Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I can't help but feel that there seems to be a lack of a clear plan to the Soviet attacks this winter.

Take the attack on the Finns above. what does the Soviets hope to achieve by such an attack?

1) There are no other attacks in the sector at all, so there seems to be no strategic aim to the attack (at least none that I can see).
2) The Finns have a high morale, so even in case of a Soviet win, they will suffer no real retreat attrition.
3) Some will argue for Guards creations, but they are capped anyway, and a concerted effort elsewhere will surely give the needed wins.
4) I realize some will argue for win accumulation, but the morale of the involved units will simply readjust to their old levels over a couple of turns

As I see it, the Soviets will expend supplies and suffer manpower losses for very few tangible gains with attacks like this.

Another thing I wonder is the presence of entire Rifle divisions holding Voznesenye to the far north of the line. These units must be some nice distance from the nearest railhead and put a little extra strain on the supply system. Why not just place a few Rifle Brigades on the line up here? Should the Finns attack, all they would gain is a little forest, some longer supply lines and a hit to their National Morale as they move south. The Soviets meanwhile would get closer to their own supply lines and be just a little better off.

Anyways, I know it is unfair of me to write this in an Axis AAR. I just wonder, if the Axis players out there sees the situation the same way I do?

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

I can't help but feel that there seems to be a lack of a clear plan to the Soviet attacks this winter.

Take the attack on the Finns above. what does the Soviets hope to achieve by such an attack?

1) There are no other attacks in the sector at all, so there seems to be no strategic aim to the attack (at least none that I can see).
2) The Finns have a high morale, so even in case of a Soviet win, they will suffer no real retreat attrition.
3) Some will argue for Guards creations, but they are capped anyway, and a concerted effort elsewhere will surely give the needed wins.
4) I realize some will argue for win accumulation, but the morale of the involved units will simply readjust to their old levels over a couple of turns

As I see it, the Soviets will expend supplies and suffer manpower losses for very few tangible gains with attacks like this.

Another thing I wonder is the presence of entire Rifle divisions holding Voznesenye to the far north of the line. These units must be some nice distance from the nearest railhead and put a little extra strain on the supply system. Why not just place a few Rifle Brigades on the line up here? Should the Finns attack, all they would gain is a little forest, some longer supply lines and a hit to their National Morale as they move south. The Soviets meanwhile would get closer to their own supply lines and be just a little better off.

Anyways, I know it is unfair of me to write this in an Axis AAR. I just wonder, if the Axis players out there sees the situation the same way I do?

All excellent points. I would retreat behind the no Finish move line to the South and East. That way I save on attrition from the Finnish. But of course this would be gamey as heck but still I would do it.

But in defense of the Soviets attacking the Germans, even in full Blizzard, is very painful with the new MP expenditure for a failed attack again on the same hex.

ORIGINAL: xhoel


I will ask my opponent if the MP rule appears to be the problem for him and will let you know what he says.

Thanks but not needed at all. I already know it does especially when making numerous attacks. We could debate the other points you mentioned but I don’t want to detract from your AAR any more.

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Thanks but not needed at all. I already know it does especially when making numerous attacks. We could debate the other points you mentioned but I don’t want to detract from your AAR any more.

I had at least 3 offensives stopped during the summer due to the new MP rule (2 in the center and 1 in the south) so while I understand your point, to me it doesn't appear that the rule is a hindrance created for the Soviet player specifically but it hinders both players equally.

We can gladly debate. The update for turn 32 is over so until the new update comes in 3-4 days we can debate the points that were made.

ORIGINAL: xhoel
I will disagree with you. That was one lone attack, where the Soviets saw their opportunity and attacked. Nothing else. So overanalyzing the thing is not really needed. There is no Soviet push there and there won't be one as far as I can tell. That is a smart decision by the Soviet player.

ORIGINAL: xhoel
He has put rifle divisions there because he wants to hold the line somewhere and clearly doesn't want to see his whole front get routed every week. I doubt that those few Rifle divisions are causing such a strain to the Soviet supply system. I clearly see that Bitburgerdraft is using so many Motorcycle Regiments (which eat trucks up) that I can conclude that he doesn't have a truck shortage.

Would it be better if he pulled back further? No doubt, but his strategy is to hold his ground and everyone has their own strategy.

ORIGINAL: xhoel
As to the lack of clear plan I will disagree as well. The Soviet plan clearly intended to push the Germans from the Moscow flanks. They have achieved that goal. Another goal was to cut the Tula salient. They made good gains there but have switched their objective after they encountered heavy German resistance. I'm sure Bitburgerdraft will be able to answer more precisely once he is able to read the AAR.

Technically you would think it is equal “but” the vast majority of Soviet attacks are deliberate versus the majority of German attacks are “hasty”. Much easier to continue the attack after a failed hasty than a deliberate. But again I don’t want to detract further from the AAR. I am respectfully bailing out here. Thank you though for the gracious continuation of the debate but I am declining.

Personally, I would not withdraw either, as I wish to always inflict attrition on the Axis. What I am saying is that once fortifications are in place, I would probably man them with a few Brigades and leave it at that (much like you appear to have done opposite the line).

Cool. I guess I am just not paying close enough attention to the details, then.

Anyways, very good AAR reporting. Very unique style and very well done.

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Technically you would think it is equal “but” the vast majority of Soviet attacks are deliberate versus the majority of German attacks are “hasty”. Much easier to continue the attack after a failed hasty than a deliberate. But again I don’t want to detract further from the AAR. I am respectfully bailing out here. Thank you though for the gracious continuation of the debate but I am declining.

I can only speak for myself. I rarely conduct hasty attacks. It is usually a 20-80 split where 80% of the times I use deliberate attacks. I have been burned far too often and have learned my lesson.

Ok, as you like HLYA. Thanks for the comment!

One thought on the hasty attacks .. if my upper HQ has not moved and is within 3 hexes, my attacking stack is sufficiently stacked with the proper SU's , and no terrain modifiers .. then I think the Germans have to consider a hasty maybe (2) hasty attacks to conserve MP's. One such case is in the 8MP game on turn 54 .. where these conditions were pointed out to me sure enough the hasty attacked worked -- sealing off precious cavalry units. I think the Germans have to consider hasty attacks when possible to get maximum exploitation ...

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Just to say .. light flak especially the quad 20mm is very very effective vs Calvary (You just want high ROF and enage as many devices and squads as possible.)

I have attached quad 20 SP units directly to units facing cav with great results. After a few turns of high losses I was no longer under a threat.