Road to Minsk

[Peter Fisla]

Ok I'm a bit confused, it's turn 3 and I have been in control of Minsk city since turn 2 yet the VP flag isn't show it like I own it also my VP screen doesn't show any VP for the German...why is this ?

Thank!

[Peter Fisla]

Also I'm in possession of KAUNAS, VILNIUS, BREST LITOVSK seems I'm not getting points for these VPOs as well...guess they are only for the Russian side.

I'm really confused what I have to do to win this scenario.

Thanks!

[carlkay58]

The VP Location flag is all Red if only the Soviets get VP from it, all Blue if only the Axis get the VPs, or both Red & Blue if both sides get the VPs. It does not change colors for the holding side.

You do not currently have any VPs since there are two types of VP awards for locations. The ET are VP awards at the start of each PLAYER turn - so if you hold it for both your and your opponent's turn you will get double the VPs. The EG VPs are awarded at the End of the Game and will only be seen in the final VP screen.

By holding locations that are not awarded to your side, you deny them to your opponent. This is a good thing!

[carlkay58]

Now for the analysis of what you need to do to win.

VP Locations: You need to capture Minsk, Vitebsk, Mogilev, and Zhlobin by the end of the game to gain the EG VPs (total = 1000). Each payer turn the Soviets hold on to Vitebsk, Mogilev, and Zhlobin, they will receive VPs, a total of 80 VPs/full turn. In addition they will receive VPs at the end of the game for holding Minsk, Vilnius, Kaunas, and Brest Litovsk. If the Soviets manage to hold all of their locations for the full game (3 Turns) they will get 1600 VPs from the EG awards and 240 VPs for the ET awards or a total of 1840.

Casualties: You need to cause at least twice as many Soviet losses as Axis in order to gain VPs in these categories. Any attacks that you do not have better than a 2:1 ratio in your favor, the Soviets are gaining VPs on you.

The scenario is the start of the war and the casualty ratio should be greatly in the Axis favor. You have sufficient time to encircle the majority of the Soviets in the Bialystok Pocket on Turn 1 and then allow your infantry to eliminate the pocket on Turns 2 and 3 for great numbers of VPs with very few Axis losses. This leaves the VP locations. You want to capture the ET VP locations for the Soviets as fast as possible (Vitebsk, Mogilev, and Zhlobin). This is easier said than done and it will probably be Turn 3 before you can take them (although you may get lucky with Mogilev and/or Vitebsk on Turn 2). The other four locations fall on Turns 1 or 2 pretty easily and should be no problem.

[Peter Fisla]

Thanks carlkay58, I appreciate your feedback! Is this a good scenario to start learning the system or can you recommend another scenario? I have the first expansion as well...

[carlkay58]

This is a great scenario to start with. It is straight forward, short, and teaches you (as the Axis player) to form pockets and reduce them quickly.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Thanks carlkay58, I appreciate your feedback! Is this a good scenario to start learning the system or can you recommend another scenario? I have the first expansion as well...

I've found the Road to Leningrad good, esp PBEM and swapping sides. Its a low density front so you are not swamped (even Minsk/Smolensk at the start can seem a bit daunting), there are some things to try out - how to build delay lines with the Soviets, how to pocket effeciently with the Germans, how to keep the combat tempo going and so on. Its quick, so its easy to decide to replay in an attempt to try out something different and so on.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Thanks carlkay58, I appreciate your feedback! Is this a good scenario to start learning the system or can you recommend another scenario? I have the first expansion as well...

I've found the Road to Leningrad good, esp PBEM and swapping sides. Its a low density front so you are not swamped (even Minsk/Smolensk at the start can seem a bit daunting), there are some things to try out - how to build delay lines with the Soviets, how to pocket effeciently with the Germans, how to keep the combat tempo going and so on. Its quick, so its easy to decide to replay in an attempt to try out something different and so on.

3 times I played the Minsk Scenario and 3 times I lost (Soviet Minor victory in all cases). First time I was a bit too cautious, each time after that I tried to be more aggressive but just not enough. I find it weird that the Russian AI never tries to attack me at all in this scenario. Next time I'm gonna drive my panzers on full throttle no matter what and see what happens.

Once I'm done with Minsk, I will try the Leningrad scenario...

One thing really makes no sense to me in this game and that is the stacking rule. The stacking rule shouldn't be 3 units per hex, it should be regimental equivalent (or something similar). It doesn't make sense that I can put 3 divisions in a hex or only 3 HQs. I haven't seen an operational wargame/board game with this kind of stack rule and I have quite a few PC wargames and board games. I hope this will change in War in the West and War in the East 2.0.

[carlkay58]

Play the scenario as the Soviets and you will quickly come to understand why the AI does not bother attacking. Neither will you!

[Numdydar]

Well at 10 miles/hex that is plenty of room for 3+ divisions [:)]

A typical inf division had between a 3-4 mile frontage so three could easily fit in a single hex.

[Peter Fisla]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well at 10 miles/hex that is plenty of room for 3+ divisions [:)]

A typical inf division had between a 3-4 mile frontage so three could easily fit in a single hex.

Yes I know and I'm cool with that...

WitE uses 3 units stacking limit per hex, this is what I'm talking about...it makes no sense to me.

If we assume that you can put 3 divisions in a hex, then you should be able to put say 6 Brigades in a hex or 6 Divisional HQs...see what I'm getting at? If you have space for 3 divisions in a hex, you sure as heck have space for more than 3 Brigades/Regiments no ? The stacking limit should be based on units size heavily...not purely based on number of units (well there should be still a limit how many units in can put in a hex but it should be more than 3).

Peter

[Peter Fisla]

So I finally managed to get Decisive Victory for Germany to play Road to Minsk. Thanks again carlkay58 for your informative tips about this scenario. I wish the original scenarios had a bit more information about them, like the first expansion scenarios do.

[carlkay58]

You are most welcome.

[Numdydar]

Ah. Yes I agree with this. I misunderstood the question [:(]

It is a simplification since 'most' of the units ae divisional (or corps). So I assume it was just easier to just say three units versus adding a 'weight' to a unit. Then you would have to display that on the counter somewhere so people could easily see what units could stack togeather and which ones could not. Plus it would make the game harder to play imho since figuring out what unit weighted what and where it could stack would be much harder than just saying no more than three. Since everyone can hopefully count to three lol.

[swkuh]

One can only imagine the effects of fixed hex sizes/units and all that that implies. Imagine what would obtain when there aren't hexes. Have never seen historic maps with hexes and w/unit identities restricted to fixed tokens of various strengths. Think that through the course of WWII all sides developed ability to form ad hoc combat organizations that fit available forces to needs.