|
MattFL -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/3/2019 7:32:11 PM)
|
Interesting discussion for sure. For full disclosure, I am the one playing the Russians against Joel and yes, I ran (and continue to run in the south through end of turn 13) everywhere except PSKOV/Lenningrad. We are at start of Turn 14 and my initial PKSOV line is broken, but i'm still defending several hexes SW of the Luga while I build my Luga defenses and have a pretty massive CV wall in front of Moscow (he's within 3-4 hexes of Moscow). It is unlikely either will fall in 1941. Further, Soviet's have avoided big encirclements and OOB stands around 4.5M Men. Lack of any real losses to Tank Divisions means trucks and such are well in surplus, manpower and industry are fine as far as I can tell.
Here are my very unsolicited thoughts on the topic:
In my mind, the current iteration of the game is pro-German. This is one reason I wanted to play Russians as I was reading post after post whining about how Germans are too powerful. Is it true? To some extent, yes. But I don't think this means the Russians can't win. Rather, I see Russians making mistakes that end up giving up massive encirclements on Turns 4-5 that often are lights out. Is this because the Germans are so powerful? No, it's because the Russians played it completely wrong.
I opted to utilize HLYA's PSKOV defense in this game because I found it interesting and wanted to give it a try. He has a post on this defense, though it only covers what to do in that one small area of the map and only Turns 1-2 basically. It doesn't address what to do elsewhere or really what to do later than the early turns. Consider it something of a scripted Soviet Turns 1 and 2 to some extent for that one part of the map. It's frustrating for German Players when the Soviets run, but really I don't so much see this as a runner strategy. In fact, I see it as things have always been since I started playing this game years ago. The soviets could always pick a single front and decide that they are going to hold there and fight there at the expense of pretty much everything else. Where Soviets get in trouble is when they try to defend too much as invariably they have too little to do so and end up getting encircled and compounding their early game shortages. If the Soviet sets his goals to say defend Lenningrad at all costs during '41 at the expense of pretty much everything else, with a secondary goal of avoiding encirclements at all costs, there is a decent chance of them holding up well in 1941. They may lose Moscow or may not lose Moscow in the process, they may lose more ground and industry than they'd like, but they will not suffer a '41 knock out punch and will most definitely be around later in the game.
I'm not a big fan of limiting either player from doing what they want (with some very few exceptions). There is no need for house rules such as "no Super Lvov Pocket." The Russians can still do well in the long run even in the face of the strongest German openings (i.e. Turns 1-3). The PKSOV defense can still be setup just about exactly the same totally irrespective of German opening. But to me, this doesn't at all lead to a repetitive predictable game even if it's the same two opponents playing each other. Whoever lost the first time around will invariably do something different the second time around. There are just too many variables in the game, too many playing styles, players with very different risk tolerances, etc... for the games to become overly scripted and repetitive.
My limited experience under the current version of the same (first game since pre 1.07!) is that it seems pro German, but not egregiously so. Yes, the German player can pretty much attack even the strongest Russian defense and push them back if he is determined to do so. But as Xhoel points out, at what cost in time and men? The overall goals for the two sides in 1941 (beyond the obvious, "hold this city or that") are directly conflicting with one another. The German wants easy, cheap encirclements to eliminate Russians, the Russian wants to avoid such at all costs and force the Germans to bang their head against CV walls even if they lose all of the battles and give up lots of ground. Whoever can force the other to fight on their own terms usually will have an advantage. And while I do feel that the Russians can put up a strong defense on a single front such as Lenningrad, I do not feel that they can possibly hold Lenningrad if the Germans decide they are going to take it at all costs. But there are tradeoffs and other areas of the battle will be impacted.
Further, I agree 100% with EvK who said in some post somewhere that the Russians should never (ever) engage in a battle in 1941 until they are ready. Strong German players will punish them for doing so and there is little point in trying to hold ground that you're going to lose 1-4 turns from then anyway. THe only difference is losing the ground without heavy losses or losing the ground with heavy losses. Either way, the ground is lost. So if a Russian decides he's ready to fight for Lenningrad then he simply must retreat everywhere else or face disaster because the only way to fight for Lenningrad (or wherever they choose to fight) is by concentrating pretty much every decent unit on the map in that one place with all of the air support, best leaders, etc... The result is one that can be frustrating for a German player (i.e. lack of fun encirclements) if they see it that way or one that an opportunistic German player can take advantage of if they are so inclined. No defense (or attack) exists that cannot be countered. It's inventing these different offenses and defenses and coming up with new counters to them that makes the game fun and prevents it from being overly repetitive. I look at nearly every AAR and find myself of the opinion that I wouldn't be doing anything either of the players are doing had I been controlling that side or seeing mistakes (as I perceive them) that players are making. Is my choice right and theirs wrong? Who knows. All I know is it's my choice and playing style and it's vastly different in a lot of cases than what i'm seeing. These differences between each player is one of the things that makes it interesting.
Anyway, just my unsolicited .02 cents. The Germans come up with a new opening and it's "the Russians can't win", the Russians come up with a good counter to a german opening and it's "the Germans can't win" or the Germans "must do this or that to counter it". Same old same old. Neither has ever been true. It's up to the competence and style of the individual players to deal with whatever situation is at hand and make the best decisions. After turns 1-4 or so the game is very much unscripted and much more reactive and it's after these turns that really separates the different levels of play. Anyone playing either side can have a good opening. Now what? To me, this has a lot more to do with it than who uses what opening or what defense and that is true under this version and previous versions in my experience (given the versions I've played).
I guess as final response to the initial post by Joel - no there should absolutely not be any consquences to the Soviets running other than what is inherently in the game just as there should not be any consequences for the Germans using Super Lvov pocket. It's up to the German player to figure out how to beat such a strategy as with all strategies, it's definitely beatable and carries with it its own risks.
Peace out.
Matt
|
|
|
|
