RE: Simple proposition for Moscow

RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series

Message

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 1:19:55 PM)
Interesting discussion, but I find two of the contributions here to be right on spot: quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP I'm not sure if Leningrad is "overvalued". It's almost impossible to retake for the Soviets due to it not being a city they can isolate (there's a port and the Karelian Isthmus allows for normal supply in any case. If the Soviets push across the Svir, the Finns should be able to hold the 3 hexes from lake Ladoga to the map edge pretty easily. What makes Moscow a primary target, it being in a central position, is also what makes it far more difficult to defend the city in a strategic sense, as it can be isolated with far less difficulty than Leningrad (which would require retaking Tallinn and knocking Finland out of the war). That's also why the manual advises against going for Moscow in 1941, I think, because you can't really push the front far enough to be sure that you can hold it most of the time. Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb. quote: ORIGINAL: Klydon Part of the issue is that while there is a scoring system for the various scenarios (and you can put different point values on each location), there is none for the campaign game. It goes strictly by city hexes held. Unless the German Army gets to the Urals in Summer of 1942, the fact that Moscow garners 16 VP's is insignificant, because you only get them if you hold the city by september 1945. Something I don't think will - or should - ever happen. The asymmetrical VP system available in the scenarios is for me one of the most neat things in WiTE. I wonder why it couldn't be available for the GC :(

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 1:49:21 PM)
quote: Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb. Not just in the blizzard. Defensive CV's can be very, very high for 3 German divisions in level 4-5 forts in city or urban terrain. Without being able to attack such a hex from at least 3 sides with some very serious artillery support, you can forget about taking it as the Soviets, especially with some of the combat changes we're currently testing that may or may not eventually make it to a public release. Leningrad is also easy to reinforce even if there's pressure on it, unlike Moscow. With Soviet pressure on the flanks, it's likely that only the rail line through Vyazma is going to be operational (the northwestern rail line would need to go past Rzhev and through Velikiye Luki if it is to use a different line than the southwestern one) and even a single partisan strike could wreck that at an inconvenient time. Axis rail cap isn't great to begin with. With Leningrad, even if through some miracle all 4 rail lines (assuming a frontline south of lake Ilmen, there's one rail line through Estonia, two through Pskov and one east of Pskov through Dno) are disrupted (it's at the least extremely unlikely that the rail line through Narva will be hit by a partisan attack, though), the Kriegsmarine can easily sealift a substantial number of troops to Leningrad directly or to Oranienbaum (could be cut-off)/Kotka (in Finland, very difficult to cut-off).

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 2:22:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb. Not just in the blizzard. Defensive CV's can be very, very high for 3 German divisions in level 4-5 forts in city or urban terrain. Without being able to attack such a hex from at least 3 sides with some very serious artillery support, you can forget about taking it as the Soviets, especially with some of the combat changes we're currently testing that may or may not eventually make it to a public release. Leningrad is also easy to reinforce even if there's pressure on it, unlike Moscow. With Soviet pressure on the flanks, it's likely that only the rail line through Vyazma is going to be operational (the northwestern rail line would need to go past Rzhev and through Velikiye Luki if it is to use a different line than the southwestern one) and even a single partisan strike could wreck that at an inconvenient time. Axis rail cap isn't great to begin with. With Leningrad, even if through some miracle all 4 rail lines (assuming a frontline south of lake Ilmen, there's one rail line through Estonia, two through Pskov and one east of Pskov through Dno) are disrupted (it's at the least extremely unlikely that the rail line through Narva will be hit by a partisan attack, though), the Kriegsmarine can easily sealift a substantial number of troops to Leningrad directly or to Oranienbaum (could be cut-off)/Kotka (in Finland, very difficult to cut-off). What a nightmarish scenario. However, the sooner or later an Axis player will find to be a very poor long term strategy to keep 9 or 10 good German infantry divisions there (and rotating them regularly, since after last patches attrition can eat alive frontline units as turns pass). It's very likely such units would be sorely needed elsewhere along the 100+ hexes long front [:)]

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 2:34:12 PM)
That would depend on what those divisions are tying up in terms of Soviet strength. I've never felt that the number of on-map units was the problem for the Germans, at least not after 1942. The problem is their individual strength, which is often not too great. As the war turns ugly for the Axis, the frontline will usually start to shorten at some point, so an army in the Leningrad area is something I can live with as the Axis. Also keep in mind that the Finns are still there too and especially if you just hold the 3 hexes north of Lake Ladoga instead of the Svir line they'll have some guys to spare.

Mynok -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 2:42:09 PM)
Unless you plan to give up Rumania without a fight, the line doesn't shorten significantly until you get back to Riga....and then only in the north, which is probably not going to be the high-pressure area.

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 2:51:10 PM)
Even at the times when the line doesn't physically shorten in terms of hexes that need to be covered, it will shorten in terms of units needed to economically hold an area, as both the Carpathians and the Pripyat marshes don't require a division in every hex. The line will also tend to straighten, as normally AGC and AGS are ahead of AGN, whilst when you start retreating you'll end up with something resembling an actual vertical line, instead of a diagonal one with a bulge or two.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 3:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP That would depend on what those divisions are tying up in terms of Soviet strength. I've never felt that the number of on-map units was the problem for the Germans, at least not after 1942. The problem is their individual strength, which is often not too great. As the war turns ugly for the Axis, the frontline will usually start to shorten at some point, so an army in the Leningrad area is something I can live with as the Axis. Also keep in mind that the Finns are still there too and especially if you just hold the 3 hexes north of Lake Ladoga instead of the Svir line they'll have some guys to spare. quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Unless you plan to give up Rumania without a fight, the line doesn't shorten significantly until you get back to Riga....and then only in the north, which is probably not going to be the high-pressure area. Indeed, Comrade, there are more than enough single units - either divs or KGs - to cover the line. The problem is that you need to balance depth in your defence - depth is time for your mobile reserves (if you managed to keep such a thing, of course) to arrive and avert the risk of a massive breakthrough - and pile up enough CV on the frontline, so the Soviets are obliged to perform multi-hex deliberate attacks if they want to have a chance of success. I think that as time passes, the Soviet army will literally carve several bulges on your lines, which will make the line longer, making more difficult to achieve the balance I mention. As you say, it's all very context dependent. The perfect scenario for this, from my point of view, would require to: 1) To gimp SU manpower before 1941 (taking Leningrad, Moscow and the Donbass) 2) To weather well the 1941-42 blizzard yielding land when and as necessary (surely Moscow, perhaps part of the Donbass) 3) To inflict massive losses during the summer of 1942 Then would be very probable that the Red Army won't have enough strength to both pin the forces around Leningrad - and attrite them - and assemble one or more massive battering rams to smash Axis lines south of Bryansk. Very interesting discussion. Most Axis strategy discussions in the forums focus on the short-term - basically from Barbarossa to early 1942 - and very little has been written or discussed over the long-term strategy to make the possibility of an Axis Minor Victory in the GC 41-45 likely. EDIT: Just remembered the English word for "saliente": bulge [:'(] and spelling

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 3:31:56 PM)
The focus on the short term by some is also something that worries me in terms of what the endgame will look like for those people. Now, in 1941 I also tend to just push as the Axis and see where I end up, but there's sort of a psychological moment when you also need to know: OK, this is it, time to stop. To me, that moment is usually when the Rifle brigades start arriving en masse as there's no way to attack them in any way that's nearly as economical as attacking Rifle divisions, because losses go from an average of 1000-2000 to just 200-700 whilst your own losses still tend to be around 100. I'll slap a non-fortified Rifle division around whenever I can in 1941, because the loss ratio is generally going to be in your favour, but attacking Rifle brigades just wears out your forces. That's currently (as I see it) a substantial problem: if you place regiments/brigades at the frontline, your losses will decrease whilst the enemy's loss ratio is going to worsen quite a bit. That goes for both sides, there's a big difference when you just have regiments at the frontline as the Germans too. However, personally I'm not into doing something gamey like that, so I only place regiments at the frontline if they're in forts or if I don't really have much of a choice. One thing you always need to think about as the Axis is: why do I want to hold the particular sector of the frontline I'm holding and is it worth the current level of commitment? As the years go by, the answer to both questions should (from a strategic perspective) turn from "no" to "maybe" to "yes" because you no longer have a choice. However, most people seem to play as if the answer to that question is always yes. As of late, we've seen several examples of games where the Axis player allowed divisions to be encircled or his overall strategic position weakened by holding on to certain areas. They forget that for most of the game, they're fighting in territory they didn't hold at the start of the game and don't need to hold to win. By dogmatically holding on to their own "not a step back" orders, they weaken their armed forces (either through losses or through spreading them out) and thus decrease their overall chance for a minor victory or draw. As the Soviets, most people also seem to think that they really need to recapture territory ASAP, slowly advancing from east to west again. I'd say: try to create as many bulges as you can. If the Axis try to hold them, they'll stretch out their frontline and become weaker overall. If they pull back due to the pressure on the flanks, you've just captured territory without having to make a single attack to do so. I see a lot of operational level play and thought, but the strategic level play and thought is mostly limited to where AP's go and a general idea of what the next summer/winter offensive is going to be like. As the Axis, you can forget about holding a frontline later in the war if the Soviets really want to break through (especially with single divisions), just like you can forget about holding a frontline as the Soviets in 1941 if the Axis really want to break through it. If in 1944, you've managed to keep the Soviets at bay and have a (slightly) better frontline than historically, but you don't have much of an army left due to a too costly defensive strategy, what have you gained? We should all be realistic here and realize that, especially in the center, the historical summer 1944 starting point is going to be east of where most Soviet players will be by 1944. Holding more of the Ukraine than historically should be possible, though. Anyway, for me it's force preservation first and holding territory second as the Axis, not the other way around. And no, those two are not as directly related to eachother as some seem to think.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 4:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP The focus on the short term by some is also something that worries me in terms of what the endgame will look like for those people. Possibly a complete disaster, hence the high dropout ratio for Axis players after 1942. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP Now, in 1941 I also tend to just push as the Axis and see where I end up, but there's sort of a psychological moment when you also need to know: OK, this is it, time to stop. To me, that moment is usually when the Rifle brigades start arriving en masse as there's no way to attack them in any way that's nearly as economical as attacking Rifle divisions, because losses go from an average of 1000-2000 to just 200-700 whilst your own losses still tend to be around 100. I'll slap a non-fortified Rifle division around whenever I can in 1941, because the loss ratio is generally going to be in your favour, but attacking Rifle brigades just wears out your forces. That's currently (as I see it) a substantial problem: if you place regiments/brigades at the frontline, your losses will decrease whilst the enemy's loss ratio is going to worsen quite a bit. That goes for both sides, there's a big difference when you just have regiments at the frontline as the Germans too. However, personally I'm not into doing something gamey like that, so I only place regiments at the frontline if they're in forts or if I don't really have much of a choice. Indeed, but here you're threading on dangerous ground ComradeP. I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply). And as the German on the defense a 1:1 exchange is bad: you want to hurt and alarm your Soviet opponent by inflicting massive losses on him. He gains a hex, yes, but having him to lose 10,000 guys in the process is a very good thing for you. But I digress. I completely agree with you, German players have to solve the "When to stop" puzzle in 1941, but rather than just "pushing" east, I would make priority targets Armaments, Vehicles, AFV, Plane and Manpower installations. If the German player pushes hard enough for that and doesn't lose focus, he can well prevent the Soviet player to evacuate them fully to the East and at the same time throw the Red Army out of balance, achieving the two goals: destroying short term Soviet power - the Red Army - and long term Soviet power - the ability to transform the Soviet Army in a force that can compete and win. Achieving these two goals doesn't entail that the Axis player has to hold the ground it captures: it just requires her to occupy those hexes at some point during the game, not during the whole game. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP One thing you always need to think about as the Axis is: why do I want to hold the particular sector of the frontline I'm holding and is it worth the current level of commitment? As the years go by, the answer to both questions should (from a strategic perspective) turn from "no" to "maybe" to "yes" because you no longer have a choice. However, most people seem to play as if the answer to that question is always yes. As of late, we've seen several examples of games where the Axis player allowed divisions to be encircled or his overall strategic position weakened by holding on to certain areas. They forget that for most of the game, they're fighting in territory they didn't hold at the start of the game and don't need to hold to win. To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP As the Soviets, most people also seem to think that they really need to recapture territory ASAP, slowly advancing from east to west again. I'd say: try to create as many bulges as you can. If the Axis try to hold them, they'll stretch out their frontline and become weaker overall. If they pull back due to the pressure on the flanks, you've just captured territory without having to make a single attack to do so. It gets even better when it is the case that the Axis hasn't been able to build any meaningful backup fortified line because being spread out. Then these retreats can turn into routs. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP Anyway, for me it's force preservation first and holding territory second as the Axis, not the other way around. And no, those two are not as directly related to each other as some seem to think. The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength. In 1942 the Axis needs to behave like Attila and his Huns: the Axis has to use his more experienced forces to shatter and smash as many of the shiny new toys the Soviet player puts in the table, not being interesting in holding ground at all. In 1943 it's time to become a ninja turtle. Use your though shell - entrenched German infantry - to deflect or muffle incoming blows but do not allow it to get shattered. Use your ninja moves to maneuver around your enemies and evade incoming blows. Use your ninja weapons to inflict locally crushing blows to your enemy [:D]

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 5:07:53 PM)
quote: I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply). The casualty ratio's currently, in my opinion, quite a bit off when attacking smaller units. That's also what makes those NKVD regiments so effective: after the first turn and after they become ready, you're playing whac a mole with them. I'm also not talking about holding a line with regiments, as the intention would not be to hold the line, but to minimize losses. For some reason, casualties don't necessarily differ much when the Soviets attack a regiment from when they attack a division, whilst your own losses will be much less as the Axis. I'm still not sure how that's possible. One of my pet peeves is the (potentially) huge gap in casualties between a failed attack and a successful one, no matter whether it succeeds at 1:1>2:1 or at "natural" 2:1 or higher odds or fails at any odds. The difference can literally be thousands of casualties. It's like the defenders just stop firing at some point, but still keep taking pretty brutal (by Axis standards) losses themselves. We're currently trying some experimental changes whilst Pavel's on his holiday, so by the time he gets back we should've tested the experimental changes enough for Joel and Gary to decide whether they want to go public with (some of) them. quote: To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest. There comes a point when trying too hard to fight in the RSFSR will seriously harm defensive efforts in later years. For example: if you end 1943 in the RSFSR in some parts of the front, but hold the line with 2 CV units, the Soviets will just steamroll over you in 1944 and you can forget about establishing a line ever again. Knowing when to retreat towards the west is a crucial skill for the Axis player to master. quote: The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength. Indeed. As the Axis I'm more worried about morale losses than about manpower or AFV losses in 1941. I can replace the latter, but not the former. The Wehrmacht consisting mostly of ~70 morale infantry divisions at the end of the first winter is not necessarily a problem. Only having ~70 morale mobile units is a huge problem, however.

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 7:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply). The casualty ratio's currently, in my opinion, quite a bit off when attacking smaller units. That's also what makes those NKVD regiments so effective: after the first turn and after they become ready, you're playing whac a mole with them. I'm also not talking about holding a line with regiments, as the intention would not be to hold the line, but to minimize losses. For some reason, casualties don't necessarily differ much when the Soviets attack a regiment from when they attack a division, whilst your own losses will be much less as the Axis. I'm still not sure how that's possible. Indeed, I have seen some of those results myself and the only thing in the rules or forums I could find that might account for it is that defenders in Soviet attacks take extra shots at the attackers. But I would have expected that to scale with the number of defending elements, but it doesn't. Strangely enough, I'd say it is more related to the number of attacking elements. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP One of my pet peeves is the (potentially) huge gap in casualties between a failed attack and a successful one, no matter whether it succeeds at 1:1>2:1 or at "natural" 2:1 or higher odds or fails at any odds. The difference can literally be thousands of casualties. It's like the defenders just stop firing at some point, but still keep taking pretty brutal (by Axis standards) losses themselves. We're currently trying some experimental changes whilst Pavel's on his holiday, so by the time he gets back we should've tested the experimental changes enough for Joel and Gary to decide whether they want to go public with (some of) them. That last paragraph are excellent news, guys. I don't want to repeat myself but the support devs & testers are providing to this game would ashame most companies out there. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest. There comes a point when trying too hard to fight in the RSFSR will seriously harm defensive efforts in later years. For example: if you end 1943 in the RSFSR in some parts of the front, but hold the line with 2 CV units, the Soviets will just steamroll over you in 1944 and you can forget about establishing a line ever again. Knowing when to retreat towards the west is a crucial skill for the Axis player to master. The obvious course of action is to hold fast. But the most obvious approach is not necessarily the wisest nor the one that achieves your goal. quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength. Indeed. As the Axis I'm more worried about morale losses than about manpower or AFV losses in 1941. I can replace the latter, but not the former. The Wehrmacht consisting mostly of ~70 morale infantry divisions at the end of the first winter is not necessarily a problem. Only having ~70 morale mobile units is a huge problem, however. Yes, in that way you have the guarantee that no matter what the losses, as long as there are replacements and you can retreat those units to put them into Refit, the replacements will get to the level of the surviving veterans.

Mynok -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 9:30:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP Even at the times when the line doesn't physically shorten in terms of hexes that need to be covered, it will shorten in terms of units needed to economically hold an area, as both the Carpathians and the Pripyat marshes don't require a division in every hex. The line will also tend to straighten, as normally AGC and AGS are ahead of AGN, whilst when you start retreating you'll end up with something resembling an actual vertical line, instead of a diagonal one with a bulge or two. The marshes are useless if the units to the north and south of them are pushed back. And they will be.

Lieste -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 11:00:19 PM)
Actually Salient would be a perfectly valid term - Bulge seems an Americanism to my English ears :)

BletchleyGeek -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/22/2011 11:55:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lieste Actually Salient would be a perfectly valid term - Bulge seems an Americanism to my English ears :) Argh. I'm too paranoid of false friends and sounding dumber than I actually am [:'(]

jomni -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/23/2011 6:37:46 AM)
I played a game called STAVKA-OKH and the victory objectives (sudden death) for Germans is to take either Leningrad and Moscow or Stalingrad and Moscow.� I found this an elegant comprimise�regarding the issue we're dabating here. Wouldn't it�be nice if this can be implemented in the game, maybe keep it optional? Or maybe a house rule? I also recommend people to try out the game just for kicks.� It's very strategic in scale.� Turn time is in seasons so the whole war can be fought quickly.� You play STAVKA or OKH.� Each turn, you chose one of three battle plans.� But Hitler or Stalin can veto against your plan.� There is also a roleplaying aspect (supporting or going against your party) which determines your fate at the end of the war. http://www.rodvik.com/rodgames/STAVKA-OKH.html Regading the point system: Why hasn't anyone made a custom Grand Campaign utilising the small scenario point system? Is it hard to do (I guess it's the balancing)? If this scenario was present then we would be making both sides happy.

ComradeP -> RE: Simple proposition for Moscow (6/23/2011 10:56:50 AM)
quote: The marshes are useless if the units to the north and south of them are pushed back. And they will be. Certainly, but by the time you get to the Pripyat marshes, stopping the Soviets is impossible along most of the front, you can only slow them down. Again: I'm not talking about holding terrain, but about preserving forces so that when you get to Germany/Poland and the minor Axis states, you still have an army left that can cause some harm to the Soviets when it's defending. A line of dug in stacks of ~5 CV divisions can cause the Soviets some serious headaches along the Vistula or Oder as they can't really flank your positions anymore by that point.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6398926