V1.03 Blizzard survival guide

[G Felzien]

Thanks BigA. Good information.

I have been wondering, it is great that the ToE% for units can be adjusted on the CR but like the Refit On/Off the HQs have, why can't the change the ToE% of a corp/army be done from the HQ itself? Or can it and I have missed it?

[Encircled]

Cheers for the info!

[karonagames]

You can sort by Army/Corps from the master list, by clicking on the Army/Corps name. Once you've done that you're good to go.

[Mike Parker]

I think you woudn't be able to raise their moral to 81 level if you started with 1.03 beta 3 from turn 1.

Hrrrmmmm well I most certainly did, the game started 1.03 beta 3 from turn 1 and I upgraded to the official 1.03 right before blizzard. As for how I did it, I guess it was more of a project as I had it hover in the back and make attacks only on weakened formations (usually those pocketed and ready to surrender) I was getting 4-5 such easy attacks a turn (occasionally more if I could get concentrations of units close together) and taking no losses so I was able to steadily increase its morale. This meant it stayed in the rear mostly, but with good supply and replacement it became an effective formation. I married it with the Slovakian Motorized unit early on so that I would be assured of always winning.

In any case I was able to do this only because I had enough MP every turn to make many easy victories. I tried with a Rumanian Cav unit and no way it would work as I just couldn't get enough attacks in each turn. I suppose if I had made it a project for 41 and 42 I could have done it... but the point was to get formations that would be useful in '42. The Rumanian Armored Division will be useful in 42 I think, although it remains to see what happens when I use it near the front and it has to replace its constituents as combat losses occur. Another reason Morale kept high was because this unit NEVER had to replace any significant combat losses, sure new parts showed up as the TOE filled out but this was gradual.

So I think with 1.03 no way you can train up the entire Rumanian Army.. or rather even anything other than the Armoured unit.. and the Hungarian Armour comes in too late to get any significant Morale upgrades in '41. But you can train up the Rum Armoured Division by hand holding it during 41.

[Q-Ball]

Very useful, thank you!

One question though on this comment Bob:

"I try to create pockets just before the mud hits, as the Sovs will not be able to crack the pockets, and isolated units are weak enough to be attacked in the mud. I also try to create pockets in the turn 22-24 snow, as this also helps to disrupt the soviet preparations for the counter offensive."

Isn't this actually more risky for the GERMANS? The Reds have that last turn after you move of Clear to break the pocket. If they do, you likely now have Panzers in a precarious, and probably unsupplied, position. Am I missing something?

[karonagames]

Isn't this actually more risky for the GERMANS? The Reds have that last turn after you move of Clear to break the pocket. If they do, you likely now have Panzers in a precarious, and probably unsupplied, position. Am I missing something?

I'm trying to find a sreen shot of an example, but I would try to build a "double buffer" around any pockets, that would force the sovs to fight through 2 hex rows, which is hard to do. I just realised that I skipped over the mud turns in the game with Trey, but I do remember trapping 10-12 divs against the Sea of Azov just before the Mud.

But yes you are right it can be risky.

[karonagames]

Another quick tip:

Integrate rail conversion into your plans - in sectors what you expect to be hammered try to have railheads that battered troops can retreat to for rest and refit, if you have the manpower and armaments, you can get divisions back up to full strength in 1-2 turns.

Also consider connecting north-south routes to make moving reinforcements to threatened sectors easier.

[Q-Ball]

I think building a RR "Beltway" is important.

RE: FORTIFIED ZONES, I agree that they shouldn't be exposed to enemy attack (Big waste), and not left out in the open in Blizzard.

Can't they be useful, though, to build BEFORE the Blizzard, as DIGGERS, provided you pick them up the last Snow turn?

The Manpower and all the equipment would recycle; only the Labor Squad equipment is likely to hang in the pool for awhile, and those shovels aren't that expensive.

I see them as purely DIGGERS. Is that incorrect?

QUESTION: Towns give a measure of shelter that works if the die roll 1-4 is equal to or less than the size of the town. I get that.

But population can leave some of the bigger towns. So, is that die roll based on the towns ACTUAL Manpower, or the CAPACITY? If it's originally a size-4 town, but 1 Manpower took off, is the die roll 4 or 3?

[karonagames]

But population can leave some of the bigger towns. So, is that die roll based on the towns ACTUAL Manpower, or the CAPACITY? If it's originally a size-4 town, but 1 Manpower took off, is the die roll 4 or 3?

Good point; don't know; will kick it upstairs.

Re: Fortified zones, In the same way that under 1.03 leadership is more important than entrenchments, until the fixes come, rifle squads are more important than fortified zones.

Until I see hard evidence to the contrary, I have to believe Speedy's defences crumbled because he had 100k in fortified zones digging behind the lines, instead of 100k in the front lines fighting.

I stick with my suggestion to only build fortified zones if front line rifle squad strength is well above 16k.

[EntropyAvatar]

Ok, I'm really scratching my head over some of these numbers. I hit January 1st, 1942 and I apparently have just over 19k ready rifle squads, with about 5.5k damaged. What I don't understand is that my manpower pool is almost 700k *and* I apparently have about 11k squads (or the equipment for them in the pool). Shouldn't those guys be grabbing rifles and heading for the front? How on earth did I get so much excess manpower and rifle squads anyway?

[karonagames]

I think, but have to double check, that you still need armaments points to get the men and rifles re-united, so I would still be using the techniques to decrease demand for artillery and increasing demand for squads.

[color]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Until I see hard evidence to the contrary, I have to believe Speedy's defences crumbled because he had 100k in fortified zones digging behind the lines, instead of 100k in the front lines fighting.

I stick with my suggestion to only build fortified zones if front line rifle squad strength is well above 16k.

I did a test and built 100 fortified positions from end nov '41 and ran through the blizzard turns in a game where no action was taken. I then compared the numbers to a similar run without forts.

The result was, with the forts, an increase in casualties in the range of 70k men. So the fortifications not only drained 180k ish manpower from the pool, with the forts low moral/exp they also substantially increased casualties.
On average 700 men in casualties per fortification, which is about 40% of the manpower (!).

And apparantly for little good, in the end only a few managed to build lvl 1 forts, and that was about it. I suspect a lot of them went unready.
Note that I left the forts under OKH control, so they probably would have dug in better if attached to a closer hq with constructions battalions.

Based on this my recommendation is to entirely skip building new fortification in blizzard, and I would consider disbanding existing ones to avoid the added casualties. With the exemption of the ones which can gain benefit from towns, urban & city hexes.
If the developers decide to add some protection from blizzard attrition to forts that would of course radically change that recommendation.

[EntropyAvatar]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
I think, but have to double check, that you still need armaments points to get the men and rifles re-united, so I would still be using the techniques to decrease demand for artillery and increasing demand for squads.

It doesn't seem to be the case, as I still have over 160k armaments points in the pool. I think it's just a limitation of the speed of bringing repaired squads forward. Each turn, many of the squads damaged by the blizzard get sent back for 'repair' (this is where all the manpower and pooled ground elements come from- after the first turn in January I am up to 800k manpower in the pool). However, it seems I can only bring about 200k to the front each turn, depending on how far the infantry are from the railheads I suppose.

I guess the bright side is that, while they are in the pool, at least those men aren't getting further blasted by the blizzard and so they aren't going onto the disabled list.

[karonagames]

The limiting factor must be the "demand" that being in refit mode creates. Pavel knows how all this stuff works, so I will check with him. I think the maximum I every saw return in one turn, with everything on refit was about 250k.

[mmarquo]

A question, please.
 
"V1.03 does not give any benefit or protection to units in entrenchments, so at the moment "dig in in September" strategies are not likely to meet with any real degree of success. "
 
If this is so, then why would why one, "Position your HQs and construction battalions to make maximum use of 15.3.2.2:" to construct forts?
 
 
Much thanks.
 
Marquo  

[2ndACR]

Forts help you in defense, but they do not do anything to save you from the massive attrition losses you suffer or the huge auto slash of CV values that occur.

[gingerbread]

Could it be worth the manpower to build FZs on the E-W supply rail lines to guard agains partisans and para drops? North of the "No axis allies"-line, at least.

[2ndACR]

I don't think it would be worth it IMO. Manpower is precious for the Germans. Use your cavalry units for partisan clearing. 

[karonagames]

If this is so, then why would why one, "Position your HQs and construction battalions to make maximum use of 15.3.2.2:" to construct forts?

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I should have said "to maximise entrenchment levels" I will edit the post accordingly.

edit: The post contains a paste from the manual that refers to Fort levels, not Fortified Zones which are the units you build.

[karonagames]

Could it be worth the manpower to build FZs on the E-W supply rail lines to guard agains partisans and para drops? North of the "No axis allies"-line, at least.

I have and do use fort zones as garrison boosters in major towns and cities, but never as rail road guards.

The paradrop threat is trivial, and a waste of Soviet resources in my opinion - Guard Para Corps can do far more damage in the long term compared to dropping and vanishing after a couple of turns.

I have seen threads complaining about partisan activities, but I find that if my garrisons are all "blue", then the 2 ss motorised and the ss cavalry are enough to manage the partisans.