Offense vs. Defense

In any game that employs combat resolution for "battles" and battle odds, one can make an interesting observation of the balance between offense and defense. At what "odds" are losses on offense and defense likely to be equal? Presumably, at higher odds the attacker will lose less than the defender, while at lower odds the attacker's losses are higher. (This assumption is not necessarily true, since larger numbers of attackers could simply present more targets without proportionate benefit.) This correlation of loss and attack odds' ratio holds for Stalingrad Pocket, but at a much lower ratio than for most games. (For example, in the ancient Avalon Hill universal CRT, the balance point for larger defender losses is between two to one and three to one.) In Stalingrad Pocket, at a 1:2 ratio, attacker losses are 1.37 steps per defender step lost-, at 1: 1, they are .78 steps. Thus, in Stalingrad Pocket the attacker loses less than the defender, on the average, with attack ratios averaging as low as I to 1.5. This suggests that attack is generally 1 1/2 times more effective than defense.

Offensive player initiative further weakens defense. The offensive player can bring to bear most or all of his forces on selected defenders. Because zones of control do not affect combat except by restricting retreats, other defenders contribute nothing to the odds unless directly included in the attack. Mobile forces (armor and cavalry) may attack as many as three times per turn under favorable circumstances. They may make overruns during each movement phase (if not initially in a ZOC) and during the normal combat phase. This gives the offense an additional advantage.

If the defender cannot retreat due to enemy zones of control, the ratio for parity drops to 1:2 (where the attacker loses .97 steps per defender step). Since Zones of control are "soft" and units advancing after combat may ignore them, many (or perhaps most) attacks will fall under this condition.

In the overall play of the game, this low ratio for loss parity means that attacking is a more effective employment of forces. The situation is akin to two proverbial scorpions in a bottle: offensive weapons are so deadly that the landing of an effective offensive blow is all important. Tactically, one would like to be present in a battle as the attacker or not at all. The overall scenario puts the Soviet player in the role of the attacker. The German player must either avoid the Soviets, denying the opportunity to be attacked, or attack in some sector in sufficiently overwhelming numbers as to minimize the impact of the Soviet attacks. The third option is to hide in or behind terrain that mitigates the offensive advantage, such as behind rivers or in cities.

Armor vs. Infantry

Infantry units typically have a defense value that is about double their attack value. Since they may attack only once per turn, among such units defensive and offensive potential is roughly balanced. For armor, attack values are typically larger than defense values. Such units have more attack potential than defense potential, and attacking is more potent than defense. Therefore, such units are too valuable to expose to attacks by the enemy if another option is available. If one must defend, it makes sense to do so with infantry, or in combined infantry and armor stacks. One could value armor as about three or more times as valuable as infantry per step: greater attack value, plus up to two extra attacks per turn. Thus if infantry can attack armor at odds of 1:4, with the I to 2.36 or 1.89 (surrounded) the expected loss ratio indicated that such an attack is worth making. Of course, better odds are even more favorable. In the reverse situation, armor attacking infantry needs a very high ratio to make the attack worthwhile. Anything less than 4 to 1 gives a loss ratio of less than 1 to 3, which may not be worthwhile against most infantry. (On the other hand, Soviet infantry units, especially Guards, lose much combat power per step, making them more worthwhile to attack.) At 9 to 1, attacker losses are so much less than defender losses that armor attacking infantry makes sense, unless it is a very valuable armor unit or very worthless infantry. Mixing infantry with armor allows the attacker to take the losses in infantry, an option unavailable in overruns or (often) on defense.

Implications of force limits

If the forces of one side or the other are of a limited number of steps, this significantly affects the attacker to defender loss ratio. A single step infantry unit has a 1/6 chance of costing an attacker a unit even at the worst (9 to 1) odds. If the defender is a 0- 1-5 with no attack value anyway, this is not a bad deal if the losses are armor. Defending against overruns from a typical 12-point stack, two 0- 1 -5 (or a fullstrength 1-2-5) stack will raise the cost for the attacker to.34 steps per defender step. However, during regular combat (with infantry absorbing the losses) and 9 to 1 odds, the attacker loses less than I step per 10 for the defender. Thus, use single step stacks against overwhelming mixed infantry and armor. Use multiple unit stacks when the attacker does not have the overwhelming superiority for 9-1 attacks or when the threat is dominantly infantry.

If a defending force in a hex has two steps or less, any combat result that causes a retreat will kill at least two steps. Larger stacks of defenders are at significantly greater risk due to surrounding zones of control. The additional risk is greatest for a large stack at higher odds. However, it is the large stack that is less likely to face the high odds. A six level (maximum) stack consisting of 1-2-5's yields only a 2 to 1 against a 12 point overrun attack. This costs the attacker .56 losses per defender step or .40 if surrounded. If the 1-2-5's are in a stack of four steps, attacker's losses at 3 to 1 are .49 or.33 losses per defender step. This is less expensive to the attacker but would be more advantageous if having more such stacks prevents a surrounded situation. Still, it appears that having the large stacks is preferable, especially for the Romanians early in the game. At this point, the chances are that they will be surrounded anyway. Also, the Soviet armored forces are numerous and in sufficiently good condition to make overruns a big hazard.

It is generally best not to stack a Soviet infantry unit with one step remaining. Because, if the German armor is attacking, the odds will be unlikely to exceed 6 to 1. This gives the infantry unit a .44 chance to cause the attacker a loss. If it is a 1-3-5, such an attack is even less attractive to the Germans. Such depleted units make a good escort (at a hex distant) for army headquarters. A two step defender, typically a 4 or 5 in defense, might yield a 3 to I attack, which has a comparable .46 attacker losses per defender. The single step defenders have the advantage of covering more hexes, without much difference in loss rates.

Some Conclusions

1. The Romanian defenders should start out in big 3 unit stacks to minimize overrun impact. Such stacks on roads could delay Soviet HQ advancement a turn or two. Any 1- 1 -5 (flipped 2-2-5) units might as well attack on the first turn, preferably alone against mobile units. The 1-2-5 units are a tougher call. Take any possible attacks on armor. Attacks made on turn I will not be in a supplied status, but even a 1 to 4 is worthwhile. This is especially true if no retreat is available. The 0- 1 -5 units should be left in singles. Each has a 1 in 6 chance of taking a more valuable attacker with it, and stacking would just reduce attacker casualties. Such units interfere more with movement and threaten to cause supply problems when they are spread out.

2. Armor should spend its time attacking in sectors offering a favorable force ratio in which armored stacks can overrun, attack and overrun again. For the Soviets, the Romanians provide the obvious fodder for such tactics. For the Germans, the initially un supplied 24th and 66th armies are vulnerable to such an attack, with the 14th corps and additional mobile units from elsewhere (e.g. 29th Mtrd) providing the punch. The Germans need to maintain a strong armor reserve, and it might as well be beating up on the 24th Army while it waits for an opportune moment to attack in the South. Leaving units idle when they could be attacking is a waste of combat power, given the overwhelming way the game favors the attack.

3. The 51st Corps in Stalingrad should not be left idle. In the first turn or two, it will very likely be able to attack the 66th Army and the northern flank of the 64th without leaving the restriction area. If you assume this corps will be lost anyway, then it might as wen take some Soviets with it, and the earlier the better. The Germans cannot abandon Stalingrad and win, but if there looks like a good prospect of maintaining communications with the city, elements of the 51st Corps will do well to exit the restriction zone to attack if the Soviets are hanging back out of range to keep them idle.

4. Since the victory conditions put such an emphasis on German losses, the Soviets need to attack at every opportunity, even if odds are not particularly good. Single step armored units are worth expending in single attacks against German armor, especially if the latter can be surrounded, at low odds. The Germans will likely run out of armor first.

5. The Soviets have a bit of a dilemma on what to do with the 24th and 66th Armies on the first turn. They can attack (though un supplied) and do as much damage as possible before they die, or hang back and try to survive until the supplies come. In general, the German loss based victory conditions seem to suggest attacking. Also, if there are no Soviet units adjacent to the mobile formations of the 14th Corps, those units will get to overrun, making defense harder, Losing the "C" entry hexes will certainly make life more difficult for the Soviets later in the game, but the two closest to Stalingrad are probably going to be lost anyway if the German preemptively attacks the 24th and 66th Armies.

6. It seems very difficult for the German player to hold losses to the 90 to 110 unit levels if the Soviet player attacks aggressively. On the other hand, it is well within the realm of possibility for the Germans to keep a line of communications to Stalingrad at the expense of losing too many units.