RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 9:42:08 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

Apollo. Isolated units only seem to surrender if they are broken or a very long way from the front. I tend to just keep going forward once a pocket is secure. Eliminating the pocket with infantry coming up from the rear. Generally with hasties. Mostly the Sov's surrender with the first shot if you apply enough force. But the odd unit sometimes gives you a merry old chase. The main rule of the thumb is economy of force. Once a pocket is secure the primary goal is to secure the next one rather than the elimination of any isolated units. Mech are very rarely used for pocket elimination.

OK - thanks for info!

BTW, how were your losses in those battles? Light?

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 271

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 10:59:48 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

@TD, I think Fredrik took the fighting forward defence to the extreme, with a very aggressive attitude. I think fighting forward is possible with a less aggressive stance and not sacrificing so many units with the tar baby approach. I am not saying he should not push some units forward or not make any attacks. Just less so. This is why I wanted the return game, to try a forward defence when forced to do so but with my slant on it.

The forward defence requires much more skill to pull off than any other type. But it makes for a much better game and it should be encouraged by some mechanic in the game. But it is not. Bottom line, the forward defence should be encouraged and the run for the hills approach discouraged. I think the best way to do this would be with some more sophisticated VC, including sudden death for running too far too soon. Equally I advocate for rules or VC that discourage the Axis running as well.

So to answer your question I think the result in our game is normal and expected, considering the extreme strategy employed by Fredrik, and assuming a certain level of player skill on the part of the German. But a German player less skilled or more prone to mistakes would struggle against Fredrik�s strategy.

In my game against glvaca I will be totally free to use whatever defensive strategy I deem necessary. I truly believe with this freedom the game is *unlosable* for Russia, assuming a certain level of competence by the Soviet player. No matter how good the German player is. And to follow on, the top tier of Russian players will always *win* the game if allowed total freedom of action, no matter the German skill level. Note the difference between not losing and winning.

FWIW I think isolated units do die too easily. However I think more should just outright surrender, but the troops who don�t chuck it in should be tougher to eliminate.

@Marquo, I have only played AGC once, so I am no expert in that one. I have played many games of AGN and AGS though. I look forward to the new and hopefully combined AGC/Typhoon game as I think AGC on its own is not that inspiring for the Russian player.

@Apollo. Yes very light if the unit surrenders.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 272

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 1:35:17 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

quote:

I saw this one a mile away. Everyone has been bitching about mules, and in the hands of TWO players on this site, mules were overwhelming. But has there been anything done about Soviet run away with picket strategy? Not much, other that German players pointing out it becomes a clickfest in 42 and 43. This game is making a point. It's not to side favor for Michael. The personal attacks are worthless. It's to show what happens if the Soviets are forced to fight historically. Because if they are allowed to run away and put silly pickets up everywhere with no consequences, the game becomes a silly clickfest for the Germans later. Michael may have shown that a historical Soviet game is weighted towards the Germans. OK. Now we have something to work with. Balance the game in 41 from this perspective. Run away should hurt the Soviets. Don't run away, and German panzers may be overweighted. Balance somewhere in middle. But don't sit here an try to tell me that the game is fine as is. It isn't. It needs to be better balanced.

The problem with the game and always has been there is 0% reason for the russian to fight.

After playing the computer and reading the rules closely the first week after game went gold I realized that muling was the only possible way to win, because the russian player could simply be a redneck an use the run for the hills hill billy tactic of running for the hills.

Until there is a reason to fight the game will be a joke as far as history goes and not really playable for both sides.

I am not going to waste 100's of hrs playing when the outcome is a given all things being equal.

If their was a reason for the russian to fight forward it would be very simple to balance the game.

The game is played on a knifes edge for the German, but as long as you stay on the edge its an easy win.

The only games I lost I did not mule, vs good players.

The only fix as it has always been is city's must be worth something, this will make the game 100% more interesting and flexable for both sides.

As it is now the game is boring and a waste of gaming time.

Pelton

< Message edited by Pelton -- 6/11/2012 1:44:27 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to vicberg)

Post #: 273

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 1:47:14 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

The problem with the game and always has been there is 0% reason for the russian to fight.

After playing the computer and reading the rules closely the first week after game went gold I realized that muling was the only possible way to win, because the russian player could simply be a redneck an use the run for the hills hill billy tactic of running for the hills.

Until there is a reason to fight the game will be a joke as far as history goes and not really playable for both sides.

I am not going to waste 100's of hrs playing when the outcome is a given all things being equal.

If their was a reason for the russian to fight forward it would be very simple to balance the game.

The game is played on a knifes edge for the German, but as long as you stay on the edge its an easy win.

The only games I lost I did not mule, vs good players.

The only fix as it has always been is city's must be worth something, this will make the game 100% more interesting and flexable for both sides.

As it is now the game is boring and a waste of gaming time.

Pelton

Agree wholeheartedly.

Now all that's left to wonder are what glaring a-historical anecdotes will govern strategy for the Allies in War in the West.

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 274

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 1:55:45 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

It is a round robin argument: the overwhelmingly distorted logistical capabilities of the Axis make any forward defense a very dangerous proposition. Why fight forward and not run, given the overly exaggerated supply capability?

Why fight forward when surrounded units offer almost no resistance and simply evaporate, even in the later stages of the game? What possible justification is there to allow a a stack of 3 corps of guards units with a CV of 30 fall to a CV of 1 after being surrounded for one turn? Most games half a defense or give a CRT modifier, but dropping a CV this much seems quite odd.

If the Soviets had a real fighting chance, the a fight forward would be worth the time bought.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 275

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 2:02:36 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

It is a round robin argument: the overwhelmingly distorted logistical capabilities of the Axis make any forward defense a very dangerous proposition. Why fight forward and not run, given the overly exaggerated supply capability?

Why fight forward when surrounded units offer almost no resistance and simply evaporate, even in the later stages of the game? What possible justification is there to allow a a stack of 3 corps of guards units with a CV of 30 fall to a CV of 1 after being surrounded for one turn? Most games half a defense or give a CRT modifier, but dropping a CV this much seems quite odd.

If the Soviets had a real fighting chance, the a fight forward would be worth the time bought.

It's not "Axis logistics" please.
It's War in the East Logistics en toto.

I don't have a problem with your conclusion, mind you - but this idea that it's a problem unique to Germany belies some of what I assert is bias by the people who mostly enjoy playing the Soviet.

The Soviet counter to the problems brought about by logistics in 1941 is to run away.

The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is...
non existent.

Therefore, if it's pointless to stand and fight as the Soviet in 1941 (which it is)
it becomes pointless to play the game as Germany at all, because the only viable 1941 strategy (full speed ahead in every possible way) forces the German player into a pointless exercise in testing the elasticity of a rubber band.

_____________________________

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 276

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/11/2012 2:47:35 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

@TD, I think Fredrik took the fighting forward defence to the extreme, with a very aggressive attitude. I think fighting forward is possible with a less aggressive stance and not sacrificing so many units with the tar baby approach. I am not saying he should not push some units forward or not make any attacks. Just less so. This is why I wanted the return game, to try a forward defence when forced to do so but with my slant on it.

The forward defence requires much more skill to pull off than any other type. But it makes for a much better game and it should be encouraged by some mechanic in the game. But it is not. Bottom line, the forward defence should be encouraged and the run for the hills approach discouraged. I think the best way to do this would be with some more sophisticated VC, including sudden death for running too far too soon. Equally I advocate for rules or VC that discourage the Axis running as well.

So to answer your question I think the result in our game is normal and expected, considering the extreme strategy employed by Fredrik, and assuming a certain level of player skill on the part if the German. But a German player less skilled or more prone to mistakes would struggle against Fredrik�s strategy.

Thanks for the answer

On my other game (vs 2ndACR) I had done exactly this: mob the panzers with overwhelming hordes. To great effect I would say. But then Sabre21 had enigmatically said successive lines were the way to go. And this is the strategy I followed during 1941 on my current game (vs Marquo). It basically worked. I always had -at any given time- minimum 3 lines in the center (Moscow he he he). In fact that's what the Soviets did (and needless to say the various lines were encircled and destroyed the same -let's never forget that). You bring your units forward and basically fight and stay.

I am not sure this would have made a difference though (against you that is).

And still, as I have said some comments ago (see above), it is a fact that the Soviet player does not have all the men and counters that were available in the real thing. And this means the players are necessarily on the razor's edge. We could see this in almost every Tarhunnas's screenshot: his mob around your panzers... and nothing left behind. This is living from hand to mouth.

What I don't understand is why they castrated the Soviet OOB & manpower during 1941

Said this, as I said two or three times, I agree with you. Soviets should be fighting (and therefore take historical losses) like their historical counterparts... but... fix the logistics, gimme the historical Soviet OOB... Without this I don't think it's fair.

EDIT: on the screenshot you can see the 20th Army positioned on the third line. On turn 27 this army became the 1st Guards Army, which obviously means I was not avoiding the fight. I fought.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 6/11/2012 2:57:24 PM >

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 277

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/12/2012 1:07:02 AM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

"The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is....non existent."

Not entirely; muling and magic airbases were discovered and developed by creative players trying to counter the run away.

Marquo

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 278

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/12/2012 3:24:23 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"The German counter to the problems brought by the Soviet run away is....non existent."

Not entirely; muling and magic airbases were discovered and developed by creative players trying to counter the run away.

Marquo

So let me get this right; I'm being criticized for not having broken the system egregiously enough to counter the Soviet egregious breaking of the Zone of Control system?

Mon Dieu!

_____________________________

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 279

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/12/2012 3:36:22 AM

M60A3TTS

Posts: 4014
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: offline

The Axis player can do the same ZOC thing with regiments. Not to say either side is right in doing so.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 280

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/12/2012 11:38:07 PM

mmarquo

Posts: 1376
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline

Helio -

I am not criticizing you or any other player who has resorted to desperate measures to counter the run away; the perenial problem with just about every east front game is the Soviet run away.

Marquo

(in reply to M60A3TTS)

Post #: 281

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/13/2012 12:38:36 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

Runawyas are such a big deal... AAR after AAR shows the fall of Berlin every time.

Couldn't keep a straight face as I typed that.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to mmarquo)

Post #: 282

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/13/2012 2:08:02 AM

wadortch

Posts: 259
Joined: 3/19/2011
From: Darrington, WA, USA
Status: offline

How many AAR's have shown this result?

_____________________________

Walt

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 283

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/13/2012 2:27:37 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

Aurelian I intend to play Soviet only now for a while (baring some game changing patch that dissuades the runaway) just to prove this point. That Soviet play that allows running when ever needed will mean a win for Russia or at the very least a draw. Do you care to try and prove me wrong by playing me?

Also you must surely realize that the vast majority of games will end well before Berlin falls or the 260/290 point mark is reached. To use that as an argument is irrelevant. The only stat that matters is who won the game when the Soviets had total freedom of action. And you need to discount games where the Axis used muling. I would bet most of these games, a Soviet runaway with no muling ended in a Soviet victory.

And what is running away? Well for me it's leaving a light screen and having a MLR several hexes or more back, that keeps rolling back as soon as it is threatened, remaining just out of reach the enemy. Only stopping once a impenetrable carpet is laid or the mud finally hits. As Marquo said, it�s the perennial problem of most EF games. A few have solved the problem and they are the best EF games around. The problem is mostly solved thru strict sudden death VP conditions or crippling the Soviet war economy if they loose too many cities too soon.

For example the old AH title Russian Front used sudden death VC for both sides that ensured both sides fought for every city. And GMT's Barbarossa series uses a sophisticated VP schedule that awards or punishes players for capturing objectives early to late respectively.

IMO WITE could be improved immensely by removing HQBU totally and using sudden death VC that forced a Soviet forward defence. Followed by sudden death VC that forced the Germans to defend stoutly in the blizzard. In my game with Tarhunnas it was the timely use of 3 HQBU in one turn that allowed me to break the Russians back. Without HQ BU I would have had to call a halt in the Centre and South until supplies could be brought back up. This breathing space would have allowed a respite for Russia and allowed them to reform their defences.

_____________________________

(in reply to wadortch)

Post #: 284

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/13/2012 3:24:07 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

Sort of interesting that I just got done reading a book in which a fair amount of time was devoted to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Seems Stalin had real concerns about losing control over the rest of the country and there was wide spread panic mid October in Moscow when almost nothing stood between the Germans and Moscow. Unfortunately for the Germans, the mud just killed them and gave the Russians time to get more forces in place and the panic was reduced down when it was clear the Germans were stuck. Apparently negotiated settlements were something that may have been possible into 1943.

At some point there has to be an overall national will/moral for Russia based on time and amount of territory in German hands. (As time goes along, the territory requirements would go up). It could be semi-random, but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Dead horse I know, but oh well.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 285

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/13/2012 3:31:24 AM

Michael T

Posts: 4443
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline

quote:

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

This is why sudden death VC are needed in conjunction with removal of HQBU. So if you run too far too soon you lose.

_____________________________

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 286

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 5:07:02 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
...but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Frankly I don't believe that Stalin would have caved or negotiated a settlement. Not because he was a great leader, but because he was almost as nuts as Hitler. Also, as I've pointed out in another thread, there reasons why the Sovs might have feigned interest in such negotiations that have nothing to do with actually signing a settlement (trying to ensure that the Germans don't increase mobilization levels, try to squeeze more lend-lease, etc.).

Moreover, given German goals, it seems obvious that what Stalin was supposedly offering would not be sufficient.

Finally, I've read quite a bit on this topic and haven't seen this info so it would be good to know to which book you are referring.

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 287

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 6:19:10 AM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

For Stalin to cave in or sign a settlement would very likely have resulted in his overthrow and execution.

And where are all these AARs that show the fall of Berlin? I'm not the first to bring this up.

_____________________________

If the Earth was flat, cats would of knocked everything off of it long ago.

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 288

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 12:17:35 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

This is probably the simplest, most easily implementable fix to the issues dogging the game. I do think most Soviet players want to fight from the getgo...its just that right now its suicide.

(in reply to Michael T)

Post #: 289

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 12:38:57 PM

janh

Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

I think there already is a huge punishment for the Soviet players in PBEM for extensive withdrawals strategies, aka real run-aways: As the other said, it means the loss of the chance to reach Berlin in time.

Yet still most players forgo this chance to win the game as a Soviet in return to avoid being annihilated outright in the first autumn. That way, at least the game will last a while and both sides get to enjoy the fun of the offensive period of the conflict.

It still is not a question that a Soviet player with the intention to win, and to do so as fast as he can, would want to fight forward. But this fight out to be possible even against an excellent Axis player, and it should be possible to repeat the defeats at Moscow and Leningrad occasionally. As it stands, it looks like suicide to fight forward.

How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 290

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 2:02:37 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

If you mean it, I mean, really, no one step back, we might have another ahistorical result: the Soviets would be destroying units (as TDV did, er, using game mechanics). And the truth is the Soviets only managed to completely destroy German units in Stalingrad... And real first blizzard was harsh and the truppen were ordered to stay... but NO German units were destroyed (as far as I can tell).

If the Germans can retreat *one or two* hexes then we have to consider the main difference between the German and Soviet players... The former has got counters with astronomical MPs (and high morale): the knife in the butter. The latter don't have these mega high MPs AND high morale counters.

Ergo, for the Germans it's enough to retreat one or two hexes (they are trashed, ok, but relatively safe)... On the other hand the Soviet hordes can be put to the sword even when they think they are safe (5-10 hexes away from enemy hordes).

Most [Soviet] players would not consider these "one or two hexes" a run away methinks. I don't.

In other words, the Germans can safely stay (with some withdrawals here and there). The Soviets play with fire though IF they don't run away...

Therefore [and sort of quoting Orwell] some no-one-step-back are more equal than others...

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to janh)

Post #: 291

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 2:48:10 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

Just in case I was not clear:

withdrawal = retreat one, two, three (?) hexes
runaway = the bulk of your forces are not near the enemy, you leave the field, only skirmirshers are left behind

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 292

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/16/2012 10:55:09 PM

Farfarer61

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

I have no problem whatsoever if a Sov player moves east as fast as possible in 1941 or any year. I want the Red Army to flee.

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 293

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 1:36:10 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

Sort of interesting that I just got done reading a book in which a fair amount of time was devoted to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Seems Stalin had real concerns about losing control over the rest of the country and there was wide spread panic mid October in Moscow when almost nothing stood between the Germans and Moscow. Unfortunately for the Germans, the mud just killed them and gave the Russians time to get more forces in place and the panic was reduced down when it was clear the Germans were stuck. Apparently negotiated settlements were something that may have been possible into 1943.

At some point there has to be an overall national will/moral for Russia based on time and amount of territory in German hands. (As time goes along, the territory requirements would go up). It could be semi-random, but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Dead horse I know, but oh well.

Stalin tried 2 times to start negotiated peace talks with Germans through 3rd parties, but Hitler would have nothing to do with it. After all the German victories before Dec 1941, Stalin asking for peace talks could only be seen as weakeness and that victory was near.

This is why instead of digging in during October as Hilter wanted to do he sided with his generals and went for the Moscow.

Reading books based more on info gotten after the wall came down you get a much better picture of how low morale was in Moscow in late 1941.

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 294

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 1:39:15 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh
How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

If you mean it, I mean, really, no one step back, we might have another ahistorical result: the Soviets would be destroying units (as TDV did, er, using game mechanics). And the truth is the Soviets only managed to completely destroy German units in Stalingrad... And real first blizzard was harsh and the truppen were ordered to stay... but NO German units were destroyed (as far as I can tell).

If the Germans can retreat *one or two* hexes then we have to consider the main difference between the German and Soviet players... The former has got counters with astronomical MPs (and high morale): the knife in the butter. The latter don't have these mega high MPs AND high morale counters.

Ergo, for the Germans it's enough to retreat one or two hexes (they are trashed, ok, but relatively safe)... On the other hand the Soviet hordes can be put to the sword even when they think they are safe (5-10 hexes away from enemy hordes).

Most [Soviet] players would not consider these "one or two hexes" a run away methinks. I don't.

In other words, the Germans can safely stay (with some withdrawals here and there). The Soviets play with fire though IF they don't run away...

Therefore [and sort of quoting Orwell] some no-one-step-back are more equal than others...

The 41/42 Blizzard in wite has zero to do with history, the Germans had issues only in front of Moscow. German loses currently are totally over blown during 41/42.

If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Logistics for both sides is broken 100%. Most SHC have no idea how easy it is for them to exploit the current system. "Cav"

< Message edited by Pelton -- 6/20/2012 1:44:29 PM >

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)

Post #: 295

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 2:52:20 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 296

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 5:56:20 PM

TulliusDetritus

Posts: 5521
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone�
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

Actually he makes a valid point

I mentioned what TDV did. Pelton himself was the victim, on the receiving end

I had even used some pics to show how that massacre was done (skillfully using game mechanics that is). Pelton said the picture was about right. I will try to dig and find it.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 297

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 6:35:35 PM

Peltonx

Posts: 7250
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

Its cool.

TDV 20 built a blizzard army and pocketed a huge amount of units. This BS has been chatted about in several other threads. It is covered in a AAR and is not BS.

Its not easy to do, but more then worth the risk.

No need to start your standed strawmen arguements.

The info is posted get your facts right before starting your standard personal attacks

_____________________________

Beta Tester WitW & WitE

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 298

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 7:11:44 PM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The info is posted get your facts right before starting your standard personal attacks

Too bad you're back to your old habits of exaggeration and hyperbole. I'm not the one making strawman arguments; the fact that one person did it to you once in an AAR (which I read) hardly means that a Sov player should be able to pocket 30-50 units while the German is moving backwards as fast as possible.

(in reply to Peltonx)

Post #: 299

RE: The Great Patriotic AAR II - 6/20/2012 7:37:17 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Tullius, I have yet any see any real explanation about this this game Pelton talks about and regard it as an urban legend.

I truly wish he had bothered documenting it in a detailed AAR. But right now I can't take it very seriously. The precise circumstances involved remain a complete mystery. It has never happened in any other game. Handwaving and anecdote and theorycrafting aren't a substitute for a solid AAR. We have no screenshots, no contemporaneous evidence at all. The entire blizzard offensive in the AAR mentioned was skipped and then we get "oops, game over, Reds killed lotsa divisons!" I need a little more than that. The whole thing is fishy as hell.

I keep waiting for somebody else to duplicate this mythological Soviet blizzard destroying 30+ divisions and showing exactly how this happens but thus far, this is a one off.

Pelton's comments about "building" the right Red Army themselves show that he doesn't really know what happened. A Soviet player doesn't "build" anything at this stage of the game; he manages what he's received. The real building occurs later on.

That being said, I did see one other game where the Germans got more or less annihilated during the blizzard. It was a game where Michael T was playing the Soviets, oddly enough. The Germans had a pretty good summer and then tried to stand their ground during the winter. (And without Bob's linebacker tricks.) The results of this were fairly predictable; the Svoiet created gaps in the line and raced through them and put ZOC locks everywhere. This amazingly stubborn forward defense by the Axis just doesn't work.

However I have no idea what happened in Pelton's game, and I doubt very much he stood his ground, he is a runner during the winter.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 6/20/2012 7:54:40 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 300