Matrix Games Forums

I end the turn. I made a few attacks, most of them succeeded. Panzers remain in reserve at Smolensk which led to 1 hold.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

I have sent the entire Southwestern front to reserve, and they will be deployed to Moscow and Leningrad. I do not believe the South is worth defending remotely, and most Axis players will get +6 VPs regardless. I will not bother evacuating industry - it is a mechanic I have ignored so far, and will continue to ignore unless I reach the unlikely state in which Leningrad, Moscow, Tula, or other such cities that did not fall historically are threatened.

If the Soviets don't defend the South would expect Axis to achieve a sudden death win in '41, am not sure if that is what you are aiming to demonstrate ?

tyron

On that note, I would also like to remind people of what Tyronec said.

My defence of the south has been sporadic for most of the game. I quite literally sent the entirety of the Southwestern Front to reserve, and a good portion of the Southern Front. I have repeated this in another game, currently on axis turn 5.

We now stand in a situation where it is not the Soviet side facing sudden loss, it is the axis side. I believe this is no fault of my opponent, nor it is some grand display of skill. Beethoven originally pulled this strategy against me, and it forced me to resign by turn 10.

I do not believe the axis player can produce an efficient counter-response to this strategy. Their best bet is to maybe redeploy most of PZG1 to Centre or Leningrad. They cannot just leave it solely down to infantry to advance as they will barely advance. They cannot just snake with motorised/panzers to secure hexes for admin movement as I will deploy cavalry to stop that. I will also strip the entire south of units to counter any redeployment elsewhere.

There is simply no incentive for the Soviets to defend in the south (until mud arrives), no matter what anyone says. The VPs will be lost anyway, likely ahead of time against a competent axis. The axis supply chain will struggle the more they advance. Crimea is only barely worth defending because of it's ports and the natural chokeholds. Rostov itself is a literal fortress with any sort of preperation, and I categorically don't believe the axis can take it in 41 if it is cityforted ahead of time.

Industry? Doesn't matter, it'll all be evacuated as I understand it and just suffer some extra damage. Manpower? I get enough from holding all the centre and northern areas that I'm still easily making 100,000+ a turn. I will also receive a total of 1.1m extra free manpower. 500,000 turn 24, 150,000 turn 46 or 48, and another 450,000 turn 64.

Truly it boggles the mind.

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I do not believe the axis player can produce an efficient counter-response to this strategy.

I think you'll be in for a big surprise one day against an Axis player who knows what you're doing and can work the supply system in the south to its fullest. But even in the best case scenario, chances that you can hold out for the T29 sudden loss with this strategy are pretty slim. Hopefully you've done the math for the T68 victory conditions - or is it just a general gut feeling?

ORIGINAL: K62

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I do not believe the axis player can produce an efficient counter-response to this strategy.

I think you'll be in for a big surprise one day against an Axis player who knows what you're doing and can work the supply system in the south to its fullest. But even in the best case scenario, chances that you can hold out for the T29 sudden loss with this strategy are pretty slim. Hopefully you've done the math for the T68 victory conditions - or is it just a general gut feeling?

You can only do so much with supply in the south, and the axis can only repair so fast. I wanted to try this against Tyronec but he had just started another game. The Axis are not advancing past Rostov in 41. They can of course choose to do so, but will lose against any sort of push from the flanks by the Soviets.

I was never aiming for a T29 sudden loss, it was just a thing that occurred to me recently that might happen. The goal of this AAR was never to make the axis experience a sudden loss, it was to show a strategy the Soviets can employ to stonewall Centre and North for no cost besides land you'd lose for sure anyway.

I will not lose on turn 68, if the games reaches there, I daresay categorically.

Turn 16 - the axis surprisingly advance into the gap I left.

Heavy mud creeps ever closer. Fairly slow turn, only 20 battles across the front.

The first "panzer" division is hit south-west of Lipetsk. It retreats to the hex west of Lipetsk, further into our jaws. We shall see if it is our first surrender of the game.

We officially reach a 4m OOB.

Rostov is a good backstop, but also Sevastapol can be contested with a single army if you start building outer defences I the rough terrain across to yalta early enough. Failing to contest this and generally deploying a token screen to the south just means the axis can take the whole region with just 1 Pz and 11 Armee freeing up 6 and 17 to run rampant themselves. The gamble might pay off but its not without considerable advantages to the axis as well once he sniffs the game plan.

You still need to hold whatever you gain in the Crimea and Ukraine against mobile exploitation units (i.e. cavalry divisions that have ZOC hex flipping and good MPs) and Rifle divisions with the infantry armies of AGS, so they can't actually run rampant. They can't run rampant further east either because of logistics.

If just facing light opposition 1 Pz can easily reach Rostov turn 14/mid sept without too much danger from marauding cavalry. If the Soviets stack here as Redjohn plans they won't get further immediately of course, and even if they take Rostov they would be unwise to go further east. But they will be free to contain and send Pzcorps elsewhere. 11 Armee will reach sevastapol but not long after even if the isthmus has some resistance, but if the city is not properly defended and falls that frees up a whole extra army to redeploy, the Crimea is going to be easy to defend against counterattacks, probably a German corps plus Romananians is enough. Meanwhile if resistance in the south is light enough that 1 Pz can push alone 17 armee doesnt need to tail along and can push in hard with 6 Armee in the centre and up northwest. Going light defences in the south may well be valid strategy in many ways, but there are consequences and many benefits to the Axis too once this is clear. But my main point is its always worth putting the effort into Sevastapol I think. You might not hold any longer than historical in the end, but spending an Army to fight in level 3-5 forts on favourable terrain is some of the most preferable fights you will have in '41 and the alternative is to free up a whole fresh 11 Armee to do damage elsewhere, or at the very least get better prepared for winter. If there is ever a point to sacrifice an army its here, in my humble opinion, especially as 11 Armee will have almost certainly lost the Romanian FDB just before the isthmus and will likely arrive at the gates on extended supplies just as the weather is about to turn. Not having a hard fight is a gift.

ORIGINAL: Gunnulf

If just facing light opposition 1 Pz can easily reach Rostov turn 14/mid sept without too much danger from marauding cavalry.

FWIW this is about where my Soviet game against jubjub is currently.

If the Soviets stack here as Redjohn plans they won't get further immediately of course, and even if they take Rostov they would be unwise to go further east. But they will be free to contain and send Pzcorps elsewhere.

Where else, exactly, are they going to go? They could go up to Kursk, but that is already taken. They could go even further away, up towards Orel/Tula or something, but if they go very far they will take attrition losses from extra movement, right before winter as well. It will take a turn or two to move up there from Stalino, and then another turn at least to rest and recover CPP/lose fatigue before being fit for combat. By the time they get there, it will either be mud, or almost mud. Is it really worth having all those Panzers be damaged to drive them around more?

11 Armee will reach sevastapol but not long after even if the isthmus has some resistance, but if the city is not properly defended and falls that frees up a whole extra army to redeploy, the Crimea is going to be easy to defend against counterattacks, probably a German corps plus Romananians is enough. Meanwhile if resistance in the south is light enough that 1 Pz can push alone 17 armee doesnt need to tail along and can push in hard with 6 Armee in the centre and up northwest. Going light defences in the south may well be valid strategy in many ways, but there are consequences and many benefits to the Axis too once this is clear. But my main point is its always worth putting the effort into Sevastapol I think. You might not hold any longer than historical in the end, but spending an Army to fight in level 3-5 forts on favourable terrain is some of the most preferable fights you will have in '41 and the alternative is to free up a whole fresh 11 Armee to do damage elsewhere, or at the very least get better prepared for winter. If there is ever a point to sacrifice an army its here, in my humble opinion, especially as 11 Armee will have almost certainly lost the Romanian FDB just before the isthmus and will likely arrive at the gates on extended supplies just as the weather is about to turn. Not having a hard fight is a gift.

The talk about not defending Crimea/Sevastopol is not relevant, at least not for this current game here, since Redjohn/Bread is in fact defending it. However, suppose that the 11th Army were freed up as you say. If so, where exactly is it going to go? Infantry divisions can only march (at a maximum) 16 hexes per turn. It will So it will take them quite a few turns to march anywhere from Sevastopol, and by the time they get to wherever it is you are sending them, it will be already mud or possibly already winter.

I am stopped at the entrance in Crimea in my game. Perekop is fortification lvl 3 + can be attacked from 1 side only. On the other sides it is also possible to build lvl 3 fortiications and have only hexes that can be attacked from 1 side.
My opponent is playing very well, especially in Crimea. Unfortunately he is not making AAR. He even uses amphibious HQ in order to help there (I had to open manual and search WTH is that HQ and how to deal with it).
From my perspective it is worth defending it.

Turn 17. Orel is surrounded, and sadly the 1st panzer division is freed. Some slight pushing in Crimea.

Rokossovosky frees Orel. 1st panzer division is hit back again.

We hit the 2nd panzer division, it holds, but loses half it's AFVs in the process.

The mountaineer army guarding the VL deadzone has it's first guards come up. We also hit another 2 units but get an unfortunate hold.

Still, our 2nd guards unit means we get a guards rifle corps to play with for blizzard. As soon as I am able to I'll merge this with the other guards at Vyazma, refit it, and shove either 3 tank brigades on it to begin farming for guards tank brigades or just 3 rifle brigades to boost it into 30-40 CV territory.

OOB Turn 17. 230,000 men sitting in manpower pool that for whatever reason didn't reinforce this turn.

ORIGINAL: K62

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I do not believe the axis player can produce an efficient counter-response to this strategy.

I think you'll be in for a big surprise one day against an Axis player who knows what you're doing and can work the supply system in the south to its fullest. But even in the best case scenario, chances that you can hold out for the T29 sudden loss with this strategy are pretty slim. Hopefully you've done the math for the T68 victory conditions - or is it just a general gut feeling?

Agreed with K62, all due respect to the Axis player this game, but any experienced Axis player would be able to punish this strategy pretty easily.

ORIGINAL: Rosencrantus

ORIGINAL: K62

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

I do not believe the axis player can produce an efficient counter-response to this strategy.

I think you'll be in for a big surprise one day against an Axis player who knows what you're doing and can work the supply system in the south to its fullest. But even in the best case scenario, chances that you can hold out for the T29 sudden loss with this strategy are pretty slim. Hopefully you've done the math for the T68 victory conditions - or is it just a general gut feeling?

Agreed with K62, all due respect to the Axis player this game, but any experienced Axis player would be able to punish this strategy pretty easily.

I await the day that happens, then, but I doubt it will because its a pretty solid strategy and the axis don't have much room to do much of anything despite others vehemently arguing otherwise. [:)]

I am happy to accept any challenge.