Examples of PG 3 --> North?

[Zoetermeer]

Are there any good thread/AAR's here where people do this? I think taking Leningrad before winter '41 if possible is one of the best routes to victory as the Axis, so I'm going to route Hoth north to help out.

[Mehring]

Leningrad almost always falls before blizzard in WitE, with Hoth or not, so virtually every AAR will example it. It won't guarantee any victory though, far from it.

[morvael]

I sent PG3 north, to help PG4:
tm.asp?m=3968085

[Zoetermeer]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Leningrad almost always falls before blizzard in WitE, with Hoth or not, so virtually every AAR will example it. It won't guarantee any victory though, far from it.

Do you think this is a bad idea? Perhaps I'll be able to take Leningrad faster with an extra gruppe, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the tradeoff of progress in the center. I remember seeing old AAR's where people had won the war as the Axis (vs. the AI), but I don't recall what they were doing differently to achieve it. I'd like

[sillyflower]

I usually transfer 1 or 2 divs,1 in my current AAR, on T1 and never more. Sending more makes it too difficult to do well in the centre. I suppose it would not matter if you did not send much of PG2 down south,but that those extra mobile divs are really needed in the south for the early turns at least. The wehrmacht just isn't big enough..............

I don't think I ever failed to take L'grad but I always send reserve and reinforcement inf divs to fill out the 2 inf armies. It's very hard to hold L'grad against a good opponent who really goes for it, and impossible without massive reinforcements of high quality inf xx from elsewhere especially the south.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Leningrad almost always falls before blizzard in WitE, with Hoth or not, so virtually every AAR will example it. It won't guarantee any victory though, far from it.

Do you think this is a bad idea? Perhaps I'll be able to take Leningrad faster with an extra gruppe, but now I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the tradeoff of progress in the center. I remember seeing old AAR's where people had won the war as the Axis (vs. the AI), but I don't recall what they were doing differently to achieve it. I'd like

No, not a bad idea, one of many options that work better for the Axis, in game at least, than history. Just don't expect capturing Leningrad to win the war for you, it really won't.

[Zoetermeer]

Cool, thanks for the help guys. I guess that brings me to this question: is there any consensus on how to actually win the war as the Axis (against the AI)?

[timmyab]

All you need to beat the AI is to hone your tactical skills to a decent level. Once you've defeated the AI's army in open battle then it's just a boring mopping up operation and a long march to the VP locations.

Strategy becomes much more important when you play a tactically competent opponent. One of the joys of this game is that neither side is railroaded into following historical strategies. One thing you can take for granted is that the Axis player will want to destroy the Red army and the soviet player will try to preserve it. Beyond that there is no consensus on the best strategy for either player to pursue.
You can send the whole of 3rd pz group North but the Soviet player will probably respond by sending some armies North to meet them. In this case the armor loses some of it's maneuver advantages because of the more restricted battlefield space and difficult terrain, therefore the Soviet player may even gain an advantage.

[Mehring]

The general strategic approaches I know of are-

1. Arms points/Heavy Industry
2. Manpower/APs
3. Trucks
4. Oil

There's a lot of overlap here and failure in pursuit of one objective will generally take you somewhere towards achieving another. Nothing wrong with changing horse midstream. You'll be lucky to achieve critical damage to any one objective after mid 42.

The game has changed a lot over the years. It used to be all about destroying armament centres, but HI is probably more important now than it was as the annual production multipliers have been tweaked and re-tweaked. Frankly, I haven't kept up with all the patch notes which can read for hours on a major update. Obviously destroying industry is mostly possible in 1941 but look out for opportunities to add to your tally in 42. Killing tank and plane factories can be a nice bonus.

While population migration is active, the manpower approach means destroying units more than capturing cities, though both are important. Dead and captured soldiers don't come back to bite you, but many wounded ones will. After autumn 41 the Russian will have to spend AP to replace lost units as well as manpower and industrial production.

Trucks, or generic vehicles, are often an objective brought on the Russian player by their own production choices. Too many motorised/mechanised units for example, can be a self-inflicted wound on their supply system. You can help the Russian in this, though, by deliberately targeting truck heavy units, also factories if you can get them. Smash up a few mech corps a week and feel their supplies dwindle! You won't always know how effective you've been, though, until you discuss the game with your opponent, presumably when it's over.

I went for oil once and the extra supply might have helped me had the game continued longer, but it wasn't a knock out to the Russians. I was also unable to capture Baku as the game stood, but urban combat has changed since then and I think it would be possible now with the same garrison.

If you scratch at any of these objectives, Russia is just too big to notice. You need to gouge great chunks out, and probably of multiple objectives, to slow down then disable the juggernaut.

How you achieve any of these, as above, there isn't really any consensus. Be bold and daring, but not reckless. Plan your supply routes and protect them. Protect your HQs. Don't think your strung out, exhausted tank units are immune counter attack, you could lose them.

[loki100]

all good advice.

If you take out some Arms pts, some HI, some manpower it has little to no effect on the Red Army. As Mehring says you need to gouge a huge chunk out. Given the current patch, HI is more important than Arms Pts ... and saving it takes a lot of rail capacity which in turn slows the arrival of fresh Soviet formations at the front line.

Opinions on the importance of Soviet domestic (as opposed to LL) truck production varies. I make saving the truck factories a priority, my view is the 700+ a week they produce is vital if you are to gain the full benefit of the 5000+ a week that arrive from LL (after 1943).

Also different games will have very different choke points. In the current AARs, Chaos45 is clearly indicating that he has an absolute manpower shortage. In mine, I have masses of manpower in the pool but the constraint is a lack of admin pts to bring that reserve into play. Generally making the Soviets spend admin pts is a good idea - its a real bottleneck in most games.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Zoetermeer

Cool, thanks for the help guys. I guess that brings me to this question: is there any consensus on how to actually win the war as the Axis (against the AI)?

1. Good solid opening.
2. Pocket units.
3. Pocket units.
4. Pocket units.
5. then roll over the cities.

Generally vs AI you can completely wipe the map by mid 43.
It simply can't handle or counter pocketed units. It gets behind the curve and you can take Moscow by turn 12 in most cases.

You really need to get a good handle on how to use HQBU and fuel drops.

Its still possible to "win" vs a human, but in most cases they will resign long before that.

If you know you can't win, then you need to damage Russian industry as much as possible, pocket as many troops as possible and hit every single tank/mech/cav unit u can to help cause truck issues.
Allot of players picket with tank units ect not realizing they are cutting their own toe down the road.

[swkuh]

@Pelton...

could use a clinic on HQBU... never seems quite right in my play, i.e., don't like losing tempo

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

@Pelton...

could use a clinic on HQBU... never seems quite right in my play, i.e., don't like losing tempo

That is the trade off, especially now. It's a matter of judgement. Do you move 20 MPs or whatever turn and probably slightly less for the next two, or do you do HQBU and have 40+ MPs for the 2 subsequent turns. Not all MPs are equal -it's always those last few that are the most important for creating that pocket or locking down those factories.

If there is a formula for getting it right, I have no idea what it is. After all, generalship is as much art as science. Read the AARs and practise is my advice.

[swkuh]

Well said, Silly. Thanks.

AARs seem to suggest that HQBU has no downside; can't be the case. Pooh-bear needs to sharpen play to see the trade-offs and use the opportunity.

Wonder if HQBU robs supply from other venues, does it? (Worth an experiment in AI.)

[sillyflower]

The other downsides are, of course, the AP and truck costs involved though we are no longer warned about the latter

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: rrbill

Well said, Silly. Thanks.

AARs seem to suggest that HQBU has no downside; can't be the case. Pooh-bear needs to sharpen play to see the trade-offs and use the opportunity.

Wonder if HQBU robs supply from other venues, does it? (Worth an experiment in AI.)

There are huge down sides

Peltonx vs BrianG

If things go wrong its not good. Why one time you play someone and win and the next lose TDV

41 is critical for Germany mainly turns 1-7. You have to have a good 41 if not you simply will not recover.

41 tells me everything. If its going good I look to cut the head off.

If it not going good I change tactics and go for draw. Both play styles are very different. Game lasts for more then 200 turns so little changes in tactics can make for huge differences 150 turns later