ORIGINAL: Michael T
I just think it's totally nuts that disbanding an entire tier of the German command structure could be benificial in any way or form. But yet it is. Something is amiss.
Getting back on to Reserves.
In the past the German players in the main have been able to keep the Soviets off balance for longer periods in 1941 and this nulifies the reserve function as a Soviet army in disarray can't manage it. With little rule changes here and there its become harder and harder to keep Ivan off balance. So we see more games where the Soviets are able to regain composure earlier. Once that occurs is when the 'reserve' game really makes life much harder for the German players to get going again.
My concerns about this are as much about facing a challenging game when I play Soviet as anything else.
I have to read up on that game of Pelton's. I'd never have even thought of disbanding the Corps level HQs for fear of a total logistic or C&C breakdown. I re-read the rules, and logically it should work against you as you should miss more rolls??? If it's generally true that Corps HQ can disbanded on the defense without negatives but rather better SU commitment, can one drive this one step further and get rid of the Army level? If the C&C can be exploited like that, of course the whole reserves thing and everything else just follows the exploit.
When you say "Ivan of balance", what is the say "normal" course you'd want to tune the factors to?
What I am thinking is that there is rarely such phase in which the Germans outrun their supply and get stuck against solidifying Soviet resistance such as AGC faced pretty much during all of August and September at Smolensk, even being required to withdraw a bit. In game terms this would probably mean fort level 3 plus in that area after two months, and a hard time breaking this line to aim at something like the Bryansk/Vyasma pocket battles. Although, if I understand correctly, the Germans bypassed this solid line on the land bridge and the key breakthrus occurred in the Rshev and the Gomel areas, both of which where not fortified and fluid before (the former, because of the progress and forth and back fighting in the Valdai, the latter of course was the northern part of the Kiev line that had just evaporated). So the German made lemonade from lemons, using their superiority to stretch the Soviet lines and hit where they are weak.
I think this kind of thing is presently possible with WitE, though not many AARs show that an AGC that is not deprived of a PzKps for the Lvov can be stopped cold on the landbridge, or somewhere around. Even with the use of reserves, or what you can scrape together. At the moment it seems more like the first signs of solidifying and Axis slow down occur east of Rshev/Vyasma if not even closer to Moscow, rarely before Leningrad, and basically never in the south and south-center (which given the terrain is quite sensible). So basically the Barbarossa part, the 41 VC260 conditions are decided on a knife edge already. I think the strengthening could and should happen even earlier, such as it does if the German side makes mistakes and falls behind the plan.
It would be nice to see someone stop a very good Axis player with drum's and pipes somewhere cold for a month or two, like AGC. Maybe it doesn't happen because when playing Soviets, I/people are not risking enough on the landbridge with its poor open terrain? The Axis does never fall being behind supply enough? Or are Soviets/Soviet reinforcements overall too weak to recreate a feat like that?
So what's your take on that, in which phase should the going for Axis get harder, and should there be perhaps something like an even chance for both sides to either rush through without chance of solidifying lines, or even an equally fair chance that even a good Axis player should be able to get badly stuck somewhere way early of the summer goals?
