Rethinking 41-42 Blizzard

[Peltonx]

I have played or am playing 12 campiagns most through 1st blizzard. Most games I basicly stuck to a general game plan. Several I completely turned off all refits starting the first turn of Dec.

I have two more on going one with refit off and one with refit on.

As we all know if your able to dig into 2 lines of lvl 2 to 3 forts before the first blizzard turn you can generally hold the line for a few turns. By turn 3 to 5 of the blizzard the German army is in an orderly retreat, on Jan 1st the CV increase an its much harder for the Reds to pocket much of anything or do anything major or then do general damage along the front.

Most of the losses come from General winter an not the red army.

In both cases where I turn refit off most troops go to the pool and sit there. It builds up to 1,000,000 men or more and saves on armerments. Basicly the GHC is not wasting allot of resoures to general winter. On the last blizzard turn turn back on refit to all mech an panzer units and the following turn to infantry units.

Whatever damage you were able to do to production is done before the first blizzard turn and you not going to stop the Red machine during the blizzard anyways because of the 1v1=2v1 rule and blizzard rules. So whats the point of wasting men and equipment during the blizzard that is just going to get wasted on nothing?

So far in both games I have tried my army was much stronger come spring and I really didn't lose anything that would be a game changer.

Our goal during 42 is to kill units, if we kill enough we easly gain back all the land and then some.

Any input would be great.

Not sure if anyone tried thiss in the past.

Pelton

[Klydon]

One thing I also tried out was to suck my support units back to OKH to pull them out of Russia. No need for them to also suffer attrition especially since HQ units typically are outside the cities because of space issues.

I think Pelton has some good ideas here. The one down side I see is when the weather goes from blizzard goes to snow, the Germans perhaps won't be as ready to launch some productive counter attacks against some extended Russian units/positions.

I also like the idea of pulling out as many elite moral (86+ moral) units out and send them to Germany/Poland to winter to avoid losses, etc. These units should be able to form the core of your 1942 offensive and still be extremely effective due to their ability to deeply penetrate enemy territory.

[heliodorus04]

Full agreement.
There are a host of reasons to give up as much land as you need to in order to avoid being attacked at all.
First, not being attacked means not losing, which means not losing morale (bonus to your 1942 summer positioning).
Second, arguably the most poignant point in the mess of game design that is WitE:

The only incentive to hold terrain for the German is to deny manpower to the Soviet.  All that we really know about the game to date leads me (did I see 'me' loudly enough?) to believe that the idea of holding manpower centers is futile for the Axis.  There's no strategic advantage to be had there that isn't over-powered by the blizzard morale problem.  In general, the best manpower points that a 1941 German will take will be highly vulnerable to counterattack (Moscow, the Donbas, not so much Leningrad), so you're better off just walking away from them and trying to outrun the Soviets in a general move westward.  If you do not have a strong army in 1942, you can't penetrate the Soviet fortifications, and thus you can't bag units.  For purposes of this discussion, as Pelton notes, once turn 17 hits the German, you've seen all the factory damage you're going to see (even in a future 1.05 patch, more than likely)

The secondary motivation to hold terrain is to hold better against the blizzard, is a deception: it's better to run away and take blizzard attrition than it is to fail to hold an important hex and take combat losses, retreat attrition, morale loss for losing, and then the next turn more morale losses for being out in the blizzard again.  By running away, you're just taking blizzard attrition.

My thought is to create phase lines of forts as you advance that give you decent fall-back positions in blizzard turns.  I would want to create them only as far back as an infantry unit can move in blizzard turns over the terrain in question.  Fortify towns in good phase line positions as well so that the fort and town share some benefit.  Basically, Axis should do to the Soviet what Soviet do to the Axis over the first 17 turns: fall back in good order and preserve morale as best as is possible.

I will be following Pelton's advice hereforward to move 10 or 12 of my best motorized formations (in terms of morale), and maybe more, to just have something ready to go in 1942.

[Peltonx]

Klydon I took your advice in one of my on going games and did just that. Saved on losses allot.

Good idea on the forts. I just dont have any faith in forts because of the 1v1=2v1 rule, but they really do help in some cases.

The idea of a 2nd line of forts to fall back into, mybee for the Jan line would really help.

Its really hard to wipe allot of industry and dig in before blizzard, but can be done allong some areas of the front.

Good ideas thanks for input. I also try to counter attack as little as possible, its realy a waste I have found out the hard way. Unless your saving units just fall back.

Pelton

[heliodorus04]

When I speak of forts, I'm talking specifically of Fortified Regions under the 1.05 rule.
Imagine a 3-hex line with a Level 3, adjacent to a level 4, adjacent to another level 3.

You can make some pretty bad-a$$ phase lines in the south using that.  Will require a great deal of foresight and experimentation to figure out an optimal German retreat path (based on some arbitrary start lines we might agree a typical German can advance to).  You want to build fortified zones and camp Romanians in them.  The German should probably always disband Fortified Zones/Regions as soon as blizzard hits just to reduce the extra exposure to blizzard attrition.  Or I would think so - 1.05 might prove otherwise in some cases.

[BletchleyGeek]

I took notes on this issue about the General Winter being more deadly than the Red Army. I basically tracked Axis casualties and tried to separate the damage done by metereological conditions and russian grenades. This was done under 1.03, so it should be toned down somewhat. My opponent built in-depth entrenchments that in 1.04 would have saved him a lot of pain (you can check the AAR - in Spanish - here:

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=11574

Here you can see the losses screen from turn 25 (on the left) and turn 29 (on the right):



Broken down by category, Axis losses were:

Men KIA aprox. 55,000
Men POW aprox. 36,000
Men WIA aprox. 592,000
AFV 916
Guns aprox. 7,700

I took screenshots taking note of my opponent losses at the start and the end of my turns,



so I could separate what was happening during his turn and logistics phase, and what was happening as an effect of my actions:



and separate the disabled by Soviet bullets and those disabled by extreme cold



you can see that blizzard disabled as many German troops as my actions.

Some things to have in mind to get the most out of this data:

• My opponent stopped all offensive action by turn 16 and adopted a "Hold Fast Bastards!" stance with his troops when the blizzard came.
• I don't like using the 1:1 -> 2:1 rule unless I absolutely need it (too many losses and chances guys), so about 90% of my assaults were 2:1 or better.
• I focused my assaults on very definite axes for extended periods of time. This eventually forced him to move forces out the cities they were refitting to block my spearheads and exposing them to blizzard attrition.
• I estimate that, given his preparation level - forts - and 1.04 rules, blizzard casualties would have been something like a 15-20% lower.
• Not to mention that the increased fatigue and damaged elements also have a deleterious effect on Axis combat efficiency, which leads to more lost combats, and this to troops getting exposed to attrition, entering a feedback loop.

The point Pelton makes on how to handle properly General Winter was as true in 1.03 as it is in 1.04 and probably will be in 1.05. Upcoming changes, though, will allow Axis player to develop a coherent strategy that "covers all the bases".

[Peltonx]

I tracked loses also during several blizzards and got these results..

Turn 33
Losses have averaged about
GHC 90K per turn about 25k from attacks and 65k from General Winter.

This was vs Arstavidios who has a huge army and attacked allot. You can follow the results on the thread.

tm.asp?m=2831410

Most of the losses come from general winter and not from attacks.

Nice spread sheets man, I just did it the hard way.

But I thk we all get the general picture for sure.

Pelton

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Most of the losses come from general winter and not from attacks.

Nice spread sheets man, I just did it the hard way.

But I thk we all get the general picture for sure.

That's the general picture, indeed

[Q-Ball]

Turning REFIT off completely is an interesting idea, and one I will try.

I think sending some airbases back is a good idea; like the Army Airbases. It's also easy to consolidate the Romanian Air Force to send some of those back, and not be exposed to the elements.

I have observed attached support units NOT taking attrition losses. Not sure if this is WAD, but it doesn't seem like they suffer in winter.

I would send elite units back. The absolute first one is the GD Regt; this expands to a DIVISION in march, don't waste it on the front.

[Klydon]

Might be the trick is attached units. Of course, you can't do that with artillery, so those need to be sent back along with any extra stuff you don't want to attach. Tougher call on the engineer guys as you want the rail lines fixed and expanded, but they do appear to take some damage from the winter. I think you leave them however. 

[Aussiematto]

Am about to get the blizzard vs a strong player - useful tips and I will try them. I would question the assumption you should retreat and trade ground for lives. Remember that you have to take that ground back in 1942... (unless you have already decided you are not going to try anything too dramatic). Also, stand and fight causes Soviet losses too. But, most compelling - if you have a solid line of defences, with forts, with a good alignment to prevent 3 hex : 1 hex attacks, retreating can basically make the whole front unravel. But, I tend to be a mad defender who stands and fights...maybe I should try something different this time (Bob, are you reading? )

[Peltonx]

I generally try and stand and fight as long as possible, but I have zero problem with running.

The land lost of gained during the bliizard means nothing at all. You done all the damage your going to do during the first 17 turns as far as production goes.
So fighting 15 hexes east or west means nothing. 42 is all about pocketing Russians, it doesn't matter where they are pocketed.

[Klydon]

Actually, the case can be made for giving some ground to lure the Russians out.

One thing the Russians can do to help blunt any 1942 German drive is to rail in reserves after a German attack. If the line remained relatively static, the rail lines will be right there. If you gave a fair amount of ground, it will be the Russians operating on shaky logistical grounds and they will have a harder time moving troops in to help.

Trick with this is I think the Germans have to strike fairly quickly (perhaps a spring snow offensive) or the Russians will get that much more rail repaired. The other thing is the Russians will be fairly weak after the blizzard offensives.

[Q-Ball]

I agree with the principal here, and I think it's a good strategy: Stop REFIT, and allow the German Manpower pool to really accumulate. In 1.05, couple that with the 100,000 to 200,000 HIWIS that should be availabe, and you can quickly re-load for a productive 1942.

The only downside is the Manpower Centers; in 1942, your first objectives is killing Red Army, but #2 should be to take Manpower centers. Even if you take them temporarily, you can cause enough damage to set back Red Manpower production for a year. Some Manpower migrates, but some also is destroyed as well. Giving up ground means you will probably be fighting over ground that is already "burnt out" for Manpower.

But it's still a useful tradeoff.

One note on RR to Klydon's point: I found that the Russians generally won't outrun rail repair in Blizzard, at least not for me. It's hard to advance more than a hex a turn regardless due to conditions, and I built so many RR Repair Bdes in the Summer for Fort Construction, that they were immediately on top of any RR needing repair.

[mmarquo]

How long does it take for population to "migrate" back to a retaken Soviet city/town and then start adding to the manpower pool?

Marquo

[Peltonx]

I thk manpower is important, but the long term effects of armements is more important.

As have found out there are some poeple way better at blizzard turns then others as far as russian players go.

Some do nothing with allot and some do allot with nothing.

After going though 2 more blizzards I say vs some poeple turning it off the full 3 months is a good idea and vs some poeple turning it back on at some pt in January is a good idea.

Pelton

[Q-Ball]

I am not 100% about this, but population NEVER migrates back. It stays in the place it migrated to.

In fact, here is one thing I am not clear about: But I think if you lose a city, and the Germans take it back, that will trigger another population migration. This despite the fact that the population might be already 100% damaged.

Even if it's 100% damaged, it will migrate and be repaired

So, if a city changes hands, it might actually boost Soviet Manpower production in the short-run

[mmarquo]

This would seem to be a key question to get answered. OTOH; if the population migrated from Minsk to Tashkent, presumably this migrated pool is adding to the manpower pool? If so what is the point of retaking cities? Perhaps no point at all; does it increase the RR pool?

Marquo

[Q-Ball]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

This would seem to be a key question to get answered. OTOH; if the population migrated from Minsk to Tashkent, presumably this migrated pool is adding to the manpower pool? If so what is the point of retaking cities? Perhaps no point at all; does it increase the RR pool?

Marquo

The migrated pool is added to the Manpower pool; HOWEVER, only some of the population will migrate; up to 6 I think (someone verify this). The more population there is in a place, the more has a chance to migrate. Some will also be destroyed completely when a city is taken.

The point of re-taking a city for the Soviets is to a) re-gain the RR capacity if it has some, and b) repair and use the Manpower there that is remaining.

[Farfarer61]

I think it may be important to "refit", off the line, any axis unit that becomes Unready in the blizzard.