Playing as the Southern Whites in the long campaign, would you recommend taking Tzaritsin? If so, why take Tzaritsin? If not, why not?
I see some big advantages to taking Tzaritsin and the whites should be able to take it but overall, I lean against taking Tzaritsin.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
The benefit to taking Tzaritsyn would be a united front between the Southern Whites and Siberian Whites. You would also have little stopping you from aiming an operational line up towards Moscow to the Northwest, or at least pull some of the defenses down from facing the Siberians, making their advance easier.
The drawbacks to attacking Tzaritsyn are getting tangled in a big fight that kills the cream of the Southern White army. Tzaritsyn can be heavily entrenched and fortified, and they don't have to worry about lack of supply. I have seen a Southern White player gamble everything on Tzaritsyn and then have their force caught there, being torn apart turn after turn, unable to escape. The Reds can rebuild an army. The Southern Whites do not have nearly the same luxury.
The drawbacks to attacking Tzaritsyn are getting tangled in a big fight that kills the cream of the Southern White army. Tzaritsyn can be heavily entrenched and fortified, and they don't have to worry about lack of supply. I have seen a Southern White player gamble everything on Tzaritsyn and then have their force caught there, being torn apart turn after turn, unable to escape. The Reds can rebuild an army. The Southern Whites do not have nearly the same luxury.
I'd say it depends on the overall direction of your general strategy as well as whether you plan for an offensive strategy or are more focused on a defensive strategy and consolidation. That being said, I think there is a case for threatening Tzaritsyn, but not actually taking it, unless opportune. A decently sized force in Surovikino will tie up forces in Tzaritsyn that can't be used elsewhere, and its location across the Don means that your troops would be in a good position against any smaller attempts to drive you away, especially if they are allowed to entrench themselves.
It depends. If Red focus on defending Tsaritsin there is NO Way Whites would be able to take it.
And normally in the early game Red concentrate forces in Tsaritsin.
But as the game progresses if Siberians crossed Volga and advance to Tambov, they would cut Tsaritsin from other forces. In the long run also food resources will be depleted in Tsaritsin so Reds will have to abandon the city and defend Tambov.
Strategically Southern whites have a direction to advance to Kharkov - Kursk ... Moscow. Tsaritsin is a secondary goal, that might be interesting only to encircle and destroy some Red forces.
And normally in the early game Red concentrate forces in Tsaritsin.
But as the game progresses if Siberians crossed Volga and advance to Tambov, they would cut Tsaritsin from other forces. In the long run also food resources will be depleted in Tsaritsin so Reds will have to abandon the city and defend Tambov.
Strategically Southern whites have a direction to advance to Kharkov - Kursk ... Moscow. Tsaritsin is a secondary goal, that might be interesting only to encircle and destroy some Red forces.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
Positives for taking Tzaritsyn:
1. remove threat to Don and Southern region. Major positive.
2. Access Seratov region for recruiting and resources. Good positive.
3. If you take Astrakhan, easier to hold if you have Tzaritsyn.
4. If Tzaritsyn weakly held, can win some nice early victories for NM and experience.
Negatives.
1. Taking Tzaritsyn usually requires major White forces in a secondary theater for a substantial timeframe when the decisive theater is in the North. Major negative.
2. Without Tzaritsyn bulge, Russians have a shorter front and can better concentrate their manpower in the main theater.
3. Taking Tzaritsyn means you can't use your region restricted troops of the Don and the South to tie down significant Russian manpower. They will have nothing to do except defend Tzaritsyn.
Multiple positive and negatives but I lean towards screening off Tzaritsyn rather than taking it against determined opposition.
1. remove threat to Don and Southern region. Major positive.
2. Access Seratov region for recruiting and resources. Good positive.
3. If you take Astrakhan, easier to hold if you have Tzaritsyn.
4. If Tzaritsyn weakly held, can win some nice early victories for NM and experience.
Negatives.
1. Taking Tzaritsyn usually requires major White forces in a secondary theater for a substantial timeframe when the decisive theater is in the North. Major negative.
2. Without Tzaritsyn bulge, Russians have a shorter front and can better concentrate their manpower in the main theater.
3. Taking Tzaritsyn means you can't use your region restricted troops of the Don and the South to tie down significant Russian manpower. They will have nothing to do except defend Tzaritsyn.
Multiple positive and negatives but I lean towards screening off Tzaritsyn rather than taking it against determined opposition.
-
Jagger2013
- General of the Army
- Posts: 641
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:14 am
And I guess the next question would be if Tzaritsyn is really important to hold for the Red Player?
Holding Tzaritsyn shouldn't tie down any White troops as the region restricted forces aren't going anywhere anyway-whether the Reds hold Tzaritsyn or not. Tzaritsyn is only important as a threat if the Reds actually make a determined effort to attack into the Don or the South and pull white troops from the North or actually take the Don or the South. Would require a major effort by the Reds.
Holding Tzartisyn also allows Russian access to recruiting and resources of the Seratov region while denying the same to the Whites- which is significant.
Also helps protect Astrakhan but Astrakhan should not fall as long as the Reds control the river. Depending on who controls the Volga, going after Astrakhan can be a real trap for the Southern White player-although the recruiting and resources of Astrakhan is very enticing.
Holding Tzaritsyn shouldn't tie down any White troops as the region restricted forces aren't going anywhere anyway-whether the Reds hold Tzaritsyn or not. Tzaritsyn is only important as a threat if the Reds actually make a determined effort to attack into the Don or the South and pull white troops from the North or actually take the Don or the South. Would require a major effort by the Reds.
Holding Tzartisyn also allows Russian access to recruiting and resources of the Seratov region while denying the same to the Whites- which is significant.
Also helps protect Astrakhan but Astrakhan should not fall as long as the Reds control the river. Depending on who controls the Volga, going after Astrakhan can be a real trap for the Southern White player-although the recruiting and resources of Astrakhan is very enticing.
Whatever side invest to hold it, taking Tsaritsyn before the end of the year 1918 will have geopolitical consequences for the Whites in the next upgrade : it could set Krasnov as leader in chief of the Western Whites, which would then set an immediate alliance with the Ukrainian Nationalists, and then the ability to move the French-Greek corps before it leave the Ukraine.
Besides this, if Denikin don't succeed to take Ekaterinodar, it would lead finally to the same consequences, but the North-Caucasus would then probably become a Red stronghold in the Whites' rears if not occupied soon.
It looks like it is a one or two months trip now, ...by foot.
Be patient... or be Beta tester
apy: 
.
Besides this, if Denikin don't succeed to take Ekaterinodar, it would lead finally to the same consequences, but the North-Caucasus would then probably become a Red stronghold in the Whites' rears if not occupied soon.
Searry wrote:Damn I wish this game had some more development put into it. Gold version please?
It looks like it is a one or two months trip now, ...by foot.
Be patient... or be Beta tester
apy: .REVOLUTION UNDER SIEGE GOLD
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests