Slitherine

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,

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL

as this game is something of an outlier.

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!

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.

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