So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (Full Version)

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



Message

fbs -> So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/16/2012 9:37:08 PM)

Imagine it's 1980, and the Soviets launched a surprise attack against NATO, and are rolling in all fronts.

Would you order your troops to march to the front and stand and die, so the population can evacuate and reinforcements can build a 2nd line of defense, or would you pull back your troops, face the media (that will call you a coward) and leave the civillians to their fate?

I would stay in the front, for a matter of ethos: it's very difficult to run away and leave the enemy run rampant in your country - even if staying means a high chance of defeat. That's a fundamental dilemma that, I believe, many professional soldiers would struggle with in real life.

Meanwhile players are not troubled with (or punished for) trading territory for time in the game. The lack of attachment to the little dots in the map is, for me, the biggest difference between a player playing WITE and a real general playing the war. The former will choose "X" with mathematical precision because he will get whatever maximum probability, while the later will choose "Y", even if that's not the best mathematical choice, but is the one he can live with in real life.

Any thoughts?



Karri -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/16/2012 9:44:04 PM)

Or you go with delaying action.



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/16/2012 9:54:03 PM)

Because the victory points, in the GC, do not accumulate per turn as they do in the scenarios, there is no incentive to hold territory- and very little incentive to even hold major cities.

It would be simple to make such a change, but extremely difficult to balance it. But, as I have said before, they spent a huge amount of time developing this wonderful game, but then seemingly spent 30 minutes one Sunday afternoon creating the victory conditions.



stone10 -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/16/2012 11:50:34 PM)

I'll choose to be a "coward" for sure.



Walloc -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 12:57:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Imagine it's 1980, and the Soviets launched a surprise attack against NATO, and are rolling in all fronts.

Would you order your troops to march to the front and stand and die, so the population can evacuate and reinforcements can build a 2nd line of defense, or would you pull back your troops, face the media (that will call you a coward) and leave the civillians to their fate?

I would stay in the front, for a matter of ethos: it's very difficult to run away and leave the enemy run rampant in your country - even if staying means a high chance of defeat. That's a fundamental dilemma that, I believe, many professional soldiers would struggle with in real life.

Meanwhile players are not troubled with (or punished for) trading territory for time in the game. The lack of attachment to the little dots in the map is, for me, the biggest difference between a player playing WITE and a real general playing the war. The former will choose "X" with mathematical precision because he will get whatever maximum probability, while the later will choose "Y", even if that's not the best mathematical choice, but is the one he can live with in real life.

Any thoughts?



While i agree with the issues for a "modern" western democracy to give up its own terriritory.
Well there are some huge problems in that analogy compared to eastern front.

Neither sides was democracies and some might even say had a certain carelessness with its citizens, not to talk that of the enemies. Huge numbers of the population ended of in "camps" of any "undesireble" elements, being forcefully relocated, outright killed and so on and on and on. Things could get done with the welfare of the states in mind that is inconciveble in todays western democracies. Evidence of that is in such multitude i wont even start to name em.

Tho i understand your point and it has some merit and while this is a game and ppl are comparibly more lax compared to RL i know many ppl restrict em self in tactics/exploits and so on in games that neither of the 2 sides dictators and other decision makers would even think twice about. Again i'd stipulate the historical evidence are there in abundance. Ofc this doesnt go for all and any gamer.


If u look for one sides in particular. It has a proven track record of scorched earth policy on its own territory with no regards to its own population other than what was best for the state through out the history of that country. Thinking nothing of abandoning its capital when invaders was at its gates. I'd stipulate the same would have happened and was even being prepared in '41. This ofc is in direct conflict with ur analogy.


Do ppl learn to game the game. Ofc. Is there merits in doing retreats at certain points in the game. Absolutly. To much possibly. Yes it is sorta gamey to rail all ur airbases, pz divs what ever just out side blizzard zone. Sure, but we all know why ppl do it.
Recently historians have even suggested that it was the smartest thing to do, was the no retreat order during the blizzard. This goes against the
conventional opinion on the subject. The idea is that this was the coldest winter in a long time and the losses during a retreat of a winter worse than that of 1812 would have turned into a possible apolytical retreat like the 1812 one. Human and german machines doing dont well in sub 20 30 40 degres celtius, especially not when having to make exhausting walks home. Ppl do much better at large indoors. At leased taking turns being outside. There are statistical evidence proving was happening where retreats happen/was forced. Ofc one should be weary of such but they certainly can be right too.


A typical argument/complain i hear on these forums are that the germans are boxed into history in this game.

In another recent thread suggested and discussed if it should cost more to "retreat" going backwards. With some agreeance.

All that said i see potentially problems in such a rule and restricting retreats. For one thing it forces u into that history box that some many players dislikes, is ofc one thing. This certainly would do that. Not that, that necesarrily is a bad thing, but watch for the out cries.

There was a school of thot in part of the german higher officer corps that a much better operational plan was needed for the eastern front especially 1943+. Elastic defence. Rubberband tactics what ever u wana call it. Simply said Retreat, backhand blow when the russian overextended their supply and operational capabilties. This has been lauded by many after the war as the way to go, not we will ever know if it had been more succesfull or changed history much. Restricting retreats would very possibly nullify such tactics. Again forcing ppl into boxes, removing what i think most agree was at leased very real operational possiblities.

More importandly unless done very carefully it goes directly against history. Why were there so many fewer pockets in Fall Blau.
Reason is that the russian learned operationally/strategicly much from the disasters of 41 and early 42. In large changing their whole operational thinking or at leased futher emphazise it. Give ground. Any ground!!! Just dont unduly lose more men. At leased until the right oppertunity arises. Again for those that study history this is nothing new to russians through out military history as earlier stipulated. Let the french take Moscow, we dont care, let the swedes reach 3/4 of the way to the turkish border. We dont care.

Restricting retreating would go against exactly that operational concept. So any such measures would have to be done with the very right balance or throw out the window perfectly valid historical operational schemes. As well as history, the thing that in part is the whole reasoning behind such rules.

My 87 cents,

Rasmus



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 1:28:11 AM)

I don't like the idea of restricting retreating, or movement for that matter either.

Why did the SU try and hold ground more in 1941 than we see in the game? I agree, it certainly wasn't that they gave a rat's ass about their people. It was however that Stalin was pissed off, and not just a little- that anyone would dare invade his country and occupy one square mile of it. And Stalin was a bit like moma- when he ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

I do like the idea of awarding victory points similar to the way its done in the scenarios (not new ground here folks, you can't pretend that this is some radical, new idea). That way, you can command your forces as you wish, but if you are skilled enough to hold <insert city here> for x more turns, then its to your benefit, and you gain a few extra victory points. Which is pretty much like the German elastic defense (as oppose to run like hell for 10 hexes to your fort line).

Yes, its harder to defend like that, and more risky, but if your good enough to do it, you should reap extra victory points for it.



Walloc -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 1:39:52 AM)

I would also like to add that while i just voted for a lower auto VP condition and earlier end date. From a purely historic point of view i just argued that the russians would give any ground and i stand by that. So im saying that i might not even believe in lower victory conditions, but for sake of the gaming i see reason in them.

Again i understand the reasoning in making accued VP it has problems too agart from getting the balance right. Since no one knows how the game plays out before its played. There is no way before hand to say if a certain VP lvl is artifical. If one sides does one thing differently than history why force the other into not able able to respond by predertermained places to hold a certain times. U remove the other sides possibilty of reacting, doing things differently now that the other side started the spiral.
Accued VP doesnt take that into account at all or extremly hard to balance right IMO. It gives just replace one set of gamey tactics for another. Hold on to some things in spite all good operational sense for 5 VPs per turn. I can forsee the titles of future post. feastung X cities. Holding on to cities with all for the sake of a few VPs, not militarily sense. Many major cities fell and was recapitualed several times during war. I see no evidence in that the sides necesarrily held on cities unless it explicitly had a purpose. Lenningrad/Stalingrad ofc comes to mind.
Until the very end. With the hitlers/german side orders to make cities into feastungs. I dont see how that helped em win the war aka accue VPs if any thing it was just large prison camps not VP earners.
Also Cities were even used to lure enemies into traps/backhand blows. Again same as in 1812. So it can also create unhistoric behavior. Gaming the game just as much, just in different ways.

In some games it might turn out that the right way to beat ur opponent in the sense of who is last man standing is retreating or elastic defence. In others not, u cant say before hand cuz u cant say how the game will evolve. It was 2 gaints fighting to the death, no less! The current VP conditions is more or less a reflection of that. History wise i'd say those VPs are prolly correct in the sense of whom was the last man standing.

Many games and it been discussed on the boards too victory conditions rewards players for doing better than history. Earn X victory level for doing X "better". Ofc what is better is determained by the designers. I certainly can understand these and would mostly agree with such. U feel a sense of accomplishment of doing better than "expected".
Just note that a minor victory in such isnt the same thing as ur side would have won the war.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



mmarquo -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 1:55:36 AM)

What the flip does a peasant soldier from Pinsk care about the fate of Minsk?

Marquo



Tentpeg -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 2:02:46 AM)

SACEUR Hicks would say, "Nuke em from orbit... it is the only way to be sure."

You cannot compare what NATO would have done had the Warsaw pact invaded West Germany to the Soviet reaction to the Axis invasion of Russia.

The variables are to many. The West Germans would not give an inch, the Americans would be more than willing to use tac nukes and carry the war into other areas, the Brits would have conserved their forces and traded space and the French would have sat on the side lines. The Dutch and Belgains would have given a good account of themselves and then gone home to defend their homes.

FYI the kaserne I was stationed at in 1983 was fifteens minutes by air and less than two hours by tank from the border. Strategic depth there was none. And BTW the warplans bordered on ridiculous if NATO had no warning (or chose to ignore it).

Lastly, looking back I realize the USSR did not want to invade West Germany. They wanted us in Germany. They had fought two wars with a united Germany. They did not want to fight a third.



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 2:06:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

I would also like to add that while i just voted for a lower auto VP condition and earlier end date. From a purely historic point of view i just argued that the russians would give any ground and i stand by that. So im saying that i might not even believe in lower victory conditions, but for sake of the gaming i see reason in them.

Again i understand the reasoning in making accued VP it has problems too agart from getting the balance right. Since no one knows how the game plays out before its played. There is no way before hand to say if a certain VP lvl is artifical. If one sides does one thing differently than history why force the other into not able able to respond by predertermained places to hold a certain times. U remove the other sides possibilty of reacting, doing things differently now that the other side started the spiral.
Accued VP doesnt take that into account at all or extremly hard to balance right IMO. It gives just replace one set of gamey tactics for another. Hold on to some things in spite all good operational sense for 5 VPs per turn. I can forsee the titles of future post. feastung X cities. Holding on to cities with all for the sake of a few VPs, not militarily sense. Many major cities fell and was recapitualed several times during war. I see no evidence in that the sides necesarrily held on cities unless it explicitly had a purpose. Lenningrad/Stalingrad ofc comes to mind.
Until the very end. With the hitlers/german side orders to make cities into feastungs. I dont see how that helped em win the war aka accue VPs if any thing it was just large prison camps not VP earners.
Also Cities were even used to lure enemies into traps/backhand blows. Again same as in 1812. So it can also create unhistoric behavior. Gaming the game just as much, just in different ways.

In some games it might turn out that the right way to beat ur opponent in the sense of who is last man standing is retreating or elastic defence. In others not, u cant say before hand cuz u cant say how the game will evolve. It was 2 gaints fighting to the death, no less! The current VP conditions is more or less a reflection of that. History wise i'd say those VPs are prolly correct in the sense of whom was the last man standing.

Many games and it been discussed on the boards too victory conditions rewards players for doing better than history. Earn X victory level for doing X "better". Ofc what is better is determained by the designers. I certainly can understand these and would mostly agree with such. U feel a sense of accomplishment of doing better than "expected".
Just note that a minor victory in such isnt the same thing as ur side would have won the war.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



So, in another words, what you're saying is that they apparently were NOT able to come up with accrued victory points in the scenarios?

About the only thing I can agree with you on, or even understand your point is that accrued VP would be difficult to balance (but not impossible).

I see plenty of evidence the Soviets held on to cities. One in particular was Moscow.
Come to think of it, Leningrad and Stalingrad also come to mind. You really can't say the Soviets did not defend cities, at least for damn sure those three!

I really can't understand you not realizing the Soviets tried to hold ground in the war they had no business (from a strictly military sense) trying to hold. Time after time they fell into that trap, and ended up being encircled by the Germans.

Again, I will side with you it would not be trivial to balance, but seriously, not that hard. There are plenty of AARs that could test any set that was put together.

And I would also argue that in general, the outcomes, whether you used accrual VP or the current set we have now would be about the same. The only thing that would change, albeit slightly, would be the behavior in game.



marcpennington -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 2:23:54 AM)

I do think the Soviet ability to trade massive amounts of space for time is ahistorical, but more to the point, I think it hurts game play. While I find the proposition that the Soviet Union would have collapsed doubtful, given, primarily, that they didn't collapse despite the beating they took in 1941-42, I do think both sides were operating under the assumption that the Soviet Union very well might. On the one hand, the whole notion of "one good kick and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" caused the Germans to over-extend themselves in both years' campaigns, thinking that just one more push would bring victory. Conversely, Stalin's own doubts about his regime's durability (witness his nervous collapse in his dacha in October 1941 for evidence of his psychological fragility) was one very major factor in both the forward defense in 1941 such as during the Battles of Smolensk or Kiev as well as the "not a step back" order in 1942, among many, many other examples of Soviet refusal or inability to trade space for time.

In game terms, I'm a proponent of adding a variable percentage chance for Soviet collapse that changes with time and is primarily tied to how many urban centers are being lost over what time period (for example, loosing 5 major urban centers in one turn is bad...), and could receive a major boost from events such as the fall of Moscow or Leningrad, or earlier in the war, receive a reduction if the Soviets are holding onto locations like Smolensk or Kiev. Again, I don't think Soviet collapse was historically likely, but I do think the possibility of such will in game terms cause a better simulation of the constraints acting on the participants. Ideally, it would be modeled to encourage the Germans to go all out (including motivation in the November '41 winter tuns to make a last gasp rather then digging in for the blizzard), and similarly cause the Soviets to try and fight forward on lines like the Dnepr. At the least, it would make it an agonizing choice for the Germans to NOT keep pushing recklessly forward or the Soviets to NOT risk major encirclements with a forward defense.

Of course, I could see many people disliking the rule, so I imagine it would need to be optional. And having a role at the beginning of each turn to see if the Soviets collapse or not would be rather agonizing, and might lead to somewhat anti-climactic endings to games, but I see few other ways to really model the sort of limitations the Germans and Soviets were operating under.



Walloc -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 2:37:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

So, in another words, what you're saying is that they apparently were NOT able to come up with accrued victory points in the scenarios?

About the only thing I can agree with you on, or even understand your point is that accrued VP would be difficult to balance (but not impossible).


What i was tryint to point at was that the ppl see accued VPs as a way to fix a a percieved problem of ppl retreating, gaming the game. Fixing it by in effect holding em in place cuz of VPs. Problem is it just creates another set of gaming the game issues. Holding on to cities for sake of VPs not military sense. Feastung issues. u addresse one set of problems by creating another set.

quote:


I see plenty of evidence the Soviets held on to cities. One in particular was Moscow.
Come to think of it, Leningrad and Stalingrad also come to mind. You really can't say the Soviets did not defend cities, at least for damn sure those three!



My point as said wasnt that they didnt defend places and tried their best, but there is a difference in defending a place, and getting hung up on it. Russian was alrdy in the trains and evacing Moscow was partly done historicly. Again as in 1812 if it had proven indefensible they would have retreated, but ofc they fought for it trying to save it.
Some times it went well fighting for places and in '41 and early '42 it went bad some times. Cuz they were out manuverd operationally. Not the same as they wouldnt have retreated if they seen it comming sooner. Leningrad was cut of but wasnt indefensible cuz of the supply comming into it via lake/trains over teh lake.

quote:


I really can't understand you not realizing the Soviets tried to hold ground in the war they had no business (from a strictly military sense) trying to hold. Time after time they fell into that trap, and ended up being encircled by the Germans.


As said above that was cuz they'd been oprationally outmanuver cuz of the slowness of the command/speed of germans. I dont think for a second the russians wouldnt have left the Kiev area sooner if they had seen what was comming, but they didnt until it was to late. They fought for it, but here it was an bad idea. As at smolensk. In that sense u right, but it doesnt tell about the state of mind. The SHC was shell shocked and made alot bad choices, Yes. That i see its alrdy hardcoded in to the game. In worse C&C, lower movemnts, "useless" airbombardments, special rules for first 2 turns and so on, but dont confuse that with a will hold on to all no matter the cost mentality operationally speaking.

quote:


Again, I will side with you it would not be trivial to balance, but seriously, not that hard. There are plenty of AARs that could test any set that was put together.

And I would also argue that in general, the outcomes, whether you used accrual VP or the current set we have now would be about the same. The only thing that would change, albeit slightly, would be the behavior in game.


Well problem as said above is ur trying to fix a problem. Ppl giving up land, percieved to easily, but forcing them to to stand by cities.
Ill stipulate u just change ppls behavior in gaming the game. I just see feastung type situasions arising instead.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



wadortch -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:08:59 AM)

I think you two are in agreement. Needs to be some baby steps to create, in game terms for Germans to push, and Russians to defend. Both of those are being taken up, in a simple and perhaps preliminary way with the proposals to reduce the auto VP total and shorten the campaign games. See the Poll threads started by Joel and vote now!



Walloc -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:09:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: map66

I do think the Soviet ability to trade massive amounts of space for time is ahistorical, but more to the point, I think it hurts game play. While I find the proposition that the Soviet Union would have collapsed doubtful, given, primarily, that they didn't collapse despite the beating they took in 1941-42, I do think both sides were operating under the assumption that the Soviet Union very well might. On the one hand, the whole notion of "one good kick and the whole rotten edifice will come crashing down" caused the Germans to over-extend themselves in both years' campaigns, thinking that just one more push would bring victory. Conversely, Stalin's own doubts about his regime's durability (witness his nervous collapse in his dacha in October 1941 for evidence of his psychological fragility) was one very major factor in both the forward defense in 1941 such as during the Battles of Smolensk or Kiev as well as the "not a step back" order in 1942, among many, many other examples of Soviet refusal or inability to trade space for time.


Your hitting the nail right there " many other examples of Soviet refusal or inability to trade space for time."

There is a huge difference in inability and in refusal. Ppl dont want the germans boxed in. I hear it all the time. Good.
So why is the answer to box in the russians. Why shouldnt they be allowed to improve on history. If the germans allow em why shouldnt they be able to retreat, why should they get pocketed in Kiev.
There are lots of hard coding as it is making the russian army in disarray as it should be in 41. But allow teh players to make their own mistakes as russians did historicly. I'd stipulate if u look at the russian history they fought for places, but wasnt generally speaking hung up on em. Retreating if they could, but as history showns they did get out manuvered at times, alot so in '41 and got pocketed. U dont see the pockets generally speaking in '42 and later and when u did so, it was cuz being operationally outmanuvered. Making bad operational choices, over extending and so on. Thats in game terms same as when ppl make bad choices, getting cut off and so on. I dont see ppl rallying to say, we gota force the germans to make a Stalingrad too.


quote:


In game terms, I'm a proponent of adding a variable percentage chance for Soviet collapse that changes with time and is primarily tied to how many urban centers are being lost over what time period (for example, loosing 5 major urban centers in one turn is bad...), and could receive a major boost from events such as the fall of Moscow or Leningrad, or earlier in the war, receive a reduction if the Soviets are holding onto locations like Smolensk or Kiev. Again, I don't think Soviet collapse was historically likely, but I do think the possibility of such will in game terms cause a better simulation of the constraints acting on the participants. Ideally, it would be modeled to encourage the Germans to go all out (including motivation in the November '41 winter tuns to make a last gasp rather then digging in for the blizzard), and similarly cause the Soviets to try and fight forward on lines like the Dnepr. At the least, it would make it an agonizing choice for the Germans to NOT keep pushing recklessly forward or the Soviets to NOT risk major encirclements with a forward defense.

Of course, I could see many people disliking the rule, so I imagine it would need to be optional. And having a role at the beginning of each turn to see if the Soviets collapse or not would be rather agonizing, and might lead to somewhat anti-climactic endings to games, but I see few other ways to really model the sort of limitations the Germans and Soviets were operating under.


Well i earlier today suggested the possbility of different sets op options for VP levels. I think is more in line with ur thinking here, if not completly so. U could suggest another set of options, the more the merrier.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:29:51 AM)

It does not "hold" them in place. However, if I am more adept than the average bear at holding territory/cities before retreating, then advantage---> me
The whole point is not that it necessarily makes military sense to hold a city- the whole point is, as you said, it does not make sense. Yet they did. You do not see this behavior modeled in the game, because we, as gamers, are not under any pressure to do anything we dont want to. But if I can get an extra VP by holding a city one more turn, then I will, If I believe I am skilled enough and if I think the risk is worth it.

Originally you said
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc
I would also like to add that while i just voted for a lower auto VP condition and earlier end date. From a purely historic point of view i just argued that the russians would give any ground and i stand by that.


You can sidestep and say now they would defend but "not get hung up on it", but I think getting several hundred thousand soldiers encircled to become POWs because of poor military decisions is pretty much defending to the point "where they got hung up on it". And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death. I sure as hell am not motivated to defend Moscow in the game in the least. I watched an interested AAR where Moscow was voluntarily given up not once but twice! And yes, I would have done the same- but I might have tried to hold on to it another turn or 2 if there was something in it for me (like a few VP).

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc

As said above that was cuz they'd been oprationally outmanuver cuz of the slowness of the command/speed of germans. I dont think for a second the russians wouldnt have left the Kiev area sooner if they had seen what was comming, but they didnt until it was to late. They fought for it, but here it was an bad idea. As at smolensk. In that sense u right, but it doesnt tell about the state of mind. The SHC was shell shocked and made alot bad choices, Yes.


Exactly, I am not saying, nor did I ever say, it was smart to defend territory too the point where your whole army is endangered.

Clearly, you don't see a problem in that territory or cities don't mean anything in this game. We do agree that changing victory conditions would change behavior, as you call it, game the game. Except normally, that term is meant when players do something totally unrealistic because the game rules (perhaps not the spirit of the games rules) reward it. This would have players doing something *more* realistic. 

Last point:
quote:

ORIGINAL:  Walloc
Ppl giving up land, percieved to easily, but forcing them to to stand by cities.


This would not "force" them to stand by cities. However, if you were skilled enough to delay a retreat out of a city a turn, you would get an extra victory point that you otherwise would not have had. And while that is a fractional amount of the total VP you might get, if you do that in enough places it adds up. Granted, perhaps only the more skilled players would be able to get these points- I don't see a problem with that- in fact, that is how it should be- the more skilled player accumulating more victory points than a less skilled one. Forced? Hardly. Rewarded? Slightly.




Walloc -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 4:13:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

It does not "hold" them in place. However, if I am more adept than the average bear at holding territory/cities before retreating, then advantage---> me
The whole point is not that it necessarily makes military sense to hold a city- the whole point is, as you said, it does not make sense. Yet they did. You do not see this behavior modeled in the game, because we, as gamers, are not under any pressure to do anything we dont want to. But if I can get an extra VP by holding a city one more turn, then I will, If I believe I am skilled enough and if I think the risk is worth it.


Problem is u only think in terms it when it makes rationel sense and not when there are conflicting interrsts at steak.
Lets say u need 15 more VPs win a minor victory instead of a draw. U clearly by ur posts are incentive/rewards based type of guy which is by far the most common. Ok u want the minor victory right? u will do any thing to get that as most would. U have np abandon Moscow by own admition.
Fine down to the wire and have 2 cities left that give points Moscow 15 points, Gorky 5 points.
now losing Gorky means that Moscow would effectivly be cut off, and ur army too, but hey u need those 15 points.
U can if u transfere all ur men from Gorky to Moscow hold Moscow the turn(s) needed for the minor victory, but u ofc will lose Gorky.
U ofc go get the minor victory by moving ur troops to Moscow. The exact opposite of any military sense. Thats the kinda feastung type of behavior gaming the game will create in those situasion.


quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.


They had effectivly ardy put in motion the order to evac and moscow in sep 41, parts of goverment leaving, which creates IMHO some what of a problem for ur arguement. Mud saved em from fully extending the choice. Giving time to prepare for Typhoon and fight for the city. Not that they IMHO wouldnt have given up Moscow espcially since now the facs were evaced, if they had too. They ofc didnt have too cuz they now slowed/stopped the germans and even counterattacked. I never said they'd run for no reason.

Again reward here is u fight for the city u keep all those MP centers, who wouldnt if there is a fighting chance to keep em.
If there us no fighting chance u leave. Aka not hung up on it.

quote:


Exactly, I am not saying, nor did I ever say, it was smart to defend territory too the point where your whole army is endangered.


quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.


Which is it?


quote:


Clearly, you don't see a problem in that territory or cities don't mean anything in this game. We do agree that changing victory conditions would change behavior, as you call it, game the game. Except normally, that term is meant when players do something totally unrealistic because the game rules (perhaps not the spirit of the games rules) reward it. This would have players doing something *more* realistic. 


In some cases yes and in others not. As to cities they mean lots, manpower and factories are generally contrated there. I'd sure keep em if i can. If i cant then no. I dont think we that far apart, but no i dont think they would have fought to the death over cities. Unless no other option excists, cut off and so on.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



Klydon -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 4:18:37 AM)

Totally different situation in 1980 vs 1941.

First, the two principle opponents had mostly closed societies and certainly had state controlled media. The command structure of both sides was set up that each part only knew what they were told. The German generals were told that Russia was preparing to invade and it was a question of hitting them first before being hit. The Russian commanders had enough issues trying to figure out what was going on in their own sectors let alone what was going on elsewhere. Pavlov ordered his reserves forward to counterattack, apparently not even aware of what was happening on his flanks with the armored thrusts of PG2 and PG3. This made the encirclement even easier.

In this particular game, there is not nearly the fog of war as there probably should be, especially early on for the Russians who had not a clue what was going on most of the time. Standing Russian orders were in effect, which was no retreat, fight and defend the motherland where you are.

The game is too much of a track meet right now. Russians retreat very quickly in most cases, then the Germans do the same thing during winter, while the Russians retreat yet again in the spring of 42. The game doesn't have the right "feel" to it. It should be the Russians are desperately trying to stop the Germans, then vice versa during the winter and then into 1942 again. It simply doesn't have that feel to it.

The Russians don't have any place where they feel their back is against the wall and are forced to fight. This was certainly not the case for Moscow in particular in this game because there is not much of a consequence in losing Moscow.



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 4:47:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Problem is u only think in terms it when it makes rationel sense and not when there are conflicting interrsts at steak.
Lets say u need 15 more VPs win a minor victory instead of a draw. U clearly by ur posts are incentive/rewards based type of guy which is by far the most common. Ok u want the minor victory right? u will do any thing to get that as most would. U have np abandon Moscow by own admition.
Fine down to the wire and have 2 cities left that give points Moscow 15 points, Gorky 5 points.
now losing Gorky means that Moscow would effectivly be cut off, and ur army too, but hey u need those 15 points.
U can if u transfere all ur men from Gorky to Moscow hold Moscow the turn(s) needed for the minor victory, but u ofc will lose Gorky.
U ofc go get the minor victory by moving ur troops to Moscow. The exact opposite of any military sense. Thats the kinda feastung type of behavior gaming the game will create in those situasion.



That situation would never come up as you described. If you are still fighting over Moscow and Gorky and the game is nearly over, I think its fair to say regardless of what you do, the Germans have won a decsive victory.
I can see by you even trying to come up with a scenario like you did, you don't understand that if you do accrued VP, doing something like that is exactly what you would not do- you can't make up for 150 turns in just one turn.
However, on the flip side, if you are not using accrued VP, then yes, I can see a VP raid on the last turn of the game. Thats the system you're defending.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
They had effectivly ardy put in motion the order to evac and moscow in sep 41, parts of goverment leaving, which creates IMHO some what of a problem for ur arguement. Mud saved em from fully extending the choice. Giving time to prepare for Typhoon and fight for the city. Not that they IMHO wouldnt have given up Moscow espcially since now the facs were evaced, if they had too. They ofc didnt have too cuz they now slowed/stopped the germans and even counterattacked. I never said they'd run for no reason.


Are you really equating evacuating government and civilians with the military?

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV
quote:


Exactly, I am not saying, nor did I ever say, it was smart to defend territory too the point where your whole army is endangered.


quote:


And bottom line they were prepared to defend Moscow to the death.


Which is it?



Both, obviously. They were prepared to defend Moscow to the death, and it is not smart to defend territory to the point where your whole army is endangered. I never said the Soviet military was smart. However, they did learn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
In some cases yes and in others not. As to cities they mean lots, manpower and factories are generally contrated there. I'd sure keep em if i can. If i cant then no. I dont think we that far apart, but no i dont think they would have fought to the death over cities. Unless no other option excists, cut off and so on.



No need to keep the city for factory, you just evacuate. The manpower loss is not that severe, so in game terms, not really a need to keep it for that either. Look at the AARs even where Moscow and Leningrad are lost, the Soviets dont run into a manpower issue. We will just have to agree to disagree on whether the Soviets defended cities "to the death". I will just point to Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow as obvious examples, and I am sure there are a dozen more less prestigious cities that the Soviets defended vigorously- that in WITE the game, we simply will not.

I see your points, I just don't think you have thought out how accrued VP would actually work in the game.



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 4:49:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The Russians don't have any place where they feel their back is against the wall and are forced to fight. This was certainly not the case for Moscow in particular in this game because there is not much of a consequence in losing Moscow.


+1
Or really, +100 !



fbs -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 5:12:12 AM)

Here's the thing... Stalin had many defeats in the first months because he refused to trade space for time. He'd rather trade soldiers (and Generals) for time. Only by 42 the Soviets had a clear strategy of giving space to avoid encirclements - and the proof is that they had much less of them in 42.

My point is: it's easy to think of Stalin's stand-or-die orders in 41 (and Hitler's similar orders in 44) as a megalomaniac caprice of an all-powerful dictator who ignored the mathematics of attack/defense ratios, but the reality was probably more complicated. A general (or even dictator) that retreats with no gains easily ends up in disgrace, because it's easy to see in the map the lost territory, but difficult to see exactly how much time he gained.

So problem with retreat (even if necessary) is that nobody likes to lose territory and population. In a democracy we can call that the heroic call of duty to protect the innocent while in a dictatorship we call that a cynical waste of soldiers and refusal to see reality -- but I suspect the underlying reason is the same: nobody likes a retreater.

Therefore, the way I see it, Stalin was not the czar Alexander. The czar could not be deposed, while Stalin could; immediately after the invasion he thought he would be killed, and being so neurotic I bet that he wasn't too comfortable even by 42. I doubt that the official discourse in the STAVKA on 41 was: "Comrades, let's allow the Huns come to the gates of the capital, when a very timely winter will freeze them solid and we'll unleash our Siberians to victory!!". I think it was more in the lines of "Comrades, we'll protect Minsk to death!"; then "Comrades, the enemy will NEVER conquer Kharkov!"; then "Comrades, the war will be won at Smolensk!". And so forth.

I'm not saying the Soviet generals were a warm bunch - I'm sure they would allow 100,000 soldiers die for nothing. I'm just saying that in the real USSR it took a specially ruthless and specially confident general to order and survive a general retreat. Your run-of-the-mill general would order his men to stand firm and die for the Motherland - that's way safer for him.


ps: I think the best way to argue about retreat is this: resistance is always expected to increase when the defenders are defending their own country. In military terms there's no reason to defend a hill in one's country more strongly than the same hill on someone else's country, but that's what happens. The reason is not logic, but ethos.



chuckfourth -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 6:16:55 AM)

Hi All
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
"However the actual evidence introduced at trial was obtained from forced confessions.[30] The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts),[31] 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars.[32]

At first it was thought 25-50% of Red Army officers were purged, it is now known to be 3.7-7.7%. Previously, the size of the Red Army officer corp was underestimated and it was overlooked that most of those purged were merely expelled from the Party. 30% of officers purged 1937-9 were allowed back.[33]
"
I believe it takes about 8 years to train a staff officer to the level where he can successfully manouver a division about the battlefield.

Stalin may have suspected his army wasnt capable of a successful retreat/blocking action.
Maybe he thought a policy of standing fast and counterattacks would make the Germans pay at least some price for the land they gained. Better than running the risk of a retreat turning into confusion, turning into rout.
After all he had big factories and I think about 20 million more men he could conscript.

I agree there should be some incentive for holding the major cities vps I guess, and I also like the idea of reaching the volga blocking Russian supply of oil/lend lease.



randallw -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 9:35:54 AM)

The Soviet player knows he has until 1945 to try to win.  In the actual war there was perhaps an attempt by the Soviets to win in a short war, which meant Stalin would often try to hold ground as often as possible and ordered offensives with grandiose ideas, in both expected German casualties and ground regained.



B455 -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 10:39:02 AM)

As for WitE...how about reducing Soviet rail capacity so that it would be more difficult and slow to evacuate those factories? So that the Soviet player would really have to think whether he can afford to run and give ground around key industrial cities if he is going to save his war-economy. Also, VPs for key cities please.



timmyab -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 12:12:43 PM)

Yes, also national morale hit/bonus for capture of important cities please.
Something like this.Undone when recaptured obviously.
Moscow, +2 Axis -2 Soviet.
Kiev, +1 Axis -1 Soviet.
Leningrad, +1 Axis -1 Soviet.
Stalingrad, +1 Axis -1 Soviet.

I'd also like to see significantly more damage to the Soviet rail network as major cities and important rail junctions are captured.



Flaviusx -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 1:21:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The game is too much of a track meet right now. Russians retreat very quickly


No they do not. People need to stop repeating this nonsense. It is not that the Soviets are retreating too quickly. It is that the Axis offensive is preposterously accelerated. The Red Army is simply being blown away too quickly and stuff is being overrun as a result.

You can't hold Kiev until September when SW Front is pocketed on turn 1. Generally the Dnepr is being crossed as early as turn 6. Leningrad can't be held at all. Moscow is falling in a non trivial portion of games. None of these things are because of "runaways." The first real runaway is the one that happens in the winter...by the Axis.











EddyBear81 -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 1:54:58 PM)

Just my two cents here (and maybe it has already been discussed elsewhere) : why couldn't there be a RANDOM AND UNKNOWN number of VP that triggers auto victory / victory levels ?

That way, either player cannot be sure that "running away" would be a viable tactic, because they wouldn't be sure it would not cost them the game (for Soviets - in 41-42 - and Germans alike - in 44-45).
After all, "game over" was more of a political decision (well, I know the Wehrmacht actually SURRENDERED, but then they were clearly ont the knees), and political ways are not modeled in the game, so it would be surreal if you received a "stab in the back" from time to time
=> So the player / military commander would have an incentive to hold on to cities, from fear of losing the game altogether

Note also that it would only be applied if you lose homeland cities, as the random VP number cannot not make you lose the war on turn 1 ! Of course, it shouldn't be so low as to declare Axis a winner when you take Brest Litovsk



mmarquo -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:14:09 PM)

"I do think the Soviet ability to trade massive amounts of space for time is ahistorical"

This has been a viable strategy for Russia since since time immemorial; scorched earth...remember pictures of Napoleon staring out of the window of an abandonded Moscow hotel, at the desolate, frozen streets of empty Moscow?


Marquo



Klydon -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:14:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Here's the thing... Stalin had many defeats in the first months because he refused to trade space for time. He'd rather trade soldiers (and Generals) for time. Only by 42 the Soviets had a clear strategy of giving space to avoid encirclements - and the proof is that they had much less of them in 42.




He traded blood for time to evac factories and to try to hold the Axis back.

As far as 1942 goes, this was certainly not his intention (to retreat) as the general orders out of Moscow were to hold at all costs. Part of the issue is the Russian high command lost partial control over the southern front where troops were ignoring orders and running for the hills. I don't know for sure, but I think a fair amount of those troops were not "Russian" but rather other groups within the Russian empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon


The game is too much of a track meet right now. Russians retreat very quickly


No they do not. People need to stop repeating this nonsense. It is not that the Soviets are retreating too quickly. It is that the Axis offensive is preposterously accelerated. The Red Army is simply being blown away too quickly and stuff is being overrun as a result.

You can't hold Kiev until September when SW Front is pocketed on turn 1. Generally the Dnepr is being crossed as early as turn 6. Leningrad can't be held at all. Moscow is falling in a non trivial portion of games. None of these things are because of "runaways." The first real runaway is the one that happens in the winter...by the Axis.


Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree to a point. The Russians need to be able to offer better resistance than what is currently going on with the Germans seemingly going wherever they please like a hot knife through butter. The Russians have almost no counter attacking ability in the 1941 campaign despite repeated historical evidence to the contrary. Take that away and the inabillity to stop the Germans at all and they have no reason at all to stick around.

I will also comment that if people keep going after the Lvov opening as part of the "problem" then you are going to have a lot of people stop playing this game as Germans as you continue to box them even further into the historical campaign. I didn't get this game to replay history, but rather to be able to explore alternate "what ifs" in strategy.

No one here knows for a fact that such an opening would have or not have worked. According to this game, the Germans attacked with just the 4 panzer divisions available in PG1 (and weak panzer divisions at that). Is it any wonder why they struggled in the opening days of the campaign down south? Now, lets double the size of that opening panzer attack force and I would absolutely expect to see a different result.

A game has to have the proper "feel" to it for what seems right. This one doesn't have it in 1941/42 and a lot of it is because of the running away done by both sides.



AFV -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:15:38 PM)

I agree with Flavio's point, to a degree. But you can't fix the accelerated gains (IMO turn 1 only) without fixing that the Russian Army has no incentive (or capability really) to defend anything in 1941.
Right now, things are roughly balancing out (I guess two wrongs do make a right?), but in a perfect world both issues would be fixed.



mmarquo -> RE: So how easy is it to run away from the enemy? (2/17/2012 3:35:44 PM)

The Lvov pocket causes panzers to drive south west...and this is not towards Kiew/Kharkov; yes alot of units get bagged, but the Axis loses at least 1, if not 2 - 3 turns fighting in the wrong direction.

Marquo



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8398438