Rethinking Leningrad?

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

Post Reply
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by loki100 »

Been thinking about the conventional understanding of how to handle Leningrad in 1941 and whether there are real alternatives.

For the German side it appears as if there is a consensus around reinforcing AGN and taking the city to free up the Finns etc. Variants include Pelton's 'right hook', creating an assault force to clear the Neva, or forcing the Volkhov to take the Ladoga ports.

The Soviet convention seems to be that Leningrad is only secondary to Moscow for reinforcements. Defensive choices include how much to risk west of the Volkhov, how much to risk in the city area itself (ie bounded by the Finn no attack line and the Neva, plus Leningrad itself) and how to prevent a right hook by heavily defending around Lake Ilmen.

In most games, the end result is that Leningrad falls, usually in the snow turns, rarely before the autumn mud turns. The convention is that this diverted forces from Moscow - most German players clearly plan on how much to send to that sector and how quickly. With care, the Soviets got out the key factories.

After that, all things being equal the sector is unimportant till the mid-game Soviet offensives when most German players seem to let Finland surrender without too much effort - on the assumption that once the Soviets are into the Baltic States it is of no longer any importance. I think I agree with Pelton that this brings into question the conventional logic of 'saving the Finns for later' - might as well be agressive with them in 1942 instead.

What I've been thinking is what happens if the Soviet player ignores conventional wisdom and makes little effort at Leningrad. I'm assuming that you need to divert some force at the least to evacuate enough of the factories. But after that?

Does it matter if the Germans take Leningrad early if the Soviets have steadily built up their defences instead on the northern side of Moscow?
Is there more to be gained by reinforcing the Ukraine, where additional units and the inevitable German supply problems may mean you can evacuate even more industry?
Does sending even more to Moscow limit overall German gains?
In the north why not pull back behind the Finn stop line ... you'll retake it all easily enough in 1943/44 and its not really part of the 'hexes to Berlin' style calculation?

Or

does the ability, once they realise what is going on, of the Germans to concentrate on Moscow much quicker offset any apparent gains?

User avatar
VigaBrand
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 3:51 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by VigaBrand »

You steel time. If you held Leningrad and delay the german advance there, you will bind some german armor and mot divisions in this sector, so that they wouldn't move to the Center or South.
The problem is to find the balance and didn't over commit thinks there.
Normal best german infantery and three tank corps move to the North and fight for Leningrad. If they capture Leningrad fast, they will be free for Moscow.
So you defend Leningrad and the germans must bring large forces to the North to take it and these forces will not attack Moscow or the South.


No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

Leningrad is bound to fall sooner or later, and, while you can bear the fall of Leningrad, you wouldnt bear the fall of Moscow. In the south you have plenty of space to trade for time, so you have more options there.

Basically, with Leningrad you should just put enough forces so that the german player cant take it early (before mud season). Why? Because taking it early will allow him to shift massive forces to the Moscow axis and, possibly, take the city before Blizzard comes. In 1941, against panzerkorps, there isnt anything you can do to stop them, apart from defending behind a major river. If they want to break through, they will do it. If the german player takes Leningrad before mud season he will get 2 full panzerkorps more against Moscow (plus several armeekorps) and around 5 turns of clear and snow weather. A very risky situation for Moscow.

Defending Leningrad up to a certain point, you are defending Moscow, but your aim should be saving Moscow, as you cant bear to lose it.
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

I guess a point can be made about what would be the situation if you put your effort in saving Leningrad AND the Stalino area, giving up Moscow (as you cant really hope to defend everything unless there is a big gap among the players skill). Would holding Leningrad, Stalino (and, consequently, Rostov) be better than holding Moscow and Rostov only?. In short, is it a good option to trade Moscow for Leningrad and Stalino?. I dont think so. First of all, you will have a much harder time trying to save Stalino, as it is an area not well suited for defence. Moscow is far easier to defend than the Stalino area. Even if you manage to hold Stalino for the 1941 winter, you can very well lose it in the 1942 summer, due to the same reasons (area unsiutable for defence). So, in the end, I think the best option the soviet player has is trying to save Moscow and Rostov and his efforts should aim to that.

Regarding production Leningrad plus Stalino area (the two cities north of Stalino) give more HI and Arm than Moscow area, iirc, but, on the other hand, Moscow area gives far more equipment and more manpower, iirc. Something to have into account.
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by sillyflower »

Taking L'grad does the following

1 Frees the Finns to help in the 1st winter in particular
2 Removes considerable rail capacity
3 Ditto manpower
4 Makes a German victory/draw possible

Not taking L'grad has the opposite effects, and impacts on player morale too. No German who fails here will last to '45.

Taking it early helps with 2-4 above. Importantly it frees valuable troops to wreak havoc somewhere else in the summer. Late summer is no good because of the time taken to shift substantial forces elsewhere. I would not have taken Moscow from Brian if he had defended/been able to defend L'grad more strongly.
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by morvael »

Conclusion for Soviet players: defend Leningrad at all cost, this indirectly protects Moscow.
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Conclusion for Soviet players: defend Leningrad at all cost, this indirectly protects Moscow.

I agree that defending Leningrad you protect Moscow also, but the "at all costs" part is something I dont agree with. Putting most of your resources in Leningrad simply makes other, more vital areas (moscow) more vulnerable. As Viganrand said, the trick is to find the balance: how many units do you need to feed Leningrad so that it helds until mud season?
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by morvael »

I think the goal should be to hold until First Winter.

Leningrad is obvious target because of how the supply flows, usually it's impossible to head towards Moscow in the summer, but Leningrad is possible (that's why PG3 assists in the assault on LG). Also, other reasons (rail hub, manpower, Finns to help) are making it a no-brainer target for most German players.

Sure, you have to be extra careful not to miss the moment when the German player will give up trying to take Leningrad and shift his Panzer Groups towards Moscow. This takes two turns, max three (and you will be one turn behind). Good recon is required on the Moscow front.
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

The other option would be trying to save both Moscow and Leningrad giving up the South. Do you have enough time to evacuate all that needs to be evacuated? If the german player uses one of its FBD units from Romania (which is what he should do), I dont think you will have enough time. And even if you shift massive forces to Leningrad, you cant be sure to held it. A full panzerkorps, using full attack, can grind its way through anything in 1941 (except major rivers or very high forts, levels 4 or 5). Same goes for elite armeekorps. That means a german player, once he realizes the south is being given up, can rush to Dnepropetrovsk and Stalino areas making evacuation impossible, and he can still grind its way to the Neva. However, I think this option can be better than the one trying to hold Leningrad and the Stalino area. Has anybody tried it?
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think the goal should be to hold until First Winter.

Of course, the more the better, but after mud season the german player still has a few turns (3/4) of snow, which he can use to wrap things up (like taking Leningrad. By then he should be at the gates or fighting in the city). Thus, I dont see trying to hold Leningrad unitl First Winter as realistic UNLESS you give up other areas (Moscow or the South) or there is a big gap in player skills.


User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by morvael »

Sure, Leningrad and Moscow are more important than south. One must evacuate Kharkov and Stalino plus some other medium sized centers of industry, but after that south is less important than north and center. Of course with all this RR spent on evacuating south (and Leningrad just in case) little will be left to evacuate Moscow's industry. So if you give up south, better be 100% sure you will be able to defend Moscow.

After all it's what makes 1941 so interesting. How do the initial choices made by both players, when still not sure where the other side will commit, interact? It's like in a game of rock-paper-scissors :)
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

Taking L'grad does the following

1 Frees the Finns to help in the 1st winter in particular
2 Removes considerable rail capacity
3 Ditto manpower
4 Makes a German victory/draw possible

Not taking L'grad has the opposite effects, and impacts on player morale too. No German who fails here will last to '45.

Taking it early helps with 2-4 above. Importantly it frees valuable troops to wreak havoc somewhere else in the summer. Late summer is no good because of the time taken to shift substantial forces elsewhere. I would not have taken Moscow from Brian if he had defended/been able to defend L'grad more strongly.

Another reason for not trying to hold Leningrad at all costs. It can cost you too much and, in the end, you wont probably held it.

Just as the soviet player makes his choices about what to defend, the german player makes his about what to attack. And Leningrad is a "must take" for the axis player.
No idea
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:19 am

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by No idea »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Sure, Leningrad and Moscow are more important than south. One must evacuate Kharkov and Stalino plus some other medium sized centers of industry, but after that south is less important than north and center. Of course with all this RR spent on evacuating south (and Leningrad just in case) little will be left to evacuate Moscow's industry. So if you give up south, better be 100% sure you will be able to defend Moscow.

After all it's what makes 1941 so interesting. How do the initial choices made by both players, when still not sure where the other side will commit, interact? It's like in a game of rock-paper-scissors :)

In my two server games as soviet player I didnt even bother to evac Moscow, as from the very begining I bet on holding it at all costs. However, I couldnt evac so much from the south or Leningrad (I could evac around half or a bit more, iirc). IF I had given up the south, I guess I wouldnt have had time to evac anythign at Stalino, imho.
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by morvael »

Evac will be a bit easier in .08
User avatar
sillyflower
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:39 pm
Location: Back in Blighty

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by sillyflower »

ORIGINAL: No idea

ORIGINAL: morvael

Conclusion for Soviet players: defend Leningrad at all cost, this indirectly protects Moscow.

I agree that defending Leningrad you protect Moscow also, but the "at all costs" part is something I dont agree with. Putting most of your resources in Leningrad simply makes other, more vital areas (moscow) more vulnerable. As Viganrand said, the trick is to find the balance: how many units do you need to feed Leningrad so that it helds until mud season?

The words 'at all costs' should not be taken literally. Moscow matters more. L is very hard to defend against a good opponent but it is so important not to lose it early to stop the the german transferring part of AGN to help against Moscow. Vigabrand gets it right about the balance.
web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by Michael T »

I have always, and still do hold that I would rather hold Leningrad and lose Moscow given the choice, providing I get enough out of Moscow. Careful thought about this will provide you with the reasons.
User avatar
gingerbread
Posts: 3055
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:25 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Rethinking Leningrad?

Post by gingerbread »

A frozen Neva makes it much easier to capture the lake port so holding Leningrad is very tricky in March '42.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”