Pskov defense and runner strategy

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

User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

Before starting this, I would like to say that I'm merely expressing my opinion to initiate conversation, and this is in no way definitive because even though I have a good undertanding of the game and it's dynamics, I know there are many with far more experience with it than I do, who might have quite different views about this.

I have been part of another discussion on this forum about the short Axis supply leash that might be too short, an idea on which I don't agree, I think I have made this pretty clear.

But it has nevertheless initiated a reflexion about one of the basic idea (don't want to say problem) that was exposed in that thread to begin with: that the Soviets 'runners' using the Pskov defense strategy has become such a powerful thing, if not a 'must' for the Soviet.

IMO, that is in big part a by-product of the fact that of the 3 initial real-life Barbarossa objective, only taking Leningrad has some obvious big advantage over the 2 others for the Axis in the game, because it frees the Finns from the no-finn-until-Leningrad-is-taken-line, which is added to the fact that the Leningrad salient is eliminated and so the front line is significantly shortened for the Axis when the blizzard comes.

Taking Moscow or Ukraine up to Rostov are of course worthy objectives, but they don't bring any special advantage for an Axis player, other than taking a lot of manpower centers and industry, but which could also be said of Leningrad, and is never so much of a problem for a skilled Soviet 'Runner' anyway as his OB will be quite strong anyway.

And ignoring a Pskov defense strategy is really not a good idea for an Axis player, as it fast becomes really hard to break.

Bottom line, IMO the conclusion of this is that it seems to me that as an Axis player, you HAVE to go all out for Leningrad early, and because of that defending it at all costs for a Soviet has very obvious advantages and benefits. Which means a lot of games might end up having a similar flow.

Added to that, historical facts indicate of course that a 'runner' strategy would never have been possible at the political level even though we know because of the De Tolly/Kutusov experience of 1812 that it would have been a very worthy and possible strategy on military grounds.

So my question is: should there be some added consequence to a Soviet player that gives ground too fast and looses Moscow or Donbass too fast and/or without fighting for them? I mean, apart from being shot by NKVD agents of course? [:'(] I don't know, something that might have been possible in real life, a national morale drop or something of the kind? Removal of 'faulty' leaders or downgrade of ratings? Other ideas that would make sense in the context? Could this even be implemented in the game?

Also, is it something that bothers you either as Axis or Soviet players, if of course you think it is an issue to begin with?
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

I personally prioritize Leningrad in the GC because of the reasons that you mentioned. It is the one vital target that the Germans need to get in 1941. To do so, it is important to give AGN whatever it needs for its push north.

I faced a strong Soviet defense of Pskov in my AAR and decided to dedicate 4 Panzer Corps (4th Pz Group and 2 Panzer Corps from AGC) to breaking it. The result of this surprise was a massive pocket that paved the way to the Luga. The fight for Leningrad was still very bitter and the city only fell on turn 17. Utilizing the 2 Panzer Corps from AGC meant that the advance in the Center stalled but I was willing to take that trade off. I did fail to take Moscow (due to other reasons as well) but I was more than happy with the fall of Leningrad and with the strategy I followed. Had I not pulled forces from Army Group Center to help the push for Leningrad, I am very sure that the city would not have fallen in 1941.

Bottom line: Axis players should push hard for Leningrad even if that comes at the expense of AGC and AGS. The city is the most important target in 1941 and it has major strategic value, since it allows you to redeploy the whole AGN further to the south, shortens the front and allows the Finns to get in the game properly.

To answer your question: I don't think the Soviet player should be penalized if they choose to retreat. Every decision in game has its consequences. If you abandon major cities because you want to save your army, you will suffer for it. I would suggest you and all other players to play the Bitter End campaign (or at least give it a try) which I prefer to the normal GC because each side has a certain number of cities that serve as strategic and political goals and give you points for each turn they are under your control. So if a Soviet player would give up Leningrad too early they would not only lose a major city but would also be "giving" points to the Germans. That reflects the political and strategical implications of losing such important cities and is more than enough punishment in my opinion.

I would be against the penalties you mentioned and I strongly believe that the players should be allowed to play the game the way they see fit without incurring extra penalties except for the ones that the game already incurs on them.
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

Interesting comment thank you.

But to play the devil's advocate, that brings me to another question, which is truly the part that makes me ambivalent more than anything else: even with the Bitter End scenario, would you decide to go for another strategy than all out for Leningrad first knowing that there is a serious disadvantage (we agree on that I think) in not doing so?

In other words, isn't there a risk to be bored after a while of always doing the same thing and make the game very predictible?

Also, is it realistic historically, knowing that Moscow was in reality the #1 objective for OKH and Ukraine was #1 for Hitler? Everyone was agreeing on the importance of taking Leningrad, but no one I am aware of put it as #1 in the German high command (maybe apart from Von Leeb and his minions of course ;).
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

That depends really. If you take Moscow early and then concentrate all your forces on Leningrad, I could see that happening.

I don't think there is a risk to be bored with WitE in general. Even if Leningrad is your main focus, most of the times getting there will be very different since there are a lot of variables in play.

Well the problem with comparing history to the game is that the game does not recreate history properly. Moscow was a priority because of it's importance as a major network (rail hub) and for the consequences it would have had the city fallen. In WitE taking Moscow, won't exactly deny the Soviets much (except for the manpower that the city produces) since the way rails and supply works is much different from reality. WitE2 is much different in that aspect and I'm sure we will see many players prioritize Moscow in the game.

The same can be said for the Ukraine. The decision to divert PzGruppe 2 south was to close the Kiev pocket and clear the flank of AGC. I believe that it was the right decision at the time even though it meant that PzGruppe 2 lost precious time redeploying north again.

To give you another example: For the summer campaign of 42' the Germans wanted to take the Caucasus oilfields because they needed the precious oil and wanted to deny access to the Soviets. In game terms, the Axis player has no incentive to go for the Caucasus since both sides literally swim in oil and global shortages never occur (which wasn't the case historically). The South strategy is popular because it allows you to fight in open terrain where the panzers excel at and to capture manpower rich areas (Stalingrad and the Kuban) as well as destroy as many Soviet formations as possible.

Simply put, the game does not recreate history perfectly so the players have different incentives in comparison to their real life counterparts.
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by chaos45 »

General German tactic should be reach for Rostov in the south as a secondary/easy objective---supply is the only thing that will limit/stop as the soviets cannot defend successfully against the Germans on open ground in 1941 or really even 1942.

Main priority for Germans should always be for Leningrad as early as possible in 1941...once you take Leningrad you can then send everything at Moscow.

The quicker you break Pskov the quicker you open up 2 avenues of attack on Leningrad and stretch the soviet defenders even more.

Basically if the German player has any skill at all and does a good opening the only option the Soviet player has is to defend 1 main German advance route heavily. As they will lose basically all soviet units they start the game with in the first 2 turns or so and be rushing everything to defend that one main area. Its not really a run away defense its the plain fact that because the German initial offensive does so much better than historical the soviets really have no forces left for a more forward defense.

Once Pskov is broken or flanked...the soviets are basically forced back to Leningrad and the Vladia hills as defensive positions...so then the German player either pushes around the lake to take the hills and swing north or does a frontal assault on Leningrad. In all reality the soviets cannot stop either they can only try to fight a successful delaying action and eat up as much time as possible from the German player. German CV in 41 is so overwhelming even a straight frontal assault on the best soviet units at Leningrad will win over time.

Once you have Leningrad cut off you can then commit everything to a late summer/fall push on Moscow...the faster you get Leningrad the more quickly you can push everything on Moscow. Then it just depends on how long the Soviets delayed you and how many units they lost at Leningrad on if they can hold Moscow. Really time is all Soviet player is playing the game for in 1941 and trying not to lose to many units and to many cities to basically be hit with auto defeat levels of manpower/factory losses.

I know it sounds scripted but having played several games and watched IDK prolly a hundred plus play out now over the years it really is about the best strategy for 1941. Then 1942 if the soviets are still in the game you get some choices depending on where the frontlines are in the spring of 1942 as the Germans will most likely be on the offensive once the blizzard stops in 1942.
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

Maybe I make the game strategic possibilities much simpler than they really are.

My personnal experience against the Pskov defense/runner gambit is that I would not wait to attack the Pskov line with all my might ASAP if someone used it against me again. I would certainly not go all out for Moscow as I don't believe it's a good alternative. But I would not forgo it completely either.

And of course I know it is only a game and is not intented to model reality. Still I believe it must retain some characteristics when possible. The oil situation is indeed something that is a bit unsettling, knowing it was a major issue during all the campaign, more so for the Germans, but for the Soviets too. The same is true for the infinite rail supply capabilities which allow super dense concentrations of troops.

Anyway, thanks, I do appreciate your input :-)
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

@chaos45 First, thanks for your comment :-)

I guess that saying the Soviets loose everything they had at the beginning in the first 2 turns is a bit far fetched. Everything that is out of reach in the first turn and not ZOC locked is a good candidate to be railed far back and start digging in. At least IMO it will be done by any competent Soviet player. And there are quite of few quality Soviet units included in that. But basically, yeah.

Just a clarification, when I talk about a 'runner' defense, I don't mean what happens in the first 3 turns, that is only reorganisation of the available troops for survival. I'm talking about a systematic staged retreat from turn 3 over all the summer offensive right up to automn both in AGC and AGS with token lesser troops, which means mostly no fighting and no pockets whatsoever and heavy concentration of high quality units in the choosen main line of defense.

For the rest, I do agree with your assessment of what the German must do in all events. My questionning is indeed wether it maybe sounds a little "too" scripted...
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by chaos45 »

the soviets in general lose basically everything that was within 15 hexes of the border and even units further from the German start line than that....a good German opening can basically remove the entire Soviet southern front from the game that is forward of Kiev. Ya the soviet player will save a handful of divisions that get good random movement rolls and some basically shattered units that might have routed into the swamp but not much will be left.

The same effect will happen in the North and Center....so basically as the soviet player you will be left with the units that are east of Pskov/Land Bridge/Kiev/crimea to play the game with by Turn 2 or 3 in most situations unless you are playing a German player that isn't using a well scripted opening move outline.

Since many of those units are also frozen on T1.....your ability to respond and get in front of the next big German push which will come around Turn 4 is very limited.
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

ORIGINAL: chaos45

General German tactic should be reach for Rostov in the south as a secondary/easy objective---supply is the only thing that will limit/stop as the soviets cannot defend successfully against the Germans on open ground in 1941 or really even 1942.

German supply in the south is absolutely abysmal. Taking Rostov early is not that easy just because of the supply problems.
Once Pskov is broken or flanked...the soviets are basically forced back to Leningrad and the Vladia hills as defensive positions...so then the German player either pushes around the lake to take the hills and swing north or does a frontal assault on Leningrad. In all reality the soviets cannot stop either they can only try to fight a successful delaying action and eat up as much time as possible from the German player. German CV in 41 is so overwhelming even a straight frontal assault on the best soviet units at Leningrad will win over time.

No they aren't. They can still hold the Luga and delay the Germans as they approach Leningrad. Pushing around the lake is not that easy since the terrain there does not favor a fast advance (multiple rivers, swamps and rough terrain). A full frontal assault on Leningrad is successful? Where did you get that from? Leningrad is a pain in the ass to crack even when isolated. I'd love to see you take a properly defended Leningrad using a frontal assault as you claim. Over time means what? 5 turns? 10? How many casualties are we talking about here? How many German units need to be tied down to take the city this way?
Once you have Leningrad cut off you can then commit everything to a late summer/fall push on Moscow...the faster you get Leningrad the more quickly you can push everything on Moscow. Then it just depends on how long the Soviets delayed you and how many units they lost at Leningrad on if they can hold Moscow. Really time is all Soviet player is playing the game for in 1941 and trying not to lose to many units and to many cities to basically be hit with auto defeat levels of manpower/factory losses.

No it doesn't. It depends on how good the Soviets are defending Moscow, what units they have at hand, what level of fortifications they have, which commanders are in charge of the defense etc etc. Soviets should build up some manpower in the mud turns. An average of 100k a turn at 5 turns puts you at 500k men. If you don't have any encircled units, attrition losses during the mud are fairly low so that should allow you to replenish your forces.
I know it sounds scripted but having played several games and watched IDK prolly a hundred plus play out now over the years it really is about the best strategy for 1941. Then 1942 if the soviets are still in the game you get some choices depending on where the frontlines are in the spring of 1942 as the Germans will most likely be on the offensive once the blizzard stops in 1942.

War in general is about which side has the best strategy [;)] There are plenty of Soviets who are still in the game in 1942 as shown by the multiple AARs in the forums. And as to your scripted response, it comes across that way because these are the same points that you repeat on every thread. Points that are only a reflection of your personal opinion and the way you play the game and not something that many other players are seeing.
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

ORIGINAL: joelmar

Maybe I make the game strategic possibilities much simpler than they really are.

My personnal experience against the Pskov defense/runner gambit is that I would not wait to attack the Pskov line with all my might ASAP if someone used it against me again. I would certainly not go all out for Moscow as I don't believe it's a good alternative. But I would not forgo it completely either.

And of course I know it is only a game and is not intented to model reality. Still I believe it must retain some characteristics when possible. The oil situation is indeed something that is a bit unsettling, knowing it was a major issue during all the campaign, more so for the Germans, but for the Soviets too. The same is true for the infinite rail supply capabilities which allow super dense concentrations of troops.

Anyway, thanks, I do appreciate your input :-)

Yes it would be really nice to see the oil problems be reflected in game, but I don't think that will change anytime soon. The rail problem will be fixed in WitE2 so there is that to look forward to.

Always a pleasure to discuss the game in a civil manner :D
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

@chaos45 : I guess you must know about HLYA's "1 hex west of Pskov" defense.

That defense intends to defend only Pskov on turn 4 but with much depth. The landbridge and the rest are mostly given up. Troops positionning is prioritized over railing out industries, which means the Soviet player can get quite a lot of high quality guys far out of the German grip and digging in fast in the first 2 turns and get level 2 fortifications long before even the fastest Axis player gets to his main line. That is the big key to that defense.

So you don't need to defend everything and you get more than enough units to set that up quite strongly. And you keep your head well within your shoulders everywhere else, never exposing the neck.

The short German leash does the rest. That must be a well planned ballet, but mighty as hell when rightly executed.
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

@Xhoel : I mostly agree with what you say in your 2nd preceding comment, as it reflects quite well the what I experimented in my current game which is against a very talented player who understands perfectly the 'Pskov - runner' strategy and applied it with very good effect.

I have to admit it was my first game against a human, so because of that I played too cautious as I wasn't sure what to expect, and I also didn't expect this kind of extreme strategy, neither knew what to do against it, so I hesitated a lot and it means that everything I did was done late or without enough concentration. But I'm a fast learner... I usually don't make the same mistakes twice. [:)]

That said, I didn't play badly either as I was already quite advanced in understanding the game when we started. That means that I know for sure that even if I had done everything 100% right, it would still be very hard to take Leningrad in 1941 against that strategy the way it was implemented. And even if I had decided for a right hook in time, it would have been quite tough to pull as he was ready for it.
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

@joelmar: That is what makes this game beautiful. You learn from your mistakes and get better each time. And making mistakes pays off, since you get a lesson out of it.

I do feel that taking Leningrad is quite difficult for the Germans if the Soviets defend properly. That is why I have a problem with players who claim that it is a walk in the park. Can Leningrad be taken? Absolutely, but when it is captured and at what cost changes a lot of things.

Cheers!
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

Terrain south of Leningrad is among the best defensive terrain on the board. If the soviet decides to make a strong statement there, he will be very hard to push indeed.

If the Soviet prepares well, going past the Luga might be quite a ride. And I agree the right hook is no easy thing. It can't be done out of the blue and must be carefully prepared. So easy for the Soviets to fill up the area of units using rail. Unless he is sleeping of course, or lives in a garden... ;-)
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

@joelmar: I agree on both of those points. The Soviet player has the chance to defend Leningrad, not doing so or not preparing properly for the battle cannot be noted as a flaw of the game. The German player will exploit any weakness that the Soviets present, it is only logical for them to do so.
AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by chaos45 »

As per my comments---read the main thing is the German player has skill....The german opening couple turns are critical in that they remove a great deal of the soviet army.

The Soviet player has no ability to interact with the German opening turn and really the Germans Turn 2. So if the German player knows what they are doing T1/2 will absolutely devastate the Soviet army for the early game.

Many games you see posted where the soviets stay in the game is because the German player makes many mistakes in the opening or first handful of turns.

Is also the frozen Soviet southern front issue smart german players can take advantage of when you dont advance far south T1 but drive more east then on T2 sweep south to encircle the entire Soviet southern front...from what I understand from the best german players it is actually one of the most devastating German openings...and you can see it in Telemecus recent post....this has been known about by some of us for a long time now.

Its all about experience with the game. If the German player isnt very good the soviets can have an easy time of it. If the German player understands T1-4 and has a strategy isnt much the soviet player can do. Most German players either fail at doing T1 or fail to understand/manage their HQBU for the big T4 push. These are critical mistakes that are very hard for the Germans to recover from but also easy ones to learn since the Soviets have minimal impact on the game Turns 1-3.

I hope WITE2 will fix many of the scripted issues but I doubt it....since the Soviet set up is always the same the German player can wargame T1 over and over again until they get the perfect assault. There really is no excuse for a bad German T1 as you can refight it as much as you want before you go into a live game. I would suggest if you want to do good with Germans refight the opening 4 turns until you have it perfect before you go into the Player vs player match.

Even make it a 2 player game and set up the soviet Pskov/landbridge defense to break on T3/4. Thats how you get gud as the Germans. Just practice those 4 turns over and over again will take you a long way.
User avatar
xhoel
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:46 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by xhoel »

ORIGINAL: chaos45

As per my comments---read the main thing is the German player has skill....The german opening couple turns are critical in that they remove a great deal of the soviet army.

The Soviet player has no ability to interact with the German opening turn and really the Germans Turn 2. So if the German player knows what they are doing T1/2 will absolutely devastate the Soviet army for the early game.

Yes they do indeed remove a great deal of the Soviet Army, but that doesn't mean that the game is over based on what happens on the first 2 turns.

This is such a overused argument honestly. Ofc the Soviets have no ability to interact with the German opening turn save for reserve activations, Operation Barbarossa was a complete surprise in real life and that is what that opening turn tried to recreate. What would you have instead of it? What is your alternative to the opening turn being set in the first week of the GC?
Many games you see posted where the soviets stay in the game is because the German player makes many mistakes in the opening or first handful of turns.

I'm sorry but that is flat out wrong and it completely ignores the skill of the Soviet player to deal with the situation as well as the skill of the German player to rectify their mistakes (if they made so many as you claim). So instead of projecting so much, I would advise you to understand that there are players that have the skill to go into 1942 (yes a big shock I'm sure), they don't need the crutch of "the German player making so many mistakes" and it is laughable how you dismiss all these games due to that. Must be lovely for a Soviet player who has done well because of his skill and is now in 1942 to hear your comments saying: If they made it to 42', the Germans weren't good enough. What a joke!

As to your comments about the many games I see posted, I just checked 4 AARs that are into 1942 and cannot see any major German mistakes. There are small mistakes, this pocket or that pocket was opened but nothing tragic. So where are all these games you claim? Please point them out to me.
Is also the frozen Soviet southern front issue smart german players can take advantage of when you dont advance far south T1 but drive more east then on T2 sweep south to encircle the entire Soviet southern front...from what I understand from the best german players it is actually one of the most devastating German openings...and you can see it in Telemecus recent post....this has been known about by some of us for a long time now.

So make house rules and prevent that from happening. It is really that simple. If you think a player is very skilled, I'm sure they would be able to beat you with House Rules enforced, that prevent them from "destroying all of the Soviet Army in the first turns".
Its all about experience with the game. If the German player isnt very good the soviets can have an easy time of it. If the German player understands T1-4 and has a strategy isnt much the soviet player can do. Most German players either fail at doing T1 or fail to understand/manage their HQBU for the big T4 push. These are critical mistakes that are very hard for the Germans to recover from but also easy ones to learn since the Soviets have minimal impact on the game Turns 1-3.

Again, that is just your opinion. Stop dismissing all the good Soviet players, with this inane argument that everything hangs in the hands of the Germans for the first 4 turns.
I hope WITE2 will fix many of the scripted issues but I doubt it....since the Soviet set up is always the same the German player can wargame T1 over and over again until they get the perfect assault. There really is no excuse for a bad German T1 as you can refight it as much as you want before you go into a live game. I would suggest if you want to do good with Germans refight the opening 4 turns until you have it perfect before you go into the Player vs player match. Even make it a 2 player game and set up the soviet Pskov/landbridge defense to break on T3/4. Thats how you get gud as the Germans. Just practice those 4 turns over and over again will take you a long way.

So what is your alternative for the turn 1 start? I'd love to hear that. What do you mean there is no excuse for a bad German T1 opening? What about bad rolls? What about an unlucky Soviet reserve activation? Even if you make mistakes during T1 you can rectify them later. Unless you messed up so badly, it won't mean Game Over for you.

No thanks I'll pass on your recommandation, I would get bored if I had to play the first 4 turns over and over again just so I can note everything down to have a "perfect" plan. I have learned the game mechanics and how the game works and that is how I play. I am sure there are others who do the same and have fun doing so. If you want to play that way, be my guest.

Please, address the points I make. Constantly shifting the goalposts and ignoring the counter to your arguments really doesn't help your position. Bringing in some new arguments except for the old: "if the German player is good, the Soviets lose and there are no other variables at play" would also help. Otherwise it just becomes a repeat of the many threads you have commented on, where I have told you specifically that, what you say is a false representation of reality and have actually engaged the arguments you have put forth.




AAR WITW: Gotterdammerung 43-45
tm.asp?m=4490035
AAR WITE: A Clash of Titans 41-45
tm.asp?m=4488465
WitE 2 Tester and Test Coordinator
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

Yes, there is much the Soviet player can do, he can run away hard and get out of reach. And NO Soviet landbridge defense. Simple as that.

HQBU's are mainly a thing of the past. You can't chain them anymore, it's way too expensive. But anyway, HQBU's against a runner of this kind means nothing. You will just gobble up the ground he gives you faster.

This is the Soviet strategy I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with what the Soviets did when Pelton was the big thing. Of course the fact that HQBU's aren't as cheap as they were is a big factor in it.
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
User avatar
Telemecus
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:32 pm
Contact:

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by Telemecus »

In response to Joelmar's question about what do players think I wanted to bring up a different issue from game balance and that is of variety and game interest
ORIGINAL: joelmar
In other words, isn't there a risk to be bored after a while of always doing the same thing and make the game very predictible?

Xhoel has a good response that in this monster of game there is still plenty of interest
ORIGINAL: xhoel
I don't think there is a risk to be bored with WitE in general. Even if Leningrad is your main focus, most of the times getting there will be very different since there are a lot of variables in play.

But yet I do get the sense that something has changed over time in the game.

i) Heavy industry no longer matters: Loki100 did the initial research that you needed to have at least 200 heavy industry factories (evacuated or not overrun by Axis) to be successful as the Soviet side. The changes to Heavy Industry multipliers and supplies coming in from lend lease means this is no longer so. EwaldvonKleist has some research showing the number of factories you need is much lower now. And even lower still if you re-evacuate other factories of surplus equipment in the late game so that they need even less supplies for them. You will see in AARs long ago the lack of supplies was a real constraint in the late war for the Soviet side - I expect we will never hear of this again. In the 8MP game we destroyed massive amounts of heavy industry on the ground - and even bombed some on the assumption that it would be a constraint later on. The reaction from the Soviet side was no sweat! Bottom line is Axis players need not bother any more trying to get heavy industry in 1941, it is waste of time.
ii) Vehicle industry (probably) no longer matters: Old factory evacuation advice (see walloc factory evacuation guide) used to be you needed to evacuate every single one that was in danger of being overrun as you needed them all. Since then the number of vehicles coming through lend lease has been increased spectacularly. This may reflect historical reality as most of the lorries used by the Soviet Union at any one time later in the war were actually American. But it does mean saving Soviet vehicle production no longer matters in the way it did. Most Soviet players seem to say now they have never had a vehicle deficit problem which means either they did not, or it was not important enough for them to notice.

Arms factories still matter to the Soviet side until the start of 1942, but not much beyond that. Resources might once have been a feasible target, but with the changed multipliers in later patches it no longer is. As has been discussed oil never has been a constraint and rail has not been so far (although I think it could be with strategic bombing?)

This means some of the comments you used to get a long time ago you will no longer get. For example "he did not advance much but got a lot of industry" or "they will have the men but not the supplies for them" will no longer be said. While the interest of the game on an operational level remains, on a strategic-economic level it is now effectively one-dimensional. Only manpower matters. And I think this is a shame as it does remove some of the variety the game used to have, not withstanding that it remains with enormous possibilities still.

And in terms of a runners defence having less to rail out means you have to delay less means you can run more.
Wargamers Discord https://discord.gg/U6DcDxT
User avatar
joelmar
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:05 pm

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

Post by joelmar »

@Telemecus: You got 100% the meaning and focus of my questionning: absolutely NOT game balance, but interest and strategic possibilities variety.

Fact is that capturing Leningrad in 1941 is a must for the German player because there is no other thing that gives him a strategic advantage, or simply a worthy advantage, whatever it may be. Such an advantage in fact that any other choice becomes a disadvantage. It might be powerful, but it also means that both Axis and Soviet experienced players know for sure where will be the main axis of attack. You have absolutely no other choice. At least, that is my opinion and every one who commented on this seems to agree on this point, and I know for sure my current opponen does.

And so here we are with the hard to beat even if probably not unbeatable Soviet "One hex west of Pskov-runner" strategy. A strategy that is as you say helped by the fact that minimum rail of factories is needed. And as a result, there won't be many viable strategies to counter it for the Axis, resulting in a high concentration of troops deadlock WWI style on the axis Pskov-Moscow until one side wins it. With not much blitzkrieg possible.

Talking for myself here, but there is definitely a big danger of me loosing interest in the game after a while because of this. Which would be a shame because I love it, and I know how cool it would be to be able to decide where we want to focus our energy and still have a good chance of achieving something interesting. But it's clearly not the case ATM. Again... IMO.
"The closer you get to the meaning, the sooner you'll know that you're dreamin'" -Dio
Post Reply

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