The Soviet's Most Important Strategic Asset...

[fbs]

... is a little corporal that thinks he's a genius.

There should be a way to reflect this in the game, otherwise the Germans will play it better than history just for the reason that Hitler will not override his generals all the time with stupid decisions.

What do you guys think?

[Senno]

Only if the Soviet player has to wear a silly mustache at the same time.[:D]

[karonagames]

The only reflection of external interference, is the dismissal mechanic, that will remove generals, and cost APs to fix. So at the moment, it is attrition that is the SU's most important strategic asset, as it doesn't really matter how well the axis does, the relative manpower and industrial capacity of the 2 nations is always going to have the most strategic impact.

IMHO.

[Senno]

BA seems to have taken the question far more seriously than I.

[alfonso]

To a certain degree, the image of Hitler as "the mad dictator" who spoilt the East Campaign was created by the self-serving post-war memoirs of some German generals.

[ool]

I agree. When the Russian offensive was a its full force the German generals wanted to keep retreating. Hitler issued the last man last bullet ultimatum. Analysts have credited that order with saving the army from dissolving. On the other hand Shicklegruber did override Guderian's wish to take Moscow right away. His statement," My generals don't understand economics" was laughable considering his generals were far better educated than he. They understood the value of taking Moscow to badly damage the Russian will to fight. That was a major blunder that cost six vital weeks. Something no human player would do.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: ool

On the other hand Shicklegruber did override Guderian's wish to take Moscow right away. His statement," My generals don't understand economics" was laughable considering his generals were far better educated than he. They understood the value of taking Moscow to badly damage the Russian will to fight. That was a major blunder that cost six vital weeks. Something no human player would do.

Probably you are aware that even that (a thesis defended notoriously by Russel Stolfi, "Hitler's Panzer East") is hotly debated today...

[Commanderski]

On a slightly different note.. I love the change in BigA's avatar from what he just had to this one...[:)]

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

To a certain degree, the image of Hitler as "the mad dictator" who spoilt the East Campaign was created by the self-serving post-war memoirs of some German generals.

There are several instances, on both Eastern and Western Fronts, when Hitler's interventions resulted in significant damage to the German war effort. Mainly in trying to gain too many objectives at the same time and, in the end, not achieving any of them. [:)]

[fbs]

Well, Hitler did mess up at Stalingrad, big time... as one example.

Or do you guys think that Stalingrad would have happened even without Hitler's interference?

I don't know about Hitler's stupidity losing what would be an otherwise winnable war. That I don't know. But his aggressiveness seems to have hastened up Germany's demise.

On a similar note, Hitler's atrocities managed to get populations that hated Stalin (Ukraine, Baltic states, Poland, the Tatars) to hate Hitler even more. That is reflected partially in the game, with the Partisans, but the other bad effects from Hitler's "genius" are not.

[Lord_Martin]

Actually I believe that Hitlers decisions throughout the war on the eastern front are well balanced by Stalins refusal to believe in a German attack (in this game reflected by the starting positions and German ability to destroy huge Soviet armies).

[ool]

Debate is inevitable through the eons!

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Senno

Only if the Soviet player has to wear a silly mustache at the same time.[:D]

Well, the German player would have to wear one too

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: ool

On the other hand Shicklegruber did override Guderian's wish to take Moscow right away. His statement," My generals don't understand economics" was laughable considering his generals were far better educated than he. They understood the value of taking Moscow to badly damage the Russian will to fight. That was a major blunder that cost six vital weeks. Something no human player would do.

Probably you are aware that even that (a thesis defended notoriously by Russel Stolfi, "Hitler's Panzer East") is hotly debated today...

Leaving 650,000 irritated Russian on your flank while driving on Mocow. Not a smart move. Not to mention how Hitler's decision allowed the infantry and rail heads to catch up.

In Strategy and Ractics #244 is an interesting articke of this very thing.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: alfonso

To a certain degree, the image of Hitler as "the mad dictator" who spoilt the East Campaign was created by the self-serving post-war memoirs of some German generals.

I have to agree with this. He made his share of bad decisions, but he made a lot of good ones as well, many of them over the direct wishes of the General Staff.

Most of his really insane stuff dates from late 1944-45 when he was, quite possibly, literally insane.

If you look at his decision make for the fist half of the war, he was generally very good. First really big error he made was probably Stalingrad, but that was 3 years into the war.

[alfonso]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Well, Hitler did mess up at Stalingrad, big time... as one example.

See what Weinberg says about Mansteins' role in the Stalingrad debacle:

"Once arrived on the southern front, von Manstein broke with all the other German army and air force generals (NOTE from me: not Goering) and believed it was possible to hold Stalingrad and relieve the beleaguered forces there...[...]. Concerned primarily about his reputation as a daring and always successful military commander, both at the time and after the war, he reinforced Hitler's inclination then and faked the relevant portion of his memoirs after the war."

"By the end of November,...., Manstein was beginning to see how unrealistic his earlier assessment of the situation had been...[...] but this made little difference now...The most favourable time for initiating a breakout had already passed."

A world at arms, Cambridge University Press 1994, p450.

So even that is controversial.

To be fair and remark some decisions I consider to be Hitler's blunders (thence my initial "to a certain degree"): the decision to send 11th Army to Leningrad after Crimea and the premature splitting of the forces assigned to Blau, in order to conquer simultaneously the Stalingrad region and the Caucasus

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: alfonso

ORIGINAL: ool

On the other hand Shicklegruber did override Guderian's wish to take Moscow right away. His statement," My generals don't understand economics" was laughable considering his generals were far better educated than he. They understood the value of taking Moscow to badly damage the Russian will to fight. That was a major blunder that cost six vital weeks. Something no human player would do.

Probably you are aware that even that (a thesis defended notoriously by Russel Stolfi, "Hitler's Panzer East") is hotly debated today...

Leaving 650,000 irritated Russian on your flank while driving on Mocow. Not a smart move. Not to mention how Hitler's decision allowed the infantry and rail heads to catch up.

In Strategy and Ractics #244 is an interesting articke of this very thing.

Once the situation in August 1941 had developed, it was a sensible option to turn and deal with the Kiev grouping, but, consider the situation if Hitler had not meddled with the Marcks, Otto, or OKH plans, which gave more striking power to AGS. Instead of trying to grab too many objectives, in diverging directions, during the same operations, perhaps a concentrated attempt to destroy Soviet military power, if successful, would have eventually gained it all.

A more powerful AGS, with an armoured pincer coming out of Romania (cancelled by Hitler), could have dealt with South-Western Front, whilst still making ground eastwards. AGS and AGC could have emerged from around the Pripyat Marshes and converged toward Moscow, concentrating their striking power, to compensate for the weakening caused by distance.

Hitler's main motive seemed to be in maintaining his own power and ego, even at the expense of the progress of the war. The 'stop order' before Dunkirk may have been driven by the same motive, the need to control his generals, even at the risk of letting his enemy escape. [:)]

[bevans]

To be fair to Hitler (never a popular option), he got more things right than wrong well into '42. The problem was that by then he believed he was a great military genius when he wasn't, became inflexible and failed to recognize that changing circumstances require changing strategy and tactics.

To be fair to WitE, not repeating Hitler's/Germany's errors is balanced by the likelihood that the Soviet player will not repeat Stalin's error of frittering away all SU mobile reserves in counterattacks in July and August '41.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: Lord_Martin

Actually I believe that Hitlers decisions throughout the war on the eastern front are well balanced by Stalins refusal to believe in a German attack (in this game reflected by the starting positions and German ability to destroy huge Soviet armies).

I agree, but Stalin was less proficient at overriding Zhukov by the end of '41, and the Soviet player is already charged with his two major blunders (purging his forces and distributing his forces poorly). He doesn't have a choice, although he is in a position to recover.

Meanwhile the German player can avoid Hitler's madness by mid-43 onwards, where most of its ill effects would be felt.

I find it hard to believe that Hitler's lunacy had no effect on Germany's demise. I find it easy to believe that Germany would have lost anyway, but that a more capable leader instead of Hitler would have been all the same, that I find suspicious.

[Arkady]

Well, Hitler is guilty the same way as OKH
Their struggle for controll did more harm than their decisions alone, several times during summer 1941 Hitler's decisions was far better than OKH but due Halder's effort, orders for army groups commanders was changed or indifferent. "Unfortunately" when struggle was over and Hitler won the control, he stop listen to any advice at all.
On the other way, Stalin was after 1941 smart enough to do not meddle with staff decisions once they issued orders