Slitherine

Turn 57
October 10, 1943
Weather: Rain and Mud

Strategic map
Torch
We take a defensive position.
Iraq
The enemy launched an attack on Kirkuk.
Our paratroopers unexpectedly encounter an enemy bomber.
An unpleasant accident.

In the area of Basra is fighting.

North
We stopped trying to attack Arkhangelsk.
The command considers that more serious preparation for the assault is necessary.

In Petrazavodsk, in return for the Blue Division, which had gone from the front back to Spain, a new garrison was sent.
We are still waiting for the threat of partisans.
Centre
The enemy now has: 4 VP = Arkhangelsk, Sevastopol, Gorky, Saratov.
May receive reinforcements!

The central grouping of troops stopped.
But the fighting continues in the area of ​​Chkalov.
Opponent occupied Saratov (!)
Partisans
Soviets digging in Gorky.
The Soviets are trying with all their might to prolong their agony and thereby annoy us greatly.
They laid down all our strategic plans.
Now they are not! Scheisse!

Crimea
We continue the storming of Sevastopol.
And in the Sea of ​​Azov is an operation to destroy the Soviet cruiser.
--
Table of contents

Turn 58
October 25, 1943
Weather: Clear and Dry

Strategic map
Germany
The enemy conducted an airstrike consisting of 3 strategic bombers.
One we were able to shoot down.
One Spitfire was also shot down. But in the heat of battle, the aviation commander Me-410 got out of the security zone.
It is obvious that the British will not miss the opportunity to knock him down next turn.

Also in the English Channel the second turn is the enemy's submarine.
Obviously some kind of covering operation is being carried out.
Intelligence believes the British began mine clearance in the strait.
But we can do little to oppose this.
Torch
The command decided to withdraw the Tiger because of its possible encirclement and also because of the ineffectiveness of the Tiger attack on difficult terrain.
An enemy submarine was discovered in the Malta area, and an air strike was conducted on it.

Iraq
The crisis in Iraq continues.
In the Kirkuk region, large enemy forces appeared. Including Shermans.
The enemy destroyed our Stug and launched a major offensive in the Middle East.
The Command decided to withdraw to Baghdad. Take advantage of mobility.
But even this option does not save us from losses.
The chances that we will be able to stop and keep the oil is very small.

In the area of ​​Basra, the enemy has few units.
But there is support from the sea.
Paratroopers headed here, they should be out of sight of the aircraft carrier.
Centre
The enemy now has: 3 VP = Arkhangelsk, Gorky, Saratov.

Our troops were withdrawn from the front to eliminate the centers of resistance in Gorky and Saratov.
Chkalov taken.
Crimea
Sevastopol captured.
In the Kerch Strait next turn we destroy the cruiser.
Enemy aviation was seen off the coast of Bulgaria. This is the Mig-3 from the defense of Sevastopol.
Perhaps the Soviets want to transfer her to Greece?
--
Table of contents

Turn 59
November 10, 1943
Weather: Clear and Dry

Strategic map
No prestige!
Norway
According to the weather forecast, the next turn will be snow.
But the Allies do not stop air patrols.
Germany
Today 5 (!) Allied strategic bombers took part in the air raid on Germany.
This is the highest number ever.
We shot down 2, but 3 remained (1 badly damaged).
Obviously, the enemy knows about our air defense capabilities, that we can destroy no more than 2 bombers per turn.
Therefore, with this in mind, an attack of 5 bombers was undertaken to inflict maximum damage on the prestige of the Axis.

France
The command assumes that the enemy is clearing the straits to prepare for the invasion of France.
Reserve submarines received orders to go to the strait.
Gibraltar
One of our reconnaissance units is moving along the coast of N. Africa in order to capture all the unoccupied cities.
In one of the ports found on the repair of a heavy cruiser.

Torch
This morning in the Headquarters darkened by the very sad news.
All the officers were shocked.
The Allies somehow managed to destroy the Tiger.
According to the calculations of the staff officers, the Allies did not have the necessary amount of artillery to suppress the Tiger.
But the reality turned out to be different.
Obviously the artillery of the Allies turned out to be stronger experienced and more successful.
They also probably used ships.

Aviation flew over the assumed coordinates of the fleet's position and after the battleship was discovered, an air strike was conducted.

The loss of the Tiger brought down all the plans of the Command, which were built on its invulnerability.
Now the situation in Africa is a big question.
In the event of defeat in Africa, we have no power to stop or even detain the Allies in Italy.

Also, the evacuation of troops from Africa will be impossible, due to the practical absence of the Axis fleet in this region.
And also due to the fact that the coastal waters are teeming with enemy submarines.
Torch - Air
The enemy here there are quite impressive forces.
And our fighters continue to concentrate in the area of ​​action.

I would also like to mention the loss several turns ago of one of the Italian tactical bombers, who patrolled submarines north of Sicily.
This situation did not hit on the maps and was analyzed later.
Obviously, he was seen with one of the submarines and she pointed the enemy fighters to intercept him.
Africa
We begin air reconnaissance area of ​​Egypt.
The goal is to determine how strong the defense is and how many enemy troops sent to Iraq.
Earlier, aerial reconnaissance revealed shelling of our forces in Tobruk with enemy ships due to the radius of visibility of our units

Iraq
The enemy launched a linear attack of Baghdad.
Our Сommand is doing everything in its power but the chances are slim.

Perhaps the idea of ​​dividing the troops was wrong.
But at the same time, if all the troops would have been thrown at Basra.
We could not have returned Baghdad because of the large number of enemy troops.

Now the Сommand is exploring the possibility of not holding oil fields.
And the capture of the maximum possible number of cities and VP in the Middle East.
The economic effect of this approaching the retention of oil fields.
Because in this version of the game 1 field gives only 25 prestige, instead of 50 in a normal game.
And until the end of the game there are only about 30 turns.
If we also take into account the losses that our troops will incur in direct confrontation with the enemy, it will become even less profitable option.

But on the side of the Allies greater mobility.
And superiority in aviation.
Also, we do not yet know how strong Egypt and Syria are.
Balkans
A whole partisan army was found in the Balkans.
The enemy concentrated the large forces of the partisans.
It is also obvious that the Soviet MiG can get a base at a captured airfield.

North
Our troops are engaged in strengthening.
Also, additional long-range artillery was sent to the Arkhangelsk.
Probably the assault can begin with the onset of winter.

Centre
The enemy now has: 4 VP = Arkhangelsk, Gorky, Saratov, Lutsk (New).
May receive reinforcements!

The enemy was knocked out of Gorky, but to occupy the city only on the next turn.
Also the next turn will be taken Saratov.

The offensive in the center is paused.
All forces are thrown at the VP control in the rear.
Partisans
Damn Partisanen captured Lutsk!
--
Table of contents

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:43 am

PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:45 am Oh I hope we are not witnessing an evolving turning point in the East right now...

Not yet. But of course there were such thoughts.

Intenso82 wrote:Partisans
Soviets digging in Gorky.
The Soviets are trying with all their might to prolong their agony and thereby annoy us greatly.

Although it might seen a bit nasty, I think it makes sense. In fact it is a built-in trade off with a purpose. Basically the Axis player has two choices: he either commits the majority of his units to the frontline to ensure a quick advance, but risks losing the control over the area behind the front, or moves forward somewhat slower with more units in the back to keep the partisans at bay. And of course the more successful he is, the possiblities are greater for the Allied player to make trouble in the back due to the large number of occupied cities. So it creates a more balanced gameplay even if the Allied side is about to lose as he can still strike back. Actually I was a bit surprised to see that it was fairly easy to find empty victory objective cities to retake with partisans and renagade regular army units as there were only a very few units left behind for occupation duties. Maybe a few more should have been left behind, even at the cost of a bit slower advance.

(Historically the Germans deployed a significant force for occupation duties: hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers were stationed in occupied France, Norway, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus. It may have made a difference if more of them were being used in the front instead, but only at the cost of losing even more of the vital supply lines to partisan attacks which could had had an equal or even worse effect.)

Intenso82 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:29 am Iraq
The crisis in Iraq continues.
In the Kirkuk region, large enemy forces appeared. Including Shermans.
The enemy destroyed our Stug and launched a major offensive in the Middle East.
The Command decided to withdraw to Baghdad. Take advantage of mobility.
But even this option does not save us from losses.
The chances that we will be able to stop and keep the oil is very small.

Actually I did not even expect that the Axis would attempt to capture the Middle East after the capture of the Caucasus. Interestingly, a few turns earlier, when the Axis forces were aproaching Baku, Intenso wrote something that due to some of his ground units visible to me were already upgraded to desert versions, I could have learned about these plans. However, I honestly do not remember seeing them, but even if I did, in multiplayer game one can never be sure of the opponent's real intentions. As for example, what if he only upgraded them to desert versions to make me believe that he intends to invade the Middle East, in order the force me to reinforce it, instead of moving against Rommel's forces or to Tunisia? With other words, what if it is only a deception? "Seeing is believing" is not always the case in multiplayer. Which is of course one of the things that makes it much more fun than single player.

In fact, my original plan was to divide my fresh Middle Eastern British forces (the ones that appear in the Suez canal area at late 1942, unless the Axis can capture several victory objective cities from the British) to two parts: about half of them was about to move to Tunisia to attack the back of the Germans there pretty much as it happened historically, while the other half was to invade the Caucasus after the defeat of the Soviet Union. Note that as Intenso wrote earlier, in multiplayer the British can only enter the Soviet territory after the surrender of the Red Army. So I had to wait for that before crossing the border. But at that point I did not expect the Soviets to hold out for too long as I also did not expect that this "agony" in the east could be extended too much. Therefore originally I was planning to cross the border around this time.

But then again, as it is usual in multiplayer, the practise is always different from the theory: the forces that I sent to Tunisia were quickly discovered and eliminated near Tripoli as I did not expect it to be a major supply point swarmed with fresh enemy units (I was expecting that the most of the enemy reinforcements would be sent directly to Tunisia in the shorter route like I did and not to Tripoli in the longer but somewhat safer route), and the Germans sent an expeditionary force down from the Caucasus immediately after its capture. In the end, the German forces reached Baghdad even before the British reinforcements could arrive there (as first I wanted to upgrade most of tanks to Shermans in Alexandria, but had to wait a bit until they became available) and thus at first I was disadvantaged. And then instead of attacking the Caucasus I had to go on defense to keep the Iraq somehow.

In the end, I think the German invasion of the Middle East was a strategic mistake: in my opinion those units would have been better used to help to finish the Soviets off, or even being used for occupation duties to ensure a faster defeat of the Red Army. But of course it is always easier to be smart in the end.

Torch
This morning in the Headquarters darkened by the very sad news.
All the officers were shocked.
The Allies somehow managed to destroy the Tiger.
According to the calculations of the staff officers, the Allies did not have the necessary amount of artillery to suppress the Tiger.
But the reality turned out to be different.
Obviously the artillery of the Allies turned out to be stronger experienced and more successful.
They also probably used ships.

Partly as a result of this, I have decided to reduce the hard attack value of most artillery units by 30-40%. Which means from now it will be harder to fully suppress an enemy tank unit with artillery and force surrender it. Even though in this particular case, it took me two attempts to do so. A few turns earlier I also encircled and almost fully suppressed it by bombarding it with 4-5 artillery, 1-2 bomber and a ship. But due to its high ground defense it still had some unsuppressed strength and despite a promising battle prediction, my attacking unit failed due to an unlucky dice roll. As a result in the next turn I lost like 2-3 units which were right next to it. Nevertheless, I decided to give it another go and this second time I was more successful. But I lost my own Tiger unit under very similar circumstances near Moscow in my Axis game. And the suppressive fire of enemy artillery was the main cause of many other tank units of both sides in this match and it describes the heavy tank losses of the Axis side. Which is not very good, I believe. I would rather see tank units being weakened first by air and ground units. I do not think it is right or very realistic to lose a full strength heavy tank unit in only one turn due to enemy artillery bombardment. Artillery shells should have little effect on heavy tanks. And even if we assume that a tank unit in the game also contains some soft and vulnerable supply elements like trucks and such, the tanks themselves should still be able to fight back after a heavy artillery bombardment.

Intenso claimed that he fears that German heavy tanks would become really invincible as a result of this, but I do not think so. Air units like strategic bombers and later war Allied heavy tank hunters will still be able to fight these, just as battleships. And artillery will still be able to suppress them, just not always fully. So that it would not be so easy to destroy them in just one turn.

Of course it needs to be tested at a later multi match, but currently I am testing it in single player mode and so far I am happy with this change. I found that it is indeed harder to suppress Soviet tanks with artillery only and therefore these need to be weakened first with air and ground units at a greater cost. But it also makes tanks better in the attack as they are less affected by enemy defensive artillery fire, which is also a positive side effect, I think. Which benfits both the human player and the AI. In general, I feel that tank units now behave more as one would expect.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm (Historically the Germans deployed a significant force for occupation duties: hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers were stationed in occupied France, Norway, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus. It may have made a difference if more of them were being used in the front instead, but only at the cost of losing even more of the vital supply lines to partisan attacks which could had had an equal or even worse effect.)

A former Wehrmacht soldier once told me that in case Germany had won the war in the east (i.e. just as a theoretical/unrealistic thought of course), he believed that he had “never” been able to return home to Germany due to the literally “infinite” occupation requirements in the east…

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Although it might seen a bit nasty, I think it makes sense. In fact it is a built-in trade off with a purpose. Basically the Axis player has two choices: he either commits the majority of his units to the frontline to ensure a quick advance, but risks losing the control over the area behind the front, or moves forward somewhat slower with more units in the back to keep the partisans at bay. And of course the more successful he is, the possiblities are greater for the Allied player to make trouble in the back due to the large number of occupied cities. So it creates a more balanced gameplay even if the Allied side is about to lose as he can still strike back. Actually I was a bit surprised to see that it was fairly easy to find empty victory objective cities to retake with partisans and renagade regular army units as there were only a very few units left behind for occupation duties. Maybe a few more should have been left behind, even at the cost of a bit slower advance.

(Historically the Germans deployed a significant force for occupation duties: hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers were stationed in occupied France, Norway, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus. It may have made a difference if more of them were being used in the front instead, but only at the cost of losing even more of the vital supply lines to partisan attacks which could had had an equal or even worse effect.)

It was an interesting psychological effect, when you seem to have won in the East, but you do not feel this victory.
Use these notes, I hope someone will get better results in the next games.

I think that although I formally defeated the partisans in every single battle, strategically I lost the anti-partisan war.
I doubted if I had enough troops to finish the campaign in the East, so I could not single out the troops from the front. There were also losses all the time that there was nothing to compensate for.
Even if I selected a part of the units they would not be enough to guard all VP.
Therefore, I chose the tactics of mobile groups in the rear.
These were not proactive, but reactive actions.
When the partisans showed themselves this area was blocked by mobile units on the trains. And then the operation began to search&destroy the partisans.
Of course now I would act differently. If I had prestige (which was not at that time), I would buy more cheap security units.

As far as I know, mainly the occupation troops had a lower degree of combat capability, the quality of soldiers (old, with no experience, etc.) low level of weapons.
Therefore, they were not assigned to participate in important combat operations. These were conditional combat units. The so-called garrison divisions.

And of course, I think that after the capture of all points of victory, after a delay of 5 or another number of turns, the units of the Soviets should be disbanded.
Otherwise, it is possible to capture the VP on the last turn.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Actually I did not even expect that the Axis would attempt to capture the Middle East after the capture of the Caucasus. Interestingly, a few turns earlier, when the Axis forces were aproaching Baku, Intenso wrote something that due to some of his ground units visible to me were already upgraded to desert versions, I could have learned about these plans. However, I honestly do not remember seeing them, but even if I did, in multiplayer game one can never be sure of the opponent's real intentions. As for example, what if he only upgraded them to desert versions to make me believe that he intends to invade the Middle East, in order the force me to reinforce it, instead of moving against Rommel's forces or to Tunisia? With other words, what if it is only a deception? "Seeing is believing" is not always the case in multiplayer. Which is of course one of the things that makes it much more fun than single player.

Yes, I remember how I showed a tank with a desert camouflage when repelling a raid on Dieppe, which I then went to the Caucasus and Iraq.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm But then again, as it is usual in multiplayer, the practise is always different from the theory: the forces that I sent to Tunisia were quickly discovered and eliminated near Tripoli as I did not expect it to be a major supply point swarmed with fresh enemy units (I was expecting that the most of the enemy reinforcements would be sent directly to Tunisia in the shorter route like I did and not to Tripoli in the longer but somewhat safer route)

Besides the fact that it was a safer way, unlike the McGuba game for the Axis, the Allies at this game had an advantage at the sea.
I used Tripoli as a short shoulder.
I upgraded units already in Tripoli, so as not to waste time on upgrades in Germany, as well as not to upgrade twice.
Because the sea route to Africa is quite long and during this time new models of units may appear.
It also reduces the risk of wasting prestige if the unit is destroyed during the transfer.
Also, when a unit arrives in Africa there is a choice to send it for an upgrade if time permits or to immediately enter it into battle.

Despite the fact that the ground path from Tripoli to Tunis takes time.
There were no huge numbers of enemy submarines near Tripoli

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm and the Germans sent an expeditionary force down from the Caucasus immediately after its capture. In the end, the German forces reached Baghdad even before the British reinforcements could arrive there (as first I wanted to upgrade most of tanks to Shermans in Alexandria, but had to wait a bit until they became available) and thus at first I was disadvantaged. And then instead of attacking the Caucasus I had to go on defense to keep the Iraq somehow.

In the end, I think the German invasion of the Middle East was a strategic mistake: in my opinion those units would have been better used to help to finish the Soviets off, or even being used for occupation duties to ensure a faster defeat of the Red Army. But of course it is always easier to be smart in the end.

Yes, now it seems a mistake.
I also wanted to use strategic air recon to reconnoiter the zone of the Suez Canal, but I was able to do it only now, when a free recon unit appeared.
Since this is a test game, I wanted to try this option.
At that time, I did not yet know about the threat of partisans. And also if the war in the East as a whole could have been completed by turn 50.
That would be an opportunity to reinforce forces in the Middle East.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Partly as a result of this, I have decided to reduce the hard attack value of most artillery units by 30-40%. Which means from now it will be harder to fully suppress an enemy tank unit with artillery and force surrender it. Even though in this particular case, it took me two attempts to do so. A few turns earlier I also encircled and almost fully suppressed it by bombarding it with 4-5 artillery, 1-2 bomber and a ship. But due to its high ground defense it still had some unsuppressed strength and despite a promising battle prediction, my attacking unit failed due to an unlucky dice roll. As a result in the next turn I lost like 2-3 units which were right next to it. Nevertheless, I decided to give it another go and this second time I was more successful. But I lost my own Tiger unit under very similar circumstances near Moscow in my Axis game. And the suppressive fire of enemy artillery was the main cause of many other tank units of both sides in this match and it describes the heavy tank losses of the Axis side. Which is not very good, I believe. I would rather see tank units being weakened first by air and ground units. I do not think it is right or very realistic to lose a full strength heavy tank unit in only one turn due to enemy artillery bombardment. Artillery shells should have little effect on heavy tanks. And even if we assume that a tank unit in the game also contains some soft and vulnerable supply elements like trucks and such, the tanks themselves should still be able to fight back after a heavy artillery bombardment.

I also think that perhaps it is also also be worthwhile to review and increase the combat capabilities of Soviet AT units.
In my mod, I planned to make a certain gradient for AT units. At first it is an ordinary unit, then a unit with Cammo trait and then it is a unit with AT support mode (like artillery).
The same is planned to be done in the PZC2.
Then such a unit can be a passive defense against the actions of tanks. He will be able to suppress part of their attack.
Of course, the range should be = 1.
This should be a multi-switch unit with a normal AT mode.

McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Intenso claimed that he fears that German heavy tanks would become really invincible as a result of this, but I do not think so. Air units like strategic bombers and later war Allied heavy tank hunters will still be able to fight these, just as battleships. And artillery will still be able to suppress them, just not always fully. So that it would not be so easy to destroy them in just one turn.

Yes, I still think so We did not have prestige to buy more such units.
But if he doubled. Having a few such powerful units together will be a very powerful force.

As far as I know, mainly the occupation troops had a lower degree of combat capability, the quality of soldiers (old, with no experience, etc.) low level of weapons.
Therefore, they were not assigned to participate in important combat operations. These were conditional combat units. The so-called garrison divisions.

Yes, that is true of course. I read detailed history of the Hungarian occupational forces. As the Hungarian army was generally weak the Germans preferred to use them for occupational duties. And the Hungarian government also tried to minimize its involvement in the war against the Soviet Union as it was preparing for the war with Romania over the ownership of Transylvania. Hungary only sent a corps in 1941 and an army strength unit in 1942 to the east to fight in the frontline. But these were withdrawn after less than a year. The Hungarian army was mainly active in 1944-45 when the Red Army reached the Carpathian basin.

As for the occupational forces, these were indeed ligthly equipped, initially they did not even have artillery guns, they only had a few machine guns and mortars. As it was supposed that they would only face partisans with rifles. However, it soon became obvious that this was not enough as the partisans in many cases were actually better equipped: the commanders reported that the partisans had artillery, some tanks, and even tank repair workshops. These were left behind by the retreating army in 1941 and were preserved in the woods. And so the occupation units requested heavier armament, but were only given a few old WW1 light artillery and a couple captured French tanks by the Germans. In the end they were only able to more or less control the main railway lines, but even those were regularily blown up by the partisans. There were several major anti-partisan operations conducted in the Pripet marshes and in the Bryansk area, with the involvment of regular German units and even air support. The partisans usually tried to avoid figthing in these and just retreated, but sometimes they had to. And there were large areas which were under partisan control for long periods.

And yes, in this test play there is clearly not enough prestige for the Axis due to the script bug, but I knew it from the beginning. With normal prestige allocation the Axis player should be able to recruit more security units.

And of course, I think that after the capture of all points of victory, after a delay of 5 or another number of turns, the units of the Soviets should be disbanded.
Otherwise, it is possible to capture the VP on the last turn.

I added a script that all partisan units disappear from the map in the last few turns. So that it is not possible to make a last minute victory for the Allied player. And it is already there in v1.94. But new partisans can still appear until like spring 1945. So that the Axis player still needs to keep some occupation units in the east after the defeat of the Soviet Union. In reality some anti-communist Ukranian partisans continued to resist until 1949:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army

Therefore I assume in an opposite situation the communist partisans would have continued fighting as well for a long time after the defeat of the Soviet government.

Besides the fact that it was a safer way, unlike the McGuba game for the Axis, the Allies at this game had an advantage at the sea.
I used Tripoli as a short shoulder.
I upgraded units already in Tripoli, so as not to waste time on upgrades in Germany, as well as not to upgrade twice.
Because the sea route to Africa is quite long and during this time new models of units may appear.

Yes, in retrospect it makes sense, but still I was somewhat surprised back then.

There were no huge numbers of enemy submarines near Tripoli

Sure, the German intelligence was nicely mislead here, and the persons responsible have already received their "reward".

Yes, I still think so We did not have prestige to buy more such units.
But if he doubled. Having a few such powerful units together will be a very powerful force.

Sure, but only if they are close to each other and do not move too much as these German heavy units usually have little fuel. So that they can be easily encircled or just avoided. But we will see later.

Turn 60
November 24, 1943
Weather: Snow and Dry

Strategic map
Strategic map - Air
The advantage in aviation as a whole is on the Allied side.
Norway
Kriegsmarine decided to conduct an operation to return Tirpiz back to Trondheim.
Tirpiz went to sea.
While the sea route is free.
If there is a good weather with snowfall. The operation may be successful.

The enemy took the hex over Trondheim and holds the duty bomber there.
Maybe he will change them when the fuel runs out.

France
Received a more accurate situation, what is happening in the English channel.
Opponent conducts demining, as we expected.
Submarines received orders to enter the strait.
Torch
After the loss of the Tiger, the crisis in Africa goes into a collapse.
Despite the fact that we have focused on the majority of aviation on this theater of action, we cannot use aviation because of the weather.
And the enemy uses artillery, including bombing from ships.
And stubbornly moving to Tunis.
Also, the enemy blocked the airfield with his recon plane.
Iraq
Our heavily battered troops reinforce.
In the south, we approached oil fields.

North
Troops are waiting for reinforcements.
Centre
The enemy now has: 1 VP = Arkhangelsk.

In the north, the enemy is active. He received reinforcements from Siberia.
South
Mobile artillery of the enemy left Saratov and moved in an unknown direction.
Probably now their goal is Stalingrad.

Snowfall helps the enemy a lot.

Loss analysis

Previous (t=55) data for comparison viewtopic.php?f=145&t=89711&start=240#p779437

There is essentially no change except for the reduction in the ratio of bomber.


--
Table of contents

I think the best thing to do in Africa is to evacuate those in Tunisia that you can by air to Sicily, and retreat the rest to Tripoli in hopes of preventing them from sweeping you out of Africa, as the only good your men in Tunisia will do now is act as a speed bump for maybe 7 turns.

Really loving this AAR.

Once he takes Tunisia he can just ignore any troops remaining in NA as long as he leaves enough forces for its defence (which the Mareth line is perfect for). So i would throw everything at Tunisia to hold it for as long as possible. You will get the prestige each turn for holding it, plus hold off Husky for longer. Also, I dont see the point of having your forces at Tobruk. You should ship them back to Europe or head them to Tunisia.

I feel your pain with the partisans!