Rhine or Ruin (no glvaca)

[Michael T]

Don't forget to set TOEs for arty, AA at 50-60%.

I know that one. Actually all the obvious ones I do know. But the City AA snuck up on me. 100 AP wasted arrghh!

[notenome]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

65% is generally enough I find.

I tend to whack up any Guard artillery to 100% as soon as they gain the status

Yeah I do the same for my guards support elements. They are guards, after all.

[Michael T]

End Soviet Turn 4

The great retreat in the south continues. Starting to firm up in the centre. In the north we have a little surprise in store for the Finns and south of Leningrad the lines are now shaping up. The basic strategy should now start to become obvious. Its pretty much an all or nothing approach. This turn I moved out the T34's from Kharkov plus 12 Arm from D-town. So far the only Arm Ind lost is the Minsk group. Losses for the Soviets are very minimal and to date there have been no encirclements since turn 1.

In his T5 I expect a strong surge towards Leningrad. No idea really what he will do in the centre or south. Not much I hope. But he really needs to do something in the centre now. He will be struggling with supplies in the south.

The defences to this point have been mass checkers but now that the stop lines are being approached multiple lines will start to form around Leningrad and Moscow. These two areas have all my best units and get the bulk of reinforcements. The south relies on staying out of reach. I am trying something with the Finns I haven't done before. That is to try and stop them at lake Janisjarvi. When and if Leningrad falls I don't want the north to collapse because of the Finns charging across the Svir.

Just got glvaca's Turn 5, no disasters to report.

[Michael T]

More data...

[Peltonx]

Nice job man. I see no reason why Leningrad cant be held now.

With HQ nerfed its almost not worth doing it. The early turn rushes will be a thing of the past making the game much much easyer to win as russsian. The German side has to get pockets later in 41.

Probably not going to see pockets until turn 10ish if there even possible because russian defences will be way way stronger. We are kinda back to 1.04 now I beleive, Berlin being steam rolled in late 44.

Not sure what your doing with your cav but I would pullem all back and save them for blizzard as they are insanely over powered. Tank units are almost worthless from what I see playing vs computer. Why even build any? As Russian you know you can atleast steamroll to Berlin with just inf corps by late 44 because destroying German infantry morale is so easy . Cav is the way to go.

So many exploits to use withen the rule set as russian its a little crazy.

[Farfarer61]

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega

As to the steamroller, perhaps the MP cost of assaulting forts should be higher? Or perhaps the "entering the ZOC cost of a fort" is higher? |The rationale being well planned arcs of fire, fire support, minefields etc. Then the Armored Corps have a role as only they might have enough MP to do attacks on a second line of defence.

[Zonso]

Nice to see someone seriously defend Leningrad, the German may get caught napping here before committing the necessary resources. I would definitely look to fortify the hex east of Pavlovo though. I am also surprised you have given up the Dnepr line so early, generally that can be a serious obstacle in delaying the German as well. This looks to be a very interesting match.

[Flaviusx]

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Zonso
Nice to see someone seriously defend Leningrad, the German may get caught napping here before committing the necessary resources. I would definitely look to fortify the hex east of Pavlovo though. I am also surprised you have given up the Dnepr line so early, generally that can be a serious obstacle in delaying the German as well. This looks to be a very interesting match.

I think the point Michael wants to establish with this match is that even if he just runs for the hills and losses the South, Moscow and Leningrad in 41, he can still stall the 42 Axis summer offensive and achieve a Soviet Major Victory before May 45. Although in that case he shouldn't be holding onto anything except his army. I doubt it will work, but I am curious to see the result. So far I think he forgoes the chance even for a minor victory if the runs in 41, although at least his army may be in better shape for some counteroffensives in contrast to the common state when the Axis player just overruns the Soviets, brute force.

But what would either outcome of this AAR mean? Would it prove the point that this war was never about terrain lost or won, but about keeping the armies from falling apart? Well, we know that from the books already, no matter who'd reach Berlin first. If Michael fails, and even scores a draw or loses, it will prove that running is a losing strategy.

What would be much much more important in my opinion would be an AAR against one of those extremely aggressive and fast Axis players that shows that given the present conditions and rule sets it is possible to survive as Russian by holding forward and counterattacking vigilantly, as history proved it to be possible. In the end, this whole discussion isn't about whether it is the smartest strategy to withdraw in 41/42 summers as Russian, or in the 41 winter as Axis, but whether there exists a strategy or the means that would allow a good Soviet player to hold something like historical lines by December 41 and have enough means (AP points, pools units) to start a blizzard offensive and also conquer Berlin in the long run.
If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...

[Klydon]

That is a lot of counters on the board for the Russians.

I agree with Flav about Leningrad and trying to delay the Germans long enough that AGN can't make a huge impact on the battle for Moscow in 1941.

Historically, I think the Germans should have taken Leningrad to free their left up (while also freeing the Finns to make a serious push on the Murmansk RR). The extra troops should have then been used to take Moscow. There is essentially nothing past Leningrad south of the river until you get to Archangelsk and that is a long, long way to go.

Be interesting to see how this goes.

[Flaviusx]

Janh, he isn't doing a pure runaway. He's running in the south and defending up north and letting the center thicken up with reinforcements. This is the way to do it.

The Red Army can do a forward defense in 1941...but only on limited parts of the front. The North is the obvious place to make a stand due to terrain and other considerations. The south is quite indefensible imo.

That said, I don't think running away this far down south so soon is a good idea. You can delay a bit down there and give yourself more evacuation time. You want to avoid getting into a situation where Tula, the Donbas and Moscow are simultaneously threatened, this will overwhelm your rail capacity. All those are multiturn projects.

If timed correctly the entire south can be stripped of factories by turn 10 all the way from Voronezh to Rostov, leaving you with just the Moscow-Tula complex to worry about. (Leningrad should be evacuated by this point as well.)

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: janh

I think the point Michael wants to establish with this match is that even if he just runs for the hills and losses the South, Moscow and Leningrad in 41, he can still stall the 42 Axis summer offensive and achieve a Soviet Major Victory before May 45. Although in that case he shouldn't be holding onto anything except his army. I doubt it will work, but I am curious to see the result. So far I think he forgoes the chance even for a minor victory if the runs in 41, although at least his army may be in better shape for some counteroffensives in contrast to the common state when the Axis player just overruns the Soviets, brute force.

Question here is IMO and while i consider Glavca from reading other AARs in the upper tier of german players is how he reacts, or not as the case might be. This leaves me some what concerned in what iim seeing so far. Running and holding North isnt exactly a new thing. It seems to me from reading even top tier german player AARs that they usually so far just continue with the same strategy and doesnt react very well if at all to the changed conditions. I mean alrdy by turn 4 if not before, Michaels strategy is very obvious if u do just some recon.
This begs the question, should u redeploy ur forces. Do u if u continue with the current force allocation just play into the that russian strategy. Who is now reacting to whom?
Do 2 german pz armies in the center accomplish enough with the supply they recieve in their current location, could they be better used in other places. Come back later when supply is better.
Same question should be asked about AGS force allocation and use. Should ur objectives change. Are there other things than russian forces to catch down there and if so how do u change ur operational behavior. If u cant catch any thing what should that do to ur force allocation.
Not that i wouldnt/dont necesarrily make the same mistake, but even ppl like top tier players like Peltons AAR when faced with a new opponent strategy it doesnt seem that ppl. Take a mental pause, thinking about the implications of the different strategy u face. What if any thing does it change how i should act. Instead of ok this strategy has worked for me the last 5 times so i just continue with that.
Obviously this isnt easy, but the willingness/ability not to be in self imposed boxes, is prolly the most importand trait in top players.

Im also critical of Micheals decision to abandon the lower Dniper alrdy, simply cuz its not necesarry yet. If and underlining if the german side reacts to this correctly, it could interfere with the russian evac schedule. Not that there are evidence as of yet that Glavca indeed seems to go that way.

What would be much much more important in my opinion would be an AAR against one of those extremely aggressive and fast Axis players that shows that given the present conditions and rule sets it is possible to survive as Russian by holding forward and counterattacking vigilantly, as history proved it to be possible. In the end, this whole discussion isn't about whether it is the smartest strategy to withdraw in 41/42 summers as Russian, or in the 41 winter as Axis, but whether there exists a strategy or the means that would allow a good Soviet player to hold something like historical lines by December 41 and have enough means (AP points, pools units) to start a blizzard offensive and also conquer Berlin in the long run.
If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...

Exactly, but IMO the question is alrdy answered. When u in all of '41 as a russian player recieves less manpower than the russian historicly mobillized in july 41 alone, the game turn into a pure force presevation contest for the russian side. While at the same time give as little territory as possible, but the first is much more importand than the latter.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[timmyab]

Looks like a good overall strategy.As someone else has already said though, it looks like more of a strategy to avoid losing than to actually win the game.I confidently predict that one of you will quit due to boredom long before May 45.Simply making it necessary to evacuate a proportion of the heavy industry would probably prevent this sort of runaway in the South from being a viable strategy.

I think Walloc's point is very valid here.
With the benefit of knowing the precise Soviet positions I think I would semi-abandon the drive on Leningrad and transfer 56th pz corps and half of AGN's aircraft to the center at this point.In fact if you can sense that your opponent is defending Leningrad to this extent then it's probably best to do it on turn 3 or 4, keeping 41st pz in the North to tie down the defenders.
If people are that determined to hold Leningrad then it can wait for 42 as far as I'm concerned.

[Seminole]

If Michael played an AAR where he deliberately fought for pretty much every hex, and counterattacked despite heavy casualties, and yet still were in control over Moscow and Leningrad by the time he would launch a powerful blizzard counteroffensive (if...), this would make a really important point. However, thus far nobody succeeded to prove this point...

But to demonstrate that historical case would require a German player who arbitrarily decided to siege Leningrad instead of storm it early on, as well as a German player who decided to divert AGC south while it outnumbered the defenders between it and Moscow, only turning back toward Moscow when the calendar was too far along to complete the task. In short, historical outcomes rely on historical behavior by BOTH sides. Pardon me, but I never thought that was the point of these types of games. The point is always to try and do it better.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Farfarer

You might temp the Axis to do the extended right hook to Onega

As to the steamroller, perhaps the MP cost of assaulting forts should be higher? Or perhaps the "entering the ZOC cost of a fort" is higher? |The rationale being well planned arcs of fire, fire support, minefields etc. Then the Armored Corps have a role as only they might have enough MP to do attacks on a second line of defence.

Good idea seeing forts are non-factors where the fighting takes plase because of sappers ect.

The 2nd line of defence really doesn't need to be attacked, because from late 42 to 45 its about pounding down german infantry morale. Once you get 20-30 infantry divisions morale pounded down the flood gates are open.

[janh]

But to demonstrate that historical case would require a German player who arbitrarily decided to siege Leningrad instead of storm it early on, as well as a German player who decided to divert AGC south while it outnumbered the defenders between it and Moscow, only turning back toward Moscow when the calendar was too far along to complete the task. In short, historical outcomes rely on historical behavior by BOTH sides. Pardon me, but I never thought that was the point of these types of games. The point is always to try and do it better.

No, it is not the point to repeat history, but in principle it should be possible to see something like this, whatever the probability. You are of course right that also the Germans have to play along the same lines, or have to be forced to play along the same lines (i.e. if the Soviet be forced to defend forward by unrealistically slowing HI evac, you could also make a point for a rule forcing the German player to go for Leningrad each time -- but exactly this is not what anybody wants; let it all be possible within reason, but no "soft-factors" forcing anything).

However, you also seem to believe that the Germans did send part of the two Panzergroups of AGC south to Kiev without considering advancing further towards Moscow. But as far as I can judge, this was not the case. They hand their hands full defending from very heavy counterattacks in the Yelnja bend, and southwards, which even required them to give up the Yelnja bridgehead after three weeks if I recall correctly. After the jump over the landbridge late July, AGC was short on supply (particularly artillery ammo) and fuel, not to mention replacements. AGC was in no state to advance further until mid September; I believe also Glantz wrote so in one of his analysis.
Meanwhile PzGrp. 3 had already send about a corps to AGN to help defeat or stop the dangerous Soviet counteroffensive south of lake Ilmen (Staraya Russia), while AGC had run into serious trouble and had suffered substantial losses at the hands of those forces, which commonly in this game get eliminated in the Lvov pocket. The advance of AGS into the Russian grain belt and towards the coal and ore mines was not getting ahead as fast as planned and was almost stalled in early August.
The OKW staff writes in his daily reports of a briefing, in which this was discussed with Hitler, and the chances weighed whether the possibility to relieve AGS, or even destroy a part of the opposing forces could be justified by a delay in the AGC sector. There obviously was a meeting scheduled with Guderian, Hoth and Hitler as well, who concluded that AGC couldn't make use of the armor anyway until the logistics and the infantry had caught up fully.
So it would seem it was not a totally arbitrary decision, but one that made best use of time and means.

Also for Leningrad I am not so sure where the true argument really lies. The books propagate the story that Hitler decided on a siege instead of taking it. But at the time, when this decision was made, AGN was fighting off the counterattacks in its right flank, with help of Pzgr. 3 elements, was stemming a counteroffensive beyond the Volkov, and yet had already attempted to assault both the southern defenses of Petershof, and Leningrad. However, there was barely any progress towards both of these objectives between mid/late September and early October, while the Soviet counteroffensives were blunted. But that time weather had worsened substantially and the focus had shifted to Typhoon. To me it seems the Germans tried, and tried hard to grab Leningrad quickly, but refrained from too costly assaults after being stalled for weeks. Also this doesn't strike me as an arbitrary decision, but a quite causal one.

Clearly, in all cases the Germans were pushing hard, and they did suffer substantially (though numerically much less than the Russians). But I cannot see any of those dire situations for the Germans happen in this game, the German player hardly gets into such reversing troubles except if he gets his spearheads isolated by accident. And even then usually reserves are still sufficient to resolve the situation. The Russian counters seem weak, barely enough to hold tight if not surrounded. Apparently not strong enough to counterattack forcefully, suffer 4-6M casualties, and yet still hold back the Germans, drive wedges into their front, and mount a blizzard offensive. This wouldn't replicate any of the reasons why Germans stopped assaulting Leningrad, had to take an extended pause on the landbridge before advancing towards Moscow, while at the same time grinding only forward slowly and costly near Kiev. I think this would look very different in most AARs if a halfway competent Soviet player had the means to cause only a single one of such delays/troubles.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It's essential to make a fight out of Leningrad in every game, even if it falls, keeping the Axis busy there until mud helps Moscow. But if the Axis really wants it, they are probably going to get it. It really depends how much they reinforce AGN. If AGN is just stock, then it is possible to hold on to Leningrad if the Soviet pours a lot of stuff there.

If the Axis doesn't reinforce AGN, this is worst of all worlds for him. Leningrad may not fall and PG4 is stuck up there for the whole summer without accomplishing its objective, and in turn never gets a chance to hit Moscow. That is why, imo, the Axis ought to massively reinforce AGN every time. Moscow can wait until August. Logistics alone will prevent a big push in the center until then. AGC has to push the rails past Smolensk. You can still get two full clear months in the center after knocking out Leningrad.

Micheal is doing pretty much what I do: heavy on the north (even trying to stop the Finns cold, which is something everybody ought to do), then the center, and delaying in the south. But I think he's running away too fast in the south and could have problems with factory evacuations down the line. I don't see a reason to let the Axis cross the Dnepr before turn 6.

He doesn't have diggers yet on the Neva, that's a possible error.

I disagree with one point. AGC is only 1 turn behind AGN as far as logistics goes early on. Waiting in the center is a really bad idea. Its much easyer to make the push in center sooner then later. AGC requires atleast 3 big pushes.

[Flaviusx]

Well, I'm not saying that AGC should twiddle its thumbs. With one panzer group it can push forward some and develop its positions for later on. But actually taking a shot at Moscow can wait a bit, and you can easily peel off a panzer group for operations elsewhere until the situation ripens.

Once Leningrad is gone, then you have 3 entire panzer groups available for operations in the center, and the logistical base to support it for the last couple of clear weather months.

[heliodorus04]

From my play experience, the real danger of this kind of broad pull-back in the south and center(ish) is that it gives the Soviet time to set up giant reserve belts that really force problems on the German.

I haven't exactly beaten that yet.

But I have learned that when you're faced with the broad pullback across a wide north-south line, one of the optimization tools Germany must take is to focus on pursuing in narrow bands rather than advancing in breadth across the whole front. Broad advances mean more fatigue across the army. Narrow advances mean fewer MP expenditures for un-converted hexes. You use a few units to flip territory, the infantry moves at 1 MP a hex, and you can rest panzers (rotating them) for when you finally catch up to the line.

This tactic that I see being used herein creates the best Soviet defense around the latter summer (at least that I've played against). I think it's quite problematic, the NATO 1986 Doctrine is a super-tightly controlled scoot eastward.

[Peltonx]

Janh as far as HI and arm pts go, its basicly totally meaningless to the German player.

With the HQ nerf its basicly impossible to get 35+ arm pts as german.

The german player has to destory a min of 70 which is impossible now. I only destoried 74 vs TDV and he did not rail out any.

Hvy was window dressing, now arm pts are also window dressing. Even the tank factorys, russian armor is about usless so even pulling them is almost pointless. The main ones are the trucks and planes.

The only thing that matters is pocketing russian units and manpower pts for the German player.

The russian player has to make sure his army doesn't grow to fast heheh. There is a current AAR which proves that pt.