janh
Posts: 1216
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
|
I think no one can truly and entirely rule out the possibility that the Germans may have pulled off something like the small, the medium or the biggest "turn 1 Lvovs", or the latest "Sapper/MichaelT" "delayed southern mega pockets" if they had committed significant extra forces from other AGs.
Thus it should be a possibility. I must admit I like the latest one Michael showed against Kamil more than the "straight-forward" turn 1 Lvovs since there are at least 2 or 3 turns for the Russian to react. Whatever that helps with poor MP and on, but it at least looks like a battle and not one side just napping until all's over. Possibly this is even more hurtful for the Soviets in the long run, though. The only catch I don't understand, or better cannot logically justify, is sending troops thru Romania and launching them while the Axis ally is still formally neutral -- this kind of is breaking the basic scenario design, and logically requires also removing the 1st turn surprise penalties for the Soviet southern fronts correspondingly to make any sense.
What I dislike about the "1st turn Lvov's" is the probability with which they succeed (it is basically a given if Axis wants to do it). That is in stark contrast to what I would expect it to have looked liked even if the Germans had send 1-3 more Panzerkorps south given the southern Soviet Armies rapid and powerful responses and the head-aches and heavy losses it caused the Axis. Even reinforced, the PzKps bullying to make the Lvov would have faced serious resistance, severe counterattacks, and suffered some sizable losses before succeeding. The later would probably have been doable "rather well and quickly" within the 0.5-1 week (turns) with at least 2 extra Panzerkorps, yet harder/slower or even uncertain with <= 1 extra Corps. It is this resistance and the fight the southern Front showed from the outset even within the first days, certainly much quicker than they ever could have been pocketed like the worse performing sleepers in the northern areas, that is entirely missing.
The whole thing is too simple, too certain, and --most importantly-- too cheap and lacking pretty much any battling compared to the huge impact it has on the balance of the first year or two. Hopefully for WitE 2.0 the devs will tackle any of the measures that could influence this, from ZOC differentiations, a fine-grain mud/weather model, more detailed surprise rules, more resilient pockets, a tiny randomization of starting locations, reaction moves... whatever it takes. Nonetheless, a a certain but small probability should remain to try a Lvov gambit, win big time or loose big time -- get it all, or see the majority of the Panzer get bogged down fighting south while AGC gets stuck north lacking it's armor...
< Message edited by janh -- 6/13/2013 6:38:58 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: AGS alternate/historical opening (or not using the ... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread