Matrix Games Forums

Hello,

Another question here I as prepare to embark on a campaign.

I'm trying to get the feel for the pacing of attacks throughout the years. By this I mean to make the difference between attacking all the time whenever a weakness presents itself, or also, why attack at all after January 43. How many attacks should be made per month. I have literally no historical context or military experience. Is 1 attack per week a lot? a little? Is 1 attack/month a lot or a little? Should hasty attacks be used against large forces by small units? I.e hitting and running?

Thanks!

Depends which side you're playing

Germans should use their early strength and Soviet panic by making even costly attacks and advances to make gains, but general rule should still be to preserve forces and attack with good odds. I like to do hasty attacks with multiple units since you can preserve MP and still get 10:1 odds.

CPP can however change my behavior, since all the participating attackers will lose 50% of their CPP. Thus a deliberate attack might be more resource efficient, depending on the units you have at hand. Units on the move with low CPP will get the most benefit out of hasty attacks, since they won't be losing CPP (that they never had in the first place). Make sure to have an unmoved HQ backing up your hasty attacks to get the support units involved!

For the flow of the game it's really difficult to give any general advice (ie should you attack after Jan 1943 etc). This game is HUGE, and there are so many variables that if you want the perfect answer, you need to consider all parameters. The attacking unit: strength, CPP, fatigue, experience, terrain/fortifications, weather, supply/fuel, MP, leader, support, ground support to list a few. Defending unit: approximations of strength, fatigue, supply, leader and support.

The map situation often dictates what kind of attacks you need to make. Sometimes you need to do unfavorable exchanges, and quite often just decline to attack, especially due to bad weather, terrain or other conditions.

Attacking is not the only option; maneuvering around the opposition can present gains in the form of pockets or massive forced changes in the enemy lines. Sometimes just a single unit crossing one river can force the opponent to reform their line completely (and pull the hairs out of their heads in real life).

WitE2 rules encourage attritional attacks in some respects, like reducing enemy CPP and MP, or causing losses in general. I'm not a fan of these when playing Germans, but I'm sure there's a place for these at some point of the campaign for the Axis side too. Soviet attritional attacks can be an efficient tactic if executed properly. Try to aim for at least 1:1 odds to reduce their CPP at least 25% if you suspect a strong division preparing for an attack.

All in all, experience matters if you're looking for a more grand strategic view of the Eastern Front operations. The more you play this kind of games, the more gut feeling you get what you should do and when. Early targets, potential advantageous avenues of advance, risks and rewards, expected weather, winter preparations, pocket opportunities, major ToE changes, army and command reforms, river lines, areas with exceptional terrain, !LOGISTICS!... you name it. There's a lot to learn, and that's one of the best part of these games!

have a look at the player's notes sections of the manual. That might help you to think about some of the really big questions and issues in planning the campaign game.

As a decision framing approach, I'd suggest ask:

a) what do I need to achieve - look at the VP table and the VP map mode
b) what does that tell me about advance rates
c) remember your army is (being brutal) a tool to a purpose, so there is no point saving it for 'later' but equally you can run it down far too fast
d) read the rules on CPP

I guess that I'll add; why advance If you have nowhere to go? It's more of an existential question I know. What good is taking Leningrad if Moscow still stands? Is a million more casualties worth failing to take these positions? If so what is the fallback strategy. Taking out factories and oil production right? I guess I've just answered my own question on alternative priorities. I really don't think I have the skills to take Moscow or Leningrad, and now instead of shooting myself in the foot by wasting my 4 spare armies "hint hint" (reinforcements, 2 divisions from each standing army justified by a defenders bonus, and to put simply, the 2 armies in a specific locale that have flank support from neighboring armies, which have flank support from neighboring Army groups's I should, early enough, be able to punch through the south, and basically damage every factory, railyard, refinery, and oilfield, while minimizing casualties, holding gained territory, maintaining and reinforcing northern units and develop logistical capacity, as 43 turns to 44, 42, the north could still threaten the gates of moscow, pulling defenders from the south to alleviate the two flanking armies AND the thrust as it were. As the defender allocates troops, the results are: two flanks will either, A, be reinforced if enough defenders can stop their advance. This will strengthen results in the north. Or B defeat and force the retreat of defending armies, which will support the thrusting armies as well, signaling a collapse etc. And 2 if the soviets move from moscow and leningrad expecting their own reinforcements, while gains in the north still may not occur, the south will have advanced and forces will have experienced a dis-unison in arrival times and allocation that would play at the peak of 42 into the turn of 43. I would play it this way-

When and if there is a retreat caused by the flanking armies; a. soviet reinforcments are expected as not doing so would completely destroy the southern front. b. knowing they will not let that happen, the northern rears are empty. The feint occurs, and so before reinforcements arrive, I would disengage" one army, but not really. Instead, play along with the feint, by taking one thrusting army, who are busy destroying factories etc. and march them straight to Moscow, avoiding the reinforcements arriving by train in a disadvantage way. This would put an army behind enemy lines as german reinforcements call the bluff that just hit them in the face as they knew the rears were evacuated. Now, you have weakened the reinforcing numbers of both factions and can take a break from destroying wasteland infrastructure to re-attack, where german defenders just withstood a retaliation, (playing against the loser *fire hot* as just enough reinforcements arrive to leap frog a second army behind enemy lines. One of the flanking armies can now resume destroying infrastructure where the soviets have now reassembled forces, and now can cut off supply to southern fronts with the newly arrived reinforcements. A new army is formed at this date, by again taking ~2 divisions from each army, with the exception of in transit armies.

1. It should form in the north. Full stop. 3. should arrive at the same time as at least one army marching to Moscow. 4. Disunity stays as it is all the loser has to capitalize on. Therefore, army group center can make a hole and gain, if "cunning" Ivan hasn't forseen this development.

Now hell breaks loose, and second army arrives to crush the north to death.

In 41, the similarites in the south, to the german north, are to advance as... space opens up. A 41 "offensive" is dissimilar in that surviving forces, act in unison to achieve objectives that support actions in 42,43,44 etc. "taking lvov", or the whole reason for the war to begin with as I pontificated upon in my earlier post, to me remains something of an evil, and yet? The buildup of forces around (anywhere in the soviet union) that time, is unmatched by any time in history. Why? Because Hitler said so. And so I ask again. A perfect strategy? Can I throw my history book in the garbage? (I've done that before) Enough. Thank you.

I wouldn't throw any history book in the garbage [;)]

the only advice really is try out ideas, read the AARs, get a feel for what you think works