janh
Posts: 1140
Joined: 6/12/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pelton quote:
ORIGINAL: carlkay58 The one thing I wonder about is how this change will affect the ability of the Soviets to counter attack in 41 BEFORE December. The tactic of multiple attacks to reduce the supply was originally developed on the Soviet side to enable successful counter attacks in the July to November time frame (June is pretty much a mandatory passive period for the Soviets). This could encourage, or even force, more runaways by the Soviets. The 1941 ratio is different then 42+ so nothing should change with that, but the soaking attacks are a thing of the past in all years. Way to costly. Carl, as Pelton said, way too costly for the Soviets. The Soviets did blunder big time with such counterattacks, and surely this in large part lead to the huge losses they suffered in 1941 as Germans on the defense were even deadlier than on the offense. This is one of the parts in the game that doesn't feel right for me. On the other hand, it is not as if the Soviets just suffered with these counterattacks with nothing to show for it. Instead of the Lvov pockets, for e.g. the fighting in the south for AGS was much more tedious with Soviet's best formations counterattacking and even nearly cutting of German Panzers, giving this Heeresgruppe a much slower start and progress than usually seen. The long break AGC had to take at Smolensk, the Soviets denting the Yeljna bulge and forcing a German withdrawal from the bridgehead, or the dangerous counterattack and penetration in September south of lake Illmen against the right flank of AGN, which necessitated taking some of PzGrp. IV's fast and armored divisions out of the already troubled attack against Leningrad to recover the flanks and prevent greater disaster, surely did it's part to save the city, convincing Hitler to postpone taking LG because focus on Moscow was soon up with Kiev's operation winding down. During all this time, the often futile attacks in the sense of the number's games people think through here recently more than often, at least wore down the German formations. Supply was short due to averting the attacks, particularly artillery shells seemed to have been in extremely short supply for AGN and AGC and limited offensive abilities. Unit attrition was high, and kept rising until December, much higher than most Axis players allow their units to decline in game, for whatever reasons. I believe the high losses the Soviets suffered can only be recreated in this game with equally foolish Soviet behavior. Which probably will only make sense, if the losses a Soviet player inflicts gains him something similar (which may, or maybe not, the case in the way the combat engine translates unit stats into loss count for fights with very dissimilar experienced opponents -- often I feel my units should be suffering a bit more losses even against the poor 41 or 42 Soviets; in 43 and later, when moral is less dissimilar, results "feel" better, but who knows what would be the "right" results). Also the Soviet has to have similar manpower and unit reinforcement resources (historical reinforcements, or large AP set just for unit creation) to be able to afford them like the contemporary counterparts and still be able to keep 3.5 to 4M alive come December, else no one will be so foolish or able to ignore hindsight and repeat this dual attrition strategy. Unfortunately the latter seems to fall short in term of game resources (I made myself a quick-and-dirty alternate campaign with an extra 5M Soviet manpower in pool, and extra AP, though playing AI the latter really doesn't matter as you know -- but the extra manpower helps a lot and changes the face of the 41 onslaught drastically: it feels less like bowling now, and I have to go slower and protect supply lines as spearheads get hurt more often now; op-tempo and success hinge on thinner lines).
< Message edited by janh -- 12/16/2012 11:12:34 AM >
|