[WarInEur] Barbarossa under options

[John Pace]

I always remember in 1976 on reading the 1942 (and later) scenarios, the number of 1-5 KG.  With a KG costing 4 Prod Points, and for only 2 Prod points more you upgrade to 1-5 to a 6-5, and thinking it madness to keep 1-5 KG's in the front lines.  
 
However, with the attrition option, if you consider all those 1-5's are really heavily fatigued 80-90% attrition 6-5’s, unable to retreat back into supply by Hitler's no retreat orders, then having such weak units in 1942 make some sense. 
 
Maybe with CWiE-2 Scenario Editor, I think it would be good for Karl to allow players to set the attrition levels for each unit.  In which case, with the 1942 Stalingrad scenario (and others), players could swap all those German KG’s (1-5, 2-8, etc.) for heavily fatigued 80-90% attrition level units (6-5, 8-8, 10,8, etc.).
 
John--- On Tue, 7/15/08, Carl Rupp <carlaugustruppsr at aol.com> wrote:

From: Carl Rupp <carlaugustruppsr at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Barbarossa under options
To: "Don Lazov" <dlazov at comcast.net>
Cc: "sgminfo" <sgminfo at aol.com>, "warineur at mailman.halisp.net" <warineur at mailman.halisp.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008, 10:00 PM

Of course, the interesting thing about attrition, as I have learned from 
two campaigns against Steve in the East with attrition, and one without 
it against another player, is that it turns to the Soviet advantage in 
the winter. OOS and in the enemy ZOC, the tired German troops are unable 
to gain strength, while the Soviets in supply, and able to attack at 
incredibly low odds due to the special AR rules, are able to wear down 
the Germans. So that capturing Moscow is much easier than holding it. 
And following Hitler's "No Retreat" dictum can lead to disaster.

There are two tactics to prevent that. One it to damage the Soviets so 
incredibly that they are unable to launch a counterrattack. However, 
with fog of war the Germans have no idea what is lurking behind the 
Soviet front lines and where they will launch their fiercest attacks. 
And even if they do survive the winter counteroffensive, being out of 
supply impedes their ability to be rested and ready for an full blown 
Spring offensive in May 1942 when the mud dries.

The other tactic, which Hitler eschewed, is to withdraw to the safety of 
the areas in supply, Of course, this means abandoning thousands of 
square miles of territory and the personel centers of Orel, Kharhov, 
and, of course Moscow, that were captured only a few months prior. But 
by staying in supply, the Germans position themselves for a strong 
spring offensive in 1942. And even though they will have to recapture 
land they had won previously. they will end up (re)capturing Moscow, 
Orel, and Kharhov, and also gaining Rostov, Voroshilev, Voronezh, and 
possibly even Gorky, before the campaign season ends in in October 1942. 
And this will push them over 75 political points, and open up the 
Turkish front endangering the vital Russian resource centers. (This 
assumes that the Germans have not invaded Turkey already in an attempt 
to outflank the Soviets an capture their resources early on.)

All of this leaves the Russians teetering on the edge by Spring 1943, 
when the Germans should be able to finish them off, assuming they have 
at least held the West to a stalemate.

Carl


Don Lazov wrote:
> Interesting concepts.
>
>
>> The only problem with that strategy is...
>> ..it gives the Soviet player time to mobilise and get his newly 
>> raised recruits knocked into somesort of order...
> Very true (ask the French Commander this).
>> The rate of advance after the initial rush is then still limited by 
>> supply range from the slowly advancing railheads...
>>
> True, but there is a counter to this in the campaign game (not telling 
> right now, don't want to spoil it, it's not a cheat it's
something one 
> can discover if they have read enough on mech warfare and studied the 
> attrition model a bit).
>> Rushing Moscow before a crustal defence has a chance to gain 
>> substance and firm up,
>> might actually be the lower cost option.
>>
> Crust defenses are easy to break with attrition.
>> On the other hand...taking Moscow at the first rush, might leave a 
>> tired and exhausted  force at the mercy of the Siberians, or any 
>> reserves that the Soviets have formed and somehow kept back intact 
>> for a late counterstroke...
>>
> This is what Steve and I will test soon.
>> During the initial test runs, no clear conclusions could be reached 
>> upon this point, which augurs well for the longevity of the possible 
>> permutations inherent in the model...
>>
> As Steve has said we shall see.
> _______________________________________________
> WarInEur mailing list
> WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
> http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur

_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur at mailman.halisp.net
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.halisp.net/pipermail/warineur/attachments/20080715/cecf101c/attachment.html