Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I'm not the one saying that the game becomes unbalanced without the Lvov Gambit! I think the Lvov Gambit is kinda gamey and has a significant impact on the opening game, but not that it dooms the Sovs to defeat.

I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts.

[Magnum88]

Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the Axis and inflict more casaulties on him that he can ill afford to lose. Without evidence that the Soviets need the help (and currently it is quite the opposite) or that it is categorically impossible with the use of additional AGC mobile units I would say let the Gambit stand, it may even be more difficult now for the Axis with the new air supply changes. The Lvov Gambit allows some response to the freedom of action the Soviets get that they did not have historically.

[Wild]

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
3. WiTP AE has two start options, IIRC, one of which allows you to start on December 08, after Pearl Harbor. Maybe WITE needs an option to start the Grand Campaign in week 2, with the historical successes of the first week of operations already played out and the surprise factor removed?

This is kind of good idea but it wont stop German players making new type of totally optimized opening move for week 2 and forming new pockets from week 2 setup.

This optimized start up moves is bit of problem for every turn based game.

It's a question of leverage. Surprise turn effects can be leveraged in a way that ordinary turns cannot. You can optimize future turns, sure, but the pay off won't be anywhere near as big or have as huge strategic consequences.

I'm pretty well convinced at this point that the Lvov opening is greatly accelerating the pace of operations in AGS, by a good month or so. It's having a non trivial impact on the game. SW front is just getting wrecked way too easily. Wonder why Soviets are running away so much? Well...because after turn 1 they haven't got a whole lot left to defend with. In real life 2 of the 3 front were demolished from the getgo. The Lvov gambit turns it into 3.

Exactly.

I wasn't really thinking of this as 'fix' by Trey - more as an alternative scenario with a different start point, exactly like the '42 or '43 start options.

For those who are saying 'I am tired of this issue' there are an equal number who are clearly not tired of it. Now, I have along history of complaining that the Soviets are way overpowered and the Axis need better chances to create pockets vs. human players, but the Lvov pocket and the early Romanian release should not be part of the solution, IMHO.

My ideas:

1. Improve the Soviet position in the south so that they at least have a chance to put up the tough historical defense they did, but also prevent them from vacating the field (AI player included). Remember, the critical operational choice that the Axis faced in late summer '41, to go for Moscow or create the Kiev pocket, was a result of the strength of Soviet resistance in the south. Without this resistance no iteration of the game will ever force the Axis player to make that choice, and that can't be right. See points 3 and 4 below for ideas about how to make the soviet player hold rather than flee.
2. Fix/freeze or constrain early Soviet movements in the center and north so that they absolutely do not have the run for the hills option there, but similarly reduce Axis armoured MP so that driving to Leningrad by Turn 6 (as I saw in one AAR) becomes logistically impossible. I hear the Axis screams already, but once expert players start doing significantly better than expert German generals did at the height of the blitzkrieg, something is wrong with the settings
3. Make the prolonged defense of cities and key regions more essential by altering the factory evacuation mechanism. For example, evacuations cannot commence (for 'political' reasons) until an Axis division is within N hexes of the city in question. So, if you want to evac your cities, you need to hold the enemy off for a certain number of turns - the more resources the city has the more focus you need to put on defending it. On the other hand, if you race a single Axis division on its own too close to a city, the evac will start. You need a proper plan for capturing or cutting off the city in question if you want to prevent that.
4. Remove the single unit ZOC rule for terminating factory evacs and base this on the relative ZOC strength, such that the Axis must have a higher ratio of CV points with ZOC in the city hex against the value of Soviet CV with ZOC into the city hex. So, if I decide to hold a city and it's adjacent hexes with a few weak brigades and you push an Axis Army Corps into one or more adjacent hexes, evacuations halt. A Pz Regt, however, may not achieve the same thing. This might take some of the silliness out of the game.
5. Enforce a rail line rule such that cutting the rail lines into a city (even with a weak unit) prevents evacuation - this will encourage more imaginative flanking and operations in depth rather than a headlong race to sit next to each city hex. (Is this rail rule already the case? I never found out as most of my stuff has generally been evacuated long before the rail is cut!)

As a self confessed Soviet fan boy, I do want a tougher fight against the Axis, but I don't want to play space invaders. On the occasions when I have played as the Axis I can't even get beyond Smolensk because I am not a very good player, but I have never yet lost Moscow as the Soviets. Something clearly needs to be adjusted in the Axis favour, but whatever that is, the game needs to retain a quasi-historical aspect; it might not play out historically, but it needs to play out plausibly. Chaos theory dictates that deviations from a quasi-historical result in the first few terms mean that the whole course of the game will be radically affected. Therefore, the potential for deviation should be constrained and should only increase incrementally over many turns.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

The problem, surely, is that Axis players are able to achieve historical (or better than historical) results in the north and center while ALSO getting a vastly better result in the south by shifting forces there. There seems to be no trade-off and that is what suggests an imbalance.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the Axis and inflict more casaulties on him that he can ill afford to lose. Without evidence that the Soviets need the help (and currently it is quite the opposite) or that it is categorically impossible with the use of additional AGC mobile units I would say let the Gambit stand, it may even be more difficult now for the Axis with the new air supply changes. The Lvov Gambit allows some response to the freedom of action the Soviets get that they did not have historically.

It is the Axis who need the help, but the weakness of the Soviets in-game in the south is not the right kind of help, IMO. I am all for a stronger Axis position and a tougher game. See my post two-up.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Exactly.

I wasn't really thinking of this as 'fix' by Trey - more as an alternative scenario with a different start point, exactly like the '42 or '43 start options.

For those who are saying 'I am tired of this issue' there are an equal number who are clearly not tired of it. Now, I have along history of complaining that the Soviets are way overpowered and the Axis need better chances to create pockets vs. human players, but the Lvov pocket and the early Romanian release should not be part of the solution, IMHO.

My ideas:

1. Improve the Soviet position in the south so that they at least have a chance to put up the tough historical defense they did, but also prevent them from vacating the field (AI player included). Remember, the critical operational choice that the Axis faced in late summer '41, to go for Moscow or create the Kiev pocket, was a result of the strength of Soviet resistance in the south. Without this resistance no iteration of the game will ever force the Axis player to make that choice, and that can't be right. See points 3 and 4 below for ideas about how to make the soviet player hold rather than flee.
2. Fix/freeze or constrain early Soviet movements in the center and north so that they absolutely do not have the run for the hills option there, but similarly reduce Axis armoured MP so that driving to Leningrad by Turn 6 (as I saw in one AAR) becomes logistically impossible. I hear the Axis screams already, but once expert players start doing significantly better than expert German generals did at the height of the blitzkrieg, something is wrong with the settings
3. Make the prolonged defense of cities and key regions more essential by altering the factory evacuation mechanism. For example, evacuations cannot commence (for 'political' reasons) until an Axis division is within N hexes of the city in question. So, if you want to evac your cities, you need to hold the enemy off for a certain number of turns - the more resources the city has the more focus you need to put on defending it. On the other hand, if you race a single Axis division on its own too close to a city, the evac will start. You need a proper plan for capturing or cutting off the city in question if you want to prevent that.
4. Remove the single unit ZOC rule for terminating factory evacs and base this on the relative ZOC strength, such that the Axis must have a higher ratio of CV points with ZOC in the city hex against the value of Soviet CV with ZOC into the city hex. So, if I decide to hold a city and it's adjacent hexes with a few weak brigades and you push an Axis Army Corps into one or more adjacent hexes, evacuations halt. A Pz Regt, however, may not achieve the same thing. This might take some of the silliness out of the game.
5. Enforce a rail line rule such that cutting the rail lines into a city (even with a weak unit) prevents evacuation - this will encourage more imaginative flanking and operations in depth rather than a headlong race to sit next to each city hex. (Is this rail rule already the case? I never found out as most of my stuff has generally been evacuated long before the rail is cut!)

You have raised some excellent points, and some excellent possible solutions. Good show!!
On your points:-
1) I agree

2) I agree

3) +1. Great idea.

4) ++1. This is a simple but elegant solution to the problem at hand.

5) If this is not happening then it should be. Like you I'm not sure. I need to ask my brother who plays the Soviets against me. If you can't rail out units with heavy equipment when the rail lines are cut then you should'nt be able to move heavy plant. But you could throw the Soviets a bone here. They could use trucks out of their pool to move a small amount out as long as there is a valid route out of the city to a railhead...the longer the route, the more expensive it is in trucks. A possibility perhaps....I'm not sure.

[TulliusDetritus]

Guys why are you using the word gambit? [&:] Have you played chess? There's no gambit at all in this Lvov thing: you don't sacrifice anything. The only sacrifice... er, the Soviet Southwestern Front... [8D]

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Magnum88

Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion but even with the Lvov Gambit and the removal of these good Soviet units the Axis still does not do well into '42 in most AARs I have seen. These saved units would not be wasted but used effectively by a competent Soviet player to further slow the Axis and inflict more casaulties on him that he can ill afford to lose. Without evidence that the Soviets need the help (and currently it is quite the opposite) or that it is categorically impossible with the use of additional AGC mobile units I would say let the Gambit stand, it may even be more difficult now for the Axis with the new air supply changes. The Lvov Gambit allows some response to the freedom of action the Soviets get that they did not have historically.

We haven't seen any AARs of 1.05 going into 1942 as of yet. So I'm not sure how you are concluding this. I think people are going to be very surprised by how different the game is in 1942.

Right now the only 1942 games being played with 1.05 are carryovers from 1.04, and these really aren't very indicative. (In large part because forts have been grandfathered in these in a way that simply isn't going to happen in a fresh game.) For that matter, it seems to me the Germans are doing fine even in these games.

[Magnum88]

Easy big fella, that was not my intention. "Perhaps 1.05 changes will change this discussion..." was meant to state that the opinions were formed pre-1.05 considering that the newest changes have not been out long enough to make any broad conclusions.

[Klydon]

Perhaps we should back up a second and look at just a few things as to how much strength the Germans actually have in the south. (Note: I tend to divide the front into 2 parts: north and south until past the swamp).

To review, north of the swamp the Germans have 7 of their 10 panzer corps and 4 1/2 of 7 infantry armies (I cound 2nd Army as a half since it is just about half strength of a regular army and short on support units). That leaves 3 panzer corps and 3 infantry armies along with the Rumanians (not much military value) down south and of that, over half the panzer formations are unavailable for the first turn when the most damage can be done. (I would guess the north side has about 50 hexes of front to cover and the south 45 or so). On the Russian side, they clearly have not only more in the south, but it is better quality than up north.

I think the current state of the game is such that a good German vs a good Russian that the German will have serious trouble with a un-reenforced AGS trying to deal with all those units down south and make any sort of reasonable headway. In addition, should a Russian leave the majority of the second and third echelon forces in the south (instead of pulling many up north like a lot of Russians do right now), the Germans down south will be forced to a crawl for the most part and have some seriously worn down panzers. In most cases, I think the south will play out much like the historical campaign in terms of German progress (remember, they did not take Kiev until mid September and were not across the river in strength until early September).

Unlike the historical campaign, there are several considerations (mostly negative for the Germans). After some recent experimentation with Russian mountain divisions, these things are even more like gold than perhaps many people consider. They have terrific mobility in the blizzard compared to a regular infantry division and they won't get kicked around like a cav division or tank brigade. Others have noted their importance later on in campaigns in Rumania/Hungary. In addition, they are going to be very strong at full strength compared to the mid to late 42 rifle divisions. I have been playing around grouping them in shock armies for increased effect. The trucks situation I have noted in the past (lot of trucks taken off the table for the Russians or saved, depending on what happens; this is the real benefit of "saving" the armored/mech forces for the Russians, not the tanks).

One of the goals that the General Staff felt had to be accomplished at the start of the campaign was to crush the Russian border armies and not allow them to withdraw to the interior. The Germans concentrated enough in the north to do this and "papered over" the details in the south. Their operational plan (6th army and 1st panzer group drives east towards Kiev, then turns south to trap the Russians west of the river) was flawed and I think the German inteligence also underestimated the amount of Russian forces in the south. To launch that offensive with less than half your mobile divisions initially available and expect the operational plan there to meet success was silly. One of the earlier plans suggested by the General Staff was to put a panzer corps in Rumanian and do a double envelopment. I think this would have had a far better chance of success (trapping the Russian armies west of the river), but Hitler stepped in and said no based on his intuition the rivers near the Rumanian border in the south would be too much of a barrier to an advance. The army in Rumania was given a defensive mission instead and the panzer forces moved up north. Obviously as a result of the Balkans campaign and the fact that over half of PG1 forces are unavailable on turn 1, it would appear this would not have been an option either.

With a game such as this, the German player has a chance to tweak the original war plan and most recognize the issues with it. Because of that, results at start are going to be better than what happen historically in the opening phases.

[janh]

Interesting discussion here.  So it bascially is a question of balancing the game to give the Germans more reason to hang on, versus giving them only their historically accurate potential?
I want to point out something new for 1.05, i.e. that there is now evidence that Leningrad can be held by the Soviets.  Q-Ball is playing out the 1st AAR in which Leningrad might not be lost.  Let's wait and see whether his opponent Bletchley_Geek will succeed holding it.  Not sure whether it will be representative for 1.05, but this at least shows that despite removing the 2:1 rule and other benefits, a good Soviet player can put up a tough fight even against another experienced player.  Surely the comparison to history would work best of the German player was expert, and the Soviet start as a rookie, but even for matched players the game balance is surely in the ballpark.

As for the Kiev pocket, I always considered that to be somewhat extraordinary since it not only required Soviet mistakes, but also was more a strategic gambit since the Germans had to shift the Schwerpunkt by detaching all its armor from AGC to AGS (as we know today, one of Hitlers further mistakes).  This was a huge risk on the German side, not only because the way south left a huge left flank for the column, but also because they might not get back early enough for attacking Moscow.  This shift from Moscow must come have come as a big surprise to Stalin and the higher command echelons, which can be seen by the result that the retreat order from Kiev was given far too late when the Soviets finally realized what was coming down so deep behind them (I suppose having gotten this situational overview in reality is still much harder than in any game).  In addition, for this enormous pocket to happen, the forces had to be staying in place.  Which was surely aided by seeing that the going for AGS in the south had been slow and rough up til then, and the Soviet Southern Front was the only one largely intact, and still numerically very strong.  This surely were sufficient reasons for trying to make a stand west of the Djenpr.

As such, I think a huge Kiev-like pocket in game will require a number of factors to come together, like having enough Soviet forces left, and the Soviet player making mistakes in situational assessment while the German player has to take biggers risks, for exmaple by changing his axis of advance late, quickly and surprisingly.  Not sure whether one should expect this to happen commonly against a good opponent.  The Lvov pocket will also deprive the Soviet player of a lot of these reasons to fight forward at all, even if he is the kind that prefers not to do a withdrawal further east. 

What I wonder is, why is the German apparently run in troubles in the second half of the advance in the south, i.e. why doesn't he reach Rostov a representative number of times? Is it that a good Soviet player avoids really stupid mistakes by hindsight that historically only made this possible for the Germans?  That he perhaps sends more reinforcements south than Stalin did?  Could that also have to do with too little pressure to be put on AGC or AGN, or even vice versa, does the Soviet player always too easily accept that Leningrad is lost and rather send his reinforcements south?

Having the Lvov move available is neat, and is should not be completely nerved since it was surely in the realm of possibility for the Germans to pull off, perhaps with some changes and hardships in the months before, but surely not entirely impossible.  It only tastes a bit "salty" since there is apparently nothing the Soviet player can do, i.e. since the German armor can rush through the gaps in the ever same, never changing fashion.  Little in war is really like this, there is always "friction" to varying degrees, and sometimes due to the most unexpected, minor causes.  If there were some reaction moves that would block some spearheads, or at least put up a little fight so the pocket has a certain chance to be only closed in the 2nd week, it would be a much more "plausible" course for an alternative history and more acceptable.  Such reaction order later might also favor the Germans on Russian breakthroughs, and would have to tuned against the HQ support.

[PeeDeeAitch]

I have said it in the war room, I will say it here. The Lvov Pocket is not needed, and in fact can be millstone. A thrust that cuts the rail lines, but more importantly seriously weakens the center of the Soviet defenses (driving and ruining the stalin line), can have far more success in latter turns. Remember, turn 2 sees 5 more mobile divisions here, and another small corps from the 2nd Panzer Group is one likes (the south favors tanks).

Agains JAMIAM I did a modified pocket, with a single dash to the south (I am a sucker for the romanians), but knowing the pocket would break. More important to me was to get a forward defense by the Soviets established so I could surround and rout it in latter turns. Successful? I don't think so, JAM has weather magic, and he actually defends, but I did some damage.

The biggest problem with the Lvov Pocket now is that its ubiquity means other strategies are not tried. To my mind it can be more devastating to the Soviet player to see a large pocket later one than opening the first turn and seeing it, knowing what they will face - the "how can I save these guys that weren't cut off" can become "oh crap, I lost even more" even if that isn't entirely the case. The German doesn't win on the first turn.

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

I have said it in the war room, I will say it here. The Lvov Pocket is not needed, and in fact can be millstone. A thrust that cuts the rail lines, but more importantly seriously weakens the center of the Soviet defenses (driving and ruining the stalin line), can have far more success in latter turns. Remember, turn 2 sees 5 more mobile divisions here, and another small corps from the 2nd Panzer Group is one likes (the south favors tanks).

Agains JAMIAM I did a modified pocket, with a single dash to the south (I am a sucker for the romanians), but knowing the pocket would break. More important to me was to get a forward defense by the Soviets established so I could surround and rout it in latter turns. Successful? I don't think so, JAM has weather magic, and he actually defends, but I did some damage.

The biggest problem with the Lvov Pocket now is that its ubiquity means other strategies are not tried. To my mind it can be more devastating to the Soviet player to see a large pocket later one than opening the first turn and seeing it, knowing what they will face - the "how can I save these guys that weren't cut off" can become "oh crap, I lost even more" even if that isn't entirely the case. The German doesn't win on the first turn.

I must admit that I've never explored alternative strategies for AGS simply because of the devastation it causes on turn one, although the trade off for the Soviets is that the bulk of AGS is slowed up considerably for several turns chewing on the pocket.

Your idea seems to be heading towards a slow burn approach, that you are hinting at that is far more deadly, by cutting rail line's deep in the rear of the southern Soviet Armies, so cutting their supply and hopefully pocketing more of them........ is that right PDH?

I think its time for myself to start looking at other strategies,.....I'm going to start one against the AI on challenging and see what I can do over several turns with this more historical strategy.

[PeeDeeAitch]

A couple of explanations - if the rail is cut south of Tarnopol the Soviet player can't evacuate the Lvov region except on foot. Beyond this, the norm is to head 2-3 tank units south to near the border. Instead, either leaving the pocket open or closing it with one tank unit knowing it will be reopened leaves far more chance for later turn disruption.

Proskurov can be taken, and beyond (another panzer corps is sent south determines the "beyond"). This can tear up the middle portion of the Stalin Line and make it possible to have 3-4 armor, 2-3 motorized in the region between Vinnitsa and Zhitomir at the end of turn two (the infantry will be lagging, but the turn 1 Proskurov move by the tanks means they get most of their move in the clear).

In this scenario, a turn 2/3 Lvov pocket will perhaps net more, or at least catch the Soviets pulling back so there is less formal defenses. Beyond this, the rail is closer in the center of the Ukraine, and the German will still have fair movement on turn 3 for more movement. The now mobilized Slovaks, Hungarians, AGS infantry, and Romanians can help clear up stuff.

Too many whine about the Soviet running away, but if you can get them running, all the while encircling, you can create movement and opportunites that may well far outstrip the Lvov opening. The unexpected is far harder to counter anyway.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

A couple of explanations - if the rail is cut south of Tarnopol the Soviet player can't evacuate the Lvov region except on foot. Beyond this, the norm is to head 2-3 tank units south to near the border. Instead, either leaving the pocket open or closing it with one tank unit knowing it will be reopened leaves far more chance for later turn disruption.

Proskurov can be taken, and beyond (another panzer corps is sent south determines the "beyond"). This can tear up the middle portion of the Stalin Line and make it possible to have 3-4 armor, 2-3 motorized in the region between Vinnitsa and Zhitomir at the end of turn two (the infantry will be lagging, but the turn 1 Proskurov move by the tanks means they get most of their move in the clear).

In this scenario, a turn 2/3 Lvov pocket will perhaps net more, or at least catch the Soviets pulling back so there is less formal defenses. Beyond this, the rail is closer in the center of the Ukraine, and the German will still have fair movement on turn 3 for more movement. The now mobilized Slovaks, Hungarians, AGS infantry, and Romanians can help clear up stuff.

Too many whine about the Soviet running away, but if you can get them running, all the while encircling, you can create movement and opportunites that may well far outstrip the Lvov opening. The unexpected is far harder to counter anyway.

This brings up another of my points as to why this discussion amounts to extended naval-gazing:

The odds are you're going to lose everything that starts inside the usual "Lvov pocket" whether the T1 Lvov Pocket is a strategy the Axis employs or not.

If the Soviet player views those forces as write-offs, he can slow the German infantry down far better when the Lvov pocket tactic is not used. I've done far more damage to AGS playing Soviet when the Lvov pocket is not performed than when it is. The Soviet doesn't need the units to escape in order to establish an effective defense. The German needs to contain them no matter what. By containing them on T1, you control the Chaos of the right flank of PzGrp 1.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

The problem, surely, is that Axis players are able to achieve historical (or better than historical) results in the north and center while ALSO getting a vastly better result in the south by shifting forces there. There seems to be no trade-off and that is what suggests an imbalance.

Read Q-Ball vs. Bletchly Geek AAR. Theses are two very good players and the results are exactly opposite to your assertion.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Wild

quote: "I'm more interested in the German players' reaction: many German players seem to be saying that they don't have a chance without the Lvov Gambit, which is odd since the pocket didn't even happen historically. Or in other words, the Germans don't have a chance unless some 30-odd of the best Sov divisions are taken off the map before the game even starts."

I have never said that and in fact it is irrelevent. People will make all kinds of assertions about all kinds of things, most of them wrong.

I'm just saying it's plausible if you use enough force in AGS. After that it's up to the players to decide if they want to use the same boring move or not every time.

After all it's a game and if you don't enjoy playing a game against a player who uses a particular opening, then find a player who won't use it. I am sure players can come up with other interesting options if the took the time to try.

The problem, surely, is that Axis players are able to achieve historical (or better than historical) results in the north and center while ALSO getting a vastly better result in the south by shifting forces there. There seems to be no trade-off and that is what suggests an imbalance.

Read Q-Ball vs. Bletchly Geek AAR. Theses are two very good players and the results are exactly opposite to your assertion.

Do the results achieved by these two very good players reflect the general experience of the mass of players?

[Flaviusx]

Um. That Q-ball game is just another game where AGS is moving along at a very rapid rate, far more so than historical. About what you would expect.

Nobody is getting much out of SW front nowadays.

[Wild]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Um. That Q-ball game is just another game where AGS is moving along at a very rapid rate, far more so than historical. About what you would expect.

Nobody is getting much out of SW front nowadays.

Yes you are right, but he diverted significant extra forces to the south and this has cost him in the north and center, contrary to Redmarkus's assertion.

I believe this result is to be expected from players of relatively equal skill when extra forces are diverted to the south.