Rethinking turn 1

[Q-Ball]

No, all the destroyed units in 1941 rebuild. Tank Divs come back as Tank Bdes, and Rifle Divs come back as Rifle Bdes, with a delay of 10-26 turns

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

No, all the destroyed units in 1941 rebuild. Tank Divs come back as Tank Bdes, and Rifle Divs come back as Rifle Bdes, with a delay of 10-26 turns

Ah! Been playing 1942 too much I suppose...[8D]

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

No, all the destroyed units in 1941 rebuild. Tank Divs come back as Tank Bdes, and Rifle Divs come back as Rifle Bdes, with a delay of 10-26 turns

Exactly, which means that the units destroyed in the initial encirclements will start coming back (and entrenching even as cadres) on around turn 13. The more you manage to destroy, the bigger the wall you'll be hitting right about the time you want to take down the Leningrad - Moscow axis.

[ComradeP]

No, all the destroyed units in 1941 rebuild.

Divisional non-mountain units, yes. Brigades don't.

[Klydon]

Capture to a point is still preferable over routing like crazy. When you capture, every piece of equipment is gone. His units may come back, but the more hurt you can put on the Russian army in terms of equipment, the better. Not saying it is easy, but it does factor in. The other thing that helps the Germans is capturing equipment. While none is really flashy, every item you take away and use in your own army is that much less your production will be taxed for replacements.

I still think one of the top priorities for the Germans is the destruction of the Red army for the campaign. Having some other priorities (like maximizing the movement of AGN) is fine, but it is something a good Axis player must keep in mind at all times IMO.

[Mynok]

I dont route like crazy but I do blow everything away in front of 4th and 9th armies so the infantry can move as far east as possible on turn 1. Most of the routes will end up either in the pocket or in the marshes.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I still think one of the top priorities for the Germans is the destruction of the Red army for the campaign.

Hitler thought that too.

But I'm still not convinced.

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I still think one of the top priorities for the Germans is the destruction of the Red army for the campaign.

Hitler thought that too.

But I'm still not convinced.

Yeah, I'm not convinced either. Especially during 41 when the Russian infantry and tank divisions are vampires and will rise from the dead.

[Mynok]

Well they aren't going to cooperate about staying holed up in some pen somewhere. You need your German units free for your advance WAY more than he needs that trash back.

[Klydon]

If tank divisions surrender, they don't come back as tank divisions, they come back as brigades.

In absence of victory conditions that can be had in 1941 (the Axis are not getting 290 VP's unless the Russian is seriously screwing up) and with it also being very hard to land a telling blow on the Russian economy (be it manpower centers, resources, oil or whatever), the Axis are not left with a whole lot that they can "work on" as part of their mission. Certainly grabbing a strategic piece of the map like Leningrad or potentially the Crimea is helpful, but what is it going to be that the Axis need to have happen to set them up for victory in the long run?

Granted those units that get destroyed come back, but it takes manpower to refill them and also equipment. It also takes time (at least 2 if not 3 turns) and finally, they have to be moved to the front and redeployed. Once there, they can be handed a shovel, but the other issues are they barely know which end of the rifle to hold as well in terms of experience and their moral is going to be the base national moral. Just routing them and not worrying if you capture them or not means they have a cadre of manpower and equipment that does not tax the Russian economy.

The real time when the Axis has to shine in unit destruction is 1942 in order to both take counters off the board and to put the Russians in the tight spot of trying to choose between corps formation and unit formation. The Axis think it is tough to dig a Russian rifle division out of a level 4 entrenchment now, just wait until you try to dig out a rifle corps. The other issue is the Russians become far more dangerous in concentration of force once they get some rifle corps in play.

The bottom line in this game is that until the Red Army is dealt with, the Axis are likely to be unable to accomplish any goal they may have, be it occupying cities for the VP win, control resources or oil until the Red Army has been defeated to a large degree.

[castlebravo]

Look at it this way. 16 units can set up a 8x5 checkerboard that takes 6 battles to penetrate. If you can afford to isolate and not destroy 16 Russian divisions, that is essentially a Front/MD's (or two) worth of unit coverage that will be denied to the Russians at a fairly critical juncture in the 41 opening. I'm not in favor of the routing instead of destroying strategy, but I think I might try the isolate and forget strategy. It will give the minor power units something to do besides chase partisans through the swamps.

[Mynok]

Those units are going to come back as green troops with almost zero fighting ability. I'm not worried about them.

[*Lava*]

Well... I'm not saying it isn't important to destroy the Soviet Army. I'm saying that I think it is more important to take critical objectives.

[Mynok]

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Not to spoil the thread here, but personally, I think the evolution of "best moves" for each front sector is somehow a bit uncomfortable. It is a matter of taste of course, but my personal preference is for wargames to be simulations with a degree of uncertainty.

IIRC it has been suggested by someone in some other thread, but I think there might be some merit to a slight randomization of the locations of the initial Soviet forces. That would create enough uncertainty that there wouldn't eventually evolve a set of predefined options.

I fully agree with that. Could be some free placement for German/Russian too as suggested in an other thread.

And the editor is not a very user friendly way to do that IMHO.

[Klydon]

I don't think there will ever be a "set" strategy on the opening. There will always be some variation based on how all the combat goes, interdiction on movement, etc. In addition, players will have different priorities which will affect what forces go where.

While the game doesn't feature a random opening as far as unit placement, it does feature changes to starting Russian forces in terms of starting moral being random on a per unit basis. This in turn affects the various combats, etc.

Part of the issue with doing stuff with the editor is the community at large has no interest such scenario/campaign changes probably in part because it gives one side or the other an advantage.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.

If that is true... than it makes for a fairly limited game. Wouldn't you say?

[Mynok]

Surely not. All kinds of things can happen and the possible means of achieving those objectives are varied. Lots of room for tactical innovation.

Of course, anyone is free to make their own strategic objectives. But the design of the game makes Leningrad and the Donbas industry the ones with the highest rewards.

[castlebravo]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Mynok

The only critical objective is Leningrad. If the opportunity arises to take come Donbas industry, I would put that in the 'worth the effort' category.

Otherwise, the primary raison d'etre of the Germans is to destroy Soviets.

If that is true... than it makes for a fairly limited game. Wouldn't you say?

Arguably, this is largely an artifact of the Finish no-attack line. If this was removed, then it would allow the Germans a much more dynamic strategy, because the German blizzard defense in the north almost entirely hinges on freeing up the Finns by taking Leningrad.

[findmeifyoucan]

Very well put Klydon! I like your comment and very valid point as well!