Half Again: Axis Perspective

[gwgardner]

It's interesting that in your game no continuous front has formed.  I suppose that is due to the Soviets just not having enough time to create enough forces.  I would be having panic attacks, on either side, as both of you seem to leave wide gaps that just look like inviting targets for counter-attacks.  However, your tactics are obviously working.  I believe you've made more headway than any other human vs human on the Eastern Front.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
It's interesting that in your game no continuous front has formed.  I suppose that is due to the Soviets just not having enough time to create enough forces.  I would be having panic attacks, on either side, as both of you seem to leave wide gaps that just look like inviting targets for counter-attacks.  However, your tactics are obviously working.  I believe you've made more headway than any other human vs human on the Eastern Front.

Hi, that's a great observation. I've observed the lack of contiguous lines w/ delight, and not just because I'm the attacker in 1941. One of the main flaws that I saw in RTV from the AAR's that I read before the game was the WW1 style warfare that took place on all fronts and in particular on the east front. Really the situation in Russia was so fluid that I didn't think RTV simulate it well at all based on the AAR's that I've seen, and the war in Russia is in many ways one of the most interesting aspects of any WW2 game. Obviously(?) the other flaw that I saw was the lack of air/naval interaction and the naval model in general.

One of my goals coming into Barbarossa was to concentrate all of my offensive combat power in one sector (the north in this game) to disrupt the Soviets and allow my offensive to continue rather than stagnating into 2 long contiguous lines of units parked hub to hub. This was helped by my production advantage in the game we're playing since I was able to field an extraordinary number of panzer korps going into Barbarossa I think. I also didn't spend too much on research before Barbarossa - choosing to get as many (panzer) boots on the ground as possible.

My builds have in general focused not on adding more infantry korps but saving for panzer korps since they are really the way to generate enough offensive power to keep an offensive rolling. Infantry korps just don't bring enough power to bear on a single hex in this game to achieve devastating results. Panzer korps can do that. So, I'm quite light on number of units compared to the front I'm advancing on, but most important to me is to be able to keep the Soviet front disrupted so my PP's have gone into air, armor, armor repairs, air repairs. Each turn I have a temptation to buy more infantry korps and divisions but I try to limit that to save for panzer korps. I've added 2 since Barbarossa began. These help me sustain momentum as the Soviet units get stronger. If I ever allow the Soviets to solidify their front I'm doomed, so I've taken chances on the offensive and left flanks more open that I'd like to leave them.

I've also been conscientious about making the Soviets pay for leaving small units on the front lines or trying to encircle me with them. For example the Soviets sent a mot div and mot corp to within 4 hexes of my air unit at Smolensk in an attempt to drive into the wedge between the Gomel forces and Smolensk forces this turn. I immediately diverted 2 panzer korps to punish those units. You might note that the Soviets now hang back more w/ their small units than they did at start. If they expose them I try to destroy them with high odds attacks. I think this deters attempts at encirclement to some extent although Chuck scored a big victory by encircling my Talinn assault force. However his decision to deploy units around Talinn cost him in other area as those units weren't deployed to prevent encirclements at Pskov and Smolensk.

At this point I'm considering screening Talinn and going back for it during the winter since my units in Baltic states I think don't suffer winter effects.(?)

As a final thought I'm kind of interested in trying a game with all countries set to -50% production. I think this would reduce unit density and allow us to see this sort of interesting, fluid front throughout the war and on all fronts. A war that involves more manuever than straight lines is both realistic and fun.

[IS]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
A war that involves more manuever than straight lines is both realistic and fun.

It is, but not for Axis in this game [:)] Because of supply "rules", Axis are in much worser position during maneuver war - you will learn it, when you will loose your first precious armored corps due to encirclement by some level 1 infantry division [;)]


PS. Very interesting ARR - thanks for sharing! [:D]

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

It's interesting that in your game no continuous front has formed.  I suppose that is due to the Soviets just not having enough time to create enough forces.  I would be having panic attacks, on either side, as both of you seem to leave wide gaps that just look like inviting targets for counter-attacks.  However, your tactics are obviously working.  I believe you've made more headway than any other human vs human on the Eastern Front.

Until you and Chuck posted your AAR's I had never seen continuous lines across the front in Russia. I never found the need due to the supply rules. As long as you hold the cities it doesn't make any differance how far the enemy advances because pretty soon they are out of supply. I would just defend out to a point where the enemy would be out of supply. Of course my buddies and I don't use air power like you guys did [:)]

[gwgardner]

Man I have to rethink my whole way of doing things. I haven't been daring enough, I guess, to NOT try keeping a continuous front. When I've played Chuck, any time I left a hex uncovered, he moved in. I'm always trying to avoid my nightmare situation, in which the enemy encircles my forward push because I didn't guard my flanks.

I think it's a factor of WHEN you launch barbarrosa. Early on, the Russkies don't have time to build a lot. If you look in my first AAR, I deliberately waited till June 22, 41, thus giving Chuck time to build a humongous defensive force.

In that regard, you may be right about the -50% experiment.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: James Ward




Until you and Chuck posted your AAR's I had never seen continuous lines across the front in Russia. I never found the need due to the supply rules. As long as you hold the cities it doesn't make any differance how far the enemy advances because pretty soon they are out of supply. I would just defend out to a point where the enemy would be out of supply. Of course my buddies and I don't use air power like you guys did [:)]

You know, that's pretty much the AI defends Russia. Together, the two of you are teaching me some lessons.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: James Ward




Until you and Chuck posted your AAR's I had never seen continuous lines across the front in Russia. I never found the need due to the supply rules. As long as you hold the cities it doesn't make any differance how far the enemy advances because pretty soon they are out of supply. I would just defend out to a point where the enemy would be out of supply. Of course my buddies and I don't use air power like you guys did [:)]

You know, that's pretty much the AI defends Russia. Together, the two of you are teaching me some lessons.

The supply system is one of the things I like most about the game. You really have to protect your supply lines or else you are toast.

[Joshuatree]

 
 
Quote jjdenver:
 
"Hi, that's a great observation. I've observed the lack of contiguous lines w/ delight, and not just because I'm the attacker in 1941. One of the main flaws that I saw in RTV from the AAR's that I read before the game was the WW1 style warfare that took place on all fronts and in particular on the east front. Really the situation in Russia was so fluid that I didn't think RTV simulate it well at all based on the AAR's that I've seen, and the war in Russia is in many ways one of the most interesting aspects of any WW2 game. Obviously(?) the other flaw that I saw was the lack of air/naval interaction and the naval model in general."
 
Well phew, I thought it was just me thinking exact the same thing. I'm used to Avanced Tactics, but eagerly reading your AAR's, and what keeps me suprising in the AAR's is the WWI warfare style... That really is not what happened and is certainly not the way in which one plays Advanced Tactics, that is: attack with armour/bombers on a narrow front, breakthrough and cut off his supply lines and encircle your opponents units. A fluid way of gaming so to speak. Not much fun in slugging it out on a static front. So I am really happy that the same works with RtV as well.

[jjdenver]

The supply system is one of the things I like most about the game. You really have to protect your supply lines or else you are toast.

I think that the supply problem referred to by IS is that there is an imbalance between the way that Axis and Allied units get supply. I think - I may be wrong definitely - but I think it works like this:

A) Axis move
B) Allied move
C) Supply check for all forces

So if during (A) an allied unit is put out of supply it gets a chance to extricate itself by attack or move during (B) before supply is checked in (C). However for an axis unit placed out of supply by allies during (B), supply is checked in (C) before the axis unit gets a chance to move in (A). So any Axis unit placed out of supply is next seen by the Axis player usually as a 1-0, 1-1, 0-1, or 0-0. If an Allied unit is placed out of supply the Allied player next sees it as a full strength/move unit and has a chance to use it before it's judged out of supply by the game.

This is quite unfair for the Axis player and I think this is what he's referring to.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong about all this.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

The supply system is one of the things I like most about the game. You really have to protect your supply lines or else you are toast.

I think that the supply problem referred to by IS is that there is an imbalance between the way that Axis and Allied units get supply. I think - I may be wrong definitely - but I think it works like this:

A) Axis move
B) Allied move
C) Supply check for all forces

So if during (A) an allied unit is put out of supply it gets a chance to extricate itself by attack or move during (B) before supply is checked in (C). However for an axis unit placed out of supply by allies during (B), supply is checked in (C) before the axis unit gets a chance to move in (A). So any Axis unit placed out of supply is next seen by the Axis player usually as a 1-0, 1-1, 0-1, or 0-0. If an Allied unit is placed out of supply the Allied player next sees it as a full strength/move unit and has a chance to use it before it's judged out of supply by the game.

This is quite unfair for the Axis player and I think this is what he's referring to.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong about all this.

Yes you are correct there is an imbalance in the when supply is calculated. I think that is being corrected in the patch. Still many games don't force you to protect your supply lines like this one does.

[IS]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
This is quite unfair for the Axis player and I think this is what he's referring to.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong about all this.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant [:)] It is extremely dangerous for Axis (especially, if Allies use a lot of airborne troops) - you can easily loose entire army because of this supply queue.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

 


Well phew, I thought it was just me thinking exact the same thing. I'm used to Avanced Tactics, but eagerly reading your AAR's, and what keeps me suprising in the AAR's is the WWI warfare style... That really is not what happened and is certainly not the way in which one plays Advanced Tactics, that is: attack with armour/bombers on a narrow front, breakthrough and cut off his supply lines and encircle your opponents units. A fluid way of gaming so to speak. Not much fun in slugging it out on a static front. So I am really happy that the same works with RtV as well.

Believe me, I didn't want that static line like that. But will jjdenver's technique work if the enemy has time to get a line formed in depth? The key that he seems to have mastered is not to allow that situatino to develope.

[Chocolino]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

Jul01_41, Axis T+9 turn (10th turn of Barbarossa) (continued)

The Soviet tank corps defending Smolensk are disbanded. AGC faces 3 basic options I think:

For the supply reasons mentioned above, the tanks around Smolensk may have been transferred out of the pocket via strategic movement instead of being disbanded. This can be done by the Allies even when units are out of supply in the turn immediately after the pocket forms. As the Axis player you don't have this option and luxury of course (so far as of V1.3).

[jjdenver]

Jul09_41, Axis T+10 turn (11th turn of Barbarossa)

AGN continues efforts to extract the out of supply units near Talinn. One inf korp has been destroyed by the remaining inf korp & inf div might still survive. A web of units is thrown out to ZOC all possible hexes in case the 8 movement Soviet armored division roars back into the area.

Units around Pskov refit and begin to prove toward Novgorod.

There are several options at this point for AGN:
1) Move to reduce Talinn but as previously discussed I think I'll leave this and perhaps address it during the winter since it's outside of USSR I guess(?)
2) Advance directly on Leningrad to try to reach it before the Soviets are prepared. This would be a serious supply stretch though.
3) Drive on Novgorod - this would provide better supply for assaulting Leningrad, and Velikiye Luki and Talinn would both threaten AGN's flanks
4) Clean up Velikiye Luki before going back north. This would spend time and let Leningrad get stronger.

[jjdenver]

Jul09_41, Axis T+10 turn (11th turn of Barbarossa) (continued)

AGC was driving for Tver but the Soviets appeared to be there in some force, and the opportunity to flank Kaluga seemed available so the panzers were diverted south to approach Kaluga. Most Soviet units around Kaluga were eliminated, while a screen was deployed to face Tver.

I also built my first Panzer division. An extra high movement unit could prove useful.

Unfortunately the Wermacht gets its first taste of partisans this turn. I choose to pay 100 PP to suppress them. Time is too valuable to waste.

[jjdenver]

Jul09_41, Axis T+10 turn (11th turn of Barbarossa) (continued)

AGS surrounds Vinnitsa and seizes a bridgehead near Kiev (perhaps a risky move given the large number of Soviets to the north).

At sea there are more skirmishes. I'm moving my naval raiders around, leaving some zones empty to avoid allowing the Brits to focus their naval patrols in any one area. I'm not sure if it works but it feels like it helps.

[gwgardner]

Kaluga?! Never heard of it. Oh yeah, because I never made it that close to Moscow! Congrats on your effort so far.

[jjdenver]

Jul16_41, Axis T+11 turn (12th turn of Barbarossa)

Thanks GW - glad you are enjoying the AAR - Chuck's a great opponent and the game is a lot of fun.

AGN continues to skirmish around Talinn, screen Velikiye Luki, and begins the advance on Novgorod.

[jjdenver]

Jul16_41, Axis T+11 turn (12th turn of Barbarossa) (continued)

AGC manages to surround Kaluga and Bryansk. With these as a base the drive on Moskva can commence from a strong supply source.

[jjdenver]

Jul16_41, Axis T+11 turn (12th turn of Barbarossa) (continued)
AGS takes Vinnitsa. Some korps and divisions are transferred to AGN and AGC to support the imminent drives on Moskva and St Petersburg. The rest of AGN marches for Kiev.

Battles continue on the convoy lines to Russia.