PlayTest Opponent needed for 6 turn game

[BrickReid]

I would like to test the "Marauding Panzer Corps behind enemy lines" issue/bug that has been discussed.

I need an opponent who is experienced at using the tactic with great (or at least a lot of) success. I can provide save game files for a game I've already got going between myself and another human opponent (date is 8/10/41 approximately) in which axis player is still in supply 8, for the moment, and the Soviets (my guys) have not been seriously hurt IMO (he did not use encirclement enough IMO).

If someone else has a better save file in '42 and/or in which the break into the backfield for the panzer corps is prime, please volunteer it with your acceptance of the Playtest.

I'd like to play 6-10 turns as needed to see if I can stop the marauding unit or at least neutralize it. I have the latest Matrix edition 3 of WIR but I did not download the PBEM software (although the version I do have has a selection for secure PBEM icon in the setup screen).

E-mail me the turn at BrickReid@aol.com and post your acceptance/experience in using the tactic here.

Thanks,

[Mist]

Hi BrickReid!
You need Josan or Lorenzo I think. They have used this tactic with great success according to their descriptions. I just want to make a small comment here. Though marauding panzer korps surely can be destroyed, the actual problem under discussion was not "is it possible to destroy OOS panzer korps in WiR" but "was it realy possible to indefinitely keep alive and healthy air-supplied corps which is facing light opposition and moving behind enemy lines". You see, second question assumes light opposition and no serious danger of destruction. It is only question of air supply which gives to corps unreal ability to advance further and further without any ground supplies.

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]</p>

[BrickReid]

Yes, I see your point. I'm using the assumption there will be a defender present to make efforts to destroy the Pz Corps. Assuming this, and assuming the defender still has more than a shell of an army left (otherwise he has been beaten except for the attackers grabbing the victory point cities), I would presume this bug, if it is one, is irrelevent. Now, if a defender is unable to neutralize or kill the Pz Corps in his backfield and he has reasonable forces, the issue may warrant further investigation. IMO

[matt.buttsworth]

The problem is the 1942 campaign in which the Russians start with half as many tank divisions as in the 1941 campaign 27 instead of 52. To hold the front, most of these have to be assigned to bolserting the front line so the the Germans cannot break it with ease. Very few are left.
If a smart player, and Josan and Lorenzo are very smart and adept at using this tactic, then launches one raid in the north, one on the Stalingrad front, and a third on the caucasus front, it is almost impossible to stop.
The raid which destroyed me was a breakthrough 8 squares north of Grosny, cutting the supply line as it was a straight jab. As all spare panzer units were already fighting other raids, only a few infantry division units were able to block its path, but it burst straight through them, eventually taking Grozny by storm, shattering a three infantry entrenched division there.
That to me was fantasy, as this unit had already been attacked in the rear, blocked in the front, and bombed for four or five turns.
Errors, particularly in one crucial turn, I did make, but the key thing to me was that the whole scenario was fantasy and I could not believe it when the panzer went on and on, expecting it to stop at one square movement or none. But with one tank division, one infantry division plus art etc you can evidently keep it moving indefinitely with air supply alone as happened.
The key is the exact size of the unit.
The result it won a game, but in a fantasy way that destroyed all sense of realism and joy in it for me.

[BrickReid]

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
The problem is the 1942 campaign....

---

Thanks for the great description of this tactic, Matthew. It seems to be a possibility the problem is the starting units the Soviets have in the '42 campaign, no? Is anyone familiar with the Soviet OOB to comment wether the '42 campaign is representative of the forces present at the time? (This is not a claim, merely thinking out loud.)

Matthew,

Did you keep your turns in your e-mails or zip files or whatever that show the events or that I could use as a starting point? Or, is the tactic used right off the bat in the opening turns of the '42 campaign?

Also,

JOSAN or Lorenzo

Care to play me a shortened game that is only several turns long to show me what you do? I'd like to witness/feel the tactic used on me.

Lastly,

Matthew,

Do you believe this tactic could be a problem in the Barbarossa campaign?

Thanks

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BrickReid ]</p>

[Mist]

Three entrenched inf divisions in city were shattered by 1 pz and 1 inf OOS German divisions which were bombed and had only air supplies during several weeks of fighting! Sounds like a complete nonsence!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I hope that OOS rules will be changed ASAP.
I have some questions though.
1. How many OPs did SOviet HQ have?
2. What was the readiness/experience of shattered SOviet divisions
3. Were they bombed heavily before attacked by marauding pz.korps

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]</p>

[matt.buttsworth]

very weak divisions and bombed to bits. But I presumed dug in they would be able to resist the panzer attack as I knew how weak it was from continually bombing it.

[matt.buttsworth]

will find the files describing the exact moves and strength later tonight or tomorrow. It was a very interesting and infuriating attack I did not think was possible until it happened.

[Svar]

Originally posted by Mist:
Three entrenched inf divisions in city were shattered by 1 pz and 1 inf OOS German divisions which were bombed and had only air supplies during several weeks of fighting! Sounds like a complete nonsence!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I hope that OOS rules will be changed ASAP.

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mist ]

---

Mist,

I agree with you. The problem when this subject was discussed in detail earlier was that it would be impossible to supply a mobile corps on the move. Do you think it would be possible to fix the air supply of an OOS unit the same way that the change corps name was fixed? In that case when a corps had its name changed it was not allowed to move that turn. So what I'm proposing is, if an OOS unit receives air supply it is restricted from moving on the turn it received the air supply. That would simulate securing and holding airfields long enough for the air supply to take place. If a player wanted to move his OOS units, he would either have to do it without air supply or wait 1 turn to get air supply. This would at least cut the moving rate in half and cause more reduction in the readiness since there would now be 2 turns where the readiness would be reduced for every turn the unit moved.

Svar

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: Svar ]</p>

[matt.buttsworth]

Just checked my files. The attack lasted for over four turns during which the unit caused an entire front to collapse, and advanced 7 squares to capture grozny, defended by one entrenched division and two neawly arrived weak reinforcements. It literally one the game by itself but was in terms of playing it, pure fantasy.

[matt.buttsworth]

sorry eight turns.

[matt.buttsworth]

answering your other questions I believe the tactic is pecularily effective in the 1942 game due to the artificially limited number of russian tank divisions and very stretched russian line.
It would be a problem whenever the russian lines are so stretched that no rearguard is possible and german air superiority is total ie 42 in any game, but the double number of tank divisions in barbarossa 52 not 27 makes it much easier to counter as only tanks can stop tanks.
you would have to ask Josan or Lorenzo if they have been as successful in using it or the kamikaze panzer division tactic in the barbarossa game.
another factor in 1942 which makes both so dangerous is the false placement of saratov within striking range of the german line and vital to russian survival...

[Josans]

Originally posted by BrickReid:


JOSAN or Lorenzo

Care to play me a shortened game that is only several turns long to show me what you do? I'd like to witness/feel the tactic used on me.

Lastly,

Matthew,

Do you believe this tactic could be a problem in the Barbarossa campaign?

Thanks

[ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: BrickReid ]

---

OK lets do it.

For me is more effective in Barbarossa. The soviets has no armored units and till October not obey all units to the plot orders.
In 42 campaign the germans must be more careful.

I want to clarify one thing. This tactic dont gives you an automatic victory,is part of the an overall strategy. The soviet objective is not crush the german korps, the loss of a korps can be softer if the strategical option has been reached. And is this strategical option the soviet must face and must avoid.I dont know if in 6 turns I will get time and the moment to do it but I will try.

So choose Barbarossa, 42 campaign or both...

Josan " El Conquistador " <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

[BrickReid]

Originally posted by Josan:



OK lets do it.

For me is more effective in Barbarossa. The soviets has no armored units and till October not obey all units to the plot orders.
In 42 campaign the germans must be more careful.

I want to clarify one thing. This tactic dont gives you an automatic victory,is part of the an overall strategy. The soviet objective is not crush the german korps, the loss of a korps can be softer if the strategical option has been reached. And is this strategical option the soviet must face and must avoid.I dont know if in 6 turns I will get time and the moment to do it but I will try.

So choose Barbarossa, 42 campaign or both...

Josan " El Conquistador " <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">

---

Great,
Since you are the Germans in this, please send your opening move. We may as well start in the '41 campaign since it is the main game and go to the '42 campaign after that. Do you want to start with the opening move or would you like to use a save game I have from another human opponent? I'm ok either way, but you may not want to spend time familiarizing yourself with another's game (it is around 8/10/41 in the game and I have every save game file since we started, so you can pick one).

My e-mail is BrickReid@aol.com and I have open slots for save games in a, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i (only b and j are being used right now). I also have not downloaded the PBEM software, whatever it does, so an open game would be best since this is simply a test anyway. We can post our ongoing test as soon as the breakthrough starts to keep everyone up to speed and report at the end. I also intend to play my normal game of using some of Ed's hated supply bugs <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> to change as little as possible in my game.

I think this'll be fun. Looking forward to your first move in my e-mail in the next day or so. If you have a question about any of this just make a command decision and tell me what you did in your e-mail, I'm sure it'll be alright.

[BrickReid]

Ok. I got a problem. I downloaded the saved file you (Josan) sent me and now I'm not able to copy it over to the WIR folder. I can copy the second two files but not the first file. It says its in use or I'm not allowed access or something. End result is I cannot play the game until I can copy them over.

Mind you, I'm used to playing open games where you just copy over the save files and I've never used the PBEM feature of the Matrix edition. What's up? Anyone know?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:
Three entrenched inf divisions in city were shattered by 1 pz and 1 inf OOS German divisions which were bombed and had only air supplies during several weeks of fighting! Sounds like a complete nonsence!! <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
I hope that OOS rules will be changed ASAP.

---

Utter nonsense, but AFAIK its not being changed anytime soon. When you start a new game make sure you have a house rule for this with your opponent.

[PMCN]

Wasn't there any space Independant tank Bde or anti-tank gun units (plus some artillary) to rail in to that defending army? AT guns and ARTY make all the difference in the world on defence and a small group of KVI or KVII tanks would also help.

It is of course pure fantasy. I like the idea of holding in place while the supplies are dropped in though. Too bad it can't be implemented.

[murx]

I think the whole problem is different - if you're throwing everything except the kitchen sink at the front it is no wonder a marauding PzKorps can cut of valuable railcrossings.
Especially in defense you need a reserve you only send out when things are really stinky.

Nearly every military formation keeps reserve units - even in a squad one could call the sniper in his secure position relativ far from the action 'reserve'.
Even at the Ardennen Offensive when Germany used nearly all their reserve units they still kept another reserve (though one might argue if those units were used the outcome might have been different).

If you don't keep a reserve then your situation is desperate with a minimal chance of winning - and then a marauding PzKorps should be able to make a difference.
Esp. for the Soviet there is always a piece of land you can give to Axis, shorten the front another tiny bit. Weakening one position that is not as valuable as that crossing, hoping the enemy recon wont find this small gap.
Recon in this game is so limited that it will work more often then you think - all so often I found out that an AI unit that should be 3-5 Divisions strong was in fact a single artillery or HeavyTank unit. Put on your pokerface and try it!
Rommel has won several times with a 'Ghost'army that wasn't even close to the surrendering enemy.
Now you play against human players - no AI cheat, no exact knowledge of CVs, and if you say he took eight turns to get to that important crossing, now, wasn't there enough time to do something ? 8 * 5000 railpoints is a lot of material shipped.
And you could probably guess what this PzKorps was up to - if you had no clue, then, sorry, you had not thought hard enough.

Just my two cents, but if a player dedicates 500-1000 planes to support a unit it is a lot of cargo, and probably enough fuel and repair parts. And personnel could get shipped that way too (but luckily that wont happen). Hell, with that tonnage one might even think of transporting tanks in parts to the unit and put them together there. In WWII there were several Airborne missions (just think of 'A bridge too far <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ' - and they needed Airborne supplies too - a lot of them. They shipped soldiers, AT guns, Artillery, even light tanks.

murx

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by murx:
I think the whole problem is different - if you're throwing everything except the kitchen sink at the front it is no wonder a marauding PzKorps can cut of valuable railcrossings.

---

In the case of the specifics, it depends on where those rail lines are that the Pz corps is trying to reach, and what intentions that corps will do once there.

However, the prior debate moved from the small force in the case that started the debate, to the current ability of a full size panzer corps being able to remain active indefinitely behind the enemy lines in WiR. This is the issue which almost all agree, I believe, is not historically possible, not for a corps that is moving and fighting. The movement/combat issue is a very important distinction that separates this situation from all the historical air supply operations attempted by either side, but especially the Germans. Consider for example the problem of a moving corps needing landing strips that possibly can only be used for some hours before the movement of the corps leaves that landing strip too close to the enemy, and thus must be abandoned. Good, prepared runways are out of he question, there is no time, you'd have to use grass landing strips instead.

Look for the "Caucasus Strategy in 42" thread aways back. That thread went over this argument in detail.

Airborne missions (just think of 'A bridge too far ' - and they needed Airborne supplies too - a lot of them. They shipped soldiers, AT guns, Artillery, even light tanks.

---

An airborne division is a true "light" division for obvious reasons. You just can't compare that, or even 3 airborne divisions, to a panzer corps, assuming a common composition of 2 panzer, 1 motorized, & attachments. If full strength, the corps would have ~11,000 motor vehicles needing fuel.

Also, keep in mind that the priority of the supply operation is to keep the existing army on the ground supplied and operating. Using airlift capacity for other things like infantry reinforcements and extra low-caliber artillery might not be always possible. Most here, I believe, will agree that the air supply operation for a full panzer corps would be under stress from the very beginning, forcing them to concentrate on supplies for the men and equipment already on the ground.

To my knowledge the Germans never used transports to airlift tanks, not anything significant. They had a design and a few prototypes for a transport, it was huge with a nose or rear opening (can't remember which), but a grass landing strip for this beast was out of the question. They didn't have that design produced in any numbers anyway, and this design, IIRC, still couldn't lift a heavy or medium tank like the Tigers/Panthers.

[ September 09, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Major Tom]

The problem probably is not that the Russians are too weak, but that the Germans are too strong.

By the spring of 1942 the Russian and German armies were very battered, the Russians worse off than the Germans.

However, in tank numbers the Germans were much worse off. They could barely field a few hundred tanks (according to most of the recent documentaries). Most of the remaining vehicles were being repaired.

In the OBC42 file the German Panzer formations should be depleted (ie. at around 50% their OBC41 strength) along with the pools being lower as well (to eliminate the instant addition of 50 tanks to a division in one week). Supply is too abstract in the game. Sure, there might have been X many hundred of Pz IVE in rear areas under repair, but they could not instantly be transported from Berlin to Leningrad within the time stated. The Germans should be a potent force, but with only enough armour to do a SINGLE THEATRE attack. Most armour should be concentrated in the South, with the Northern Panzer Divisions only really capable of defensive actions, which historically they were.