Help and strategy as playing germany!

[Iamstrategygame]

I am playing Germany in road to Moscow Smolensk 2. After getting crashed I am going to use a different strategy. Would it be correct to assume the best and only viable strategy is to divide a single unit into 3 unit or perhaps 2? for all units? If I divide every unit into 3 then I will have more unit to surround the Russians. And as a matter of factually, would it be correct strategy be to divide your unit up for every scenario?

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: Iamstrategygame
I am playing Germany in road to Moscow Smolensk 2. After getting crashed I am going to use a different strategy. Would it be correct to assume the best and only viable strategy is to divide a single unit into 3 unit or perhaps 2? for all units? If I divide every unit into 3 then I will have more unit to surround the Russians. And as a matter of factually, would it be correct strategy be to divide your unit up for every scenario?

Hey there Ben dude, thanks for the question. Its'a good one. I feel your pain of being outnumbered all the time. A severe shortage of units to man the lines. The cure for that is to split some units into pieces and send them to the front lines. Three pieces will give you more units but two pieces will give you two stronger units than the three pieces would be. It depends on what missions they will have to perform. If they are going to defend against fairly strong Soviet stacks then it might be best to stick to two pieces instead of three because you need the added strength. If the unit is breaking into pieces just to convert the terrain to friendly control then three pieces would be called for to inccrease the coverage. How big the pieces should be is largely a matter of what mission they are to perform.

[Iamstrategygame]

]

thank larry for the quick replay. I am just happy to hear, I have the right idea!

[gliz2]

Splitting units is a very good idea (in my opinion a must). However you need to plan carefully, because when you split and encircle you "loose" attacking strength and/or time. Therefore see for opportunity encirclement first (with any type of units e.g. HQ, it is a game so don't mind the irrationality of it). For me the opportunity encirclement allows for a better cohesion.

[tcarusil]

I have been playing the Crossing the Border scenario. I have found that surrounding the Russians to destroy them takes up too much time and greatly slows my unit's ability to advance rapidly. I am currently trying a strategy of damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. We'll see how this works.

TomC

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: tcarusil
I have been playing the Crossing the Border scenario. I have found that surrounding the Russians to destroy them takes up too much time and greatly slows my unit's ability to advance rapidly. I am currently trying a strategy of damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead. We'll see how this works.

TomC

Usually, you can earn more victory points by capturing certain locations and destroying Soviet units earns only a small percentage of the total victory points earned, usually. You might want to scan the scenario briefing to see what the goal of the scenario is and if it's not specifically to clean the map of Soviet units, it's probably to grab some objectives for the victory points that they represent. So instead of trying to kill the Soviets why don't you see if you can grab all the objectives instead. Once you capture them you'll have to defend them of course. Try that.

[gliz2]

Then how do you deal with the enemy?

For Grand Scenarios it's a no-go as it will hamper advance at a later stage (few turns).
If you play against a human (Elmer is strugglig at this) you will get ruthlessly punished for leaving the enemy behind your lines.Bridges will get blown, railroads destroyed important transport hubs might get be reclaimed by enemy.

And if you play according to the military rules you simply need to mitigate the enemy behind the lines.

The above does not mean you have to immediately destroy the enemy units but you need to engage/encircle them.
For FITE2 I use any non-essential units for this like Corps HQs or Flak units. It is an exploit but the game is a hex-based IGUG system which is by itself a poor simulator.

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Then how do you deal with the enemy?

For Grand Scenarios it's a no-go as it will hamper advance at a later stage (few turns).
If you play against a human (Elmer is strugglig at this) you will get ruthlessly punished for leaving the enemy behind your lines.Bridges will get blown, railroads destroyed important transport hubs might get be reclaimed by enemy.

And if you play according to the military rules you simply need to mitigate the enemy behind the lines.

The above does not mean you have to immediately destroy the enemy units but you need to engage/encircle them.
For FITE2 I use any non-essential units for this like Corps HQs or Flak units. It is an exploit but the game is a hex-based IGUG system which is by itself a poor simulator.

Which version are you playing? As for all the 'Road to Moscow' scenario, Rob 'hawkeye' Kunz provided some additional documentation and maps, too. I'd have a look at them.

Klink, Oberst

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

For FITE2 I use any non-essential units for this like Corps HQs or Flak units. It is an exploit...

How is it an "exploit"? If used in that fashion, HQs and AAA units will not be available for their intended tasks - enhancing cooperative supply and defending against air attacks. If their combat strengths are too weak to contain the pockets, the defenders will break out.

... but the game is a hex-based IGUG system which is by itself a poor simulator.

Like Democracy, the worst method of all - except for all the others.

[gliz2]

An exploit is doing something that is allowed by the game engine (not a cheat) but quite unrealistic. Using an artillery or HQ as a front-line unit is an exploit. But I really am not shy to use it [:D]

As I do not know what actually is going under the hood I based my knowledge on some simple tests I've run. For a small enemy unit (weak Division in FITE) the AA/HQ/Arty units are useful to do the blocking job or help with attacks from all sides. From the battle charts it seems like the units were overrun and either wiped out completely or too weak to break through even through a 2-2 arty/AA units.

PS. This is not wrong per se. Just wanted to point out that for encirclement it is better to use 1-2 Battalions of infantry and some auxiliaries to accompany it than committing a full division. Been using this tactic intensively over the past 6 months. I have seen only once or twice anyone "breaking out" when a very big stack managed to get through some divided Pioneers units.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

An exploit is doing something that is allowed by the game engine (not a cheat) but quite unrealistic. Using an artillery or HQ as a front-line unit is an exploit. But I really am not shy to use it [:D]

It's not unrealistic if the consequences of doing so are included. In the real world, if a commander ordered his artillery or HQ to block a retreat it would move to do so. There would be consequences for doing so - but such consequences are modeled in-game.

Of course, it also depends upon the scenario design: Rear-area elements need some modeling in most situations, since they would handle mopping up tasks like this. But most designers only include front-line elements and abstract the rear-area stuff.

As I do not know what actually is going under the hood I based my knowledge on some simple tests I've run. For a small enemy unit (weak Division in FITE) the AA/HQ/Arty units are useful to do the blocking job or help with attacks from all sides. From the battle charts it seems like the units were overrun and either wiped out completely or too weak to break through even through a 2-2 arty/AA units.

PS. This is not wrong per se. Just wanted to point out that for encirclement it is better to use 1-2 Battalions of infantry and some auxiliaries to accompany it than committing a full division. Been using this tactic intensively over the past 6 months. I have seen only once or twice anyone "breaking out" when a very big stack managed to get through some divided Pioneers units.

Defenders forced to retreat that have no retreat path are allowed to attempt to RBC the blocking stacks.

[Lobster]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Defenders forced to retreat that have no retreat path are allowed to attempt to RBC the blocking stacks.

If the attackers used no movement points and the units that moved the farthest to close the noose used all of their movement points to do so then they wouldn't have even been there to block a retreat. Still a glaring problem with this. Defies logic. About the only way to avoid this is to force the attacker in this situation to use all surrounding units in the attack. And as Gliz said, an RBC is certainly not a done deal and does not properly address the issue since the blocking units could not have been there in time in the first place.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Lobster

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Defenders forced to retreat that have no retreat path are allowed to attempt to RBC the blocking stacks.

If the attackers used no movement points and the units that moved the farthest to close the noose used all of their movement points to do so then they wouldn't have even been there to block a retreat. Still a glaring problem with this. Defies logic. About the only way to avoid this is to force the attacker in this situation to use all surrounding units in the attack. And as Gliz said, an RBC is certainly not a done deal and does not properly address the issue since the blocking units could not have been there in time in the first place.

That's a different issue - one that is now addressed by the BTS system. The RBC thing addresses using ant units to block retreat paths. The blockers must now be strong enough to prevent RBCs by the retreaters.

[gliz2]

Bob
The BTS also has flaws. You can exploit it to some degree. If you execute first round of battles or get opportunity battle then you can attack the same unit back in time so to speak. And if you really do spend time on planning this you can easily make a habit of it.
So neither RBC nor BTS prevent units from being "killed" by enemy units which arrived later/earlier at the scene.
There is no solution to this as this is the hex boardgame well known issue.
The only thing that can be done about it is to limit the flaw of the system either by making low scale games (like below 2km per hex) or very high scale ones (above 10km per hex). Then it more or less works.
FITE2 being on the lower scale suffers from the engine wuite substantially.

PS. You are so fuxed on the "blindly following the orders" thing which is funny becausr during the enemy turn you cannot issue any orders. The absurdity of it has never occured to you?
And yes in boardgames you had option for example to withdraw/attack immediately when enemy entered your ZOC (so 1 hex out of 6).

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

Bob
The BTS also has flaws.

No. It may not fix every possible time-machine effect, but it is a universal improvement over what we had. It doesn't create time-machine effects that weren't already there.

You can exploit it to some degree. If you execute first round of battles or get opportunity battle then you can attack the same unit back in time so to speak. And if you really do spend time on planning this you can easily make a habit of it.
So neither RBC nor BTS prevent units from being "killed" by enemy units which arrived later/earlier at the scene.

I think you're talking about the time-stamp of the defender? The defender can be in a combat that lasts 5 rounds, retreat, then be attacked again in an earlier round. Again, this was how it worked before, too. And it doesn't have any material impact on the game. The important thing is to prevent the phasing units from exploiting out of time.

There is no solution to this as this is the hex boardgame well known issue.

Huh?

The only thing that can be done about it is to limit the flaw of the system either by making low scale games (like below 2km per hex) or very high scale ones (above 10km per hex). Then it more or less works.
FITE2 being on the lower scale suffers from the engine wuite substantially.

All scales can be made to work.

PS. You are so fuxed on the "blindly following the orders" thing which is funny becausr during the enemy turn you cannot issue any orders. The absurdity of it has never occured to you?

The High Command has to wait its turn. That realistically models the inertia of command. But units can be given advance instructions to react to enemy action: Units can be assigned to Reserve deployment. Unit loss tolerances impact how they deal with combat defenses. Air units can be assigned to Interdiction or Sea Interdiction. Naval and Coastal guns also do Sea Interdiction automatically. Air units assigned to CS will support cooperative defenses. Artillery placement enables cooperative support, etc.

And yes in boardgames you had option for example to withdraw/attack immediately when enemy entered your ZOC (so 1 hex out of 6).

Defenders can RBC. Phasing units that exit a ZOC are subject to disengagement attacks.

[gliz2]

Bob I do not agree with your statements on reactiveness.
In ye ol' boardgames you reacted per engagement (because players were conducting business sitting by the board). In most digital implementations of boardgames this is not the case.

And how a scale of 2km and 8hrs can have responsiveness same as 10km weekly turn game?
While in first case the orders can be changed quickly the elasticity in the latter case is close to none. For a week a commander cannot react. Do they issue orders only on Mondays in your country?

What you describing is a stance. A unit can have a defensive, attacking, marching, refittinh, resting or on-alert stance. This has nothing to do with the actual engagements. If I put an unit on alert then counterattack than rest than defend and again counterattack how can this be simulated in TAOW? I can only do this during my turn. During the enemy turn I cannot issue any orders. Period.
Compare the Combat Ops (yes there is a system that does operate on small-to-medium scale in real time) and you will see how simplistic and unrealistic the whole system of commanding is.

The game is what it is. I stopoed caring for the flaws. I know the thing is crap but unfortunately is the only thing out there.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: gliz2

In ye ol' boardgames you reacted per engagement (because players were conducting business sitting by the board).

Not in any boardgame I ever played.

And how a scale of 2km and 8hrs can have responsiveness same as 10km weekly turn game?
While in first case the orders can be changed quickly the elasticity in the latter case is close to none. For a week a commander cannot react. Do they issue orders only on Mondays in your country?

The command inertia of a platoon is much quicker than that of an Army. So, depending upon the scope and scale of the topic, different time intervals are appropriate.

This is not something I've just dreamed up. It's real: CFNA would not work at a shorter turn interval. If the turn interval is too short, the forces cannot perform flanking maneuvers. Instead, the defender would always be able to adjust faster than the attacker could shift to the flank. The result would be that the attacker would only have the option to bludgeon his way through with frontal attacks.

This is true for FITE, too: Too short an interval and breakthroughs couldn't be effected. The defender could always shift reserves to the spearheads faster than the spearheads could punch through.

What you describing is a stance. A unit can have a defensive, attacking, marching, refittinh, resting or on-alert stance. This has nothing to do with the actual engagements. If I put an unit on alert then counterattack than rest than defend and again counterattack how can this be simulated in TAOW? I can only do this during my turn. During the enemy turn I cannot issue any orders. Period.

No! Don't think in game terms, think in real-life terms: There is a high command (in game terms, that's YOU), and individual units have their own commanders - they issue orders, if given the proper stance, during the enemy player turn.

[Omnius]

Splitting units is for losers! Do not forget when splitting units you always lose combat strength when breaking down. I never breakdown my units and always recombine newly split units ASAP. Split units are just more vulnerable to being overrun through retreat before combat, not worth it. What little you might gain from a single attempt to surround an enemy unit with split units is usually lost on the enemy's next turn as those little split units can be more easily wiped out.

[gliz2]

If you thinking WEGO system then it is not what I've ment.
In old GTM or G500 systems there was some responsiveness implemented. When an enemy unit entered the the adjecent hex the defender could initiate an engagement battle or try to disangage (there were action cards for both sides: strong attack, attack, probe, defend, rugged defense or withdrawal) and in the attack phase the defender could move units as a counterattack (1 or 2 hexes). It did not prevent breakthroughs from happening as when defender was commiting units to counterattack he risked them getting routed and creating even bigger gaps.
Also in all boardgames I have played there was some form of ignoring enemy ZOC in case of overrun.

Most modern wars (so from 30s of last century) were based on proper communications through the chain of command. And interventions from CO of Corps or Group of Armies where done in hours. And the CO of divisions and Battalions where reacting within 1-2 hrs. So only a weekly issuance of orders is absurd. And this has nothing to do with IGUG system because this was solved 30 years ago.

[gliz2]

I think your comment is not good enough. It all depends on situation and scale of the scenario.
Splitting a very strong flak unit allows for covering 3 airfields thus protecting 9 squadrons insted of just 3.
Encirclement with splitting allows for destruction of enemy units. And after the battle you can easily merge the units.
Splitting infantry battalion allows to blow up 3 times more bridges or capture more bridges.