..

[jboldt007]

And yes good points on artillery and defence. If a front is fluid or changing rapidly artillery can become vulnerable (or have trouble keeping up- particularly where the rail net is sparse). Some Artillery units are so slow they are effectively almost immobile unless moved by rail. static fronts as noted are probably more their domain.

[paulderynck]

On defense if you are not retreating but get to move first then Arty are great in combination with an HQ that can re-org them. Ground strike the best hex of attacking units, re-org and then be available for defensive ground support. All of which is un-interceptable.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

On defense if you are not retreating but get to move first then Arty are great in combination with an HQ that can re-org them. Ground strike the best hex of attacking units, re-org and then be available for defensive ground support. All of which is un-interceptable.

Or on attack. If you have several artillery in the front line (e.g., France 1940), have each of them do ground strikes. If a ground strike fails (or only partially succeeds), you can reorganize them and use them again the next impulse.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

On defense if you are not retreating but get to move first then Arty are great in combination with an HQ that can re-org them. Ground strike the best hex of attacking units, re-org and then be available for defensive ground support. All of which is un-interceptable.

Or on attack. If you have several artillery in the front line (e.g., France 1940), have each of them do ground strikes. If a ground strike fails (or only partially succeeds), you can reorganize them and use them again the next impulse.

Unfortunately in that case they take up room that valuable (think combat engineers and red AT units) - and cheaper loss - Divs could be occupying face up. There are never enough impulses when you are attacking and waiting for the perfect outcome is not the best strategy.

I agree using an Arty in one out of two or three potential attacking stacks is worth a shot when the defender has local air superiority, but not more.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: jboldt007

And yes good points on artillery and defence. If a front is fluid or changing rapidly artillery can become vulnerable (or have trouble keeping up- particularly where the rail net is sparse). Some Artillery units are so slow they are effectively almost immobile unless moved by rail. static fronts as noted are probably more their domain.

Not only they are slow. Fighters with 3 or 4 range cannot very far from the front either, but also HQ, after they are used they are inmobile, in the front line or the second line (if adding fire froom behind). Unless an HQ restores them, like Paul says, but then the HQ is pinned at 2 -4 hexes from a mobile front, instead of the Art.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

On defense if you are not retreating but get to move first then Arty are great in combination with an HQ that can re-org them. Ground strike the best hex of attacking units, re-org and then be available for defensive ground support. All of which is un-interceptable.

Or on attack. If you have several artillery in the front line (e.g., France 1940), have each of them do ground strikes. If a ground strike fails (or only partially succeeds), you can reorganize them and use them again the next impulse.

Yes on attack no doubt they are even more useful than bombers, it's defending where the handicap lies for both, but even more for arts.

I think I have almost never bought additional ARTs, keeping only the ones they give you in the deployment, except for Flak in strategical locations. I would buy them in the case of France if I had time to get them deployed but that doesn't use to be the case, because the front is small and the retreats are shorter than in USSR for example, many times 1 or 2 hexes deep only, in a turn..

I don't know if I mentioned that a certain GE player took Poland and tried to take Bel-Hol with half his army while the Polish invasion half went for the YU-GR..., he was stopped in Belgium and advanced very slow. It was clear that the rest of the Wehrmacht was going to be away for turns, so the French player bought all the ARTs and the result was gorgeous, the Belge-French border looked like a hedgehog. But that's exceptional.

[AlbertN]

I like ART a lot because it cannot be intercepted. As Axis you want some of these when the air superiority of the Allies is manifest; or even early on when you may find yourself in the situation to bombard enemy planes before they can take off. Rare situations - but they may happen.

The fact some powers also take Land actions often (Germany, Soviets like) imply they're cheap to reorganize.

[jboldt007]

Great comments- pros and cons as usual. ART take a while to build too so one has to think ahead.

I've noticed that in a static front they can really be a nuisance for your opponent but the very nature of a static front means it is going to be hard to find a hole or hook around the edges, or block a rail line, to put units OOS too.

[jboldt007]

Btw. As GE I can't imagine going after Yu/ Gr at the same time as France and Low Countries. Seems like a recipe for disiaster - but I'm a newb...