Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message


Marquo -> Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 4:53:51 PM)

This is to alert anyone who has been swayed by Pelton's admonitions that the Axis cannot successfully attack in 1943 onward that this is simply not true. Here is a screen shot from my match with TD showing a very successful Axis counterattack in late August, 1943. The figures speak for themselves. If the Axis is passive, the Soviet will drive nails into the coffin. [:-]








[image]local://upfiles/1355/79F2F9D3B2974858BFD5D2ED629878C2.jpg[/image]




elmo3 -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 5:07:12 PM)

Please keep any discussion here constructive and don't turn this into a thread for personal attacks. Thanks.




Jeffrey H. -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 5:31:37 PM)

To me, it sounds as if you are afraid that you are losing the argument.




Flaviusx -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 6:11:23 PM)

Pelton is mostly right, Marquo. Attacking rifle corps gets prohibitively expensive as time goes on.

The ones you attacked there are scarecrows and severely understrength. At full TOE and attachments 3 rifle corps should be 100k+ men and over 2k guns. And you still lost 2k men doing it, not a cheap attack. You can't afford too many of those.

If you had tried this on a fresh stack it would have been that much more costly. Probably double that, assuming the attack succeeds at all.







turtlefang -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 6:17:43 PM)

Pelton's contention - rightly or wrongly - is that the German cannot effectively conduct counter attacks in 43 and beyond while maintaining his defenses in a cost effective manner. He's playing to conserve manpower and maximize German morale while maximizing Soviet losses. He has never made any bones about the strategy. Now, I think he's carried it too far in not doing any counter attacks, but given his defensive strategy, its a perfectly reasonable approach as panzer units aren't concentrated.

While I have only played three games into the 43+, my experience tends to support the view that the Germans can, selectively, counter attack and do it well. IF and only IF the German can focus six to eight panzer/pz grd divisions and free them from defensive reserve status.

But a single result shown here doesn't create proof that this an on going possiblity or a trend. It just shows it happened once. We would need to see a series of attacks over several games months showing all the results and demostrating that the German can counter attack effectively - while maintaining an effective defense.

If you want to "refute" his claims, then I would suggest that you track results over time and present them to make a long term case.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 6:52:01 PM)

Elmo3,

There was absolutely no intent to impugne Pelton on a personal level, and I do not understand why you or anyone else would read such into my post. I wrote to "alert anyone who has been swayed by Pelton's admonitions." There is no reference to his character or integrity, and none intended. And btw, there was a very interesting thread on this topic on the techincal forum where Pelton contributed and we had very cordial exchanges.

Why my intense interest? Because I am at a critical moment in my match with TD; we are at turn 114, late August 1943. Reading Pelton's posts almost convinced me to adopt a passive posture, and frankly I beleive this is not correct for my game. And with all respect to some of the comments above, I think losing 2,000 men in exchange for 7,000 works quite well. I have been counterattacking fairly aggressively and have held my pool steady at ~ 3,300,000 and have kept TD's pool steady at a bit over 7,000,000 In fact, the manpower multiplier will lower again for him and this will help keep the bear out of Berlin.

A "one shoe fits all" approach to this game will not work, and it would be a shame if it did.

Marquo




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 7:02:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffrey H.

To me, it sounds as if you are afraid that you are losing the argument.


I have no fear losing an intellectual exchange in terms of ego; however I do have hesitation to adopt someone's advice at the expense of screwing up a single game I have been playing and pondering for over a year. None of us will ever get many chances to play this thing to the bitter end so I for one will be very circumspect before accepting someone else's experience and subsequent advice as a universal truth. Frankly very few people, if any, have had robust experience playing both sides against multiple different players to the bitter end. So I read everything with a very big grain of salt, but I do appreciate what I read. [:)]

Cheers,

Marquo




elmo3 -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 7:13:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Elmo3,

There was absolutely no intent to impugne Pelton on a personal level, and I do not understand why you or anyone else would read such into my post. ...
Marquo


I was not reading anything into your post, nor did I view it as an attack. However you specifically mentioned Pelton in the subject and my post was simply a reminder to whoever replied here to leave personalities out of it.




Michael T -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 8:58:29 PM)

FWIW I agree that attacking full strength Rifle Corp head on is detrimental to the Axis cause. However I agree with Marquo in that the Axis player needs an 'Offensive Spirit' to go the distance against top line Soviets. Sitting on your hands is paramount to suicide. If the Axis player works hard in 41 and 42 to keep the bear under control I see no reason why successful offensives cannot be undertaken in 1943. I mean as an overall success, not just isolated attacks here and there. I mean a Kursk like operation that succeeds.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 9:00:50 PM)

So much is lost in cybercommunication; much thanks, Elmo.

Marquo





TulliusDetritus -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/12/2013 9:27:49 PM)

Given that I am on the receiving end [:D] this is what I have to say:

I guess it er... depends [8D]

1) I have to grab hexes yes or yes.
2) to have fully strengthened units I should be calling off any offensive for how many months? Two, three, four?

I can't have both, so I charge like a bull. That or I would simply give up.

So it depends on the scenario. If you are on time and Berlin on your radar it's another story. A nice pause = you actually can afford to feed the beast.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 12:25:50 AM)

Much thanks for for offering your POV, TD [:)].

My strategy has been to bleed Spvoet manpower, so there you have it from the Bear's mouth.
One shoe does not fit all players' feet.

Marquo




Pelton -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 4:29:20 AM)

I never said one shoe fits all.

Thats just a lucky attack, I have had abunch of games into late 42+ and done allot of counter attacking.

Over -all its not worth it, sure if you have a chance to get a few weak tank corps/mech to rout.

I been counter attacking some vs Hugh and MT. Mostly in winter to slow the advance so I can hold a river line ect in summer.

It simply sucks manpower and armaments to quickly.

Its safer to sit back and let SHC do all the work and counter punch here and there.

It also depends on where SHC starts attacking and moving east. Most guys do it up north so counter attacking is simply not possible vs 30-50+ CV stacks in lt woods(no forts).

In your game it seems to be working out for allot of reasons I am guessing.




Klydon -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 2:16:58 PM)

I don't think one size fits all when it comes to counter attacking and I think infantry corps are to be avoided if possible. Pelton is hardly the only one to mention attacking later in the campaign is extremely expensive for the Germans even with a "win" in a battle.




The Guru -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 2:25:13 PM)

Regarding all this, I believe there is a problem with the victory conditions of the campaign. They are labelled in exclusively defensive terms, basically Germany must lose as late as possible.
This means that once the German player forfeits his chance of a K.O victory in 1941, if he working towards the victory conditions, all he has to do is revert to the defensive and make the Soviets pay dearly for every stride towards Berlin. This, of course, historically speaking, might be adequate for 44/45 but is totally unimaginable for 1942.
I'm not just saying this because of historicity, but also because it would be a lot more fun to allow the Germans a play style a bit more flamboyant and risky, than juste going turtle from 42 onwards.

I believe that the victory conditions should have a offensive component too, in the same way scenarios reward players for territorial expansion by granting points for the number of turns they occupy such or such key location.
After all, if one rightfully considers that surrendering later than the historical time consists in a better performance than the historical counterpart, grabbing even temporary control of strategic locations such as Leningrad or Moscow or others that the Germans never managed to reach, should also consist, all other things remaining equal (that is, surrendering at the historical time), in an better performance too, and that should translate into victory points.

This could be easily done by using the scenario-type victory conditions (points for holding locations), mitigated by points for the date of surrender.
Honestly, it hurts to have to choose between a daring, aggressive strategy à la Hitler (a lot more enjoyable for both sides) and the easiest path towards victory as interpreted by the victory conditions.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 3:18:36 PM)

It was not a lucky counterattack; it was done based on my experience and observations of 100's of such attacks. Soviet units, in the open, which are wasted after attacking duing the prior turn are ripe to be manhandled.

Turtling and passivity while the Bear grows to unmanageable dimensions seems to be a path to destruction.

Marquo[:)]




Flaviusx -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 7:25:40 PM)

No luck involved there at all. Those units were simply way too depleted to offer much resistance. Rifle corps with 21k men and 500ish guns.

Marquo, plain fact of the matter is that you hold the whip hand in this game and have for a long time. It's yours to lose. But don't kid yourself: attacking rifle corps at full strength past 43 is tough. You can do it in this game because TD's Red Army is not in good shape and he is way behind the curve on replacements, territory, etc.

Pelton's point at a tactical level remains absolutely true. You're just in a good place to ignore it due to the strategic situation. Try these counterattacks against full strength corps and then we'll chat.




darbymcd -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/13/2013 8:08:34 PM)

I think you are both right. Flaviusx you are of course right, it is unwise for the german player to attack if he/she is only interested in attriction effect. In other words, the reason to attack has to be something else and something else valuable, because you are going to lose an unsustainable number of troops.

But Marquo is responding to Pelton's post, which was not about strategy/tactics, but was posted in tech support as a possible bug. He was suggesting that there was some problem that systematically punished german attackers after a certain point, by some unspecified dynamic. I think it is useful then to make this kind of post, although it would probably be better on that other thread.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 12:10:56 AM)

I would not do these counterattacks against healthy infantry corps; against exposed tanks units it is a different story.




Pelton -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 2:01:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Guru

Regarding all this, I believe there is a problem with the victory conditions of the campaign. They are labelled in exclusively defensive terms, basically Germany must lose as late as possible.
This means that once the German player forfeits his chance of a K.O victory in 1941, if he working towards the victory conditions, all he has to do is revert to the defensive and make the Soviets pay dearly for every stride towards Berlin. This, of course, historically speaking, might be adequate for 44/45 but is totally unimaginable for 1942.
I'm not just saying this because of historicity, but also because it would be a lot more fun to allow the Germans a play style a bit more flamboyant and risky, than juste going turtle from 42 onwards.

I believe that the victory conditions should have a offensive component too, in the same way scenarios reward players for territorial expansion by granting points for the number of turns they occupy such or such key location.
After all, if one rightfully considers that surrendering later than the historical time consists in a better performance than the historical counterpart, grabbing even temporary control of strategic locations such as Leningrad or Moscow or others that the Germans never managed to reach, should also consist, all other things remaining equal (that is, surrendering at the historical time), in an better performance too, and that should translate into victory points.

This could be easily done by using the scenario-type victory conditions (points for holding locations), mitigated by points for the date of surrender.
Honestly, it hurts to have to choose between a daring, aggressive strategy à la Hitler (a lot more enjoyable for both sides) and the easiest path towards victory as interpreted by the victory conditions.



We have asked for that, but under current engine ect its not possible.

Hopefully witw and wite2 will have a vp system that makes standing and fighting the norm not running.




Pelton -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 2:07:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Elmo3,

There was absolutely no intent to impugne Pelton on a personal level, and I do not understand why you or anyone else would read such into my post. ...
Marquo


I was not reading anything into your post, nor did I view it as an attack. However you specifically mentioned Pelton in the subject and my post was simply a reminder to whoever replied here to leave personalities out of it.



P do not defend me.

Thats just weak.

[sm=00000023.gif]

Marquo is making a pt 100% based on data.

He used my name, it not like he followed up with some trash talking. Which I like :)

Anyways good post Marquo and feel free to throw my name around how ever you like.

I try not to cry [:D]




Maximeba -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 2:46:34 AM)

Hi all,
I find this post very interesting, as I have been pouring over previous game posts looking to compare my current game to others. I’m playing version 106.19, it is turn 101. I believe my opponent (Dave) is handing the Soviet (me) my head. I’m especially concerned when I just read that the Axis has 3.3 mil and the Soviet has 7 mil. In Marquo’s game. Currently the Axis in my game has 3.8 mil while the Soviet has 5.7mil. Are my losses to high?
I would like to see more of Marquo’s current game. If not is there any info out there with this current version that may be of help?
P.S.
How does one put a screen snapshot to a thread? I use the print screen but cannot seem to get it to paste.




Baris -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 3:51:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Maximeba

I’m especially concerned when I just read that the Axis has 3.3 mil and the Soviet has 7 mil. In Marquo’s game. Currently the Axis in my game has 3.8 mil while the Soviet has 5.7mil. Are my losses to high?
I would like to see more of Marquo’s current game. If not is there any info out there with this current version that may be of help?
P.S.
How does one put a screen snapshot to a thread? I use the print screen but cannot seem to get it to paste.


I usually use imageshack for uploading pics. There is "forum full size" format after uploading the pic to imageshack. Copy paste that link and select "image" in this forum. But I'm sure there must be more easy way. [:)]

I have similar question. I admit I don't read AAR's much in here but how superior can be the manpower and armament points of Soviet in later years? If Axis needs to start play defensively in later months of 1942 and with only limited to careful attacks due to engine,rules or etc.. just to compare.




Marquo -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 4:00:05 AM)

For the Soviet POV, read TD's AAR: Stalin's Fired I'm in Charge; he seems to be keeping it up more than my AAR "Axis Lambs to the Slaughter."

Marquo




Maximeba -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 6:46:19 PM)

[image][/image]




The Guru -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 10:02:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Guru

Regarding all this, I believe there is a problem with the victory conditions of the campaign. They are labelled in exclusively defensive terms, basically Germany must lose as late as possible.
This means that once the German player forfeits his chance of a K.O victory in 1941, if he working towards the victory conditions, all he has to do is revert to the defensive and make the Soviets pay dearly for every stride towards Berlin. This, of course, historically speaking, might be adequate for 44/45 but is totally unimaginable for 1942.
I'm not just saying this because of historicity, but also because it would be a lot more fun to allow the Germans a play style a bit more flamboyant and risky, than juste going turtle from 42 onwards.

I believe that the victory conditions should have a offensive component too, in the same way scenarios reward players for territorial expansion by granting points for the number of turns they occupy such or such key location.
After all, if one rightfully considers that surrendering later than the historical time consists in a better performance than the historical counterpart, grabbing even temporary control of strategic locations such as Leningrad or Moscow or others that the Germans never managed to reach, should also consist, all other things remaining equal (that is, surrendering at the historical time), in an better performance too, and that should translate into victory points.

quote:

quote:

This could be easily done by using the scenario-type victory conditions (points for holding locations), mitigated by points for the date of surrender.
Honestly, it hurts to have to choose between a daring, aggressive strategy à la Hitler (a lot more enjoyable for both sides) and the easiest path towards victory as interpreted by the victory conditions.




We have asked for that, but under current engine ect its not possible.


Are we really the only ones to think that way?




turtlefang -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/14/2013 10:43:08 PM)

I'm more in the sudden death victory condition camp just to put a poor game out of its misery earlier.

And while I understand the desire to try and motivate something more than defensive play on the part of the Soviet earlier on and the German later on, fundamentally, that doesn't change the biggest issue with the game (getting rid of some of the technical issues).

At some point, the German, who gets to run riot in the first part of the game, determines he cannot decisively beat the Soviet. And then he's looking at a lot of turns where he will be playing defensively until 1945. He's had his fun, and most Germans just don't want to play a defensive game that long and give up. They either disappear or resign. And changing the victory conditions won't change that fact.

And changing over to a points based system isn't going to change that fact either. The German still ends up with a very long, very detailed defensive game - in the great majority of the cases - unless he wins by the end of the 42 summer. With no chance to reverse that tide - unlike the Soviet, who will get a chance to reverse that fortunes when the army gets rebuilt - if he lives that long.

So unless the German player very dedicated, he won't stick around in 43-45. And many of them wouldn't be playing the German if they were defensive minded in the first place.





Maximeba -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/15/2013 1:48:16 PM)

I usually use imageshack for uploading pics. There is "forum full size" format after uploading the pic to imageshack. Copy paste that link and select "image" in this forum. But I'm sure there must be more easy way.

I have similar question. I admit I don't read AAR's much in here but how superior can be the manpower and armament points of Soviet in later years? If Axis needs to start play defensively in later months of 1942 and with only limited to careful attacks due to engine,rules or etc.. just to compare.
quote:



Baris, thanks I will give it a try.




Maximeba -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/15/2013 1:55:18 PM)

quote:

I usually use imageshack for uploading pics. There is "forum full size" format after uploading the pic to imageshack. Copy paste that link and select "image" in this forum. But I'm sure there must be more easy way.

I have similar question. I admit I don't read AAR's much in here but how superior can be the manpower and armament points of Soviet in later years? If Axis needs to start play defensively in later months of 1942 and with only limited to careful attacks due to engine,rules or etc.. just to compare.
Thanks for the info. I did go and quickly glance through the aar, but I didn't see any info on losses, production or manpower. I actually plan on sitting down and reading the whole atricle today.




Maximeba -> RE: Refuting Pelton's "Axis Should not Attack in 42 Onward" Diatribe (1/15/2013 2:04:35 PM)

quote:

For the Soviet POV, read TD's AAR: Stalin's Fired I'm in Charge; he seems to be keeping it up more than my AAR "Axis Lambs to the Slaughter."

Marquo

Thanks, for the info. I just took a quick glance at the AAR and I noticed that it doesn't seem to have info on losses,production and mampower. Hopefully I'm just over looking them. I plan on sitting down and reading the entire
AAR today.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375