Most fluid PzC East Front games?

[76mm]

Are you playing these vs the AI? I'm curious to know if the massive scenarios are even an option against the AI seeing as how that many units under AI control could get interesting.

First, I only play the full campaigns, because they are what I find most interesting. So far I have played Minsk and Moscow 42 as Russian vs the AI, and Smolensk and now Moscow 42 (Fall Kreml) head-to-head vs myself.

Playing against the AI as the Russians in campaigns like Minsk and Moscow 42 is OK for the first 50 or 60 turns (as you are battling through the fortification lines and beginning to break out) but after that the AI generally can't cope. IIRC I played Minsk until the end, although the second half of the game was just pushing counters around, and more about managing river crossings and traffic jams than good fighting. In Moscow 42, IIRC I had a decisive victory after about 80 turns, so quit playing then. These comments are not intended as a criticism of the AI, it is simply not realistic to expect more at this point.

I think I prefer solo head-to-head, for a couple of reasons:
1) The campaigns are so massive, and there are so many units, that even if you wanted to it is difficult to recall exactly what enemy units in the vicinity of particular units are doing. I also have a "house rule" that I don't react to impending threats until they are visible, or it would simply be good practice anyway (ie, don't leave completely open flanks, ever).
2) You can use the AI to help out during these games. For instance, typically I play the full German turn, but for the Soviets I will make a few key moves and then hand the turn (especially all of the firing) over to the AI. The German firing I do manually, because it needs to be more targeted as I work through the fortifications, and this can be a major chore--firing the German artillery alone can take up to an hour per turn.
3) Either way I win, what's not to like?!

[Strela]

76mm Wrote:

heh, I didn't realize that the bau-pioneers sucked at assaulting for a couple of turns--sorry guys!


The Bau and Todt suck big time!

With and assault value of 2 and morale of D, they are inferior to the German combat engineers (assault of 16 and morale of B).

Worse still, if included in an assault then all units in the assault will be classed as morale D, due to assault resolution always using the lowest value for the assaulting units. The opposite is true for defending troops, the highest value is used.

Lots to be aware of...!

David

[76mm]

Worse still, if included in an assault then all units in the assault will be classed as morale D, due to assault resolution always using the lowest value for the assaulting units. The opposite is true for defending troops, the highest value is used.[/color]

Oops, didn't realize this. I guess it could have been worse...luckily it only took me about 3 turns to figure out about the bau troops.

Looking forward to the next East Front game, whenever it comes out. I'm not a big west front guy but might even consider getting Scheldt, might be interesting to play an obscure campaign like that.

[ComradeP]

I find that even winter scenarios can be fluid. Not only due to the "anything with tracks/on horseback is still fast" reason that was already mentioned.

Deployed A quality infantry units can usually still move 2 hexes on Clear terrain, and if Foot Speed is 5km/h anything Deployed of C quality and higher can move 2 hexes. As usual, the Soviets draw the short straw as their D quality Deployed units have 27 MP's, one less than required.

Fall Kreml '42 is the most unbalanced campaign I've played, but it can still be enjoyable. Soviet reserves are generally Fixed and usually limited in number. After the bunker line is breached, the area behind the breaches becomes a bowling alley for the Axis motorized corps. Tank Corps are still primitive and not capable of doing much.

The issue I keep running into, and what makes "fluid" scenarios unbalanced most of the time, is that the Soviets tend to fold very quickly. You can demolish entire Soviet armies in an in-game day with a few strong pushes if the terrain allows it. The Soviets tend to be underrated in many wargames, also to allow historical breakthroughs to take place to begin with, but it can make playing the Soviets not very enjoyable.

This isn't meant as criticism of the scenario design or the mechanics, it's primarily caused by how the various components combine into a situation that is disadvantageous to the Soviet player and advantageous to the Axis player. Quality, mobility, availability of forces. Even with a significant numerical advantage, playing as the Soviets is challenging. This also applies to a lesser extent to Commonwealth forces, as they lack offensive punch aside from artillery.

[76mm]

Thanks for the comments, ComradeP. I bought Moscow 41 and Budapest years ago but haven't played them yet, a bit worried about bogging down in the winter snows, but I will give them a try sooner or later...

Your thoughts on fluid battles in PzC are interesting; the only fluid campaign game I've played so far is Smolensk, and I don't remember it being completely lopsided, although IIRC the German side did end up winning, I forget by which margin.

[Landser34]

I agree the Soviets are underrated in a lot of the early east front games there are plenty of examples that they gave the Germans everything they could handle it was not a cake walk take for example around Kiev in the Ukraine army group south was making slow headway until Panzer Group Guderian was sent south from AG Center.It used to be that most Soviet infantry could move 2 hexes in the winter scenarios that ability was taken away from them a few updates ago it makes play the Russian in a large scenario with a bunch of snow almost unplayable and mind numbing because the Russian moves up to the Germans and then they cant fire but the Germans can then they retreat and you do that turn after turn.I was in the infantry for 8 years and have trained in cold weather in the snow and you can move more than 1km in 2 hours.