From: Laramie, Wyoming
heliodorus, you make a lot of assumptions couched as facts that are not born out all the time. Players have made huge Kiev pockets, not all players run to the Dnepr bend, nor do all do such things as send a front to Leningrad. I understand, this is called "overplaying your hand" but it does make it a bit less insightful.
While we have seen a lot of players cut and run as the Soviets, the more experienced know this is not the best play. While it is in the interest of the Soviet players to avoid large encirclements, it is not always possible (and given the deteriorating nature of their army after turns 8-10 perhaps even likely) to avoid.
I make assertions, not assumptions. My assertions have the weight of multiple AARs to back them up, and I could cite them if necessary.
In 1.04, bagging all that crap in the Lvov pocket had no noticeable effect on Soviet players' ability to bash the hell out of the German army as soon as 1942. So I would like to assert that the Soviet players are doing nothing more than whining. Even losing all those "elite, best of the best" Soviet force, Soviets were crushing Germans far faster than history.
If people want to discuss the Lvov pocket's effect on 1.05, let's wait for at least 10 AARs to get to 1942, and then we'll parse the data.
This is a non-problem problem, or at least it was under 1.04. Complaining about it makes Soviet players look foolish, IMO. I don't know why it would be a bigger problem under 1.05, but I'm willing to listen.
What about the fact that Kiev's 600,000 prisoners is never going to happen?
Assumption - I can give you off the top of my head 3 1.04 AARs/Games that had Kiev Pockets. Pelton had perhaps the largest, what looked to be 100+ divisions in his entire marshes across to Bryansk Pocket. I pocketed 50+ divisions against Pawlock, Tarhunnas had similar large pockets. You assert a totality that does not exist, it is an assumption. I expect the counter to be "those were against poor players," but yet I bagged 30+ in my AAR against JAMIAM around Kiev. It is possible, with good play against good players.
1) Half of the Soviet AARs I see still advocate taking the strong units from SW front and railing them north towards Leningrad on Turn 1. If you guys end up stealing more advantage from the Axis via this unctuous whining about the Soviet not moving first on Turn 1, I want all rail prohibited of Soviet units west of the Dnepr for the first 3 turns. You f@ckers can stand and fight all along the front like Stalin expected.
And oddly enough those AARs show poor play and losing by the Soviets. It is when they tighten up, slow down the Axis, and actually defend that they are not sliced up. You make the mistake of assuming that numbers is the deciding factor, when in reality it is the results. Against a new Axis player, running is wonderful as they do not know how to handle their army. But even a relatively new Axis player with a few games under their belt can bust this.
2) We all know that no matter what changes you make to TUrn 1, Soviets are going to run to Kiev and D-town as fast as they damn-well can, no matter how many pop centers there are there, and the Germans will be denied what they accomplished in the first 8 weeks of the war. So start planning how you're going to take something away from the Soviets while you're busy trying to ensure the Germans can't actually you know, challenge you.
Again, they lose. See my AAR against JAMIAM (yes, the one where I did make a Kiev Pocket) to see how a determined defense in the Ukraine will bleed the panzers white, and make any "last 6 turns" of the season dash impossible.
In short, you make assumptions based on a totality that is rather bellicosely stated, one which uses combative language to assert the authority of your argument. However, there are examples that show you to not be always correct, and therefore you are left with misstated positions and that combative language, a far weaker place from which to argue.
While raising issues and concerns does good work, claiming things as absolutes does not. I understand the nature of the internet is to do such, and the language follows: combative, over-assertive, and at times mean spirited. This does little good in actually figuring out the problems and the solutions unless one is to believe they have all the answers and just need the idiots reading the posts to understand.
There is no ill will in this post. There is a call for a reasoned, calm, and thought out process in which to discuss such things. Many times, upon reflection, there are better ways to hash out a point. Even on the internet.
"The torment of precautions often exceeds the dangers to be avoided. It is sometimes better to abandon one's self to destiny."
- Call me PDH
- WitE noob tester