Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
I put Kluge in OKH and it assigned Jodl to 4th?? army.

I think Jodl gets a really bad rap. Not the historical one but the game one. He has a really good morale rating. In older versions he had really bad everything else except political. So perhaps that is why some still shriek when he gets auto appointed to anything. His other ratings have been raised a bit in latest versions so he would not be such an appalling army commander anymore.

But it strikes me Jodl is perfect as an army group commander with his high morale rating - indeed for AGS where being so overloaded the other ratings do not matter anyway. Indeed I like to get Jodl into an army group HQ precisely to stop him getting an army command where his other ratings are important! Unfortunately his high political will mean he is first on the short list for any vacancy the AI has to fill.

Jodl does not have the rank to be an army group commander at first, I am not even sure he has the rank even to be promoted to army group command. But for some reason he always gets autopromoted to it anyway (scripted?). So perhaps another rule to have in mind is do not promote von Kluge to OKH until you first get Jodl into leader of AGS. Which means you need to first move von Runstedt somewhere else to get Jodl the auto promotion?

I can see Von Kluge's promotion to OKH being endlessly delayed now though ...

Love it [:D]

Turn 2 End, North Motorised

George Patten (tbc)
An obstacle is not an obstacle if it is not defended

Having no units between the lakes meant 8th Panzer Division was able to cross between the lakes unopposed. Crackaces similarly used this move (see They Crossed The Border at Dawn tm.asp?m=4360475 - AAR for Axis North of the 2by3+ team game). Instead 8th Panzer found itself routing a cluster of airbases, all of which were pre bombed before routing. Many of these routed to Pskow city (which is routing southwards - surprising direction?). Pskow itself was not garrisoned and being stacked with airbases also meant no units retreated to it - the city was occupied without a fight. But not before the airbases in Pskow were bombed yet again to leave even more damaged aircraft to be lost when the airbases were displaced again. Although supplying 8th Panzer through a swamp is not ideal, I find a bridgehead there helps to outflank attempts to reform a hard Pskow defence around the city. And the bridgehead soon connects up with the Pskow area solving the supply problem. (See They Crossed The Border at Dawn for thoughts on the supply of this move between the lakes).

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
Complete neutralization of a “one hex Pskov defense”

Here you can really see the benefits of ending turn 1 with six motorised units north of the Dvina plus one more on its south bank. With full fuel tanks and not having to cross a major river they capture Pskow. I had been using this opening in the north for more than a year when I played Brief Encounter. And in that time I never failed once to either have Pskow captured or surrounded on turn 2. After showing others screenshots of this I have seen they have used this as well with the same results. My guess is there do not seem to be enough units near that can walk to prevent it. I have never seen this though against a defence using railed in units e.g tm.asp?m=4309050 . This may even make that "Pskow" defence of railed in units a strategic necessity rather than an option. If you follow through the strategic gameplaying of this, if massing motorised units north of the Dvina on turn 1 means the Soviet side has to spend points, rail in units and massively commit to the North to keep a sufficient defence there, then the Axis player knowing how the Soviet player will react can on turn 2 ....? Perhaps switch Panzer Group 4 to a Moscow first strategy? Whatever it is, reducing the options of a Soviet player and knowing what he has to do next can only be a good thing for the Axis side.

Going through Narva also seems to have gone out of fashion - but it tends to compromise the defence of the Luga if approached from there as well as Pskow. If there had been an opportunity to make a small pocket of units near Pskow I probably would have done that instead. As it is enlarging the front the Soviets have to defend against before the Luga will make this line less defensible now.

4th Panzer group is now completely out of fuel. So at this point the lakes and swamps are an advantage as it means the motorised units can hold a continuous front and not be outflanked. They know the infantry ball behind them already has 11 infantry divisions north of the Dvina and its vanguard will be north of Pskow next turn.

Indeed the problem for 4th Panzer Group comes not from the east but the west. Inevitably there will be some NKVD units and perhaps a weak rifle division undetected somewhere in the Baltics north of the Dvina. By doing nothing except take a short walk they can leave the whole of 4th Panzer Group isolated. The two motorised divisions left south of the Dvina last turn are given the job of mopping up the units in the rear. And given how absolutely critical it is to find any of those units I take to "carpet bombing" the area with recon.



I do not know if this is overkill - but I know with this level of reconnaisance I have never later discovered there was a unit left undetected by it. And Axis have the luxury of de facto infinite recon - so should use it. No doubt it can also be called "spam recon" and yes I did have one eye on fatiguing the airgroups on the airbases which were then being routed at pskow and to its north. But bottom line was I needed near absolute certainty on where Soviet units were in the North Baltics and this is the way to do it.

ORIGINAL: Bear1888
-pskov defense neutralized. The undoubtedly high quality units sough of pskov will have a hard time to get to Leningrad area in time.

And this of course is a common theme I have been following in this AAR. Can momentum and violence of action substitute, or even improve on, a more considered approach? Do units need to be isolated and destroyed to prevent them returning to the defence of Leningrad if they can simply be outrun and left behind from the fight for the city.

1st point: True, mass is a bit better even in the North.

I like the compression of the Kaunas pocket, easier to clear next turn and it also means the Soviets will less likely reconvert the hexagons around Vilnius so the 9th army has a less costly path on T2. Not sure if I can combine it with the demands of the opening from "total war" without routing stuff out but I see no obvious reason why not. Something to try in case I play another game.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Zorch

Turn 2 End, South

Soviet units next to the Carpathians find themselves isolated even though not cut off at the start of the turn. The Lvov pocket is broken not unsurprisingly. 17th army re-secures the Lvov pocket. The infantry ball continues eastwards and 1st Panzer group together with two corps of 2nd Panzer Group continue to encircle the planned pocket around Zhitomir. Some peel off to ZOC block the rail line on the southern edge of the marshes.

But a lot of Soviet units seemed to have gone - and Kiev has been left ungarrisoned! The latest trend is to rail units north and for Axis players to try to trap them before they go. Not garrisoning Kiev or East Kiev at all though is still a surprise. That was not planned! So I decide to go for it and with the last motorised units to go, instead of closing tight a Zhitomir pocket I occupy Kiev and keep a bridgehead across the Dnepr.

ORIGINAL: Bear1888
-dnjepr crossed in the south in turn 2! Never say anything like that.

Niether had I until now. High risk, but high reward.


Many more airbases found themselves being bombed and displaced again on the road to East Kiev!

No hexes south of the Rumanian freeze line have been flipped to our control that will unfreeze the troops on the Rumanian border. So we expect to see them in exactly the same place, unmoved, next turn.

Turn 2 End, Centre

I had worried about a weakness on the north side of the Bialystock pocket that could have led it to be chain broken with the Minsk pocket - but that did not happen.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
The push southeast of Minsk and the tip of the Kiev spearhead look like they can be cut off.

In the sense of being cut off from supply, or supply much reduced by ZOCs quite likely. Having motorised on the East of the Dnepr on turn 2 am not sure they would be getting a lot of supply anyway to lose. But in the sense of needing a serious rescue I feel quite comfortable about the bridgehead over the Dnepr. The garrisons in Kiev and East Kiev will not dislodged. And there is plenty of fuel, especially in the motorised units that were frozen on turn 1, to fight in if necessary. Centre is another matter though....

I take centre last. I know two corps have been moved south and two panzer divisions have been moved north so centre is now underweight on mobile forces. And my follow on infantry are also lagging. The three "stretch" targets are cutting the rail line on north side of the marshes as far east as possible, Mogilev, or Vitebsk and the landbridge. Given this situation normally I would go with caution - but the doctrine of this game is to go for the crazy risks anyway. I think the corps of 2nd Panzer Group on the north side of the marshes is particularly vulnerable. If a unit cuts if off and leaves several enemy hexes to cross the infantry will not get there. 3rd Panzer Group manages to capture Vitbesk - normally I would say that is the limit and you should not go further on turn two. Maybe it was the wine, maybe it was having captured all of Pskow, Vitebsk and the two Kievs going to my head, maybe it was the premise of the game that I should take crazy risks wherever I could - whatever it was I decided to send broken down regiments beyond that. And the Soviet side does have a +1 attacking bonus.

Is centre running too fast?

Turn 2, Air

The stand out feature of the air war in turn 2 was the large number of bases being overrun. As this was combined with bombing preceding it each time there were a very large number of damaged aircraft lost in this process. This combined with the lack of garrisons for Kiev and Pskow makes me think my opponent simply had not though that German motorised units could get north of Pskow and east of Kiev on turn 2.

Turn 2, Soviet Air Doctrine

Although I did not take the time to work out the Soviet % required to fly in their air doctrine, it seemed to suffer the common problem of being too high. My guess is they probably put it on 50% like so many do, effectively telling their fighters to stop flying missions very quickly.

Once your recon tells you their fighters are not flying, you do not have to escort your bombers any more.

Turn 2 End, Bombing Zapo

And another common feature is leaving the airbase at Zaporozhye without any fighter cover. See for example in another AAR post 57 here tm.asp?m=4250683&mpage=2 . The scenario data does not provide any fighters on an airbase in range on turn 1. So if you do not do anything about it, it is still going to be a bombing target without fighter defence on turn 2 as well!

Turn 2 End, Bombing Osinovets

This turn I am starting to get some serious damage levels on Osinovets. Using Heinkels instead of Junkers this turn helped. Maybe Model and Lindemann will not have to cross the Neva after all!?

Turn 2 End, Admin Points Spend

33 points are deliberately banked for next turn.



Many airgroups leaving soon are getting older aircraft models - although the final swaps will be on turn 4 when there are only just over 20 left in the pool. More infantry divisions are pulled out of Panzer corps. High morale infantry continues to be moved into L corps.

Note: Reassignments costing zero points are not listed here.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Turn 2 End, Centre

I had worried about a weakness on the north side of the Bialystock pocket that could have led it to be chain broken with the Minsk pocket - but that did not happen.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
The push southeast of Minsk and the tip of the Kiev spearhead look like they can be cut off.

Is centre running too fast?

ORIGINAL: Zorch

No Stalin definitely said wear red


ARE YOU SURE YOU REMEMBER? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxM5rJ-uiY

Turn 3 End, Ground Map

How would you describe what is happening here?

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Zorch

No Stalin definitely said wear red


ARE YOU SURE YOU REMEMBER? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxM5rJ-uiY

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Turn 3 End, Ground Map

How would you describe what is happening here?

Not as much movement as last turn as the motorised are out of fuel. Amazing to see all that infantry north of Pskow on turn 3. Looks like motorised regiment cut off in centre. But bridgehead at Kiev is secure and looks like 1st Panzer group is just advancing into empty space.

@telemecus

Interesting situation.

Maybe I'm wrong and I welcome any comment, but if I were the Soviets I would not defend the landbridge that way, first I would not stick my neck out like that attacking the panzers spearheads and I would put most of those units on the Dvina line around Vitebsk and same for the Dnepr and Smolensk, and I would leave the landbridge only lightly defended, the units stationned there only job being to delay a bit the germans for a turn. It will funnel the attack in a place where the german doesn't have a choice to guard his flanks if he wants to bypass, and where he will also be very near the end of the supply leash. Of course the west-east path to Velikye Luki should be well guarded too, not open like in the Brief encounter game.

If the German wants to get rid of those guys each side of his spearheads, he will have to attack them in strong defensive positions. Else he will have to guard his flanks for as long as they are there, which will delay some more.

And once those Soviet troops are in real danger, retreat, IMO the angle of Velikye-Luki-Lovat and marshes-upper Dvina is a defensive dream against a western or southern attacker. I would protect that as long as I can. And same for the Dnepr, only let go once it is breached or endangered by flanking movement. Defend Smolensk it is a big key of all that position. And once you give ground south of Smolensk, German supplies also become difficult for a while there.

Turn 3 End, Centre

ORIGINAL: joelmar
if I were the Soviets I would not defend the landbridge that way, first I would not stick my neck out like that attacking the panzers spearheads and I would put most of those units on the Dvina line around Vitebsk and same for the Dnepr and Smolensk, and I would leave the landbridge only lightly defended, the units stationned there only job being to delay a bit the germans for a turn. It will funnel the attack in a place where the german doesn't have a choice to guard his flanks if he wants to bypass, and where he will also be very near the end of the supply leash. Of course the west-east path to Velikye Luki should be well guarded too, not open like in the Brief encounter game.

The standout feature was to open the turn finding a motorised division and motorised regiment isolated. I had banked on one rescue not two, so could only get to the motorised division - the others will be remembered in Valhalla! Supplies are flown in to give them a glorious death! Indeed the regiment had actually been herded back by making it retreat eastwards during the Soviet phase. It took my opponent several weeks to do turn 2 so there was obviously a lot of time and thought put into it. I have never seen that on turn 3 so really well done. I have never lost a unit on turn 3 before - this will be a battle honour I will wear with pride!

It is clear units have been railed in, I guess with Tolbukhin and other commanders appointed to these armies. A lot has gone into this. These units are now mano a mano with German infantry. They will not be digging lines further back to their rear, let alone on the Luga, in front of Kharkhov etc. So strategically I am not too displeased. Perhaps this is better thought of as a deliberate Soviet sacrifice to capture and destroy a motor regiment which could be a good idea. But to continue a theme of this AAR, but this time from the perspective of the other side, should pockets always be prioritised? The regiment will come back with manpower reinforcements and in sufficient time it will be back to the morale of the unit it replaced - but I suspect their sacrifice will save many others from perishing by a quicker win in the war? It also makes me wonder if Axis players are too risk averse. You will see games where the Axis player will resign if they lose a unit in summer 41. Does such risk aversion lead to using motorised units less adventurously and ultimately less advantageously (in terms of losses too?).

It was very surprising though that the Panzer corps just north of the marshes was not the main target of isolation during the Soviet turn!

2nd Army has been unfrozen, but rather than marching them directly east next to the Pripyat Marshes I am railing them. They will arrive on the front lines turns earlier this way, and in the gap opening up between army group north and army group centre. Ultimately I will be looking to reassign 2nd army to Army Group North by winter. Transferring infantry and maybe a corps HQ from 9th army to 2nd army before 2nd army is moved to AGN will take fewer points than reassigning them directly to somewhere in Army Group North. However again for a couple of turns rail capacity needs to be rationed. Some have to remain on the sidings watching the trains go by...