The Red Army Is (Not) Overpowered - A tongue in cheek aar

[AlbertN]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

So with that pocket it looks like my opponent has resigned. I do not blame him one bit. I can only apologise for instituting a rather absurd strategy against him, but we've talked and he knows my stance on things.

Ultimately I hope this aar has proved at least somewhat how powerful the strategy is. Whether its freely teleporting units to the reserve or railing them northwards, the end result benefits the Soviets heavily. But I've talked at length about the benefits. I currently have another game going which I started at the same time against someone random where I did the exact same thing,as well as breaking the centre pocket turn 1. The combined result has been its now turn 13 or something and smolensk holds, pskov holds, and he's pushing the flanks of stalino. I have a 3.8m oob. Beyond the panzer attacks I will not document the game (mostly due to my breaking of the centre pocket, which is a completely different matter to the abandon strategy. Breaking that pocket ruins the German game, there is zero room for debate on that issue)

Anyway I hope you enjoyed the AAR. As the title indicates it was tongue in cheek, any future AARs do will be a bit more serious. Many thanks to my opponent, you did about as well as you could be expected to.

The solution to early Turn pocket openings is simple to me; for the first turns (The same limit of the Airbridgehead rule so it's up to German T3) if a Soviet unit was isolated at the start of their turn, it remains isolated through the Soviet turn (that includes both the 'Surrender' and the SU relocating limits.

But I myself pretty much want a houserule about that in any game I do - whichever side I play.

Because if a pocket opens anything that is attacked is routed instead of surrendering, thus the Germans get a lot of 'fluff' to fight against. But even an Unready Cavalry Division or NKVD regiment soaks up CCP and Fatigue from a German attacker.

I experienced the same in a game - where some Soviet opened up a pocket, and simply the game turned immediately bogus with a massive snowball effect.

I'd rather have a hard-limit not to activate up the Southern Front on T1 (as per making some hexes impassable) AND have the thing I described above; than the present risks of eels and slipperies.

[Stamb]

Can not agree on this. I had my Minsk pocket opened in my game so yes, its a pain in the ass, but it is Axis player responsibility to cover it properly. Not rush forwards with all of the units.

[RedJohn]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Can not agree on this. I had my Minsk pocket opened in my game so yes, its a pain in the ass, but it is Axis player responsibility to cover it properly. Not rush forwards with all of the units.

I agree. My houserule is usually made with the understanding that the Germans cannot rush forward every unit, and siyll needs to cover the pocket. Sometimes though, particularly north west of smolensk, its possible to link up with a unit that's not hit in the centre pocket - usually a mech or cavalry. I think most Germans will have experienced the Minsk pocket being broken at least once.

Albert outlines the routing nonsense adequately. Personally I think the game was more competitive back in the initial artillery patch - at least there you could rout units for most of their TOE. Of course axis casualties were stupid low in that patch.

[s2tanker]

ORIGINAL: Nikel

And a quote from excellent book by Chris Bellamy, Absolute War, that comes very handy. Bold is mine.

In short, in Ukraine resistance was the strongest because they wanted to buy time to evacuate factories and workers. So how can you evacuate your army and military equipment and at the same time your workers and factories? Please fix this.

And thanks to RedJohn, his opponent and all the posters in this thread, very interesting discussion [:)]



Key decisions

While the security agencies moved on the streets with an incongruous mixture of efficiency on the one hand, and near-paranoia on the other, key decisions were being made deep in the Kremlin which, even at this early stage, would shape the outcome of the war. On 24 June a ‘Soviet’ — a Council — for Evacuation was set up. In the wake of the Red Army’s withdrawal it would ‘decide the most important strategic and war-economic task — rebasing powerful human and material resources from the threatened regions to the east, to the rear of the country’.

The overall operation was placed under the direction of Nikolay Voznesenskiy (1903–50), the head of the State Planning Commission, or Gosplan. The Evacuation Soviet reported to him, as a working group. Its president was N. M. Shvernik, with Aleksey Kosygin and M. G. Pervukhin as his deputies, and Anastas Mikoyan, Lazar Kaganovich and M. Z. Saburov as other members. During the next six months 2,593 industrial enterprises were evacuated, 1,523 of them classified as ‘major’, of which 1,360 were armaments related. Some 226 were moved to the Volga area, 667 to the Urals, 244 to western Siberia, 78 to eastern Siberia and 308 to Kazakhstan and Central Asia. With them went between 30 and 40 per cent of the workers, engineers and technicians. Stalin had made what was probably his most crucial decision early.

In the Leningrad area, where the German advance was very swift, only 92 plants were ‘re-based’ before the city was isolated. The best results were achieved, predictably, in Ukraine, where the Soviet resistance was strongest. The impressive numbers must be matched against the chaos. When the trains arrived carrying plant, machinery and fewer than half of the staff (starving, after perhaps a week or ten days on the railways — assuming they had escaped German bombing), they were pitched out into fields or clearings or, if lucky, into unheated wooden buildings. By November, the ground was starting to freeze so hard that it became impossible to dig foundations for new buildings. Nevertheless, confused and imperfect though it was, with fragments of factories and a small, exhausted proportion of the workforce arriving in the wrong order in the dead of night, the achievement is still astonishing. Some 1.5 million railway wagons carried enough of Soviet industry eastwards to begin to rebuild a war industry and economy which would outproduce the Germans and compensate for the stupendous losses suffered. After two days of war, Stalin had focused on that inner truth. The hard definition of intellect. Priorities.

Excellent. This concisely explains the current fatal flaw in an otherwise exceptional game system.

[governato]

The same historical sources also acknowledge that several million people (not necessarily factory workers) were moved East. The fact that this giant evacuation was pre planned also
dispels the idea that "it took some time" for the Soviet Union government to realize that this was major threat to the very existence of the state.

Fighting for time to allow people to escape by rail was clearly an "incentive" that forced the Red Army to fight in the Ukraine. I do not think that 'let's run back to the Dnepr to preserve our tanks' was ever a real option. So it's too bad that such a primary necessity (preserving the lives of your citizens/workers/mothers/future soldiers) is not sufficiently represented in the game even if in some abstract way. In my opinion it is a flaw that makes for a more `chess like' gaming experience, rather separated from what the real campaign was.

[s2tanker]

ORIGINAL: governato

The same historical sources also acknowledge that several million people (not necessarily factory workers) were moved East. The fact that this giant evacuation was pre planned also
dispels the idea that "it took some time" for the Soviet Union government to realize that this was major threat to the very existence of the state.

Fighting for time to allow people to escape by rail was clearly an "incentive" that forced the Red Army to fight in the Ukraine. I do not think that 'let's run back to the Dnepr to preserve our tanks' was ever a real option. So it's too bad that such a primary necessity (preserving the lives of your citizens/workers/mothers/future soldiers) is not sufficiently represented in the game even if in some abstract way. In my opinion it is a flaw that makes for a more `chess like' gaming experience, rather separated from what the real campaign was.

Seems easily fixed with victory points and evacuation timelines as well as industry rebuild penalties if captured before evacuation.

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: loki100

admin movement is denied with any interdiction > 0, so a broad area with not too much commitment will do the job.

the Soviet river crossing strategy is designed to generate a net MP cost so needs relatively high levels of commitment to a few hexes

I tested this in an otherwise pretty disastrous game that ended in Sept 41. But I started trying to work out where my spearheads would be, and set up boxes around them, my opponent reported it didn't stop him moving to contact (to attack) but the net loss of MP meant he couldn't pull back so was vulnerable in turn. Given the game was pointless it was a good place to use a few turns of exploring ideas and that one I'd do constantly from now on - could well make quite a difference in the Ukraine in particular

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

It can also slow down the Soviet runaway defense in the south - unless they send everything to the Reserves.

I am not sure what you guys mean.

As far as I understand it is only effective in directly reducing movement points in these situations:
- non-clear terrain (except non-motorised in light woods);
- river crossings (except non-motorised crossing a minor river, no ice); or
- in clear terrain in bad weather using average+ roads.

Also I also recall testing this and not seeing anything indirectly reducing movement due to a ramping up of fatigue or morale loss?

What am I missing?

[Stamb]

ORIGINAL: s2tanker

ORIGINAL: governato

The same historical sources also acknowledge that several million people (not necessarily factory workers) were moved East. The fact that this giant evacuation was pre planned also
dispels the idea that "it took some time" for the Soviet Union government to realize that this was major threat to the very existence of the state.

Fighting for time to allow people to escape by rail was clearly an "incentive" that forced the Red Army to fight in the Ukraine. I do not think that 'let's run back to the Dnepr to preserve our tanks' was ever a real option. So it's too bad that such a primary necessity (preserving the lives of your citizens/workers/mothers/future soldiers) is not sufficiently represented in the game even if in some abstract way. In my opinion it is a flaw that makes for a more `chess like' gaming experience, rather separated from what the real campaign was.

Seems easily fixed with victory points and evacuation timelines as well as industry rebuild penalties if captured before evacuation.

The problem is that the only factories that really matter are planes/tanks one. And they are in Kharkov/Leningrad.

All of this armament/heavy industry/resources factories in Ukraine are just non a factor.

I did a test by playing both sides and moving Soviets out of a way, so I can capture cities ASAP. There was no reduction in built weapons at all. As they are using armament points from a virtual pool, which has huge stockpiles, not armament factories on a map.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=2&key=
Post 35

[carlkay58]

Hardradi -

Any interdiction at all in a hex, regardless of terrain, removes Administrative Movement for the enemy. This increases the MPs expended by the enemy for each hex moved by a unit. This also increases the fatigue of the moving unit. While not a HUGE effect with the fatigue, the additional MPs expended total up quickly and can have a significant effect in the turn. While interdiction is not great in clear terrain it still totals up over a few turns.

[Jango32]

Interdiction on clear hexes during good weather will still have movement cost be only 1, no? In that case I don't see a big impact in the south where the Soviets can be especially prone to retreating because most of the south is clear terrain. I don't think hit and run tactics are also particularly hit too much.

[carlkay58]

The relevant manual entry is:

22.2.1. Rear Area Administrative Movement
Ground unit movement costs are reduced if the unit is moving in hexes that were friendly controlled at the start of the turn. In a clear hex in clear weather the cost for an infantry unit will usually be 1 MP compared to the cost of 2-3 MP when entering a hex captured during the turn (i.e. one where you have pending control’).

The rear area administrative rule will apply when:
 moving in hexes that were friendly controlled at the start of a turn (7.3.1);
 not adjacent to an enemy controlled hex (both the hex exited and the hex entered)
 there is no enemy interdiction in the hex (at any level above zero)

The reduction in the movement cost is based on the lowest quality road system in either the source hex or the destination hex. For poor roads, the reduction is 1 MP per hex, for average roads 2 MP per hex and for good roads 3 MP per hex. The MP
for any hex can never be less than 1.

As an example, if a non-motorized unit moves from an average road hex to a good road hex in rough terrain and with heavy mud then the cost would be 2 (for rough) +2 for poor weather – 2 (since the average road is the worst of the two hexes), in combination this will give a 2MP cost.

If this move included crossing a minor river, then the base movement cost would be 2 (rough terrain) +1 (minor river) + 2 (heavy mud) and the road system would then reduce the total cost from 5 MP to 3 MP.

The affected movement in clear terrain will not matter as much to infantry but motorized units will see a larger movement cost even in clear terrain.

[carlkay58]

In addition to the above describing Admin Movement is the section on interdiction:

22.2.3. Impact of Interdiction on tactical movement
Interdiction can be generated by enemy air action (18.1.4), partisans (13.4.2) or as a
result of an airborne assault (23.9). Any level of interdiction will prevent the usage of
administrative movement through the hex.
Leaving hexes with higher levels of interdiction will impose increased movement
costs and possibly extra losses in the form of disruptions, damaged and destroyed
elements

[Stamb]

I can be wrong, but I don't see (or maybe just did not notice) any penalties from a partisan activity. I have > 100% garrison requirements, maybe it helps to keep them under control

[Hardradi]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Hardradi -

Any interdiction at all in a hex, regardless of terrain, removes Administrative Movement for the enemy. This increases the MPs expended by the enemy for each hex moved by a unit. This also increases the fatigue of the moving unit. While not a HUGE effect with the fatigue, the additional MPs expended total up quickly and can have a significant effect in the turn. While interdiction is not great in clear terrain it still totals up over a few turns.

Thanks for the reply.

That's where I see the problem with interdiction in the south. It is mostly clear terrain. The only real barriers are the rivers and weather. Not to mention the difficulties of achieving effective blanket low level interdiction.

[MechFO]

It is telling that during the entire war, the Soviets only ever moved 3 Armies.

But while the Soviets had the larger railway capacity, this was not sufficient for every need, and they limited the demand in a number of ways. There are few instances of major Soviet units of size being moved across the front; perhaps the largest was the concentration for Operation Bagration with 2nd Guards and 51st Armies coming from the Crimea and 5th Guards Tank Army (only two Tank Corps) from the Ukraine. The typical Red Army movement was to send entire units from the Center to a Front and then to leave the thinned-out units there at the end of the operation.

https://www.hgwdavie.com/blog/2018/3/9/ ... r-19411945

Logistics are still much too generous on both sides, but being able to evacuate and shift entire Fronts is too much.

One balancing mechanism might be to radically increase the usage of captured supply. At least according to the above, Bagration relied heavily on this (as well as collapsed German resistance) to be logistically possible.