STAVKA: Military Council of Commanders

[H Tower]

I wasn't really thinking of launching any summer offensives this year, minsk was a special case IMO because it was so close to smolensk and the HUGE army we had built up there. Not to mention the German army isn't spawning like crazy right now in Belurussia

In the Ukraine the situation is different, the Germans are going crazy with all the spawned units

[PinkyGen]

Minsk also has Soviet pragamtism, making the city especially useful.

I think we need to wait at least a few turns to see what happens south around the Don. I'd rather keep our built up cities rather than recapture our old ones. Also, we may wish to build our air defenses (and sturmoviks) more during the summer, the Luffwaffle is still in force.

It is only June, summer will last for a while if we wish to attack during this time.

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
It is only June, summer will last for a while if we wish to attack during this time.

Yes for FIVE more turns after this one. However Colwyn is convinced the war is almost over. In order to satisfy both opinions maybe we should wait a few turns and see how the south is going. If it holds then launch a major offensive out of Minsk in late summer. That will give a few more turns to rush units up north and down south. This is not a directive just a suggestion to stimulate discussion.

[Bossy20000]

Are we planning to hold Minsk for the rest of the summer, or just as long as we can? Are we going to send many reinforcements to keep it?

[H Tower]

Comrades, my staff out in the field have informed me that the Joint Command Area is not doing well, is lacking forces and has no strategy. This will not do. The commanders of both the Belorussian Front and the 1st Ukranian Front need to get together and formulate strategy, agree on the reinforcements (not rush buys) needed from both fronts and just plain old start communicating. Both of you have been extremely successful on your fronts, and I would hate to have to remove one or both of you for not properly communicating. Get It Done!

[The ANZAC]

Just wondering: why even bother having a joint command?

[Bossy20000]

I thought none of them wanted to let the other take control of the cities, so they decided to have joint control. The problem is I think that both are concentrated on their primary fronts more then on this joint front, which is why it has less reinforcemnts. I could be wrong though!

PS This is in no way a complaint on how they run their fronts, they both do a very good job, but this is a weak spot in our defence.

[Bossy20000]

Something totally different now: I looked at the game, and I noticed an AA Battery north-west of Moscow. The Germans will most likely not attack there very soon, so we might send it somewhere else where it can be of more use (I would prefer more protection for my building in Moscow, but i will understand it when it is sent to the front )

We also need a road between Tula and Orel, because now troops headed for Orel are sitting ducks for the luftwaffe to attack! We need a road to be able to quickly reinforce cities as Orel and even Kursk!

[Shaka Naldur]

I have the cities of the joint comand under my front but Colwyn move some of his units there and claim the city
and they decide to make a joint comand

the problem
colwyn doesn´t look very worried about those cities and I do
but I don´t have the units to hold them, and colwyn does

that is the problem in my opinion, the first one who gets the file use the joint comand as his own without asking the other one

[PinkyGen]

I propose the Joint Command be eliminated, and that the front cities be either assigned to one front or another. Otherwise, there seems to be little responsibility to hold the cities, and much confusion over how much each front should contribute.

I realize that whomever does not get the cities may be disapointed.

[Bossy20000]

Well, we could give them to the Marshal or somebody else who is neutral, so both will be disappointed This could resolve the problem though, just give them temporarily to the Marshal as his personal front to control until we find a solution for it.

[Shaka Naldur]

Originally posted by Bossy20000
Well, we could give them to the Marshal or somebody else who is neutral, so both will be disappointed This could resolve the problem though, just give them temporarily to the Marshal as his personal front to control until we find a solution for it.

then we will have three people involved and it would be even more confusing

but who are we going to give the cities??
colwyn will have more cities under his comand than the rest of the front comanders togethter
and if you give them to me I will need the units not needed in the bielorussian front

[yop73]

Why don't you both take 1 city?

[PinkyGen]

Short unofficial straw poll of what to research next, I didn't realize we were on the verge of a new tech.

Advanced Flight IV (Yak-9, to make up for the lost prototype).
85 mm AT Gun (leads to Mobile Warfare III: T-34/85 (a T-34 with a new bigger gun).

[Bossy20000]

85 mm AT Gun. I would like to see new Yak-9's, but we need tanks to take German cities, not fighters

[Colwyn]

Originally posted by Shaka Naldur


then we will have three people involved and it would be even more confusing

but who are we going to give the cities??
colwyn will have more cities under his comand than the rest of the front comanders togethter
and if you give them to me I will need the units not needed in the bielorussian front

I've discussed this previously with Shaka, the towns are his to command, I'll assist with units when necessary.

I don't belive these cities bryansk/orel are a major concern right now, nothing a few sturmoviks won't clear up but commanders havern't been building them ie we had the tech in winter and still are building Kv1's?? You only need 1-2 per front and you can really clear the plains of german agressor's.

If necessary my tanks can reach this front in 1 turn, high mv in summer via roads.

Lets see what the new turn brings

[H Tower]

The Joint Command Area is disbanded with sole command given back to the 1st Ukranian Front. However, the Belorussian Front may be called upon to supply troops.

Thank the good planning of our generals for deciding to hold onto Kursk, Tula and Orel. German tanks advanced towards the fortified positions on the Don several times, but always drew back without attacking.

The empty freighters that we have, sending them back to the UK seems like a terribly dangerous trip, in fact, I don't think any have made it yet, why don't we disband them in Murmansk instead and build some Katyushas for our eventual advance against the finnish cities?


The Belorussian Front is doing a terrific job building Sturmikovs, so well in fact, that I would like for the North West Front Commander to be able to borrow one for his eventual attack on Daugvapolis and or be used to surpress German troops outside of Vilnius. This would take a turn to set up the sturmikov flying out there, so we need to plan ahead here.

Is there some way we could get the Baltic Front a Katyusha or Su-122 or another T34 for counterattack purposes?

The town of Kotelnikovo needs to be recaptured or destroyed ASAP, it won't do, allowing the Germans a path to reach into the Caucaus. The bridge can wait another turn or two. Sturmikovs would be extremely useful in keeping German units from approaching Rostov and Stalingrad while we deal with the bridge problem.

[EZRhino]

Comrade Marshal Sorokin is right of course, Comrade Figiskovsky, you have plenty of Kv-1s, you need to build more Shturmoviks!

[Bossy20000]

Originally posted by H Tower


The empty freighters that we have, sending them back to the UK seems like a terribly dangerous trip, in fact, I don't think any have made it yet, why don't we disband them in Murmansk instead and build some Katyushas for our eventual advance against the finnish cities?

I suggested the same thing to comrade Yopov a while ago. He will need more units to conquer Finland, and we can't supply him with to many, so he will need to build most of them himself. Disbanding freighters in Murmansk is an easy way to do this. He will need katyushka's and tanks to take the Finnish cities.

[Colwyn]

Next turn sturmoviks will be in action (repaired) I will move to other fronts if needed.

I think Kursk is going to hold easy, 2-3 kv1's is a pretty strong defence just by them selves.

Commanders to post a plan for their use though first.

[yop73]

Guys, I'm thinking about an attack on Finland. Helsinki will be the first target. I was thinking about a landing on the tile west of Helsinki (the industry tile).

But this is my problem: the operation will be very heavy on logistics: I would need about 7 to 8 Katyushka's (estimated), but 10 would be better.

I only have 2 katyushka's at the moment. So if I get your support for the attack, 1 katyushka needs to be airlifted into Archelansk each turn. I would also need maybe 1 or 2 katyushka's from leningrad. (Henrik, can you agree on that?) I could also begin disbanding freighters in Murmansk to build them, and Archelansk will also complete one in about 3 or 2 turns.

I would also need some freighters to ship them over. (3 freighters) Those need to be rush-bought in Viipuri. (the only city on my front bordering the Baltic)

So the operation would be very expensive and I'll probably suffer many casualties, but that way, I will be safe this winter, and this will bring the Finnish down for sure.

After Helsinki, the rest of Finland will probably fall pretty easy, and then I could begin concentrating on Norway.

But now I need your advice guys: Can you agree on me getting 8 divisions of Katyushkas and 3 freighters this summer?

[conmcb25]

What is the current "Grand Strategy" Yop and how does an attack on Helsinki support that? Especially since it is going to take such a large amount of resources?

Do you see where Im going here?

What are out goals for the next say 9 months? Thru next winter. Shouldn't that be decided BEFORE we make large shifts of forces Operationally?

To me in terms of this Demo game:

Strategic is the Overall goals for the next given period of time.

Operational is when you are crossing front boundries with attacks or distribution of resources.

Tactical is what you are doing with your front and how you are employing your units and reinforcements.

Right now we have front commanders who are doing there own thing with the only goal in mind being destruction of all German units. Thats fine but is it the most efficient way to run a major campaign across many fronts?

With a set of Strategic Goals for the front commanders to work towards both Operationally and tactically you would already know without asking if an attack against Helsinki is a worthwhile endevor since it is going to soak up so many resources.

Is taking Helsinki a Strategic necessity? Well we haven't decided that yet.

Do you understand what Im talking about now?

[yop73]

My "grand strategy" now is to whipe out the Finns. An attack on Helsinki would certainly be opportune to do so.

The overall grand strategy is to turn the tide in the Oekraïne, so an attack on Helsinki would not support that strategy.

That is why I'm now asking STAVKA for the practical things: Are the southern commanders able to spare some ressources? What about Henrik, is he willing to build some troops for me?

This is all practical. My overall grand strategy is already made: deal with the Finns before winter sets in.
My overall grand strategy, after that is done will be to liberate Norway.

The overall, ingame grand strategy is to first recapture our lost lands and then invade Germany. When and where and how to do this, will be descided by the front commanders and by the STAVKA if it needs several fronts to coöperate.

Do you understand my point of view?

[conmcb25]

No I dont, because front commanders deal with operational and tactical issues. You dont have a Grand Strategic Plan because you are a front commander.

If Strategic Decisions are to be within STAVKA then maybe the Marshall has a Strategic Plan that is developed with your input but Fronts dont have strategic plans. Front are inherently operational or tactical. And you Tactical Plans should support the Strategic goals. Which right now we dont really have.

Your quote: "The overall, ingame grand strategy is to first recapture our lost lands and then invade Germany. When and where and how to do this, will be descided by the front commanders and by the STAVKA if it needs several fronts to coöperate."

This is vague, sure that the goal, but what are the specific goals in the next 9 turns? Why should Colwyn give up his push to Warsaw so you can take Helsinki for instance? How can you make that decision right here and now if there are not goals that all of you working together are trying to work towards? In a Strategic sense.

What is more important? Holding the Don River line in the south? Or taking Warsaw? Or taking Helsinki?

If those decisions are made and formalized it becomes an easy decision for the Marshall and Front Commanders to postion resources to accomplish the goals.

Im trying to get us to think ahead and make Strategic plans vice what we are doing now which is only dealing with the next turn or so.

[Henrik]

Originally posted by yop73
I only have 2 katyushka's at the moment. So if I get your support for the attack, 1 katyushka needs to be airlifted into Archelansk each turn. I would also need maybe 1 or 2 katyushka's from leningrad. (Henrik, can you agree on that?) I could also begin disbanding freighters in Murmansk to build them, and Archelansk will also complete one in about 3 or 2 turns.

I would also need some freighters to ship them over. (3 freighters) Those need to be rush-bought in Viipuri. (the only city on my front bordering the Baltic)

I'd be happy to help, only I haven't got any Katjas, perhaps I could build some cruisers to be used for bombardment of Helsinki instead though?

Feel free to ask me about any units you see at my front that you feel you might need. I'd probably be happy to supply them as I currently am not under a lot of preasure...

[yop73]

Steve,

You're taking this way too personnal. I'm not saying that I would like to limit your power or that I'm against the politburo. Actually, I don't care where everybody posts his views on a grand strategy, be it STAVKA or politburo.

What I do believe is that every front commander already has an opinion about what to do with his front (his own "grand strategy"). And if you want, why don't we let every front commander post his views and discuss the strategy of every front in the front thread?

About your post: I'm not saying that this attack on Helsinki is more important than a push on Warsaw or the Southern fronts. I'm just asking permission to get some units since I can produce so little myself.

It's just that if I don't attack the Finns this summer, they will pose a threat to my front again next winter, while Colwyn's front is relatively safe in the winter and he even has an advantage in winter, while I have a disadvantage (while discussing the priority of this attack versus Colwyn's drive for Warsaw). He also has lots of heavy-productive cities that can build whatever units he wants, while my average production is about 5 shields. So I believe that out of solidarity he could lend me a few units and halt his offensive for 1 month. I would really appreciate that. So Colwyn, I know you already have to give a lot of units to other fronts, but I'm also asking for just 2 katyushka rockets. I hope you can spare them.

I would also like to thank Henrik for the support of the plan, but I think it would be better if you produced katyushka's. They are better against Helsinki (because it already has a coastal battery I think) But anyway, thank you, Henrik.

EDIT: Actually, while reading your posts again, I changed my mind. I believe you are right, we do need a thread that discusses an overall strategy. And if you insist on it, I could live with the politburo thread. Or maybe we could make a new thread, the "grand strategy" thread.

[H Tower]

A few observations:
1. Cruisers will be almost useless against 88's behind a coastal fortress IMO. 10 Katys sounds like an absolute HUGE number, we could sack Berlin with that many, well, maybe not, but close.
2. The front commanders and I do have a strategy of a sort, allowing the Belorussian Front to go as far as it can safely go without any reinforcements, an attack from the Northwest front that ends on the Baltic coast, while the Baltic Front holds at leningrad, killing Germans as it can. In murmansk, I admit, I don't really have a plan myself that fits in with the others. On the second Ukranian Front, the plan is to hold on the Don until the end of summer, and then go on the offensive. Perhaps the offensive will begin in summer so the sturms we've built can mow down the Germans in the open fields. By the end of winter they are to be in Dnepropetrovsk and Kherson. If not Dnepropetrovsk, then Zaporozhye. Bucharest and Ploesti are also to be under Soviet control if that is possible by amphibious landing. On the 1st Ukranian Front, Shaka is to be in Kiev by winter's end. It will be difficult, especially with the destroyed roads, but I believe that it can be done.

While the commanders and I haven't laid all of this out before in writing or as much detail, we've been conversing by pm or instant messenger over these goals. The power that has been leading this Marshal through such a successful campaign (at least people have been telling me that I'm doing a good job) has been the private communicaes where ceremony and appearances do not have to be stood upon. My apologies to the General Secretary for keeping him in the dark, but this has been going on for sometime before the Politburo was formed and old habits are hard to break.

[conmcb25]

I think you guys are missing my point.
This isn't a power struggle, at least for me it isn't.

This is about determining a Strategic plan. At least IMHO right now we dont have one.

And I think it SHOULD be in another thread and I think a member of the politburo should lead the discussion because thats our job. Your job is to fight the war, The politburos job is to make sure you have the right tools to do it. Thats all Im saying.

If a front commander wants to lead the discussion thats fine too but then you guys can't focas on what your supposed to be doing. Which is playing your turns and fighting the war.

Politburo doesn't have things to do every turn except for two ministers. This just gives one of us something to do that I think will benefit the game. And is close to what nations do in reality. Strategic direction of wars are political. The operational and tactical way you meet those strategic goals are military.

Maybe Im just not explaining myself well here. But the last thing I want to emphasize is we are all supposed to be on the same side. If everyone does something then thats less work for all of us and spreads the load, and also lets others participate. I really think we need to work together here. OK?

But if it will make you guys happier a front commander or the marshall can lead the discussion. I have a list of stuff to do. One of them is discuss a Strategic direction of the war. If you guys want to lead the discussion fine. But can we just do it please?

[H Tower]

Alright, way too much fuss has been made over this, let's calm down a bit, take it easy, and remember we're supposed to be fighting the Germans, not each other.

Personally, I suspect a secret German plot for driving a wedge inbetween us. Where's the NKVD when you need it?

[conmcb25]

Originally posted by H Tower
.Personally, I suspect a secret German plot for driving a wedge inbetween us. Where's the NKVD when you need it?

Thats the last thing I want.

Im calm and Im not taking anything personally.

All I want is a discussion about the Strategic direction of the war.

And at this point I dont care who leads it or where.

This isn't a power struggle, its strictly a desire to move us forward and start thinking ahead.