Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: RedLancer, Joel Billings

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 5531
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
Location: The Zone™

Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by TulliusDetritus »

In WitE, all things being equal, Leningrad could not be defended. Is WitE2 allowing a historical outcome?

Thanks in advance
a nu cheeki breeki iv damke
User avatar
Posts: 11382
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by loki100 »

yes, I think its hard to take but doable.

There are a few issues/differences that are relevant.

Oddly against the AI its harder than HtH (assuming the AI is at morale 110+). That is due to the line forming routine so its easier for the AI to reinforce (if it has the assets) while a human Soviet player needs to make a commitment in advance (rail capacity is fairly limited so hard to redeploy in a hurry - same occurs later around Stalingrad).

In the late beta a cluster of players who have remained active in the WiTE1 community tended to declare it not worth it/not possible to capture. At the same time we have beta AARs (incl the one between Bobo and Glorious Ruse on this forum) where it has been taken.

There is a trade off. That block of poor terrain around the Luga can determine if a German player has a chance (its actually worse if you look at the detailed maps than it appears in game), if they are struggling with low MP and the Soviets have a defense in depth on that sector then you might as well not bother. On the other hand the layout of the Neva hex line is very different and there is a very vulnerable hex making it more feasible to gain a bridgehead.

Equally on the German side of the ledger, replacing losses on the whole Leningrad-Novgorod sector is hard for the Soviets, especially so for the formations assigned to Leningrad if the rail links are cut.

But, city forts make all the city hexes potential fortresses.

make of that analysis what you will [;)]
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by Speedysteve »

(Mental note made that Loki probably won’t be going all guns blazing for LG in our upcoming game[;)])
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
Posts: 8680
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by carlkay58 »

The one thing that I will add is the Soviets control where the units are appearing on the map from the Soviet Reserves. However the appearance hex must be on a connected rail hex at least 10 hexes from an enemy unit. Once you get up around the Narva and Luga Rivers the Soviets will have to bring in their reinforcements well to the east of Leningrad and then move them up through bad terrain to the front. This will mean the Soviet player can be caught out at times and let you capture Leningrad with a quick and decisive four to six turn offensive.

Leningrad is worth 36 VPs which is the equivalent of three or four normal VP city hexes. The amount of effort it takes to capture it can be shifted to the AGS front where Sevastopol is also worth 36 VPs and much more vulnerable in 41. The southern front has many more VP cities and is much harder for the Soviets to defend. The additional FBD unit from AGN is really vital in the south to relieve the supply pressure on the single double line heading east. Thus the argument is there for the Axis to have a large decision to make early in the war.
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 38318
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by Erik Rutins »

I'd say Leningrad is significantly harder to take than in WITE1. It comes down as much as anything to how much the German player wants it, given their ability to shift forces around, and how much the Soviet player wants to keep it. The terrain and map in WITE2 is more historical and more challenging for the attacker, but it's also not nearly as far as many other objectives and not the easiest place to reinforce and supply for the Soviets.
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:46 am

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by colberki »

The loss of Leningrad means reduction of Soviet factories and manpower. Following its capture AGN can shift forces to help capture Moscow. Is this strategy no longer sensible? Else sounds like like we should halt at Pskov and proceeds half heartedly towards Leningrad with infantry only. 4 Panzer Gruppe would then swing S.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31200
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by Joel Billings »

As loki noted, in testing, we had some testers come to believe that stopping at Pskov was the correct thing to do. Right after that, a player took Leningrad in a 2 player game so I think it is impossible to say what is the best strategy. Often the best strategy is the one your opponent didn't anticipate. I do think that Leningrad is harder to take in WitE2 than in WitE, and we think that's the way it should be. But it is not impossible to take. However, one look at the map with the roads turned on will tell you that the big right hook strategy some used in WitE is going to be very difficult if not impossible.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Posts: 907
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:51 am

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by GloriousRuse »

As I may be losing Leningrad this campaign season and consider myself an intermediate player, and I've taken it in HvH, I'd say its possible. I've also seen a few HvH games where the drive got stopped dead. I think Leningrad is one of the first "slow" decisions of the game. The German player is used to flying over the steppes, smashing formations, making pockets and racing for objectives. Short of a substantial early victory in AGN, the Leningrad campaign probably isn't going to look like that - it will be series of hard fighting for everything north of Pskov, lucky to trap a few divisions and often gaining a only one or two hex rows a turn...sometimes just hexes. And that sounds really unappealing to the blitz mindset. The flip is there really aren't that many hexes from Pskov to Leningrad, and once you've reached the lake, three hexes in either direction can close to guarantee the fall. It might very well be worth prying your way forward successfully dooms the city even if it isn't until November or December.

Of course, a few bad holds, a misjudged turn or two, and suddenly there isn't much room for error. But a tighter margin and impossible are very different.

The city itself is a big win. On the VP side it isn't just VP, its VP YOU WERE NEVER SUPPOSED TO HAVE. Given the VP model challenges you to match history or beat it, you only actually need to score 54 more points than the historical Germans to win decisively. This is 36 of those points, where taking Sevastopol (which you will at some point) is 3 of them. Add on its a major population and industrial center, and provides Antwerp-on-the-Baltic for AGN, and it's a big deal. Plus, unless you win the game entire, at some point the Soviets are going to be coming back the other way. If they're starting practically on the doorstep of Pskov and Talinn, you might find the north getting quite uncomfortable in the mid to late war. And of course that shorter front may save you defensive perimeter space, but is goign to translate to soviet armies redploying somewhere else.

Weighing against that, it certainly isn't easy, and it does require a hefty commitment of forces. There is every chance you'll fail. And if you don't grab it in '41...odds are low you'll ever get it. So, work for a major advantage in the one period it might work, or send those forces somewhere they might achieve a decisive result, knowing you'll never have the shot again and might be in a bad way when the tide turns?
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

In WitE, all things being equal, Leningrad could not be defended. Is WitE2 allowing a historical outcome?

Thanks in advance

Leningrad is a pain for both sides. I took Leningrad in BETA too but would now consider who I am playing if I want to try. The expenditure of German resources to take 36 VP when other low hanging fruits are available for much less in my eyes is a better ploy then a possibility of Leningrad. But that is just me.
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:37 pm

RE: Leningrad: WITE1 vs WITE2

Post by M_B »

I took the city in the Road to Leningrad mission vs the AI on normal difficulty, but I can't imagine taking it against a human opponent. I had to take risks with the spearhead that I think a human opponent would have leapt on.

Was fun though. Good mission to learn the game.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”