1:1 --> 2:1 The Reality

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Maybe a change to the GC1941 victory conditions is needed that gives the Axis the chance of an "instant" win in 1942, based on capturing Moscow/Stalingrad/Baku or a combination thereof, as this definitely reflects a better than historical performance, even though it is well short of the Axis' own victory conditions which were the control of the whole WITE map!

I don't consider auto victory to be out of reach for the Axis in 1942. People focus a lot on "Clausewitzian" approaches, in such a "pure" way they become non-sense.

One thing I'm thinking about is the following. Take a GC 41 game where the Axis comes out well out of Blizzard (there are quite few games like that, let's us not deceive ourselves). Now, imagine the Soviet player chooses to turtle up with his low experience and low morale units. Possibly building a lot of forts, and maybe straining his supply situation (since he lost a lot of HI in 1941), which also has a negative effect on Morale in 1.05.

What should the Axis player do? Sit down in his trenches and wait for the Soviet to come to him? Not really. What he should, what he needs to do is to do the Clausewitzian thing in an operational way, to achieve strategic results. What he should do is to create the conditions so that going after the Oil in Grozny, Maikop and Baku becomes such a realistic threat that the Red Army is forced to fight it out on the steppe. That's the best terrain for mobile operations and the rail system there is the thinnest.

What are the chances of the Red Army fighting there? Actually that's the worst place for it to fight, moreso with the high morale and low MP cost of moving into enemy territory for the Germans. Would it be acceptable to just kiss goodbye to Baku for the Soviet player? No, it isn't.

Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis. After all, the whole affair of the Nazi Soviet war can be summarized as a HUGE Nazi gamble.

[Oskkar]

ORIGINAL: Pelton


The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 ...

....URANUS...that useless offensive operation....

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: janh
I think it would be worth keeping a close eye at some of the AARs of more conservative players now entering blizzard and then spring, they might show how the balance between 2:1 and then dropping it with the new fort rules could be affected. If the new fort rules lead to a new dynamics of some forth-and-back swinging in winter, and consequently fewer static, strongly dug-in fortifications for either side in spring, then also the spring and summer fighting might see some good opportunities for the Germans to break the Soviet lines a second time. Also opportunities for the Soviets to pursue some local counteroffensives a la Izum might arise if the Germans leave winter with lower fort levels.

The question is not - in my opinion - the fort levels at the front line. But rather that the Axis has several prepared lines in the rear. Elastic defense requires places to fall back. People commit too much to stop enemy operations right on the start line. Russian real state is very cheap, and 1.05 fort rules have really crashed its price

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis.

Raiding the Caucauses is the best bet if the Germans want to lose. I don't think they can really pose a credible threat to Baku, and an attempt puts them in a much more hazardous position than the Sovs. As a Sov player I would like nothing more than to have my German opponent try that... I have actually tried to lure Germans down there but they were too smart to take the bait.

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
The question is not - in my opinion - the fort levels at the front line. But rather that the Axis has several prepared lines in the rear.

While you are generally correct, without the 1:1 rule in 1942 if the Germans have level 3 or 4 forts on the front line the Sovs will have a very hard time getting through them before they have built a large number of rifle corps.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.

Like you, I think that has to be the realistic German objective in 1942: swallow as much Red Army units as you can.

Still, you should't put the "carpet" in this equation, in my opinion. If you have carpets = NO Strategic Reserves (only 10 or 15 divisions will not make ANY decent Reserve). Have a thin front and you will be able to have 100 Rifle Divisions as Strategic Reserves... Not to mention the Tank and Cavalry Corps (and then infantry).

Realistically, the Germans can only attack maximum in two places. if they attack in 3, 4, etc. places, they will simply lack strenght. Now look at your Strategic Reserves... You could mass 50 rifle divisions in each threatened area (+ the corps). That would be a huge concentration of forces and should help you (a lot) to at least slow the Germans down...

That's what I did on my '42 summer campaign and it worked like a charm. Not 1.05, right... but still, 50 rifle divisions + lots of corps are not a joke, I suspect [8D]

[Klydon]

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.

Part of the issue with the game continues to be no incentive at all for the Germans to attack. What geographical objectives do anything for them other than Baku, which is not really realistic for them to try for? If the Germans launch any type of major offensive towards a geographical objective, most Russians are just going to run some more. This is where perhaps a turn to turn VP system would come into play.

The first thing is I think the community needs some time to adapt to the new rules revolving around the 1:1 rule to see if they can come up with the tactics/changes to not be so reliant on it as they were before. That takes time.

The second thing is it may not be possible to have a "happy medium" with an all or nothing 1:1 rule. (Unbalanced game if it is in, unbalanced if it is not). This is not something "house rules" can deal with easily either. One suggestion I would have is to somehow limit the amount of 1:1 attacks per turn (like 1 per front. At 1 per army, Russians would just create tons of armies and there are too many armies anyway and would result in too many 1:1 combats). Unfortunately that probably requires quite a bit of code work, which I don't think the time is available to do right now.

The other thing to remember during 1942 is the Germans are taking attrition damage all up and down the front and it isn't something they can really afford to take. Even with no combat, their losses will add up.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Like you, I think that has to be the realistic German objective in 1942: swallow as much Red Army units as you can.

Still, you should't put the "carpet" in this equation, in my opinion. If you have carpets = NO Strategic Reserves (only 10 or 15 divisions will not make ANY decent Reserve). Have a thin front and you will be able to have 100 Rifle Divisions as Strategic Reserves... Not to mention the Tank and Cavalry Corps (and then infantry).

Yeah, we've had this debate before...to reiterate, if you have thin lines the Germans will punch through them very easily, encircle an army or two or three, kill them, and do it all over again. Your reserves will not be able to save them. and pretty soon your "reserve" will be manning the frontline because of all the troops you've lost in pockets...

I had very large losses in 1941 but still had enough troops for a wall-to-wall carpet and two entire fronts as a reserve, which proved to be adequate.

[TulliusDetritus]

Yes, we debated this before [:)]

I don't know if this is related to this 1:1 thing but on my current game (Turn 10 as Soviet, post 1.05.xx) I notice I ALMOST cannot counter-attack at all [&:] Is this normal? Am I simply incompetent and my opponent (Marquo) very competent? All I can do is forming defensive lines which (I hope ) will slow him down. One inevitably falls => no counter-attacks are possible => prepare the next lines (minimum 2). I cannot infiltrate either as Marquo is competent. Is anyone seen this as well?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
I don't know if this is related to this 1:1 thing but on my current game (Turn 10 as Soviet, post 1.05.xx) I notice I ALMOST cannot counter-attack at all [&:] Is this normal?

I don't know how to break this to you, but on Turn 10 you are still enjoying the benefits of the 1:1 rule [:(]; I certainly would not call you incompetent, so maybe you are just encountering a new style of play.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
if you have thin lines the Germans will punch through them very easily, encircle an army or two or three, kill them, and do it all over again. Your reserves will not be able to save them. and pretty soon your "reserve" will be manning the frontline because of all the troops you've lost in pockets...

Humm, either I wasn't very clear or you haven't understood [:)] The only German attack that matters is the one which involves Panzers. As I have said there should be maximum only two main attacks. No sir, the German Panzers will N O T be attacking a thin front-line. They will be facing 1/2 of the Strategic Reserves + lots of Corps... defending in DEPTH... Much more forces than a mere carpet may give you... Because you will necessarily know where the Panzers are concentrated. No magic tricks. And then some tchouk-tchouck.

[karonagames]

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.

As Pelton has noted in another thread, historically, the Soviets took what they were given. And at Stalingrad 6th Army was wrapped up for them with tinsel and ribbon. Elsewhere offensives like Operation Mars at Rzhev, were unmitigated disasters.

Your question about Red Army offensive capability in 1942 is absolutely valid and is another incentive for Axis players to consider a strategy that does grab real estate in the South and defend it with a German army that has not over-extended and weakened itself, because without +1 I would go as far as saying the Soviets can't get it back, based on the limited testing I have done, which probably means you can get a 1943 start line further to the east that will definitely take the soviets longer to push back to Berlin.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
Humm, either I wasn't very clear or you haven't understood [:)] The only German attack that matters is the one which involves Panzers. As I have said there should be maximum only two main attacks. No sir, the German Panzers will N O T be attacking a thin front-line. They will be facing 1/2 of the Strategic Reserves + lots of Corps... defending in DEPTH... Much more forces than a mere carpet may give you... Because you will necessarily know where the Panzers are concentrated. No magic tricks. And then some tchouk-tchouck.

Definitely deja-vu! Of course I'm talking about attacks with panzers...and they will be attacking a thin front line unless your strategic reservers are within a few hexes of the attack, in which case they are not really a strategic reserve. The panzers don't have to drive ten hexes deep, or eight, or even six--against a thin line they go in two-three hexes deep and several hexes across and pocket everything in between.

Defenses in depth do absolutely no good against such shallow pockets. If your massive, in-depth reserves are more than about two hexes from the pocket, they will do absolutely no good because the pocketed units will be dead before they get to them. I don't know how to explain it any better.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
another incentive for Axis players to consider a strategy that does grab real estate in the South and defend it with a German army that has not over-extended and weakened itself, because without +1 I would go as far as saying the Soviets can't get it back

Or the Germans could just dig in where they are, in which case it will be even harder for the Sovs to get it back. Advancing in the south or really anywhere else will only make the Germans more vulnerable to counterattack because they won't be dug in.

[TulliusDetritus]

76mm, I guess this has to be off topic so we better drop this. You're a carpet psycho, I'm an ex-carpet psycho, everyone is happy, that's all [:)]

And thanks for the 1:1 tip [:)] Maybe it was bad luck. I had done attacks 1:1 and they did not work. I did some tests and yes, it still works (as designed).

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
You're a carpet psycho, I'm an ex-carpet psycho, everyone is happy, that's all

I resemble that remark!

[karonagames]

Or the Germans could just dig in where they are, in which case it will be even harder for the Sovs to get it back.

I know that Ketza did that in your game with him, but you did have a tough 1941 with the loss of Leningrad and a high capture rate,and you are also having a tough time taking territory back. Maybe Leningrad is enough to give the Axis the edge they need; I am surprised if that is the case.

I also think you are starting to see the importance of artillery +1 debate.

[Oskkar]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

For those pointing to a successful Stalingrad offensive as "proof" of Russian offensive capability to refute Pelton's claims, I would ask/remind said players as to who exactly the Russian offensive hit, because it didn't include very many Germans at all. (IE, the Russians kicked the snot out of Axis minor allies, which they can do even in 1941). Can the Russians really attack a section of a fortified German line that has good troops in it in 1942 and expect success? Was there any major shifting of the lines during all of 1942 north of Voronezh? The Russians tried several operations and pretty much got bloody noses for their efforts.

The claim that Soviet forces were for the most part unable to dislodge well-entrenched German forces in 1942 (your time-limit) is basically correct (and in the context of this thread this is the most pertinent claim), but...

It is the claim that Soviet forces were useless in the offensive until late summer 1943 which is basically incorrect. URANUS is a proof of that. The fact that the STAVKA outplanned the OKH and forced even the evacuation of a German Army Group from the Caucasus by mass-concentrating against minor axis allies along the Don River is a proof of how useful that offensive was.

The claim that Soviet forces were unable to dislodge well-entrenched German forces before late summer 1943 (and this is Pelton's time-limit) is probably incorrect. For instance, in January 1943 the German 2nd Army was ejected from Voronezh (I say probably because I do not know the details of that operation)

Nota bene: If someone claims "A is true because B is true" and someone else shows that B is false, that does not mean that A is false. In this case A= "the abolition of the 1:1=2:1 rule in March 1942 is OK", and B="Soviet offensive operations were generally useless until late summer 1943"

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Raiding the Caucasus and destroying huge chunks of the Red Army is the best bet for the Axis.

Raiding the Caucauses is the best bet if the Germans want to lose. I don't think they can really pose a credible threat to Baku, and an attempt puts them in a much more hazardous position than the Sovs. As a Sov player I would like nothing more than to have my German opponent try that... I have actually tried to lure Germans down there but they were too smart to take the bait.

The best German bet in 1942 is to encircle large chunks of the Sov carpet and kill them, without any grand strategic designs. And I'm not even sure if that will be possible if the Sovs have a huge army in 1942 because they were able to avoid large casualties by retreating.

What are the reasons for not being that a realistic prospect? The über Soviet offensive capabilities in 1942? With toy Tank Corps, no Arty Divs, and Rifle divisions with Morale and Experience in the 30s-40s? Certainly not. Games started with 1.05 have been changed in a fundamental way.

What grand-style encirclements can they make in the wake of dug-in Soviet Armies in depth? And if they breakthrough, why would anybody stay put, say, between Kharkov and Voronezh in 1942?

Sincerely, you'd hate seeing how your forces are surrounded and destroyed on the steppes while the German motorized divisions dance around you. Try the Operation Blue scenario against a human and you'll see what I mean.

[Baelfiin]

I think you have hit the main point of 1.05xxxxx BG

Real estate is cheap( for both sides) fort levels are nice, but really not the be all and end all of any defence.