Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers

[Helpless]

Another valid point.... I think Stalin et al came to the decision to evacuate within the first 4 weeks of Barbarossa, but I'm struggling to find the exact date.

Evacuation Committee was established on second day of the war - June 24 1941. First order came on 28th of June.


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0% ... 0%A1%D0%A0

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Another valid point.... I think Stalin et al came to the decision to evacuate within the first 4 weeks of Barbarossa, but I'm struggling to find the exact date.

Evacuation Committee was established on second day of the war - June 24 1941. First order came on 28th of June.


http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0% ... 0%A1%D0%A0

Well that closes the debate on that. ( although I can't read Cyrillic, I'll take your word for it Helpless!!) And the devs have incorporated the start date for the evacuation of factories nicely into the game, Game Turn two if my memory is right.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Evacuation Committee was established on second day of the war - June 24 1941. First order came on 28th of June.

heh, I guess you can't accuse them of overconfidence...

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Helpless
Evacuation Committee was established on second day of the war - June 24 1941. First order came on 28th of June.

heh, I guess you can't accuse them of overconfidence...

They were certainly thinking ahead[:'(]

[janh]

Surprising, I didn't know it was that early they decided on evacuations. How was the dynamics within that committee, did they know immediately that they had to plan for large-scale evacuations, or did it take them a while to realize that cities deeper in Soviet territory had to be put on the list?

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Actually, there is such a Stalingrad scenario in which the Russians move first. They will typically pocket the Stalingrad area.

I think those of us who worked to perfect good German openings would take issue with the "tactics are not better" part. Clearly there is a huge difference between a good German start and one that does not do a good job. The Germans are immediately behind and especially against a good Russian player, they are going to pay heavily and likely will never "make up" what they lost on turn 1 in terms of time and ability to inflict heavy damage on the Russian border armies. Giving a expert Russian player an unexpected 10 or 20 units is too juicy from their standpoint of view.

Yes I know, but I couldn't think of any better example. I suppose the drawback of the 7 day I-go-U-go turns, or lack of reaction order, would become even more obvious for smaller, shorter micro-scenarios; for example such where bad consequences where just forestalled by rapidly moving forces into blocking positions on open avenues of approach during the ongoing enemy advance, causing meeting engagements that are not modeled here yet. Think of the not even very rare occasions where Soviets or Germans basically railed in reinforcements and ordered them just in time right from the wagons into battle -- railing is surely not a good example either, but you get the basic thought. In that sense, the Germans might actually derive even more benefit during later game stages from such a feature, than the Soviets in their comparably short period of retreat. Probably it would reduce op-tempo in general, and aid the defending sides quite a bit -- even if only by causing unexpected delays. And make the turn way more dynamic. Might be a nightmare to get AI to cope with something like that, though.

Klydon, of course you are right, there is a huge difference between a messy 1st try opening, and using a very optimized, perhaps even ideal one. I didn't mean it that way. It is a valid tactic as well, and a interesting on top of that -- what would have happened if the Germans had focused on AGS? Yet the Soviet opponent doesn't move, think or do anything before the pocket is even closed. So he doesn't have a better or worse tactic until then -- he simply has none. All he can do happens after the fact: make the booty a little costlier to digest.

It would be interesting to know what the other devs think about this whole discussion? Is this a thing they are watching?

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: janh
Think of the not even very rare occasions where Soviets or Germans basically railed in reinforcements and ordered them just in time right from the wagons into battle -- railing is surely not a good example either, but you get the basic thought.

There were quite a few, and quite famous. Two come to the top of my head: the 6th PanzerDivision detraining at Kotel'nikovo in December 1942, and the 15th ID action at Sinel'nikovo (less famous but also interesting)in February 1943:

This scenario represents the first move in the German counter attack where General Buschenhagen’s 15th
Infantry Division tries to recapture Sinel’nikovo, a critical communication hub only 35 kms east of
Dnepropretrovsk on the Dnepr River. The attack was unusual in that the German’s rode the trains they had
travelled from France in, right up to the outskirts of the town.

the above is taken from Kharkov'43 PanzerCampaign Tutorial Scenario. A slightly larger scale example is Konev's 19th (?) Army disastrous battles on the land bridge during July 1941 which could also be accounted for as reaction moves and hasty attacks on German spearheads.

ORIGINAL: janh
Might be a nightmare to get AI to cope with something like that, though.

Interdiction attacks are a bit like the meeting engagements reaction rules would create. And the AI on the defense isn't really creative. Having infinite AP's it just lays carpet after carpet until it rans out of manpower or the Axis player gives up.

ORIGINAL: janh
It would be interesting to know what the other devs think about this whole discussion? Is this a thing they are watching?

At least Pavel was, and shot down the limited factory evacuation idea proposed by Lava.

[Flaviusx]

One thing to remember here: the first two turns aren't 7 day turns. They are half week turns. This I suspect is a large part of the problem. Movement isn't being scaled accordingly.

[PeeDeeAitch]

The devil's advocate in me remembers that corps commanders like Manstein made great leaps in just a couple of days - 18 or so hexes to Daugavpils to take the bridges there. Of course, the opposition was far, far less than in the south, but sheer distance is not the limiting factor.

[Alchenar]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

One thing to remember here: the first two turns aren't 7 day turns. They are half week turns. This I suspect is a large part of the problem. Movement isn't being scaled accordingly.

Well it is, they're half-time turns precisely to represent faster movement in the first week.

[Flaviusx]

Fair enough, but that could be accounted for in a surprise turn/reaction move/regular turn mechanic.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Evacuation Committee was established on second day of the war - June 24 1941. First order came on 28th of June.

Which means Turn 3. [:)]

Here is a graphic of my opening for AGC in my latest game against the AI. The overarching theme is to move the entire group as fast as I can eastwards.

I thrust Eastwards with my Panzers on Turn 1 and cut the Soviet supply lines as my infantry move forward in a general offensive. Cutting the supply lines should force all the soviets in that sector to have to walk out of any potential pocket on foot. Notice that one router has moved faster than my Panzers... [&:]

In turn 2 my Panzers move to create a large pocket. Minsk Armaments Production 4 and Heavy Industry 4 have been evacuated. [:@] [;)]

In turn 3 I push my Panzers to Mogilev and create both a Białystok pocket with my infantry (as did the Germans) and a secondary pocket around Minsk. Mogilev Armaments Production 3 and Heavy Industry 3 have been evacuated. [:@] [;)]

Just saying... those are 14 industrial points I lost because the Sovs got to move industry before they should have if you use historical decision dates.

[Klydon]

The AI is another matter. It enjoys an incredible amount of "cheats" that players will never see. One of these is the ability to evac industry, no matter what, as soon as a German unit finishes a turn within 10 hexes of a city with industry. You have to be further than 10 hexes and then in one turn, you must completely cut off the city to the point that the territory around it flips to your control or the industry will be gone the following turn. While it is possible, good luck trying to bag any industry against the Russian AI.

[*Lava*]

If the mechanics of the game did not allow industrial movement until turn 3, it wouldn't matter who you are playing.

But to get back to my main point about the routing mechanics... Let's discuss the checkerboard defense, which I consider another anomaly in the game which throws Operational Warfare, of the time, out the window.

If you have been following what I have proposed concerning routing units you will remember that I have proposed that routers should be limited to less than half their movement rate when routing and if attacked a second time in the same move the unit would surrender/evaporate. How would that effect a player using a checkerboard defense? It's difficult to know exactly what the effect would be, but I suspect that a powerful infantry assault on a point in the defensive line followed by an armored thrust would result in thousands of prisoners thus eliminating the need to actually isolate a portion of the line.

The checkerboard would die, as would the Lvov pocket and a bit more realistic game play would then ensue. From a PBEM prospective it could very well change game play fairly dramatically.

That's my feeling, anyway. And I have been trying to convey that for an awful long time, but have been drowned out by more important discussions such as fort building, blizzard casualties, etc., etc.

Cheers,

Ray (alias Lava)

[Wild]

I like the idea of not being able to evacuate factories until turn 3. They should implement also FOW over cities so players can't tell what's been evacuated in each city.

[Flaviusx]

At least in PBEM, as a practical matter, many Soviets don't evacuate until turn 3. I don't.

The AI...well, that's the AI.

[Helpless]

Soviet rail capacities are halved till the July, so it won't much possible to move on turn 2 anyway.

[Redmarkus5]

Unfortunately, AGS kicks its way through SW Front in a completely a-historical way even with zero transfers of units from AGC... even I can do it.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Soviet rail capacities are halved till the July, so it won't much possible to move on turn 2 anyway.

I'm at T2 in a current PBEM as the Sovs.

I moved exactly *1* arms point.

Which was probably one too many.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

While the first turn Lvov mega-pocket looks spectacular, the new air supply rules could mean it is of less long term value to the Axis. My approach to pockets has been to be sure I could eliminate them in one turn so as not to delay the eastward movement of the infantry, and if the pocket is not eliminated, use the minimum of force to clean it up. The Lvov "mega-pocket" can take 3-4 turns to clear up and ties down 6th and 17th armies, now, if the Soviets get air supply in there, this could take even longer. How many AARs have we seen where the Axis players who have used the Lvov gambit have gone on to achieve better than historical results across the whole front before the blizzard hits?

Personally I have never used it, and in the 2 published AARs, one vs. the AI and one PBEM against Trey, I formed 2 separate pockets in the south, one small one around Lvov on turn 1 and a much larger one on turn 4-5 in front of Zhitomir (sp) which probably did as much damage as the "mega-pocket" gambit, but crucially allowed the infantry to get further east to support an earlier capture of Kiev. In both cases, I did achieve better than historical results before the blizzard hit, and this was without HQ Buildup, until it became available about T16 of my game the Trey, and helped me get Rostov and Moscow.

As noted elsewhere, the Axis has to significantly weaken AGC to pull off the Lvov Gambit, and this too will have medium to longer term consequences.

The strategy is not an exploit, it is a choice, and like every choice it has it's consequences.

Trying to survive the Lvov pocket in my game with abulbulian i was able to get air resupply in effect for 7 hexes around the airbase. I lost hundreds of bombers doing it. On T3 i was unable to get enough lift to keep the pocket air supplied again. It's not sustainable and the air supply only delayed the inevitable.

[EisenHammer]

I think the Lvov pocket is BS and would never happen without an panzer corps attach to the 11th army. A one arm encirclement of this size would have failed with too many gaps in the line even if there was a breakthrough and they made it to Romania.

Time and space will tell you that this is not possible with all the firepower the SW front had at the time for them to be overtaken that fast. Just read about the first ten days of AG South and you read about the biggest tank battle in history until Kursk. Something needs to be fixed about this, maybe the SW front is too weak or maybe reserves should be counter attacking in battles. But whatever is happening would not be happening in reality and or history.

And if you did bring a panzer corps down from AGC it would take days for it to redeployed, get in line and attack, thus again time and space would be against this.