The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please)

[mmarquo]

Helio -

I am not criticizing you or any other player who has resorted to desperate measures to counter the run away; the perenial problem with just about every east front game is the Soviet run away.

Marquo

[Aurelian]

Runawyas are such a big deal... AAR after AAR shows the fall of Berlin every time.

Couldn't keep a straight face as I typed that.

[wadortch]

How many AAR's have shown this result?

[Michael T]

Aurelian I intend to play Soviet only now for a while (baring some game changing patch that dissuades the runaway) just to prove this point. That Soviet play that allows running when ever needed will mean a win for Russia or at the very least a draw. Do you care to try and prove me wrong by playing me?

Also you must surely realize that the vast majority of games will end well before Berlin falls or the 260/290 point mark is reached. To use that as an argument is irrelevant. The only stat that matters is who won the game when the Soviets had total freedom of action. And you need to discount games where the Axis used muling. I would bet most of these games, a Soviet runaway with no muling ended in a Soviet victory.

And what is running away? Well for me it's leaving a light screen and having a MLR several hexes or more back, that keeps rolling back as soon as it is threatened, remaining just out of reach the enemy. Only stopping once a impenetrable carpet is laid or the mud finally hits. As Marquo said, it’s the perennial problem of most EF games. A few have solved the problem and they are the best EF games around. The problem is mostly solved thru strict sudden death VP conditions or crippling the Soviet war economy if they loose too many cities too soon.

For example the old AH title Russian Front used sudden death VC for both sides that ensured both sides fought for every city. And GMT's Barbarossa series uses a sophisticated VP schedule that awards or punishes players for capturing objectives early to late respectively.

IMO WITE could be improved immensely by removing HQBU totally and using sudden death VC that forced a Soviet forward defence. Followed by sudden death VC that forced the Germans to defend stoutly in the blizzard. In my game with Tarhunnas it was the timely use of 3 HQBU in one turn that allowed me to break the Russians back. Without HQ BU I would have had to call a halt in the Centre and South until supplies could be brought back up. This breathing space would have allowed a respite for Russia and allowed them to reform their defences.

[Klydon]

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

Sort of interesting that I just got done reading a book in which a fair amount of time was devoted to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Seems Stalin had real concerns about losing control over the rest of the country and there was wide spread panic mid October in Moscow when almost nothing stood between the Germans and Moscow. Unfortunately for the Germans, the mud just killed them and gave the Russians time to get more forces in place and the panic was reduced down when it was clear the Germans were stuck. Apparently negotiated settlements were something that may have been possible into 1943.

At some point there has to be an overall national will/moral for Russia based on time and amount of territory in German hands. (As time goes along, the territory requirements would go up). It could be semi-random, but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Dead horse I know, but oh well.

[Michael T]

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

This is why sudden death VC are needed in conjunction with removal of HQBU. So if you run too far too soon you lose.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
...but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Frankly I don't believe that Stalin would have caved or negotiated a settlement. Not because he was a great leader, but because he was almost as nuts as Hitler. Also, as I've pointed out in another thread, there reasons why the Sovs might have feigned interest in such negotiations that have nothing to do with actually signing a settlement (trying to ensure that the Germans don't increase mobilization levels, try to squeeze more lend-lease, etc.).

Moreover, given German goals, it seems obvious that what Stalin was supposedly offering would not be sufficient.

Finally, I've read quite a bit on this topic and haven't seen this info so it would be good to know to which book you are referring.

[Aurelian]

For Stalin to cave in or sign a settlement would very likely have resulted in his overthrow and execution.

And where are all these AARs that show the fall of Berlin? I'm not the first to bring this up.

[hfarrish]

This is probably the simplest, most easily implementable fix to the issues dogging the game. I do think most Soviet players want to fight from the getgo...its just that right now its suicide.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

I think there already is a huge punishment for the Soviet players in PBEM for extensive withdrawals strategies, aka real run-aways: As the other said, it means the loss of the chance to reach Berlin in time.

Yet still most players forgo this chance to win the game as a Soviet in return to avoid being annihilated outright in the first autumn. That way, at least the game will last a while and both sides get to enjoy the fun of the offensive period of the conflict.

It still is not a question that a Soviet player with the intention to win, and to do so as fast as he can, would want to fight forward. But this fight out to be possible even against an excellent Axis player, and it should be possible to repeat the defeats at Moscow and Leningrad occasionally. As it stands, it looks like suicide to fight forward.

How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: janh
How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

If you mean it, I mean, really, no one step back, we might have another ahistorical result: the Soviets would be destroying units (as TDV did, er, using game mechanics). And the truth is the Soviets only managed to completely destroy German units in Stalingrad... And real first blizzard was harsh and the truppen were ordered to stay... but NO German units were destroyed (as far as I can tell).

If the Germans can retreat *one or two* hexes then we have to consider the main difference between the German and Soviet players... The former has got counters with astronomical MPs (and high morale): the knife in the butter. The latter don't have these mega high MPs AND high morale counters.

Ergo, for the Germans it's enough to retreat one or two hexes (they are trashed, ok, but relatively safe)... On the other hand the Soviet hordes can be put to the sword even when they think they are safe (5-10 hexes away from enemy hordes).

Most [Soviet] players would not consider these "one or two hexes" a run away methinks. I don't.

In other words, the Germans can safely stay (with some withdrawals here and there). The Soviets play with fire though IF they don't run away...

Therefore [and sort of quoting Orwell] some no-one-step-back are more equal than others... [:D]

[TulliusDetritus]

Just in case I was not clear:

withdrawal = retreat one, two, three (?) hexes
runaway = the bulk of your forces are not near the enemy, you leave the field, only skirmirshers are left behind

[Farfarer61]

I have no problem whatsoever if a Sov player moves east as fast as possible in 1941 or any year. I want the Red Army to flee.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

The issue is even if they got rid of the HQBU, even tho it would mean the Germans would become much more likely to have to take a pause (like they did historically because of logistical issues), there is no punishment at all for the Russians to continue to run away at will.

Sort of interesting that I just got done reading a book in which a fair amount of time was devoted to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Seems Stalin had real concerns about losing control over the rest of the country and there was wide spread panic mid October in Moscow when almost nothing stood between the Germans and Moscow. Unfortunately for the Germans, the mud just killed them and gave the Russians time to get more forces in place and the panic was reduced down when it was clear the Germans were stuck. Apparently negotiated settlements were something that may have been possible into 1943.

At some point there has to be an overall national will/moral for Russia based on time and amount of territory in German hands. (As time goes along, the territory requirements would go up). It could be semi-random, but at some point, Stalin is going to cave and sign a negotiated settlement to save what he can. According to the book, the Russians were willing to write off the border areas and parts of the Ukrane in the fall of 1941. Of course Hitler thought he could get more and got greedy along with not trusting Stalin to keep an agreement for long. In this, he was probably correct.

Dead horse I know, but oh well.

Stalin tried 2 times to start negotiated peace talks with Germans through 3rd parties, but Hitler would have nothing to do with it. After all the German victories before Dec 1941, Stalin asking for peace talks could only be seen as weakeness and that victory was near.

This is why instead of digging in during October as Hilter wanted to do he sided with his generals and went for the Moscow.

Reading books based more on info gotten after the wall came down you get a much better picture of how low morale was in Moscow in late 1941.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: janh
How about someone ought to play a PBEM of the 1941/42 blizzard now with the "Axis no step back" rule? Would it be as nuts as the Soviet no retreat result?

If you mean it, I mean, really, no one step back, we might have another ahistorical result: the Soviets would be destroying units (as TDV did, er, using game mechanics). And the truth is the Soviets only managed to completely destroy German units in Stalingrad... And real first blizzard was harsh and the truppen were ordered to stay... but NO German units were destroyed (as far as I can tell).

If the Germans can retreat *one or two* hexes then we have to consider the main difference between the German and Soviet players... The former has got counters with astronomical MPs (and high morale): the knife in the butter. The latter don't have these mega high MPs AND high morale counters.

Ergo, for the Germans it's enough to retreat one or two hexes (they are trashed, ok, but relatively safe)... On the other hand the Soviet hordes can be put to the sword even when they think they are safe (5-10 hexes away from enemy hordes).

Most [Soviet] players would not consider these "one or two hexes" a run away methinks. I don't.

In other words, the Germans can safely stay (with some withdrawals here and there). The Soviets play with fire though IF they don't run away...

Therefore [and sort of quoting Orwell] some no-one-step-back are more equal than others... [:D]

The 41/42 Blizzard in wite has zero to do with history, the Germans had issues only in front of Moscow. German loses currently are totally over blown during 41/42.

If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Logistics for both sides is broken 100%. Most SHC have no idea how easy it is for them to exploit the current system. "Cav"

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

Actually he makes a valid point [:)] I mentioned what TDV did. Pelton himself was the victim, on the receiving end [:D]

I had even used some pics to show how that massacre was done (skillfully using game mechanics that is). Pelton said the picture was about right. I will try to dig and find it.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Pelton
If the SHC builds his army for blizzard vs and equal player he should be able to easly pocket 30 to 50 GERMAN units.
Thats with the GHC retreating as fast as they can the turn before the blizzard starts.

Whew, just when I was missing the ol' Pelton hyperbole! I gotta call BS on this one...

But in all seriousness, I don't understand what you mean by Sovs "building an army for the blizzard"--because the cost of new units is so high, virtually no one builds units in 1941, so you are presumably referring to not "building the army correctly", but "organizing the army correctly" (ie, putting cavalry and tank units in the right combinations and right armies, etc.). Is that right, or what do you have in mind?

Its cool.

TDV 20 built a blizzard army and pocketed a huge amount of units. This BS has been chatted about in several other threads. It is covered in a AAR and is not BS.

Its not easy to do, but more then worth the risk.

No need to start your standed strawmen arguements.

The info is posted get your facts right before starting your standard personal attacks

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The info is posted get your facts right before starting your standard personal attacks

Too bad you're back to your old habits of exaggeration and hyperbole. I'm not the one making strawman arguments; the fact that one person did it to you once in an AAR (which I read) hardly means that a Sov player should be able to pocket 30-50 units while the German is moving backwards as fast as possible.

[Flaviusx]

Tullius, I have yet any see any real explanation about this this game Pelton talks about and regard it as an urban legend.

I truly wish he had bothered documenting it in a detailed AAR. But right now I can't take it very seriously. The precise circumstances involved remain a complete mystery. It has never happened in any other game. Handwaving and anecdote and theorycrafting aren't a substitute for a solid AAR. We have no screenshots, no contemporaneous evidence at all. The entire blizzard offensive in the AAR mentioned was skipped and then we get "oops, game over, Reds killed lotsa divisons!" I need a little more than that. The whole thing is fishy as hell.

I keep waiting for somebody else to duplicate this mythological Soviet blizzard destroying 30+ divisions and showing exactly how this happens but thus far, this is a one off.

Pelton's comments about "building" the right Red Army themselves show that he doesn't really know what happened. A Soviet player doesn't "build" anything at this stage of the game; he manages what he's received. The real building occurs later on.

That being said, I did see one other game where the Germans got more or less annihilated during the blizzard. It was a game where Michael T was playing the Soviets, oddly enough. The Germans had a pretty good summer and then tried to stand their ground during the winter. (And without Bob's linebacker tricks.) The results of this were fairly predictable; the Svoiet created gaps in the line and raced through them and put ZOC locks everywhere. This amazingly stubborn forward defense by the Axis just doesn't work.

However I have no idea what happened in Pelton's game, and I doubt very much he stood his ground, he is a runner during the winter.