Matrix Games Forums

The only advantage to forming a linebacker defense is that it will probably only buy you 2 turns where you not on full retreat IMO. 

There are definitely several pre-conditions to creating a full linebacker defence. Having the shortest possible front line, having the Finns freed up by the capture of Leningrad, having the time to dig 2 rows of lvl4 entrenchments in some sectors etc.

Trying to analyse the AARs I have seen so far, I think one weakness I can detect, is that some players are not maintaining a solid line, which means that there is sometimes no zone of control left in a hex when a unit retreats, whereas with a solid line, there are times where the SU cannot advance into a retreat hex, and the Axis can re-occupy the hex. In my game with Trey I was re-occupying about 50% of the hexes he retreated me out of.

The line backer defence, does sometimes only last 2-4 turns, but it does ensure that every corps has reserves that can be rotated between R&R and the front line.

ORIGINAL: randallw

Those RR construction units are probably wasting their time, since their hexes may get overrun within a few weeks. [:D]

The hexes may get overrun but the sovs will have to convert them back, which delays them.

notenome: The Soviets have to convert those hexes, whether they are repaired by Germans or not. So the construction units ARE wasting their time. Oh well.....

What exactly is the LINE BACKER defense? I am familiar with what some have called "Checkerboard", which means creating stack with space in between, and a second line in the next row to cover the exits, and keep some units off the line.

It sounds like LINE BACKER aims to completely cover the front, unlike the Checkerboard. Is that correct? How does it work?

How does it work?

The idea is to try to give some depth to the Germans' defence during the Blizzard. It is based on organising the army into 4 division corps with 3 Divs in the Front line, and 3 regiments directly behind them - in 1943 I leave a 1-2 hex gap between the 2 lines as the Sovs can attack more than once in 1943.

The regiments can be given pioneers to help with digging. If the division retreats, they retreat into the regiment thus increasing defensive CVs if the Sovs do try a second attack and increasing the digging potential. If the evacuated hex cannot be reoccupied then the regiment falls back and starts digging the next line of defences. The second line usually stops the cossacks and/or tank brigades breaking through the lines. If one of the front line divisions gets battered and needs a rest, the linebacker regiments combine to take its place in the line. The battered div falls back preferably to a railhead, gets some soup then splits into regiments to become the linebacker.

The linebackers can be set to reserve mode, but there were changes to the rules that may make this less effective at stopping SU attacks, but the more "Hold" results you can achieve, the more you can slow down the SU.

Interesting, that is different that Comrade Ps suggested "Checkerboard" defense.

CHECKER concentrates Divisions in 2-deep stacks in most places, 2-hexes apart, with reserves behind the line. Those stacks are tougher to displace, though the disadvantage with this is I imagine the Soviets could shoot the gaps with Cav or Tank Bdes, eventually forcing you to retreat (or counterattack, but I know that burns alot of AFVs). Stacks are close enough that Soviets can only advance through gaps at 1-hex per turn, but eventually, they will shoot the gaps. CHECKER has units behind the line, so a huge breakthrough is not entirely possible.

With LINEBACKER, a single-division is going to lose to a determined Soviet attack, but I can see there is depth in that plan, and that a breakthrough is probably less likely. Also keeps units off the line.

I imagine you can use Romanians in that plan, they just take the place of German Regts. I know you don't want to use Romanians if you can avoid it, but at some point, you probably can't avoid it.

Probably the main Soviet objective isn't taking ground anyway, but bleeding down the Wehrmacht. Taking ground is secondary, and really just allows you to trade space for time in the Summer more easily.

Interesting approach...

As noted elsewhere there are swings and roundabouts with every tactic, but the Checkerboard has weaker ZOCs that won't stop an advance, whereas the ZOC of a solid line can sometimes stop an advance into terrain worse than clear, and you can re-occupy the hex - they won't be entrenched but forcing the SU to fight for the same hex more than once is a good thing in my book - it annoyed the heck out of Trey.

Again, as noted elsewhere I have been less concerned about attrition because I always started 1942 at better than the historical benchmark - but late code changes may have changed that.

edit re Rumanians. The Rumanian Mountain brigades can just about hold their own in the front lines so I have "normal" Rumanian divisions digging in behind them. If you don't get Leningrad you pretty much have to do this - I would also have to use motorised divisions in the front line, when I would normally have them in winter quarters to back up the Panzers in the March snow "happy time".

I don't see how a checkerboard has weaker ZOC than a different defensive employment, as long as you cover all the hexes with ZOC, the result should be the same than when there's an enemy unit in the hex. That's what makes checkerboarding so economical/problematic to break through to begin with: you maximize ZOC with a limited amount of units.

In any case, what I would propose is a hedgehogging, which doesn't differ from checkerboarding in the sense that no solid line is held, but does differ in the sense that the individual stacks are strong, as your army is concentrated in fewer hexes.

Bob clearly felt one of the disadvantages of his tactic: holding a line means the Soviets can make a lot of attacks, lots of attacks in blizzard means lots of losses, lots of losses mean lots of leader dismissals. The essence of hedgehogging is to make stacks that are too strong to be attacked or even if they can be attacked, to make the attack very costly for the Soviets. As I explained earlier, it also reduces the losses registered at HQ level because they're not cumulative with the number of losses of the units they command (the same goes for wins, obviously).

Just to clarify on the Zone of Control thing, it does cost +1 Mp to Leave a ZOC, So if you retreat the middle unit of a checker board, you will have 3 hexes to cover with zocs, so the Middle Hex will not start in a ZOC. Whereas a solid line requires 2 attacks to free the middle unit from a ZOC. That +1 can make the difference between a unit being able to advance into the vacated hex or not, in my experience.

Yup, I am trying a kind of hedgehog line, but over time those units are getting very low on supplies by being next to Soviet units forcing me to airsupply them and even move armor in to bolster the line. But so far - except for some Soviet deeper penetrations by tanks or cav - the Soviets have been largely unable to displace those strong points.

And while I can see the advantage of having the units behind the lines getting better supplies I would hate to face the losses from the fairly large numbers of successfull Soviet attacks (men and win/loss ratio). But maybe the losses can be mitigated by having fewer units in direct contact with the Sovets. It might be interesting to directly compare both approaches at the beginning of the winter turns.

CharonJr

Generally speaking, the blizzard itself will be causing most of the damage/losses, so the main variable will be the losses the Soviets inflict on you.

The losses are quite horrible every time I have to retreat. Otherwise the Russian losses are really high -even in the Blizzard. I have seen a couple of Russian attacks repelled with 10 K+ men lost on their side.

The strategic consequences are simple. As the German you only have a chance to win against a human if you take Leningrad (at all cost) in 41. I am really missing those Finish divisions now. It is not possible to form a strong defensive line without the Fins. The country is just too big and if you don't have Leningrad your frontline will probably go south east from Leningrad making it even longer.

Now a reasonable Russian player would even trade Moscow to keep Leningrad so that the Fins are not activated. The open question is, if it is possible for a German player to force the capture of Leningrad even if the Russian player throws everything he has in his way. In the meantime I doubt that a German player can win, if he does not get leningrad in 41.

The frontline for trying to take Leningrad and failing is longer than a frontline where you don't try to take Leningrad, but defend to the south. Of course, if you activate the Finns it can help, but with the terrain limitations and the ease with which the Soviets can reinforce the area, taking Leningrad is going to be nigh impossible against an experienced Soviet player. Some have taken it, mostly with the right hook, but their opponents were still learning just like them.

I'm not sure whether taking Leningrad is the key to victory, but it is probably a preferable target in 1941. However, as said it's very difficult to take, which is why I focussed my mobile units elsewhere after I ran into resistance in swamps in my game with notenome.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The frontline for trying to take Leningrad and failing is longer than a frontline where you don't try to take Leningrad, but defend to the south. Of course, if you activate the Finns it can help, but with the terrain limitations and the ease with which the Soviets can reinforce the area, taking Leningrad is going to be nigh impossible against an experienced Soviet player. Some have taken it, mostly with the right hook, but their opponents were still learning just like them.

I'm not sure whether taking Leningrad is the key to victory, but it is probably a preferable target in 1941. However, as said it's very difficult to take, which is why I focussed my mobile units elsewhere after I ran into resistance in swamps in my game with notenome.

I agree with you that Leningrad probably impossible to take against a serious opponent. Having said that the question remains if it is possible for a German player to even achieve a draw assuming two equally skilled players. But the game is probably right, that winning that war would have been close to impossible for the Germans.

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

The frontline for trying to take Leningrad and failing is longer than a frontline where you don't try to take Leningrad, but defend to the south. Of course, if you activate the Finns it can help, but with the terrain limitations and the ease with which the Soviets can reinforce the area, taking Leningrad is going to be nigh impossible against an experienced Soviet player. Some have taken it, mostly with the right hook, but their opponents were still learning just like them.

I'm not sure whether taking Leningrad is the key to victory, but it is probably a preferable target in 1941. However, as said it's very difficult to take, which is why I focussed my mobile units elsewhere after I ran into resistance in swamps in my game with notenome.

I agree with you that it is probably impossible to tae against a serious opponent. Having said that the question remains if it is possible for a German player to even achieve a draw assuming two equally skilled players. But the game is probably right, that winning that war would have been close to impossible for the Germans.

I also agree with the both of you. I just can't see a human player letting Leningrad fall. The terrian is just not suited for your main offensive weapon and the right hook is a long shot that a Soviet player can easily counter by thinning out units in the city proper to assist in defense in front of the advance. Maybe if a German player would take a panzer group away from center to help out it might be done. Rob Paul to pay Peter thing thou.

IMO its best to use those panzer's in another area once opposition becomes a grinding stone for them. 2 Panzer groups work better together anyways.

Good discussion, and I wonder if in general, WITE is like WITP-AE, for you AE players, in terms of victory conditions.

In AE, the only path to Japanese VP victory is auto-victory, and a decent player can prevent that. Only in mis-matches has a flat-out Japanese Victory happened, and losing the USN CVs seems to be necessary to lose.

Hard to say if the Soviets can easily WIN in WITE, but I can't see the Germans winning at this point. Maybe we need to get better. Even reaching the historical line in 1941 is a challenge. I wonder how many games will end in a DRAW....

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Good discussion, and I wonder if in general, WITE is like WITP-AE, for you AE players, in terms of victory conditions.

In AE, the only path to Japanese VP victory is auto-victory, and a decent player can prevent that. Only in mis-matches has a flat-out Japanese Victory happened, and losing the USN CVs seems to be necessary to lose.

Hard to say if the Soviets can easily WIN in WITE, but I can't see the Germans winning at this point. Maybe we need to get better. Even reaching the historical line in 1941 is a challenge. I wonder how many games will end in a DRAW....

True, not enough non tester players have even gotten far enough to tell where were at as far as how the end game will look. Time will tell, I'm just glad to be here at the start of things, I joined the WitP (original) game just a year before AE came out.

Honestly, I think that HQ buildup may simply be the key to Axis woes in 41. I've started experimeting with it, but with HQ buildup you can send AGN panzers on a far right hook away from marshes and other gobbledigook. I think the key to good territorial gains in 41 is HQ buildup, but losses are still going to be high due to disabled return rate being 1/7th what it should be.

due to disabled return rate being 1/7th what it should be.

Can you Post a turn 53 Axis OOB from AI or PBEM play to show how understrength the Axis are due to this?

That's all Joel wants to see, so the appropriate adjustment can be made. I am going to post a formal request for more data.

ORIGINAL: notenome

Honestly, I think that HQ buildup may simply be the key to Axis woes in 41. I've started experimeting with it, but with HQ buildup you can send AGN panzers on a far right hook away from marshes and other gobbledigook. I think the key to good territorial gains in 41 is HQ buildup, but losses are still going to be high due to disabled return rate being 1/7th what it should be.

I've started doing this with my pbem's, you have to do it at the right time or your actually wasting a week for the build up.

My motor pool currently has a surplus of around 15.000 vehicles. HQ build ups are too costly with such a small margin.