Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (Full Version)

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



Message

asdicus -> Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/16/2011 10:52:13 PM)

Potential game purchaser here.

I have been avidly following all the aar's for the last few months as I try to decide when/if to buy this monster game. One tactic that I have noticed being used by all the german players is to transfer additional panzer units to army group south and make use of the special opening turn rules to surround and then destroy a large part of the russian southern forces in the opening week. This seems to me a very unfair or 'gamey' opening move which is only possible by exploiting the game mechanics to the limit. My knowledge of the russian campaign is not extensive but I believe the southern russian armies were not surprised and put up a very strong resistance in the opening weeks. Thus it seems wrong that the german players should be allowed to redeploy their armies in this way (based on 100% perfect knowledge of russian dispositions) to order to gain such a big initial advantage. Are houserules considered the only way to stop this move taking place ?

I do own witp and witp ae (bought on release date) and have played several pbm games to completion. The special taskforce movement rules on 7 dec (to allow pearl harbor attack) also allow the japanese player to make surprise landings over much of the map - again a very gamey move which does require houserules in pbm games. It is a shame that something similar seems possible in war in the east and as a russian pbm player I would not be very happy about it.

Are the developers planning to make some code or oob changes to stop or modify the Lvov move ? I hope so. Of course just like in witp the german or russian fanboys will be striving to ensure they keep all the bonuses beneficial to their favorite side. Me I just like to see a game based as much as possible on historical accuracy not exploiting the game engine at any cost just to 'win'.




heliodorus04 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/16/2011 11:07:46 PM)

When you see how easy it is for the Soviet to organize his defense, you'll understand why there's nothing "gamey" about using the game mechanics to advantage. The German has so many disadvantages over his historic counterpart in that the Soviet player won't repeat any of the mistakes that his predecessor did.

In addition, the German is bound by his historic TOE, whereas the Soviet is not.  All the divisions pocketed in that Lvov pocket come back for free (as shells that reinforce nicely over a few turns).  It also forces serious compromise on the goals of Army Group Center.

Even with the huge advantage of the Lvov pocket, German players struggle mightily to reach the axis of advance and casualty/factory loss totals of the actual Wehrmacht in 1941.



Baelfiin -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/16/2011 11:17:59 PM)

Where is the fun in being locked into the same moves as what happened historically? I think we have all seen the movie and read the book about that.

Is there some magical reason why the Germans could not have re directed part or all of panzergruppe 2 to the south? Or on a different path?

Any wargame that you play with a fixed deployment at start is going to have the perfect first move that will be researched and implemented by players.

The editor is pretty good, you can always move units around in it to "fix" positions that you do not like. Or you can always use a house rule as you do with witp.

Labeling something as an "exploit" or "gamey" move is a little ambitious from someone that doesn't own the game. [8|]



fiva55 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/16/2011 11:39:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

When you see how easy it is for the Soviet to organize his defense, you'll understand why there's nothing "gamey" about using the game mechanics to advantage. The German has so many disadvantages over his historic counterpart in that the Soviet player won't repeat any of the mistakes that his predecessor did.

In addition, the German is bound by his historic TOE, whereas the Soviet is not. All the divisions pocketed in that Lvov pocket come back for free (as shells that reinforce nicely over a few turns). It also forces serious compromise on the goals of Army Group Center.

Even with the huge advantage of the Lvov pocket, German players struggle mightily to reach the axis of advance and casualty/factory loss totals of the actual Wehrmacht in 1941.


The way you represent things seem to be a bit biased. Having played both sides, I can say that playing Soviet isn't as easy as you say. At the very least, you are forced to defend for 18 turns, giving up the initiative, hoping that your opponent won't quit before you have the opportunity to have some fun being on the offensive. With that said, I will admit that between equally skilled players, the Soviet player will usually prevail.

As for the Lvov pocket, some might consider it a gamey move, since it seems historical implausible. Naturally, houserules are possible to prevent this move, though I have yet to read an AAR with such an agreement. There are some games in which the German player avoided the Llov pocket though, and still had great success in the south.




asdicus -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/16/2011 11:51:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Baelfiin

Where is the fun in being locked into the same moves as what happened historically? I think we have all seen the movie and read the book about that.

Is there some magical reason why the Germans could not have re directed part or all of panzergruppe 2 to the south? Or on a different path?

Any wargame that you play with a fixed deployment at start is going to have the perfect first move that will be researched and implemented by players.

The editor is pretty good, you can always move units around in it to "fix" positions that you do not like. Or you can always use a house rule as you do with witp.

Labeling something as an "exploit" or "gamey" move is a little ambitious from someone that doesn't own the game. [8|]

The reason I describe the Lvov pocket move as 'gamey' is because my understanding of the campaign is that the russian southern armies were not surprised and the result was that german advance was much harder than on the central and northern fronts. I do not need to own the game to see when players exploit the special game start rules to achieve a massive advance by army group south. If I am wrong with my assumptions then I am more than retract the 'gamey' quote.

I do agree that houserules can sort this issue out but in my ae experience they can be hard to agree (ie the game lets me do this why shouldn't I ?).



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 12:05:18 AM)

Asdicus, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you and would like to see this changed. My own view is that at a minimum Southwest Front ought not be subject to the same surprise attack turns rules that apply to the rest of the Red Army. (This would give them full movement.)

But even that may not be enough to properly fix this. There's been some talk off and on about redoing the whole surprise turn.




Klydon -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 12:07:48 AM)

There have been a couple of AAR's that have agreed to some restrictions on this topic (Carnage/Redmarkus current game), so it is possible.

Some will point at the a-historical advance in game compared to the real deal. Part of the issue is we don't know how the advance would have gone had the Germans in fact tried what many players are doing with diverting some of PG2 to the south. With only 4 panzer divisions available on turn 1, PG1 and AGS simply can't achieve the dash to the Rumanian border and have it hold in any meaningful way. Some would way there is your historical result. The Germans can't get the job done with AGS alone in terms of the dash to the Rumanian border.

The other issue is the original plan called for a strong thrust by 6th army towards the Dniepr river with 1st panzer heading in the same direction. They then would turn south before crossing the river and attempt to capture all the Russians to the west of the river by meeting a strong thrust from 17th army along the borders. This plan was not exactly popular, but it was the one adopted and implemented with very mixed results.

What players have done is reenforced PG1 from PG2 with a thrust to the Rumanian border instead of heading east towards the river first. Fewer Russians are actually bagged by this manuver compared to what was intended to happen, but it does happen faster and in a more forward position of the Russian defenses (IE, west of the Stalin line).

By and large, the Russian armies in the south are much tougher than their northern counterparts from turn 1 on. That is not to say they are really tough, but there is a noticible difference in combat ability and how easy/hard it is to move Russians around due to attacks. Much of the early game counter-attacking (if there is any) is in the south. There can/will be some in the center, but this is more of a result of the Russian reserve units (which are better quality than the garbage they had on the front line in the north).

I think the writing is on the wall that something will eventually be done about the dash to the Rumanian border, but even with such a manuver, it is not a war winner for the Germans. Far from it and failure to have a good open in the south resulted in the Germans getting abused that much sooner. As the 1.05 AAR's go along, it will be interesting to see what happens, but honestly, the only German having any real success was Pelton. Most Germans were just getting crushed during the winter/spring and were going no place in the summer of 42 for the most part. With all the changes, the Russians must now actually put some thought into what they are doing because before, it was fairly easy to take care of business in most cases.



Pipewrench -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 1:42:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx



But even that may not be enough to properly fix this. There's been some talk off and on about redoing the whole surprise turn.





now that would be very interesting.

If each player were allowed to re-position just a couple of infantry divisions at the beginning of the game it would change the dynamics and make for exciting openings.



JAMiAM -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 2:01:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Asdicus, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you and would like to see this changed. My own view is that at a minimum Southwest Front ought not be subject to the same surprise attack turns rules that apply to the rest of the Red Army. (This would give them full movement.)

But even that may not be enough to properly fix this. There's been some talk off and on about redoing the whole surprise turn.



I could get behind this suggestion on one condition - that the Soviet player is likewise constrained by a historical counterattack rule. It would have to be structured as such:

1. The Soviet player cannot make any deliberate attacks until his has accumulated 200 Divisional Attack Points (DAP).

2. The Soviet player does not begin accumulating Administrative Points until the friendly logistics phase following the accumulation of 200 DAP.

3. Each friendly Axis logistics phase that the Soviet player has not accumulated 200 DAP, the Axis gains permanent Victory Points according to the following schedule (10 - turn number).

4. DAP are awarded for each unit involved per hasty attack. Regiments and Brigades count for one-half DAP. Thus, a hasty attack with 3 Divisions will award 3 DAP, while a hasty attack with an NKVD regiment, and AT Brigade, and a Division will score two DAP. Fractions are scored and retained. Support units are not counted for purposes of scoring DAP.




Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 2:38:56 AM)

James...I'm not sure there's 200 divisional equivalents among the 3 Fronts on turn 1, lol. Even if you used every available non routed unit to launch a hasty attack this could take several turns.






Baelfiin -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 3:46:11 AM)

I still dont understand why people think that it is a "gamey" move or an ahistorical advance if you throw an extra 12+ divisions at an area. If you as the player choose to send your guys in a different direction than they went historically should you then not expect to see results that are different from what occurred historically?

The ideal situation in a wargame is to have a double blind set up phase before actually starting the game, but then again you are going to run into "gamey bs" and "ahistorical results"

How sure can we be that given the same amount of resources that players are able to concentrate in an area, that the historical commanders could not have accomplished the same results that the player is getting?

ANY first turn in any game with fixed deployments is going to be ugly for the defending side.





Baelfiin -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 3:58:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Asdicus, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you and would like to see this changed. My own view is that at a minimum Southwest Front ought not be subject to the same surprise attack turns rules that apply to the rest of the Red Army. (This would give them full movement.)

But even that may not be enough to properly fix this. There's been some talk off and on about redoing the whole surprise turn.



I could get behind this suggestion on one condition - that the Soviet player is likewise constrained by a historical counterattack rule. It would have to be structured as such:

1. The Soviet player cannot make any deliberate attacks until his has accumulated 200 Divisional Attack Points (DAP).

2. The Soviet player does not begin accumulating Administrative Points until the friendly logistics phase following the accumulation of 200 DAP.

3. Each friendly Axis logistics phase that the Soviet player has not accumulated 200 DAP, the Axis gains permanent Victory Points according to the following schedule (10 - turn number).

4. DAP are awarded for each unit involved per hasty attack. Regiments and Brigades count for one-half DAP. Thus, a hasty attack with 3 Divisions will award 3 DAP, while a hasty attack with an NKVD regiment, and AT Brigade, and a Division will score two DAP. Fractions are scored and retained. Support units are not counted for purposes of scoring DAP.





I like an idea such as this, currently there is no reason for Russians to attack early as they did historically.

On the other hand Full movement or even 3/4 movement and no surprise debuff (for lack of a better term) on the first turn would make things a little more dangerous for the germans in the south. Maybe give the units in the south full supplies as well.

Or better yet how about major cities can provide airhead supply like airbases do. Simply click on the city it tells you how much supply is stockpiled there, you can then set your supply range and maybe the percentage that you want to supply your units. If you have a lot of suppply maybe there could be another supply state , "pocket supply" thats better than AH/BH supply but not quite as good as being in full supply.

Oh the possibiliutes of adding an AP cost to doing a "city build up" if you going to get surrounded ......



Ketza -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 4:26:00 AM)

A good way to change the surprise turn would be a short attack phase for the Axis followed up by a short movement or reaction phase for the Soviets. Kind of like a "mini" turn. It would then roll into the 22 June turn as normal.

Dunno if its practical from a program perspective but it would make the opening more dynamic.



JAMiAM -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 4:42:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

James...I'm not sure there's 200 divisional equivalents among the 3 Fronts on turn 1, lol. Even if you used every available non routed unit to launch a hasty attack this could take several turns.


Hi Flavio,

I loaded up my Soviet first turn from the game between PDH and myself. They don't get much worse than that. Not filtering for deep reserves that are active on turn 1, there were 148 non-routed, non-frozen division sized units. Given that probably only about 100 are within range of Axis units at the start of the turn, an aggressive Soviet player should be able to get his 200 DAP in two turns. Keep in mind that the attacks are hasty, so unless units were unready, or became unready after the first attack, they could conceivably get more than one attack per turn.

This would likely result in the Axis only getting 8 VPs since his first friendly logistics phase happens on turn 2, and the Soviets should be able to finish their requirement before the second Axis logistics phase between Soviet Turn 2 and Axis Turn 3. If it takes the Soviets three turns, then the Axis would gain only 15 VP.



KenchiSulla -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 8:12:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

When you see how easy it is for the Soviet to organize his defense, you'll understand why there's nothing "gamey" about using the game mechanics to advantage. The German has so many disadvantages over his historic counterpart in that the Soviet player won't repeat any of the mistakes that his predecessor did.



It is not THAT easy... and requires a great deal of planning.

Writing an AAR helps..



BletchleyGeek -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 11:45:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder


quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

When you see how easy it is for the Soviet to organize his defense, you'll understand why there's nothing "gamey" about using the game mechanics to advantage. The German has so many disadvantages over his historic counterpart in that the Soviet player won't repeat any of the mistakes that his predecessor did.



It is not THAT easy... and requires a great deal of planning.

Writing an AAR helps..



Yes, it does. Trying to describe what are your plans takes time but allows you to spot flaws.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 12:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza
A good way to change the surprise turn would be a short attack phase for the Axis followed up by a short movement or reaction phase for the Soviets. Kind of like a "mini" turn. It would then roll into the 22 June turn as normal.


In fact that done throughout the whole campaign would address a lot of similar "feats" caused by the I-Go-U-Go system. The reason that it appears gamey move is that the terrain and movement resolution is much increased, while time resolution is still coarse with 7 day turns, so the element of "simultaneousness" (if there is such a term..) gets lost and German units can roll through the line where in reality a Russian unit could have reacted timely and moved into blocking positions. I had been wondering about that when I first read that WitEast would feature 5x better map resolution than War in Russia. It would be nice if that could be modded, i.e. two turns a week and production, supply, MP etc. adjusted to that.

If time resolution and terrain grid are comparable, i.e. such as "1 hex movement" per turn, you'll get something like a real time reaction capability, meeting engagements etc. If time resolution is much better than map resolution, you have to count "miles moved in hex" as in WiTP/AE, with corresponding issues like "resetting moves starting from center again", or "lighting retreats over a few days marches distances in an instant" (though these could also be addressed with some neat concepts).

Anyway, but perhaps part of this issue could be addressed if the Axis units in the South had only half the MP on turn 1 themselves? And Russians remain as they are now.



Flaviusx -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 12:03:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

A good way to change the surprise turn would be a short attack phase for the Axis followed up by a short movement or reaction phase for the Soviets. Kind of like a "mini" turn. It would then roll into the 22 June turn as normal.

Dunno if its practical from a program perspective but it would make the opening more dynamic.


This idea has been tossed around, as a matter of fact. Not a trivial thing to do, though, as Pavel might say.



asdicus -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 4:04:50 PM)

Thank-you for all the opinions and replies posted regarding my query.

I asked the question regarding the Lvov pocket only because it seemed so unlikey to ever have happened based on the actual history of the campaign. As a potential game purchaser I want to buy a game that is as accurate as possible to history bearing in mind it is a game of course and thus compromises must always be made. I do wonder at the view of some german players who believe the game is too hard for the germans anyway so any extra initial advantage to the german advance is fair enough. Many of the aar's show the germans taking moscow, leningrad and rostov in 1941 which does not indicate to me that the game is too hard on the german side.

I am disappointed that not one of the recent aar's is in 1944 or 1945 - the german players always seem to stop when events turn in 1943. From a bug stopping viewpoint this is a worry as I have to wonder about game stopping bugs only appearing in 1944 or 1945. witp and witp ae had a similar problem - there were bugs with kamikaze and russian activation in 1945 that remained hidden because no-one had played a full 1941 game into 1945.

I would like to express my thanks to all the players who write the aar's. Not only are they often an entertaining read (just like a good story) but many also contain tips and strategies for new or potential players such as myself.



pompack -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 4:21:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

A good way to change the surprise turn would be a short attack phase for the Axis followed up by a short movement or reaction phase for the Soviets. Kind of like a "mini" turn. It would then roll into the 22 June turn as normal.

Dunno if its practical from a program perspective but it would make the opening more dynamic.


This idea has been tossed around, as a matter of fact. Not a trivial thing to do, though, as Pavel might say.


The interesting thought is to take this to it's logical conclusion as janh has done above and change the time scale to three days with movement scaled accordingly.




KenchiSulla -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/17/2011 5:33:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Thank-you for all the opinions and replies posted regarding my query.

I asked the question regarding the Lvov pocket only because it seemed so unlikey to ever have happened based on the actual history of the campaign. As a potential game purchaser I want to buy a game that is as accurate as possible to history bearing in mind it is a game of course and thus compromises must always be made. I do wonder at the view of some german players who believe the game is too hard for the germans anyway so any extra initial advantage to the german advance is fair enough. Many of the aar's show the germans taking moscow, leningrad and rostov in 1941 which does not indicate to me that the game is too hard on the german side.

I am disappointed that not one of the recent aar's is in 1944 or 1945 - the german players always seem to stop when events turn in 1943. From a bug stopping viewpoint this is a worry as I have to wonder about game stopping bugs only appearing in 1944 or 1945. witp and witp ae had a similar problem - there were bugs with kamikaze and russian activation in 1945 that remained hidden because no-one had played a full 1941 game into 1945.

I would like to express my thanks to all the players who write the aar's. Not only are they often an entertaining read (just like a good story) but many also contain tips and strategies for new or potential players such as myself.



Asdicus, if you want my two cents... If you have the cash to burn buy this product. It is good, it is fun and there is a great time/money spend ratio! Support is excellent so anything popping up will be dealt with..

And no, matrix games is not paying me to make this statement...



gradenko2k -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 12:13:10 AM)

I don't see the point in holding off your purchase of this great game on the basis of a single opening move that might not even mean all the much in the long-term outcome of a match. It would be like not buying War in the Pacific just because the Japanese can redirect the Kido Butai to Manila instead of Pearl Harbor.



Schmart -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 2:18:17 AM)

If the Lvov pocket gets nerfed, then the game must guarrantee the Kiev pocket, because after all, the Kiev pocket was historical...The reason the Lvov pocket is essential for the Axis, is precisely because the game is unlikely to produce a Kiev pocket, and I have yet to see anything close to the Kiev pocket in any of my games. If the Russian player was forced to play into a Kiev like pocket possibility, then by all means nerf the Lvov pocket...



abulbulian -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 2:31:19 AM)

This whole idea of trying to find a way to prevent the Soviets from not getting some units bagged around Lvov is utter BS.  Do people actually know what they are asking for?  So you want to imply more tunneling out what one side can do, but still give operational freedom to the other?  What the heck are people thinking?  If people want to sending some extra Pz units south that was not historical, then let them.  This continuing idea of some people to try and mirco one side to doing some historical path is really starting to be annoying.  I bought this game to offering me many choice of how to play.  So just get the darn historical parameters (units, toe, combat mechanics, etc) straight and let the players play. 


Sure some people will always find a more optimum strategy for the start, but that's like any game .. computer or board.  So does that mean the game sure start to imply more rules on the game?  No.  I feel strongly already that the game is much more forceful on the axis players in historical paths rather than the Soviets.  The game needs to offer more flexibility to the Axis with production and su creation rather than to put any more constraints on how their forces can operate.

Like Schmart said, if you want to try and force historical crap to happen in the game then let's talk about the Kiev pocket of 600k Soviets or the less know pocket of another 600k Soviets at Vyazma.  Where does it end.

Let's keep the developers working on fixing/enhancing stuff that has meaning rather than some people's crying about the axis having the ability to shift forces on the opening attack to pocket more Soviets in the south.... really

[:-]



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 3:13:50 AM)

I have made a Kiev pocket of 600k men...ask Pawlock - it was 60 some infantry divisions, some tank divisions, cavalry divisions and Budenny's large vats of wine.



janh -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 1:02:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart
If the Lvov pocket gets nerfed, then the game must guarrantee the Kiev pocket, because after all, the Kiev pocket was historical...The reason the Lvov pocket is essential for the Axis, is precisely because the game is unlikely to produce a Kiev pocket, and I have yet to see anything close to the Kiev pocket in any of my games. If the Russian player was forced to play into a Kiev like pocket possibility, then by all means nerf the Lvov pocket...


And in return force the German player by some rules to be trapped in a Stalingrad pocket? And maybe ensure that the Panzergroups can't be send to a different Army Group that they did not perform the 41 storm with?

In the case of the Kiev pocket, a number of mistakes must be made by both sides, and progress in the weeks before also needs to mimic the harder fighting and slower progress in the South (which accidentally means that a huge Lvov pocket would reduce that chance). Yet this is almost as unlikely as a German player overextending at Stalingrad.



bwheatley -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 5:01:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

If the Lvov pocket gets nerfed, then the game must guarrantee the Kiev pocket, because after all, the Kiev pocket was historical...The reason the Lvov pocket is essential for the Axis, is precisely because the game is unlikely to produce a Kiev pocket, and I have yet to see anything close to the Kiev pocket in any of my games. If the Russian player was forced to play into a Kiev like pocket possibility, then by all means nerf the Lvov pocket...



The kiev pocket is post T1 and after T1 history is out the window. I think the point is folks doubt that this maneuver could have happened at the start of barbarossa.



76mm -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 5:12:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I think the point is folks doubt that this maneuver could have happened at the start of barbarossa.


And moreover there is absolutely nothing the Sov player can do about it. In my limited experience whether or not the Lvov Gambit takes place makes a significant difference to the opening campaign season.



heliodorus04 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 5:47:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm


quote:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I think the point is folks doubt that this maneuver could have happened at the start of barbarossa.


And moreover there is absolutely nothing the Sov player can do about it. In my limited experience whether or not the Lvov Gambit takes place makes a significant difference to the opening campaign season.


Just as there is nothing the German player can do about the Soviet creating perfect 2-hex gaps between any Soviet unit and the next one, so that there's perfect ZOC maginot line.

Just as the Soviet is free to NOT fight the Germans along the frontier, so too the German is allowed to re-arrange units to suit his strategic plan. Why does this bother people so much? Germans can do Lvov, Soviets can run for the hills to avoid early encirclement.

Both sides have freedom to deviate from history equally. The German pays a strategic cost for this maneuver: He EITHER has a panzer corps in AGS that reports to AGC, and it will have serious problems with fuel, combat effectiveness, and overall admin efficiency. OR, if he allocates AP to put it into AGS, he overloads AGS (the most grossly over-loaded Tier 2 HQ in the entire game at the start of the GC'41) and spends a phenomenal amount of AP to do this. Considering all the Romanian ****-units that start attached to AGS, and the insane cost for Germans to move Armies out of Army Groups, there's virtually no hope of fixing the command situation of AGS until AG A and AG B form. Ultimately if you move this corps from AGC, you will need to spend APs to move it into an AGS command.

Now, if I could unfreeze the frozen motorized units in AGS on Turn 1, I wouldn't need this. But that will never happen without someone creating an edited version of the GC'41 start situation.




Rafo35 -> RE: Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers (9/19/2011 5:58:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

The German has so many disadvantages over his historic counterpart in that the Soviet player won't repeat any of the mistakes that his predecessor did.


He also has a lot of advantages, like knowing precisely what he is up for or having a very kind logistical system.

quote:

In addition, the German is bound by his historic TOE, whereas the Soviet is not.


The Soviet are bound to their historic TOE as well, and that's far worse. The advantage they have is in the long term OOB.

And whereas the historical German couldn't do a lot better as far as OOB and TOE are concerned, the Soviet could. And yet, whatever how the campaign unfold, the Russians will have to use brigades of tanks and infantry, weak infantry divisions, hopelessly weak tank corps (at least until late 42), etc.

quote:

All the divisions pocketed in that Lvov pocket come back for free (as shells that reinforce nicely over a few turns). It also forces serious compromise on the goals of Army Group Center.


That's a serious argument to ponder : what's the real cost / benefice of the operation. The pb with the Lvov pocket is that it is currently as sure and hermetic as the Minsk one, whereas the conditions were very different. That wouldn't bother me much if it was proven that it is a decent choice but not a no brainer.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375