Matrix Games Forums

Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!All good Deals always come in threes		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 3:09:30 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		I have been following with interests some of the recent AARs where house rules are put in place to ensure a strong forward defense by the SU player. This is described as 'no retreat' approach and it has been proposed to stop the Red Army from simply 'running for the hills''. However, I am convinced that such a house rule is too simplistic and could actually lead to severe distorsions in the way the campaign would unfold. Rather, in 1941 the Red Army was following a strategy of strong, multiple counterattacks at the Front/Army level aimed at retain (or regain) control of strategic locations. With all the inadequacies of the Red Army in that first Summer, this is very different from a PASSIVE strategy of simply not giving ground, which would be more similar to Hitler's 'no retreat' order in Winter
1941. Stalin issued the famous 'not a step back' directive only in September 1942, in response to the Werhmacht Summer campaign. This is emphasized in recent history books (I recommend Glant'z "Stumbling colossus" and "When Titan clashed" ).


However, a forward ACTIVE defense is easy to implement:

From turn 2 to turn 16 the SU player is committed to attack every turn with at least 8 division sized units (tank,mech or infantry, alone or in groups) attached to any of the Northern / Western / Southwest / Southern / Bryansk Fronts. The German player is awarded one VP for every missing attack (example: if on turn 4 only 5 SU divisions carry attacks the German player is awarded 3 VP).

Eight attacking divisions is just a very rough suggestion, corresponding to two/three Armies of 5-6 divisions each, being involved, but similar to what I have seen in the historical records.


This approach has two advantages: 1) it is easy to implement and track for both opponents (especially compared to a poorly defined 'no retreat' approach, as the German player cannot track the SU units movements) and 2) it would give an 'historical feel' to the game
preventing runaways, but without stopping the SU player from building strategic reserves (another STAVKA trademark) and defending in depth.
Post #: 1
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 3:29:10 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 522
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		This would only work if Soviet units were strengthened somewhat to make this something other than totally insane suicide. On Turn 2 (or maybe more to the point, turns 3 or 4) I would challenge anyone to find 8 divisions worth attacking with...even if you could, a mandate like this is only a guarantee of more pocketing or, more likely, skirting the rule by attacking with a bunch of really weak units who would get pocketed anyway, which is hardly the point.

A combination of VPs for holding objectives longer in '41, stronger Soviet units and perhaps some randomization on Soviet C&C that would make organized retreats more difficult to pull off could be a good solution...but I can attest that in all my games post-fort nerf attacking like crazy is a recipe for getting a lot of units encircled, and unlike the real deal there is no way you can lose 5M men in WITE and not do far substantially worse than historical.

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 5/30/2012 3:30:00 AM >

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 2
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 3:37:35 AM   
governato

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Totally agree, but this house rule is *not* to achieve a more balanced game, it is just a suggestion for those brave souls who would like a more 'historical' game...with Uncle Joe breathing on their neck.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 3
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 4:03:06 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 522
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
I guess my point is that if such a rule were put into place, it would make an already ahistorical game even more ahistorical. If one looks at the AARs post fort nerf, the German is almost always able to take Leningrad and is generally able to take Moscow - and that is with the supposed problem of the "runaway." Since both those results are ahistorical, throwing another burden on the Soviet player makes it even more difficult to achieve even a modicum of a historical result.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea, but doing it in isolation while ignoring the logistics that allow panzers to romp all over the map with impunity simply makes the pendulum swing to the other side of where the game started (where virtually everyone would agree the Sovs had too easy of a time of it).

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 4
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 4:45:48 AM   
Rufus T. Firefly


Posts: 38
Joined: 4/28/2012
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		This rule would be more interesting in the context of a WitE 2.0 where the Russians were given stronger units but required to counter attack as you suggest. As others have already pointed out in the context of the present game this could lead to a very short game indeed.

_____________________________

Rufus T. Firefly: Do you realize our army is facing disastrous defeat? What do you intend to do about it?
Chicolini: I've done it already. I've changed to the other side.
Firefly: What are you doing over here?
Chicolini: Well, the food is better

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 5
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 6:26:46 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 1429
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online 		Not taking Leningrad or Moscow and a mandated no retreat in blizzard, and a mandated drive toward Baku in 42 would also be a more historical game too.

_____________________________



(in reply to Rufus T. Firefly)
Post #: 6
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 8:20:35 AM   
notenome

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline 		Are many players really running for the Dnepr on turn 1? I would think that strategy suicidal vs a good german player.

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 7
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 10:52:52 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1140
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		Against even an average German player, someone who does the Lvov pocket and uses HQ buildup, not running for the Dnepr is suicide.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 8
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 1:22:34 PM   
timmyab

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 12/14/2010
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		A delaying action in the Ukraine can be fought to the West of the Dnepr against even the best Axis players, it just requires commitment and accurate play.It's not for the faint hearted and you'll most likely lose half a dozen or so units, but on average you'll gain about two turns and inflict some losses.Against less capable Axis players you'll gain more like four turns and inflict quite heavy losses including some local counterattacks.
I think that 'per turn' VP locations are the way to encourage a more forward defense.Difficult to implement as a house rule I know.
Also Soviet armor should have more offensive potential.At the moment it's like Soviet tanks don't exist.If you took them out of the game nobody would even notice.

< Message edited by timmyab -- 5/30/2012 1:23:44 PM >

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 9
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 2:45:54 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1369
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Against even an average German player, someone who does the Lvov pocket and uses HQ buildup, not running for the Dnepr is suicide.


Even without Lvov, the only decision worth making in the south is to scoot as fast as reasonably possible to the Dnepr. As people say, because the Soviet units are so weak, having more units in the south (in a hypothetical non-Lvov opening) only changes the speed at which you run (you can scoot slower and use the NATO 1986 shuffle).

This isn't directed at anyone specifically, but it is dishonest to say that without Lvov, Soviets would defend forward. They would not, in any kind of force. There is no point in defending cities, and there is no terrain that is as good a bulwark defense than the Dnepr. Any Soviet who wants to take the maximal strength posture in defense will build at the Dnepr before any other major attempt to stand and hold.

_____________________________

For the longest time I thought I'd buy WitW to ensure my legitimate voice of criticism could be heard. But as WitE continues down the path of Soviet Army fantasy-land, I've given up all hope of enjoying either game again.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 10
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 3:39:25 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Just a quick clarification..I proposed this house rule for those who want to experience the strategic constraints historically faced by the SU operational commanders in the Summer of 1941. As many have pointed out this will make the game harder for the SU player, if (possibly) more realistic. So perhaps it should only be tried when playing the AI OR for shorter scenarios. I think it'd be fun and instructive.

The GC 'as is' largely assumes that both players are free from constraints at the strategic level (no retreat orders, Hitler randomly sacking the very best German generals etc etc). This is fine with me and when playing the GC vs a skilled human (hi comsolut!) I am the first one to suggest an orderly if rapid retreat to the Dnepr..and beyond.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 11
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 7:25:11 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Just a quick clarification..I proposed this house rule for those who want to experience the strategic constraints historically faced by the SU operational commanders in the Summer of 1941. As many have pointed out this will make the game harder for the SU player, if (possibly) more realistic. So perhaps it should only be tried when playing the AI OR for shorter scenarios. I think it'd be fun and instructive.

The GC 'as is' largely assumes that both players are free from constraints at the strategic level (no retreat orders, Hitler randomly sacking the very best German generals etc etc). This is fine with me and when playing the GC vs a skilled human (hi comsolut!) I am the first one to suggest an orderly if rapid retreat to the Dnepr..and beyond.



I think you're missing the point a bit, if counter attacking in such an early stage would lead to more losses on the German side, people would do it. The fact that it doesn't is what needs to be solved. But then we arrive at the combat engine and we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.

People do in the game what works, not what was done historically unless both things match.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 12
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 9:41:38 PM   
governato

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/6/2011
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		glvaca: we are saying the same thing. Attacking in Summer 41 is counterproductive for the SU and that is why players do not do it. The Red Army was just not capable enough, but STAVKA had to learn the lesson first hand. The house rule would just test an historical 'what if' and yes, it would likely make things worse for the SU player.

Incidentally, 'the Lvov pocket' helps keeping the game balanced by wiping out the SW Front and compensates for the fact that players, with additional insight, would not allow the historical Kiev and Uman pockets to happen, which achieved the same results.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 13
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 10:46:05 PM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

glvaca: we are saying the same thing. Attacking in Summer 41 is counterproductive for the SU and that is why players do not do it. The Red Army was just not capable enough, but STAVKA had to learn the lesson first hand. The house rule would just test an historical 'what if' and yes, it would likely make things worse for the SU player.

Incidentally, 'the Lvov pocket' helps keeping the game balanced by wiping out the SW Front and compensates for the fact that players, with additional insight, would not allow the historical Kiev and Uman pockets to happen, which achieved the same results.



We're actually not.
What I'm saying is that historically the Russian were able to inflict substantial losses over time even if their counter attacks were for the large majority unsuccessful. This cannot be done in the game. As such, a tough defense with occassional counter attacks is the best way to play the game.
What you're proposing doesn't make sense in the game as the historical losses the Germans suffered are not correctly modeled because of limitations of the combat engine. Therefore, requiring "historical" play by the Russians, while not accurately representing the wear and tear it caused on the Germans is not historical accurate at all and just a flight to fantasy.

(in reply to governato)
Post #: 14
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/30/2012 11:35:08 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 1429
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: governato

Just a quick clarification..I proposed this house rule for those who want to experience the strategic constraints historically faced by the SU operational commanders in the Summer of 1941.


What about the strategic constraits historically faced by the Axis?

Amazing how all these fans of imposing rules on the Soviets in the name of history/realism always ignore that part.

_____________________________



(in reply to governato)
Post #: 15
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 12:27:29 AM   
TulliusDetritus

 

Posts: 3810
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: Back to Reality :(
Status: offline 		Until someone or a balanced game conclusively proves the Red Army can sustain historical losses (3 million prisoners + other millions wounded and killed during the Blitzkrieg) and YET survive, I will NEVER follow this rule. Also note that I never ran away in the areas which matter to me: North and Center. I stay and die. In the south I was always the victim of an ahistorical Lvov pocket (and never complained to my opponents), thus I had nothing left to resist in the first place

What I said, until I have this answer (the only thing which would resolve once for all this endless issue), one thing I can say: I am tired of this idiotic "do not run away" thing.

For all I care you can argue till the cows come home...

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 5/31/2012 12:28:32 AM >

_____________________________



"Block is very important. If you think block is useless now it's ok. If you don't like block, why don't you take it with your face...?" -- Kung Fu master

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 16
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 2:51:46 AM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 522
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline 		I need to put in a post-mortem AAR, but my latest game (which I am on the verge of surrendering) I have lost 3M by turn 14 via a pretty aggressive fighting defense from the Dnepr east (with a lot more to come in T14 pocket destruction). 3M losses basically eviscerates the Red Army - I have enough to hold on to Moscow but most everywhere else is unready or routed units...not sure how anyone survives that kind of evisceration.

< Message edited by hfarrish -- 5/31/2012 2:52:42 AM >

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 17
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 10:21:26 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1140
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
We're actually not.
What I'm saying is that historically the Russian were able to inflict substantial losses over time even if their counter attacks were for the large majority unsuccessful. This cannot be done in the game. As such, a tough defense with occassional counter attacks is the best way to play the game.
What you're proposing doesn't make sense in the game as the historical losses the Germans suffered are not correctly modeled because of limitations of the combat engine. Therefore, requiring "historical" play by the Russians, while not accurately representing the wear and tear it caused on the Germans is not historical accurate at all and just a flight to fantasy.


A very big +1 on that. As said by so many so many times, it may just come down to a "too weak to resist", not even to think of counterattacking. And the counterattacks made the Germans suffer quite some attrition, though at a high cost, but not as high as too lead to a complete breakdown of the own Soviet defense. I am not sure, but I would imagine had the Soviets not bloodied themselves by these counterattacks, the Germans would have faced much stronger defenses and perhaps bloodied themselves attacking them.

With the Russian capabilities they have now, my gut feeling tells me it is almost impossible to see a 1941 summer unfold anywhere close to the historical course. I am not sure whether it is just to (a) weak Soviets, or (b) too ample supply, (c) too low German casualties when attacking (goes back to (a)), (d) simply a consequence of I-go-U-go without chance to intervene as static defender, (e) hindsight that may benefit the Germans initially a lot more and allow to advance with less care and danger, or ...?

It could be a combination. Yet not even a rule forcing the Soviets to stand fast will change that, nor a rule forcing the German armor to pause every third turn or so to adjust for the too ample supply.

Tullius is right, there is no point in arguing about the run-aways, whatever can be defined as that. Hopefully Tarhunnas will survive the autumn in his game against Michael in a shape that will still allow a blizzard counteroffensive, else the disbalance would already be found. And if he survives in good shape, the "Axis no retreat" rule may get Michael spanked pretty badly. I don't like either of these no retreat rules, but at least they could balance each other and get both sides hammered following fixed schedules if so desired.

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 18
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 10:59:37 AM   
76mm


Posts: 1703
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
3M losses basically eviscerates the Red Army - I have enough to hold on to Moscow but most everywhere else is unready or routed units...not sure how anyone survives that kind of evisceration.


heh, I think 3 mln is on the low side...in my game vs Ketza I lost 3.9 mln by the blizzard and was able to survive. There have been numerous patches since then however, with most of them weakening the Sovs, so maybe losing 3 mln is more meaningful now.

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 19
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 1:21:00 PM   
notenome

 

Posts: 598
Joined: 12/28/2009
Status: offline 		Granted I don't read that many AARs, but in my game, or any of Tarhhaus's Soviet AARs do I see the Sovs running for the hills. Also a lot of Sov players aggressively counterattack in 41 and over time this produces great results.

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 20
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 5/31/2012 2:31:24 PM   
hfarrish

 

Posts: 522
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline
As in so many things, however, this depends on the quality of one's opponents. I favor counter-attacking; against a decent or worse German player this can be helpful (although it is far from a sure thing); against German player who really knows how to handle the panzers it is less so. Particularly if the German is smart enough to pull them off the line occasionally to refit and HQ buildup...

(in reply to notenome)
Post #: 21
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 6/2/2012 4:25:42 AM   
Grungar

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 9/13/2008
Status: offline 		A house rule like this is what got the reds in trouble in the first place! Suicide for the real russians in 1941. This policy was mitigated by zhukov after being apointed chief of staff. The reds were in an offensive stance and reinforcing those salients would have just bagged more vital units needed at the dnepr defensive line. The russian reserve scheduale to was to slow due to stalins policys to boot. This kinda rule was used by the red staffs during their wargames in january and certainly has a place here in the same context of what if. Ie a strong german player should have an easyer time of it but must be proved.

< Message edited by Grungar -- 6/2/2012 4:35:59 AM >

(in reply to hfarrish)
Post #: 22
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 6/2/2012 5:21:43 AM   
76mm


Posts: 1703
Joined: 5/2/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
What you're proposing doesn't make sense in the game as the historical losses the Germans suffered are not correctly modeled because of limitations of the combat engine. Therefore, requiring "historical" play by the Russians, while not accurately representing the wear and tear it caused on the Germans is not historical accurate at all and just a flight to fantasy.


This was exactly my reaction; I just couldn't figure out how to say it...

(in reply to glvaca)
Post #: 23
RE: A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. - 6/2/2012 9:45:51 AM   
glvaca

 

Posts: 1109
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline 		Glad to be of help

(in reply to 76mm)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> A simple house rule for active defense in Summer 1941. Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.234