Slitherine

quote:

I just think the immediate reduction in CV (despite having ammo and other supplies on hand) is too much and that the surrounded forces (of both sides) should be able to hold out longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
That is more than 20 prisoners per German soldier it is no way that can even guard that much prisoners.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

In this game, you get the Lvov pocket, and a number of smaller pockets, but you will never see the likes of the Minsk and Kiev pockets after the initial Lvov pocket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The Rout of units running so far and lossing from what i see low losses for what has happened to them, sticks in my side like a Thorn. It just does not seem right!

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have come to the conclusion over the past few days of thinking that the Rout of units out of pockets (before they become isolated) represents the "sieve" effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

I have pocketed 1.2 million men pocket of Soviet troops near Stalingrad in one pocket and killed them in one turn. This is almost 3 full Soviet Fronts worth of troops. I just do not see the point this entire German player whining. German players who say Soviet troops cannot be pocketed when playing German just don’t understand game mechanics and Soviet capabilities to counter pockets.

I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places. German has to go to pocket where Soviet player deploy troops. Sooner or later Soviet have to start defend before Urals. Sometimes it takes careful planning through multiple turns to be able to pocket large number of Soviet troops.

quote:

There is not a single thread on this forum about what trade-offs the Soviet player must make in order to survive the German offensive. The only kinds of things that are chatted about here are ahistoric crappola concerning different types of defenses setup WELL FORWARD of any coherent line made in the actual war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
I do not understand all this whining that German cannot pocket in historical places German cannot pocket in historical places if Soviet player choose not to defend in historical places.

The Germans should be able to bolt out of the gate and plunge deeply into Russia... on all fronts. This should force the Soviet player into making some hard decisions. And that is not happening.

quote:

1. The Germans cannot pocket the Soviets in historical areas (i.e. deep in Soviet territory), because the game mechanics don't allow it. How hard is that for you to understand????

2. The question is not where the Soviet player chooses to defend, because the way this game plays, he can defend EVERYWHERE! That is bullshit.

3. The Germans should be able to bolt out of the gate and plunge deeply into Russia... on all fronts. This should force the Soviet player into making some hard decisions. And that is not happening.

4. There is not a single thread on this forum about what trade-offs the Soviet player must make in order to survive the German offensive. The only kinds of things that are chatted about here are ahistoric crappola concerning different types of defenses setup WELL FORWARD of any coherent line made in the actual war.

5. And until the Soviet players are talking trade-offs and having to make difficult decisions as to where to draw their lines, then the game is just in another universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
So the pockets in the game work well enough over all - I just think the immediate reduction in CV (despite having ammo and other supplies on hand) is too much and that the surrounded forces (of both sides) should be able to hold out longer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
There are many images of 1000s of prisoners being guarded by small groups of German guards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
There are many discussions and examples on how the Germans can cut through a three, four, or even five hex deep Soviet defense in one or two turns. Even just pocketing a few divisions in three or four spots on the line each turn will see the Soviets really hurting in 1942 and beyond.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

The game appears to be more than a little forgiving to Soviet mistakes, while Axis mistakes are often significant. The Soviets have such an overwhelming supply of manpower and equipment and can get units back into the field so quickly (Training? Bah! Who needs training?) that as long as they don't get too carried away they can throw units away in 1941 by the gross and not feel it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ketza

My recent game as a Soviet found My Axis opponent not pocketing anything but attacking everything in sight. This lead to an interesting "no pocket" infantry rush. The jury is still out but it has got his infantry closer quicker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava
Look, I bought this game because I understood it was really hard to win as the Germans... but equally, it should also be quite difficult for the Soviets as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
It is very difficult for the Germans to win the war, but it has been done in several AARs.

quote:


And the Sovs struggle in most AARs in 1941, althoughs sometimes more than others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm
It is very difficult for the Germans to win the war, but it has been done in several AARs.

The only times I've seen the Germans win is because the Soviet player screwed up badly. The German player has to put in a top notch performance, but even if he does its moot as long as the Soviet player doesn't completely screw himself.

My biggest example of this is Tarhunnas vs. Q-Ball. By the end of 1941 several people were telling Q-Ball that he was completely screwed and should concede. But then we see the summer of 1942 and find that in actual fact Q-Ball is just fine and that he can carry on offenses while Tarhunnas is stuck on the defensive already.

Now, Tarhunnas did push longer than he should have, and did take more damage than he should have (he should have started digging in sooner), which everyone seems to think is the problem. There are four problems with that theory however.

1. The Germans did push until Dec. 5, 1941, and only when the blizzard hit did they actually stop. Unlike us they didn't know they should stop in October and start to dig in and fortify for the brutal winter to come (some preparation did occur, but nothing like is necessary in the game).

2. The Germans did take significant losses to men and equipment in the winter of 1941 and 1942. They weren't in the greatest of shape come the spring, the Soviets pushing them back in several places - but the Soviets largely exhausted themselves in the process, using up the available supply, and many of their units needing to retire for refit. Although it is worth noting that the Germans didn't just crawl into holes during that period, they performed some counter offensives as well!

3. The Germans didn't take Leningrad and Moscow historically, but Tarhunnas did. Despite losing these two important locations, the worst that Q-Ball can say is "I lost some bomber factories, but its okay now, I'm back up to making 80 IL-2s a turn."

4. Historically the Germans and Soviets fought like mad over the summer of 1942, the lines moving about dramatically, in the center and north they ended up almost back where they started while in the South the Germans pushed all the way to Stalingrad.

So despite doing a dramatically better advance in 1941 which should have resulted in a Soviet army on the ropes thinking "oh crap! How do we keep them from going further?" we know that the game is done. Tarhunnas has no where to go but down, Q-Ball has no where to go but up, and while I think they are going to play it out I'm now wondering how Q-Ball could not take Berlin.

So the problem is that some people are more than happy to say how X or Y is historically accurate, but when the complete and utter reversal that occurs post Winter '41 arrives, these same people are suddenly silent.

After the end of 1941, the game's historical plausibility gets up and leaves. The Germans are too weak in 1942, the Russians too strong, and instead of the back and forth struggle that would make for an interesting 1942 and 1943, we get a reprise of the static trenches from 1915 to 1917.

That is the problem.

quote:


And the Sovs struggle in most AARs in 1941, althoughs sometimes more than others.

Define 'struggle'. From what I can see, the only struggle is psychological.

Oh sure, the Soviets lose 3/4 as many men as historical, they lose a bit more territory than historical, they lose a small fraction of as much industry as historical, they sing the woes about how screwed they are - and I'm sure they believe they are, logically they should be! But they aren't. They find instead that they have a massive front in 1942 that resembles 1915 France more than 1942 Russia, and an ineffective summer campaign season follows that the only way ends at the gates of Stalingrad is if the Soviet player decides to skip a few turns, or if the Germans had already been there in the first place.

And when the best German players out there are having this problem, its even pretty hard for the Soviet fanboys to say "lrn2play n00b". So instead they point to a handful of Soviet losses that only occurred because the player made one gross mistake or another in 1941 and deny that there is any problem at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have been reading interviews done by John Erickson in the 70s with Soviet commanders and staff from WWII. One thing that leaps out in several of the interviews is the amount of work, transport, and trouble that the Soviets had in moving factories further East. I believe the manual states somewhere (probably the designer notes?) that the Soviets managed to move 50% of the factories to the East. From the interviews, it took an immense effort to move enough factories to (about 4 to 5 weeks and a huge number of trains (10,000+)) to move the 60% of the factories out of the city. Perhaps you should initiate the move (and pay the rail cost) on one turn but it takes four turns to complete the move (or some such thing). This would force the Soviets to try and hold the city for longer periods while giving the Germans a better shot at capturing or destroying more of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

The problem with such extremes is that we have statements that boil down to "The Axis always get a stalemate in 1942, unless the Soviets have screwed up massively, then they don't get a stalemate."

Axis play has a role in this, as does Soviet play. Luck, aggressiveness of either player, willingness to understand and play within what the rules give you...all these affect the game and the outcome. Perfect? Hardly. Still, I find fault with the notion that everything is doomed unless the Soviets are incompetant boobs...and the only time there has been positive outcomes is when the Soviet player is a knee-biting dweeb.

quote:

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

I have been reading interviews done by John Erickson in the 70s with Soviet commanders and staff from WWII. One thing that leaps out in several of the interviews is the amount of work, transport, and trouble that the Soviets had in moving factories further East. I believe the manual states somewhere (probably the designer notes?) that the Soviets managed to move 50% of the factories to the East. From the interviews, it took an immense effort to move enough factories to (about 4 to 5 weeks and a huge number of trains (10,000+)) to move the 60% of the factories out of the city. Perhaps you should initiate the move (and pay the rail cost) on one turn but it takes four turns to complete the move (or some such thing). This would force the Soviets to try and hold the city for longer periods while giving the Germans a better shot at capturing or destroying more of them.

quote:

Oh sure, the Soviets lose 3/4 as many men as historical, they lose a bit more territory than historical, they lose a small fraction of as much industry as historical,