Having failed offensives as viable tactics.
-
@schulz
"With the least amount of complexity"
Assume the offensive has already failed, place 0 movement units in a territory so they cannot move or retreat.The above units will not be in the productionFrontier.
-
@thedog i am not a tech guy so i cant really help with this,,, but you are correct about Stalin launching suicide attacks as he built up his reserves, and when he finally released them the germans were stunned and crushed as they thought they were winning.
-
Of course not all suicial attacks served some greter purposes, immobilizing all enemy units in the area might not distinguise these kind of meaningless suicial attakcs from calculated ones though interesting idea.
-
@schulz This can make sense in TripleA with limited combat rounds. By attacking you can prevent your opponent from advancing as long as you can survive.
Most of the failed Soviet offensives were just poorly planned rather than deliberate spoiling attacks. Limited offensives can be useful because they force the opponent to think about defense instead offense. However, that is too subtle to be used in TripleA,
-
I would say straffing runs are already pretty representative of this idea.
-
@hepps I never liked the term strafing for an attack that you intend retreat from. I prefer to call them spoiling attacks, as they are designed to disrupt the opponent and I use strafing to mean unsupported air attacks on ground forces, which is much more like the military meaning of strafing.
-
Yes, strafe and hit and run with favourable TUV swings are quite different than intentionally conducting failed assaults.
-
I am currently reviewing mechanisms in TripleA that can provide gamers with more choices regarding military tactics, strategies, and doctrines. But also greater value given to the economics and logistical challenges that were unique to each major power of WW2.
Russia for instance had hordes of expendables filling the ranks as soldiers. They were somewhat low tech in early phases of WW2. But Stalin had no problem with trading manpower for more time so that the eventual Russian winter would come to his aid.
By contrast, Germany has quite limited on manpower, was a high tech military that utilized huge amounts of spare parts and supplies. Oil was also quite limited and the war machines very thirsty. This necessitated a quick victory or at very least quick capture of more oil rich territories.
They were already delayed in launching operation Barbarosa due to Italian failures in Balkans and Greece. But a 3 month delay seemed acceptable rather than leave their rear security up to the Italians, especially since the Brits were embolden to land troops in Greece.
Quite the scenario, the Germans haven't got time to spare , while Stalin waits. Those unsuccessful Soviet offensives may have not been so hastey after all? More delays for the already pressured Germans.
Very few TripleA games hit on the points needed to simulate this kind of scenario in a fun and intuitive way. Most just concentrate on similar strategies and tactics. Partly due to limitations and difficulties involved, to capture it effectively. Or just wasn't even a goal during design stages. However I still love this game as is. So in return I am still tinkering with mechanisms to bring a small scale version of this vision to fruition.
-
Actually European Axis (minus Italy) population started outnumbering the Soviet population in late 1941.
The Soviets outnumbered Axis in the Eastern front simply because of Axis inefficiency. No Axis country fully committed to the Eastern Front except Germany. Thye tied up significant troops in the occupied territories to deal possible Western Allies landings and partisans. They didn't even execute total war economy until late 1943 either.
I don't say all these failed Soviet offensives served some purposes even they would be better off not conducting most of them but they would be in worse shape if they had simply retreated.
-
@general_zod Germany did not have a "high tech" military. The army that invaded the Soviet Union had more horses than trucks. The quality of equipment was roughly similar. What the Germans had was an integrated operational doctrine and surprise. And the Soviets had purged their officer corps.
The unsuccessful Soviet offensives were unsuccessful. They diverted some German resources but the Soviets would have been in better shape had they kept the resources on defense.
A good resource on the question is "Why The Allies Won" by Richard Overy.
-
Also the difference is they couldn't estimate whatever their offensives would be successfull or not whereas in here a calculator just say how things could go.
-
@rogercooper You are correct, the German Wehrmacht did utitlize large amounts of horses. As they should have, its simply pragmatic. I wasn't suggesting that because Germanys military was high tech by comparison to the rest of the worlds military. That they will have a armored vehicle for every soldier and also providing a tow to thousands of artillery pieces.
I was trying to make a point. The Germans were technically advanced and their industry was certainly producing advanced weapons by comparison to other world powers at that time.
-
@general_zod also, germany had like 2 dozen different trucks, so parts was a big problem.
-
@general_zod German weapons were not more advanced. Every power had its strengths & weaknesses but there was no German weapon system that was clearly superior. In fact, the Russian KV1 was a generally superior to PzKW IV.
-
The reasons of German successes in the first year of Barbarossa were combinations of superior German command, having more experienced army, outnumbering the Soviets in initial phases, surprise factor, Soviet military blunders and German total air superiority rather than technologic advantages.
-
@rogercooper I suppose the that the term "high tech" can be very subjective and even be loaded depending on the context. So let agree to disagree based on that alone.
But in my opinion Germany was more advanced in many fields. But definitely not all fields, of course. I think aircraft, rockets, submarines and tanks were considered very sophisticated technological edges, early and throughout, but production was an issue for varying reasons.
-
@schulz Definitely valid factors.
-
A thinktank thread to discuss what type of factors are considered key to developing new mechanics (viable with current TripleA limitations) for a small scale ww2 map specifically, would be cool.
Varying opinions seem necessary to develop fresh proposals and concepts.
-
@general_zod said in Having failed offensives as viable tactics.:
@rogercooper I suppose the that the term "high tech" can be very subjective and even be loaded depending on the context. So let agree to disagree based on that alone.
But in my opinion Germany was more advanced in many fields. But definitely not all fields, of course. I think aircraft, rockets, submarines and tanks were considered very sophisticated technological edges, early and throughout, but production was an issue for varying reasons.
Submarines were the only place were the Germans had a real technical edge. Their aircraft and tanks were not superior to those of the Allies. Rockets without nuclear weapons were not very effective. The B-29 carried 9 x the payload of the V-2 and was reusable.
-
I could renew the question;
How to make losing a battle less bad? How to make worth to conduct attacks with less than 50% success?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login