Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: janh
For the idea of additional rules, I recall that Q-Ball (or was it Cannonfodder?) suggested that VP points for holding cities on a per turn basis, maybe even skewed upward for the more forward cities for the initial turns in 7 and 8/41, would be an incentive to hold on to them as long as possible.

I guess I wasn't clear enough...this is the same thing I've been suggesting. I am not suggesting to "force" the Sovs (or the Germans) to do anything, but to give them some incentives to defend west (or attack east) which are generally lacking at the moment. They can ignore the incentives if they don't think they are worth it.

[Peltonx]

It could be an option players pick to use.

Your pt is valid for sure, but players are going to copy other players opening moves no matter what if they work. Thats not a reason to nerf it.

A good move or tactic should not be nerfed just because its possible historicaly.

The Russian never would have freely given up so much ground in the south, as per the general Russian tactic happening now.

Russian players have no reason to fight historically now, so if the Lvov option is nerfed they keep retreating and have a huge army come winter. This will throw the game way off and 1.05 has the balance very close.

Sure some poeple will be nice and fight forward, but they dont have to.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

Well the thing about this Lvov pocket business that annoys me is that it forces a runaway.

SW Front can actually put up a good fight against AGS west of the Dnepr for quite a while absent the Lvov pocket. You do not in fact want to run away as the Soviet here, provided you actually had the forces available.

Don't believe me? Try the Kiev scenario.

So Axis players claiming that the pocket is a cure for Soviet runaways have this exactly wrong. The pocket largely removes the ability to fight a stubborn defense in the western ukraine. The early activation of the Romanians is also a significant factor. The Dnepr itself is being crossed around turn 6 in most of these games now. This is a fantastically accelerated advance.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Russian players have no reason to fight historically now, so if the Lvov option is nerfed they keep retreating and have a huge army come winter. This will throw the game way off and 1.05 has the balance very close.

This sentence is really the essence of the issue.

The fact that the Sovs don't have to repeat the dumb Sov mistakes of 1941 means that 9 time out of ten, the Russian army will be stronger, perhaps much stronger, than it was historically. This will "throw the game way off" in that it will no longer be very close to what happened historically, but that is an INEVITABLE consequence of freeing Sov players from historical strategic blunders. And it is Sov players that supposedly complain about the Germans being free to deviate from history? In fact it is German players who are mistaken to think that no matter what, they are "entitled" to a weak Sov army in 1942, along with a glorious 1942 offensive. [EDIT] In other words, "Let the Sovs avoid the historical mistakes in 1941, but the Sovs should still be as weak as they were historically in 1942." Doesn't really make sense to me...

The only real solution (or actually potential solution, because I think it would be difficult to get right) is to either give the Sovs more incentive to defend West (and thus put more troops at risk), or to make it harder for them to retreat as quickly as they would like (with the same effect).
Forcing a "balance" where none is warranted inevitably reduces the realism of the game.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
So Axis players claiming that the pocket is a cure for Soviet runaways have this exactly wrong. The pocket largely removes the ability to fight a stubborn defense in the western ukraine. The early activation of the Romanians is also a significant factor. The Dnepr itself is being crossed around turn 6 in most of these games now. This is a fantastically accelerated advance.

Though fighting a flexible defense in the Western Ukraine is difficult, yet doable (I think).

The Runaway strategy seems to offer an effective counter to an early Dnepr crossing. But I have yet to see anyone playing an effective Lower Dnepr defense in 1941 (i.e. the Germans don't cross). The line is too long, Soviet weak divisions are deployed too thin to realistically contest the crossing and might find themselves into big trouble when flanked. So I consider fortifying it as a waste of time, since holding it is wishful thinking (very much like the Upper Dnepr and the Land Bridge). I think is much more effective to regard it as "speed bump" while you fortify somewhere you can really defend yourself.

[*Lava*]

Personally, I don't like the Lvov pocket opening as I think it does fly in the face of history, however, as an Axis player you really have no other viable option. For example, note that Pelton has stated (and I have read others AARs who have done so), that it is possible to create a Kiev pocket... but this only occurs as a result of first using the Lvov pocket.

Overall, in most AARS the Axis create pockets well West (i.e., the border) than actually happened in the war. So something is, IMHO, out of wack.

I have on a number of cases theorized that the reason for this is because the routing mechanism doesn't reflect historical unit behavior. And I think every Axis player out there intrinsically knows this because as they open the game they do the best they can to avoid "touching" routed Sov units for fear they will almost literally fly across the map.

Fix the routing mechanism so that the Axis can push across the board and then encircle deeper into Sov territory and the Lvov pocket will disappear and the Kiev pocket will instantly present itself.

The problem, IMHO, is not the specific opening moves of the Axis players, it is a flaw in the way the war is simulated.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

[Q-Ball]

The Lvov pocket is definitely not historically possible, I agree there. But getting across the Dnepr in force in September, and still making it to Rostov, isn't possible in-game vs. a reasonably competent Soviet player. The Germans will have a very tough time coming close to history without it.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The Lvov pocket is definitely not historically possible, I agree there. But getting across the Dnepr in force in September, and still making it to Rostov, isn't possible in-game vs. a reasonably competent Soviet player. The Germans will have a very tough time coming close to history without it.

By September, things in Smolensk and whereabouts would have long gone south. And I mean it literally and metaphorically. Any Soviet player with eyes would see the concentric movement coming (perhaps too late, but they would see it nonetheless).

If there's something that terrifies me as a Soviet player is when AGC and AGS decide to work together People tend to use AG's in isolation (historical). But they work much better when cooperating (ahistorical). And "cooperation" is not slicing one chunk of AGC to be given to AGS

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
1) I hate to keep bringing this up, but IRL life the war was very heavily stacked against the Germans; in fact the current version of the game IMO is slanted too far in favor of the Germans, but I guess we'll see. I don't want to see changes just to make the game "fair", I want a game as realistic as possible, with "fairness" determined by the victory conditions, not hacks to the game to keep it "balanced".

In that case, the Germans should in all fairness be given a 0% chance of winning WITE, because realistically with hindsight, we can see that the German war effort in the east was doomed from the start. Why bother wasting time to create a 'game', when we can sit and watch a well made documentary (or read a well written/researched book) that will take us through the battles, events, politics, and tough dicesions made on the Eastern Front?

But then, we DO want to 'waste' our time (or maybe avoiding the wife/girlfriend!?) creating and playing a game and in the end, it is just that: a game that involves fun. To make any game fun, it must give a reasonable chance of winning to either side.

[Schmart]

Personally, I think the game as it currently exists is about realistically balanced, assuming that both sides play historically. However of course neither side will play historically, because that would firstly mean that the Russians should be incapable of carrying out an organized fighting retreat in the summer of 41. If the Russian player did NOT play some kind of organized fighting retreat in the summer of 41, the German player would tear him to shreads, much moreso than historically. The only way for the Germn player NOT to tear the Russians to shreads in a fighting retreat, would be for the German to play more historically. Neither side will end up playing historically, because part of the whole point of the game is to explore what one can do by avoiding the mistakes of history.

Go ahead and nerf the Lvov pocket (and the opening Bialystok pocket, and the Lenningrad right hook, and the shifting of a Pz Korps from AGC to AGS, etc...), but one must then also nerf the ability of the Russian to conduct any semblance of an organized fighting withdrawl in the summer of 41, among other items.

I think that as long as production, game mechanics, combat engine, etc. are all reasonably accurate and realistic, anything that the players do is fair game, barring 'gamey' tactics which exploit the system, such as HQ Build-up, carpet defence in 41-42, etc. Shifting forces from one part of the front to another or making a stronger drive in one area than was done historically, are simply in-game choices made by the players to try something different, and make strategic or operational decisions based on preference or the game situation.

I don't see the Lvov pocket as gamey and needing to be nerfed. The German players simply decides to push 1st Pz Group on a southern hook, rather than drive due east. Would the Germans realistically have gone for a Lvov pocket? The inital German plan in France was for a mechanized version of the Schlieffen Plan. Instead, Hitler took von Manstein's proposal...Who's to say a Lvov Pocket wasn't suggested at some point during German staff planning for Barbarossa and rejected for one reason or another? If the game mechanics are correct and allow for the possibility to pull off a Lvov pocket, then it is fair game.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Schmart
I think that as long as production, game mechanics, combat engine, etc. are all reasonably accurate and realistic, anything that the players do is fair game, barring 'gamey' tactics which exploit the system, such as HQ Build-up, carpet defence in 41-42, etc.

Sorry, I think this statement is rather funny. What you call "gamey" tactics others consider either an integral part of the game (HQ Build-Up) or tactics necessitated by the game engine that you consider reasonably accurate (carpet defense). You probably consider a checkerboard defense gamey too (I do!), but try playing as Sov without it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Schmart
In that case, the Germans should in all fairness be given a 0% chance of winning WITE, because realistically with hindsight, we can see that the German war effort in the east was doomed from the start. Why bother wasting time to create a 'game', when we can sit and watch a well made documentary (or read a well written/researched book) that will take us through the battles, events, politics, and tough dicesions made on the Eastern Front?

But then, we DO want to 'waste' our time (or maybe avoiding the wife/girlfriend!?) creating and playing a game and in the end, it is just that: a game that involves fun. To make any game fun, it must give a reasonable chance of winning to either side.

Well, I wouldn't say 0%, but it should be quite low. If people want an 50% chance to win the WAR as the Germans, they should play Hearts of Iron or something like that, it just fantasy. That is why victory points are important, to allow German players to win the GAME while losing the WAR.

[wosung]

Why do people think AG South could supply more Panzer forces or even another full Panzer group in Summer 1941?

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

That is why victory points are important, to allow German players to win the GAME while losing the WAR.

Which is exactly why I bought the game.

Nevertheless, even with all the "exploits" that the Axis players have, don't be surprised during PBEM when the Axis player quits in the winter of 41/42.

I think most folks who read the forum know there is a "threshold" that the Axis must obtain in order to remain competitive into 42. I am certain that I could not reach that threshold against a human player so I don't even bother with PBEM.

From my POV when folks are searching for "gimmicks" just to try to be competitive, it means something is wrong with how the game plays.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek


You say that doing something to prevent the "T1 Grand Opening" would prevent anything like the Kiev Pocket. The Germans didn't do anything like the "T1 Grand Opening" - actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening, since I think it was Klydon the one who came forward with the concept first. And they got their Kiev pocket - and another one, which wasn't either small around Uman - basically at the same time. In terms of game time, that was in Turn 12? And AGS got to Kharkov, Stalino and Rostov...

Well, as much as I would like to take credit for a manuver like that, in the interest of public disclosure, I can't claim it as my own. [:)]

I was one of several involved in a discussion that started in January as we were trying to evolve tactics to help the Germans with their opening when it had become clear the Germans absolutely have to have a couple of good initial turns or they can forget it in terms of a meaningful game (IE, the game is very unforgiving for a German who does not have a good plan and/or makes a lot of mistakes).

Most of the conversation revolving around AGS discussions was in this thread: tm.asp?m=2694636&mpage=1&key=

I will point out a few things (in one case, make the point again).

The drive to the Rumanian border is a shorter distance than going to Minsk and the terrain is easier. AGC had 2k+ of tanks that open the campaign with very few mobile units frozen. AGS started with 600 tanks on the eve of the invasion along with over half of PG1's mobile units unavailable. No one here (or anyone for that matter) can state categorically that if PG1 had additional forces available (Units pulled from PG2) that the manuver could not have taken place. They can offer opinions and that is perfectly fine, but to flat out say it was impossible, not so much.

Even with hitting the pocket and putting all those units out of the war, the Russians still have plenty to fight with in the area because of their strong second and third echelon forces. This is a huge difference between south of the marshes and north. Leningrad area has very few second echelon forces to speak of and Western Front has some, but not nearly the quantity or quality available in the south. A typical well executed turn 1 German offensive should see few to no units in the north sector, about 15-20 units in the center and yet they will still see a pile of Russian units in the south, no matter what they throw down there or how well their first turn offensive went. Progress is going to naturally be slower in the south, just because there is more army to initially chew up down there.

Should the Germans not at least knock out the rail lines, allowing the Russians to rail out all those mountain divisions along with a pile of other troops simply has a lot of short and long term issues for the Germans. It also allows a Russian to do something unhistorical; move part of their second and third echelon troops north. These units instead moved forward to help counterattack the Germans in the south, slowing their progress even more, but you won't see Russian players do that in this game, because they are not needed in the case of a German that doesn't hit the big pocket and allows the bulk of the border forces to retreat or be railed out.

[Pawlock]

This is from my game with PDH(I concur his modesty would prohibit showing you the damage he done to me) and shows first hand for the unbelievers that the Kiev pocket was certainly possible under 1.04. And 500,000 plus loss is fairly accurate too.

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: 76mm
The only real solution (or actually potential solution, because I think it would be difficult to get right) is to either give the Sovs more incentive to defend West (and thus put more troops at risk), or to make it harder for them to retreat as quickly as they would like (with the same effect).

I think a combination of the two would be ideal.The poor Soviet leadership was crucial in 41 and 42 and this needs to be built into the game somehow.At the moment the Soviet leaders are really not that bad once you've spent a few APs swapping them around.This shouldn't be nearly so easy to do in the early game.I also think MPs could be reduced severely on a semi-random basis, especially for units with poor commanders, to reflect the utter paralysis that effected the Red army at times in 41.This reduced MP allowance could occasionally apply to an entire front, vitually forcing that front to stand and fight where it is.The game would require a fair bit of tweaking, for instace HQ buildup would probably need to be removed otherwise the Germans would be too strong, but I think we'd be getting closer to the reality of what it was like.
On the subject of leaders, I'd really like it if leader ratings were randomised and unknown to the players.The only way to know for sure how good a leader is would be through trial and error and even then because of the random nature of the system, you'd never know for sure.In order to give a nod to history, you could have a top tier of leaders like Tolbukin and Vatutin who are more likely to have good ratings and a bottom tier who are more likely to have bad ratings, but as in the real world, only the furnace of battle would sort the wheat from the chaff.
I think that C&C and logistics should be the foundations of a really good war game.
By the way, is there any concrete evidence that the Lvov pocket was impossible?Looking at the map, it looks like such an obvious maneuver that I'm thinking that the Germans must have considered it and rejected it for a very good reason.

[Wild]

Like i have said before, i believe the Lvov pocket was plausible if the Germans had allocated more forces to AGS and made that decision.

I don't know why we are still debating this. Do we really want the Devs to spend their time on changing this and rebalancing due to the consequence of said change. There are more important things for them to spend their time on.

If people really don't like it, find an opponent who agrees to a house rule not to use it.

Problem solved.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Wild
Do we really want the Devs to spend their time on changing this and rebalancing due to the consequence of said change.

Yes, I do. If you ask me, if the Germans have to have the Lvov Gambit for the game to be "balanced", then the game is broken and should be fixed.

[Wild]

Well your certainly entitled to your opinion. But making a move that was plausible in history given the will and adequate force to do so does not seem broken to me, any more then taking Lenningrad by reinforcing AGN is broken.