Circling the wagons

[Mantis]

This isn't a world-stopper, but I must admit to some concerns...

Backgroud:

It's the beginning of turn 109 (July 27, '41), and the Axis Caucasus front forces have split in two. The stronger, German element drove up the western rail lines after occupying Maikop, and met up with the main drive on the eastern front in Rostov. This combined force should take Stalingrad in the next couple of turns. (3 hexes away).

The remainder of the Caucasus forces (a dozen Italians corps and half a dozen German Korps) have just captured Astrakhan, and, engineer in hand, are about to push up the rail line to Stalingrad from the SE.

I'm 7 hexes out from Moscow, and Dan has circled the wagons; most of his units have pulled back into that final defensive perimeter. The US will not enter the war for another 5 months.

Firstly - Do you have to hold Stalingrad and Moscow at the same time? The reason I ask is that I know events are too few, and there are oddities.

Secondly - those damned forts, do they completely encircle Moscow? Any gaps? What are their A/D numbers? Are they all the same size, or are some larger, some smaller?

I hate those damned forts. In my first few experiences with them, I took HUUUUUGE losses in direct assaults. Nowadays, I encircle them with smallish units, and let them wither for awhile. A few spoiling attacks, and they die like nothing.

What I'd really be interested in hearing is some experinces in dealing with (and most importantly, taking out) those forts.

Is there nothing for it but a straightout frontal assault? Poke a couple holes, then work on neutralizing a section of them? If I require a rest for several turns to let the boys recover prior to all this, is it worth it to completely encircle the forts? They are still supplied from within, but is keeping how many more Russian hordes from entering while I recover a worthwhile endeavor? Is it still worth it if it delays my expected assault date by a month as I struggle to complete the encirclement? Or perhaps just getting behind (east of) the forts in force to block reinforcement from the east map edge?

I still have Barbarossa available as well.

All comments appreciated!

[Mantis]

Also, has anyone ever used Barbarossa to 'counter' winter? (This has been a thought since I first saw this scenario).

Mark, would that screw things up?

[Chuck?]

I think the hex to the southeast and northeast of Moscow don't have forts.

[Kraut]

those are 1-2 strength, 20% proficiency forts, they should be quite easy to overcome :)

You probably ment the Moscow-Line garrision units ?? They have 90% proficiency and are probably tougher to kill :)
Well, those guys seem to be really determined to defend their capital :D

[Mantis]

I don't know about garrison units, I mean whatever the forts themselves are called. I've never made it this far before, and have never seen them.

[Chuck?]

He's probably talking about the Moscow-Line units. These are very strong. I just attacked one in my game against Raver and it wouldn't budge.

[Palantir]

Hey All,

Don't give Mantis any more help, he's the Axis in our game, and he's doing just fine on his own! :hush:

Next thing you know he'll be over running Switzerland to get into France... err wait, he's already done that! :OHNO:

But feel free to divulge any secrets here on how to slow down & stop Barbarossa. :D
Kerry

[Dan Neely]

THe outer forts cover a 'half hex' facing west, the eastern half of the line is open. Mine are upto 1-3. as for their strength, in my game v andrew I reached them with panzers 3(?) turns after the deployed and demolished them over the course of 2 or 3 turns. I shattered his front in the north (after the initial breakout my panzers were unopposed until after they destroyed the fortline and pushed back several of the moscow garrisons) even worse than you shattered mine. He didn't have any regulars available to backup the forts. I don't know if/how much of a difference stacking them with a corp or two would make. It's the huge ammount of arty that makes the stalin forts so deadly, but I assume we'll find out before too much longer. The moscow line forts start without any, and the garrisons deployed in moscow itself draw almost all of the guns being produced. The inner garrisons have massive ammounts of arty and will inflict massive losses. IIRC every assault (good/excellent odds) against one of them resulted in >1 corp of infantry losses.

As for using barbarossa to cancel out winter shock, I'd definately consider that an abuse of the system. IT wouldn't screw except historical realism up.

[FAIRS]

In games I have played as both allied and axis the moscow forts have not done more than slow down the Germans for a short time. The units which have been the toughest by far are the garrison units in the Russian cities. If the Russians have a sizable amount of quality troops left to help the forts than I would use Barbarosa to green up your troops quickly and continue to surround Moscow from north and south, you will then get behind the line of forts and a cut off city, even Moscow, will not be able to hold off a solid German attack.

Question for the group--my opponent and I have a house rule that prevents any country from moving any named garrison unit until it is attacked, what is your oppinion of this rule? We felt that the garrisons represented a core of police and civilian units which would fight hard in their city but would not be organised enough to rail into a line somewhere else. These units are very good defensively in our experience and dificult to justify fleshing out a river line with these "home grown" units.

[Mark Stevens]

The Axis don't have to hold both Moscow and Stalingrad at the same time: just taking them, in any order, will trigger a Soviet surrender when the second city falls: you can argue about the historicity of it, but if the Axis Player can do it, he's done far better than the Axis did.

Moscow was the best defended city in the world following its fortification/reinforcement in 1941. The forts aren't meant to be a smaller version of the Maginot Line, but more anti-tank ditches - miles and miles and miles of them, minefields, militia, blown bridges, pre-ranged filelds of fire, etc. If we represent them by mobile units, even with a move of one, the Soviets will be able to use them for a mighty counter-attack, or shift them by rail elsewhere. Arguably a Garrison icon rather than a Fort would be more appropriate.

However, as Dan has pointed out, they're not invincible by any means, particularly if the Soviets can't get any mobile units into them before they're assaulted.

If the 'Barbarossa' Option is taken to represent the release of extra German supplies and troops, rather than the effect of the blitzkrieg on the Red Army, I suppose that its use to counter the Winter 1941 penalty might be considered legitimate, but that wasn't our intention.

Maybe it should disappear if not used ten(?) turns after the Axis invade the Soviet Union.

We've explained the thinking behind making it separate from an invasion of the USSR in earlier threads, but we didn't envisage it being kept as a ace up your field-grey sleeve for months afterwards.

[Palantir]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Maybe it should disappear if not used ten(?) turns after the Axis invade the Soviet Union.

We've explained the thinking behind making it separate from an invasion of the USSR in earlier threads, but we didn't envisage it being kept as a ace up your field-grey sleeve for months afterwards.

I side with Mark on this point, with all due respect to those creative German players.
It was the sudden explosivness & originality of the German assualt that shocked the Russians not just a simple increase in Axis manpower. Within months the Russians knew how it worked but didn't have the forces to counter it. As the year wore on they were not "shocked" by it, simply overwhelmed. Soon enough they were able to slow down the invasion by sheer numbers of their own.

I do think however that only "experienced" EA players have the ability or foresight to husband the Barbarossa Option and use it later as an "ace," thereby getting "extra usage" out of it. Like other "historic" game events it should have a time limit and only be used for the intent it was created.

[Mantis]

I agree entirely, and I lost this argument earlier. Why else should I attempt to hold on to the damned thing turn after turn after turn? I can't think of a better way to illustrate my arguments by demonstrating the extreme case.

I'd be happiest to be able to crush Russia without using it at all, but it's a helluva 'I thought so' if I save it right til I've encircled Moscow, then use it to utterly wipe some very well prepared Russians. It blows the whole thing right out of context.

But it should also be kept in mind that the results could be misinterpreted. If the Axis Med/Middle East strategy is overwhelming, then it definately detracts from the results of a saving of Barbarossa. Maybe the Axis would've had to use the TO if they weren't overwhelming the Russians due to a Caucasus approach?