One-turn capturing of Poland ... HOW?

[KardInaLL]

Hi all!
To me many questions have come: "How probably to grasp Poland for one turn". Therefore I have decided to write this post. So:

The main idea of my plan in that to manage to strike blow to Warsaw by TAC and three tanks. But how it to make?
I won't explain first nine turns, all is visible on pictures:

[KardInaLL]

[KardInaLL]

And now the main thing - pay attention: About Warsaw there is a fighter. But until then while it is out of a zone of the review of armies, the tank can approach to Warsaw closely. That I also have made.



If the fighter gets to a zone of the review of armies before tank movement, the tank to execute the maneuver in the GIVEN cage can't.

[KardInaLL]

Future all is simple (all is visible on pictures):













On my example blows of tank and TAC were unsuccessful (only 2 steps reduce at corps in 2 turns). As I'm easy to notice for creation of a post used 3 various attempts. But at a certain share of good luck quite probably to take a city for one turn.
All thanks!

[schwerpunkt]

Thanks for sharing!

I'm still probably going to stick with a turn 2 fall of Poland, which allows units to be railed west on turn 1, but its nice to see what alternatives exist.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This is certainly not possible to do in GS v2.0 with the addition of the Polish city of Lodz and the movement of the Polish fighter further east.

[rkr1958]

@KardInaLL,

A very impressive attack sequence. I ran 25 independent tries (hotseat) of you 1-turn conquest strategy and was able to capture Poland in 1-turn 12% of the time. I was only able to get three armor corps adjacent to and attacking the unit in Warsaw 12% of the time too. However; one of those times did not result in the capture of Warsaw and one time that only two were able to get adjacent did. I tried to follow your attack sequence as closely as I could but; of course, results in some tries dictated deviations in the later attacks. Thanks for sharing your attack sequence with us.



Note:

This is certainly not possible to do in GS v2.0 with the addition of the Polish city of Lodz and the movement of the Polish fighter further east.

[KardInaLL]

I want to add that possibility to approach closely to Unit is a bug. I consider it is necessary to correct it.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Ronnie, did you run the test attacks against Warsaw with the map changes with Lodz added as a city?

If not, can you please try something similar with the latest 1939.scn file?

[rkr1958]

Ronnie, did you run the test attacks against Warsaw with the map changes with Lodz added as a city?

If not, can you please try something similar with the latest 1939.scn file?

The test was run without Lodz. I'll try it Lodz added and post the results.

[rkr1958]

If not, can you please try something similar with the latest 1939.scn file?

I got to run but I ran 15 trails. At best, I could attack Warsaw with a TAC and 2 armor corps. Out of the 15 trials I was able to attack with 2 armor corps 10 times (67%), 1 armor corps 3 times (20%) and 0 armor corps 2 times (13%). Of the 10 attacks with 2 armor corps I captured Warsaw 2 times for an overall success rate of 13% (i.e., 2 out of 15). Amazing!!!

When I get back from work tonight I'll post a modified attack sequence showing my approach with Lodz added.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

That's interesting indeed. I would probably not go for a 13% success chance to take Warsaw because if I fail then the Poles can really hurt the Germans with counter attacks since you ignore several of the units protecting Warsaw.

Maybe we should keep this slight chance as a possibility instead of altering the defense formation of Poland.

[rkr1958]

Maybe we should keep this slight chance as a possibility instead of altering the defense formation of Poland.

I agree that we should not change the setup. In fact, after more trials I think the chance for a one turn conquest will drop to somewhere between 5 to 10%. In the 15 trials that I've run so for, some of the failed attempts left the Germans more vunerable to Polish counterattacks than others. I'll post my proposed "typical" attack sequence and the final positions of two or three failed attempts.

[rkr1958]

1-Turn Capture Attack Strategy with Lodz Added.

The strongest force that can attack Warsaw on turn 1 is one tactical bomber and two tank corps. The following strategy is designed to maximize the chance of getting these three attacks on Warsaw on turn 1. To date, 3 out of 30 times Warsaw has fallen when attacked by this force. That's 10%. However; given this setup (i.e., Lodz) two armor corps have be able to attack Warsaw 12 out of 18 times or 66.7% of the time. Assuming that one TAC and one armor corps can't capture Warsaw that means the chance (or probability) of a 1-turn conquest with this setup is 10% x 66.7% or 6.7%.

93.3% of the time with this strategy players will not conquered Poland in 1 turn and; therefore, must consider additional attacks or moves to minimize risk for counterattacks and to maximize the chance of conquest next turn (i.e., normal 2-turn conquest).

[rkr1958]

One addendum (i.e., correction). The German fighter south of Breslau has range to Warsaw so the maximum force that can attack Warsaw is: 1 fighter, 1 tactical bomber and 2 armor corps. To use this fighter means that it won't support attack against the garrison in Lodz an. This means that the armor corps will have to attack first with the garrison being softened up meaning higher losses. I haven't evaluate the impact of this but I wanted to point it out as an option.

[GaryChildress]

I could certinaly be wrong, however, IMO if tanks have a movement of 6 and mechs 5, then regular infantry corps should only be able to move 3 instead of 4. To me it makes the game more interesting. Otherwise there isn't a significant enough, noticable difference in movement between infantry and vehicles. I know that there were such things as trucks during the war, however, if I'm not mistaken, there often were not enough trucks to go around to fully mobilize divisions and corps. Shouldn't Blitzkrieg be about tanks and armor radically outpacing the regular infantry?

EDIT: And as far as trucks, isn't that what the motorized or mechanized corps are supposed to represent, fully motorized infantry? To me, having motorized corps gives me the incentive to purchase more motorized corps to keep up with my tanks. If regular infantry can keep up with tanks, then that devalues motorized corps since the combat stats for motorized and non-motorized infantry are close to the same.

Also, just an observation, the first German "mechanized" units should probably be represented by trucks instead of 251 halftracks.

[shawkhan]

Gary, you are completely right as far as infantry speeds go. That is true on a tactical scale. With a turn representing 3 weeks, infantry marching 4 hexes is only 120 miles(200km). Blitzkrieg wasn't a continous process. It went in spurts, with re-supply required before the next leap forward. About 200 miles (7km) was the maximum distance a panzer group could move before stopping. I think infantry should keep its speed of 4, but armor and mechanized could have speed increased to 7 and 6.
The US and UK actually had completely motorized infantry. I think people may confuse motorized divisions with mechanized(panzergrenadier) divisions at times. You are right that ALL the early mechanized divisions should be motorized instead and represented by trucks. There should be a LARGE increase in combat effectiveness when the mechanized(panzergrenadier) level is reached.