Moscow '42 Files Update (as at Jan 23rd, 2013)

[ComradeP]

The historical rationale for not doing that is that once 1st Shock and 30th Army launched their attacks on the northern part of the German salient, Hitler called off all offensive actions and gave permission for the Panzergruppes to go on the defence.

The German forces which were strung out and in positions they could hardly supply pulled back at least closer to their supply lines. The fact that the Soviet armies on the southern side of the salient did not launch their attacks earlier is not reason enough to punish the Germans.

&

From a game perspective this could have significant issues. If either 1st Shock or 30th Army manage to capture some of the significant towns in the north while the south of the salient is frozen then you could be looking at an unmitigated disaster.

Could you give an example of how 1st Shock Army could capture towns that would make the positions of the units I mentioned untenable, because I'm curious? Looking at the map, I see no way how anything the Soviets do on the first two days can cause difficulty to the units below V corps. The Germans have a pretty good road network in that area, with a more or less east-west major road behind Das Reich that the Soviets can't possibly cut in two days. IX AK can wheel towards VII AK which is in bunkers.

I'm not suggesting that any units opposing the Soviet armies active on turn 1 or parts of 16th Army are frozen, just the ones that the Soviets can't reach and currently have the chance to withdraw without being chased.

That's problematic because when 16th Army and the Rifle units to the south activate, they don't have the initiative. They don't know where the Germans are, the Germans can concentrate units and the first withdrawals happen fairly shortly after the Soviet forces activate. I found it really difficult to keep 16th Army going when facing ambushes and determined resistance from the German units that I had moved back, some of whom were entrenched after the first snow turns.

I understand a historical reasoning for limiting the number of fixed units, but there are already a number of ahistorical things to consider:

* The German replacement rate is higher than that of Soviet units when they are around 50 supply (which they either are at the start or which they can be with relatively little effort) due to the German unit size being larger. That's where the German 4 company battalion model gives the Soviets a disadvantage, because the Germans refit faster.

* Replacement rates for both sides are high when in adequate supply by default because they're based on a percentage and not on a certain number of replacements.

* The Soviets have a "Stalin penalty" of sorts because they're stuck with the historical arrival and withdrawal schedule. The withdrawal schedule in particular is a handicap. That would be balanced, but ...

* The Germans don't have an incentive for a stand fast/no retreat tactic. The points for objectives are fairly low compared to the points from casualties (which can quickly become quite high).

That's basically the main balance problem I encounter: the Germans have too little incentive to play a historical game where they "have" to defend certain objectives and can play an optimal game of retreating and limited counterattacks to bleed the Soviets white over time. They have a generous replacement rate if managed well. With each man the German units gain, the Soviets will have a more difficult time with attacking, also because the stacking limit is the same for both sides so it can be difficult to apply numerical superiority. The Soviets have a historical starting situation and a historical arrival/withdrawal rating, which can unbalance sectors where the Germans can refit or engage in a fighting withdrawal.

I found the best way to deal with German defences that I had the time to organize well to be massive concentrations of artillery and/or tanks (like the players in the ongoing game you posted about also mentioned).

That's one of the main reasons why I've been staring at the campaign game for a year without really starting it against a human: I feel like I'm encouraged to play ahistorically as the Soviets because an ahistorical German playstyle of a careful fighting withdrawal followed by a counterattack is just very difficult to counter without massing the artillery or tanks. It can quickly become a game of extremes. Due to the time scale and the limited Soviet unit quality making movement slow combined with locking ZOCs, they don't have the mobility to create and exploit breakthroughs like they could historically in some areas. Instead of creating breakthroughs with ski and cavalry units winter 1941-1942 style, I'm creating breakthroughs with tanks and artillery, 1944 style.

That's what I'm trying to discuss with the posts I make from time to time, and I'm trying to think of a way to nullify the impacts of the extremes and of some of the choices of formula's that can lead to ahistorical situations (such as having a replacement system based on a percentage of total strength or losses, instead of an X amount of replacements).

I'm having a lot of fun looking at the campaign map and planning strategies, but not a lot of fun when playing against myself as I automatically try to optimize my defensive and offensive setups in an ahistorical manner, because I have the feeling the campaign game pushes me in that direction.

The amount of casualties massed Soviet artillery can cause are also the reason I created that thread about German bunkers in Fall Kreml.