Marcks, Halder, Hitler or Rutabaga?

[fbs]

Assuming no changes in the initial Soviet disposition, which disposition and plan would you choose for the German side in WiTP?

* The Marcks Plan, with a super-strong center going straight to Moscow, a strong south going to Kiev and a tiny force going to Leningrad?
* The Halder Plan, with a strong center going straight to Moscow, weaker south going to Kiev and weaker north to Leningrad?
* The Hitler Plan (actual Barbarossa), with a strong center splitting between Moscow and Leningrad (actually split between Moscow and Kiev), weaker south going to Kiev (stop in Ukraine, actually went all the way to Stalingrad), and weaker north going to Leningrad?

Or our own "Rutabaga Plan", which is something different than all of these? [enter your own plan here]

Now, I don't know what's the usual % of wins/losses in AAR between Germans and Soviet Players, but some home variants should spice things up, uh? Should be quite interesting for the Russian player.

[fbs]

By the way, answering my own question: I'd rather go with my own Plan Rutabaga: tiny north to Leningrad, tiny center to Moscow, huge south to Caucasus and Urals.

I want those oil wells :^D

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: fbs

By the way, answering my own question: I'd rather go with my own Plan Rutabaga: tiny north to Leningrad, tiny center to Moscow, huge south to Caucasus and Urals.

I want those oil wells :^D

strong north everytime. brcause supply better and Leningrad is a must have. South has biggest supply problems

[Klydon]

Unfortunately, we don't really know what would have happen had Moscow been captured in the real campaign. The German general staff thought the Russians would put maximum effort into defending it (they did to a degree) allowing the German army to destroy vast amounts of Russian formations (they did, but a month late after the diversions) and then shatter the government with the capture of Moscow.

In this game, Moscow really does not have any specials with it that make it a very attractive target beyond being a 3 hex city with a good amount of industry, etc. There is nothing really on the road to Moscow either. Leningrad has a real benefit in that its capture releases quite a few Finns and helps make more German units available elsewhere. The south is harder to quantify since the production system is very complicated, so it is hard to say if you take spot xyz and take the oil out, then this is what will happen.

With the new rail rules, etc the Russians actually have to give some thought on balancing moving troops vs getting industry out of the way, but only if the Germans go about it the right way. In the North, there is little industry short of Leningrad. Same in the center as far as industry west of Moscow. Behind Moscow, there is more. The south offers far more industrial targets, especially WEST of Moscow where the Germans can actually get to a lot of them.

With all this in mind, I have been testing a German campaign that features Leningrad as a target in the north (free the Finns, hit actually the largest population group of city hexes in Russia, etc) and a strong drive in the south to give the Russians rail road cap nightmares. A weak attack/advance in the center rounds out the battle. As a follow up to 42, I would probably consider launching an attack in the direction of Moscow from the north and center with the idea that I am rolling down the line and putting more heat on industry/pop centers, etc.

[kirkgregerson]

Have not even read the initial post, but my answer will be Rutabaga.

BTW: Halder was a close second

[:)]

[Q-Ball]

I would go strong NORTH and SOUTH, but weak in the CENTER. So none of those plans.

[mussey]

ORIGINAL: fbs

By the way, answering my own question: I'd rather go with my own Plan Rutabaga: tiny north to Leningrad, tiny center to Moscow, huge south to Caucasus and Urals.

I want those oil wells :^D

Very largely geo-strategically speaking, and if successful, this would have been deadly to the British Empire (combined with Rommel's drive to Cairo/Middle East, and Japan's drive thru Burma/India). But this game would not know how to handle the dire consequences of England being kicked out of the Middle East....

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I would go strong NORTH and SOUTH, but weak in the CENTER. So none of those plans.

In the GC 41 I would place the emphasis in the North and South for sure. In the past I've only send the 2nd Army with a good leader to AGN and that is usually enough to capture Leningrad. Not so sure now, may also depend on who your playing.

Of course this plan only lasts until you have reduced the intial pockets usually turn 3. After that you need to capture or kill many, many, many Russians for a change at winning and try to keep your losses to a minimum. Your opponent has several options and you have to keep on top of his moves. Either by limiting his options or countering them.

I would not worry about objectives in the GC 41 untill late in the war maybe 43 or even 44. Except in the south with all those urban hex just waiting to be picked up. [:D]

[Wild]

Definitely strong north and strong south, with a weak center.

In my opinion you have to free up the fins to shorten your line and give you some decent troops for the winter.

You also must do maximum damage to the russian army, and russia's biggest and best units are in the south. Which you must encircle and destroy. Also taking the don-bas cities is critical.

I would leave a big push in the center until '42.

[PeeDeeAitch]

I am in the minority here, but I have begun to think that a stronger center allows the north or south to open up. Remember that the Panzer Groups don't have to stay where they are, and my 2nd Panzer (Guderian's little pixel equivalent must always hate me) seems to go south more often than not. I tend to think of the Army Groups as just larger versions of the front lines - and the ability to push deep into enemy territory with the center either gravitates forces there or can be the basis for large encirclements.

Recently, though I have sent a 2nd panzer group corps the to south, I always follow the center with the XIV panzer corps - it hits the front on turn 3 (just in time to do some movement when the rest of the armor is out of gas).

Note, this strategy is not aiming to make Moscow target number one, but rather once Smolensk falls to use the panzers to help out north or (especially) south.

[Farfarer61]

Whatsa rutabaga ? perhaps Plan Sugar Beet. Read Heinrich Boll for poignant WWII germans in russia stories. My favorites are "Mein tueres bein" (my expensive leg) and "Damals in Odessa" ( a long time ago in a city far far away...).

[Angelo]

ORIGINAL: Wild

Definitely strong north and strong south, with a weak center.

In my opinion you have to free up the fins to shorten your line and give you some decent troops for the winter.

You also must do maximum damage to the russian army, and russia's biggest and best units are in the south. Which you must encircle and destroy. Also taking the don-bas cities is critical.

I would leave a big push in the center until '42.

Wow! Somethings not right here... Are we in agreement? [:'(]

[Wild]

Yep! we can't disagree about everything.[;)]

[56ajax]

as the Hitler plan didnt work, not that one; my feeling is to go hard for the North or Center; yes get the Finns into the game...

[ComradeP]

To me, one of the main problems the Axis face is not necessarily where to strike, but also went to divert forces elsewhere if something goes wrong or if objectives are captured earlier than intended. For example: if you commit more mobile units to taking Leningrad, it easily takes them 5 turns to relocate to the center without functional rail lines, not to mention relocating them to the south. Let's say you captured Leningrad and surroundings around turn 10, that gives you about 2 turns worth of actually using the relocated mobile units in the center before the mud hits.

Time is not something the Axis have enough of in 1941, the clock always seems to be ticking at a speed that the Axis can't keep up with.

The relocation problem is probably most visible in the north, because Leningrad is basically the only worthwhile target there and both due to the terrain and there simply not being many towns to capture, there isn't much of a reason to keep the mobile units there.

South of Smolensk, however, you go from one concentration of population in towns and cities to the next, so even though Leningrad itself has a big population, you can capture a much more substantial chunk of the Soviet population by advancing south of Smolensk.

Leningrad is a useful anchor and it releases the Finns, but the Finns are not going to win the war for you, and the Soviets don't necessarily need to recapture Leningrad to win. With Leningrad, Pskov and Novgorod captured and all of the Baltic and Finnish cities in Axis hands, it still only gives them 28 victory points, so provided there are 11 victory points left elsewhere, the Soviets win. It's difficult to do, but not impossible. You don't have the recapture the Baltic states or knock the Finns out of the war for the points. In fact, if you hold on to Leningrad as the Soviets, you can probably completely ignore trying to beat back the Finns and AGN.

[Baron von Beer]

If I had my choice, I'd not launch. I'd go for the real knife in my back: Switzerland. Sitting there with their chocolate, and watches, just scheming away... [:@]

[Bamilus]

Probably Halder or Marcks plan. But, this is coming from a political-strategic viewpoint. I think the capture of Moscow was crucial in the first six months in terms of sealing Germany's dominance over the USSR in the eyes of the world, not to mention the huge morale blow.

In terms of just operational strategy......probably strong north, medium center, and weak south.

[larryfulkerson]

In the early war days I would think it'd be important to get the Finns involved if only to be better able to survive the '41 - '42 winter so Lgrad's capture would be important .  But most of the important industry is in the south so it would be more efficient to hurt the Soviets by overrunning those industries in the South.  And whenever I play as the Soviet and evacuate industry I usually try to put them in the far northeast which makes them game-wise almost "off-map".  That leaves mostly the South regions as the major way to hurt the Soviets and the Axis HAS to hurt the Soviets to be able to last very long in the game.  Early turns ( pre-'43 ) are the only time that the Axis can effectively hurt the Soviets too. 

[mussey]

Interesting. I went with a strong center, a same South (vs a 'normal' AI), captured Moscow but also everything else that was historical in the north and south. Thus, even with no Pz I'm near the gates of Lenningrad and about to take Novograd. In the south I took Karkov w/ no Pz and about to take Stalino. I think the AI recognizes where the main armoured thrusts are and puts reinforcements in front of them. I know a human player would be different, but.... the center offers the most flexibiltiy for Germany to rapidly shift its Pz's quickly either north or south, or if any opportunity presents itself, to take Moscow directly. It also allows maximum coordination between the x4 Pz Groups to create pcokets at will. This is where the majority of Soviet units will be after crushing Belorussia and western Ukraine.
 
I'm bumping the difficulty level on my next GC up a notch (or will I play the Soviets and see what it looks like on the other side?) 

[Encircled]

Take on a human, and see if you can manage that.

Thats not meant as a criticism btw, but a lot of my pre-conceived ideas about beating an AI opponent went west when I played a human.