Is Leningrad too easy to taken?

Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (Full Version)

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

Message

galex -> Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 5:52:38 AM)
In most AARs with two matched player， Leningrad always fallen. Do you think this is somehow not historical?

Zebedee -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 6:22:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: galex In most AARs with two matched player， Leningrad always fallen. Do you think this is somehow not historical? Not necessarily. The Axis player has some flexibility in where to focus his main thrusts - going for Leningrad almost invariably means missing out elsewhere. Usually that's in the south, where for activating the Finns and taking Leningrad, the Axis player tends to be trading opportunities to hurt the Red Army's ability to grow as well as gaining territory which allows for strategic flexibility come 42 and 43. Note the problems that not clearing the Crimea has if the decision is taken to focus heavily on Leningrad and Moscow and so denude AGS of striking power. Really, it's not a case of 'not historical' because the opportunity to drive on Leningrad early and hard was there for the Heer but they focused on the drive to Moscow instead before then switching focus to the south and then back to centre again. The trade-offs may not be quite as harsh as those faced by the Heer, mainly in my view due to the abstractions of the game engine, but they're definitely there and can bite hard.

delatbabel -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 10:24:03 AM)
Leningrad is impossible to defend against a determined German opponent. Whether that's historical or not is a different question. The payoff for the axis taking Leningrad (freeing the Finns) is huge. The Axis has a lot of trouble surviving the 1941 winter intact without the Finns. Therefore every axis player will be determined to take Leningrad. There isn't an equivalent payoff for taking, say, Stalingrad or Rostov, or even Moscow. In the 1942 campaign as the Soviets I usually lose Rostov and Stalingrad but the damage isn't as bad as losing Leningrad.

Captain B -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 2:08:34 PM)
Of course not historical....Leningrad was partially surrounded for some 900 days...But I always go after Leningrad, throwing every resource into the battle...Frees up the Finns, Allows you to shorten the lines. and allows you to put more Germans in the front lines vs allies come winter. The game is supposed to allow you to make choices that the Germans didn't make, or else why bother...the Germans would always lose!

Flaviusx -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 2:14:07 PM)
If the German really really wants Leningrad, he'll get it. I think the worth of the place is overstated.

marcpennington -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 5:49:16 PM)
Conversely, if one doesn't reinforce the drive on Leningrad heavily (really at least one more panzer group and the bulk of your infantry reinforcements) it's an extremely difficult objective to take (IMHO), especially since the implementation of the 20 hex limit to HQ buildup (and if one doesn't use the cycling of panzer HQs for supply trick to take the city or reach the border "off the march", but that's a separate discussion). By emphasizing AGN, AGC almost inevitably will be weakened, and there are a lot of troops in front of it that won't be destroyed that might have otherwise. Plus, having a strong AGC with available armor often leaves the option (or at least the threat) of major encirclements on the boundaries between the Army Groups, whether something along the lines of the historical Kiev one, or a much larger version of the historical one at Velikiye Luki--- an option that often is not there if you denude the center for the flanks. And (to play devil's advocate, and obviously leaving out consideration of a lot of other contributing factors), if a determined Axis player can take Leningrad by heavily re-inforcing the drive and almost every Axis player does that because Leningrad must be "all important" because of the release of the Finns, yet taking Leningrad hasn't been matched routinely by a subsequent success by the Axis in the overall campaign game... Which may support Flavius' argument that the importance of Leningrad may be a bit exaggerated.

marty_01 -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 6:05:09 PM)
I have played\am-playing five GCs in PBEM mode. Three as Axis, two as Soviet. Still in the middle of three of these and am plugging away into 1942 in all. Leningrad has fallen in all five games. I was wondering how often Leningrad was falling before players started complaining about the Swamp Terrain effects upon combat. While I played the AI with the old Swamp terrain effects in place -- I never played PBEM until the new swamp effects had been tweaked in one of the older patches. Makes me wonder if there should be two forms of swamp hex -- Heavy and Light -- ala Forests -- Heavy Woods and Light Woods. Some function of the percentile of traversable ground/roads/tracks within a given hex. The Axis right-hook to grab the Ladoga Supply Ports might be tougher if the Swamps north and east of Leningrad were more of a hinderance to movement and combat. If the Soviets can keep supplies flowing to Leningrad and avoid Isolation effects on CV, they might have a better chance of holding their ground in some sort of pseudo-historical siege of the city. But than again, the effects on play balance in terms of the Axis not being able to deny the manpower resources associated with Leningrad - hmmm. The Soviet hordes upon hordes of replacement manpower is already a very tough prospect for the Axis over both the short and long haul of the GC. Toss in the additional manpower flux from the Soviets holding onto Leningrad....[&:]

PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 6:37:00 PM)
Leningrad becomes the focus of many players, but I think that it is overstated. It falls, and perhaps it could have fallen historically, and indeed it does free up the Finns...but this is not the slam dunk most think it is. By focusing in the south, as several people have analized, greater damage can be done to the Soviet war effort. Quick grabs of armaments makes life so much tougher, and in the long run the mighty Finns get weaker south of the "no attack" line while an armaments-starved Soviet will not be able to muster the punch. I have to admit that the prize is alluring, I sneak in and try to take it most games (and I am not a good enough player to do a competant southern strategy).

Q-Ball -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 7:48:52 PM)
Couple notes on this. First, I am playing a game against the AI on "CHALLENGING", and I am not taking Leningrad! Maybe I suck, though it appears the AI scripts are written to save Leningrad at the expense of everything else, because the AI makes big stacks there, and leaves the South pretty open. IN PBEM, I still think it's very important. Freeing the Finns helps greatly in the first winter, and there is alot of Population up there. The big problem is that once Leningrad falls, there is literally nothing else behind it. So, any Panzers committed have to move elsewhere to get anything done. At least in the south, there is ALWAYS another objective beyond the one you just took. The other factor we haven't seen yet is that you may want to take more in the SOuth to create a buffer, because that is where the Red Army is going to come back. Up north, there is loads of good defensive terrain for the Germans; you won't lose the defensive war up there.

Flaviusx -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 8:03:02 PM)
There really isn't a lot of population up there, though. Not compared to, say, the Donbas.

Klydon -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 8:36:40 PM)
On the basic level of things, there are three choices in the game for the most part; north, center and south. I think the Germans can make good efforts in two of them. Historically, it was planned center and north. Leningrad is the one place where its fall represents a tangible benefit in releasing the Finns. It also has the benefit that once it does fall, the Russians are likely not to be in a position to take it back anytime soon, unlike say Moscow in the center (or any other major place on the "front" in most cases). My usual strike force for Leningrad is an additional panzer corp from PG3 and some infantry. I also extend AGC's front up to Lake Ilmen, allowing AGN to concentrate its full might in the Leningrad area. The Russians have some choices and can in fact over commit a ton of troops to Leningrad's defense, only to see them get hooked out of existence if he is not careful. Very easy to dump 2 fronts worth of troops north of Lake Ilmen. I think one of the keys for the Germans is that if he doesn't go for Leningrad, then where is the defensive line going to be? The Luga? In any case, I think it is at least in the German best interest to at least make a feint for Leningrad to see if he can get the Russians to over commit early to this area. If the Germans only feint here and the Russians pour 2 fronts worth of troops in, then the German is going to have a big miss match elsewhere. The one thing the Russian does want to do even when defending Leningrad is to ensure that he delays the city falling long enough to ensure the Germans don't have enough time to redeploy troops elsewhere or some place like Moscow may be in real danger as well. He needs to not only delay, but make sure the industry is out and that he does not get a pile of units encircled doing the delay. The Russian then has a choice to leave a good force up there if he wants to or more likely redeploy many of the troops up there to other points along the front.

Michael T -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 10:53:40 PM)
quote: The payoff for the axis taking Leningrad (freeing the Finns) is huge. The Axis has a lot of trouble surviving the 1941 winter intact without the Finns. Therefore every axis player will be determined to take Leningrad. Not me. And I haven't lost a CG yet.

Michael T -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 10:55:24 PM)
quote: I think the worth of the place is overstated Flaviusx, For once we agree on something :)

LiquidSky -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 10:57:33 PM)
In my PBEM game, I took Leningrad by sledgehammer approach. I gave every division in the 18th army 3 pioneer bns, and put the 2nd army in Army Group North. My opponent declared I would never take the city, and put his best generals/units up there. Nevertheless, I was able to bludgeon my way through, taking level 4 forts with three strong Russian rifle divisions in terrain by hitting it with 6 divisions (with 18 pioneer Bns). He also aggressively fought the fins, making me attack with them to gain terrain as I fought my way down to the no-attack line. He counterattacked them as well, so that when I finally did take leningrad and release them, they were depleted to around 50%, although they did seem to be strong enough to hold the line in blizzard still. In the south, I was stopped by the Dnepr for a couple of turns, and had to use the Rumanians/Hungarians to guard my flanks, as I did not have enough infantry to hold the line to let my panzers roam. I was unable to get into the Crimea as well. In retrospect, I would have been much better off to screen Leningrad, and take all those cities in the South for my army to sit in for the winter, and in my next game, may even send the 4th panzer down to take the Crimea in August.

carlkay58 -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 10:59:28 PM)
How often does Leningrad fall in the Road to Leningrad scenario? There the Axis and Soviets have the historical balance of troops and not the commonly reinforced Axis thrust that takes from AGC. I feel that in GC games the Axis tends to reinforce AGN more while the Soviets send less than historical. Thus the Axis win in AGN. But there are, as several people have pointed out, other areas that the Axis have had to limit their drives to do it.

Q-Ball -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/23/2011 11:41:39 PM)
I took it both times in PBEM, both times the same way: Bull-rush, and through the backdoor. I have never done a hook around Ilmen. If you decide to NOT attempt Leningrad, it does beg the question: What do you do with Pz Gp 4? You probably need to keep them moving north for a few turns, to pave the way for the infantry, and force the Russian to commit forces to Leningrad. A half-baked offensive will only drive this valuable asset into a swamp and sit there. You need to either go for Leningrad, or move 4th Panzer elsewhere at some point. The question is when: When do you make the shift? If you go south-first strategy, then I also think you have to think more carefully about shifting another Panzer Corps from Pz Gp 2 to south of the Pripet. You probably need at least 1 Pz Corps to clear the rail line from Brest Litovsk to Minsk, but you can do that and still send 2 Panzer Corps south (basically, the bulk of Pz Gp 2). Even if you form the Lvov pocket, SW Front has alot of units and can really slow you down.

HCDawson -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/24/2011 12:43:33 AM)
I have puttered around with the idea -- just tried a few turns against the AI, not any further -- of shifting Manstein to AGC and use it as the land bridge corp. Thus shifting each PC south, and yes basically using PG2 to hit Kiev and sending AGS tank forces in the general Odessa, lower Dneiper, Crimea direction. While this gives up Leningrad and even Moscow, I'd suspect it enough to grab and hold a general Novogorod, Velikye Luki, Smolensk/Vyazma line. Then with quite possibly 3 PGs (including much of the 4th once the area around Leningrad is reached) having 2-3 months time to tear though the Donets, I am interested to see what a winter line there could look like. It seems there is the potential to take enough industry off the board to severely limit the SU 1942 offensive beyond the winter. Even if forced to give ground to my own northern Dniper line, I see a northern thrust to Moscow and those cities come spring or a screen there and a drive to Grozny that harms the Soviets with even more industry and supply losses. Has anyone tried such a plan out either H2H or against AI?

marty_01 -> RE: Is Leningrad too easy to taken? (8/24/2011 3:34:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx There really isn't a lot of population up there, though. Not compared to, say, the Donbas. Hadn't really thought about it that way before. I decided to look at the logic behind this a bit more. This is a Wiki page showing Donbass � the two provinces\ highlighted in gold... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Ukraine_political_simple_Donbass.png I scaled it and did a real simple overlay of the Wiki map over the WiTE map. The areas in Grey are outside of the Donbass. I than put the WiTE Manpower counts on each town\city\urban hex. http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=ManpowerintheDonBass.jpg I than did the same for the immediate vicinity of Leningrad. http://s590.photobucket.com/albums/ss342/Kip_Swanson/?action=view¤t=ManpowerinLeningrad.jpg Depending how you slice and dice and\or knit-pick over the area covered by the Wiki depiction of the Donbass Region and my overlay, we are looking at an in-game manpower -- based upon the start of the 1941 GC Manpower stuff -- of between 107 and 134. This is spread over a region of 200(+) hexes. The Donbass represents lotz and lotz of real-estate to hold onto...for the Russians or the Axis. On the other hand the manpower focused in and around Leningrad -- again depending how you wanna slice & dice and nit-pick -- is about 84. And Leningrad's blob of 84 is all in a clean and very defendable -- defendable for the Axis that is -- nut shell of only 17 or so hexes. Once the Axis has Leningrad, they typically hold onto for a fair amount of time. Conversely -- and I can only speak in terms of the Games I have played and am playing -- possession of the Donbass is in continual flux..i.e. I think there's some rule about destruction manpower factors if the Axis hang onto population centers. Probability based and time dependent. So if 107 to 134 manpower factors is "a lot", than I'd reckon 84 manpower factors is at least 63 to 78 percent of "a lot". 63% to 78% of a lot still sounds like a lot...at least to me. Now if you�re looking at it from a perspective of defendable real-estate and population per unit area, Leningrad takes the cake for a quick and easy gobble for the Axis of a lot of potential Soviet manpower. On the other hand, if I am the Russians, of course I'd love to have 84 additional manpower factors flowing into my production cycles.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.609375