Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy

 
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 >> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/3/2019 11:48:10 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
@MattFL: great answer my friend. I have some comments to do of course. But won't get into that now as I want to use the evening to advance my turn! lol!

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 31
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 10:53:04 AM   
Telemecus


Posts: 3225
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
Wanted to pitch in some of my own thoughts.

I do not comment on the many balance discussions that have appeared on these forums over the years. I do not know the historical numbers well enough for those who make balance arguments on what actually happened. I do not understand why some say it is unbalanced in game terms. If it is then just change the game options - give the Soviets a victory if they capture Berlin by august 1945 instead say. You can do that yourselves without needing to change the program. But the bigger question I wondered is is there actually any such thing as game balance at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
In my mind, the current iteration of the game is pro-German ... post after post whining about how Germans are too powerful... I don't think this means the Russians can't win. Rather, I see Russians making mistakes that end up giving up massive encirclements on Turns 4-5 that often are lights out.... it's because the Russians played it completely wrong.


This I found interesting because does it mean that all balance discussions are simply discussions about players ability? It is only pro-German because of the way the Soviet side has been played? If so there is no such thing as game balance as some absolutely quantity independent of players. It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
The Germans come up with a new opening and it's "the Russians can't win", the Russians come up with a good counter to a german opening and it's "the Germans can't win" or the Germans "must do this or that to counter it". Same old same old.


This I find a pretty good description of the history of the discussions of the game at least on these forums. A similar parallel can be found in the changes in the air war. It went from the Soviet air force is too powerful resulting in the developers nerfing it, to the German air force is too powerful which is when the developers essentially ended the night air war entirely and made the day air war a question of flak. But I think this is instructive as the toing and froing of balance in the air war by the developers has ended up getting us back to where we were to begin with - but in the process getting rid of some of the variety and interest in the game. And I suppose it is this rather than any questions of balance that worry me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
It's up to the German player to figure out how to beat such a strategy as with all strategies, it's definitely beatable and carries with it its own risks.


This is the thing I am looking forward to and so long as the game is actively followed I expect to read the definitve post on this soon. The Pskow Defence has certainly been the most recent meta/paradigm of the game. I think this is more than just a fashion as for most so far in game theory terms it is the "dominant strategy." One of the last AARs by Tyronec for WitE1 (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4358933 ) was supposed to be the way you could beat the Pskow Defence - sadly for that game his opponent decided not to do the Pskow defence then so we will never know what it was. I have never faced an opponent doing a Pskow Defence - but I did write a very brief AAR about worrying less about pockets in early turns and instead advancing as fast as possible (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4639282 ). This was to challenge the paradigm (slightly) that making pockets is all that matters on turn 1. However some have suggested it could be part of a Pskow counter by allowing an Axis player to arrive in greater mass at Pskow BEFORE the hardest defences are formed. Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more?

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 32
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 1:20:31 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
In answer to @MattFL:

I will keep this brief as I don't want my meaning lost. I would like to clear a few important points:

-This thread was NOT started as a balance discussion
-I agree with most of what you say about balance, abilities and so on, and I won't get into that here because it's besides the point and we already discussed it in lenght in private and you already know my position on this.
-This thread should not have been called "Pskov-Runner strategy" but it should have been called: "As Axis, what do you think is the primary objective between Leningrad, Moscow and DonBass?"
-My own observations and what seems to be a concensus among most here is that Leningrad is easily the most important objective because it brings in the Finns and permits the shortest front for blizzard. And the fact that the other 2 objectives don't have similar returns almost makes taking Leningrad a MUST.
-Therefore, defending heavily against it, almost to the point of giving away all the rest is also easily the best Soviet strategy.

And to me that means 2 things:
1. If I play Axis, I will go with all my might for Leningrad, making the rest secondary.
2. If I play Soviet, I will do a Pskov-runner strategy.

Conclusion, TO ME the game has become predictable (again: the game, not who wins).

And this brings me to another question: would you do otherwise? Do you believe that there is another better course for either side?



< Message edited by joelmar -- 7/4/2019 2:50:17 PM >


_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 33
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 1:33:48 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

@Telemecus: Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more?


lol.. it would be great, but it won't be from an AAR of my current game against Matt, because I didn't play it as I should have and Matt is a great player, so I'm late in this game. But I have some ideas of course, as do Matt :-)

< Message edited by joelmar -- 7/4/2019 1:34:43 PM >


_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 34
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 5:09:08 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

This I found interesting because does it mean that all balance discussions are simply discussions about players ability? It is only pro-German because of the way the Soviet side has been played? If so there is no such thing as game balance as some absolutely quantity independent of players. It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?



No, it doesn't mean that balance can't be discussed (let's face it, balance will ALWAYS be discussed even if in fact it may be irrelevant!). As I said, in my opinion it's a bit pro-German. But pro-German doesn't mean the Russians can't win (i.e. the "chaos argument"). And the skill of the players is a far greater factor in determining the outcome than the balance of the game. The "best" players here (if such a thing exists) consistently win the game with either side. Where the Chaos argument may hold true is if you have the best Russian against the best German (i.e. players of absolutely equal, and very high, skill) the game balance will benefit the German. But rarely if ever are there games between people of absolutely equal and very high skill. One is always going to be a bit better than the other or have a better understanding of the side that they are playing in that particular game. For players of average skill, who are probably most of the people who play the game, I think the game balance is irrelevant because neither is maximizing what their side can potentially achieve.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
This is the thing I am looking forward to and so long as the game is actively followed I expect to read the definitve post on this soon. The Pskow Defence has certainly been the most recent meta/paradigm of the game. I think this is more than just a fashion as for most so far in game theory terms it is the "dominant strategy." One of the last AARs by Tyronec for WitE1 (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4358933 ) was supposed to be the way you could beat the Pskow Defence - sadly for that game his opponent decided not to do the Pskow defence then so we will never know what it was. I have never faced an opponent doing a Pskow Defence - but I did write a very brief AAR about worrying less about pockets in early turns and instead advancing as fast as possible (see http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4639282 ). This was to challenge the paradigm (slightly) that making pockets is all that matters on turn 1. However some have suggested it could be part of a Pskow counter by allowing an Axis player to arrive in greater mass at Pskow BEFORE the hardest defences are formed. Knowing Joelmar's way of thinking and inquisitiveness I wonder even if Joelmar will be the one to take the experiences of fighting a Pskow Defence and work out the definitive counter that will be the forum post everyone reads on it for ever more?


There will never be a definitive post on this. The German Turn 1 is about the only thing that can be absolutely definitive. Sure, the PSKOV defense is somewhat definitive in that the Germans can't really do a damn thing about it on their Turn 2 and by the time their turn 3 starts, the defense is in place. But we're talking about what, an area of the map that is maybe 8 hexes by 8 hexes? If the Russians setting up some units in an area of a massive map that small is a "dominant strategy", then folks aren't thinking hard enough.

Really, I find it kind of surprising that (apparently) this has become a dominant Russian strategy. It carries with it lots of risks and certainly no guarantee of success. Let's be realistic here, the PSKOV defense strategy in HLYA's hands as Russians is most likely a very different thing than that same strategy in say my hands or some other random Russian players hands. On the flip side, HLYA playing Germans against said defense is probably different than say me playing Germans against it. So it's not so much about beating that strategy, I'm quite certain I could beat it as Germans against a random Russian player of average skill. It's more about beating it while it's being played by HLYA - it's his defense after all. Further, it's a different thing to beat such a defense when you know it's coming as opposed to not knowing it's being played until you run into it. If the German isn't aware it's being played, they can often waste a turn running into it. If they know it's being played, they have a lot more options, such as just ignoring PSKOV and racing east or sending far more to PSKOV than would normally be the case. It's a very different thing than a German opening in which the Russians have absolutely no say. The Germans do have a say in this case.

And just to follow up on your comment about Turn 1 pockets, i'll repeat what i've said elsewhere. Turn 1 in a vacuum is irrelevant. It's the continuous action of Turns 1-3 that matter. Who cares if you pocket X number of Russian units on Turn 1. What matters is getting east as fast as possible while preventing the escape of the maximum number of Russian units. You can often get even more Russians this way than if you have very tight encirclements on Turn 1. As Germans, i could care less if encirclements hold on Turn 1. It's all about preventing escape and pushing east as fast as possible. I prefer to leave the encircled units to rot and mop them up over 6-7 turns with very few divisions, security units, etc...This allows maximum force east as early as possible.

I took a quick look at the Pandemonium/HLYA vs Tyronec game. Yeah, i'm not sure the abandoning the North Russian strategy is a very good one. As GHC nothing would make me happier than to play against that.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 35
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 5:20:00 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar

In answer to @MattFL:

I will keep this brief as I don't want my meaning lost. I would like to clear a few important points:

-This thread was NOT started as a balance discussion
-I agree with most of what you say about balance, abilities and so on, and I won't get into that here because it's besides the point and we already discussed it in lenght in private and you already know my position on this.
-This thread should not have been called "Pskov-Runner strategy" but it should have been called: "As Axis, what do you think is the primary objective between Leningrad, Moscow and DonBass?"
-My own observations and what seems to be a concensus among most here is that Leningrad is easily the most important objective because it brings in the Finns and permits the shortest front for blizzard. And the fact that the other 2 objectives don't have similar returns almost makes taking Leningrad a MUST.
-Therefore, defending heavily against it, almost to the point of giving away all the rest is also easily the best Soviet strategy.

And to me that means 2 things:
1. If I play Axis, I will go with all my might for Leningrad, making the rest secondary.
2. If I play Soviet, I will do a Pskov-runner strategy.

Conclusion, TO ME the game has become predictable (again: the game, not who wins).

And this brings me to another question: would you do otherwise? Do you believe that there is another better course for either side?





Fair enough and sorry if I drifted off into a topic which wasn't the main point. But to your main point above, here are my thoughts....

If I play Axis, Moscow would be my top priority in general and particularly against a PSKOV defense. I would drive hard and occupy the area between Moscow and Lenningrad for maximum operational flexibility. If I play Russians again, I may or may not use the PKSOV defense. Like I said, I wanted to try it out. I don't think it's infallible.

In either case, I do not think the game is predictable at all. Too many options, too many styles, too much opportunity to do a wide variety of things. There is no one winning strategy. Lots of losing ones, but no one winning one.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 36
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/4/2019 6:21:44 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

@MattFL: I took a quick look at the Pandemonium/HLYA vs Tyronec game. Yeah, i'm not sure the abandoning the North Russian strategy is a very good one. As GHC nothing would make me happier than to play against that.


You see, that is EXACTLY my point. :-)

quote:

If I play Axis, Moscow would be my top priority in general and particularly against a PSKOV defense.


For the idea of a Moscow Axis strategy against a Pskov Soviet strategy... I have my doubts honestly. Yes, even against the best Soviet player out there you will most probably take Moscow if you put all your beans there, I have no doubt about it. But Leningrad will then be a very remote probability, not to say an impossibility, and you will most probably end up with an overextended and vulnerable left flank and no Finns to help in the worst part of the map for Blizzard. Hardly a confortable strategy. Sounds very familiar to me... lol!

BTW, that is exactly when a Soviet player bent on the slowest retreat possible thereby making the road to Moscow as long as possible without exposing himself to chunky pockets will have an even bigger advantage, but that is another topic... ;-)



_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 37
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 4:30:17 AM   
Bitburger

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 2/21/2015
Status: offline
In game terms, the 2 year plus siege of Leningrad is the same as the fall of the city. As long as you defended long enough to evacuate, has anyone had the loss decide your game? The Finns grabbing nothing but forest and not crumbling from lack of manpower, as soon as they are really pressed?
Leningrad is the first priority for sure, but it's no auto-defeat unless the Russian player quits. I have and have had opponents still win.
But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 38
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:15:57 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1020
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline

@Telemecus

quote:

It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?


Colour of 2 is obviously red but as for machines feelings, well really old engines used to be cranky.

Does this help?





_____________________________

The best way to get violently assaulted is to actively promote non violence.

(in reply to Bitburger)
Post #: 39
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 9:22:09 AM   
Telemecus


Posts: 3225
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 56ajax
@Telemecus
quote:

It make no more sense to discuss it than it does to discuss what are the feelings of machines or what is the colour of number 2?

Colour of 2 is obviously red but as for machines feelings, well really old engines used to be cranky.


You know as soon as I pressed post on that message I thought I bet someone will be awkward and say numbers do have colour!

Actually there is a common condition with a name where people do see numbers as having colour and other such unsual connections of properties. (Edit: looked it up - Synesthesia)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
let's face it, balance will ALWAYS be discussed even if in fact it may be irrelevant!


There is probably no greater truism.

I did once suggest that perhaps the only way to judge balance would be by having the same two players play two games against each other but on different sides. If one side consistently won, then you could say that was because of balance of the game and not standard of the players which is controlled for. But then someone objected that players can be better Soviet players than Axis players and vice versa - having them play each side does not mean they are controlled for ability.

So I guess the argument will go on and on

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 7/5/2019 9:36:31 AM >

(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 40
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 12:42:28 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Actually there is a common condition with a name where people do see numbers as having colour


My daughter says numbers have colors and she is really convinced about this! lol!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
...having them play each side does not mean they are controlled for ability.


Indeed. And furthermore a player always learns new things, so it can be argued that he gets better with each games, and not necessarily at the same speed as his opponent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger
But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?


You got an interesting point, close to the one Matt makes if I understand both of you correctly, and others said things along the same lines, and you guys could be right of course. That said, I really don't know, because most AAR never get to that point, at least not in recent times!!! So I made this reflection on things I heard and my limited experience and it's really hard to get more scientific than that.

But that brings us back to the idea that it heavily depends on both players abilities, so it's the same story here :-)




_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 41
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 12:59:53 PM   
Wixit

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?



I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.

(in reply to Bitburger)
Post #: 42
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 1:11:35 PM   
EwaldvonKleist


Posts: 1830
Joined: 4/14/2016
From: Berlin, Germany
Status: offline
Loss of Moscow&Red Reaurgance:: See Smokindave vs BrianG

< Message edited by EwaldvonKleist -- 7/5/2019 1:12:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Wixit)
Post #: 43
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 1:13:11 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: Wixit

I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss



again, not saying you're wrong, but those kind of things heavily depends on the level of play of each opponent. And WitE is a really hard game to master.

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to Wixit)
Post #: 44
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 2:48:38 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.


That particular city = loss of 100 manpower, most likely a lot of factories, 15% of total rail capacity not to mention try using the rails to shift troops along the front without going through Moscow. Further, stopping the Germans say 10 hexes west of Moscow versus 10 hexes east is a 20 hex difference which could be as much as 10-20 turns longer to get to Berlin. It doesn't make it impossible to get to Berlin, but it sure is a sharp stick in the eye and definitely a game changer.

(in reply to Wixit)
Post #: 45
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 3:19:13 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL

loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity


First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 46
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 3:56:19 PM   
Wixit

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL


quote:

I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.


That particular city = loss of 100 manpower, most likely a lot of factories, 15% of total rail capacity not to mention try using the rails to shift troops along the front without going through Moscow. Further, stopping the Germans say 10 hexes west of Moscow versus 10 hexes east is a 20 hex difference which could be as much as 10-20 turns longer to get to Berlin. It doesn't make it impossible to get to Berlin, but it sure is a sharp stick in the eye and definitely a game changer.


Highlighting additional hexes taken works against your point: it's the 10 or 20 extra hexes that actually hurt, not the loss of the city itself, and taking part of the Moscow-Ryazan rail has the same effect on redeployment. And while moving through Arzamas is not a short detour how often do you really shift troops to and from Leningrad? The vast majority of the front and anything useful is south of Moscow along with prime tank country as opposed to the heavy woods and swamps of the north.

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 47
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 4:25:50 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:


ORIGINAL: Wixit

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.


That fact is also one of the main reason of this thread. Loosing Moscow is not such a big deal in this game, and to me that is very wrong. I have had many discussions on this with Telemecus and others, and not everyone agrees with me, but I believe that OKH assumptions were right, Moscow was the key to the edifice and loosing it would have meant a really rough time politically for Stalin and the Soviet regime. He had starved the population in the thirties with his 5 year plans to build a modern army bigger than any other in the world, and then looses Moscow in 6 months? That would have meant a lot of friction from the top to the bottom for sure!

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to Wixit)
Post #: 48
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 4:38:57 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wixit

Highlighting additional hexes taken works against your point: it's the 10 or 20 extra hexes that actually hurt, not the loss of the city itself, and taking part of the Moscow-Ryazan rail has the same effect on redeployment. And while moving through Arzamas is not a short detour how often do you really shift troops to and from Leningrad? The vast majority of the front and anything useful is south of Moscow along with prime tank country as opposed to the heavy woods and swamps of the north.

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.


Oh goodness. "Moscow is just a city." Well, technically that's true. But in practical terms...not so much.

Just for clarity to be sure we're talking about the same thing, particulary when you say "anything useful is south of Moscow", what part of the game (i.e. year) are you referring to?





(in reply to Wixit)
Post #: 49
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 4:42:28 PM   
Telemecus


Posts: 3225
Joined: 3/20/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity


First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!


I think many players do not realise how dispersed manpower is, and why we should stop thinking about cities as capturing manpower. Capture a lot of those size 3 and 4 towns and it really does add up. You can see for example the map I made which is uploaded to the library of WitE resources (see 2.4 1942 offensive plan http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4317692 ). In it I started circling regions of the map that would commonly be conquered together and counting all the manpower centres including cities and villages (numbers in green) - and it changed my view of what is important. For example, although Baku is a big city there is not a lot around there or on the way there. So in manpower terms a summer spent attacking towards Baku is wasted. And similarly conquering regions with a lot of villages could easily add up to more than the big cities. Admittedly there are a lot of towns around Moscow too - but it also shows that capturing a salient up to and including Moscow is not the best manpower capture you could have made.

An old sudden death house rule was that it would be an Axis win if you captured 2 out of 3 of Leningrad, Moscow, or both Voronezh and Rostov. This has fallen out of favour. But it does show some players thought at least Leningrad, Voronezh and Rostov together was worth more than Moscow.

Wixit's game would have been a sudden death Axis victory by this rule, and yet Soviet forces are now in the Reich in 1944 with a good chance of a decisive victory. We can see the Axis player was good enough to "beat" his opponent in 1941, but the Wixit good enough to win a decisive victory later in the game. And the game probably has lasted the distance because both players have seen it as a competitive game to carry on with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar
And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

We started to pick up how susceptible rail was to strat bombing in the 8MP game - and how much easier it is to attack as does not necessarily have the flak of cities. I think this may be a strat of game to come ..

I suppose we can debate how important Moscow was to communist rule historically. The administration had already been moved to Kazan by the end of 1941 and the communist party had conducted a civil war where who held Moscow was not too relevant. So I think the same civil war experience would have been replicated in 1941 - the communists would have continued to hold power with or without Moscow. But I do think the game does not model well its importance logistically for instance in rail transportation.

< Message edited by Telemecus -- 7/5/2019 4:54:41 PM >

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 50
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 4:58:17 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
...communist party had conducted a civil war where who held Moscow was not too relevant


That might be true, but I'm talking about a crisis that would have arised inside the communist party, the army and the population in general had Moscow been lost. Also from all I remember about the German High command opting for Moscow, it was more a question of it being the communication hub and link between north and south than a administration thing. Also, between the Bolchevik revolution and the war, a lot of things had changed in the economic and infrastructures of the country, I wonder if both can be compared?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Wixit's game would have been a sudden death Axis victory by this rule, and yet Soviet forces are now in the Reich in 1944 with a good chance of a decisive victory. We can see the Axis player was good enough to "beat" his opponent in 1941, but the Wixit good enough to win a decisive victory later in the game. And the game probably has lasted the distance because both players have seen it as a competitive game to carry on with.


That is really cool and really shows the complexity of this game. :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
We started to pick up how susceptible rail was to strat bombing in the 8MP game



yes, your comments about that were what made me realize the possibilities of attacking the railyards

< Message edited by joelmar -- 7/5/2019 5:21:27 PM >


_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to Telemecus)
Post #: 51
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 5:57:03 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joelmar

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL

loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity


First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

quote:

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.


I'm not usually bothered by manpower losses so long as I hold Lenningrad and Moscow.

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 52
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:13:27 PM   
GoodbyeBluesky

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/20/2018
Status: offline
I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 53
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:22:44 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3786
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.


Can I ask what was the gross Soviet OOB? Manpower , AFV, and Artillery? Greater than 7M?

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to GoodbyeBluesky)
Post #: 54
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:34:33 PM   
MattFL

 

Posts: 275
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.


Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.

(in reply to GoodbyeBluesky)
Post #: 55
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:55:58 PM   
Wixit

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 10/8/2018
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.


Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.


Both were lost in '41 with Leningrad lost first, and there is literally nothing else north of Moscow worth defending and so everything that was there was railed elsewhere and the entire front effectively abandoned until sufficient units were rebuilt and refit to reopen it. A brutal winter counteroffensive and a few lucky breaks - won't spoil it for any new readers - saw me rapidly advancing earlier than expected.

The Soviets themselves thought losing Moscow was not the end of the world, and based on the way this game models it I'm inclined to agree. They would likely have lost a WitE game, but they would have won the war.

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 56
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 6:56:31 PM   
Crackaces


Posts: 3786
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL


quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.


Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.


Here is what I am suspecting that happened .. Axis went hell bent for objectives and did not surround, isolate, and destroy Soviet units. The Soviet Army even without Moscow and Leningrad grew to some size that in late 1942 was able to steamroll the Germans. If true .. it reinforces my belief that it is a combination of isolation and objectives to win this game as the Germans.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to MattFL)
Post #: 57
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 7:05:13 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MattFL
I'm not usually bothered by manpower losses so long as I hold Lenningrad and Moscow.


lol! I guess you are entitled to! That said... Moscow is not safe yet, there is still time so wait a little for the champagne! ;-)

quote:


ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game



honest comment thank you, so in the case of your game getting back to Berlin in 1944 is more down to your strategic mistake than to the normal flow of the game if it was played without mistakes. Your comment tells me you learned from it, which is what it's all about :-) Same happened to me in my game against Matt, the main reason I know for sure I won't take Leningrad in 1941 is because of too slow decision making and too much caution, the mark of the newbie. I should have gone ruthlessly for the Luga from turn 4 and I didn't before turn 7 I think. Add to this that Matt is a no non-sense player with a solid understanding of strategic and tactic concepts, and all the ingredients were there for failure. So now it's a slug march and I doubt I will get much farther than the Luga. But I learned... :-) And there is still a good possibility at Moscow, even though I was also too slow to get there.

For Moscow. The thing is once it's taken, the damage is done, there is no need to hold it indefinitely. I think it is better to take a leaf from Clausewitz in this, unless there is a big strategic implication, holding territory is rarely important, better think in terms of positionning and managing your troops. So if I take it before first blizzard there are good chances that I will give it back a few turns later.

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to GoodbyeBluesky)
Post #: 58
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 7:16:01 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Here is what I am suspecting that happened .. Axis went hell bent for objectives and did not surround, isolate, and destroy Soviet units.


Well... this might be of course in the case of Goodbyebluesky and Wixit game, I don't know the details so I will leave them to say...

But it's not necessarily the case. In my game against Matt, he just ran away, always staying near the end of my leash except at Pskov where he has dug in deep and early, so result, there was never any chance of pocketing units after turn 1. So all I got were crumbs here and there. And now his OOB is near 4.5 millions on turn 14, and grows fast. And he says he still has a high manpower pool and arms points which is expected. And I didn't take Leningrad which was the main focus of his defense and even though I am 2 hexes from Moscow. He's solidly dug in there also so it's not certain I will get there yet. Time is running short and I probably will have to rely on a winter offensive in november if I see a possibility.

But even if I take it, he will start blizzard with a massive OOB and I will have my hands full. :-)

_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 59
RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy - 7/5/2019 7:22:48 PM   
joelmar


Posts: 200
Joined: 3/16/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Wixit
The Soviets themselves thought losing Moscow was not the end of the world


They might have said so, but I have never read it anywhere, which proves nothing of course. But history tells us they made it the priority of their defensive system, sending all their best units there and working feverishly to dig in to deny the Germans getting there, so maybe not the end of the world, but certainly not a benign thing! ;-)

< Message edited by joelmar -- 7/5/2019 7:23:00 PM >


_____________________________

"The bugle sounds as the charge begins
But on this battlefield no one wins!"

(in reply to joelmar)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: Pskov defense and runner strategy Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.254