Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

[FredSanford3]

It seems that willingly surrendering vast chunks of territory for the sake of force preservation is a viable tactic both sides can use at times. This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

So how about making the penalty similar to 'reality'? If an HQ moves east (Soviet) or west (German) more than X hexes, the probability of the commander getting executed goes WAY up. The threshold (X) should be high enough that normal tactical manuevering isn't affected, nor are combat-induced displacements.

I suggested this in the Stat move thread and Reconvent noted that a player could exploit this by appointing poor leaders prior to a retreat. My reply was (a) you'd be wasting APs, and (b) that wouldn't be the first time some patsy was promoted to a position doomed to fail.

I think it would be fairly easy to implement, and have the virtue of being realistic. If the German army withdrew wholesale from Russia in the late fall of 41, I'm fairly confident that there would have been a bunch of dead German generals as a result.

[Zort]

This is always a discussion with the east front. The soviet players aren't going to let themselves get pocketed so they give up land. Therefore having a larger army during the winter.

No player wants to be restricted by Hitler or Stalin since that does away with the what if factor. The only real Hitler rule in the game is that the army is not allowed to prepare for winter.

If you put in any type of restrictions it should be in the form of an option IMO.

[FredSanford3]

Leaders get executed now without player approval. Withdrawals happen regardless of what the player wants. There's more than the just the winter prep, which I wouldn't lay at Hitler's feet exclusively anyhow. I think they developed the game with the explicit understanding that the player is not Hitler or Stalin.

edit: if allowing ahistorical retreats for the sake of force preservation is 'optional', why not make free setup, player controlled withdrawals, the whole thing optional? Not that that would be a bad thing, an unrestricted 'what if' option can be as entertaining as well, but I think the intention was to attempt to create a simulation of what the opposing sides were faced with historically. And historically, neither STAVKA nor OKH had the authority to willingly concede huge chunks of land.

[cookie monster]

Hitler and Stalin were kinda extreme in some of the things they did.

Executions etc.

Why would the player have to emulate any of their strategies?

Most Russian players would rather give up territory than have divisions encircled to a panzer blitzkrieg.

If the Germans are using a World War One slugfest you'll find the Russians up for it.

[FredSanford3]

This option cuts both ways. The Soviets would be compelled to stand and fight in 1941 for the same reasons as they were compelled to fight IRL. The game does not put the player in Hitler or Stalin's shoes now.

[FredSanford3]

Mainly I'm trying to keep the large retreats from happening, like Germany pulling back to Poland for winter, or Russia falling back past Kiev without a fight.

[cookie monster]

Its encirclement everyone scared of.

Not much option but to retreat when a salient develops.

[FredSanford3]

That's why I said there should be a threshold distance before this kicks in. You could withdraw from pockets, but not 30 hexes back.

[Flaviusx]

If you are running away 30 hexes, you're doing it wrong.

[LiquidSky]

My friend and I are about to restart a game where he ran back as fast as he coud as the Russians, only for him to discover that a lots of crap is still crap. With Moscow about to be taken, he has decided that letting the Germans take land for free is a very bad idea.

[FredSanford3]

The '30 hex' thing wasn't meant to be literal.

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL:  LiquidSky
 
  My friend and I are about to restart a game where he ran back as fast as he coud as the Russians, only for him to discover that a lots of crap is still crap.  With Moscow about to be taken, he has decided that letting the Germans take land for free is a very bad idea.

I agree, make the Germans pay for the terrain. Don't be stupid (that goes out to any Budenny's reading...) but fight, use the terrain.  A mass wholesale retreat means the Germans will just be closer to the objectives when they decide to HQ buildup and surround the entire lot in August or so.
 
You don't have to be Stalin, but you don't have to surrender everything at the first sight of a panzer either.

[Flaviusx]

I make a strong stand on the Dnepr, myself, including the Smolensk landbridge.

If you do a pure runaway past that the entire map opens up with terrain far more favorable to the Germans, especially in the south, but even the Moscow area isn't particularly amazing defensive terrain.

[Aurelian]

I'd rather not force players to behave the way their counterparts did IRL.

Unless of course you like playing Germany, knowing from the start you can't win because it would be ahistorical if you did.

Huge waste of time that would be.

Really, how far is one willing to go to prevent "ahistorical" play?

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I make a strong stand on the Dnepr, myself, including the Smolensk landbridge.

That seems to me (again, speaking from my VAST experience [;)]) as a perfect spot - the Panzers are over their intial 2-turn rush and in need of a rest, the infantry is struggling to catch up, and even a seemingly light presence is enough to build on and force the German player to in turn plan and build up - perhaps at worst 3-4 turns of time, the one thing that is in short supply.

[Zemke]

As it stands the Germans have great difficulty killing enough Russians, but are massacred in and by the41 winter. What if you invaded, killed as many Russians as possible then retreated back to Poland for the winter. Shorter front, the likelihood of "winning" against a human is slim, and then try to expand your front in 42, where in Poland would you have to go to get out of the Blizzard?

[randallw]

What about a penalty on national morale if the other side captures a major city?

[Zort]

I say let the russians retreat but give the germans the ability to reduce the blizzard effects by digging in or something. To me making the germans have to be stupid is like freezing all the russian units every other turn...

[jjdenver]

Just to be clear, both sides authorized large retreats on the east front. It's a fallacy to say that neither side was able to retreat.

If we want to simulate Soviet command problems in 1941 it might be possible to do that by randomly decreasing the movement value of Soviet units attached to an army at start of the turn. So for example on turn 3 the Soviets might have 5 armies randomly affected. All divisions attached to these 5 armies would lose 75% of their movement points. Something like that.

[randallw]

Someone on this forum messed around with different strategies; he mentioned he pulled back as much of the Axis units he could for the winter, as far back as his own border, caused a lot of Soviet computer casualties since they retook ground beyond their railhead.

The casualties were from his offensive once the winter passed.