Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

There is also way too much information out there that Stalin intended to defend every inch of ground in the first 10 weeks of the war and plenty of examples of commanders being killed (as well as line troops) for retreating. Where is your outrage about the perfect zone-of-control retreat capability of the Soviet?

Your argument is invalid because you are inconsistently applying it. If you can't apply history 'everywhere' then you can't shackle either side to it anywhere. That has always been my position.

With that argument invalidated, you are faced with the stark reality of hard-coded limits imposed on Finland that produce strategically illogical AND a-historical result.

Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door rather than attacking eastward into what is effectively a 30-mile wide, 100-mile deep maginot line in 1941 brought about by arbitrary map edges, arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced 'political considerations' (that are only applied to the Axis when they are applied at all), and brilliant gamesmanship by people with no intention of pursuing the spirit of the rule.

You defend the indefensible.

If Mannerheim knew what would happen at Flavius's line, he would not bother to attack the Soviets at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Personally, I wish this entire theater had been left out of the game. The Finns are just weird as is their role in the war. They were doing their own thing, largely disconnected from the war elsewhere. They also, uniquely among Axis minors, managed to preserve their independence post war. Finland is sui generis and could be cheerfully ignored altogether, as indeed is the case in a lot of east front games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.

And yet your realism doesn't seem to take into consideration real Finnish political/military/social/cultural constraints. Likely, if the Russians had sent more forces to defend north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns would've gone as far they could there, before they would have reached their military/political limits (most likely high casualties going up against strong Russian defenses wasn't something the Finnish replacement system could keep up with, combined with the desire to maintain a strong military for defensive purposes more than anything). They wouldn't have smashed their heads against the Russian defenses: they would've simply halted and dug in where they stood.

From what I've read, any significant push towards Leningrad past the 1939 borders was a political and military non-starter for Finland. Whether Lenningrad was ripe for the plucking is irrelevant if the Finnish political apparatus wouldn't have allowed such a course of action in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...

Ultimately, wars aren't run by Colonels or Generals, but by the nation's political leaders. If the Finnish political leaders wouldn't allow a drive on Leningrad, then it isn't a military option. Another example I can think of (as a Canadian) was when 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was sent to liberate Dieppe in Sep 1944. Militarily it was NOT the best move to make (and IIRC Montgomery was against it), but Canadian POLITICAL influence forced the decision, as it was a morale boost to have 2nd Canadian march into Dieppe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gorforlin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

So far no serious factory losses apart from the HI left behind.

Thanks for the info re bracketed supply state.

From my recon I gather he has from AGN 4 Pz xx, 3 Mot xx, AGC 7 Pz, 5 Mot, AGS 6 Pz, 5 mot. 1 Mot unaccounted for.

The far northern front still holds. See pic. 100 Fighters plus 140 bombers. A leader with a 6 rating for INF combat. I am confident this line will hold for now.

This tactic is cheesy for 2 reasons.

1. Its totaly unhistorical, in the north the Fins simply owned the Russians other then Murmansk area.

2. As I read the rules this area for both sides is froozen until the Fins are unfroozen first.

I am hoping 2by3 patches this cheese from game asap as they have patched out other cheesy moves.

This cheese should be part of everyones house rules until its nerfed.

I am surpised Michael T is using this cheese after his look what I found on my lunch break thread.

I am tring to figure out whos more cheesy Pelton for germans or Flaviusx for russians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Honestly, I don't have a problem if Finland is removed from the game entirely as Schmart and Flavius have discussed.

What I have a problem with is the patently absurd exploitation of the Leningrad line versus the Ladoga line, which is only practical in game because of the no-attack construct. That's exploitation. That's the equivalent of empty HQ muling. That's min/maxing the system. That should be punished. All of your defenses of this absurdity turn off competitive game-players even if it gives history buffs erections.

To give you an example of a hard-coded but trade-off capable balance (which is what is needed in this instance), I'm thinking of Command: Europe at War.

If the UK removes its infantry from Gibraltar, Franco takes Gibraltar in between turns even if Spain is out of the war.

I would prefer something like this for the no-attack line at Leningrad. If the CV value of units on the Leningrad line falls below X, Finland can attack.

My ethical standards are apparently much higher than most of yours. I find it amazing that all of you know perfectly well what Mannerheim would do in all circumstances and insist he would never change his positions, yet you do not make any similar attempts to pin-hole Soviet or German play based on what Hitler and Stalin demanded. Why is there this hypocrisy amongst you? The fact is that we don't limit German/Soviet play based on history because it makes for a better game for each side. Why does Finland get excluded from the "let's make a better game" discussion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

The whole do what Stalin would do discussion is at end. It's finished, dead and buried. Tarhunnas tried to fight forward and was crushed because the of isolation rules in their current form. Retreat by the Red Army in '41 is the only option to at least offer a chance of winning.

I really don't care if the Finns are excluded or if the map runs to Murmansk. What I do care about is this ficticious final battle where Leningrad becomes isolated and is taken at the cost of 400 German lives. It's rubbish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, if you think I'm going to let the Finns march halfway to the Urals, forget it. That's the real fantasy in this game. Corking them up in Karelia is small beer in comparison.

Axis players in this game take it for granted that Leningrad is a gimme and then they can unleash the Finns to do pretty much whatever. No, the morale hit does not in practice deter this.

Remove the Karelian theater from the game and make Leningrad defensible, and none of this need be an issue. So far as I'm concerned the Finnish cork is just putting things where they ought to be and mitigating the hash the game makes of this area up north and allowing something resembling a historical outcome. Leningrad will still probably fall, of course, but at least the damage resulting from that is minimized and the game's preposterous Finnish drang nach osten is eliminated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

[quuote] I have agreed to retreat from the hexes as it is even to cheesy for me to use.

King Pelton Lord over all Cheesedom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My focus is preserving my army. This is why I ran so far in the early stages. To avoid unnecessary losses. So naturally all my rail is used moving industry. So there is little capacity to shift large numbers of troops from the south to the north. The supposed excess (I don't believe there is anyhow) is simply a natural accumulation because I have been falling back and not losing masses of troops.

I am not at all concerned if Moscow falls or Leningrad (though I will try to hold them). As long as I don't lose 500K men in the process. If I have 5M troops at the start of the Blizzard I will regain Moscow anyhow. The bottom line is this. IMO if Russia preserves her army in 41 and saves enough Industry she ultimately wins the game. If certain cities hold out so much the better.

Stocking up HQ's prior to isolation makes no difference. You need an airfield to fly some supplies in *after* isolation to get a benefit. So you can have a gazzilion tons of supplies in a HQ but still drop to CV 1 if you get cut off, fly in a mere 5% IIRC of requirements and hey presto CV all good again. Go figure. That’s why I have empty airfields strewn across the map. If guys get cut off and I happen to have an airfield in the pocket I can supply some guys (eg the Kharkov dudes) and make them tougher to kill.

I don't know why you have this large stock of supplies in your HQ. But I do know that sometimes if you advance far enough its actually a bonus if you get cut off. As the HQ will then draw supplies from a captured city and you get way way more gas and supplies than what you would have had you not been cut off. I reported this. It has not been corrected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My focus is preserving my army. This is why I ran so far in the early stages. To avoid unnecessary losses. So naturally all my rail is used moving industry. So there is little capacity to shift large numbers of troops from the south to the north. The supposed excess (I don't believe there is anyhow) is simply a natural accumulation because I have been falling back and not losing masses of troops.

I am not at all concerned if Moscow falls or Leningrad (though I will try to hold them). As long as I don't lose 500K men in the process. If I have 5M troops at the start of the Blizzard I will regain Moscow anyhow. The bottom line is this. IMO if Russia preserves her army in 41 and saves enough Industry she ultimately wins the game. If certain cities hold out so much the better.

Stocking up HQ's prior to isolation makes no difference. You need an airfield to fly some supplies in *after* isolation to get a benefit. So you can have a gazzilion tons of supplies in a HQ but still drop to CV 1 if you get cut off, fly in a mere 5% IIRC of requirements and hey presto CV all good again. Go figure. That’s why I have empty airfields strewn across the map. If guys get cut off and I happen to have an airfield in the pocket I can supply some guys (eg the Kharkov dudes) and make them tougher to kill.

I don't know why you have this large stock of supplies in your HQ. But I do know that sometimes if you advance far enough its actually a bonus if you get cut off. As the HQ will then draw supplies from a captured city and you get way way more gas and supplies than what you would have had you not been cut off. I reported this. It has not been corrected.