The NO HQ BU experiment (opponents welcome)

[Crackaces]

No big push to take Pskov next week I guess, but I presume that only really works against AI anyway.

Hardluckagain has posted a pretty interesting strategy of picking select units for the Psov defense and optimizing a brick wall so to speak .. something the AI will never do ..

[Psych0]

Oh by the way, what is the option "Art1, Sup1, Better CV math"?

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Psych0
Let's start with AP spend... The German OOB is a mess at the get go to be honest so I like to address that mostly the first few turns. And I won't need to spend any APs on HQ BU so that's already a benefit [;)]

In my first games I used to follow this path, but then stopped to save every point I could for future HQBUs. So it is refreshing to see the full panoply of options being used in this game again

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXIV starts with 6 ID attached! So 255th to XXXXVI Pz (1 AP) and 267th to XII (1 AP)

The downside of this is you are not taking advantage of the opportunity to remove the command penalty on 2PzGrp at the same time - and Guderian has good ratings. And you might find assigning infantry to another panzer corps only means they have to be reassigned in a future turn again. I usually start turn 1 doing any combats with these two first and then reassign them to OKH - usually they are covering marshes/pockets and not in any combats for a couple of turns so that is OK. You can assign them to XXXIV corps, or in two turns to 2nd army, or if it is just to get rid of the command penalty direct to 3rd panzer group or to a minor allied HQ.

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXXXII 129th to VIII (1 AP)

Similarly, although probably for more APs I would have gone the whole hog and transfered them to an AGN army (which has spare capacity) and start getting to the point where your 9th army commander ratings become effective?

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- IV 296th to XXIX (2 AP) due to 5 divs attached to IV
- AGS 99th to XXXXIX Mtn (0 AP)

Similarly to XXXIV would have meant the overload on 17th goes down at same time. XXXIV could be reassigned from OKH to AGS (0 AP) to keep the transfer of 99th at no points.

It does mean a few more points up front and fewer corps command penalties removed in turn 1. But it will mean fewer points overall spent getting rid of command penalties and the army commands become effective sooner. However these are thoughts without seeing the screenshots of turn 1. So you may have had other good immediate reasons.

ORIGINAL: Psych0
- XXXXVIII 58th to XXVI (1 AP) as it's the only div in XXXXVI with a fairly poor leader Von Chappuis

Often it can be worth waiting a few turns for this. Although in an idealised order of battle von Chappuis is out - you might find in the next couple of turns you need a division to do a few things different from everyone else (reduce a courland pocket, get to the gulf of Finland, defending against units coming from west Estonia, go for Talinn) which means it will be beyond 5 hexes of the other 18th army corps that might be heading to Pskow. So for these purposes it can be useful to have a 4th corps just to supply that extra division.

Your opening looks very good - certainly better than my first one not against an AI! If this is absolutely your first game against someone else you will have a few surprises from your opponent, but you'll get used to it quick.

[Psych0]

Thanks for the good comments and kind words Telemecus. Re XXXIV... it'll go to 2A and 2A to AGN as soon as 2A is unfrozen.

[topeverest]

While painful, No HQ Buildup for Germany in the first several combat seasons has impact, the mild first winter is a huuuugggeee German advantage.

I think you gained far more than you lost as German player.

[topeverest]

You could get to a VP victory level with these options.

[Psych0]

Good to hear Andy, gives me some confidence. I'd also be interested to try it with severe winter/no bonus or mild winter/+1 bonus, but let's see how this turns out first.

[Psych0]

And yup, III Pz south of Shepetovka and 3 PzG near Minsk plus north-of-Pripyat Pz corps (XXXXVII) of 2PzG isolated. Doesn't seem to be an issue on T2 due to plenty of juice in the panzers. Big bonus that it drew in more Russian PoWs-to-be [:D]

I'll post screenies and T2 report tonight.

[Psych0]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

ORIGINAL: Psych0

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?

Just for discussion /.. It does give the player an option to deliver resources now at the expense of trucks and supplies to other HQ .. outside of historical arguments .. I look at these rules / features adding to the concept of a game as long as it as a decisional matrix and consequences.
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned. Like spending AP's on HQBU rather than maybe fortified positions .. or replacing leaders, shifting units, etc ..

I think you answered your own discussion point... 'no' consequences but unrealistic advantage for Germans especially in 41. In principle I love hard trade-off decisions but HQ BU is not a trade-off at all. And as Telemecus noted it closes off AP spend in other areas significantly.

With this experiment I'd like to see what the balance is like without BUs.

[Dinglir]

Having recently started to play the Axis myself, I find that the biggest initial challenge is how to make your pockets stick (especially with the +1 Soviet modifier). This will soon be followed by a need to have a clear understanding of the supply system and how to place your own Panzers to optimize fuel support.

To me your initial pockets seem to be to loose.

In the north, the Soviets can push north from Panevezys, south from the Riga pocket and east at Ukmerge. If they have two rallied units in the stack east of Ukmerge (or sufficient MP), your entire Panzer Group in the north will find itself encircled come next turn.

In the center, the Soviet Tank division in Novogrudok needs only push two hexes southwest in order to break the Bialystock pocket. If they also push north from Voronovo any rallied units in Vilnius may cut off your Panzers in the center (your image does not show the situation north of Vilnius, so I cannot be sure).

In the south the Kovel pocket can probably be broken in the swamps, at Yampol the Soviets can reconnect the three "bulges" and the Lvov pocket can be broken at Brody by pushing simultaneously northeast and southwest.

[Dinglir]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned.

Personally, I think most Soviet players resign way to soon.

So what if you lose Moscow and/or Leningrad? If the Germans have spent everything on HQBU's they will be poorly prepared for the winter, and you can take the fight to them then. Also remember that the "average" situation at the beginning of the winter would be the Axis having isolated Leningrad, standing at the gates of Moscow and at the Mius river in the south.

The key is to know which production levels of Armaments and Heavy industry you need to evacuate in order to carry on the fight effectively.

Of course, if the game is "Bitter End" just give up if you lose Leningrad and/or Moscow. Either city gives so much VP to the Axis that it seems to be "game over" anyway.

[chaos45]

The reason Soviet players lose and mise well resign is because if you lose leningrad and Moscow in 1941 the design has been fooled with so much lowering Soviet manpower that you cant recover from the manpower losses that early in the war. Think about if you lose those major cities---how much population did you also lose in the south? As they most likely got Tula, Vorozneh, Stalino, Rostov......Its the population lose you cant recover from in the long game.

Esp if you lose them by like October. As both of those cities in effect give the Soviets a division or so a turn in 1941 in manpower. So if the Germans via HQBU can isolate or take both those cities in October, not to mention all the encirclement losses but they also effectively net another Front of Soviet forces due to lack of replacements.....and thats just the effect of 1941....let alone not having Moscow in 1942......

[Psych0]

Spot on Dinglir, way too loose as these screenies before my T2 demonstrate. But I still think it doesn't matter much as it puts the question to the Soviet commander; do we send more units to the jaws of the meatgrinder or do we just retreat and be safe? My T2 report later, but for now the seemingly ugly situation at the start of my turn...

[Psych0]

Beginning of T2 - Centre

[Psych0]

And probably the ugliest but also the biggest potential in the South...

[Dinglir]

Well, I did say people tend to surrender if they loose Leningrad and/or Moscow - not that they should play on having lost Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov.

I would certainly argue that you should surrender if you have lost all four. However, I would do so because there is obviously a large gap in player capability - not because you have lost four population centers. In population, Moscow is no greater than the area from Stalino (including the cities) to the Don (some 135 pop points if I recall correctly). With 40 men pr pop point pr turn, that's about 5.000 men pr turn (or half a division) from Moscow.

Assuming relatively competent play, I believe that most players managing to take either Leningrad or Moscow would do so because they have brought resources from other areas, meaning that the German progress should fall short in those areas.

[Psych0]

In the north I managed to get across the Velikaya getting ready fro Pskov next week. And a 7 unit Zilupe pocketing. Tight enough, Dinglir?

[Psych0]

In the Centre 3 PzG moved significantly north on the way to Vitebsk-Velikie Luki area. Without HQ BU I need to stay closer to railheads to keep good MPs. Those railheads are coming along quickest through the Baltics. The land bridge has to wait a bit. Some small pockets in the process. Also pretty secure pockets I feel.

[Psych0]

Then a bit of a silly move of mine into the Pripyat marshes. But there are so many units (10-15) trying to escape via there that I thought to send 29th Mot from XXXXVII Pz and 3rd Pz from XXIV Pz on a little holiday in the swamp [8D]

[Psych0]

South of the Pripyat quagmire the Sluch river line was decently defended but ultimately smashed by 2PzG to perform the southern pincer of the Pripyat move and pocket another 2 para brigades.

Isolated III Pz was quickly reconnected by XIV Pz which then enabled Von Mackensen's III Pz to punch a hole in the front line at Chudnov. Then the relay stick was handed over to Das Reich and 10th Pz divisions to secure the now HUGE Lvov-Proskurov-Vinnitsa pocket. From the south 11th Pz from XXXXVIII Pz smashed through at Floreshty to complete the 'kessel'. What do you reckon, will it hold? I expect it will. If it won't then I don't see how and with what units!