Panzer General.: Q about Kiev
Tommy Yiu
---------------------------------------------------------------
May I ask a question about Kiev?
After a major in Balkans(or somewhere in Russia) in
1940, I was asked to choose whether to skip Kiev before going
to Moscow.
Somehow, I chose to skip Kiev. Right now, I am at turn
14 in the Moscow 1940 sceanrio. It will take me at least two
more turns for the ground forces to get close to Moscow. (Most
of them are out of fuel already. I have a feeling that the
troops lose fuel when they are close to Moscow for an unknown
reason, i.e. two tanks have zero fuel)
Anyway, it seems like it takes too long to get the Moscow.
So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
if I should go to Kiew first.
How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
Thanks!
Tommy
Willy Liao
tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu) writes:
>---------------------------------------------------------------
> May I ask a question about Kiev?
> After a major in Balkans(or somewhere in Russia) in
>1940, I was asked to choose whether to skip Kiev before going
>to Moscow.
> Somehow, I chose to skip Kiev. Right now, I am at turn
>14 in the Moscow 1940 sceanrio. It will take me at least two
>more turns for the ground forces to get close to Moscow. (Most
>of them are out of fuel already. I have a feeling that the
>troops lose fuel when they are close to Moscow for an unknown
>reason, i.e. two tanks have zero fuel)
You lose fuel according to very specific rules. Study the manual.
Basically, you lose one point per hex moved EXCEPT when there is snow
ON THE GROUND (not the same as snowing, since it takes at least one turn
to accumulate snow on the ground). Resupply or take replacements to get
supply. The latter is often better, because you cannot resupply when any
enemy unit is adjacent, but you can take replacements with up to two enemy
units adjacent, and supply comes along with the replaced strength points.
Plus the resupply option is affected negatively by precipitation, whereas I
believe replacements aren't affected by weather.
> Anyway, it seems like it takes too long to get the Moscow.
>So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
>if I should go to Kiew first.
> How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
If you don't have a lot of prestige and a highly experienced core, you
may want to go to Kiev anyway, especially if you already conquered
England (which you say you haven't, since you were in the Balkans).
It's easy to beat Kiev and you can get a lot of good experience.
However, the Moscow 41 scenario which you then go to (instead of Early
Moscow for skipping Kiev) is harder due to the weather being worse.
The Russians are also more fortified in the Moscow 41 scenario,
whereas they haven't had time in Early Moscow. Just as the Germans
did historically, you may find it impossible to achieve a major
victory in Moscow 41 because the weather turns to crap before too
long, heavily favoring the defenders and making it a pain to push to
Moscow. So I'd have to say it depends on your core--by this point you
probably could win Early Moscow with your core if you're playing on
Medium, after which you'd go to SeaLion 43. You might barely be able to
make it on Moscow 41 as well with the extra experience from Kiev, but
that's hard for me to say from here.
Willy Liao
Detlef Raben
tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu) writes:
> How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
In my opinion, you shouldn't skip Kiev under any circumstances! If you do
skip Kiev you waste 1500 prestige, which you could better use to upgrade
your troops and you miss the chance to gain more prestige and further
improve the experience of your core-units. And you don't get enough
advantages for it.
The missing experience is especially crucical if you have already beaten
Britain. It would be reallistic if an early peace in Europe would make
the battle of Washington easier, but in this game it's just the other way.
You have the same situation with "Sealion Plus" and "Sealion 40". So kick
as many enemies as possible!
Bill Haering
Tommy Yiu wrote:
>
> 14 in the Moscow 1940 sceanrio. It will take me at least two
> more turns for the ground forces to get close to Moscow. (Most
> of them are out of fuel already. I have a feeling that the
> troops lose fuel when they are close to Moscow for an unknown
> reason, i.e. two tanks have zero fuel)
>
> So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
> if I should go to Kiew first.
>
>
>
> Tommy
Tommy,
Has it been snowing. When it snows units use up fuel twice as fast.
Also you need to realize that all the battles for moscow are where you
can force the russians to surrender and quit the war. As a result you
need major victories for hat to happen. The moscow battles are all very
big. The one your playing is the standalone scenario early moscow. If
you go to Kiev then you will fight Moscow 41. I've never played Early
Moscow, but I would guess that in general the weather should be better as
I think the battle starts earlier. Moscow 41,42, and 43 have terrible
weather that cause the mentioned fuel problems and ground the Air Force.
The advantage to going to Kiev is that you get an extra scenario to buid
up experience and prestige and you don't have to spend the prestige.
In general you should try and get as much experience as possible as this
makes you unit stronger. However the enemy will be tougher as the war
progresses.
Bill
Tommy Yiu
In article <5156df$6...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Willy Liao <li...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu) writes:
>
>
[........]
>
>> Anyway, it seems like it takes too long to get the Moscow.
>>So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
>>if I should go to Kiew first.
>
>> How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
>
>If you don't have a lot of prestige and a highly experienced core, you
>may want to go to Kiev anyway, especially if you already conquered
>England (which you say you haven't, since you were in the Balkans).
>It's easy to beat Kiev and you can get a lot of good experience.
>However, the Moscow 41 scenario which you then go to (instead of Early
>Moscow for skipping Kiev) is harder due to the weather being worse.
>The Russians are also more fortified in the Moscow 41 scenario,
>whereas they haven't had time in Early Moscow. Just as the Germans
>did historically, you may find it impossible to achieve a major
>victory in Moscow 41 because the weather turns to crap before too
>long, heavily favoring the defenders and making it a pain to push to
>Moscow. So I'd have to say it depends on your core--by this point you
>probably could win Early Moscow with your core if you're playing on
>Medium, after which you'd go to SeaLion 43. You might barely be able to
>make it on Moscow 41 as well with the extra experience from Kiev, but
>that's hard for me to say from here.
>
>
>Willy Liao
>
>
>
Thank you very much for the advice.
Choosing to skip Kiew, I just finished the Moscow Scenario
but the ground troops don't have too much experience yet. So, I
am going to start from Kiew again.
BTW, are paratroopers useful? I have two paratroopers but
I hardly use them efficently. By the time I clear they sky and
land the paratroopers, the ground forces arrive too.
Don Roberto
Bill Haering wrote:
>
> Tommy Yiu wrote:
> >
> > 14 in the Moscow 1940 sceanrio. It will take me at least two
> > more turns for the ground forces to get close to Moscow. (Most
> > of them are out of fuel already. I have a feeling that the
> > troops lose fuel when they are close to Moscow for an unknown
> > reason, i.e. two tanks have zero fuel)
> >
> > So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
> > if I should go to Kiew first.
> >
> > How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
> >
> >
> > Tommy
>
> Tommy,
>
> Has it been snowing. When it snows units use up fuel twice as fast.
> Also you need to realize that all the battles for moscow are where you
> can force the russians to surrender and quit the war. As a result you
> need major victories for hat to happen. The moscow battles are all very
> big. The one your playing is the standalone scenario early moscow. If
> you go to Kiev then you will fight Moscow 41. I've never played Early
> Moscow, but I would guess that in general the weather should be better as
> I think the battle starts earlier. Moscow 41,42, and 43 have terrible
> weather that cause the mentioned fuel problems and ground the Air Force.
> The advantage to going to Kiev is that you get an extra scenario to buid
> up experience and prestige and you don't have to spend the prestige.
>
> In general you should try and get as much experience as possible as this
> makes you unit stronger. However the enemy will be tougher as the war
> progresses.
>
> Bill
Early Moscow is your best bet to knock out the soviets - I'd take it
Alan Douglas
tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu) wrote:
> BTW, are paratroopers useful? I have two paratroopers but
>I hardly use them efficently.
Yes they are very useful. The trick is to find a way to use them
effectively. A standard ploy is to use paras to capture an
insignificant city deep behind enemy lines and then build units there.
However many people consider that to be a bit of a cheat (not to
mention absurdly unrealistic). I actually play PzG with a very
extensive set of cripples to make it more challenging and realistic,
so the way I use paras may not be the best for those who play with
less restraints.
The main way I use paras is the way they were used in real life,
dropped not all that deep behind enemy lines to help secure an
important piece of territory which might otherwise prove a difficult
obstacle to the advancing ground forces -- things like bridges,
artillery defenses and cities lying between objectives. They're also
good for securing important airfields to shorten your flight times
while lengthening your opponents. Some specific examples:
In the Low Countries my para drops on Sedan in the South, knocking out
the first fort and then crossing the river when reinforcements arrive
to take on the artillery.
In Norway they take city in the centre of the map between the
objectives of Trondheim and Lillihamer to allow my Northern armoured
force to easily cut South and attack Lillihamer from the rear.
In Kiev my paras secure the river crossing in the central Western part
of the map (it's fairly well defended with AT and artillery).
There are few cases where I send my paras really deep into enemy
territory. Most notable are the Moscow scenarios where they take the
city and airport to the East of Moscow and then capture the Soviet
capital itself after my airforce has beaten it down. And in scenarios
where I can't find a good (and fairly safe) use for them, I just send
them off to unimportant parts of the map to take cities I would
otherwise never bother with.
It's also a good idea to send them where there's an airport nearby so
they can be airlifted again if needed.
>By the time I clear they sky and land the paratroopers, the ground
>forces arrive too.
No need to wait till you clear the sky. If the paras aren't going far
I can usually give them a fighter escort if I think they may be in
danger. They otherwise take a long route, hugging the edge of the map
and avoiding cities -- if the enemy can't spot them he can't attack
them.
Another good idea is to fully overstrength your paras before you send
them off. A neat trick is to upgrade them with trucks during initial
deployment so the computer deploys them as ground forces. You can
then start overstrengthing them on your first turn. Otherwise they'd
be deployed in the air and you have to spend a turn dropping them
before you can start overstrengthing them.
Cheers,
Alan/
Tey Chee Meng
On Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:30:32 GMT, Tommy Yiu (tom...@zeus.bony.com) wrote:
: Anyway, it seems like it takes too long to get the Moscow.
:So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
:if I should go to Kiew first.
To take Moscow fast, you can consider using air transport to move
a few of your best infantry units to the rear of Moscow, where there is
an airfield. Attack Moscow from the rear, as it is probably not as
heavily defended as in the later part of the scenario.
Combined with tac bombers, you have a reasonable chance. Even if you do
not succeed on taking it, softening it up will save precious time when the
rest of your troops finally come to it.
Of course you must have air dominance fast.
--
Tey Chee Meng
" Not to take extremes, the middle way is the best "
Sieling
On 9/13/96 11:58AM, in message <51bb85$4...@nuscc.nus.sg>, Tey Chee Meng
<eng3...@leonis.nus.sg> wrote:
I agree with Tey here. The strategy I use is almost simulair. I also drop paratroops
behind the lines, but I try to take a city and buy core or auxillery units there. From
there I can attack Moscow with say an artillery(15" with 251 tracked veh., tank
(pref. PzVI) and those two paratroopers. And if you can spare a Stukka over there
you have a good chance!
Good luck
--
Anton Sieling,
d.si...@tip.nl
(I surf not to go anywhere, but just to surf)
jason
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 19:53:24 GMT, tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu)
wrote:
>
>
>In article <5156df$6...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>Willy Liao <li...@cs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>tom...@zeus.bony.com (Tommy Yiu) writes:
>>
>>
>[........]
>>
>>> Anyway, it seems like it takes too long to get the Moscow.
>>>So I may re-play the sceanario again. Still, I am curious to know
>>>if I should go to Kiew first.
>>
>>> How much different does it make if I don't skip Kiew?
>>
>>If you don't have a lot of prestige and a highly experienced core, you
>>may want to go to Kiev anyway, especially if you already conquered
>>England (which you say you haven't, since you were in the Balkans).
>>It's easy to beat Kiev and you can get a lot of good experience.
>>However, the Moscow 41 scenario which you then go to (instead of Early
>>Moscow for skipping Kiev) is harder due to the weather being worse.
>>The Russians are also more fortified in the Moscow 41 scenario,
>>whereas they haven't had time in Early Moscow. Just as the Germans
>>did historically, you may find it impossible to achieve a major
>>victory in Moscow 41 because the weather turns to crap before too
>>long, heavily favoring the defenders and making it a pain to push to
>>Moscow.
I actually think the russian campaign is too short. That's i why go to
kiev and then moscow, where i take all objectives but moscow itself.
This way i get a lot of points despite an allied victory and get to
stay in russia another year, playing sebastopol and stalingrad.
At this point i go to sealion 43 with a much better core , all of them
with 4-5 experience.
Taking deliberate allied victories at key points in the campaign , can
be very interesting , especially playing the later defensive scenarios
with same core you started with in 39 !
Rob
jason wrote:> >>Moscow.
>
> I actually think the russian campaign is too short. That's i why go to
> kiev and then moscow, where i take all objectives but moscow itself.
> This way i get a lot of points despite an allied victory and get to
> stay in russia another year, playing sebastopol and stalingrad.
Yeah, But you'll never get to Washington unless you go for the Kill!!!!
Corsair
Sieling wrote:
<snip>
> behind the lines, but I try to take a city and buy core or auxillery units there. From
> there I can attack Moscow with say an artillery(15"
Would that be 15cm? :)Hmm...battleships in the steppes?
<snip>
> Anton Sieling,
> d.si...@tip.nl
> (I surf not to go anywhere, but just to surf)
Anybody got suggestions for Kiev? I'm not sure how to deploy my core. I'm
playing on easy level, so I expect a tank attack from Kiev. Is this a
reasonable expectation? How do I counter it? Can the auxillaries hold out, or
do I need some of my core to help them out?
--
Corsair
Alan Douglas
Corsair <cor...@vnet.net> wrote:
>Anybody got suggestions for Kiev? I'm not sure how to deploy my core. I'm
>playing on easy level, so I expect a tank attack from Kiev. Is this a
>reasonable expectation? How do I counter it? Can the auxillaries hold out, or
>do I need some of my core to help them out?
The Soviet armour at Kiev will certainly attack, however the
auxillaries can hold out if you fall back around your artillery, and
use your air power against the tanks. I usually send 2 or 3 of my
better panzer units racing along the southern road to Kiev acting as
the cavalry, but with concentrated air attacks and a couple of PzIIIJ
purchases near Kiev, it probably isn't all that necessary.
Otherwise my main force attacks from the northwest, with a smaller
force in the western centre. The auxilliaries spend most of the time
just containing the Red Army, strinking only when the computer starts
redeploying its forces West to confront my on-rushing core units.
Also note that most of the Soviet airforce will usually head for Kiev,
so I usually send some of my "top gun" fighters or fighter bombers to
help out the auxillaries.
Cheers,
Alan/
Graham Healey
Corsair <cor...@vnet.net> wrote:
>Anybody got suggestions for Kiev? I'm not sure how to deploy my core. I'm
>playing on easy level, so I expect a tank attack from Kiev. Is this a
>reasonable expectation? How do I counter it? Can the auxillaries hold out, or
>do I need some of my core to help them out?
>--
>Corsair
I would say the best way to do Kiev is to deploy a holding force in
the West during the start of game deployment. After 'finishing'
initial deployment you enter the movement phase.
I then deploy some good tanks south of Kiev. And a balanced task force
on the Eastern side of the map. These will not be able to move on the
first turn.
These tactics allow you to quickly take Kiev while rolling from East
to West thus avoiding the Russian forces holding the front in the
West. By the time you get to the Westernmost objective it's just a
question of mopping up.
As to the realism of this (not that PzG is particularly hot on
'realism', though certainly fully flavoured), I argue that the tactic
represents spending an extra turn moving your forces around to the
south to get into position.
74103
In <323B43...@vnet.net>, Corsair <cor...@vnet.net> writes:
>Sieling wrote:
><snip>
><snip>
>Anybody got suggestions for Kiev? I'm not sure how to deploy my core. I'm
>playing on easy level, so I expect a tank attack from Kiev. Is this a
>reasonable expectation? How do I counter it? Can the auxillaries hold out, or
>do I need some of my core to help them out?
>--
>Corsair
Place your core up north mostly and take out the northwest city and troops with
artillery and infantry. Advance north to first objective by river while also taking
southern city with some infantry, artillery and tanks (not near as much though).
Use the large northern group with bridging engineers to come down south to meet
southern group and some to go west to take northern cities. Down south use fighters
to dig out the artillery around Kiev and the Stukas to destroy his tanks, hit the T-34s
first as you can kill them in a couple of turns with stukas, retreat a bit with your
southernmost infantry by Kiev so as not to lose them.
Regards
Rolf
Marc Bjorg
74103,3...@compuserve.com wrote:
>In <323B43...@vnet.net>, Corsair <cor...@vnet.net> writes:
>>Sieling wrote:
>><snip>
>><snip>
>>Anybody got suggestions for Kiev? I'm not sure how to deploy my core. I'm
>>playing on easy level, so I expect a tank attack from Kiev. Is this a
>>reasonable expectation? How do I counter it? Can the auxillaries hold out, or
>>do I need some of my core to help them out?
Easy battle,
Don't deploy any units but your medium bombers and Stukas south of
Kiev. Play defensive in the South. Drive a wedge in the middle along
the road above Kiev using 2 tanks one 1 tank destroyer and 1 stuka
suported by 2 fighters ( BF109s). Support this group with 2 artillery
and 1 motorized infantry.
Drive your main attack all north until you are above the most northern
city above Kiev. Use a engineer platoon to croos the river south of
the first soviet guarisson. Use one medium bomber and the rest of your
aircraft to support your attack. Make sure that you have some
artillery and many tanks and infantry.
During the game make sure to bomb kiev into oblivion using medium
bombers and many attack aircraft. In the end the soviet forces will be
to weak to defend Kiev.
Make sure that you have some tank east of Kiev to prepare against a
soviet attack.
Go for it.
Marc Bjorg
Marc Bjorg
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.