GC 41, Mehring (SOV) Kamil (GER)

[Mehring]

Velikie Luki

[Mehring]

Moscow-Kaluga

[Mehring]

Kharkov

[Mehring]

Odessa-Nikolaev

[Mehring]

OB

[Mehring]

Ground

[KamilS]

About front shape - since turn 10 my plan was altered, instead of destroying Mehring industry, which was then beyond my reach, I focused on his army. Because I started war with intention to fall back if things won't turn out as I hoped, shape of front line didn't bother me at all.

So my questions is - what is wrong with falling back to initial position, where I can consolidate my forces, I lose less strength than my opponent gains, so balance of forces will be more favourable.
?

[Mehring]

Air

[Oleg Mastruko]

I tend to agree with most of your assesment Mehring, but..... uhm, how do I say it..... I think it's not up to you to declare the game over [;)]

Kamil should surrender the game if he feels his situation is hopeless, otherwise, I don't see why wouldn't you continue, if you're in such a good shape?

This game has some similarities with my Soviet game with Senno as German. His start was underwhelming. (He failed in the south, Kamil failed in the north.) However slowly he picked up and started playing better and better. I was pretty certain I would crush him over winter and that in the long term he has no hope of winning, but it's not up to me to call the "game over". In the end he surrendered the game - in my opinion, prematurely, he should have played at least till march 42 and assess the situation then. Same goes for Kamil and this game.

[KamilS]

So what is the conclusion - 3M is not enough to beat Soviets, and even preserving your troops will lead you to certain defeat?

Oleg Mastruko

Kamil failed in the north

I didn't fail there, I have just choose not to fight. I failed in south and centre.

[Oleg Mastruko]

Probably, but how can we be sure unless you try?

[Mehring]

Oleg, you may be right about my unilateral declaration of victory but I've been somewhere very similar before, the only difference that my oppenent tried to fight it out over winter. In that case, I broke through his line nearly all across the front and went streaming westwards.

Diplomacy is not my thing and perhaps there's no way to put this nicely to defend my position. Kamil is not improving in my view and he's making all the wrong decisions, making a bad situation worse. Kamil advertised for an expert Russian opponent so I was expecting a very challenging game. It hasn't turned out that way and it is a considerable time investment which I feel I could spend better looking for the game I wanted in the first place.

[KamilS]

So What is your conclusion Mehring. It's not worth playing people who won't eliminate at least 3,5M. Because anything less is chain of mistakes?

I am asking, because it seems to me, that logical consequence of you approach is playing only "GC" campaign jun 41- nov 41.

[Oleg Mastruko]

I really don't have a horse in this race. I came to this thread just because Kamil, who I know from some previous games, asked me to take a look and comment on the game, and his long term chances. His long term chances are obviously very very low, no doubt about it.

So while I agree with your assessment of the situation Mehring, I disagree with the way you handle this. It's not just "diplomacy" as you put it, it's some basic etiquette. Your opponent invested time in this game too. We've seen all sorts of things in AARs, games being abandoned, surrendered prematurely, people giving up while they still had a chance.... but this is the first time I see a guy declaring "victory" unilateraly and refusing to continue, because the war, in his opinion, is already won. If other players start acting like this we may see many "declarations of victory" even though according to game rules it's not over yet.

Surrendering the game is OK, declaring victory when it's not over yet is just rude. IMO you should at least play through the blizzards. Just my opinion (Kamil specifically asked for it). Now please carry on. [8D]

[Mehring]

Determining a victory or loss is to determine the value of an interrelation of losses, surviving forces, ground taken and industry destroyed. If I had lost only 3M men but you had wiped a load of factories and captured a load of important terrain and cities you were intent upon defending, yes, it would be worth continuing. But you haven't, and you're not. Sorry.

[Mehring]

Oleg, yes it is rude to unilaterally end a game, I acknowledge that. It is also rude and selfish for for a player to advertise for an expert opponent without telling them they are themselves, a beginner.

[timmyab]

I must say that I agree with Mehring on this one.A withdrawal from Russia at this point is equal to surrendering,IMO.If you can't achieve your objectives in 1941 then you've got precisely no chance in 1942.It would really be just a waste of time to play on.
In a way it would be interesting to see the game played out, but my money would be on a Soviet 1943 win.

[Aditia]

Apart from anything else, I am intrigued by the "south first approach". The south offers the best tank country in Russia, and a preponderance of force there could give the German player a lot of manouverability to try force Soviet defences to keep moving.

In the North I would keep enough strength to at least be able to get to the Narva and Pskov with sufficient force to defend

[KamilS]

I am just curious, so I ask here instead of starting new topic.

Soviet start with 3997 Manpower production. Around November I guess Mehring got 2800, with practically intact industry.

How big impact on his army would have this 1000 more manpower?

I am asking because I suspect, that if I stood my ground I fought him he would probably regained half of it, so his spring army would be smaller.

I am asking because I don't know formula to count it

a) state of his army with manpower increased by 1000
b) state of his army with manpower increased by 500
c) strength of my shattered by winter army
d) strength of my rested army

question is - is a:d (I retreated) > b:c (I fought) ?

If not, then I don't understand opinion, that I should fight inside Russian territory

Can you please explain?

[Mehring]

Your two dimensional posing of the question goes some way to explaining why you are not succeeding in a complex game like WitE.

Let's assume you successfully retreat to your non-attrition defence line without major loss. I follow you to a line of my choice and dig in. We both refit over the winter and you are then confronted by a defensive wall 3 or 4 hexes deep of level 3, 4, even level 5 forts. You will probably spend most of the summer trying to break through the line as I increase in experience, morale, leadership and combat capabilities of all sorts. You will have no first turn bonus, I will have no railcap penalty. The best you could possibly achieve is what you should have gained in 1941, but realisticly, you won't because the entire co-relation of forces has changed.

You will probably run out of oil as a couple of well placed strikes on Ploesti and Bucharest with 500 odd Pe8 and IL4 will have crippled your oil production.

Alternatively, you attempt to hold in Russia, and organise a fighting withdrawal when the blizzard starts, to a defencible position. You will suffer serious losses, perhaps crippling, depending on the skill of your defence. You may well end up knocked out of Russia anyway, but given an adequate defence, I will be weakened as well as you by the winter fighting. I will have had less time to dig defences and you probably will have less distance to advance before reaching important objectives.

Even if you hold in Russia you're batting on a very sticky wicket. But to withdraw shows me that the monster strike I thought might be deliverered from an unexpected direction by the experienced player you implicitly made yourself out to be, is just not going to come.

Clearly, the relationship between my additional manpower and the manpower, actually, both of us have lost, not just you, in your defending within Russia, is only a small part of the equation you sneeded to have considered.