Enemy minefields in the jump map

[Dog Soldier]

I would disagree that mines are "legion". For balance reasons, I believe, they're all level 1 and minefields tend to more or less stick to the same density in terms of hexes covered all along the line with the exception of bunkers.

Yes, you could think of the way with the fewest minefields as being the most likely avenue of approach, but in most cases the player will pick a path that will also be the shortest to begin with. Turn limits are currently quite tight, and advancing through areas of the map where minefields are poorly defended (like map edges) will just mean you lose as the Axis. In fact, in most maps there are numerous "safer" approaches where you as the Soviets can simply calculate that the Axis are unlikely to get enough VP's to win from objectives.

The reason the minefields were set at density one was because during testing there was clear agreement from the play testers nothing was gained from using the original two and three times densities. It was taking Axis players too long to get through such dense minefields. Increasing the number of turns to accommodate the longer number of turns to get through such denser minefields added nothing to the fun of playing the game. It instead reduced the game to a grind. Not much fun to play.
I say the mine fields are legion in the game because it is common for player to realize early on there are never enough engineers (on either side) to deal with all the duties they want from their engineers, including clearing minefields.

BTW, I was only saying that if a defensive player is seeing a behavior to clearly avoid mines, then the defense can adjust to this behavior in the attacker. I was not limiting my comments to the advocating a specific rigid response. Sorry ComradeP missed my meaning.

Soviet air recon is poor, and in big scenarios sending your reserves as the Soviets (if they're not Fixed) to a certain part of the map too early will just favour the Axis as their recon capabilities are battle. The terrain and turn limits are such that just from looking at the map, you know where the fighting is likely to happen. You don't have strategic freedom, it's an operational level game and you often only have 1 or 2 approaches to take.

Soviet air recon works well enough to what one would expect from this period of the war in an air space that was hotly contested by nearly equal air forces. It is not 100% effective. Neither is the Axis air recon. Recon spotting by ground recon assets is more effective for both sides.

Again I am not advocating a tit for tat response by the defense. As the situation becomes clear, one sends their defensive reserves to where these reserves will be most able to defeat, deflect, or delay the attacker. It is rare a defending player will stop a well executed Axis or Soviet attack in PzB Kursk cold. Deflecting or delaying the attack from meeting the timetable of the attacker can be all that is required of the defender in PzB Kursk to win a defensive battle.

I would say that in 60% of the scenarios which are all 15 turns or more there are more than one or two ways to approach them and gain victory. The game is not as limited as ComradeP claims. At least not when playing a human opponent.

As the Soviets, you often don't have many non-Fixed units, if any. Moving the forces forwards early as the Soviets is in my opinion a losing strategy. You're essentially gambling.

Again I think ComradeP is thinking a bit to narrow. I did not say move the reserves forward. I said "Reserves can go to a predictable place." Where this location is, is completely at the discretion of the defending player. That such a move is not always forward should be clear. Timing is important. Timing is at the discretion of the defensive player. Distance affects timing. Every player, both attacker and defensive should try to move in a manner to force the main engagement of the scenario on ground of their choosing. Not follow a rigid formula. I never advocate such rigidity.

FWIW, 'reserves' can be as large a corps and as small as a single platoon. The game provides players with both situations.

Moving your forces to where you think the Axis will attack is quite different from moving to meet an actual threat. You know little about Axis strength, don't know when the bulk of their forces will arrive at your lines or their preferred point of attack. Keeping your reserves somewhat behind the frontline is often good enough.

Only if you assess the situation incorrectly. That can happen to any player. Just as well a player can assess the situation correctly on very little data. Such a broad assumption that players cannot figure things out seems contrary to my gaming experience here with blitz members. A single tactic to hold units behind the front lines may cause these units to arrive too late at the crisis point. Too early is just as bad. Getting the timing right against a human opponent who is different every time you play a scenario is what makes this game exciting an fun.

Most scenarios have a phased release of fixed troops. Only the small scenarios do not. The reason is there are not enough troops involved.

Axis individual units are so superior to yours that simply sending men into the meatgrinder like you would on the strategic scale will quickly burn through your reserves for no real gain unless you can pile them into bunkers. The average SS battalion moves through a D quality Rifle battalion at such a rate and with such force that the Rifle battalion might as well not be there. With your units at such a disadvantage, keeping reserves at a point where they can't be immediately targeted and where you decided when to commit them is essential. Responding to the enemy on the enemy's terms is likely to lose you the game.

Good advice to avoid getting shot before you can hit back is always applicable.

I would not presume any player of the Soviets sends an unsupported 'D' quality battalion to oppose a full strength 'A' quality SS battalion. Combined arms is key. Most players know this. Soviet 'support' can take take significant chunks each turn out any Axis formation. To typify the game as a hopeless Soviet cause like this is disingenuous IMHO.

For me, the minefields and obstacles are just speedbumps no matter what. They're not strong enough to truly slow down the Germans and your units are often not good enough to make good use of the situation. German A quality pioniere are also very unlikely to be disrupted even at platoon level unless targeted by a massive amount of fire.

It takes some getting used to, but even at Kursk the usual Soviet strategic scale tactic of drawing the Axis in and slowly attriting them before attacking them with a larger force still applies, but it can be difficult to do.

"...Speed bumps no matter what."
No minefield will stop an attacking player (Axis or Soviet) cold. It exists to slow the attacker's pace. This allows for more defensive shots, bombardments, and time for adjustments in deployments for the defense. How much it costs the attacker to get through the minefields is what matters. Not if the attacker will breach the minefields. German pioneers can disrupt. As soon as any 'A' quality unit reaches 50 fatigue points it can be disrupted. Pioneers need to work many times as platoons. Platoons acquire fatigue quicker than larger formations. They can be disrupted, even broken, and more often outright destroyed.

The number of Soviet victories recorded here at the blitz contradicts the assertion "your units are often not good enough to make good use of the situation."

Dog Soldier