Matrix Games Forums

Opinion: I have been thinking all these turns that it is a shame that not many players use the amphibious capabilities that the Soviets have (at least I have never seen it done in an AAR so far) but Bitburgerdraft absolutely surprised me with his move and I was impressed by his conduct (and I said so). It definitely makes the game much more fun and realistic.

I know I have seen Amphib invasions in other AARs(TimmyB had one in his to name one) Not to mention that there are restrictions normally placed on Soviets of no amphib unti such and such date. Third, majority of AARs are from German POV. But they are done.

ORIGINAL: xhoel

T48, 14th of May-21st of May 1942.

Finnish Front

Mud in all zones except for the Crimea. The Soviets begin a powerful air offensive in the north causing heavy losses to the Finnish fighter groups. The units have been pulled back for R&R. Luftflotte 1 may deploy German fighter groups in order to take the Soviets by surprise soon.

I dont think I would bomb Finnish units at all if I were the Soviets here. But that is just me. Loses to Germans >> than having them on the Finns. But maybe I am missing something like easy targets. I will watch this to see how this pans out.

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Opinion: I have been thinking all these turns that it is a shame that not many players use the amphibious capabilities that the Soviets have (at least I have never seen it done in an AAR so far) but Bitburgerdraft absolutely surprised me with his move and I was impressed by his conduct (and I said so). It definitely makes the game much more fun and realistic.

I know I have seen Amphib invasions in other AARs(TimmyB had one in his to name one) Not to mention that there are restrictions normally placed on Soviets of no amphib unti such and such date. Third, majority of AARs are from German POV. But they are done.

I must have missed that one. But as far as I can tell they are not done very often. What restrictions are you talking about? We are using house rules that allow naval invasions in 1942 and after and that is a common house rule AFAIK. Other than that there are no restrictions put on the Soviets unless I missed something. Regarding your 3rd point, if amphibious landings were done, the Axis player would still show the invasion in their AAR [;)]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Opinion: I have been thinking all these turns that it is a shame that not many players use the amphibious capabilities that the Soviets have (at least I have never seen it done in an AAR so far) but Bitburgerdraft absolutely surprised me with his move and I was impressed by his conduct (and I said so). It definitely makes the game much more fun and realistic.

I know I have seen Amphib invasions in other AARs(TimmyB had one in his to name one) Not to mention that there are restrictions normally placed on Soviets of no amphib unti such and such date. Third, majority of AARs are from German POV. But they are done.

I must have missed that one. But as far as I can tell they are not done very often. What restrictions are you talking about? We are using house rules that allow naval invasions in 1942 and after and that is a common house rule AFAIK. Other than that there are no restrictions put on the Soviets unless I missed something. Regarding your 3rd point, if amphibious landings were done, the Axis player would still show the invasion in their AAR [;)]

You have to have the right circumstances. Plus still few AARs that go on longer than 42. Of course you could be correct and I am giving Soviets in general too much credit.

the problem with naval invasions is they are crap basically.....all the soviet player did was throw away units since they are considered isolated unless u can effect a ground link up.

He would have had to take your ports in the crimea to be effective...which most German players usually just make sure some junk Romanian/Italian/Hungarian unit is hanging out in the ports or a german security regiment so the soviets cant isolate you. Since 1 port can supply an entire army group that's all you need to stay fully combat capable....also even if the soviets take the ports they wont function for several turns meaning a ground link is required or any naval units are insta wiped out the next turn...basically what happened here. Its a waste of units unless the German player is extremely careless and the right opportunity presents itself.

You could prolly get more use out of Soviet para units blocked rail lines/retreat paths in conjunction with a major offensive but most house rules don't all soviet para use as in real life it was a pretty big fiasco...dropping some units with no parachutes in the snow hoping they would still be able to fight an such. It served no real operational purpose end result so I can buy the not allowing it.

ORIGINAL: chaos45

the problem with naval invasions is they are crap basically.....all the soviet player did was throw away units since they are considered isolated unless u can effect a ground link up.

He would have had to take your ports in the crimea to be effective...which most German players usually just make sure some junk Romanian/Italian/Hungarian unit is hanging out in the ports or a german security regiment so the soviets cant isolate you. Since 1 port can supply an entire army group that's all you need to stay fully combat capable....also even if the soviets take the ports they wont function for several turns meaning a ground link is required or any naval units are insta wiped out the next turn...basically what happened here. Its a waste of units unless the German player is extremely careless and the right opportunity presents itself.

You could prolly get more use out of Soviet para units blocked rail lines/retreat paths in conjunction with a major offensive but most house rules don't all soviet para use as in real life it was a pretty big fiasco...dropping some units with no parachutes in the snow hoping they would still be able to fight an such. It served no real operational purpose end result so I can buy the not allowing it.

Agree to disagree. My troops in the Crimea are not being supplied by a port so your point is null an void. I think that in the right circumstances a naval invasion gives you a lot of benefits. In this case a whole Army plus independent Corps were put in a bad supply situation, 1 panzer division was isolated and I had to pull units off other sectors to deal with the landing. Not to mention that they destroyed rail lines that will need to be repaired (hopefully the AI does its job). In this case the Soviets got unlucky because I had some reserves nearby so I was able to clear the western portion that was cut off.

In this game Paradrops are allowed but only within 3 hexes of supplied units. That means that the Soviets can still use them.

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: chaos45

the problem with naval invasions is they are crap basically.....all the soviet player did was throw away units since they are considered isolated unless u can effect a ground link up.

He would have had to take your ports in the crimea to be effective...which most German players usually just make sure some junk Romanian/Italian/Hungarian unit is hanging out in the ports or a german security regiment so the soviets cant isolate you. Since 1 port can supply an entire army group that's all you need to stay fully combat capable....also even if the soviets take the ports they wont function for several turns meaning a ground link is required or any naval units are insta wiped out the next turn...basically what happened here. Its a waste of units unless the German player is extremely careless and the right opportunity presents itself.

You could prolly get more use out of Soviet para units blocked rail lines/retreat paths in conjunction with a major offensive but most house rules don't all soviet para use as in real life it was a pretty big fiasco...dropping some units with no parachutes in the snow hoping they would still be able to fight an such. It served no real operational purpose end result so I can buy the not allowing it.

Agree to disagree. My troops in the Crimea are not being supplied by a port so your point is null an void. I think that in the right circumstances a naval invasion gives you a lot of benefits. In this case a whole Army plus independent Corps were put in a bad supply situation, 1 panzer division was isolated and I had to pull units off other sectors to deal with the landing. Not to mention that they destroyed rail lines that will need to be repaired (hopefully the AI does its job). In this case the Soviets got unlucky because I had some reserves nearby so I was able to clear the western portion that was cut off.

In this game Paradrops are allowed but only within 3 hexes of supplied units. That means that the Soviets can still use them.

Yevpatoriya is a port and Feodosiya is a port. That is why some of your units are in yellow supply and not red supply. Or are you getting supply across the swamp hexes? Should be able to tell pretty quickly where units supply is coming from. But if that swamp hex was cut you should have been able to still draw supply from the ports.

Those ports should count as supply sources unless for some reason they are still heavily damaged. Guessing the panzer division was isolated because it was 4 or so hexes of enemy Zocs to supply it.

Neither of those ports provide supply as I have shown in another post (see post #307). The supply my units are receiving is coming from the swamp hex. If that had been cut, all my units would have been isolated. Sevastopol projects a naval "control" which prohibits the usage of these ports for resupply or naval transport.

This is explicitly stated in the manual. See 14.2.3.5 Interdiction of Naval Movement.

ahh neat learn something new all the time about the game.

I learned it the hard way myself. It is nice to see that the Black Sea Fleet and the fortress of Sevastopol are modeled abstractly in the game and that the Axis need Sevastopol if they wish to use the ports. Makes taking the city even more interesting IMO.

For the readers who are too lazy to go back to post #307, below is what I was talking about. The image shows the naval interdiction that is projected from Sevastopol. No Axis units utilizing naval transport can move in/to the highlighted hexes and supply won't reach the ports located within the zone even if they are at 0 damage. The screenshot is from turn 30.

ORIGINAL: xhoel
For the readers who are too lazy to go back to post #307, below is what I was talking about. The image shows the naval interdiction that is projected from Sevastopol. No Axis units utilizing naval transport can move in/to the highlighted hexes and supply won't reach the ports located within the zone even if they are at 0 damage.

In the 8MP game timmyab spent a long time working out all the interdiction paths around Crimea - and with the ranges changing as ports got repaired. One curiosity for example was that Kerch in German hands would not be cut off by Black Sea ports because the Germans could actually trace supply over the Azov sea. In spite of what the manual says.

Historically there were a number of amphibious landings in 1941/2 by the Soviet Union in Crimea, and also next to Odessa. So it was a tactic they utilised. Because of the shape of the seas and supply lines this seems to be the best place to play it. So well worth learning the naval zones of control rules for the game around here.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: xhoel
For the readers who are too lazy to go back to post #307, below is what I was talking about. The image shows the naval interdiction that is projected from Sevastopol. No Axis units utilizing naval transport can move in/to the highlighted hexes and supply won't reach the ports located within the zone even if they are at 0 damage.

In the 8MP game timmyab spent a long time working out all the interdiction paths around Crimea - and with the ranges changing as ports got repaired. One curiosity for example was that Kerch in German hands would not be cut off by Black Sea ports because the Germans could actually trace supply over the Azov sea. In spite of what the manual says.

Historically there were a number of amphibious landings in 1941/2 by the Soviet Union in Crimea, and also next to Odessa. So it was a tactic they utilised. Because of the shape of the seas and supply lines this seems to be the best place to play it. So well worth learning the naval zones of control rules for the game around here.

Yes that seems to be the case in regards to Kerch from what I am seeing in tests.

Yes I think it mirrors history nicely and it makes the game more interesting.

T49, 21st of May-28th of May 1942.
Report from the front:

Heavy fighting all along the front this week as the Axis go on the offensive.

-The 9th Army crosses the Lama river after very heavy fighting. The Soviets defend stubbornly and inflict heavy losses.
-Army Group Center encircles Soviet forces defending Voronezh. A massive pocket is created.
-Army Group South goes on the offensive as well and closes a small pocket.
-Soviet Naval forces that have been holding the entrance to the Crimea surrender after German attacks. The 11th Army prepares to begin the offensive on Sevastopol.

AGN

The 9th Army in cooperation with the bulk of the 3rd Panzer Army and with support from the VIII Fliegerkorps launched an offensive that aimed at securing a bridgehead over the Lama river. Good progress was made in the first two battles as our units pushed the Soviets behind the river line. However extremely stubborn Soviet resistance both in the north (29th Army) and in the south (49th Army) prevented us from meeting the set goals. The Soviets held back 4 attacks in the north and another 4 in the south and bled our forces dry. We took heavy casualties in the fighting. Following attacks on the secondary line of defense failed to punch through Soviet defenses and the order came to cease offensive operations. At the end of the week our troops only managed to advance 10 miles and while the objective of securing a bridgehead was met, the heavy cost in material and men means that no further offensives of this kind will be pursued in this direction for the time beings.

Positions at the start of the week, enemy Army boundaries show:



Positions at the end of the week:



2nd Battle northeast of Volokolamsk:

AGC

Army Group Center launched Operation Fuchs, the attempt to flank Voronezh from the north and cross the rivers Vornoezh and smaller Don. The success of the operation presented us with a prime opportunity to increase the scope of the offensive and attempt to encircle Voronezh itself. Thus orders were given and after heavy fighting, the 2nd Panzer Army together with the 4th Panzer Army cut through the Soviet rear and linked up with our forces on the Don. As it stands the pocket contains a total of 23 Rifle Divisions (+4 not yet properly identified), 4 Rifle Brigades as well as 3 AT Artillery Brigades. Some of the units trapped in the pocket are elite formations such as the 21st Rifle Division and the 26th Rifle Division (both have high morale and experience). The pocket is not watertight and there is a chance that the enemy may be able to break it, especially the bigger pocket around Voronezh. However we have done our best to position our forces in such a pattern that the enemy will have a hard time reaching them. Should the pocket hold, we will have delivered a powerful blow to the Soviet OOB and the Voronezh Front. The 37th, 33rd, 46th and 55th Armies have been routed or encircled and will not be combat ready for some time. Intelligence reports indicate that around 250.000-300.000 men are trapped in the pocket.

Positions at the start of the week:





Positions after the German moves:



Circled in black are the elite 21st and 26th Rifle Divisions.

Smaller pocket as part of Operation Luchs:



Bigger pocket, part of Operation Luchs 2:



Battles during Operation Luchs and Luchs 2:



Final overview of the pocket:

AGS

Army Group South went in the offensive as well. Our troops crossed the Derkul river and pushed through Soviet defenses in the bend between the Donets and the Don where the 18th Army, commanded by the skilled General Rokossovsky was located. As a result of this advance, a small pocket containing 4 Rifle Divisions and 1 Rifle Brigade was created. The pocket can be broken if the Soviets commit to it but the general feeling is that they will use the time to pull back and establish new defensive lines south of the Don where they lack fortifications.

Positions at the start of the week:





Positions after Axis moves:





A failed battle in the South:



One of the many failed rolls of this week.

Pocket, closer look:




Another good news is that our offensive on Voronezh has cut off the Soviet rail line that is supplying Soviet forces south of the Don. This means that the enemy formations will have to rely on supply from 2 rail lines coming from Stalingrad (see map below).

Rail Map:

Crimea

Our forces destroyed the 2 Soviet Naval Infantry Brigades that were blocking the eastern entrance to the Crimea. The 11th Army and the XXIV Panzer Corps have been deployed north of Sevastopol and are preparing for the coming siege. No attacks were launched this week save for probing air attacks.



Positions at the end of the week:

Losses

This week saw some of the heaviest casualties so far due to the unsuccessful offensive north of Moscow and due to heavy fighting in the Voronezh sector as well as in the South. The Axis suffered 12.861 KIAs while the Soviets took 26.080 KIAs as well as 10.338 POWs. The losses will increase next week as many men are put out of action due to the heavy fighting that took place this week.

Also of note was the loss of 445 trucks during combat operations. The pool has 137.000 trucks read while 144.000 are required which translates to a 7.000 truck deficit which will only get worse as the mud hits next week.



Losses were heavy in the Air as well as the LW and the VVS clashed hard as the casualties show, Axis forces lost a whopping 190 aircraft while the Soviets lost 746. Disturbing is the fact that Axis forces are taking heavy losses on bombing runs even though they are being escorted en masse.



Lagekarte showing troop dispositions:



Notice the huge gap in the front at Voronezh.

That rail map is one of the clearest depictions of the weaknesses of Soviet rail as you go east - the sort of thing that needs to go in the library of WitE resources?

I am assuming they will push back on the rail block at Svoboda during the Soviet turn, perhaps as part of an attempted break back in to the pockets? If so then it would have to be re-established in a future turn.

Looking east from the Voronezh pockets it is surprising there are not more units there. Presumably as well as the units that could rally there will be a garrison in Tambov. Just by coincidence there might be a couple of units railing past that sector that might have a low detection level as a result. One of your screenshots shows the battles with only about half a dozen recon missions in the area - was that the final amount in the turn? None was between Tambov and your units. I would probably have done more - but I know I am not the person to ask how much recon you should do!

Although you say the Axis air losses are large, they are below production in the single seat fighters and dive bombers that can be a problem. If you produce say 50 German bombers a turn, and when you take out the half of the year with mud and blizzard then you are about on a steady course with them. The Soviet side on the other hand did have large losses, and more FFBs than they produce. I would have guessed large bomber losses were down to flak where fighter escort would not have made much difference. But the total flak losses you have taken for the game are not that high. So would it be right to guess that basically the bombers have become the unfortunate bait for their FFBs to get shot down?