Minimizing ahistorical massive retreats

[Flaviusx]

Proud Monster actually allows you to produce massive pockets, Aurelian.

It's a very neat and unique boardgame. For starters: no ZOCs. It might be my favorite all time east front boardgame of all, even including Fire in the East/Scorched Earth. The political rules work very well in the context of that game, and the Soviet player has to carefully guage what he can hold on to and abandon on a turn to turn basis. (Full disclosure: I wrote up a strategy guide for Command Magazine on how to set up the Sovs to deal with this.)

But it's part of an entire package. You can't just surgically detach this single rule and graft it to this game without considering the context.

[Aurelian]

I never played it myself. In WiTE 2nd edition, pockets that could trace a supply path to a personel center defended at normal strength.

I know what you mean about the grafting. We tried to graft some 2nd edition rules to the 1st edition WiTE. Didn't work real well.

Wonder if your guide is at web grognards........

[jjdenver]

I hear the guys posting about not being forced to repeat Soviet mistakes. However, 1941 was a special case for the Soviets. Stalin feared political instability if he allowed the Germans to take territory from him. Because of this he forced the Soviets to forego retreats in many cases and ordered nonsense counterattacks in many cases. Once he realized in 1942 that his USSR wasn't going to fragment if he lost territory - he and STAVKA began to be more flexible when it came to giving up territory.

So yes it's nice to not have to repeat historical mistakes - but if the player is not in the role of Stalin - then in 1941 the overall reluctance by the Soviets to retreat was out of the hands of everyone other than Stalin - it was his paranoia about political instability that caused the stand fast policy.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

[jjdenver]

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

I think you might find in PBEM that the panzers can pull off some extremely surprising pockets. In one PBEM game that I thought I was winning quite handily as Soviets the Germans managed to absolutely shock me with a 24 division pocket that I thought the panzers could never close in a single turn - they banged through multiple divisions over a distance of about 180 miles (combined pincer arms movement) in a single turn. It was a treat to see if I weren't the victim. The following turn they managed another 12 division pocket. It's hard to overestimate the ingenuity of a human opponent or of the panzers in 1941.

[jjdenver]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Good post Aurelian but I'm not so sure the shoe will be on the other foot. The Soviets don't have a lot of reason to avoid retreating that I can see - and they didn't historically either - it was Stalin's paranoia that caused them to stand and fight when they shouldn't have in a lot of cases. Losing the manpower centers and having to move the factories is not great but is better it seems than losing more of the army. Perhaps if winter is more reasonable - or preparing for it makes a difference - we can see Germans take advantage of the Soviet "run-away" strategy in 1941 to really seize some key geographic objectives in 1942 (oil, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc)

It's really interesting that you point out that the German command also labored under a lot of silly restrictions. Even as early as the first week or two of the advance by AGN, the panzers were held up because Leeb wasn't sure whether his mission was to go for Leningrad or to protect the left flank of AGC. I only mention it because I'm reading about it right now in the very excellent (surprisingly excellent) book "A War to be Won"

[Muzrub]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

What are the penalties for escaping from a large encirclement as the game does it? What of losing guns, tanks- trucks, supplies?

I'm not attacking you, please know that- but comparing small or large groups of men to what is actually escaping, 100,000, 150,000 by not fighting their way out of a pocket- but just by slipping through unaffected other than supply etc etc is a little over the top.
I find these undecided hexes, especially once the Soviets AI begin to go 6-7-8 units deep is very annoying. I know people want this monster to be historical- but the Soviet fanboys constantly point fingers at the Axis lads who want to encircle (which was historical) and complain that we want the chance to achieve that aim (but the fanboys claim unhistorical abilities on movement, rail and line jumping as fine!) by hamstringing (a little) the Soviets in '41.

Screw this I'm off for a beer! Its 'International' Australia day tomorrow!

[Aurelian]

This Soviet "fanboy", (a recent one, as in every EF game I played at this level I'd rather be the Germans), doesn't want to be shackled by "idiot rules" unless you do the same to both sides.

I also haven't seen any evidence that Soviet rail capacity is ahistorical.

[PMCN]

Oh the heck with it, I'm with Flaviusx on this.  I think the biggest mistake you can make is to give up ground too easily as the soviet.

You must force the German player to transition to deliberate attacks and force him to mass forces.  You must wear down his units by forcing them to fight for ground.  You must trade space for time and preserve your forces.  But you will be pocketed, you will have to fight in bad terrain (as in open terrain), you must counter attack when you can (though even a Rumanian infantry division takes about 5 Rifle divisions to shove back), and you must make the units that get pocketed work for you.  Your losses are going to high but that is another thing you have to accept.

None of that is accomplished by running away.  If you run away you loose a lot more in the end then if you fight carefully chosen defensive battles, plus from time to time you have to take a risk to gain a week or whatever.

It is pretty nerve wracking and you will mis-time stuff and things will go wrong but phased withdraws is the only way to accomplish your job of throwing a spanner into the works and delaying the German advance.

[vinnie71]

ORIGINAL: Muzrub

ORIGINAL: jjdenver

ORIGINAL: Offworlder
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...

I don't see this as a problem. The Soviets were able to escape pockets that in game terms had no open hexes. They could break out at night or through bad terrain - and often did. They exfiltrated in small groups and in large groups. Pockets weren't "tight" in a lot of cases and large formations could and did break out right through/by German units.

You can see great examples of this in Raus' memoirs as his 6th panzer ends up fighting the same Soviet units that he's bypassed over and over in 1941. And in the book "bloody triangle" - I think I'm getting the name right - about the battles of AGS in the first few weeks of the war.

What are the penalties for escaping from a large encirclement as the game does it? What of losing guns, tanks- trucks, supplies?

I'm not attacking you, please know that- but comparing small or large groups of men to what is actually escaping, 100,000, 150,000 by not fighting their way out of a pocket- but just by slipping through unaffected other than supply etc etc is a little over the top.
I find these undecided hexes, especially once the Soviets AI begin to go 6-7-8 units deep is very annoying. I know people want this monster to be historical- but the Soviet fanboys constantly point fingers at the Axis lads who want to encircle (which was historical) and complain that we want the chance to achieve that aim (but the fanboys claim unhistorical abilities on movement, rail and line jumping as fine!) by hamstringing (a little) the Soviets in '41.

Screw this I'm off for a beer! Its 'International' Australia day tomorrow!

Yes large numbers of men escaped, but not in organised fashion, with guns and armour and support etc.They did not fight out of the pockets, they just happened to avoid the Germans. In the game there are many instances where a particular soviet formation has say 10000 men but only say 9000 are actually destroyed in any way. that would be closer to reality. Basically it mimicks the fact that parts either joined the partisans or simply walked out of a pocket. But what I was saying here is the fact that Soviet formations just walk out, irrelevant of ZOC and severed rail connections. That was simply impossible in real life... to make a western equivalent, the Germans escaping Falaise with all their equipment or the British BEF moving off with all its equipment out of Dunkirk.

As to the historical ability of the Soviets to move large numbers of formations from one sector to another, one should note the long lulls between one offensive and another during the war. Most of the rail capacity was taken up simply trying to move supplies and more importantly, ammunition forward. In game parlance, this almost qualifies as teleporting from one area to another, with sometimes the AI moving a whole front worth of troops in front of you, quite magically. That is ridiculuos especially when you have just finished destroying the best part of a front down south, only to face a neat row of soviet formations just in front of you which popped out of nowhere.