Romanian demobilization

[ChuckBerger]

And the final post on AGS... this one concerns the partial demobilization of the Romanian army that occurred after the fall of Odessa.

According to at least one source, the number of Romanian troops on active duty east of the Dniestr River fell from 386,000 in October 1941, to just 63,000 a month later, and didn't really increase until spring of 1942. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61374

This seems to be backed up by Nafziger's OOB resource, which shows just five Romanian divisions available to AGS as of January 1942.

And wikipedia claims that the Romanian army was "partially demobilized" after the battle of Odessa.

This certainly explains the near-complete absence of accounts of battles involving the Romanians in late 1941, aside from the mountain divisions in the Crimea. And it certainly helps explain why the Germans were so stretched thin and unable to hang on to Rostov, for instance.

The loss of a dozen Romanian divisions from AGS is a huge event - is it modelled anywhere in the game? I don't see any Romanian withdrawals in the list of reinforcements.

What's not clear to me is exactly why the Romanians were "demobilized", if that is the right term, in this way. Certainly many formations had taken severe losses at Odessa, and this was making the war unpopular in Romania. On the other hand, it may simply have been that the Romanians had only agreed to go as far as Odessa, and it took another round of persuasion and negotiations to get them to re-commit major forces to Russia.

Either way, it seems to me there really should be some accounting for the absence of so much of the Romanian army from the latter half of the DC3 time frame. It's a major event, and really would help stretch the Germans thin in AGS, as they were historically.

But maybe it's already in the game, and I just haven't hit the relevant triggers?

[Michael T]

I have played a lot of East Front games. I can't recall any at all that withdraw anything like the number of Rumanians you have indicated.

As an aside, the combat value of the Rumanians varies wildly between games.

[ChuckBerger]

Perhaps that's because a lot of those formations returned to the East Front in spring & summer of 1942, so many East Front game designers probably just gloss it all over as not worth factoring in.

But there's no avoiding the fact that these formations were just not around during the crucial winter months of 1941. Aside from perhaps 6 divisions, the Romanians weren't available to hold the flanks and fill out the line during the German advance on Rostov.

Pretty much the whole Romanian 4th Army (16 divisions, including most of those that start DC3 attached to 11th Army) returned to west of the Dniestr after the fall of Odessa, and did not return to the Russian front line until spring/summer 1942. Thus, Keith Hitchens' comprehensive history of Rumania notes that "the Rumanian contribution in manpower to the campaign on the eastern front during the winter of 1941-42 was much reduced. Only 5 to 6 divisions took part in the fighting, mainly in the Crimea as part of the German 11th Army."

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=eK ... sa&f=false

It was apparently not until a meeting between Hitler and Antonescu on February 11 in Berlin that Antonescu agreed to send the bulk of the Romanian army back into Russia.

Whether the Rumanians pulled back because they assumed the war was over, or whether they did it because of excessive losses at Odessa - or possibly both reasons - I think this is a critical issue in a game focusing on the DC3 time period.

[warspite1]

For the reasoning, it is important to remember that the Axis satellite powers were all individual countries with their own aims and rationale for joining with Germany. They were not mere extensions of the German army.

Romanian war aims were, like the Finns, centred around reclaiming lost territory. When these immediate war aims had been achieved (the reconquest of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina) the Romanians demobilised about half their number by January 1st 1942. Indeed 3rd army had only 55,000 men under arms at that time.

As the OP says the army was mobilised again (although numbers engaged vary widely) at the request of Hitler at the end of 1941 and a formal agreement was signed on the 17th January 1942. Unlike the Finns, Antonescu believed that the survival of Romania depended on a German victory and he understood the need to assist (he was also sympathetic to Hitler's political views [8|]). However the agreement was conditional upon the Hungarians being more involved and the Germans re-equipping the Romanian army.

Is this a big issue in game terms? It depends on your point of view. Personally I think the biggest issue in the game is problems in AGC and the 3rd Panzergruppe tactic. If historical accuracy is one's bag then the removal of the Romanians is important - but then if historical accuracy is really important then the Romanian 1st Armoured Division would be nowhere near as powerful as it is (they had two regiments composed of unreliable R2 and R35 tanks!) and the Finns should never be able to attack beyond the borders.

I guess each has his own point of view - but to me, this is less of an issue than PzG3. We have the historical context, the game is fun - now let's get the balance right!

By the way, the Romanians are much derided but during August and September 1941 they represented 12 per cent of the Axis total - and yet had taken 30 per cent of the casualties. The Romanians were badly equipped, but they were brave.

[Michael T]

I think there are moves than can foil the PG3 run. I think the real problem are the conscripts. They are just to weak. But the Soviet runaway needs to be addressed as well. I can't think of a game where this problem has ever been solved to be honest. Can anybody ever design a game of the East Front that cures that ill?

[Flaviusx]

From my perspective, what's causing the runaway is the siege guns.

Since I know all you have to do is put one next to an objective city and win, then preventing that is all that matters. And since I know the only way to stop panzers is big stacks that are well dug in...the solution becomes fairly obvious.

Tone down the siege guns and it's a totally different game.

[Falke]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

From my perspective, what's causing the runaway is the siege guns.

The runaway imo is due to the defensive penalties in the first 5 turns plus the Initial cost of switching to defensive and it not
being reliable. The only choices are to run away or a local counterattack,knowing that next turn they are then dead

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Falke

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

From my perspective, what's causing the runaway is the siege guns.

The runaway imo is due to the defensive penalties in the first 5 turns plus the Initial cost of switching to defensive and it not
being reliable. The only choices are to run away or a local counterattack,knowing that next turn they are then dead

No, that's not it. In those early turns you can hardly run due to non activating zombie armies. You can pick one theater, throw the kitchen sink at it, and maybe save some border armies (the south is the best place to do this.) To that extent, yes, you run there.

But everywhere else stuff just dies. The border armies almost to a man, depending on what activates.

Reinforcements aren't running if you choose to place them well to the rear.

Down the line, it is the siege guns that are dominating my own strategy here, not what happens to the border armies. It's all about preventing them from getting next door. Because once they arrive, they can take any of the three cities, no matter how well defended, and even given a single hex to attack with.

Nor can you really counterattack panzer wedges once they switch over to sustained offensive. (I've learned this the hard way.) So you have to pick good terrain (or create it with forts) along the transportation lines leading to the victory cities, dig in deep, and stand your ground there. You can actually do this in Leningrad and Moscow. Rostov...that one I'm still trying to figure out how to defend.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I think there are moves than can foil the PG3 run. I think the real problem are the conscripts. They are just to weak. But the Soviet runaway needs to be addressed as well. I can't think of a game where this problem has ever been solved to be honest. Can anybody ever design a game of the East Front that cures that ill?

Leave the conscripts as is (they were not able to hold the line, really!) [edit: tone down the siege guns as discussed before] and increase the Paranoia point penalty for losing towns linked to industrial sites. That will surely help.

The OT point on the Romanian Army is spot on and I'd like to see it implemented. It is only recently that the role of the RA has been even discussed in the books, No surprise that most games, developed (partially) on the German generals memoirs treat them as a side show.

Model the Romanians well and one needs less fidgeting with AGS and eventually with siege guns and blizzard 'deus ex machina' rules (and with DCB we have not got to the blizzard yet!)

[Michael T]

We need to start a new thread. IMO it's more than siege guns. But even if we fixed up the balance issues what's there to prevent a Soviet from simply running or choosing not to deploy his armies east of Vyzama? Nothing. There is hope though. Perhaps all can be fixed in the editor.

[ChuckBerger]

Yes, an Eastern Front game should have a strong incentive for both sides to fight hard over every scrap of land! There should be a real reason to fight over at least every medium-sized town, even if its just to hold it for a few more turns.

VP is perhaps the only way to do this. Any other in-game solution (eg, tying reinforcements or PP to territorial progress) risks exacerbating the "snowball" effect that already exists...

Of course, it's always open to players to play in a historical fashion. I for one never follow "Sir Robin" strategies, even if they are optimal from a game perspective, simply because I find it boring and ahistorical to play in that way. I'd rather lose than play a game where I abandon most of my country to turtle in 3 cities...

[Michael T]

All they need to do is tie some really stiff penalties for the Soviet if the VP tally gets to high to quickly. Events like:

Japan attacks, 3 Reinforcement armies are transferred east!
Stalin executes Zhukov!
etc etc

You won't see runaways then.

[ChuckBerger]

Maybe, but the trouble with that solution is those events would be game-enders. If the threshold is low, it risks ending even "legitimate" games where the Russian player is just having a bad time of it, not running away. If the threshold is high, it would still permit limited but still gamey runaway strategies in one or more parts of the front.

I'd like something a bit more graduated and subtle, which gives constant encouragement to both sides to fight for every step of ground. But maybe no such mechanism exists, and it has to be left to the imaginative spirit and inclination of the individual player... do I play in a historically-grounded frame of mind, or do I play to optimise my chance of winning the formal game conditions? As a player, I always aim for the former.

C

[Michael T]

Easy to put in conditions like:

If the Soviets have lost X amount of troops at the check point, then the penalty is much less.