Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: GordianKnot

ORIGINAL: squatter

I dont see how a Soviet 41 checkerboard defence in 41 can be beat. Currently trying to get a tester (Axis) to play against me (Sov) to confirm that.

One thing you can do against a checker board is to drive deep and narrow instead of trying a direct encirclement. This will force the defender to backup and yield territory without even being attacked in order to avoid being encircled. Since his defenders are spread out, its very hard for him to close the salient because he doesn't have enough units in the area.

Still, using ZOC's has always been an effective delaying tactic in this and many similar games.

I haven't actually tried this, so clearly I could be wrong, but I'd be reasonably surprised if the soviet player "ran out" of checkers for his checkerboard before you ran out of infantry divisions to line the sides of your salient. There are a LOT of soviet divisions in game.

That's the beauty of this game.  Running and Fighting are both viable strategies.
But the Axis are screwed either way. Lol!

Rostov is the death hinge for both sides in this cat and mouse checkboard game - until then it is fun and games as the Soviet interior lines remain roughly the same while the Axis lines continuously expand. After Rostov the Axis drives south and east, so the Axis lines become grossly overextended, and the Soviet interior lines start to (gasp) also expand. At that point each side is very vulnerable...[:D]
 
Marquo

Qbal, Flav-thoughts on soviet air for the first 17 turns or so? 

Um. Red Air force. I mostly don't pay much attention to it. Evacuate to national reserve, get my airbases in place, repopulate them. Put transports and recon and some level bombers on VVS bases for utility missions. Fighter on IAD, tactical on ShaP, bombers on BAP. 3 on each initially, more as reinforcements allow. Make sure every active front gets a nice spread.

Manually bomb anything you want to counterattack. Run some recon missions if the panzers disappear from the front line. Leave settings on default. Let the stupid AI deal with the air war. Don't waste APs on it.

The VVS doesn't get my blood pumping, I'm all about the Red Army.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Now, I expect all of this will create a brand new debate on game balance. But at least it will be the correct debate on the actual merits of the game, and not on this phantom runaway nonsense, which is a nonproblem. The real and dangerous and arguably too effective Soviet defense is the exact opposite of a runaway.

There is no in-game mechanic that forces the Soviet players to conduct the bloody counter-offensives launched by the RKKA from August onwards. The Smolensk counter-offensives - launched as half the armor of AGC went southwards - and along the flank of that force by the Bryansk Front, are very poorly understood by contemporary historiography. While the Soviets achieved several local successes - Yelnya, Sukhinichi Station, etc. - they turned out, on the overall, to be bloody disasters and a brilliant defensive victory for the Wehrmacht. The losses of personnel and matériel there plus the debâcle at Kiev bled the Red Army white, and paved the way for the early and spectacular successes of Operation Typhoon and the Donbass.

In most of the boardgames I've played on the Eastern Front, specially those dating from the mid-late 1990s, have some sort of "Mandated Attacks" rule for the Soviets - most notably Operation Typhoon by GMT games.

I personally hated that rule: it basically forced you to throw away careful planning and husbanding of defences. However, I can see the merits of such a thing being introduced - as a Soviet player it would be a real challenge to defend the Rodina with such kind of interference, but always as an optional rule. In exchange, it would be fair as well, that a similar "No Retreat" rules are put into place for the Axis. I'm pretty sure that German defence on 1943-44 can be done much better than historically in WiTE, very much like we see now a much better defense of the Soviet Union in 1941.

I like a lot that the designers of WiTE did not introduce those kind of rules, but after all, I think that catering for gamers who want a less sandbox-like experience it's not such a bad thing either.

I used a linear defense, with Tank divisions backing up the front line.  I then used my Cavalry to cover gaps for ZOC locking but mainly I used multiple lines or the local reserves engaged in engineering for this.

I define winning as the soviet as forcing the enemy to transition to massing and deliberate attacks.  If the Axis player has to bring up his infantry to blow me out then I won.  Everything I can do to force the German to fight for the territory...and even better fight for it more than once is a net win.  Running away is just not going to accomplish this.  To stop the German attack for a week you need a river line, mass and a reasonable entrenchment.  If you get two weeks from a river line that is golden.

I always have people digging behind me...so it is defense in depth.  Also the Soviet player has to take 20% or so of the units showing up and dump them into a STAVKA reserve, you can't have all your forces deployed forward.

It is risky keeping your forces in contact and sooner or later you will end up with an encirclement.  What I don't understand is why people don't attempt to do something to Panzer divisions basically swinging in the wind.  No flank security and hundreds of miles deep in your territory.  That isn't an encirclement that is pure madness.  Cut them off, if you can mass 5-8 divisions hit them back, that will probably do my psychological then practical damage but that counts too.  When fighting a human it never pays to forget that they are a human catch them off guard and they will react poorly.

The thing is when you have your units in depth (and I don't mean the checkerboard but just the regular depth that shows up naturally) it is very hard to encircle deep.  That limits the pocket that forms.  More dangerous to the soviet player is operational encirclements...the panzers advancing south from Smolensk unhinge the defense of the Southwest Front at Kiev, and if they have to pull back then the Southern Front is left with a serious issue of "now what." 

I just can't understand, outside of risk aversion, why anyone would do a Comrade Robynski.  Any time I did a major pull back I rarely found that it bought me the time I was thinking it might and I won more time by massing my troops in difficult terrain then I ever did by running backwards.

Part of the reason they do the running retreat is tactics are still evolving for both sides. A lot of this will be one side figures something out and it works for awhile or is a good ploy.. for now. The other side will then figure that out and come up with appropriate counter tactics. The run away tactic worked well early because the inexperienced Germans did not know how to make the Russians pay for such a tactic. They are learning and discussion has also shown light on why it is not the be all to end all tactic out there. 

ORIGINAL: jomni

That's the beauty of this game.  Running and Fighting are both viable strategies.
But the Axis are screwed either way. Lol!

Yes but how badly do we Russians get screwed trying to take Berlin in time? That's the real test of game balance not the first 10% of the game.

I have no idea yet but hope to find out in about 6 months depending on how fast PBEM goes. My opponent has agreed to go the distance but we have just had to restart as I had put on random weather by mistake and he got mud on T6........

Yes but how badly do we Russians get screwed trying to take Berlin in time? That's the real test of game balance not the first 10% of the game.

Yes, in a couple of months the Soviets will be crying "Foul" and screaming for more rail capacity, more vehicle capacity, and most of all, more time.

I really think that having constuction battalions is the way to go as the Soviets.  As fast as they can dig is just amazing.  It really makes carpets very viable since the Axis player will have to determine attack his way through them.  A good delaying action is a must for this tactic to work.  I almost have broken through Q-balls prepared defense due to the amount of level 1 forts encountered.  Even though they dig fast they still need time.  Q has stated that he's got enough units to start an new defensive layer farther back which I'm sure will be even better then the one I'm trying to get through.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Yes, in a couple of months the Soviets will be crying "Foul" and screaming for more rail capacity, more vehicle capacity, and most of all, more time.

I seem to have plenty of rail capacity after the early penalty turns. Are people trying to move half a Front in a single turn?

I seem to have plenty of rail capacity after the early penalty turns. Are people trying to move half a Front in a single turn?

In 1943 the soviets need to move forces to different sectors of the front to pull GE reserves away from where they really want to attack. My recon is chasing what looks like 2 of Flavio's Tank Armies around the map. When he finally commits them I will be in the sh!t.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Um. Red Air force. I mostly don't pay much attention to it. Evacuate to national reserve, get my airbases in place, repopulate them. Put transports and recon and some level bombers on VVS bases for utility missions. Fighter on IAD, tactical on ShaP, bombers on BAP. 3 on each initially, more as reinforcements allow. Make sure every active front gets a nice spread.

Manually bomb anything you want to counterattack. Run some recon missions if the panzers disappear from the front line. Leave settings on default. Let the stupid AI deal with the air war. Don't waste APs on it.

The VVS doesn't get my blood pumping, I'm all about the Red Army.

do specific types of airfields matter for certain plane types or are you doing the certain planes to certain bases for your own bookeeping?