Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild
Well your certainly entitled to your opinion. But making a move that was plausible in history given the will and adequate force to do so does not seem broken to me, any more then taking Lenningrad by reinforcing AGN is broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

This is kind of good idea but it wont stop German players making new type of totally optimized opening move for week 2 and forming new pockets from week 2 setup.

This optimized start up moves is bit of problem for every turn based game.

It's a question of leverage. Surprise turn effects can be leveraged in a way that ordinary turns cannot. You can optimize future turns, sure, but the pay off won't be anywhere near as big or have as huge strategic consequences.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that the Lvov opening is greatly accelerating the pace of operations in AGS, by a good month or so. It's having a non trivial impact on the game. SW front is just getting wrecked way too easily. Wonder why Soviets are running away so much? Well...because after turn 1 they haven't got a whole lot left to defend with. In real life 2 of the 3 front were demolished from the getgo. The Lvov gambit turns it into 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the Axis and inflict more casaulties on him that he can ill afford to lose. Without evidence that the Soviets need the help (and currently it is quite the opposite) or that it is categorically impossible with the use of additional AGC mobile units I would say let the Gambit stand, it may even be more difficult now for the Axis with the new air supply changes. The Lvov Gambit allows some response to the freedom of action the Soviets get that they did not have historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Exactly.

I wasn't really thinking of this as 'fix' by Trey - more as an alternative scenario with a different start point, exactly like the '42 or '43 start options.

For those who are saying 'I am tired of this issue' there are an equal number who are clearly not tired of it. Now, I have along history of complaining that the Soviets are way overpowered and the Axis need better chances to create pockets vs. human players, but the Lvov pocket and the early Romanian release should not be part of the solution, IMHO.

My ideas:

1. Improve the Soviet position in the south so that they at least have a chance to put up the tough historical defense they did, but also prevent them from vacating the field (AI player included). Remember, the critical operational choice that the Axis faced in late summer '41, to go for Moscow or create the Kiev pocket, was a result of the strength of Soviet resistance in the south. Without this resistance no iteration of the game will ever force the Axis player to make that choice, and that can't be right. See points 3 and 4 below for ideas about how to make the soviet player hold rather than flee.
2. Fix/freeze or constrain early Soviet movements in the center and north so that they absolutely do not have the run for the hills option there, but similarly reduce Axis armoured MP so that driving to Leningrad by Turn 6 (as I saw in one AAR) becomes logistically impossible. I hear the Axis screams already, but once expert players start doing significantly better than expert German generals did at the height of the blitzkrieg, something is wrong with the settings :)
3. Make the prolonged defense of cities and key regions more essential by altering the factory evacuation mechanism. For example, evacuations cannot commence (for 'political' reasons) until an Axis division is within N hexes of the city in question. So, if you want to evac your cities, you need to hold the enemy off for a certain number of turns - the more resources the city has the more focus you need to put on defending it. On the other hand, if you race a single Axis division on its own too close to a city, the evac will start. You need a proper plan for capturing or cutting off the city in question if you want to prevent that.
4. Remove the single unit ZOC rule for terminating factory evacs and base this on the relative ZOC strength, such that the Axis must have a higher ratio of CV points with ZOC in the city hex against the value of Soviet CV with ZOC into the city hex. So, if I decide to hold a city and it's adjacent hexes with a few weak brigades and you push an Axis Army Corps into one or more adjacent hexes, evacuations halt. A Pz Regt, however, may not achieve the same thing. This might take some of the silliness out of the game.
5. Enforce a rail line rule such that cutting the rail lines into a city (even with a weak unit) prevents evacuation - this will encourage more imaginative flanking and operations in depth rather than a headlong race to sit next to each city hex. (Is this rail rule already the case? I never found out as most of my stuff has generally been evacuated long before the rail is cut!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the Axis and inflict more casaulties on him that he can ill afford to lose. Without evidence that the Soviets need the help (and currently it is quite the opposite) or that it is categorically impossible with the use of additional AGC mobile units I would say let the Gambit stand, it may even be more difficult now for the Axis with the new air supply changes. The Lvov Gambit allows some response to the freedom of action the Soviets get that they did not have historically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have said it in the war room, I will say it here. The Lvov Pocket is not needed, and in fact can be millstone. A thrust that cuts the rail lines, but more importantly seriously weakens the center of the Soviet defenses (driving and ruining the stalin line), can have far more success in latter turns. Remember, turn 2 sees 5 more mobile divisions here, and another small corps from the 2nd Panzer Group is one likes (the south favors tanks).

Agains JAMIAM I did a modified pocket, with a single dash to the south (I am a sucker for the romanians), but knowing the pocket would break. More important to me was to get a forward defense by the Soviets established so I could surround and rout it in latter turns. Successful? I don't think so, JAM has weather magic, and he actually defends, but I did some damage.

The biggest problem with the Lvov Pocket now is that its ubiquity means other strategies are not tried. To my mind it can be more devastating to the Soviet player to see a large pocket later one than opening the first turn and seeing it, knowing what they will face - the "how can I save these guys that weren't cut off" can become "oh crap, I lost even more" even if that isn't entirely the case. The German doesn't win on the first turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

A couple of explanations - if the rail is cut south of Tarnopol the Soviet player can't evacuate the Lvov region except on foot. Beyond this, the norm is to head 2-3 tank units south to near the border. Instead, either leaving the pocket open or closing it with one tank unit knowing it will be reopened leaves far more chance for later turn disruption.

Proskurov can be taken, and beyond (another panzer corps is sent south determines the "beyond"). This can tear up the middle portion of the Stalin Line and make it possible to have 3-4 armor, 2-3 motorized in the region between Vinnitsa and Zhitomir at the end of turn two (the infantry will be lagging, but the turn 1 Proskurov move by the tanks means they get most of their move in the clear).

In this scenario, a turn 2/3 Lvov pocket will perhaps net more, or at least catch the Soviets pulling back so there is less formal defenses. Beyond this, the rail is closer in the center of the Ukraine, and the German will still have fair movement on turn 3 for more movement. The now mobilized Slovaks, Hungarians, AGS infantry, and Romanians can help clear up stuff.

Too many whine about the Soviet running away, but if you can get them running, all the while encircling, you can create movement and opportunites that may well far outstrip the Lvov opening. The unexpected is far harder to counter anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

The problem, surely, is that Axis players are able to achieve historical (or better than historical) results in the north and center while ALSO getting a vastly better result in the south by shifting forces there. There seems to be no trade-off and that is what suggests an imbalance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

The problem, surely, is that Axis players are able to achieve historical (or better than historical) results in the north and center while ALSO getting a vastly better result in the south by shifting forces there. There seems to be no trade-off and that is what suggests an imbalance.

Read Q-Ball vs. Bletchly Geek AAR. Theses are two very good players and the results are exactly opposite to your assertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Um. That Q-ball game is just another game where AGS is moving along at a very rapid rate, far more so than historical. About what you would expect.

Nobody is getting much out of SW front nowadays.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Um. That Q-ball game is just another game where AGS is moving along at a very rapid rate, far more so than historical. About what you would expect.

Nobody is getting much out of SW front nowadays.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

A couple of explanations - if the rail is cut south of Tarnopol the Soviet player can't evacuate the Lvov region except on foot. Beyond this, the norm is to head 2-3 tank units south to near the border. Instead, either leaving the pocket open or closing it with one tank unit knowing it will be reopened leaves far more chance for later turn disruption.

Proskurov can be taken, and beyond (another panzer corps is sent south determines the "beyond"). This can tear up the middle portion of the Stalin Line and make it possible to have 3-4 armor, 2-3 motorized in the region between Vinnitsa and Zhitomir at the end of turn two (the infantry will be lagging, but the turn 1 Proskurov move by the tanks means they get most of their move in the clear).

In this scenario, a turn 2/3 Lvov pocket will perhaps net more, or at least catch the Soviets pulling back so there is less formal defenses. Beyond this, the rail is closer in the center of the Ukraine, and the German will still have fair movement on turn 3 for more movement. The now mobilized Slovaks, Hungarians, AGS infantry, and Romanians can help clear up stuff.

Too many whine about the Soviet running away, but if you can get them running, all the while encircling, you can create movement and opportunites that may well far outstrip the Lvov opening. The unexpected is far harder to counter anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Are these the vital rail lines in your post?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Are these the vital rail lines in your post?

You cut that rail line two south of Tarnopol (by moving one hex south of the city), and the Soviets can't rail out of the Lvov Region (the rail line in the south is adjacent to the Romanians and so not functional.

This allows the mass of AGS to take a right turn at Albuquerque and cut the Stalin line to the east of Proskurov. Instead of wasting that AGC panzer corps making the pocket - use them to slice up the forts. If you are sad that AGC loses a corps, send the XIV there on turn 2...