Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

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?

+1
have experienced this already.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: 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...

Amen. Have been preaching this for a while now. I don't think it should be one without the other. If you don't have something to limit sov retreat which changes things massively, then you can't treat German units that are prepared (as much as game allows) to suffer crazy loses. The combo is will be fatal to an axis player playing a decent sov opponent.

[VictorCharlie]

This is the sort of retreating by the AI that I think is a bit excessive.

I went a bit reckless to try and encircle Moscow but didn’t expect a withdrawal on this scale.

[gradenko2k]

This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

A big part of the appeal of these games is the ability to perform moves which you know wouldn't have ever been authorized by the nation's respective leaders, such as Manstein's Backhand Blow, Guderian not redeploying to AGS or STAVKA actually retreating to form proper defensive lines.

I suppose that may also imply that it should be allowed to assume the Germans were properly prepared for a winter campaign, although it depends on how "fluid" we allow the pre-game assumptions to be, since the game starts on June 22, 1941, and proper winter preparation might have needed to be started prior to that.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

This was obviously not feasible IRL since neither Stalin nor Hitler would have authorized such a move.

A big part of the appeal of these games is the ability to perform moves which you know wouldn't have ever been authorized by the nation's respective leaders, such as Manstein's Backhand Blow, Guderian not redeploying to AGS or STAVKA actually retreating to form proper defensive lines.

I suppose that may also imply that it should be allowed to assume the Germans were properly prepared for a winter campaign, although it depends on how "fluid" we allow the pre-game assumptions to be, since the game starts on June 22, 1941, and proper winter preparation might have needed to be started prior to that.

I agree wholeheartedly, and I at least would be opposed to any "fixes" to the current system which involve limiting player choice.

I do think that many posters here have a valid point though, which is that the ability to "not repeat history's mistakes" actually helps the soviets more so than the germans. This really works on two levels I think:

1) Historically, the soviets made a lot of bad decisions, especially, but not limited to the early war. To be sure, the Germans made a lot of bad decisions too, but I think that on balance the Germans made significantly better military decisions than the Russians did.

2) Arguably the worst decision the soviet made was Stalin's disasterous "no retreat" policy in Summer of 1941. Players have no obligation to follow this policy. Arguably the worst decision the german's made was Hitlers "ignore the winter" policy that resulted in massive German casualties in the winter of 1942. Players *are* required to make this decision since the game engine hard-codes the soviet 1942 blizzard advantage.

I'd naively assume that a game mechanic change which allowed one of the following might help:

a) Units within x hexes of their railhead have significantly reduced blizzard casualties (this would encourage the Germans to dig in and not push for the last few yards)

b) For a cost of (a lot) of rail points, the Germans could "winterize" a division in the same way they can render it static. Winterized divisions take reduced blizzard casualties.

Idea would be that if the Germans were willing to sacrifice some of the depth of their summer offensive they could likewise reduce the impact of the blizzard.

[MilRevKo]

The Soviet player should not be forced or chained to the mistakes that were made during the invasion of 1941. And, no Soviet player worth his salt should have 70 divisions pocketed. (that was just one of the pockets: 59 Inf divs and the equivalent of 11 armor) in 1941

This is in reference to PBEM games. It is by far the most important decision of the summer of 41, how far to pull back??? To far and the German takes the land for no cost, not far enough and STAVKA will be fighting supplied German units. But, in no way should a player be forced keep a distanced based on where the enemy is or is not.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: MilRevKo

The Soviet player should not be forced or chained to the mistakes that were made during the invasion of 1941. And, no Soviet player worth his salt should have 70 divisions pocketed. (that was just one of the pockets: 59 Inf divs and the equivalent of 11 armor) in 1941

This is in reference to PBEM games. It is by far the most important decision of the summer of 41, how far to pull back??? To far and the German takes the land for no cost, not far enough and STAVKA will be fighting supplied German units. But, in no way should a player be forced keep a distanced based on where the enemy is or is not.

I agree on the merits (I don't want to keep the soviets chained in place either), but just because I don't like a proposed solution doesn't mean I don't think there's a problem .

Right now I think the game favors the soviets for the aforementioned reasons.

Other mechanics need to be put in place to balance this out or, alternately, victory conditions need to be adjusted.

Frankly I'd speculate that against two skilled human players, lasting into 1945 as the axis would be something of a surprise so the "historical" outcome, far from being a draw, actually should represent an axis minor victory.

[schwarm]

ORIGINAL: pat.casey

Frankly I'd speculate that against two skilled human players, lasting into 1945 as the axis would be something of a surprise so the "historical" outcome, far from being a draw, actually should represent an axis minor victory.

Since the western allies ended up occupying most of Germany, holding off the Russians until 1945 was a minor victory of sorts. [:)]

[vinnie71]

Also another point about retreats is that it is presently too easy to escape a pocket if it is not completely sealed, zoc or no zoc. All you need is one open hex...
 
Presently, the game as various posters suggested, punishes the Axis for mistakes that a player may avoid with a little more common sense (ie blizzard) while the Soviet player can actually make a run for it initially, and thus is not tied to same historical preconditions as the Axis. Coupled with several other advantages that the SU enjoys and that have (little) to do with history (like garrisoning the Finnish border with forts or the ability to have factories run away even if a city is surrounded or the teleporting of half their army to any place in one week etc) while the Axis are tied down to historical outcomes or supposed outcomes (like not allowing Axis minor divisions to rebuild if destroyed or attach SU), the Axis are basically hamstrung from the get go because only the SU has the ability to substantially modify its army etc.

[FredSanford3]

Making this suggestion I think has maybe left an impression that I'm in favor of a 'strict' historical approach.  I'm not actually, I'd think that ideally there'd be a variety of settings that were optional. There could even be an editable VP 'handicap' cost associated with them that pbem players could agree on in advance.  These could also be used to adjust the AI's challenge.  I'd think that in the perfect nonbudgetary world the devs would like to have the ability to give the players more options.  Things I'd like as options:
1. No Retreat enforced/not enforced.
2. German winter preps allowed/not allowed.
3. German production all automatic/player controlled
4. Weather- historical/random/variable w/ 1 week forecast
5. Player- controlled TOE's and equipment assignments on/off
6. 'Handicapping' Rail Points adjustment for either player
7. German unit withdrawal substitutions
 
any others?  I don't really see many of these being likely, but I'm just stirring the pot.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: randallw

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

This seems like a very good idea to me.Could also be extended to such events as crossing the Dnepr, excessive casualties etc.
You could also award the Soviet player a certain amount of victory points for every turn that he can hold some of the more important locations in the west of the country.

[2ndACR]

A lot of this depends on your opponent. Both my PBEM opponents are fighting every step of the way and quite good too. That will slow you tremendously. If they Sir Robin, well, they will be on the short end of supply come winter.

[Altaris]

Having an increased number of VP's each turn for early capture of key locations seems the easiest and cleanest method of handling this situation, IMO. If the Soviets want to pull back, so be it, but there should be a big point cost associated with it. Same should be applied for reasonable areas in Belorussia, Baltic States, and Eastern Poland for the Axis in blizzard conditions, though this pull back is of less concern, IMO, since such a pull-back is still a big hindrance to the Axis.
 
I think a great way to handle the Soviet one is to reduce rail capacity for Soviet side by 1/3. Right now, Soviets have the capability of performing 3 major rail actions each turn: evac'ing industry, railing units out of potential pocket danger, and railing new reinforcements in. Historically, they were able to do two of these (getting industry out and bringing in reinforcements) while leaving the forward units to attack futilely. So I think that means rail cap should be about 2/3 of what it currently is on the Soviet side... right now they just get too much, there should be some hard choices involved in '41.

[vinnie71]

One thing that bothers me though is that the AI (possibly even a human player) can just ignore the fact that a pocket has had all rail tracks cut off. One can still manage to pull out anything from a pocket as long as there is one hex open.

[Nicholas Bell]

The XTR boardgame "Proud Monster" (yes, odd name for a wargame) handled the problem with elegance.  It had sudden death victory conditions which changed over time.  If the Soviet player lost too many victory locations too quickly, it was game over - representing a coup against Stalin.  As the game progressed, the number of victory locations needed for a sudden death increased to a point of stabilization.  It "forced" the Soviet player to think a bit more like Stalin by giving them an incentive not too retreat *too* quickly (which is a common problem in wargames covering Barbarossa).

The original SPI "War in the East" 1st edition included optional "Hitler No Retreat" rules which really made the front line look something historical with all kinds of salients later in the war.  Basically once a hex was taken by the German player, it could not be voluntarily given up unless the supply line was constricted to a width of 1 hex between Soviet ZOCs (ie until it was too late).  When playing, I modified this allowing a plea to Hitler for withdrawal before this condition based on a low percentage chance die roll.  This simulated the few times when Hitler actually allowed retreat (Operation Buffalo - the retreat from the Rzhev Salient - comes to mind).

I am not sure why computer wargame designers choose not to utilize the many decades worth of board wargame design experience in their search for solutions.

[Flaviusx]

Yes, Proud Monster was an excellent game back in the day.

That said, I remain totally unconvinced by the need for rules to prevent runaways in this game. Running away is a mistake on purely military terms and it's looking much better than it really is because we have inexperienced Axis players going up against inexperienced Soviets.

There are things the Axis can do to punish the runaway. Conversely, there are strong reasons for the Soviet to fight hard no further back than the Dnepr, and to delay an advance to the Dnepr as long as possible.

I don't runaway myself. I'm actually looking to launch counterattacks by turns 4-5 on certain parts of the front. (Sometimes earlier.) I do not at all consider the runaway to be the most effective defense for the Soviets.

[randallw]

What about situations where the Axis player breaks through in the south?  There aren't a lot of places for the Soviet side to force the Axis player into a slow advance.  Is that an appropriate area for controlled runaways?

[Aurelian]

No rules are needed to limit "runaways."

Play as the Sovs and do it.

I am, I did. And now wish I didn't.

And I really dislike artifical controls so the Axis can get their huge pockets.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No rules are needed to limit "runaways."

Play as the Sovs and do it.

I am, I did. And now wish I didn't.

And I really dislike artifical controls so the Axis can get their huge pockets.

No kidding. One of the beauties of this game is that you can deal with the pure dynamics of a vast front.
I find (playing against the AXIS normal AI in 1942) that working out how much of the available forces should be
active and motorized and fully built up and supported is far more interesting than fooling with attempts to
re-create Mister Stalin's Mental Problems. Giving the players a reasonable range of options and letting them
work out how to get things done is far more interesting.

[Aurelian]

And I doubt that any Axis player will want to equally hamstrung by Hitler's decisions.

Want to retreat? Nope.

I can take Leningrad!! No you can't. Herr Hitler said no. You have to starve it out.

It's 1942, I want to take Moscow. Sorry, Mr Hitler says you don't understand economics. So all offensives are to be made toward the oil centers...

I see a board game mentioned above. Now, I've played AH's Russian Front and SPI's War in the East. In neither one, did I see huge pockets. In WiTE, what I did see was the Sovs suffer from shock when they lose 100 units.

I also remember taking Leningrad in 41 and Moscow in 42. But then again, AGS didn't get too far. (WiTE)

But I never saw anyone saying "The Soviets are running away too fast."

I'll bet that when the German players get much more experience, the shoe will be on the other foot.