RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (Full Version)

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

Message

Telemecus -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 7:46:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joelmar quote: ORIGINAL: Wixit The Soviets themselves thought losing Moscow was not the end of the world They might have said so, but I have never read it anywhere, There is a very famous event that is recorded with Stalin early in 1941 - but I do not remember the other names or where I read it now. But it was when they were debating whether to make a peace offer of giving up Belorussis, Ukraine and the Baltic states for a ceasfire with the Axis. They soon realised that even if they could make the offer, the Germans could not accept it out of fear of future circumstances that would not be so much in their favour. And it was then that an army official (not one of the big ones like Zhukov etc.) told Stalin they could carry on the fight from the Urals if they had to. It was very early on in 1941 and is considered the first time such a possibility was discussed seriously.

MattFL -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 7:49:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wixit Both were lost in '41 with Leningrad lost first, and there is literally nothing else north of Moscow worth defending and so everything that was there was railed elsewhere and the entire front effectively abandoned until sufficient units were rebuilt and refit to reopen it. A brutal winter counteroffensive and a few lucky breaks - won't spoil it for any new readers - saw me rapidly advancing earlier than expected. Can one of you guys post a link to the AAR? I'd like to see this as capturing both Lenningrad and Moscow in '41 and then losing the war is quite surprising, so i'd like to see how it played out.... Thanks!

GoodbyeBluesky -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 8:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joelmar quote: ORIGINAL: MattFL I'm not usually bothered by manpower losses so long as I hold Lenningrad and Moscow. lol! I guess you are entitled to! That said... Moscow is not safe yet, there is still time so wait a little for the champagne! ;-) quote: ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game honest comment thank you, so in the case of your game getting back to Berlin in 1944 is more down to your strategic mistake than to the normal flow of the game if it was played without mistakes. Your comment tells me you learned from it, which is what it's all about :-) Same happened to me in my game against Matt, the main reason I know for sure I won't take Leningrad in 1941 is because of too slow decision making and too much caution, the mark of the newbie. I should have gone ruthlessly for the Luga from turn 4 and I didn't before turn 7 I think. Add to this that Matt is a no non-sense player with a solid understanding of strategic and tactic concepts, and all the ingredients were there for failure. So now it's a slug march and I doubt I will get much farther than the Luga. But I learned... :-) And there is still a good possibility at Moscow, even though I was also too slow to get there. For Moscow. The thing is once it's taken, the damage is done, there is no need to hold it indefinitely. I think it is better to take a leaf from Clausewitz in this, unless there is a big strategic implication, holding territory is rarely important, better think in terms of positionning and managing your troops. So if I take it before first blizzard there are good chances that I will give it back a few turns later. I think Soviet Casulties were around 3 million at the start of the Blizzard. The Southern Front was pretty much destroyed, the northern was cut in half with the one part not destroyed at Leningrad sent to reinforce Moscow. Even at Moscow although resistance had stiffend around 200k men were encircled during the fall of the City. It was just bad positioning and overextension from my part during the Blizzard campaign and the before mentioned hell bent stubbornness to keep Moscow. Edit: I looked it up. Late October 41 saw Soviet Casualties at 3.050.000 men and its OOB at 4,35 million Link to the AAR https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/call-of-the-motherland-wixits-war-in-the-east.1076877/

MattFL -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 9:12:26 PM)
Thanks for this. I just took a quick look at the AAR, which is really well done by the way. Entertaining to be sure. From what I can tell, the whole Moscow conversation is very much irrelevant as this game is something of an outlier. When the Russians are pretty much surrounding all of AGS in June/July 1942 and have troops by Gomel/Mogilev and a foothold across the Dnepr in spring '42 of course the game is going to end in a Russian victory regardless of if Moscow (and Lenningrad) both fell. During this time, the Germans should be the ones advancing and encircling not the other way around. Really, I'm not sure I've ever seen a game quite like this one. When you guys confirmed that both Lenningrad and Moscow fell in '41 I expected something very very different. 1941 seemed so promising for the Germans and then the wheels just came off. This is a wild one for sure. So just know that my comments about Moscow aren't applicable to a game like this one!

joelmar -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 9:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MattFL as this game is something of an outlier. This was clearly the result of a series of unusual mistakes. I think GoodByeBlueSky was very honest about it from the start. @GoodbyeBluesky may I ask what was your rationale in so stubbornly wanting to keep Moscow? Reminiscent of a kind of Stalingrad in the north!

GoodbyeBluesky -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 9:45:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joelmar quote: ORIGINAL: MattFL as this game is something of an outlier. This was clearly the result of a series of unusual mistakes. I think GoodByeBlueSky was very honest about it from the start. @GoodbyeBluesky may I ask what was your rationale in so stubbornly wanting to keep Moscow? Reminiscent of a kind of Stalingrad in the north! I had destroyed a lot of industry during 41 and was pretty certain to have dealt the Soviets a major blow by robbing it off its major manpower centers. My thought that I could easily rid out the storm, keep the Soviets away from the manpower and then face a very weak Soviet force in 42! Instead I encountered a well organized although weakend force that immediatly threatend several infantry divisions with being cut off. So i tried a slow withdrawl while keeping a corridor for these forces which then spiraled out of control whenever more divisions got threatend. While I after hard fighting stabilized the Front somewhat around Rhzev and Moscow in the North it became very much a run between losing alot of AGS or not which saw a ton of reserves being thrown into the fight that should have rested. I had also wintered around 20-30 divisions among them some of my strongest! Coupled with not properly securing Maikop and sealing of the Crimea I was suddenly pressured from several sides. So it was both excellent re organizational skills by Wixit to create suddenly fronts where the turns before had only been mere blocking forces (the South) and using the available troops to their full potential (his tank brigades). The rest was my hubris ;)

joelmar -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 9:59:17 PM)
@GoodbyeBluesky I like to think the most potent Soviet weapon is the rail. The way they can potentially move units all around the map very fast is way more dangerous potentially as any Axis Pz group. Sounds from what you say that this was cleverly used against you. Crimea is also a dangerous backdoor that can be easily underestimated. Of course it was your mistakes that made it possible, but your opponent opportunism and organisational skills must be underscored, which you did, all to your honor. I then conclude that the stubborness in holding Moscow was down to too much confidence, arising from a string of crippling victories and a lack of knowledge about the almost unquenchable Soviet manpower ressources in 1941. Yes, they often lack manpower at some points, but never enough to stop them from fielding a sizable army.

GoodbyeBluesky -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 10:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joelmar @GoodbyeBluesky I like to think the most potent Soviet weapon is the rail. The way they can potentially move units all around the map very fast is way more dangerous potentially as any Axis Pz group. Sounds from what you say that this was cleverly used against you. Crimea is also a dangerous backdoor that can be easily underestimated. Of course it was your mistakes that made it possible, but your opponent opportunism and organisational skills must be underscored, which you did, all to your honor. I then conclude that the stubborness in holding Moscow was down to too much confidence, arising from a string of crippling victories and a lack of knowledge about the almost unquenchable Soviet manpower ressources in 1941. Yes, they often lack manpower at some points, but never enough to stop them from fielding a sizable army. Very true also since my own game that I had played before saw a not so capable Soviet player who was very tame in that regard. I had only the experience of that 1 Soviet Player to draw from and assumed it would be somewhat similiar especially as I had inflicted more casualties than in the previous game

joelmar -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/5/2019 10:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky Very true also since my own game that I had played before saw a not so capable Soviet player who was very tame in that regard. I had only the experience of that 1 Soviet Player to draw from and assumed it would be somewhat similiar especially as I had inflicted more casualties than in the previous game I hear you... Before my current game with MattFL, I had only played the AI... let me tell you, I had a few bad habits to get over! After the first 2 turns I became a bit nervous, which didn't help my decision making. I only got over on turn 7, by which time it was a bit too late. It was mainly too much caution and I didn't do any big catastrophic blunder, but I am late on schedule everywhere. But the game is still very entertaining and tightly disputed. It also shows how important it is to develop an array of different techniques, mechanisms and instincts if you want to be successful in this game in the long run.

Bitburger -> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy (7/6/2019 5:05:56 AM)
There is another where the Finns were warned by the USA, and they were never going to advance very far.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.078125