Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe

[mmarquo]

This is to alert anyone who has been swayed by Pelton's admonitions that the Axis cannot successfully attack in 1943 onward that this is simply not true. Here is a screen shot from my match with TD showing a very successful Axis counterattack in late August, 1943. The figures speak for themselves. If the Axis is passive, the Soviet will drive nails into the coffin. [:-]

[elmo3]

Please keep any discussion here constructive and don't turn this into a thread for personal attacks. Thanks.

[Jeffrey H.]

To me, it sounds as if you are afraid that you are losing the argument.

[Flaviusx]

Pelton is mostly right, Marquo. Attacking rifle corps gets prohibitively expensive as time goes on.

The ones you attacked there are scarecrows and severely understrength. At full TOE and attachments 3 rifle corps should be 100k+ men and over 2k guns. And you still lost 2k men doing it, not a cheap attack. You can't afford too many of those.

If you had tried this on a fresh stack it would have been that much more costly. Probably double that, assuming the attack succeeds at all.

[turtlefang]

Pelton's contention - rightly or wrongly - is that the German cannot effectively conduct counter attacks in 43 and beyond while maintaining his defenses in a cost effective manner. He's playing to conserve manpower and maximize German morale while maximizing Soviet losses. He has never made any bones about the strategy. Now, I think he's carried it too far in not doing any counter attacks, but given his defensive strategy, its a perfectly reasonable approach as panzer units aren't concentrated.

While I have only played three games into the 43+, my experience tends to support the view that the Germans can, selectively, counter attack and do it well. IF and only IF the German can focus six to eight panzer/pz grd divisions and free them from defensive reserve status.

But a single result shown here doesn't create proof that this an on going possiblity or a trend. It just shows it happened once. We would need to see a series of attacks over several games months showing all the results and demostrating that the German can counter attack effectively - while maintaining an effective defense.

If you want to "refute" his claims, then I would suggest that you track results over time and present them to make a long term case.

[mmarquo]

Elmo3,

There was absolutely no intent to impugne Pelton on a personal level, and I do not understand why you or anyone else would read such into my post. I wrote to "alert anyone who has been swayed by Pelton's admonitions." There is no reference to his character or integrity, and none intended. And btw, there was a very interesting thread on this topic on the techincal forum where Pelton contributed and we had very cordial exchanges.

Why my intense interest? Because I am at a critical moment in my match with TD; we are at turn 114, late August 1943. Reading Pelton's posts almost convinced me to adopt a passive posture, and frankly I beleive this is not correct for my game. And with all respect to some of the comments above, I think losing 2,000 men in exchange for 7,000 works quite well. I have been counterattacking fairly aggressively and have held my pool steady at ~ 3,300,000 and have kept TD's pool steady at a bit over 7,000,000 In fact, the manpower multiplier will lower again for him and this will help keep the bear out of Berlin.

A "one shoe fits all" approach to this game will not work, and it would be a shame if it did.

Marquo

[mmarquo]

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

To me, it sounds as if you are afraid that you are losing the argument.

I have no fear losing an intellectual exchange in terms of ego; however I do have hesitation to adopt someone's advice at the expense of screwing up a single game I have been playing and pondering for over a year. None of us will ever get many chances to play this thing to the bitter end so I for one will be very circumspect before accepting someone else's experience and subsequent advice as a universal truth. Frankly very few people, if any, have had robust experience playing both sides against multiple different players to the bitter end. So I read everything with a very big grain of salt, but I do appreciate what I read. [:)]

Cheers,

Marquo

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Elmo3,

There was absolutely no intent to impugne Pelton on a personal level, and I do not understand why you or anyone else would read such into my post. ...
Marquo

I was not reading anything into your post, nor did I view it as an attack. However you specifically mentioned Pelton in the subject and my post was simply a reminder to whoever replied here to leave personalities out of it.

[Michael T]

FWIW I agree that attacking full strength Rifle Corp head on is detrimental to the Axis cause. However I agree with Marquo in that the Axis player needs an 'Offensive Spirit' to go the distance against top line Soviets. Sitting on your hands is paramount to suicide. If the Axis player works hard in 41 and 42 to keep the bear under control I see no reason why successful offensives cannot be undertaken in 1943. I mean as an overall success, not just isolated attacks here and there. I mean a Kursk like operation that succeeds.

[mmarquo]

So much is lost in cybercommunication; much thanks, Elmo.

Marquo

[TulliusDetritus]

Given that I am on the receiving end [:D] this is what I have to say:

I guess it er... depends [8D]

1) I have to grab hexes yes or yes.
2) to have fully strengthened units I should be calling off any offensive for how many months? Two, three, four?

I can't have both, so I charge like a bull. That or I would simply give up.

So it depends on the scenario. If you are on time and Berlin on your radar it's another story. A nice pause = you actually can afford to feed the beast.

[mmarquo]

Much thanks for for offering your POV, TD [:)].

My strategy has been to bleed Spvoet manpower, so there you have it from the Bear's mouth.
One shoe does not fit all players' feet.

Marquo

[Peltonx]

I never said one shoe fits all.

Thats just a lucky attack, I have had abunch of games into late 42+ and done allot of counter attacking.

Over -all its not worth it, sure if you have a chance to get a few weak tank corps/mech to rout.

I been counter attacking some vs Hugh and MT. Mostly in winter to slow the advance so I can hold a river line ect in summer.

It simply sucks manpower and armaments to quickly.

Its safer to sit back and let SHC do all the work and counter punch here and there.

It also depends on where SHC starts attacking and moving east. Most guys do it up north so counter attacking is simply not possible vs 30-50+ CV stacks in lt woods(no forts).

In your game it seems to be working out for allot of reasons I am guessing.

[Klydon]

I don't think one size fits all when it comes to counter attacking and I think infantry corps are to be avoided if possible. Pelton is hardly the only one to mention attacking later in the campaign is extremely expensive for the Germans even with a "win" in a battle.

[The Guru]

Regarding all this, I believe there is a problem with the victory conditions of the campaign. They are labelled in exclusively defensive terms, basically Germany must lose as late as possible.
This means that once the German player forfeits his chance of a K.O victory in 1941, if he working towards the victory conditions, all he has to do is revert to the defensive and make the Soviets pay dearly for every stride towards Berlin. This, of course, historically speaking, might be adequate for 44/45 but is totally unimaginable for 1942.
I'm not just saying this because of historicity, but also because it would be a lot more fun to allow the Germans a play style a bit more flamboyant and risky, than juste going turtle from 42 onwards.

I believe that the victory conditions should have a offensive component too, in the same way scenarios reward players for territorial expansion by granting points for the number of turns they occupy such or such key location.
After all, if one rightfully considers that surrendering later than the historical time consists in a better performance than the historical counterpart, grabbing even temporary control of strategic locations such as Leningrad or Moscow or others that the Germans never managed to reach, should also consist, all other things remaining equal (that is, surrendering at the historical time), in an better performance too, and that should translate into victory points.

This could be easily done by using the scenario-type victory conditions (points for holding locations), mitigated by points for the date of surrender.
Honestly, it hurts to have to choose between a daring, aggressive strategy à la Hitler (a lot more enjoyable for both sides) and the easiest path towards victory as interpreted by the victory conditions.

[mmarquo]

It was not a lucky counterattack; it was done based on my experience and observations of 100's of such attacks. Soviet units, in the open, which are wasted after attacking duing the prior turn are ripe to be manhandled.

Turtling and passivity while the Bear grows to unmanageable dimensions seems to be a path to destruction.

Marquo[:)]

[Flaviusx]

No luck involved there at all. Those units were simply way too depleted to offer much resistance. Rifle corps with 21k men and 500ish guns.

Marquo, plain fact of the matter is that you hold the whip hand in this game and have for a long time. It's yours to lose. But don't kid yourself: attacking rifle corps at full strength past 43 is tough. You can do it in this game because TD's Red Army is not in good shape and he is way behind the curve on replacements, territory, etc.

Pelton's point at a tactical level remains absolutely true. You're just in a good place to ignore it due to the strategic situation. Try these counterattacks against full strength corps and then we'll chat.

[darbycmcd]

I think you are both right. Flaviusx you are of course right, it is unwise for the german player to attack if he/she is only interested in attriction effect. In other words, the reason to attack has to be something else and something else valuable, because you are going to lose an unsustainable number of troops.

But Marquo is responding to Pelton's post, which was not about strategy/tactics, but was posted in tech support as a possible bug. He was suggesting that there was some problem that systematically punished german attackers after a certain point, by some unspecified dynamic. I think it is useful then to make this kind of post, although it would probably be better on that other thread.

[mmarquo]

I would not do these counterattacks against healthy infantry corps; against exposed tanks units it is a different story.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: The Guru

Regarding all this, I believe there is a problem with the victory conditions of the campaign. They are labelled in exclusively defensive terms, basically Germany must lose as late as possible.
This means that once the German player forfeits his chance of a K.O victory in 1941, if he working towards the victory conditions, all he has to do is revert to the defensive and make the Soviets pay dearly for every stride towards Berlin. This, of course, historically speaking, might be adequate for 44/45 but is totally unimaginable for 1942.
I'm not just saying this because of historicity, but also because it would be a lot more fun to allow the Germans a play style a bit more flamboyant and risky, than juste going turtle from 42 onwards.

I believe that the victory conditions should have a offensive component too, in the same way scenarios reward players for territorial expansion by granting points for the number of turns they occupy such or such key location.
After all, if one rightfully considers that surrendering later than the historical time consists in a better performance than the historical counterpart, grabbing even temporary control of strategic locations such as Leningrad or Moscow or others that the Germans never managed to reach, should also consist, all other things remaining equal (that is, surrendering at the historical time), in an better performance too, and that should translate into victory points.

This could be easily done by using the scenario-type victory conditions (points for holding locations), mitigated by points for the date of surrender.
Honestly, it hurts to have to choose between a daring, aggressive strategy à la Hitler (a lot more enjoyable for both sides) and the easiest path towards victory as interpreted by the victory conditions.

We have asked for that, but under current engine ect its not possible.

Hopefully witw and wite2 will have a vp system that makes standing and fighting the norm not running.