RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 2:52:30 PM

timmyab

Posts: 2044
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: randallw

What about a penalty on national morale if the other side captures a major city?

This seems like a very good idea to me.Could also be extended to such events as crossing the Dnepr, excessive casualties etc.
You could also award the Soviet player a certain amount of victory points for every turn that he can hold some of the more important locations in the west of the country.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 31

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 3:28:13 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

A lot of this depends on your opponent. Both my PBEM opponents are fighting every step of the way and quite good too. That will slow you tremendously. If they Sir Robin, well, they will be on the short end of supply come winter.

(in reply to timmyab)

Post #: 32

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 4:20:25 PM

Altaris

Posts: 216
Joined: 8/14/2009
Status: offline

Having an increased number of VP's each turn for early capture of key locations seems the easiest and cleanest method of handling this situation, IMO. If the Soviets want to pull back, so be it, but there should be a big point cost associated with it. Same should be applied for reasonable areas in Belorussia, Baltic States, and Eastern Poland for the Axis in blizzard conditions, though this pull back is of less concern, IMO, since such a pull-back is still a big hindrance to the Axis.

I think a great way to handle the Soviet one is to reduce rail capacity for Soviet side by 1/3. Right now, Soviets have the capability of performing 3 major rail actions each turn: evac'ing industry, railing units out of potential pocket danger, and railing new reinforcements in. Historically, they were able to do two of these (getting industry out and bringing in reinforcements) while leaving the forward units to attack futilely. So I think that means rail cap should be about 2/3 of what it currently is on the Soviet side... right now they just get too much, there should be some hard choices involved in '41.

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 33

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 4:29:12 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

One thing that bothers me though is that the AI (possibly even a human player) can just ignore the fact that a pocket has had all rail tracks cut off. One can still manage to pull out anything from a pocket as long as there is one hex open.

(in reply to Altaris)

Post #: 34

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 6:02:17 PM

Nicholas Bell

Posts: 549
Joined: 4/10/2006
From: Eagle River, Alaska
Status: offline

The XTR boardgame "Proud Monster" (yes, odd name for a wargame) handled the problem with elegance. It had sudden death victory conditions which changed over time. If the Soviet player lost too many victory locations too quickly, it was game over - representing a coup against Stalin. As the game progressed, the number of victory locations needed for a sudden death increased to a point of stabilization. It "forced" the Soviet player to think a bit more like Stalin by giving them an incentive not too retreat *too* quickly (which is a common problem in wargames covering Barbarossa).

The original SPI "War in the East" 1st edition included optional "Hitler No Retreat" rules which really made the front line look something historical with all kinds of salients later in the war. Basically once a hex was taken by the German player, it could not be voluntarily given up unless the supply line was constricted to a width of 1 hex between Soviet ZOCs (ie until it was too late). When playing, I modified this allowing a plea to Hitler for withdrawal before this condition based on a low percentage chance die roll. This simulated the few times when Hitler actually allowed retreat (Operation Buffalo - the retreat from the Rzhev Salient - comes to mind).

I am not sure why computer wargame designers choose not to utilize the many decades worth of board wargame design experience in their search for solutions.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 35

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 6:17:16 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Yes, Proud Monster was an excellent game back in the day.

That said, I remain totally unconvinced by the need for rules to prevent runaways in this game. Running away is a mistake on purely military terms and it's looking much better than it really is because we have inexperienced Axis players going up against inexperienced Soviets.

There are things the Axis can do to punish the runaway. Conversely, there are strong reasons for the Soviet to fight hard no further back than the Dnepr, and to delay an advance to the Dnepr as long as possible.

I don't runaway myself. I'm actually looking to launch counterattacks by turns 4-5 on certain parts of the front. (Sometimes earlier.) I do not at all consider the runaway to be the most effective defense for the Soviets.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)

Post #: 36

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 6:40:38 PM

randallw

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline

What about situations where the Axis player breaks through in the south? There aren't a lot of places for the Soviet side to force the Axis player into a slow advance. Is that an appropriate area for controlled runaways?

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 37

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 6:45:25 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

No rules are needed to limit "runaways."

Play as the Sovs and do it.

I am, I did. And now wish I didn't.

And I really dislike artifical controls so the Axis can get their huge pockets.

(in reply to randallw)

Post #: 38

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 7:04:43 PM

MengJiao

Posts: 232
Joined: 12/18/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No rules are needed to limit "runaways."

Play as the Sovs and do it.

I am, I did. And now wish I didn't.

And I really dislike artifical controls so the Axis can get their huge pockets.

No kidding. One of the beauties of this game is that you can deal with the pure dynamics of a vast front.
I find (playing against the AXIS normal AI in 1942) that working out how much of the available forces should be
active and motorized and fully built up and supported is far more interesting than fooling with attempts to
re-create Mister Stalin's Mental Problems. Giving the players a reasonable range of options and letting them
work out how to get things done is far more interesting.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 39

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 7:50:44 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

And I doubt that any Axis player will want to equally hamstrung by Hitler's decisions.

Want to retreat? Nope.

I can take Leningrad!! No you can't. Herr Hitler said no. You have to starve it out.

It's 1942, I want to take Moscow. Sorry, Mr Hitler says you don't understand economics. So all offensives are to be made toward the oil centers...

I see a board game mentioned above. Now, I've played AH's Russian Front and SPI's War in the East. In neither one, did I see huge pockets. In WiTE, what I did see was the Sovs suffer from shock when they lose 100 units.

I also remember taking Leningrad in 41 and Moscow in 42. But then again, AGS didn't get too far. (WiTE)

But I never saw anyone saying "The Soviets are running away too fast."

I'll bet that when the German players get much more experience, the shoe will be on the other foot.

(in reply to MengJiao)

Post #: 40

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 7:57:04 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Proud Monster actually allows you to produce massive pockets, Aurelian.

It's a very neat and unique boardgame. For starters: no ZOCs. It might be my favorite all time east front boardgame of all, even including Fire in the East/Scorched Earth. The political rules work very well in the context of that game, and the Soviet player has to carefully guage what he can hold on to and abandon on a turn to turn basis. (Full disclosure: I wrote up a strategy guide for Command Magazine on how to set up the Sovs to deal with this.)

But it's part of an entire package. You can't just surgically detach this single rule and graft it to this game without considering the context.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 41

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/24/2011 9:05:34 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

I never played it myself. In WiTE 2nd edition, pockets that could trace a supply path to a personel center defended at normal strength.

I know what you mean about the grafting. We tried to graft some 2nd edition rules to the 1st edition WiTE. Didn't work real well.

Wonder if your guide is at web grognards........

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 42

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 2:41:06 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

I hear the guys posting about not being forced to repeat Soviet mistakes. However, 1941 was a special case for the Soviets. Stalin feared political instability if he allowed the Germans to take territory from him. Because of this he forced the Soviets to forego retreats in many cases and ordered nonsense counterattacks in many cases. Once he realized in 1942 that his USSR wasn't going to fragment if he lost territory - he and STAVKA began to be more flexible when it came to giving up territory.

So yes it's nice to not have to repeat historical mistakes - but if the player is not in the role of Stalin - then in 1941 the overall reluctance by the Soviets to retreat was out of the hands of everyone other than Stalin - it was his paranoia about political instability that caused the stand fast policy.

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 43

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 2:45:07 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
Also another point about retreats is that it is presently too easy to escape a pocket if it is not completely sealed, zoc or no zoc. All you need is one open hex...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to vinnie71)

Post #: 44

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 2:48:36 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MilRevKo
The Soviet player should not be forced or chained to the mistakes that were made during the invasion of 1941. And, no Soviet player worth his salt should have 70 divisions pocketed. (that was just one of the pockets: 59 Inf divs and the equivalent of 11 armor) in 1941

I think you might find in PBEM that the panzers can pull off some extremely surprising pockets. In one PBEM game that I thought I was winning quite handily as Soviets the Germans managed to absolutely shock me with a 24 division pocket that I thought the panzers could never close in a single turn - they banged through multiple divisions over a distance of about 180 miles (combined pincer arms movement) in a single turn. It was a treat to see if I weren't the victim. The following turn they managed another 12 division pocket. It's hard to overestimate the ingenuity of a human opponent or of the panzers in 1941.

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to MilRevKo)

Post #: 45

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 2:54:45 AM

jjdenver

Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
And I doubt that any Axis player will want to equally hamstrung by Hitler's decisions.
Want to retreat? Nope.
I can take Leningrad!! No you can't. Herr Hitler said no. You have to starve it out.
It's 1942, I want to take Moscow. Sorry, Mr Hitler says you don't understand economics. So all offensives are to be made toward the oil centers...

I see a board game mentioned above. Now, I've played AH's Russian Front and SPI's War in the East. In neither one, did I see huge pockets. In WiTE, what I did see was the Sovs suffer from shock when they lose 100 units.

I also remember taking Leningrad in 41 and Moscow in 42. But then again, AGS didn't get too far. (WiTE)
But I never saw anyone saying "The Soviets are running away too fast."

I'll bet that when the German players get much more experience, the shoe will be on the other foot.

Good post Aurelian but I'm not so sure the shoe will be on the other foot. The Soviets don't have a lot of reason to avoid retreating that I can see - and they didn't historically either - it was Stalin's paranoia that caused them to stand and fight when they shouldn't have in a lot of cases. Losing the manpower centers and having to move the factories is not great but is better it seems than losing more of the army. Perhaps if winter is more reasonable - or preparing for it makes a difference - we can see Germans take advantage of the Soviet "run-away" strategy in 1941 to really seize some key geographic objectives in 1942 (oil, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc)

It's really interesting that you point out that the German command also labored under a lot of silly restrictions. Even as early as the first week or two of the advance by AGN, the panzers were held up because Leeb wasn't sure whether his mission was to go for Leningrad or to protect the left flank of AGC. I only mention it because I'm reading about it right now in the very excellent (surprisingly excellent) book "A War to be Won"

_____________________________

AARS:
CEAW-BJR Mod 2009:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2101447
AT-WW1:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1705427
AT-GPW:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649732

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 46

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 5:00:59 AM

Muzrub

Posts: 1780
Joined: 2/23/2001
From: Australia, Queensland, Gold coast
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
Also another point about retreats is that it is presently too easy to escape a pocket if it is not completely sealed, zoc or no zoc. All you need is one open hex...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

What are the penalties for escaping from a large encirclement as the game does it? What of losing guns, tanks- trucks, supplies?

I'm not attacking you, please know that- but comparing small or large groups of men to what is actually escaping, 100,000, 150,000 by not fighting their way out of a pocket- but just by slipping through unaffected other than supply etc etc is a little over the top.
I find these undecided hexes, especially once the Soviets AI begin to go 6-7-8 units deep is very annoying. I know people want this monster to be historical- but the Soviet fanboys constantly point fingers at the Axis lads who want to encircle (which was historical) and complain that we want the chance to achieve that aim (but the fanboys claim unhistorical abilities on movement, rail and line jumping as fine!) by hamstringing (a little) the Soviets in '41.

Screw this I'm off for a beer! Its 'International' Australia day tomorrow!

< Message edited by Muzrub -- 1/25/2011 5:02:20 AM >

_____________________________

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Iraq, and i have seen
Things are not what they seem.

Matrix Axis of Evil

(in reply to jjdenver)

Post #: 47

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 3:57:41 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

This Soviet "fanboy", (a recent one, as in every EF game I played at this level I'd rather be the Germans), doesn't want to be shackled by "idiot rules" unless you do the same to both sides.

I also haven't seen any evidence that Soviet rail capacity is ahistorical.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 1/26/2011 2:21:06 AM >

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 48

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 4:19:31 PM

PMCN

Posts: 625
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline

Oh the heck with it, I'm with Flaviusx on this. I think the biggest mistake you can make is to give up ground too easily as the soviet.

You must force the German player to transition to deliberate attacks and force him to mass forces. You must wear down his units by forcing them to fight for ground. You must trade space for time and preserve your forces. But you will be pocketed, you will have to fight in bad terrain (as in open terrain), you must counter attack when you can (though even a Rumanian infantry division takes about 5 Rifle divisions to shove back), and you must make the units that get pocketed work for you. Your losses are going to high but that is another thing you have to accept.

None of that is accomplished by running away. If you run away you loose a lot more in the end then if you fight carefully chosen defensive battles, plus from time to time you have to take a risk to gain a week or whatever.

It is pretty nerve wracking and you will mis-time stuff and things will go wrong but phased withdraws is the only way to accomplish your job of throwing a spanner into the works and delaying the German advance.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 49

RE: Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats - 1/25/2011 5:11:14 PM

vinnie71

Posts: 964
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

quote:

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
Also another point about retreats is that it is presently too easy to escape a pocket if it is not completely sealed, zoc or no zoc. All you need is one open hex...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

What are the penalties for escaping from a large encirclement as the game does it? What of losing guns, tanks- trucks, supplies?

I'm not attacking you, please know that- but comparing small or large groups of men to what is actually escaping, 100,000, 150,000 by not fighting their way out of a pocket- but just by slipping through unaffected other than supply etc etc is a little over the top.
I find these undecided hexes, especially once the Soviets AI begin to go 6-7-8 units deep is very annoying. I know people want this monster to be historical- but the Soviet fanboys constantly point fingers at the Axis lads who want to encircle (which was historical) and complain that we want the chance to achieve that aim (but the fanboys claim unhistorical abilities on movement, rail and line jumping as fine!) by hamstringing (a little) the Soviets in '41.

Screw this I'm off for a beer! Its 'International' Australia day tomorrow!

Yes large numbers of men escaped, but not in organised fashion, with guns and armour and support etc.They did not fight out of the pockets, they just happened to avoid the Germans. In the game there are many instances where a particular soviet formation has say 10000 men but only say 9000 are actually destroyed in any way. that would be closer to reality. Basically it mimicks the fact that parts either joined the partisans or simply walked out of a pocket. But what I was saying here is the fact that Soviet formations just walk out, irrelevant of ZOC and severed rail connections. That was simply impossible in real life... to make a western equivalent, the Germans escaping Falaise with all their equipment or the British BEF moving off with all its equipment out of Dunkirk.

As to the historical ability of the Soviets to move large numbers of formations from one sector to another, one should note the long lulls between one offensive and another during the war. Most of the rail capacity was taken up simply trying to move supplies and more importantly, ammunition forward. In game parlance, this almost qualifies as teleporting from one area to another, with sometimes the AI moving a whole front worth of troops in front of you, quite magically. That is ridiculuos especially when you have just finished destroying the best part of a front down south, only to face a neat row of soviet formations just in front of you which popped out of nowhere.

(in reply to Muzrub)

Post #: 50