Matrix Games Forums

Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at War
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Rhine or Ruin

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> RE: Rhine or Ruin Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 7:05:08 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2157
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline
Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

From Wiki:

The Finns, and Mannerheim in particular, clearly stated they would fight against the Soviets only to the extent necessary to redress the balance of the 1940 treaty (which would ultimately have dire consequences for Germany, when Finland refused to advance beyond its 1939 borders to complete the German encirclement of Leningrad.) However, for Hitler the matter was irrelevant and he saw Finland as an ally.[93]

I know I have seen Finns as part of the community here post on this subject before as well. Perhaps one of them will once again weigh in on this.

Also not that not only would the Finns not attack across the old border towards Leningrad, but they would not allow German forces in the area either.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 121
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 7:38:08 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6370
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
If anything, the game's rules allowing the Finns to march past the stop line post Leningrad are too liberal. Yes, this wrecks their morale. So what? I still see plenty of games with Finns hundreds of miles east of the Svir, which is surely not what Carl Gustav intended. It's this rather crazy eventuality which prompts the hard cork at the bottleneck. Nobody would give a damn if the silly Finns stayed put on the Svir like they ought to, Leningrad or no.

Personally, I wish this entire theater had been left out of the game. The Finns are just weird as is their role in the war. They were doing their own thing, largely disconnected from the war elsewhere. They also, uniquely among Axis minors, managed to preserve their independence post war. Finland is sui generis and could be cheerfully ignored altogether, as indeed is the case in a lot of east front games.






_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 122
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 7:50:17 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
Back to the Battle at hand. What's up with Western Front? If the Germans keep marching straight east they'll only know about the war from Commissar Bulletins.
MT is going to get a lot of shells in the next few weeks (20+ Rifle Div), but their window for effectiveness might be on the outside of utility if the Wehrmacht continues this Moscow bull rush. Potential for a lot of factories there too...

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 123
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 8:01:56 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6370
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Michael could easily start stripping the far south for reinforcement for Moscow. He's got way more there than is necessary.

But mostly I don't think the Axis can get to Moscow with the rail lines in their present location. The situation for Moscow will only become critical in 3 turns or so once the railheads get to Smolensk.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 124
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 8:14:41 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.


There is also way too much information out there that Stalin intended to defend every inch of ground in the first 10 weeks of the war and plenty of examples of commanders being killed (as well as line troops) for retreating. Where is your outrage about the perfect zone-of-control retreat capability of the Soviet?

Your argument is invalid because you are inconsistently applying it. If you can't apply history 'everywhere' then you can't shackle either side to it anywhere. That has always been my position.

With that argument invalidated, you are faced with the stark reality of hard-coded limits imposed on Finland that produce strategically illogical AND a-historical result.

Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door rather than attacking eastward into what is effectively a 30-mile wide, 100-mile deep maginot line in 1941 brought about by arbitrary map edges, arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced 'political considerations' (that are only applied to the Axis when they are applied at all), and brilliant gamesmanship by people with no intention of pursuing the spirit of the rule.

You defend the indefensible.

If Mannerheim knew what would happen at Flavius's line, he would not bother to attack the Soviets at all.


< Message edited by heliodorus04 -- 7/13/2012 8:15:38 PM >

(in reply to Klydon)
Post #: 125
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 9:50:37 PM   
Klydon


Posts: 2157
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.


There is also way too much information out there that Stalin intended to defend every inch of ground in the first 10 weeks of the war and plenty of examples of commanders being killed (as well as line troops) for retreating. Where is your outrage about the perfect zone-of-control retreat capability of the Soviet?

Your argument is invalid because you are inconsistently applying it. If you can't apply history 'everywhere' then you can't shackle either side to it anywhere. That has always been my position.

With that argument invalidated, you are faced with the stark reality of hard-coded limits imposed on Finland that produce strategically illogical AND a-historical result.

Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door rather than attacking eastward into what is effectively a 30-mile wide, 100-mile deep maginot line in 1941 brought about by arbitrary map edges, arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced 'political considerations' (that are only applied to the Axis when they are applied at all), and brilliant gamesmanship by people with no intention of pursuing the spirit of the rule.

You defend the indefensible.

If Mannerheim knew what would happen at Flavius's line, he would not bother to attack the Soviets at all.


What are you going to do next? Call me a Ruskie fanboy? Sorry, have had that happen and I got kicked out of the club.

That Finland has limitations in this game independent of the Germans is absolutely realistic given the independent nature of Finland and the fact they were able to exercise this independence repeatedly despite German efforts to get them to apply more pressure on the Russians. If you can't see the difference in POLITICAL limitations involving Finland and any "perfect" defense the Russians can do in this game with hindsight, then I don't know what to say except you need to step back and take a deep breath and rethink the position.

I already agreed that the map edge was an issue with its effect in an earlier post, but also noted this is often a issue in many games covering the Russian theater and the fact that games often have limitations on the Finnish theater due to game resources.

Is your goal to have no political considerations for the Finns or no stop line so they can take over a huge sector of the line during the first winter? Sort of makes that winter counter offensive a lot tougher now doesn't it? Of course in your world, you would have no issue putting in a game mechanic that allows the Germans to "ship some winter cloths to the front" and call it good about getting rid of any winter effects on the Germans despite the fact their equipment was crap in that below zero cold and even with warm cloths, the fact is the Germans were still tenderfoots in that type of element.

There are a lot of things I absolutely disagree with about this game, but having limitations on the Finns is not one of them, although like I mentioned in a earlier post, I would like to see an optional rule much like what was in FitE/Scorched Earth and the Axis take their chances about better than or worse than historical Finnish participation.

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 126
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 10:09:38 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.


And yet your realism doesn't seem to take into consideration real Finnish political/military/social/cultural constraints. Likely, if the Russians had sent more forces to defend north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns would've gone as far they could there, before they would have reached their military/political limits (most likely high casualties going up against strong Russian defenses wasn't something the Finnish replacement system could keep up with, combined with the desire to maintain a strong military for defensive purposes more than anything). They wouldn't have smashed their heads against the Russian defenses: they would've simply halted and dug in where they stood.

From what I've read, any significant push towards Leningrad past the 1939 borders was a political and military non-starter for Finland. Whether Lenningrad was ripe for the plucking is irrelevant if the Finnish political apparatus wouldn't have allowed such a course of action in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...


Ultimately, wars aren't run by Colonels or Generals, but by the nation's political leaders. If the Finnish political leaders wouldn't allow a drive on Leningrad, then it isn't a military option. Another example I can think of (as a Canadian) was when 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was sent to liberate Dieppe in Sep 1944. Militarily it was NOT the best move to make (and IIRC Montgomery was against it), but Canadian POLITICAL influence forced the decision, as it was a morale boost to have 2nd Canadian march into Dieppe.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 7/13/2012 10:37:12 PM >

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 127
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 10:18:40 PM   
Schmart

 

Posts: 652
Joined: 9/13/2010
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Personally, I wish this entire theater had been left out of the game. The Finns are just weird as is their role in the war. They were doing their own thing, largely disconnected from the war elsewhere. They also, uniquely among Axis minors, managed to preserve their independence post war. Finland is sui generis and could be cheerfully ignored altogether, as indeed is the case in a lot of east front games.


I agree. It's just too much of a largely irrelevant side-show. Remove any historical Russian forces sent to the Karelian front, and cut the map off just north of Leningrad. Leave the Finns out, and maybe include some low-probability political die-roll that the Finns will provide a Division or two of volunteers to Germany if Lenningrad falls, just to spice things up a tad. Not official Finnish forces, but something like the Spanish Blue Division.

Or extend the map to the arctic ocean and include the Murmansk front. The Finns can advance to the 1939 border and require a low-probability die-roll to advance past it. But since the map is set anyways, this is really only something for the eventual War in Europe game...

And this nonsense about arbritraty map borders affecting gameplay by providing an 'artificial flank'. That's a problem with only about 100% of wargames ever made that don't include a map of the entire planet.

< Message edited by Schmart -- 7/13/2012 10:22:51 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 128
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/13/2012 10:21:50 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1027
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
In a situation like this, Mannerheim is exactly where he wants to be. He can tell Von Ribbentrop that one of the best armies the Russians have is tied down on his front, making it easier for the Germans elsewhere. Meanwhile he doesn't have to anger the USSR so if Germany loses the war later, he keeps the integrity of his country, a favorable situation that Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria will not share. Later, if it's obvious that the Soviets are going to be on the losing side, his troops can help the Germans more. Either way he follows the role he always intended, to be a less-than-full Axis ally.

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 129
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 2:11:58 AM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 2214
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline
Historically the MT defensive line is about where the front line was for the majority of the war. North of this area you have the problem of supply - the 'road' system was actually just trails on permafrost - darn near impassable almost the entire year- think MUD as a constant for weather. The Murmansk area saw both sides suffer 10 times more casualities due to the weather than combat. Almost all of the offensives were stopped well short of their goals due to the weather - not enemy actions.

Mannerheim could have done an attack on the peninsula and probably made some progress - but the Finnish people would not have supported the war. As it was, they barely supported what actions did happen - that is why the Finns demobilize so quickly in 41 - there was just too little public support for a long and expensive war. So Mannerheim did the minimal actions to appease the Germans and yet keep the people from protesting too much.

Yeah, FitE/SE had a good mechanic to represent the Soviet lack of knowledge of the Finnish intentions - it is all part of design decisions on what to focus on.

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 130
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 2:42:35 AM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schmart

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.


And yet your realism doesn't seem to take into consideration real Finnish political/military/social/cultural constraints. Likely, if the Russians had sent more forces to defend north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns would've gone as far they could there, before they would have reached their military/political limits (most likely high casualties going up against strong Russian defenses wasn't something the Finnish replacement system could keep up with, combined with the desire to maintain a strong military for defensive purposes more than anything). They wouldn't have smashed their heads against the Russian defenses: they would've simply halted and dug in where they stood.

From what I've read, any significant push towards Leningrad past the 1939 borders was a political and military non-starter for Finland. Whether Lenningrad was ripe for the plucking is irrelevant if the Finnish political apparatus wouldn't have allowed such a course of action in the first place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...


Ultimately, wars aren't run by Colonels or Generals, but by the nation's political leaders. If the Finnish political leaders wouldn't allow a drive on Leningrad, then it isn't a military option. Another example I can think of (as a Canadian) was when 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was sent to liberate Dieppe in Sep 1944. Militarily it was NOT the best move to make (and IIRC Montgomery was against it), but Canadian POLITICAL influence forced the decision, as it was a morale boost to have 2nd Canadian march into Dieppe.

and for much the same reasons the Canadians were not permitted to liberate Rome :)

(in reply to Schmart)
Post #: 131
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 3:02:35 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gorforlin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

So far no serious factory losses apart from the HI left behind.

Thanks for the info re bracketed supply state.

From my recon I gather he has from AGN 4 Pz xx, 3 Mot xx, AGC 7 Pz, 5 Mot, AGS 6 Pz, 5 mot. 1 Mot unaccounted for.

The far northern front still holds. See pic. 100 Fighters plus 140 bombers. A leader with a 6 rating for INF combat. I am confident this line will hold for now.









This tactic is cheesy for 2 reasons.

1. Its totaly unhistorical, in the north the Fins simply owned the Russians other then Murmansk area.

2. As I read the rules this area for both sides is froozen until the Fins are unfroozen first.

I am hoping 2by3 patches this cheese from game asap as they have patched out other cheesy moves.

This cheese should be part of everyones house rules until its nerfed.

I am surpised Michael T is using this cheese after his look what I found on my lunch break thread.

I am tring to figure out whos more cheesy Pelton for germans or Flaviusx for russians.




To be clear I am the King of cheese and Flaviusx the Queen.

Is this a cheesy move?

Yes, but some will defend it as is the standard MO.

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/14/2012 3:04:10 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Gorforlin)
Post #: 132
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 5:24:58 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline
Where should Russia be 'allowed' to defend the northern flank?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 133
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 5:39:02 PM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Honestly, I don't have a problem if Finland is removed from the game entirely as Schmart and Flavius have discussed.

What I have a problem with is the patently absurd exploitation of the Leningrad line versus the Ladoga line, which is only practical in game because of the no-attack construct. That's exploitation. That's the equivalent of empty HQ muling. That's min/maxing the system. That should be punished. All of your defenses of this absurdity turn off competitive game-players even if it gives history buffs erections.

To give you an example of a hard-coded but trade-off capable balance (which is what is needed in this instance), I'm thinking of Command: Europe at War.

If the UK removes its infantry from Gibraltar, Franco takes Gibraltar in between turns even if Spain is out of the war.

I would prefer something like this for the no-attack line at Leningrad. If the CV value of units on the Leningrad line falls below X, Finland can attack.

My ethical standards are apparently much higher than most of yours. I find it amazing that all of you know perfectly well what Mannerheim would do in all circumstances and insist he would never change his positions, yet you do not make any similar attempts to pin-hole Soviet or German play based on what Hitler and Stalin demanded. Why is there this hypocrisy amongst you? The fact is that we don't limit German/Soviet play based on history because it makes for a better game for each side. Why does Finland get excluded from the "let's make a better game" discussion?

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 134
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 6:06:40 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Honestly, I don't have a problem if Finland is removed from the game entirely as Schmart and Flavius have discussed.

What I have a problem with is the patently absurd exploitation of the Leningrad line versus the Ladoga line, which is only practical in game because of the no-attack construct. That's exploitation. That's the equivalent of empty HQ muling. That's min/maxing the system. That should be punished. All of your defenses of this absurdity turn off competitive game-players even if it gives history buffs erections.

To give you an example of a hard-coded but trade-off capable balance (which is what is needed in this instance), I'm thinking of Command: Europe at War.

If the UK removes its infantry from Gibraltar, Franco takes Gibraltar in between turns even if Spain is out of the war.

I would prefer something like this for the no-attack line at Leningrad. If the CV value of units on the Leningrad line falls below X, Finland can attack.

My ethical standards are apparently much higher than most of yours. I find it amazing that all of you know perfectly well what Mannerheim would do in all circumstances and insist he would never change his positions, yet you do not make any similar attempts to pin-hole Soviet or German play based on what Hitler and Stalin demanded. Why is there this hypocrisy amongst you? The fact is that we don't limit German/Soviet play based on history because it makes for a better game for each side. Why does Finland get excluded from the "let's make a better game" discussion?


Not sure if its hypocrisy.

I do respect what Flaviusx says, but I might strongly disagree.

I think its more like we are defending one side or the other to be totally honest.

If you look back over the last 18 months there are times when both Flaviusx and myself "cave" and see the light.

The changes 2by3 makes do not happen quickly in most cases but almost always have been in the right direction.

I beleive the game is way way more balanced now then it was before and the chances to getting to atleast 1943 are good.

I am not sure what should be done to fix the exploit, but I am sure 2by3 will fix it at some point.

Until then just simply make it a house rule before starting a game as in ours I have agreed to retreat from the hexes as it is even to cheesy for me to use.

King Pelton Lord over all Cheesedom

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/14/2012 6:07:23 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 135
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 6:26:28 PM   
M60A3TTS

 

Posts: 1027
Joined: 5/13/2011
Status: online
The whole do what Stalin would do discussion is at end. It's finished, dead and buried. Tarhunnas tried to fight forward and was crushed because the of isolation rules in their current form. Retreat by the Red Army in '41 is the only option to at least offer a chance of winning.

I really don't care if the Finns are excluded or if the map runs to Murmansk. What I do care about is this ficticious final battle where Leningrad becomes isolated and is taken at the cost of 400 German lives. It's rubbish.

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 136
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 6:50:20 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

The whole do what Stalin would do discussion is at end. It's finished, dead and buried. Tarhunnas tried to fight forward and was crushed because the of isolation rules in their current form. Retreat by the Red Army in '41 is the only option to at least offer a chance of winning.

I really don't care if the Finns are excluded or if the map runs to Murmansk. What I do care about is this ficticious final battle where Leningrad becomes isolated and is taken at the cost of 400 German lives. It's rubbish.


I would be very carefull of what I wish for my friend

The longer units are in a pocket the better for me and my play style.

That one rule change would require allot of other changes or I be driving my panzer through so many loop holes its make your head spin.

Read the rules fully on isolation, before asking for a change.

One small change can have other unintended effects on several other parts of the game.

Pelton

Also its not about Stalin and his options he has tons, its about Hitlers lack of options or is that opinions? ask semi


< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/14/2012 6:53:11 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to M60A3TTS)
Post #: 137
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 7:33:19 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6370
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Pelton, if you think I'm going to let the Finns march halfway to the Urals, forget it. That's the real fantasy in this game. Corking them up in Karelia is small beer in comparison.

Axis players in this game take it for granted that Leningrad is a gimme and then they can unleash the Finns to do pretty much whatever. No, the morale hit does not in practice deter this.

Remove the Karelian theater from the game and make Leningrad defensible, and none of this need be an issue. So far as I'm concerned the Finnish cork is just putting things where they ought to be and mitigating the hash the game makes of this area up north and allowing something resembling a historical outcome. Leningrad will still probably fall, of course, but at least the damage resulting from that is minimized and the game's preposterous Finnish drang nach osten is eliminated.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 138
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 7:57:29 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, if you think I'm going to let the Finns march halfway to the Urals, forget it. That's the real fantasy in this game. Corking them up in Karelia is small beer in comparison.

Axis players in this game take it for granted that Leningrad is a gimme and then they can unleash the Finns to do pretty much whatever. No, the morale hit does not in practice deter this.

Remove the Karelian theater from the game and make Leningrad defensible, and none of this need be an issue. So far as I'm concerned the Finnish cork is just putting things where they ought to be and mitigating the hash the game makes of this area up north and allowing something resembling a historical outcome. Leningrad will still probably fall, of course, but at least the damage resulting from that is minimized and the game's preposterous Finnish drang nach osten is eliminated.




It is part of the current rule set. I have nothing against playing withen the rule sets as you know an only have respect for poeple getting milk out of rocks as I love to do

I think it needs some tweeking for sure.

Like I said if you think it is cheesy simply put in your personal house rules.



_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 139
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 9:26:47 PM   
Seminole


Posts: 492
Joined: 7/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

[quuote] I have agreed to retreat from the hexes as it is even to cheesy for me to use.

King Pelton Lord over all Cheesedom


Which begs the question I already asked: Where 'should' the Russia player defend the northern flank?

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 140
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 10:01:50 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6370
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: online
Presumably somewhere in the vicinity of Yaroslavl.

The Svir line is not defensible. It always falls like a house of cards once Leningrad goes, and then the great northern crackup is on. If that's the result you want, fine. I think it's a ridiculous and fantastical one and does far more violence to the historicity of the game than a Finnish cork which merely reduces Finland's role in the war to historical proportions.

If you want to stop the Finns, it must be done in Karelia proper. Otherwise, you're looking at a Soviet sauve qui peut which will only stabilize at a point considerably to the east. We've seen this time and again. Too many Soviet players have somehow convinced themselves that this is ok, and everything will be all right because Finnish morale will degenerate. By the time this happens, it is much too late. The right and proper response is to stuff them well before things get out of hand.







< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 7/14/2012 10:22:27 PM >


_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Seminole)
Post #: 141
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/14/2012 11:21:56 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2372
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Could you guys take this discussion about the Finns somewhere else please. I don't doubt its validity in debate but this is meant to be an AAR. Thanks.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 142
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/15/2012 12:19:05 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1402
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
My apologies.

My simple view on it is this:
IF people believe it is politically valid for Stalin to abandon Leningrad or Moscow as long as he gets the factories out, I can't see it as inconsistent for Mannerheim to take advantage of an obvious strategic blunder in the Karelian. That's all.

Again, I remain fine with Finland being removed from the game.

Flavius, the rationale for your position as you give it above is vindictiveness because you're upset with the Soviet 1941 capabilities (with which I sympathize). It is a position that makes for awful game patching (see Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online by Mythic for how that plays out).

Done, out. Play on.

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 143
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/18/2012 9:16:45 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2372
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
Soviet end T10.

Some interesting developments have occurred. It would seem my opponent has added the subtle art of misinformation and subterfuge to his bow. It’s a little disconcerting not being entirely sure as to the whereabouts of a Pz Gp.

AGN

On T9 4th Pz Gp was seen to be redeployed about 40 miles south west of Novgorod. This prompted a withdrawal by my units defending the exposed forward line of the Shelon river, for self preservation. Now, on T10 I *believe* 4th Pz Gp has moved further to the south and east to a point 40 miles east of V Luki (see map). This is my best guess as my recon has not been completely successful. But 4th Pz Gp has disappeared from the radar around Leningrad.

Hitlerite infantry continue to make an expensive advance toward the Volkov. Leningrad still has a tenuous land link.

AGC

The combined 2nd and 3rd Pz Gp's have now edged south and have advanced to a position between Bryansk and Kaluga. Tula is threatened. It only has 6 ARM left in it now as the panic stricken factory bosses have packed up their wares and headed east.

AGS

Half of 1st Pz Gp has gone missing for 2 turns. I *think* they may be north west of Sumy (see map), preparing or ready for an advance in to my previously undefended centre (at T8 I had zilch in the centre, Southwestern front slid north to fill the gap). The missing mech units could be anywhere though really because recon has failed to confirm their whereabouts. The rest of 1st Pz Gp is still around Kharkov. Stalino seems safe for the moment, or is it?

Stavka considered a counter attack to relieve the brave Kharkov defenders, but in the end decided to leave them to their fate…we move further east. Air supplies are flown in to an airfield in the pocket. At least their CV won't be 1.

SU OOB is closing in on a healthy 4.7 million. Losses only just reaching the 1.6 million mark. ARM points still well over 600K. With only the Minsk ARM factories lost to date.

T11 will be interesting in so much as where are all these missing German mech units going? We can only guess….





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 144
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/18/2012 10:46:31 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
Very nice job MT, 4.7 million.

Your Leningrad defences are very strong. GHC will have to set-up the infantry for a frontal assault. No hex is untakeable IF you know how to assault it, even a major river with a lvl 4 fort can be taken.

Moscow looks likely to fall from the screen shot.

You have far far to many troops in the south as Flaviusx pointed out. Just keep him from getting AGA other then that why so many troops?

If hes any good at setting up German assault forses Moscow will fall, if not Leningrad and Moscow will survive. Thats a part of the game few GHC players are good at.

On a side note for the russian side, what would happen if you did a HQ build up before say Leningrad got cut off? The HQ would have several 1000 tons of supplys, would this keep CV topped off for a turn or 2?

This corp supplies are maxed out and have been from turn 7 to 10 with hvy fighting. Possible way around pockets dropping in 1 turn. Not sure how the system works when units get cut off, but something to think about out side the box.

Tanks need gas but infantry need supplies and I know your an out side the box kinda guy.








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/18/2012 10:55:26 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 145
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/18/2012 10:57:10 PM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
WOW now that I think of it thats probably how TDV did his amazing Red blizzard offensive.

He was 20 hexes past railheads. Guess I have to hit the human vs human 41-42 blizzard and test that out.

Thats got to be some kinda bug, I posted it in tech support area.

I do not see the over flow of supplies going to "city depots" JB

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3146118



5th star on this post- perfect



< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/18/2012 11:32:50 PM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 146
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/18/2012 11:17:23 PM   
Gorforlin

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 2/22/2012
Status: offline
WTH how do you come up with this ****?

2900+ supplies heheh how many trucks does that take?

Loop hole # ?

< Message edited by Gorforlin -- 7/18/2012 11:26:25 PM >

(in reply to Pelton)
Post #: 147
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/18/2012 11:50:10 PM   
Michael T


Posts: 2372
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Queensland, Australia.
Status: offline
My focus is preserving my army. This is why I ran so far in the early stages. To avoid unnecessary losses. So naturally all my rail is used moving industry. So there is little capacity to shift large numbers of troops from the south to the north. The supposed excess (I don't believe there is anyhow) is simply a natural accumulation because I have been falling back and not losing masses of troops.

I am not at all concerned if Moscow falls or Leningrad (though I will try to hold them). As long as I don't lose 500K men in the process. If I have 5M troops at the start of the Blizzard I will regain Moscow anyhow. The bottom line is this. IMO if Russia preserves her army in 41 and saves enough Industry she ultimately wins the game. If certain cities hold out so much the better.

Stocking up HQ's prior to isolation makes no difference. You need an airfield to fly some supplies in *after* isolation to get a benefit. So you can have a gazzilion tons of supplies in a HQ but still drop to CV 1 if you get cut off, fly in a mere 5% IIRC of requirements and hey presto CV all good again. Go figure. That’s why I have empty airfields strewn across the map. If guys get cut off and I happen to have an airfield in the pocket I can supply some guys (eg the Kharkov dudes) and make them tougher to kill.

I don't know why you have this large stock of supplies in your HQ. But I do know that sometimes if you advance far enough its actually a bonus if you get cut off. As the HQ will then draw supplies from a captured city and you get way way more gas and supplies than what you would have had you not been cut off. I reported this. It has not been corrected.

_____________________________

'Deus le Volt!'
------------------

(in reply to Gorforlin)
Post #: 148
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/19/2012 12:27:04 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My focus is preserving my army. This is why I ran so far in the early stages. To avoid unnecessary losses. So naturally all my rail is used moving industry. So there is little capacity to shift large numbers of troops from the south to the north. The supposed excess (I don't believe there is anyhow) is simply a natural accumulation because I have been falling back and not losing masses of troops.

I am not at all concerned if Moscow falls or Leningrad (though I will try to hold them). As long as I don't lose 500K men in the process. If I have 5M troops at the start of the Blizzard I will regain Moscow anyhow. The bottom line is this. IMO if Russia preserves her army in 41 and saves enough Industry she ultimately wins the game. If certain cities hold out so much the better.

Stocking up HQ's prior to isolation makes no difference. You need an airfield to fly some supplies in *after* isolation to get a benefit. So you can have a gazzilion tons of supplies in a HQ but still drop to CV 1 if you get cut off, fly in a mere 5% IIRC of requirements and hey presto CV all good again. Go figure. That’s why I have empty airfields strewn across the map. If guys get cut off and I happen to have an airfield in the pocket I can supply some guys (eg the Kharkov dudes) and make them tougher to kill.

I don't know why you have this large stock of supplies in your HQ. But I do know that sometimes if you advance far enough its actually a bonus if you get cut off. As the HQ will then draw supplies from a captured city and you get way way more gas and supplies than what you would have had you not been cut off. I reported this. It has not been corrected.


I have known about the city fuel draw for a long while, but seems like supplies work same way.

Seems to be a hex limit on the draw down side. If citys are X hexes away or if there are no trucks fuel/supplies stay with the HQ.

Basicly the less trucks you have after a build up the better, its stuck in the HQ is how it appears to work. Thats why I do them at the end of the turn and move HQed units from last turn last seems to help keep the dump topped off.

The cut off rules need an over haul, if cut off units have 1000's of tons of supplies and fuel they should not drop so easyly.

What do we know we are a couple of dummies

Should be a morale hit over time. 10 pts per turn cut off. To go from 10 cv to one and have 1000's of supplies is stupid to say the least.

WiTP logistics is controlled by shipping and is easy to handle, but wite is totally different and has been leaky from day one.

I am hoping witw logistic system is not as full of holes as wite has been.


< Message edited by Pelton -- 7/19/2012 12:35:14 AM >


_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 149
RE: Rhine or Ruin - 7/19/2012 12:36:57 AM   
Pelton

 

Posts: 5891
Joined: 4/9/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Michael T

My focus is preserving my army. This is why I ran so far in the early stages. To avoid unnecessary losses. So naturally all my rail is used moving industry. So there is little capacity to shift large numbers of troops from the south to the north. The supposed excess (I don't believe there is anyhow) is simply a natural accumulation because I have been falling back and not losing masses of troops.

I am not at all concerned if Moscow falls or Leningrad (though I will try to hold them). As long as I don't lose 500K men in the process. If I have 5M troops at the start of the Blizzard I will regain Moscow anyhow. The bottom line is this. IMO if Russia preserves her army in 41 and saves enough Industry she ultimately wins the game. If certain cities hold out so much the better.

Stocking up HQ's prior to isolation makes no difference. You need an airfield to fly some supplies in *after* isolation to get a benefit. So you can have a gazzilion tons of supplies in a HQ but still drop to CV 1 if you get cut off, fly in a mere 5% IIRC of requirements and hey presto CV all good again. Go figure. That’s why I have empty airfields strewn across the map. If guys get cut off and I happen to have an airfield in the pocket I can supply some guys (eg the Kharkov dudes) and make them tougher to kill.

I don't know why you have this large stock of supplies in your HQ. But I do know that sometimes if you advance far enough its actually a bonus if you get cut off. As the HQ will then draw supplies from a captured city and you get way way more gas and supplies than what you would have had you not been cut off. I reported this. It has not been corrected.


Stocking up before isolation is a huge boon for German mech units and we have both used that to our advatage in the past.

I think I have posted on that in a special thread all on its own over a yr ago.

_____________________________

GHC
22 - 4 - 8

15 games ended in 41 (15-0-0)
7 games ended in 42 (5-0-2)
8 games ended in 43 (2-3-3)
4 games ended in 44 (0-1-3)


General Cheesefinder of WitW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DiSQ36zfWk

(in reply to Michael T)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> After Action Reports >> RE: Rhine or Ruin Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
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

0.113