Axis Players Think Tank

[karonagames]

Just picking up on a theme in the War room thread, about "how can the axis "win"?", I wonder how many players have played the 25 turn Operation Barbarossa?

I am assuming that most PBEM players playing the 41 Campaign know that during 225 turns there will be many patches that will change the relative performance of the armies - for example the change in swamp/rough terrain combat that Joel just announced will make a big difference, and potentially weaken Leningrad's defences, and some changes may make one side or the other feel that they would rather restart the game with a particular update.

By playing Operation Barbarossa, which is 1/10th of the commitment of the full campaign, players can hone their offensive and defensive strategies without worrying about the Blizzard, and then commit to a campaign when some of the balance issues have been resolved.

[colberki]

In my current PBEM 41 campaign game, it's T5 and my Axis opponent with clever use of the HQ build option have reached to 50 miles of Leningrad and just in front of Rzhev and Vyazma. About 20 Soviet units are cut off in the rear and Soviet losses are 1.2M men before accounting for the cut off units. Soviets still hold Kiev firmly but the threat from panzers near Vyazma means that we will have to abandon Kiev soon. So, from my standpoint, Axis certainly can "win" as defined by capturing Leningrad and Moscow in 1941 but kudos to the game design, it will not nearly be the near knock out as in WIR especially if 3.5M Soviets are available to counterattack in the blizzards!
The checkered defense is no match for 4-5 panzerkorps on HQ build up "steroids"! all that stands in front of AGN and AGC are half trained troops hoping supply and a lack if trucks to allow another round of HQ build up will save the two cities.

[randallw]

Those HQ buildups ought to be costing the truck pool to some significant level.

[karonagames]

Those HQ buildups ought to be costing the truck pool to some significant level.

They do - over use it and the Axis won't have the gas for a 1942 offensive. HQ build-up should be a calculated risk that will gain major manpower centres - this benefit would definitely outweigh the cost.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: jomni

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
The KV-1/T-34 bonus......

What bonus? Individually they are nice but collectively, early Tank Divisions and Tank Brigades are "useless".

I was being sarcastic.......

[ComradeP]

Andy, it has been established by now that the current version is more difficult for the Axis than the version you played months ago where you cut through a Sir Robin defence, so not everything you say applies to the current version. For starters, I can only dream about making anything like the mobile unit breakthroughs you describe.

[Pawsy]

Will those changes take affect in my current PBEM BA?

[karonagames]

I am playing the proposed V3 version atm against Speedy, so yes swamps have stopped being roadblocks and have turned into speedbumps, and my replacement numbers have dropped through the floor.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

<snip>..... and my replacement numbers have dropped through the floor.

[X(]

Any elaboration on that? [:(]

[IronDuke_slith]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

We are starting to pick up some worthwhile data, and we are picking up hints on things that might need to be looked at. The post-blizzard figures we are seeing all show that the Axis manpower numbers are recovering well - no one has been below the 3 million that the Germans start the 1942 campaign, but we now need to look at combat effectiveness, experience and morale levels, to see how much variance there is.

It also looks like Axis inability to capture key manpower centres is allowing the Red Army to recruit large numbers of additional men - the recruitment multiplier in 1941 is quite high.

So it looks like the challenge for the Axis Player remains reducing Red Army strength, while capturing the Manpower centres to prevent them recovering their strength. This then leads to the ability to get Kharkov and the Donbas cities before the blizzard, and still be able to put a decent defence together. Personally I am finding this very hard to do, and am having to send many more Panzers divisions south than were there historically, this in turn means I can't get close to Tula and Voronezh.

Keep the info coming.

I think this is the key. I am playing a mirror against a good opponent (he beat me as Soviet in FitE for TOAW, he is a capable Guy)...anyway, we've arrived at Blizzard. I've killed about 3.3 Soviet, he's got 2.8, but my forces seem a lot more than 500k stronger (Most of my front line is held by maximum stacks and I have reserves). The chief difference (I'm guessing) is I hold about 100 points of population centre more than he does, which over the turns has kept plenty of bodies rolling in to my Soviet units that I am guessing has been denied him.

It seems to me the game is trying to create a balanced game for players of equal ability, but 1941 was about an operationally capable force fighting a more numerous, operationally challenged force. When the ponderous force doesn't allow itself to be herded into avoidable pockets, problems are going to arise quite naturally.

Likewise, if the Soviet player doesn't dissipate his strength during the blizzard by attacking everywhere, then he can mass ahistorically and cause a major problem. It also seems that whilst German values fall through the floor, Soviet ones also increase creating a double hit that is difficult to survive.

I do think there is some merit in the idea expressed earlier that a German player who digs in ahistorically early should get some blizzard relief. The reason for this is that the Germans didn't lack winter equipment, what they lacked was the logistical capability of bringing both it and ammunition/food forward at the same time.

Therefore, if a German player has suspended operations very early, dug in closer to his railheads and conserved supplies and ammo as a result of fighting fewer battles, it seems conceivable that more winter equipment could have been brought forward by a supply network that wasn't breaking down just trying to keep units supplied with ammo as it was historically. The downside for the German player here is that whilst he survives the blizzard in better shape, the Soviet player will have lost less ground (and hence lost less pop'n) and be stronger in the spring as well.

Rule wise, If the overall German ammo/supply figure with the units was above a certain level, I'd deem that supply capacity was being used to bring forward winter equipment. This would be a major effort, would reduce supplyto the units considerably and only cover a few units per turn, but it might reward the German player trying a more conservative strategy.

Level three/four forts also implies extensive trench networks with the accompanying bunkers for the troops. These should surely protect soldiers better than hastily dug foxholes hewn out of snow and frozen earth.

All of this is qualified by the caveat that this is otherwise a fantastic game.

Regards,
IronDuke

[karonagames]

Any elaboration on that?

I need to track the numbers for a few more turns, but I have a ton of reinforcement rifle divisions coming in the next couple of turns, and I am probably going to have to adjust TOE%s downwards to make sure they all get filled out.

[karonagames]

I do think there is some merit in the idea expressed earlier that a German player who digs in ahistorically early should get some blizzard relief. The reason for this is that the Germans didn't lack winter equipment, what they lacked was the logistical capability of bringing both it and ammunition/food forward at the same time.

Therefore, if a German player has suspended operations very early, dug in closer to his railheads and conserved supplies and ammo as a result of fighting fewer battles, it seems conceivable that more winter equipment could have been brought forward by a supply network that wasn't breaking down just trying to keep units supplied with ammo as it was historically. The downside for the German player here is that whilst he survives the blizzard in better shape, the Soviet player will have lost less ground (and hence lost less pop'n) and be stronger in the spring as well.

I am really betwixt and between on this issue, as in all my tests, I was never a "digger", and I always tried to get to the Dec 1 historical front lines, and was quite happy to let the infantry fall back through the buffer zone I created, as long as I could keep the panzers in winter quarters, ready to take back lost ground in the March snow. The other thing I saw was that where I did dig level4, particularly in AGN's sector, the entrenchments held for 2-3 turns, but were gradually worn down and I was retreated out of them anyway.

If the choice is between facing a smaller Red Army in 1942 vs being in slightly better condition, I will take fighting a weaker Red Army, and rely on my ability to use my weaker army better than he can use his weaker army.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Any elaboration on that?

I need to track the numbers for a few more turns, but I have a ton of reinforcement rifle divisions coming in the next couple of turns, and I am probably going to have to adjust TOE%s downwards to make sure they all get filled out.

OK, thanks for the infos.[:)]