Barbarossa strategies

[Cybvep]

I'm ok at playing the Allies, but whenever I play as the Axis, I always struggle with Barbarossa (I'm talking about the 2.0 version). I know how to conduct the submarine warfare, I know how to defend Italy, I know how not to run out of oil by 1943 etc., but I have never managed to reach Moscow or Leningrad in 1941 and my offensives during 1942 are short-lived. I won't even talk about 1942 Barbarossa, because that almost never works.

I usually go for a mixed force of MECHs, ARMs and TACs. I never produce more than 6 subs. I adopt a defensive posture in Africa. I conquer Yugoslavia and Norway in 1940/1941, but nothing else. However, for me it's almost impossible to advance past the Smolensk line. I can inflict tremendous casualties to the Russians and gain air superiority for the whole of 1941 and 1942, but the masses of MECHs and INFs are simply too overwhelming and capturing Russian cities takes much time.

Therefore, I want to ask you for advice for Barbarossa. How many ARMs/MECHs/TACs? Should I use paratroopers? Should I reinforce Finland? Is it better to focus on the north or south? What should be my lab focus?

[DDave]

I have the same experience. The germans simply doesn't have enough units. I can not repeat what they did historically. My biggest issue is probably that the TACs are next to useless, I often end up doing 0 damage but taking 1 or 2 steps damage against russian tanks... And yes, the TACs are upgraded to rank 6 in 41.

More on topic, I go for the south of Russia, which contain the most PPs and the oil fields. The north can be more easily defended and you can get any reinforcements up fast there. If you can afford to buy additional units, most of my PP go to repairs...

If I really launch at Moscow, I can get to the outskirts, but I've no chance to get close to Leningrad or Stalingrad then. And I can't wage the sub war, and I definitely can not reinforce North Africa.

All in all I think Germany needs more PP and slightly more manpower. Russia should also have less labs and less PPs at the start of the war.

[Cybvep]

TACs are good as long as you don't have to repair then. When my TACs fall below 5 steps, I often cannot spare the PPs to repair them, because that costs a ton while there are 12501 infantry and panzer corps that need reinforcements or upgrades, too.

Ignoring subs is a suicide IMO. The Allied PP income will be so high that Germany will have little chance of lasting until 1945.

[zechi]

If I play Axis and do an early Barbarossa, i.e. May 1941, I usually go either for Leningrad, Moscow or Sevastopol in 1941. From my experience either Sevastopol and Leningrad can be normally captured if you invest enough resources.

Moscow is very hard and its only possible if accept to take a high risk, i.e. get lucky with the weather in the October and November turns.

If I go for Leningrad I usually capture Tallin on turn 1 of Barbarossa with an amphibious invasion with two INF (you also need two TAC, shore bombardment and a Para in reserve if you get bad results). Then you can usually quickly foil any Soviet defense preparations around Leningrad.

Sevastopol is often a little bit easier, but needs a strong Army Group South offensive, which will result in weaker offensives in the north and center.

[BuddyGrant]

Ignoring subs is a suicide IMO. The Allied PP income will be so high that Germany will have little chance of lasting until 1945.

I'm not sure if this is so simple. What is the ratio of sub warfare impact on allied PP's versus the cost of building/repairing subs and fueling them? Investing in subs heavily enough to make a serious impact on allied convoys cost a lot of PP's for the axis as well and maybe more importantly, a lot of precious axis fuel. At least, in comparison to the damage they cause. I agree allied PP income is so high that Germany will have little chance of lasting until 1945, but I'm not convinced the only solution to this is investing heavily in subs. It's definitely a trade off decision anyway, as investing in a big submarine campaign means not investing in other, perhaps equally vital areas.

[DDave]

Ignoring subs is a suicide IMO. The Allied PP income will be so high that Germany will have little chance of lasting until 1945.

I'm not sure if this is so simple. What is the ratio of sub warfare impact on allied PP's versus the cost of building/repairing subs and fueling them? Investing in subs heavily enough to make a serious impact on allied convoys cost a lot of PP's for the axis as well and maybe more importantly, a lot of precious axis fuel. At least, in comparison to the damage they cause. I agree allied PP income is so high that Germany will have little chance of lasting until 1945, but I'm not convinced the only solution to this is investing heavily in subs. It's definitely a trade off decision anyway, as investing in a big submarine campaign means not investing in other, perhaps equally vital areas.

My point exactly. If you want to do a proper Barbarossa, you can't spend PP on subs. It's a damn shame, I wish I had more PPs for all the wunderwaffen I need, but I don't.

[Cybvep]

You start with 3 subs and the standard seems to be 6 subs. You build 3 more which costs you 180 PPs. That's a little more than 2 ARMs or 3 MECHs. ARMs have higher oil consumption, MECHs are not THAT powerful. Also, either of these unit types costs more MP than subs. During 1940-41 you can sink quite a lot of Allied PPs and subs continue to be useful during 1942 (the situation becomes problematic in 1943). Would you really prefer 2 ARMs or 3 MECHs? I know that subs have their limits and that you really need to put a big dent in the Russian income (=you need to inflict massive losses) in 1941 in order to stand a chance against them, but considering that they get a significant PP bonus thanks to the Arctic Convoy, I think it evens things out. War is usually decided in 1942, anyway.

Subs are also good against targets of opportunity, e.g. carriers or transports. There is nothing more satisfying than sinking a transport containing ARM or a carrier which costs 100 PPs and requires 15 turns to be built

[shawkhan]

I think it a shame that U-boats are so expensive. They should be cheaper than DDs at least. I think that 40PPs would be a better price for them. I also think it strange that price doesn't increase with tech levels. Tiger tanks costing as much as the PzIs and PzIIs with which Germany began the war? I think not.
If the value of units could be tied to their tech level, it would be nice to see certain units start at a much lower cost initially, allowing the Axis to build historical amounts of air/naval/mech/armor units with increasing costs affecting their ability to upgrade them as tech levels rise.

[Cybvep]

The German military from 1943/1944 is incomparable with the German army from 1940/1941. The number of soldiers, tanks, u-boats etc. increased considerably over the years.

[Plaid]

You dont need many armour or mech to do barbarossa nowadays, as soviets will only run with no fighting.

You basically need some tanks (not so many, 4 is fine) to destroy or block initial border forces, then you are just fine with infantry and bombers capturing various cities from GARs left there.

If you want Leningrad you also need mostly-infantry attack through northern forests, as it is only unit type, which can move in forest terrain with normal speed.

Moscow is very hard and still soviets are likely to retake it in winter. You need major error from allied player to take Moscow in 1941 and for long.

[Cybvep]

You dont need many armour or mech to do barbarossa nowadays, as soviets will only run with no fighting.

Yes, there is no reason to defend the western territories at all. It's also not feasible, as the efficiency loss is simply too great.

However, how am I supposed to achieve a breakthrough in the Smolensk line and benefit from it? The Soviets have masses of INFs and MECHs and they can replace them easily when necessary, while for Germany even a 1-turn delay because of repairs and/or upgrades is a loss of 1 fair weather turn. Then the winter comes and if you don't have a prepared defence line, you are screwed, because the Russian winter offensive can be a game-winner (the effects are too severe when compared to history IMO - the Soviets weren't as successful IRL as they usually are in-game).

I found out that even if the Allied player is only retreating (which is not uncommon), capturing cities with weak garrisons may take as long as 2 turns and waste you several INF moves. Even with token resistance, getting to Moscow in time is extremely hard IMO.

Also, after 1941 the Soviets have many Guard units and they are very powerful, which reduces the chance for success of a 1942 offensive even further.

[DDave]

Exactly, even without the guards it would be a hard enough challenge. How should one simulate the complete confusion of the first weeks of the war better? The russians did in fact counterattack on several occasions, they did not withdraw, as we all know they were encircled en masse and did not retreat in an orderly fashion.

On another note, the winter penalties for the germans are ridiculous. They froze, but they held out. And it's not like the russians didnt suffer from the cold, as Zhukov noted dryly "the cold bothered us too...". Poorly equipped and often unarmed russian soldiers did simply not kick ass in the winter of 1941. The guards, fine. But not the common soviet foot soldier.

[Diplomaticus]

Exactly, even without the guards it would be a hard enough challenge. How should one simulate the complete confusion of the first weeks of the war better? The russians did in fact counterattack on several occasions, they did not withdraw, as we all know they were encircled en masse and did not retreat in an orderly fashion.

On another note, the winter penalties for the germans are ridiculous. They froze, but they held out. And it's not like the russians didnt suffer from the cold, as Zhukov noted dryly "the cold bothered us too...". Poorly equipped and often unarmed russian soldiers did simply not kick ass in the winter of 1941. The guards, fine. But not the common soviet foot soldier.

The 'what if?' nature of a wargame permits both sides to profit from what we know from history. The Soviet player doesn't waste his units in mindless assaults (unless you're Moriss), and the German player doesn't make the mistake of trying to do everything with too little force.

Still, the point is well taken. Even with the strong engagement of the Red Army during the summer of 1941, Hitler got damn close to Moscow, even while managing to take 90% of Leningrad plus his amazing gains in the south. CEAW players seem unable to repeat this against competent Allied players. And then there's always the spectre of massive 1941/42 Allied amphibious invasion hanging over them, contrary to history.

To me, the most important part is that the game becomes less fun, less interesting when so many top Axis players just give up entirely on North Africa, and never even try to advance very far into Russia during Barbarossa. We start to get a more static and predictable game.

[Toby42]

Exactly, even without the guards it would be a hard enough challenge. How should one simulate the complete confusion of the first weeks of the war better? The russians did in fact counterattack on several occasions, they did not withdraw, as we all know they were encircled en masse and did not retreat in an orderly fashion.

On another note, the winter penalties for the germans are ridiculous. They froze, but they held out. And it's not like the russians didnt suffer from the cold, as Zhukov noted dryly "the cold bothered us too...". Poorly equipped and often unarmed russian soldiers did simply not kick ass in the winter of 1941. The guards, fine. But not the common soviet foot soldier.

For an interesting take on the Eastern Front read "Eastern Inferno: The Journals of a German Panzerjager on the Eastern Front, 1941-43" by Hans Roth. Pretty riveting reading!

[trulster]

[
To me, the most important part is that the game becomes less fun, less interesting when so many top Axis players just give up entirely on North Africa, and never even try to advance very far into Russia during Barbarossa. We start to get a more static and predictable game.

Agreed. Barbarossa now seems anti-climatic. The question is what to do about it, not easy?

Maybe both DoW loss of efficiency to the Russians AND the German severe winter loss are too steep, they seem to force the sort of formulaic play you mention with all-out Russian retreat and then German retreat before winter.

[Cybvep]

I proposed the gradual industrial transfer and many people proposed efficiency loss for losing cities. The devs aren't very interested, though. They worry that it may destroy all balance.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

You see in many games that people quickly learn that some strategies work better than others and then you will see similar strategies for the start of major operations in game after game.

The main difference comes from how you implement your strategy and soon you have to develop your own strategy from what's happening. It's like the opening phase in chess. E. g. many games begin with the Sicilian opening and then you pretty much know what the 10 first moves will be. The fun will start once the player deviate from the opening he's following.

You have to remember what used to be the situation before we changed the Russian efficiency in GS v2.0. Then it was common for good Allied players to defend behind th Dnepr and the Germans struggled so hard getting past that their army was so depleted in October that the Russian winter offensive would crush them. Many players complained it was too hard to reach the historical October 1941 line.

So we reduced the Russian efficiency. Then we saw the Germans sweep deep into Russia and took Leningrad, Rostov and sometimes even Moscow. The best Axis players were pushing as far as Maikop and Stalingrad before 1941 ended. So we made other tweaks and then the Russians were able to stop the Germans at almost the historical line, but too weak Russian units meant a weak winter offensive and the Germans crushed the Russians in 1942 instead.

So we then introduced the shock armies and suddenly the Russians had a potent winter offensive. Many German players tried to defend at the front line and lost 10+ units during the offensive. Then the 1942 offensive became quite weak. So good Axis players learnt to retreat before the winter to avoid losing too many units. Then they could attack very hard in 1942.

So we see that the players quickly adapt to new circumstances and the norm will be that seems to be best for the side. We've made quite a bit of tweaking now and we need data from the beta testers before we can make a conclusion.

I think we should instead ask ourselves what is the GOAL for 1941. Where do we want the Germans to end against an equally skilled Russian player. We think the historical line is quite a good place. Then the Russian winter offensive should be strong enough to push the Germans back a bit, but not too much. Then a German 1942 offensive should challenge the Russian main defense line.

So in GS it seems the major fighting will take place in 1942 and not in 1941. You can't force players to remain if common sense says retreat is smarter. It doesn't matter that Hitler or Stalin made crucial strategic errors in 1941. We don't have to repeat them.

Actually the Russian efficiency can quickly get back to strength if you build the best Russian leaders before the war and place them at your main defense line. Defending at the Dnepr seems to be too hard for the Russians, but the next river line should hold to the winter. You can at least delay the Germans by defending behind the Dnepr with garrisons. The Russian strategic reserve is meant as stumbling blocks for the Axis e. g. in front of Moscow or Leningrad.

So I think there is still some variety left in 1941 Barbarossa. With the reduced supply range gone it means the Germans can take Moscow more easily and that means the Russians must fight in front of Moscow to hold to the winter. So it can be rather bloody for the Russians from August 1941.

What you will never see in GS is huge encirclements of big corps units in front of Kiev, east of Smolensk etc. Clever Allied players will retreat before getting encircled. Well, I forgot that we have Supermax. He's maybe the only player who can manage such big encirclements in 1941.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

[
To me, the most important part is that the game becomes less fun, less interesting when so many top Axis players just give up entirely on North Africa, and never even try to advance very far into Russia during Barbarossa. We start to get a more static and predictable game.

Agreed. Barbarossa now seems anti-climatic. The question is what to do about it, not easy?

Maybe both DoW loss of efficiency to the Russians AND the German severe winter loss are too steep, they seem to force the sort of formulaic play you mention with all-out Russian retreat and then German retreat before winter.

I defended at the front line with my Germans against Ronnie and my line held. I used the Donets line if I recall correctly. I lost maybe 10 units during the offensive, but killed some too. When we got to late 1942 I had managed to take Leningrad, Stalingrad, Grozny and Maikop. So I held a line along the river in the Caucasus and a good river line elsewhere too.

So don't underestimate the Germans. Even if they're hurt in the winter offensive they can strike back hard.

In the mirror game against Ronnie he retreated back to the Dnepr line with the Germans and I inflicted less losses, but instead I built a double defense line and Ronnie had a hard time pushing me from that line in 1942. So when the game ended late 1942 then I had given up the Dnepr in the north and moved to Desna. In the south I was retreating back to the Donets. So I would start the 1942 Russian winter offensive from the Desna and Donets instead of the Kuban and Volga. That's a big difference.

This is one example that retreat is not necessarily the best option. Taking losses to hold ground is sometimes necessary. In order to hold ground with the Germans you need a double defense line. So I had built hordes of corps units and dropped below 75% manpower in the Spring of 1942, but it seemed to work.

All my games are a bit different even though the first turns of Barbarossa seem the same. I claim that there are many different strategies to follow from August 1941 for both sides.

I don't see any Russians trying to defend in front of the Dnepr. Against a less skilled player I could actually consider a double line behind the Dnepr, but then I would have to know my opponent was engaged in Egypt, Spain or other places. If my opponent has only prepared for Russia then I form my line along the Donets with a chance to retreat to the Volga if the Axis player is very good.

[PionUrpo]

I proposed the gradual industrial transfer and many people proposed efficiency loss for losing cities. The devs aren't very interested, though. They worry that it may destroy all balance.

I'd like to see Industry Evac but adding it would require pretty hefty overhaul of current system. Evac system or (morale loss per city) is also inherently prone to 'play the game engine' problem. (Not to say current GS is without such) I.E. players devise ways to maximise conquering of cities/industry in such a way as to create the greatest amount of havoc. Just take a look as Gary Grigsby's War in the East, man they've fought over it for ages...

Not saying it wouldn't be worth it but I'd prepare to wait a while because such system, IMO, takes looong time to balance.

Hey, maybe we'll see it in what ever comes after 2.1 (GS will live on post-2.1, right Borger & Co.? I sure hope so)

[Cybvep]

So, Staunffenberg, give me a piece of advice in regard to Barbarossa strategies in 1941. I'm talking about the 2.0 version, because other ones are unavailable for non-beta players.

Hey, maybe we'll see it in what ever comes after 2.1 (GS will live on post-2.1, right Borger & Co.? I sure hope so)

In the thread about industrial transfer Stauffenberg claimed that no major changes are planned in post-2.1 versions.