Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pskov defense and runner strategy

 
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 >> Pskov defense and runner strategy Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 6:29:00 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Before starting this, I would like to say that I'm merely expressing my opinion to initiate conversation, and this is in no way definitive because even though I have a good undertanding of the game and it's dynamics, I know there are many with far more experience with it than I do, who might have quite different views about this.

I have been part of another discussion on this forum about the short Axis supply leash that might be too short, an idea on which I don't agree, I think I have made this pretty clear.

But it has nevertheless initiated a reflexion about one of the basic idea (don't want to say problem) that was exposed in that thread to begin with: that the Soviets 'runners' using the Pskov defense strategy has become such a powerful thing, if not a 'must' for the Soviet.

IMO, that is in big part a by-product of the fact that of the 3 initial real-life Barbarossa objective, only taking Leningrad has some obvious big advantage over the 2 others for the Axis in the game, because it frees the Finns from the no-finn-until-Leningrad-is-taken-line, which is added to the fact that the Leningrad salient is eliminated and so the front line is significantly shortened for the Axis when the blizzard comes.

Taking Moscow or Ukraine up to Rostov are of course worthy objectives, but they don't bring any special advantage for an Axis player, other than taking a lot of manpower centers and industry, but which could also be said of Leningrad, and is never so much of a problem for a skilled Soviet 'Runner' anyway as his OB will be quite strong anyway.

And ignoring a Pskov defense strategy is really not a good idea for an Axis player, as it fast becomes really hard to break.

Bottom line, IMO the conclusion of this is that it seems to me that as an Axis player, you HAVE to go all out for Leningrad early, and because of that defending it at all costs for a Soviet has very obvious advantages and benefits. Which means a lot of games might end up having a similar flow.

Added to that, historical facts indicate of course that a 'runner' strategy would never have been possible at the political level even though we know because of the De Tolly/Kutusov experience of 1812 that it would have been a very worthy and possible strategy on military grounds.

So my question is: should there be some added consequence to a Soviet player that gives ground too fast and looses Moscow or Donbass too fast and/or without fighting for them? I mean, apart from being shot by NKVD agents of course? I don't know, something that might have been possible in real life, a national morale drop or something of the kind? Removal of 'faulty' leaders or downgrade of ratings? Other ideas that would make sense in the context? Could this even be implemented in the game?

Also, is it something that bothers you either as Axis or Soviet players, if of course you think it is an issue to begin with?

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
Post #: 1
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 7:23:40 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
I personally prioritize Leningrad in the GC because of the reasons that you mentioned. It is the one vital target that the Germans need to get in 1941. To do so, it is important to give AGN whatever it needs for its push north.

I faced a strong Soviet defense of Pskov in my AAR and decided to dedicate 4 Panzer Corps (4th Pz Group and 2 Panzer Corps from AGC) to breaking it. The result of this surprise was a massive pocket that paved the way to the Luga. The fight for Leningrad was still very bitter and the city only fell on turn 17. Utilizing the 2 Panzer Corps from AGC meant that the advance in the Center stalled but I was willing to take that trade off. I did fail to take Moscow (due to other reasons as well) but I was more than happy with the fall of Leningrad and with the strategy I followed. Had I not pulled forces from Army Group Center to help the push for Leningrad, I am very sure that the city would not have fallen in 1941.

Bottom line: Axis players should push hard for Leningrad even if that comes at the expense of AGC and AGS. The city is the most important target in 1941 and it has major strategic value, since it allows you to redeploy the whole AGN further to the south, shortens the front and allows the Finns to get in the game properly.

To answer your question: I don't think the Soviet player should be penalized if they choose to retreat. Every decision in game has its consequences. If you abandon major cities because you want to save your army, you will suffer for it. I would suggest you and all other players to play the Bitter End campaign (or at least give it a try) which I prefer to the normal GC because each side has a certain number of cities that serve as strategic and political goals and give you points for each turn they are under your control. So if a Soviet player would give up Leningrad too early they would not only lose a major city but would also be "giving" points to the Germans. That reflects the political and strategical implications of losing such important cities and is more than enough punishment in my opinion.

I would be against the penalties you mentioned and I strongly believe that the players should be allowed to play the game the way they see fit without incurring extra penalties except for the ones that the game already incurs on them.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 2
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 7:38:27 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Interesting comment thank you.

But to play the devil's advocate, that brings me to another question, which is truly the part that makes me ambivalent more than anything else: even with the Bitter End scenario, would you decide to go for another strategy than all out for Leningrad first knowing that there is a serious disadvantage (we agree on that I think) in not doing so?

In other words, isn't there a risk to be bored after a while of always doing the same thing and make the game very predictible?

Also, is it realistic historically, knowing that Moscow was in reality the #1 objective for OKH and Ukraine was #1 for Hitler? Everyone was agreeing on the importance of taking Leningrad, but no one I am aware of put it as #1 in the German high command (maybe apart from Von Leeb and his minions of course ;).

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/13/2019 7:48:20 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 3
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 7:55:28 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
That depends really. If you take Moscow early and then concentrate all your forces on Leningrad, I could see that happening.

I don't think there is a risk to be bored with WitE in general. Even if Leningrad is your main focus, most of the times getting there will be very different since there are a lot of variables in play.

Well the problem with comparing history to the game is that the game does not recreate history properly. Moscow was a priority because of it's importance as a major network (rail hub) and for the consequences it would have had the city fallen. In WitE taking Moscow, won't exactly deny the Soviets much (except for the manpower that the city produces) since the way rails and supply works is much different from reality. WitE2 is much different in that aspect and I'm sure we will see many players prioritize Moscow in the game.

The same can be said for the Ukraine. The decision to divert PzGruppe 2 south was to close the Kiev pocket and clear the flank of AGC. I believe that it was the right decision at the time even though it meant that PzGruppe 2 lost precious time redeploying north again.

To give you another example: For the summer campaign of 42' the Germans wanted to take the Caucasus oilfields because they needed the precious oil and wanted to deny access to the Soviets. In game terms, the Axis player has no incentive to go for the Caucasus since both sides literally swim in oil and global shortages never occur (which wasn't the case historically). The South strategy is popular because it allows you to fight in open terrain where the panzers excel at and to capture manpower rich areas (Stalingrad and the Kuban) as well as destroy as many Soviet formations as possible.

Simply put, the game does not recreate history perfectly so the players have different incentives in comparison to their real life counterparts.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 4
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 8:13:46 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
General German tactic should be reach for Rostov in the south as a secondary/easy objective---supply is the only thing that will limit/stop as the soviets cannot defend successfully against the Germans on open ground in 1941 or really even 1942.

Main priority for Germans should always be for Leningrad as early as possible in 1941...once you take Leningrad you can then send everything at Moscow.

The quicker you break Pskov the quicker you open up 2 avenues of attack on Leningrad and stretch the soviet defenders even more.

Basically if the German player has any skill at all and does a good opening the only option the Soviet player has is to defend 1 main German advance route heavily. As they will lose basically all soviet units they start the game with in the first 2 turns or so and be rushing everything to defend that one main area. Its not really a run away defense its the plain fact that because the German initial offensive does so much better than historical the soviets really have no forces left for a more forward defense.

Once Pskov is broken or flanked...the soviets are basically forced back to Leningrad and the Vladia hills as defensive positions...so then the German player either pushes around the lake to take the hills and swing north or does a frontal assault on Leningrad. In all reality the soviets cannot stop either they can only try to fight a successful delaying action and eat up as much time as possible from the German player. German CV in 41 is so overwhelming even a straight frontal assault on the best soviet units at Leningrad will win over time.

Once you have Leningrad cut off you can then commit everything to a late summer/fall push on Moscow...the faster you get Leningrad the more quickly you can push everything on Moscow. Then it just depends on how long the Soviets delayed you and how many units they lost at Leningrad on if they can hold Moscow. Really time is all Soviet player is playing the game for in 1941 and trying not to lose to many units and to many cities to basically be hit with auto defeat levels of manpower/factory losses.

I know it sounds scripted but having played several games and watched IDK prolly a hundred plus play out now over the years it really is about the best strategy for 1941. Then 1942 if the soviets are still in the game you get some choices depending on where the frontlines are in the spring of 1942 as the Germans will most likely be on the offensive once the blizzard stops in 1942.

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 5
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 8:14:40 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Maybe I make the game strategic possibilities much simpler than they really are.

My personnal experience against the Pskov defense/runner gambit is that I would not wait to attack the Pskov line with all my might ASAP if someone used it against me again. I would certainly not go all out for Moscow as I don't believe it's a good alternative. But I would not forgo it completely either.

And of course I know it is only a game and is not intented to model reality. Still I believe it must retain some characteristics when possible. The oil situation is indeed something that is a bit unsettling, knowing it was a major issue during all the campaign, more so for the Germans, but for the Soviets too. The same is true for the infinite rail supply capabilities which allow super dense concentrations of troops.

Anyway, thanks, I do appreciate your input :-)

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 6
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 8:38:58 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@chaos45 First, thanks for your comment :-)

I guess that saying the Soviets loose everything they had at the beginning in the first 2 turns is a bit far fetched. Everything that is out of reach in the first turn and not ZOC locked is a good candidate to be railed far back and start digging in. At least IMO it will be done by any competent Soviet player. And there are quite of few quality Soviet units included in that. But basically, yeah.

Just a clarification, when I talk about a 'runner' defense, I don't mean what happens in the first 3 turns, that is only reorganisation of the available troops for survival. I'm talking about a systematic staged retreat from turn 3 over all the summer offensive right up to automn both in AGC and AGS with token lesser troops, which means mostly no fighting and no pockets whatsoever and heavy concentration of high quality units in the choosen main line of defense.

For the rest, I do agree with your assessment of what the German must do in all events. My questionning is indeed wether it maybe sounds a little "too" scripted...

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/13/2019 8:40:18 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 7
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 8:50:32 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
the soviets in general lose basically everything that was within 15 hexes of the border and even units further from the German start line than that....a good German opening can basically remove the entire Soviet southern front from the game that is forward of Kiev. Ya the soviet player will save a handful of divisions that get good random movement rolls and some basically shattered units that might have routed into the swamp but not much will be left.

The same effect will happen in the North and Center....so basically as the soviet player you will be left with the units that are east of Pskov/Land Bridge/Kiev/crimea to play the game with by Turn 2 or 3 in most situations unless you are playing a German player that isn't using a well scripted opening move outline.

Since many of those units are also frozen on T1.....your ability to respond and get in front of the next big German push which will come around Turn 4 is very limited.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 8
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 8:58:57 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

General German tactic should be reach for Rostov in the south as a secondary/easy objective---supply is the only thing that will limit/stop as the soviets cannot defend successfully against the Germans on open ground in 1941 or really even 1942.


German supply in the south is absolutely abysmal. Taking Rostov early is not that easy just because of the supply problems.

quote:

Once Pskov is broken or flanked...the soviets are basically forced back to Leningrad and the Vladia hills as defensive positions...so then the German player either pushes around the lake to take the hills and swing north or does a frontal assault on Leningrad. In all reality the soviets cannot stop either they can only try to fight a successful delaying action and eat up as much time as possible from the German player. German CV in 41 is so overwhelming even a straight frontal assault on the best soviet units at Leningrad will win over time.


No they aren't. They can still hold the Luga and delay the Germans as they approach Leningrad. Pushing around the lake is not that easy since the terrain there does not favor a fast advance (multiple rivers, swamps and rough terrain). A full frontal assault on Leningrad is successful? Where did you get that from? Leningrad is a pain in the ass to crack even when isolated. I'd love to see you take a properly defended Leningrad using a frontal assault as you claim. Over time means what? 5 turns? 10? How many casualties are we talking about here? How many German units need to be tied down to take the city this way?

quote:

Once you have Leningrad cut off you can then commit everything to a late summer/fall push on Moscow...the faster you get Leningrad the more quickly you can push everything on Moscow. Then it just depends on how long the Soviets delayed you and how many units they lost at Leningrad on if they can hold Moscow. Really time is all Soviet player is playing the game for in 1941 and trying not to lose to many units and to many cities to basically be hit with auto defeat levels of manpower/factory losses.


No it doesn't. It depends on how good the Soviets are defending Moscow, what units they have at hand, what level of fortifications they have, which commanders are in charge of the defense etc etc. Soviets should build up some manpower in the mud turns. An average of 100k a turn at 5 turns puts you at 500k men. If you don't have any encircled units, attrition losses during the mud are fairly low so that should allow you to replenish your forces.

quote:

I know it sounds scripted but having played several games and watched IDK prolly a hundred plus play out now over the years it really is about the best strategy for 1941. Then 1942 if the soviets are still in the game you get some choices depending on where the frontlines are in the spring of 1942 as the Germans will most likely be on the offensive once the blizzard stops in 1942.


War in general is about which side has the best strategy There are plenty of Soviets who are still in the game in 1942 as shown by the multiple AARs in the forums. And as to your scripted response, it comes across that way because these are the same points that you repeat on every thread. Points that are only a reflection of your personal opinion and the way you play the game and not something that many other players are seeing.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 9
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 9:02:08 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar

Maybe I make the game strategic possibilities much simpler than they really are.

My personnal experience against the Pskov defense/runner gambit is that I would not wait to attack the Pskov line with all my might ASAP if someone used it against me again. I would certainly not go all out for Moscow as I don't believe it's a good alternative. But I would not forgo it completely either.

And of course I know it is only a game and is not intented to model reality. Still I believe it must retain some characteristics when possible. The oil situation is indeed something that is a bit unsettling, knowing it was a major issue during all the campaign, more so for the Germans, but for the Soviets too. The same is true for the infinite rail supply capabilities which allow super dense concentrations of troops.

Anyway, thanks, I do appreciate your input :-)


Yes it would be really nice to see the oil problems be reflected in game, but I don't think that will change anytime soon. The rail problem will be fixed in WitE2 so there is that to look forward to.

Always a pleasure to discuss the game in a civil manner :D

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 10
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 9:08:21 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@chaos45 : I guess you must know about HLYA's "1 hex west of Pskov" defense.

That defense intends to defend only Pskov on turn 4 but with much depth. The landbridge and the rest are mostly given up. Troops positionning is prioritized over railing out industries, which means the Soviet player can get quite a lot of high quality guys far out of the German grip and digging in fast in the first 2 turns and get level 2 fortifications long before even the fastest Axis player gets to his main line. That is the big key to that defense.

So you don't need to defend everything and you get more than enough units to set that up quite strongly. And you keep your head well within your shoulders everywhere else, never exposing the neck.

The short German leash does the rest. That must be a well planned ballet, but mighty as hell when rightly executed.

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 11
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 9:47:58 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@Xhoel : I mostly agree with what you say in your 2nd preceding comment, as it reflects quite well the what I experimented in my current game which is against a very talented player who understands perfectly the 'Pskov - runner' strategy and applied it with very good effect.

I have to admit it was my first game against a human, so because of that I played too cautious as I wasn't sure what to expect, and I also didn't expect this kind of extreme strategy, neither knew what to do against it, so I hesitated a lot and it means that everything I did was done late or without enough concentration. But I'm a fast learner... I usually don't make the same mistakes twice.

That said, I didn't play badly either as I was already quite advanced in understanding the game when we started. That means that I know for sure that even if I had done everything 100% right, it would still be very hard to take Leningrad in 1941 against that strategy the way it was implemented. And even if I had decided for a right hook in time, it would have been quite tough to pull as he was ready for it.

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/13/2019 9:49:11 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 12
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 9:54:34 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
@joelmar: That is what makes this game beautiful. You learn from your mistakes and get better each time. And making mistakes pays off, since you get a lesson out of it.

I do feel that taking Leningrad is quite difficult for the Germans if the Soviets defend properly. That is why I have a problem with players who claim that it is a walk in the park. Can Leningrad be taken? Absolutely, but when it is captured and at what cost changes a lot of things.

Cheers!

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 13
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 10:02:59 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Terrain south of Leningrad is among the best defensive terrain on the board. If the soviet decides to make a strong statement there, he will be very hard to push indeed.

If the Soviet prepares well, going past the Luga might be quite a ride. And I agree the right hook is no easy thing. It can't be done out of the blue and must be carefully prepared. So easy for the Soviets to fill up the area of units using rail. Unless he is sleeping of course, or lives in a garden... ;-)

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/13/2019 10:04:18 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 14
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/13/2019 10:10:03 PM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline
@joelmar: I agree on both of those points. The Soviet player has the chance to defend Leningrad, not doing so or not preparing properly for the battle cannot be noted as a flaw of the game. The German player will exploit any weakness that the Soviets present, it is only logical for them to do so.

_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 15
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 9:22:29 AM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1889
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
As per my comments---read the main thing is the German player has skill....The german opening couple turns are critical in that they remove a great deal of the soviet army.

The Soviet player has no ability to interact with the German opening turn and really the Germans Turn 2. So if the German player knows what they are doing T1/2 will absolutely devastate the Soviet army for the early game.

Many games you see posted where the soviets stay in the game is because the German player makes many mistakes in the opening or first handful of turns.

Is also the frozen Soviet southern front issue smart german players can take advantage of when you dont advance far south T1 but drive more east then on T2 sweep south to encircle the entire Soviet southern front...from what I understand from the best german players it is actually one of the most devastating German openings...and you can see it in Telemecus recent post....this has been known about by some of us for a long time now.

Its all about experience with the game. If the German player isnt very good the soviets can have an easy time of it. If the German player understands T1-4 and has a strategy isnt much the soviet player can do. Most German players either fail at doing T1 or fail to understand/manage their HQBU for the big T4 push. These are critical mistakes that are very hard for the Germans to recover from but also easy ones to learn since the Soviets have minimal impact on the game Turns 1-3.

I hope WITE2 will fix many of the scripted issues but I doubt it....since the Soviet set up is always the same the German player can wargame T1 over and over again until they get the perfect assault. There really is no excuse for a bad German T1 as you can refight it as much as you want before you go into a live game. I would suggest if you want to do good with Germans refight the opening 4 turns until you have it perfect before you go into the Player vs player match.

Even make it a 2 player game and set up the soviet Pskov/landbridge defense to break on T3/4. Thats how you get gud as the Germans. Just practice those 4 turns over and over again will take you a long way.

(in reply to xhoel)
Post #: 16
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 11:54:15 AM   
xhoel


Posts: 3219
Joined: 6/24/2017
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chaos45

As per my comments---read the main thing is the German player has skill....The german opening couple turns are critical in that they remove a great deal of the soviet army.

The Soviet player has no ability to interact with the German opening turn and really the Germans Turn 2. So if the German player knows what they are doing T1/2 will absolutely devastate the Soviet army for the early game.



Yes they do indeed remove a great deal of the Soviet Army, but that doesn't mean that the game is over based on what happens on the first 2 turns.

This is such a overused argument honestly. Ofc the Soviets have no ability to interact with the German opening turn save for reserve activations, Operation Barbarossa was a complete surprise in real life and that is what that opening turn tried to recreate. What would you have instead of it? What is your alternative to the opening turn being set in the first week of the GC?

quote:

Many games you see posted where the soviets stay in the game is because the German player makes many mistakes in the opening or first handful of turns.


I'm sorry but that is flat out wrong and it completely ignores the skill of the Soviet player to deal with the situation as well as the skill of the German player to rectify their mistakes (if they made so many as you claim). So instead of projecting so much, I would advise you to understand that there are players that have the skill to go into 1942 (yes a big shock I'm sure), they don't need the crutch of "the German player making so many mistakes" and it is laughable how you dismiss all these games due to that. Must be lovely for a Soviet player who has done well because of his skill and is now in 1942 to hear your comments saying: If they made it to 42', the Germans weren't good enough. What a joke!

As to your comments about the many games I see posted, I just checked 4 AARs that are into 1942 and cannot see any major German mistakes. There are small mistakes, this pocket or that pocket was opened but nothing tragic. So where are all these games you claim? Please point them out to me.

quote:

Is also the frozen Soviet southern front issue smart german players can take advantage of when you dont advance far south T1 but drive more east then on T2 sweep south to encircle the entire Soviet southern front...from what I understand from the best german players it is actually one of the most devastating German openings...and you can see it in Telemecus recent post....this has been known about by some of us for a long time now.


So make house rules and prevent that from happening. It is really that simple. If you think a player is very skilled, I'm sure they would be able to beat you with House Rules enforced, that prevent them from "destroying all of the Soviet Army in the first turns".

quote:

Its all about experience with the game. If the German player isnt very good the soviets can have an easy time of it. If the German player understands T1-4 and has a strategy isnt much the soviet player can do. Most German players either fail at doing T1 or fail to understand/manage their HQBU for the big T4 push. These are critical mistakes that are very hard for the Germans to recover from but also easy ones to learn since the Soviets have minimal impact on the game Turns 1-3.


Again, that is just your opinion. Stop dismissing all the good Soviet players, with this inane argument that everything hangs in the hands of the Germans for the first 4 turns.

quote:

I hope WITE2 will fix many of the scripted issues but I doubt it....since the Soviet set up is always the same the German player can wargame T1 over and over again until they get the perfect assault. There really is no excuse for a bad German T1 as you can refight it as much as you want before you go into a live game. I would suggest if you want to do good with Germans refight the opening 4 turns until you have it perfect before you go into the Player vs player match. Even make it a 2 player game and set up the soviet Pskov/landbridge defense to break on T3/4. Thats how you get gud as the Germans. Just practice those 4 turns over and over again will take you a long way.


So what is your alternative for the turn 1 start? I'd love to hear that. What do you mean there is no excuse for a bad German T1 opening? What about bad rolls? What about an unlucky Soviet reserve activation? Even if you make mistakes during T1 you can rectify them later. Unless you messed up so badly, it won't mean Game Over for you.

No thanks I'll pass on your recommandation, I would get bored if I had to play the first 4 turns over and over again just so I can note everything down to have a "perfect" plan. I have learned the game mechanics and how the game works and that is how I play. I am sure there are others who do the same and have fun doing so. If you want to play that way, be my guest.

Please, address the points I make. Constantly shifting the goalposts and ignoring the counter to your arguments really doesn't help your position. Bringing in some new arguments except for the old: "if the German player is good, the Soviets lose and there are no other variables at play" would also help. Otherwise it just becomes a repeat of the many threads you have commented on, where I have told you specifically that, what you say is a false representation of reality and have actually engaged the arguments you have put forth.






_____________________________

AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 17
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 11:56:11 AM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Yes, there is much the Soviet player can do, he can run away hard and get out of reach. And NO Soviet landbridge defense. Simple as that.

HQBU's are mainly a thing of the past. You can't chain them anymore, it's way too expensive. But anyway, HQBU's against a runner of this kind means nothing. You will just gobble up the ground he gives you faster.

This is the Soviet strategy I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with what the Soviets did when Pelton was the big thing. Of course the fact that HQBU's aren't as cheap as they were is a big factor in it.

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/14/2019 12:03:55 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to chaos45)
Post #: 18
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 6:19:22 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
In response to Joelmar's question about what do players think I wanted to bring up a different issue from game balance and that is of variety and game interest

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
In other words, isn't there a risk to be bored after a while of always doing the same thing and make the game very predictible?


Xhoel has a good response that in this monster of game there is still plenty of interest

quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel
I don't think there is a risk to be bored with WitE in general. Even if Leningrad is your main focus, most of the times getting there will be very different since there are a lot of variables in play.


But yet I do get the sense that something has changed over time in the game.

i) Heavy industry no longer matters: Loki100 did the initial research that you needed to have at least 200 heavy industry factories (evacuated or not overrun by Axis) to be successful as the Soviet side. The changes to Heavy Industry multipliers and supplies coming in from lend lease means this is no longer so. EwaldvonKleist has some research showing the number of factories you need is much lower now. And even lower still if you re-evacuate other factories of surplus equipment in the late game so that they need even less supplies for them. You will see in AARs long ago the lack of supplies was a real constraint in the late war for the Soviet side - I expect we will never hear of this again. In the 8MP game we destroyed massive amounts of heavy industry on the ground - and even bombed some on the assumption that it would be a constraint later on. The reaction from the Soviet side was no sweat! Bottom line is Axis players need not bother any more trying to get heavy industry in 1941, it is waste of time.
ii) Vehicle industry (probably) no longer matters: Old factory evacuation advice (see walloc factory evacuation guide) used to be you needed to evacuate every single one that was in danger of being overrun as you needed them all. Since then the number of vehicles coming through lend lease has been increased spectacularly. This may reflect historical reality as most of the lorries used by the Soviet Union at any one time later in the war were actually American. But it does mean saving Soviet vehicle production no longer matters in the way it did. Most Soviet players seem to say now they have never had a vehicle deficit problem which means either they did not, or it was not important enough for them to notice.

Arms factories still matter to the Soviet side until the start of 1942, but not much beyond that. Resources might once have been a feasible target, but with the changed multipliers in later patches it no longer is. As has been discussed oil never has been a constraint and rail has not been so far (although I think it could be with strategic bombing?)

This means some of the comments you used to get a long time ago you will no longer get. For example "he did not advance much but got a lot of industry" or "they will have the men but not the supplies for them" will no longer be said. While the interest of the game on an operational level remains, on a strategic-economic level it is now effectively one-dimensional. Only manpower matters. And I think this is a shame as it does remove some of the variety the game used to have, not withstanding that it remains with enormous possibilities still.

And in terms of a runners defence having less to rail out means you have to delay less means you can run more.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 6/14/2019 6:24:41 PM >

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 19
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 6:33:13 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@Telemecus: You got 100% the meaning and focus of my questionning: absolutely NOT game balance, but interest and strategic possibilities variety.

Fact is that capturing Leningrad in 1941 is a must for the German player because there is no other thing that gives him a strategic advantage, or simply a worthy advantage, whatever it may be. Such an advantage in fact that any other choice becomes a disadvantage. It might be powerful, but it also means that both Axis and Soviet experienced players know for sure where will be the main axis of attack. You have absolutely no other choice. At least, that is my opinion and every one who commented on this seems to agree on this point, and I know for sure my current opponen does.

And so here we are with the hard to beat even if probably not unbeatable Soviet "One hex west of Pskov-runner" strategy. A strategy that is as you say helped by the fact that minimum rail of factories is needed. And as a result, there won't be many viable strategies to counter it for the Axis, resulting in a high concentration of troops deadlock WWI style on the axis Pskov-Moscow until one side wins it. With not much blitzkrieg possible.

Talking for myself here, but there is definitely a big danger of me loosing interest in the game after a while because of this. Which would be a shame because I love it, and I know how cool it would be to be able to decide where we want to focus our energy and still have a good chance of achieving something interesting. But it's clearly not the case ATM. Again... IMO.

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/14/2019 7:00:54 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 20
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/14/2019 10:53:49 PM   
Sammy5IsAlive

 

Posts: 514
Joined: 8/4/2014
Status: offline
Just a few (not necessarily joined-up) thoughts...

The obvious solution to the 'scripted' German T1 attacks is to have an alternate start date in early July 41. It will obviously have to wait till WITE2 now but in hindsight I'd suggest that whatever efforts were spent researching the set-ups/OOBs for the later Grand Campaign sized starts in WITE which hardly ever seem to be played perhaps could have been better spent on an alternate early-war start date.

I'd like to see a global morale penalty to Soviet units whilst Moscow is in German hands.

At the moment a GC draw is along historical lines with the Russians taking Berlin in mid to late 1945. I would suggest that a Soviet player that runs everywhere but at Leningrad may well 'win' 1941 by holding Leningrad and keeping their armies intact but may then eventually find themselves struggling to make the lost ground back up in the centre and south later in the war against a German OOB that has not been worn down by hard fighting - particularly if the 41 blizzard has been set to mild. When we discuss 'balance' I think it is important for people to consider whether they would prefer a very fluid 1941/42 with the result being irretrievable for whichever side is losing at the end of that period or a game when either side can fall a little short in the first couple of years but then salvage a draw (or even snatch a minor victory) through good play in the subsequent 3 years.

IMHO the game should be balanced around the average player rather than around the elite player. That will mean that the Germans will always be overpowered in the hands of an elite player under default conditions but it should be left to them to try and find solutions through house-rules/settings tweaks/later start dates.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 21
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 1:29:44 AM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@Sammy5IsAlive:

Interesting comments thank you. This said, I would like to stress once again that I was NOT talking about balance in this post. Balance is very relative and impossible to achieve IMO, because of those very arguments you list. Also, I don't have any problem with the 'scripted' German attack on the first turn. There will be differences enough from the die rolls to mean that even the best possible script won't ever go as expected, and even if you started the game after a few turns, it would still be scripted. At least in the present state, there are a few possible different scripts.

That said, yes, I imagine the game must be 'balanced' as much as possible around average players as they are in theory the majority and therefore those who will make it thrive in the long run. But it's all a fickle thing, as because of the length of a game, it might very well be that an average player turns into an elite one during it's course while the other one doesn't really dive deeper into the mechanics and stays at his initial level. But that's another debate, one I didn't intend to get into in this thread.

If we get back to the basic idea I was expressing in this thread, the actual tendency and effectiveness of the Soviet runners, Xhoel had a good point when mentionning that playing a Bitter End scenario might force the Soviet player to stand and fight more. Or as you said the use of house rules to force certain behaviors onto the players. But it is really a pity that a game with such possibilities in it's engine should become driven by such artificial devices when it could be done much more natural, too much early factory losses by example as Telemecus mentions, with a drop in Morale or something if the user looses assets too much too fast, not necessarily Moscow, could be a certain number of factory points or whatever makes sense without penalising the Soviet player too much.

But yeah. Maybe that is above the average players and so maybe it all comes back to a balance discussion. But that I leave to others.

What I do know with the knowledge I have, is exactly what I will do as Axis in 1941 in my next game. And the one after. And the one after. And also what I will do if I play Soviet. Because I don't believe there are any valuable and/or stronger alternatives in both cases.

I do hope someone comes out with some mighty arguments to prove me wrong though :-) And maybe something in the next patch will make this different. We'll see.





< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/17/2019 2:10:37 AM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to Sammy5IsAlive)
Post #: 22
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 11:37:08 AM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
Something I would say in favour of a Moscow defence strategy in 1941 is that it makes the Soviet's 1942 defence stronger.
When Leningrad falls in 1941 the north can be sripped bare during the following spring. The same does not apply to the center if Moscow falls in 1941 and Leningrad is held.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 23
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 12:46:13 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@timmyab: really interesting.

That said, I'm not sure this balances out the advantages for the Soviet during Blizzard of not having to worry about the Finns and enjoying a big powerful salient in the north which further lengthens the German lines, who have less troops available to guard it to begin with.

And isn't the German then almost forced to take Leningrad in 1942 anyway if he wants to be in a better position in 1943-1944 for the coming Soviet steamroller?

But maybe then the salient also becomes a dangerous trap for the Soviet player, playing right in the hands of the German. Another way of seeing it.

Thanks for your comment :-)

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 24
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 12:55:29 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 4689
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
balances out the advantages for the Soviet during Blizzard of not having to worry about the Finns


Some Soviet players react to the loss of Leningrad by simply withdrawing troops from the Finnish move area altogether - meaning they do not have to worry about the Finns anyway still. I am not sure this is necessarily a good idea, but it is only sacrificing a lot of trees in terms of area lost.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 25
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 1:05:30 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Yes, makes perfect sense.

But my comment was more about the Finns in a defensive role holding a big part of the line that would have to be held by Germans if Leningrad doesn't fall. In such a case, it's almost like the Finns are not there at all. Of course, they are still a big threat in the case the Germans get Leningrad in 1942 and destroy a lot of Soviet units doing so. Might rip apart the Soviet front to the north of Moscow.

< Message edited by joelmar -- 6/17/2019 1:06:32 PM >


_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 26
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 1:17:57 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline
quote:

But maybe then the salient also becomes a dangerous trap for the Soviet player, playing right in the hands of the German

Yes this is a definitely a consideration.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 27
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/17/2019 6:54:35 PM   
thedoctorking


Posts: 2297
Joined: 4/29/2017
Status: offline
This conversation reinforces my argument that this game needs some sort of free deployment option for both sides. Maybe some constraints - a certain percentage of Soviet units must be within so many hexes of the border, German units must remain in their Army Group sectors, or something like that, but the suggestion that the outcome of the whole game depends on the first two or three Axis moves is a clear weakness. Developers should be making fixing this problem a priority.

I realize there would be engine changes required. Maybe have a pre-game turn where neither side can attack into the opponent's territory and some units are frozen or have limited movement allowances?

An alternative would be a 26 June start, as with the War in the Pacific game's 8 December start.

(in reply to timmyab)
Post #: 28
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 6/18/2019 12:05:53 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 1023
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
Free deployment could be interesting.

But I doubt it would do much to stop a Soviet from withdrawing without a fight. In this eventuality the Soviet takes the initiative, even if it could be said to be an inverted one, and the Axis player must follow.

_____________________________

"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio

(in reply to thedoctorking)
Post #: 29
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/3/2019 7:32:11 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 283
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline
Interesting discussion for sure. For full disclosure, I am the one playing the Russians against Joel and yes, I ran (and continue to run in the south through end of turn 13) everywhere except PSKOV/Lenningrad. We are at start of Turn 14 and my initial PKSOV line is broken, but i'm still defending several hexes SW of the Luga while I build my Luga defenses and have a pretty massive CV wall in front of Moscow (he's within 3-4 hexes of Moscow). It is unlikely either will fall in 1941. Further, Soviet's have avoided big encirclements and OOB stands around 4.5M Men. Lack of any real losses to Tank Divisions means trucks and such are well in surplus, manpower and industry are fine as far as I can tell.

Here are my very unsolicited thoughts on the topic:

In my mind, the current iteration of the game is pro-German. This is one reason I wanted to play Russians as I was reading post after post whining about how Germans are too powerful. Is it true? To some extent, yes. But I don't think this means the Russians can't win. Rather, I see Russians making mistakes that end up giving up massive encirclements on Turns 4-5 that often are lights out. Is this because the Germans are so powerful? No, it's because the Russians played it completely wrong.

I opted to utilize HLYA's PSKOV defense in this game because I found it interesting and wanted to give it a try. He has a post on this defense, though it only covers what to do in that one small area of the map and only Turns 1-2 basically. It doesn't address what to do elsewhere or really what to do later than the early turns. Consider it something of a scripted Soviet Turns 1 and 2 to some extent for that one part of the map. It's frustrating for German Players when the Soviets run, but really I don't so much see this as a runner strategy. In fact, I see it as things have always been since I started playing this game years ago. The soviets could always pick a single front and decide that they are going to hold there and fight there at the expense of pretty much everything else. Where Soviets get in trouble is when they try to defend too much as invariably they have too little to do so and end up getting encircled and compounding their early game shortages. If the Soviet sets his goals to say defend Lenningrad at all costs during '41 at the expense of pretty much everything else, with a secondary goal of avoiding encirclements at all costs, there is a decent chance of them holding up well in 1941. They may lose Moscow or may not lose Moscow in the process, they may lose more ground and industry than they'd like, but they will not suffer a '41 knock out punch and will most definitely be around later in the game.

I'm not a big fan of limiting either player from doing what they want (with some very few exceptions). There is no need for house rules such as "no Super Lvov Pocket." The Russians can still do well in the long run even in the face of the strongest German openings (i.e. Turns 1-3). The PKSOV defense can still be setup just about exactly the same totally irrespective of German opening. But to me, this doesn't at all lead to a repetitive predictable game even if it's the same two opponents playing each other. Whoever lost the first time around will invariably do something different the second time around. There are just too many variables in the game, too many playing styles, players with very different risk tolerances, etc... for the games to become overly scripted and repetitive.

My limited experience under the current version of the same (first game since pre 1.07!) is that it seems pro German, but not egregiously so. Yes, the German player can pretty much attack even the strongest Russian defense and push them back if he is determined to do so. But as Xhoel points out, at what cost in time and men? The overall goals for the two sides in 1941 (beyond the obvious, "hold this city or that") are directly conflicting with one another. The German wants easy, cheap encirclements to eliminate Russians, the Russian wants to avoid such at all costs and force the Germans to bang their head against CV walls even if they lose all of the battles and give up lots of ground. Whoever can force the other to fight on their own terms usually will have an advantage. And while I do feel that the Russians can put up a strong defense on a single front such as Lenningrad, I do not feel that they can possibly hold Lenningrad if the Germans decide they are going to take it at all costs. But there are tradeoffs and other areas of the battle will be impacted.

Further, I agree 100% with EvK who said in some post somewhere that the Russians should never (ever) engage in a battle in 1941 until they are ready. Strong German players will punish them for doing so and there is little point in trying to hold ground that you're going to lose 1-4 turns from then anyway. THe only difference is losing the ground without heavy losses or losing the ground with heavy losses. Either way, the ground is lost. So if a Russian decides he's ready to fight for Lenningrad then he simply must retreat everywhere else or face disaster because the only way to fight for Lenningrad (or wherever they choose to fight) is by concentrating pretty much every decent unit on the map in that one place with all of the air support, best leaders, etc... The result is one that can be frustrating for a German player (i.e. lack of fun encirclements) if they see it that way or one that an opportunistic German player can take advantage of if they are so inclined. No defense (or attack) exists that cannot be countered. It's inventing these different offenses and defenses and coming up with new counters to them that makes the game fun and prevents it from being overly repetitive. I look at nearly every AAR and find myself of the opinion that I wouldn't be doing anything either of the players are doing had I been controlling that side or seeing mistakes (as I perceive them) that players are making. Is my choice right and theirs wrong? Who knows. All I know is it's my choice and playing style and it's vastly different in a lot of cases than what i'm seeing. These differences between each player is one of the things that makes it interesting.

Anyway, just my unsolicited .02 cents. The Germans come up with a new opening and it's "the Russians can't win", the Russians come up with a good counter to a german opening and it's "the Germans can't win" or the Germans "must do this or that to counter it". Same old same old. Neither has ever been true. It's up to the competence and style of the individual players to deal with whatever situation is at hand and make the best decisions. After turns 1-4 or so the game is very much unscripted and much more reactive and it's after these turns that really separates the different levels of play. Anyone playing either side can have a good opening. Now what? To me, this has a lot more to do with it than who uses what opening or what defense and that is true under this version and previous versions in my experience (given the versions I've played).

I guess as final response to the initial post by Joel - no there should absolutely not be any consquences to the Soviets running other than what is inherently in the game just as there should not be any consequences for the Germans using Super Lvov pocket. It's up to the German player to figure out how to beat such a strategy as with all strategies, it's definitely beatable and carries with it its own risks.

Peace out.

Matt

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Pskov defense and runner strategy Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.517