ORIGINAL: Michael T
I don't think I am going to strike any problems using this strategy. I have been claiming it’s a no lose risk free victory for the SU if done correctly for a long time now. I see no reason *yet* that will change my view. The proof is in the pudding. If I go down then I will be the first to admit I was wrong. And quite honestly if my strategy fails it would be a good thing as far as the WITE engine goes. But I firmly believe this run and preserve strategy will win me the game. I have confidence in my tactical skill to out manoeuvre any German in 42 as long as I have enough well armed troops. This point of having enough troops seems to be the debatable issue. Lets assume Moscow is worth ~5000 men a turn. But if I lose 500,000 men holding it (or maybe even still lose it) that’s equivalent to two years worth of its manpower production, not to mention the loss of ARM points in equipment.
You are definitely going to "prove" one thing, or another. There are still plenty of bad pitfalls for you as Soviet player, one of them the AP deficit and the problem of building an army that can fight back powerfully. We have seen many AARs where the Russian player had to learn that being allowed to build almost freely doesn't mean he'd end up with something useful. And we have not yet seen one AAR where the Soviet player has built anything as large as the historical Red Army, or anything that could push anywhere near the German paces of 41 and 42. One problem with the size is surely that commonly more manpower centers and cities are lost against an average German in this game.
I am curious to see how you will maneuver that maze.
Just assuming you can built an Army that can advance against the quality German units and their entrenchments at 1/2 of the pace of 41, you will need at least 1 year to make up for the terrain lost in 41, plus more for that lost in 42. Counting the German reserves and reinforcements, I bet a lot more, but you maybe have a different solution to this problem.
A lot will now also depend on the blizzard. If the Germans retire before your thrusts, and don't loose many men, I bet you will be in trouble with your strategy -- the clock is ticking. If you nonetheless manage to show that this is a foolproof strategy for the Soviets -- then VP limits ought to be adjusted to prevent a Soviet Sir Robin, and perhaps a German blizzard withdrawal. But if you fail with what seems to be the hope for a Soviets player... well, that would be "good" in some sense for the WitE engine, but very discouraging for one side as well.
ORIGINAL: Michael T
For me it’s a no brainer, I would much rather keep my 500,000 men to use in the blizzard and beyond. Until they make cities more lucrative to hold or capture I think my idea is valid.
I think Stalin would have agreed very much with you here. I bet up to the point where he would have sacrificed Moscow in winter 41 to save a few precious divisions, even at the risk of having to send more political troops to discourage or bloodily disperse civilian unrests. Well, Stalin was famous for many bad things, that would just have fit him.
But he certainly knew it was his Army he needed, and since time didn't matter that much (as it does with the deadline in game), he could trade ground to a large degree.
In an analogous fashion the German Generals did see the need for preserving forces and a flexible defense more than clinging to every foot conquered. Both during blizzard 41 and the whole later course the often advocated retreats/withdrawals or "corrections of the MBTL", as long as this did not lead to risks like cut off slower units, or other chaos. In that sense I am sure that hindsight would best require both sides to retreat during dire times.
< Message edited by janh -- 7/20/2012 11:49:24 AM >