Campaign, tyronec (Axis) vs MSAG (Soviet)

[Beethoven1]

Well, this seems to me to provide another good example of why Soviets should always prioritize defending the north first. The north is the one part of front that is all about speed, and whose fate is generally determined within the first few turns. If Soviets get their defense in place quickly, they can hold it for the rest of the game. But if Axis advances quickly before Soviets get their act together to do that, then Leningrad can fall.

[Stamb]

Agree. Getting admin movement for that bad terrain is very important.

[MSAG]

TURN 4
DISTASTER

I was pretty upset when I opened the turn. Bad news from all around the front!
(1) Axis achieved the massive breakthrough on the Leningrad direction! They have broken through the swamps and approach the city itself. On T4!! I was sure that I could expect the Pskov attack first and had too weak forces guarding the forests & swamps east of it.
(2) Smolensk has fallen! I was hoping for a longer defence. I was planning to further reinforce the city this turn. But still, it was defended by solid 3 divisions.
(3) Minor catastrophes include the fall of Pskov, Axis crossing of the lower Dnepr south of Kiev by AGS and pocketing of the big portion of my S Front around Nikolaev.

Detailed reports:
- On map strength: 2.9M men, 38K guns, 7600 AFVs
- Ground losses on T4: 199K men, 3500 guns, 840 AFVs, 250 aircraft
- Total losses: 1.2M men, 21K guns, 7800 AFVs.
- 4 leaders lost including Malinovsky (Inf 7, Mech 5) and Galitsky (Inf 6, Mech 3).
- 20K trucks mobilized, Total (units, depots, pool): 230K trucks (80% of units demand).

Intelligence reports:
Axis losses are relatively minor.
Axis Vehicles.
2100 lost this turn (4900 total losses till date). 12300 soviet trucks captured. Altogether +7400.
Axis Transport planes
My fighters from Kiev managed to intercept some unescorted fright flights to Vinnitsa shooting down 12. The air transport seems to be used very often by Axis players to boost the efficiency of the supply system – their main weakness. I hope to be able to inflict constant attrition on the transport fleet to weaken it before it is needed most – during the winter.
Air relocations
Fighters to Smolensk, Bobruisk (center), Belaya Tserkov (Kiev direction), Akkerman & Ochakov (Odessa). KG77 to Kulevcha (that is close to Akkerman) clearly getting ready to air blockade of Odessa.
I previously misidentified KG zBV as sea bombers – they are indeed Ju52 units, encountered by my fighters over Vinnitsa.

[MSAG]

Situation in the North.
4 Rifle divisions have been brushed aside. Situation is critical here. Leningrad can be cut off in no time. I hope I can slow the advance down a little because Axis MUST BE logistically extended (although frankly I thought so last turn as well).

[MSAG]

South Front pocket.
See where the fights were. It speaks volumes about relative force balance that the front had been breached so thoroughly while I had relative defensive depth here.
Also: I was emphatically not concentrated south of the river. My opponent skilfully surrounded the herd of my units, making them retreat in desired direction. I would love to know how he does it!
10 divisions are trapped. True, they add up to “only” 45K men now, but all my hope of creating any resemblance of defence line in the swamps of lower Dnepr is lost.

[MSAG]

Fortresses.
Pskov and Smolensk fallen.

Both attacked by appx 70K man (=3 and 1/3 divisions) attacks. Pskov was defended by 2 RDs, Smolensk by 2RDs and 1 MechD. I was expecting both to fall, but not to be brushed aside without even slowing down (like in the North)!!

Still, Pskov was a city (not urban hex) and Smolensk was only partially fortified and I failed to strengthen the defenders (was planning to add 1 good RD and a bunch of SUs this turn, perhaps 20K people). Of course it may have been not enough anyway, but I think that what I need is 1 or 2 failed attacks. That should slow them down.
So even after the disappointing start I will continue to reinforce the fortresses hoping for better results.

[MSAG]

Plans forward:

Defence of Leningrad – probably lost cause, but a must. I can survive the loss of the city providing the defence lasts until the fall.

I think that from now on 75=80% of reinforcements to be sent to Centre-North area. I am worried about Moscow.

Continue withdrawal in the South, hoping they will run out of supplies. Odessa should slow them down.
 
Picture below - situation in the North after the move

[Gunnulf]

As well led and organised as the German army was and badly organised as the Soviets were at this early stage this situation really ought to be a disaster of Teutenberg forest proportions for the Axis strung out in swamps and forests along a single bad road. No way it would end well in reality. The trouble is after a few practises there is little real FoW fear that commanders would have had approaching this ominous terrain as they know there can't be much there yet and what is has low combat power. Perhaps simply mech forces need much higher penalties to MP for non admin movement in difficult terrain to take the edge off moves like this?

[AlbertN]

Sent you a PM Gunnulf as here it may seem that I am helping a side or another - but I think there are enough countermeasures for such type of German gameplay.

[RedJohn]

That is a very impressive snake on Tyronecs part. It looks so vulnerable, but the terrain I guess helps a lot.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: RedJohn

That is a very impressive snake on Tyronecs part. It looks so vulnerable, but the terrain I guess helps a lot.

The snake is too thin & too long for my liking. Will take the German a turn or two to get it open & MSAG did the correct thing by hugging the heck out of the Germans. Some lucky holds in the right place by Soviets units could cost some time.

[tyronec]

My opponent skilfully surrounded the herd of my units, making them retreat in desired direction. I would love to know how he does it!

A lot of the units in the pocket routed there rather than retreated. I don't know why they routed West instead of East, would have expected them to have ended up in a safer place. If anyone can explain why this happens would be glad to know.

[Jango32]

The direction of a rout also depends where the HQ is displaced to. Routing paths tend to follow the displaced HQ's location. So if the HQ displaces to the west because there's a closer named hex there, the routed combat units will follow in that direction.

[tyronec]

The direction of a rout also depends where the HQ is displaced to. Routing paths tend to follow the displaced HQ's location. So if the HQ displaces to the west because there's a closer named hex there, the routed combat units will follow in that direction.

That would explain it. The HQ may not have been displaced at all - am not sure.

[tyronec]

T05.
Patch updated to 2.19.
AGN. No further advance this turn, just expanding the spearhead and bring up the infantry. Have a lot of troops here and will need to make progress against Lenningrad asap. Rail line to Pskov linked up.

Postscript

The snake is too thin & too long for my liking. Will take the German a turn or two to get it open & MSAG did the correct thing by hugging the heck out of the Germans. Some lucky holds in the right place by Soviets units could cost some time.

Ideally the Soviets would have wanted to cut the snake somewhere, but I don't think they had the combat power available to do that.
There is a problem for them in hugging the snake in that their units to the West are not contributing to the defense of the critical hexes in front of Lenningrad and are also risking being cut off. In this position as Soviets I would have pulled back to try and block the advance directly rather than to spend the resources threatening the flanks.

[tyronec]

AGC. In the north do a left hook towards Vyazma.
In the south take Gomel but decide to rest the Panzers rather than crossing the river, am hoping to link up with PG2 next turn.

[tyronec]

AGS. Soviets have abandoned the river line. PG2 pocket Kiev, which seems to have a moderate garrison.
Assault Odessa without waiting for Isolation, the garrison are pushed out and pocketed. Get across the lower Dnepr with an Mot. division so that should help open the way to the Crimea.

[Beethoven1]

This game so far seems to provide additional evidence supporting the theory that it is foolish for Soviets to attempt to defend the south, at least against an experienced Germany player who knows what they are doing.

MSAG is attempting to do the "honorable" thing and defend the south. What is his reward for this? It appears that he will lose both Odessa and Kiev much quicker than historical, and that Germany will get the full bonus VPs for early capture. In the process he will lose a lot of troops, both in those cities and also in other pockets like the one near the coast. In that pocket, for example, he is losing at least one irreplaceable mountaineer division. He is also losing some tank divisions, which means Germany should capture some trucks, which will help German logistics in the future. So as a result of his efforts, over the long run German logistics may be aided rather than hurt. At least from what I can see, Germany is also not advancing in the south that much slower than they would be if it were lightly defended by screening forces or not even defended at all.

Meanwhile in the north and center Germany has made large breakthroughs towards Leningrad and now also Moscow, due partly to the fact that he does not have enough troops in the north and center to adequately defend in depth to stop German breakthroughs from going too far. Leningrad in particular looks like it is clearly doomed. Lacking troops in the north/center is not the only issue I would say, also trying to use city forts in multiple cities has reduced MSAG's ability to defend in depth. However, if hypothetically MSAG had abandoned the south and sent a lot of his units there to the north/center, that would have given him a lot more units to provide the defense in depth needed to blunt the German offensives there and bog down their advance - something that is actually possible in the north and the center, due to the defensive terrain that is available, but which is not possible in the south.

So credit to MSAG for trying to play "honorably" and defend the south. But the results seem to show that the Soviet player is not at all incentivized by the game mechanics to play in this manner, and it looks like he would have been better off from the perspective of "trying to win" if he did something else, namely defending the south a lot less.

[tyronec]

This game so far seems to provide additional evidence supporting the theory that it is foolish for Soviets to attempt to defend the south, at least against an experienced Germany player who knows what they are doing.

I don't see any evidence here to support your theory. Abandoning the South may or may not be a good strategy for the Soviets, am not convinced either way. But if someone doesn't play to that strategy then whether they win or lose is not evidence that the strategy is better, there are many other factors in play as to how a game goes.

[Beethoven1]

It is true that multiple factors go into the outcome of any particular game. However, I wonder what you would say to these questions:

1) Do you think you could have achieved the large breakthroughs you got towards both Leningrad and Moscow as easily (or at all?) if MSAG had all or most of the Southwestern/southern front troops supplementing his defenses in the north/center with more defense in depth?

2) Suppose that MSAG had defended the south more lightly, and you reached as far as the outskirts of Voronezh on turn 12-15 or so and it is either sparsely defended or maybe even entirely undefended - the point being that you think you can easily take it. Would you take it, or would you intentionally avoid taking Voronezh, knowing that mud is just around the corner and your logistics will be appalling that far away, and also keeping in mind that if Soviets re-take it during winter, they will get 6 bonus VP for re-taking the city early, whereas if you don't take it in 1941 and then take it in 1942 instead and can hold it, you will still get exactly the same 6 bonus VP from taking it early that you would get by taking it now, but the Soviets will not get the 6 bonus VP for re-taking it early as long as you can hold it beyond late '42 or so? Assume that Soviets have been retreating or defending lightly in the south (which is why you have gotten as far as Voronezh), and consequently have a large OOB capable of supporting a significant winter offensive, and thus it is plausible that you may lose Voronezh during the blizzard. You may also wish to consider the fact that if you do take Voronezh early, the Soviet IL-2 factories and 3 armaments factories will nevertheless be evacuated (although they will have somewhat more damage and Soviet IL-2 production will end up being slightly lower, but not enough to make a dent in the many thousands they will eventually make).

3) If you decide to take Voronezh despite the questionable VP incentives for doing so, do you push on to Tambov or Saratov despite knowing that your logistics will be even worse during mud/blizzard than they already will be in Voronezh?