Barbarossa to the Volga or Berlin? ComradeP vs notenome

[ComradeP]

I believe the fatique issues were fixed in a hotfix somewhere after the last official patch, mine were mostly below 10% when I disbanded them.

I disband them because they're small (and thus fragile), use an equipment type both in use by divisions and by larger support units and cause clutter in HQ's (they could take the place of a more credible support unit when committed to battle).

[CharonJr]

Good points, thx for the explanation.

CharonJr

[Sabre21]

Just so you know Soviet brigades don't come back either. Only infantry and motorized divisions come back as infantry division shells and tank divisions come back as tank brigade shells. This is only up until 1 Nov 41, thereafter they are lost for good if destroyed. One more thing to remember is that routed tank divisions have a 20% chance of being pulled off the line when they rally and will return later as tank brigades.

[ComradeP]

Contrary to my expectations, not a single attack was made. notenome might want to preserve forces, but this puzzles me. Southern Front either moved out or relocated.

Von Vietinghoff's dead. Ironically, his Panzer Corps HQ was further from the nearest enemy hexes than most others (3 hexes), so it's somewhat surprising. He was a good leader, but not a truly awesome one and there are more like him.

Geyr von Schweppenburg's a Generaloberst now.

C. Hansen's political rating improved to 8.

Graf von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt armor rating improved to 4, which is odd as he's an infantry corps commander.

I didn't expect to see German combat unit skill rating improvements this soon, it's a nice surprise.

I can see about 1/3 of his Rifle formations.

[randallw]

In my current game no leader had a skill gain until 1942, then they arrived in small bunches, like 3 leaders in a single turn.  It's possible that improvement is much more likely with, or even requires, victories.

[ComradeP]

From my test games, I got the impression that gains in morale and political ratings were the most common, followed by other ratings, but that might've been coincidence.

As far as I know, they're dictated by successes and an in-game formula. The game does recognize special achievements from time to time, which can be a pleasant surprise the turn after a certain formation does something amazing. However, both commanders that got a skill increase were 16th Army. C. Hansen has a good rating of, I believe 15:0 or the like, but Graf von Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt has 8:2, and he doesn't have any mechanized forces under his command.

It's nice to see some skill increases already, but naturally they shouldn't be too common unless you're really performing well. For many German commanders, there's also less room for skill increases as many of their leaders have infantry/mechanized ratings of 6 or higher, which means they can't improve further.

[ComradeP]

As a strategic assessment of the situation at this point and a description of near future plans:

-The main setback thus far remains the lack of progress by AGN's mobile forces in the early turns, which also significantly reduced the benefit of sending them there and in turn postponed the Dnepr crossing until significant Soviet forces could be moved in.

-Until the mud hits, AGN will try to occupy the area between lake Peipus and lake Pskov (crucial to prevent the Soviets from walking into clear terrain across the major river hexsides during the winter) and possibly advance up to lake Ilmen. I won't try to capture Leningrad, it isn't going to happy anymore. I was hoping it was possible, but the swamp defense quickly removed that hope. The right hook east of lake Ilmen that some players have tried is interesting, and it has good potential, but that wasn't possible due to the initial lack of progress, and you really have to get east of lake Ilmen before around turn 10 to make it work.

As such, I've accepted that the historical gains in the AGN area are not going to be possible, primarily due to the terrain and not due to the Soviet forces in the area. I had actually planned for this eventuality and am perfectly fine with abandoning the attempt to capture Leningrad. There are significant benefits to capturing the city, but it would at this point require way too many forces if it's even still possible at all.

One corps will dig in on the Narva river. Hopefully the heavy woods and swamp hexes will greatly limit the impact of the Soviet blizzard offensive. I'll probably set them to static, as he can't really outflank me there.

-In the AGC area, the going is slow, but I don't consider that to be a problem at this point. My goals are to capture Smolensk and possibly Bryansk. Anything else is extra. I have no intention of pushing east to the historical limit, even if it would still be possible. Quite simply, I think the Axis should fight to survive the war, not to capture as much Soviet territory as possible, only to lose it again due to overextension. As I need over 145 or so points to get a minor victory on the final turn, I've accepted that the best result will probably be a draw as I'd need to hold the Ukraine until the end of the game for a minor victory to be possible.

One good thing about slow and methodical advances is that I'm fighting within reasonable distances of my rail lines, which eases supply.

I'll launch a limited 1942 summer offensive in the AGC area, but the goals will depend on where the frontline is after the snow turns in early 1942.

Soviet troop quality won't increase all that much unless they get a lot of morale boosting victories, which is one of the main reasons I'm surprised about the lack of counterattacks. The Soviets are not going to get beyond about 60 morale unless they win lots of battles. At 50-60 morale, a Rifle corps will have a strength of around 15, which is something I can deal with. 15 strength Rifle corps are not something the Axis should be too scared of. 30-40 strength Rifle corps, however, are extremely scary.

-AGS will hopefully be able to capture at least Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhye. I'd like to capture the 3 cities east of that too, but that's probably not going to be possible without serious overextension.

I doubt it's possible to get across the southermost part of the Dnepr with all those swamp hexes on the other side, so I don't think I'm going to try to take the Crimea. Like with Leningrad, there are too many terrain limitations, in this case primarily the narrow entry point, which will be fortified to at least level 4 forts by the time I get there.

-The crucial thing that I have to keep in good shape is Wehrmacht morale and thus experience. If I can keep mobile unit morale over 90, and thus their experience too, their combat power will be good even when the TOE's downside rather seriously in 1945. If I only have ~60-70 morale/experience units by that time, I'm going to get creamed by the horde of Soviet mobile forces. A 1944 90 experience/morale Panzer division with adequate support should be more than capable of dealing with a Soviet Tank corps with around 60 morale/experience. The key is again to prevent Soviet victories.

I'm guessing he'll try to mix Tank corps with Rifle units for some easy victories, so the key will be to prevent such opportunities from presenting themselves.

-In general, my defense is going to rely on flexibility, mobility and trading ground lost in order to prevent units from being lost. The Soviets don't really have much flexibility and until their morale improves to counter the impressive additional MP's required for medium to low morale units moving from hostile ZOC to hostile ZOC, the mobility of his mobile units won't be too good.

As I see it, the mid to late war will come down to a wall of Soviet units moving west, with my mobile units nibbling parts of that wall from time to time. It's much easier to isolate Soviet forces they're attacking with their mediocre 1942-1943 armies than when I'm attacking, as the Soviets player can just pull back a bit and checkerboard. There's more or less zero incentive to hold ground currently.

-As to my opponent: I'd say he has thus far correctly played to the obvious Soviet strength that there's a major river running north/south around a large part of the map. You don't need to be a strategic genius to see the benefits of the river, but you do have to be a good planner to make a defense work. Some fort levels are a tad low, but he has done a good job thus far. He has also done a good job with pulling back his forces, so I can't really pocket much.

The main thing he isn't doing is concentrating his forces, and thus counterattacking. What you want to try to do as the Soviet player is to try and take the initiative from the Axis. Now he is giving the initiative solely to me: he's holding a static defensive line along a natural barrier. As far as I can see, there's little to no depth in the line. I can see about 1/3 of his Rifle formations. If I include the forces I assume to be present in the hexes bordering the Dnepr I can't see and the Leningrad area, that's about 2/3 of his Rifle formations. The rest are probably training or refitting. Ideally, you want to leave the Axis clueless where your forces are, but he's essentially yelling "here they are!" by placing them all in a fairly static position.

I think he'll have the common sense to get out of dodge when the Dnepr bridgeheads widen, but I would probably have done the Dnepr defense a bit differently. I'm not going to say how differently at this point as some of you might incidentally give him ideas that might make my crossings much more difficult than they already are.

The main flaws in his defensive planning thus far are in my opinion that he essentially doesn't counterattack and that he seriously overreacts to flanking movements, simply pulling everything back instead of trying to stall me and play for time. In the Velikie Luki area, for example, he has pulled back fairly significantly from the swamps in the area just because my mobile forces are about to encircle Velikie Luki.

As a good Soviet player, you should see those things as mostly unrelated events: the goal of the forces in the swamps is to prevent Axis infantry from moving up, the goal of the forces in the Velikie Luki area is to prevent the isolation of the city and to minimize the breakthrough. The forces in the swamps should not be moved east to support the area, as that will allow the Axis infantry to move in. As with chess, just because your pieces are next to eachother doesn't mean they should be used to accomplish the same goal. He has even moved forces into the hills east of the city, whilst fairly obviously my mobile forces will be heading south to isolate his strong between river "land bridge" defenses in the Vitebsk and Smolensk area.

I'll only truly be able to judge his skills during his blizzard offensive. If he botches that, my life will be a lot easier in 1942.

Thus far, as a grade I'd give him a B for being able to minimize losses and staging a fairly capable defense along the Dnepr and myself a C for the AGN and AGC areas and a B for the AGS area.

[Klydon]

Nice write up. [:)]

One thing I am interested in watching for in these AAR's is what the Soviets do during mud and what the Germans do during their 3 turns of "frost".

I have been messing around with the Operation Typhoon scenario, not to play it historically, but rather as a learning tool on how to deal with the season changes. Should the Russian player get too aggressive during mud, it appears to me he could really get burned hard on those three turns if he is not careful. Only when the blizzard arrives can the Russian really afford to get frisky. This is not to say that the Russian player should not be on the look out to take advantage of situations against over extended German units, but shoving a pile of troops up against a German line in preparation of the winter offensive appears risky to me.

[ComradeP]

Indeed, the Soviets will probably face problems when they move their units ahead in the mud turns. The best thing to do, which some might consider to be gamey, is move back into a checkerboard position at the last mud turn in both winter and spring, knowing that the Axis can get going again next turn and that they'll pocketed if they hang around next to the Axis frontline.

The main thing that has been troubling me of late when it comes to mud is whether the historical small scale offensives of 1942 are currently possible. Given the current mud effects, I don't really see how replicating something like the second battle of Kharkov is possible, just to name an example.

[Q-Ball]

Excellent AAR, a very good strategic self-assessment.

What turn is it anyway, and how many turns of clear does that allow you? Your objectives seem very conservative, but your opponent has been cagey and played the SU pretty well it seems. He has played a "Sir Robin", or "Commisar Robinsky" defense, which makes it very tough to encircle and destroy Soviets after the first couple turns.

Interesting take on long-term German objectives; you are focusing on force-preservation as #1, and plan to create a Ukranian Redoubt to hold-off the Soviets in 1944. Curious how that will pan out.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
He has played a "Sir Robin", or "Commisar Robinsky" defense, which makes it very tough to encircle and destroy Soviets after the first couple turns.

"Polkovodets Robinovich" - if I understand correctly how patronimics work in Russian - would be a much better name for that strategy [:)]

[ComradeP]

What turn is it anyway, and how many turns of clear does that allow you? Your objectives seem very conservative, but your opponent has been cagey and played the SU pretty well it seems. He has played a "Sir Robin", or "Commisar Robinsky" defense, which makes it very tough to encircle and destroy Soviets after the first couple turns.

Interesting take on long-term German objectives; you are focusing on force-preservation as #1, and plan to create a Ukranian Redoubt to hold-off the Soviets in 1944. Curious how that will pan out.

Starting with an aside: as you may know I read your WitP:AE AAR for the game against Cuttlefish as well as the game against Canoerebel. As a reader, I'm greatly annoyed at the success rate of an Allied Sir Robin defence in WitP:AE, especially the kind Canoerebel has pulled off where it seems he's essentially balancing everything in a way that will only just prevent you from getting an auto-victory (that's just my perspective, of course).

That's just too wildly ahistorical for my liking. It's not like the Allies could've said "OK, let's hide our most critical ships and allow the Japs to take everything in India aside from a couple of cities in the western part of the country, as we know they won't win the war until the cities in India are captured or our ships are sunk". I have to say I admire the fact that you accept that defence and keep playing. Aside from my limited interested in the Pacific component compared to the European/African components of WWII, the fact that Allied defensive strategies can be really cheesy is also something holding me back from buying it.

You might see it all differently, but it's just my observation.

The Axis can face a similar situation in WitE, but you at least have some tools to get at least a draw. Judging by the various WitP:AE AAR's, it's quite difficult for Japan to get a draw or prevent the Home Islands from being turned into the world's biggest open air BBQ through an Allied strategic air offensive. As I see it, a draw should certainly be possible in WitE.

Of course, there's always the point that the Western Allies would probably have walked into Berlin if the Soviets had not, provided the Axis were losing badly in the east, but the Western Allies are not really represented in the game aside from that they force Italy to surrender, provide Lend Lease equipment and lower the Axis production over time.

The Soviets more or less really need to try and take the initiative in late 1942/mid 1943, otherwise they're not going to have the momentum to win the war (win as in: hammer and sickle on the Reichstag and its counterparts in minor Axis countries).

To me, one of the most critical strategic failures of the Axis, but thus primarily the Germans, was the thought that if they kept pushing east, the Soviets would not be able to push them west. That idea should've gone out of the window after the first winter, but it didn't, and the Axis paid dearly in late 1942 and mid 1943, when their chance of stalling the Soviets essentially evaporated. You don't win a land war in Asia by capturing territory. You win land wars in Asia by killing so many enemies that their offensive capabilities are essentially crippled. The Japanese in China and the Axis in the USSR failed to do so, they tried advancing against a stubborn foe with, compared to them, nigh limitless manpower reserves. Holding Orel, Kursk, Kharkov and the surrounding areas for a year will be felt much less than the Soviets taking millions of losses.

The Soviets can easily replace men, they can't easily replace experienced men. If through skill or luck you destroy a number of good Guards formations, that's a genuine problem, and if you destroy mobile units, they'll immediately feel it. One of the main Soviet Achillesheels is that their national morale's pretty bad, and thus the experience their new units start with is pretty bad, which means it takes time to train them and that even when trained, their units are not too great. The same applies to the Germans later in the war, which is why force preservation is one of my main objectives. As I explained earlier: if I can keep the Soviets around 50-60 experience, and my own forces at around 90, I have a much better chance of keeping them out of the minor Axis countries than if I let the Soviets evolve their corps into unstoppable killing machines.

Given the choice between losing 100.000 men and moving the front 100 miles east to a position I can't possibly hold, or not losing those men and defending a position I can hold fairly comfortably, I'll pick the latter.

As to the Ukrainian redoubt: look at the map. Draw a line from Leningrad to the Crimea. Major population centers are pretty scarce west of that line aside from in the Ukraine. In the center, there's Vitebsk, Mogilev, gomel and Minsk, then a length of nothing and then Lithuania and Poland. In the north, there's Riga, Pskov and Tallinn. In the Ukraine, you stumble into the next city as you move away from the previous one. Not to mention that the Ukraine "protects" Romania and Hungary. The chance that the Soviets will get through Byelorussia with its light woods and convenient rivers and Poland with its equally convenient rivers and central location of Warsaw is pretty small unless he puts pressure on the Ukraine. If I hold the territory west of that line, I hold almost a quarter of the Soviet manpower, the highest concentrations being in the Ukraine.

There's also the resource production in the area, which benefit Axis war production. I'm hoping the resources in some cities won't be too damaged when I capture them (25+random roll of d75). The resources are one reason why I'm not yet sure if I'm going to make a push for Stalino and surrounding cities: if the Soviets recapture them during their winter offensive, and I recapture the cities in 1942, the resource factories will be damaged 3 times, so they'll probably take a year to start producing again. I'd rather try my luck with a single d75 roll than with three.

My main problem in the AGS area as I see it is that I'll be in deep excrement if notenome has a line in those swamp hexes along the southernmost part of the Dnepr. It's currently turn 8, as in: It's my turn and it's turn 8. I have 10 turns of clear weather and then some snow turns to iron things out. My objectives are conservative because it will take me time to get across the Dnepr in force and thus I don't know what I'll be able to accomplish in the center and the south. After giving it some thought, my advance in the center is less slow than I had initially thought: a competent Soviet player can prevent the Germans from arriving at the Dnepr in force until turn 4-5, which will mean they can make their first serious crossing attempt on turn 5-6. My crossing was on turn 7.

[henri51]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

As a strategic assessment of the situation at this point and a description of near future plans:

Lucky for the Soviets that Hitler didn't have you to plan his war...[:D] Your conservative approach is an interesting alternative to the historical go-for-broke strategy that everyone else including me is trying.

henri

[Klydon]

The idea of trying to fight the Russians to a standstill and bleed them dry started even before the close of the Russian winter offensive. There was misgivings about launching the German summer offensive in the south. Some of the staff felt there should not have been a 1942 offensive at all and the Germans should have tried to rebuild and rehabilitate their units instead. Hitler felt to stand on the defensive would only allow the Russians to get stronger and he also allowed Germany's economic issues to influence his thinking and jump to the conclusion that if he could take the oil in the Caucasus that it would spell the end of the Russians.

The conversation came up again in the Spring of 1943. Many, including v Manstein felt the time had passed for the Germans to take the offensive after the first part of May. They wanted to wait for the Russians to strike and then counter attack as a deliberate course of action. This type of action had been very lucrative for the Germans in the past, especially in the south both in the spring of 1942 and also during the late winter/early spring of 1943 before mud hit. After the losses at Kursk, the Germans were basically done, although it took the Soviets almost another 2 years to end the campaign.

[ComradeP]

"Go for broke" is aptly named in the sense that you usually end up broke.

The idea of trying to fight the Russians to a standstill and bleed them dry started even before the close of the Russian winter offensive. There was misgivings about launching the German summer offensive in the south. Some of the staff felt there should not have been a 1942 offensive at all and the Germans should have tried to rebuild and rehabilitate their units instead. Hitler felt to stand on the defensive would only allow the Russians to get stronger and he also allowed Germany's economic issues to influence his thinking and jump to the conclusion that if he could take the oil in the Caucasus that it would spell the end of the Russians.

The conversation came up again in the Spring of 1943. Many, including v Manstein felt the time had passed for the Germans to take the offensive after the first part of May. They wanted to wait for the Russians to strike and then counter attack as a deliberate course of action. This type of action had been very lucrative for the Germans in the past, especially in the south both in the spring of 1942 and also during the late winter/early spring of 1943 before mud hit. After the losses at Kursk, the Germans were basically done, although it took the Soviets almost another 2 years to end the campaign.

Certainly, the plans were discussed, but for the Germans their main problem was that by that time (after the first winter) they had given up mobility for a large part of their force by turning AGN and AGC into what in-game are static army groups. If you want to be a fencer, and your opponent has a huge two-handed sword, you don't stand still and wait until your opponent cleaves you in two after you poked him slightly. You dance around him as his weapon is too cumbersome to be able to hit you when you're moving.

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: henri51

Lucky for the Soviets that Hitler didn't have you to plan his war...[:D] Your conservative approach is an interesting alternative to the historical go-for-broke strategy that everyone else including me is trying.

henri

We all have the ability to look at how things went, then modify a strategy differently than what the actual leaders did. It would be like having a spy with close contact to both the enemy leader and boss of war production.

[heliodorus04]

Comrade P, I'm only on Page 2, but you wrote about spending Admin Points to do "reorganization" - what does that mean, exactly?  Thanks.

[henri51]

It costs admin points to move units from one HQ to another, or a HQ to a different superior HQ. It also costs points to change leaders.

Henri

[ComradeP]

We all have the ability to look at how things went, then modify a strategy differently than what the actual leaders did. It would be like having a spy with close contact to both the enemy leader and boss of war production.

That's what makes wargames interesting, we don't necessarily have to follow history. I'm always surprised by how many people do try to follow history in some ways, at least for the first year or so of a campaign. Of course, you don't really have much of a choice early on as the Axis: you're pushing east, with the variety coming from where you concentrate your mobile forces.

Of course, we know that the Soviet army will over time be huge with impressive production to back it up, but we don't know the precise strategy they'll follow, so I base my strategy on the strength and weaknesses of my own force together with a general notion of the strength and weaknesses of the Soviet forces (lots of men, generally mediocre individual unit quality).

Comrade P, I'm only on Page 2, but you wrote about spending Admin Points to do "reorganization" - what does that mean, exactly? Thanks.

As henri indicated: mostly HQ switches. Many AG HQ's are overloaded, and AGN doesn't need its own Panzer Group so I assigned that to OKH. There'll be more reorganizations later. In the AGS area, I'm mostly assigning minor Axis garrisons to OKH and I'm still considering how to deal with AGS's overload.

[Q-Ball]

Interesting thoughts in that long post. What I don't have a grasp for yet in the game is what ground is important, and what ground isn't. The Resource and Heavy Industry map that someone else made was very good, illustrates that most of the usable Resources in Russia are going to be found in the Ukraine, within the great bend of the Dnepr. The discussion on the Crimea was interesting, in that it correctly asks: What is really there for the Axis? Not much, apparently. But I am still not real clear on what the Axis objectives should be in 1941/42; sure, destroy Soviet Units, capture ground, limit casualties, but in what degrees on all of those.

Even losses are confusing. Losing Panzer Is and BT-5s has no effect on the battles of 1942, but losing other types does. Destroying Soviet units seems futile as they regenerate constantly, but along the way, at what point does it really hurt? Losing 5 mil? 7 mil?

Tactical objectives are easy enough to grasp, it's the big strategic picture I am still trying to wrap my head around.