As an axis player, I am afraid of using my armor.

[jhdeerslayer]

ORIGINAL: therealevan

This isn't a question, but more of an pondering.

I have not figured out the air game that much, but I am generally familiar with it. My campaign so far I ended up just only using the entire Luftwaffe for ground support with 120% escort requirements, attached exclusively on the panzer groups. Having looked back on this, I think this is actually a waste, given how infrequently my Pzrgp engage in direct combat, it is more likely that the motorised formations get into combat. And once those units begin to experience low fuel - this frequency decreases even further. I wonder if attaching luftwaffe to more of a mixed, where they might be attached to certain Pzrgp's that I know will be engaged directly in combat, while also being attached to regular infantry corps or armies.

I wondered myself why not just attach GS to an entire AG such as South, North, etc. Not sure what the downside of that is as long as you manage GS On/Off as needed.

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: therealevan

This isn't a question, but more of an pondering.

I have not figured out the air game that much, but I am generally familiar with it. My campaign so far I ended up just only using the entire Luftwaffe for ground support with 120% escort requirements, attached exclusively on the panzer groups. Having looked back on this, I think this is actually a waste, given how infrequently my Pzrgp engage in direct combat, it is more likely that the motorised formations get into combat. And once those units begin to experience low fuel - this frequency decreases even further. I wonder if attaching luftwaffe to more of a mixed, where they might be attached to certain Pzrgp's that I know will be engaged directly in combat, while also being attached to regular infantry corps or armies.

You can select ground support for an entire army, lets say army group north.
Then when you will select ground support (x button) or some icon on a toolbar they will support any unit that is under that army.
At least this is how i do it. But i do not use air assist AI.

P.S
I am too late to a party, jhdeerslayer [:D]

[AlbertN]

The 'downside' is that any bomber that can reach there will take off and try to even if that takes the 100% of their mileage and there are enemies 3 hexes away in another direction.

Let's say you have an AGN that spans from Leningrad to Moscow roughly. And Luftflotte 1 generically 'Ground Support' as a whole to AGN. To keep it basic, simply and not mental.

If at some given point you feel that ground support is needed around Moscow, you click the thing and activate it - but with utmost chances that will whisk into the battle bombers from all over the places of Luftflotte 1, including that He111 squadron parked closeby Leningrad.

It could be in general easier to set things once, in general to Armies and not Army Groups, and keep them associated once and for good - BUT as the AoGs come and go it takes very, very little to forget of a tiny detail, that AoG (That factually is just a 'box' or container) assigned to a specific army disappeared. All of its subordinate Air Groups are suddenly associated to the next higher up level - and that mucks up everything.

[sanch]

...

I wondered myself why not just attach GS to an entire AG such as South, North, etc. Not sure what the downside of that is as long as you manage GS On/Off as needed.

That's exactly what I did in one game, except that I put only fighters on GS. Luftflotte1's fighters -> AGN, Luftflotte2's fighters -> AGC, etc. And I decimated the VVS. In a typical turn, I'd lose 10-20 planes, and the VVS would lose 150 or more.

I had sent everything except fighters and recon to reserve to conserve supply and fuel.

[jhdeerslayer]

ORIGINAL: sanch

...

I wondered myself why not just attach GS to an entire AG such as South, North, etc. Not sure what the downside of that is as long as you manage GS On/Off as needed.

That's exactly what I did in one game, except that I put only fighters on GS. Luftflotte1's fighters -> AGN, Luftflotte2's fighters -> AGC, etc. And I decimated the VVS. In a typical turn, I'd lose 10-20 planes, and the VVS would lose 150 or more.

I had sent everything except fighters and recon to reserve to conserve supply and fuel.

Interesting - what was your thinking on only having fighters on GS? Targeting VVS intercepts or using fighters to provide the GS?

[Joel Billings]

You should pay in your combats from not having ground support bombers. I've seen they can make a big difference in winning battles, especially those that are close. However, it's true they use supplies, so you are free to figure out what works best for you.

As for the AI, it doesn't have to meet the sudden death limits to keep going, but it doesn't really factor them in one way or the other. The AI is balanced in that it will try to defend forward, but if it sees itself about to get cut off, it will pull back. It generally doesn't pull back as far as some human players, although if you are cutting it up it may not have much chance (but they you will win eventually anyway). ]

Once a German player has learned the basics, he should be able to meet the minimum VP requirements. After that, if a Soviet player is going to play Sir Robin, then the German player can get to a high HWM score. This can lead to his winning on January 1, 1945, even against the computer (I think). Of course, it's a long time to get to Jan 1, 1945, but if you are going to play the game to the end, having a high German HWM can win you the game in 1945. Especially if you can stall the Germans in the south and keep them from getting all the points that come with and shortly after the Romanian surrender, you can win on points. Will Soviet players think of this in 1941? Probably not, at least not until they've played a game all the way to 1945. And how often will a player do that? But I can't see playing without the Early End against a human opponent if you want to have historical pressure on the commanders. Against the AI, you can play No Early End since you can always decide to stop at any point and declare yourself the winner or loser.

[sanch]

ORIGINAL: jhdeerslayer

ORIGINAL: sanch

...

I wondered myself why not just attach GS to an entire AG such as South, North, etc. Not sure what the downside of that is as long as you manage GS On/Off as needed.

That's exactly what I did in one game, except that I put only fighters on GS. Luftflotte1's fighters -> AGN, Luftflotte2's fighters -> AGC, etc. And I decimated the VVS. In a typical turn, I'd lose 10-20 planes, and the VVS would lose 150 or more.

I had sent everything except fighters and recon to reserve to conserve supply and fuel.

Interesting - what was your thinking on only having fighters on GS? Targeting VVS intercepts or using fighters to provide the GS?

Intercepts. In this game I was still learning the ground and especially the supply aspects, and did not want to spend much effort on the air war. As I was still learning, I would have lost on the January '42 sudden death check.

My conclusion from this game is the Axis needs to use everything it has to make the minimum requirements, including the LW. And you will have no supply in the winter anyways, whether you use the LW or not, so use them.

So, next game, I used my level bombers to trash railyards where I would be attacking on the next turn, and the tactical bombers to assist breaking tough defenses, particularly surrounded but well-stocked cities behind the front. Lost this one too (vs AI at 110), but at least I did better.

[Yogol]

Back to the topic at hand...


Why would you not attack with the tanks? What is the harm in having a weak tank division?

You got two options:

A.
- don't attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with strong divisions

B.
- attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with weak divisions

Weak formations are just as good at flipping hexes than strong formations, no? It might maybe even be easier to resupply an almost depleted tank division with freight (read: fuel) to keep going because there are less tanks in them.

Or am I missing something? What's the downsize of flipping hexes with less tanks in a division?

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Yogol

Back to the topic at hand...


Why would you not attack with the tanks? What is the harm in having a weak tank division?

You got two options:

A.
- don't attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with strong divisions

B.
- attack with your tank divisions
- flip hexes with weak divisions

Weak formations are just as good at flipping hexes than strong formations, no? It might maybe even be easier to resupply an almost depleted tank division with freight (read: fuel) to keep going because there are less tanks in them.

Or am I missing something? What's the downsize of flipping hexes with less tanks in a division?

One downside of having low CV Panzers, is that if the Soviets can surround the Panzers, then they can more easily rout them. If a Panzer division is routed, you can lose many hundreds of vehicles as a result of the rout, which will both hurt your future logistics and also the MP of the Panzer division.