House-Rule Lvov Ideas Sought

[Klydon]

Yes, lets just quote only part of Pelton's statement and Russian fanboys skip over the part where he mentions an increase in the armaments multiplier for the Russians. Just totally one sided in his case and no interested at all in a GOOD game. [8|] Sheesh!

Overpowerd Axis with their Death Star Panzers? This has to be a joke because anyone following along recent AAR's will note that even when the panzer divisions don't do all that much fighting, their tank strength is pretty bad due to break downs, etc.

You really should look over the AAR's and especially take note where panzer divisions are getting their butts kicked by Russian counter attacks. In 1941 even and not during blizzard.

[PeeDeeAitch]

To the original question. I don't think that the Lvov Pocket need be a rule at all - because by now it is an expected opening, but that is simply because everyone did it. Rather than this, there are a myriad other things the Germans can do in the South and so few do them. Simply cutting the rail south of Tarnopol and sending the panzers through the Stalin Line above Proskurov can yield far better results by turns 3 or 4. Still, the Axis players do the same thing over and over.

Really, if there is a point to this it remains that in the south the Axis can do far more than it seems they could have in reality in the opening moves. Were it me I would not limit sending 2nd Panzer Group forces to the south (for instance), as this does directly impact the ability of the Axis to make fluid and unpredictable strategic changes, nor would I limit the Lvov opening against players of equal ability - it is a byproduct of the movement system of the game but also it reflects the game's ability that allows players to do things that were not tried.

Instead, as a 95% Axis player, I would get out of the rut that this side finds itself in, and try new things on all 3 drives...

[kirkgregerson]

OMG not this nonsense about the Lvov pocket. Ok while you're at it for restrictions on Lvov pocket why not throw in a few more, because obviously some of you Soviet fanboys can't handle a equal challenge? Not enough cards in the deck in your favor already?

here's some more

- on odd turns Axis can't move mobile units that have designations with prime numbers (i.e 2nd Panzer, 3rd Panzer, etc.)

- during Aug even dates AGN units can only move 2 hexes

- Luftwaffe may not fly more than 6 missions per turn in Oct 41, 43, 45

- No axis units may be within 10 hexes of Moscow until the 14th turn or later.

- Before you take Kharkov or Rostov you must spin around 6 times and say 'Soviet Fanboys are so cool'. You're on the honor system with this one.

Lol, you crazy fools with even thinking about house rules with this Lvov pocket crap. Just amazing what people with think of when they have too much time and no stomach for an equal fight.

The only concession I might have is to disallow any HQ Build-ups for both side during entire game. Only because it can be abused as one naughty little boy has already been doing in games.

[2ndACR]

I don't abuse the HQ buildup so would resist any limits to it. But got no problems not doing the Lvov if the Russian agrees to no eastward railing west of Kiev/Dnepr river until turn 4 or so. He can rail troops west all day long, but no eastward rail movement of troops.He wants to rail beat up troops east, he will have to march them to the Dnepr river until turn 4.

Now if we could just get the routing jump routine fixed. Tired of watching them jump at warp speed every where.

[Oleg Mastruko]

There is nothing wrong with Lvov pocket, no need for special rules there.

As for the rest, as Soviet player I breath the sigh of relief when I see Germans routing AGC forces towards the AGS area south of Pripyat. IMO that move is on top of the Wrongest WITE Moves Evah list.

[TulliusDetritus]

Oi Oleg, I am starting to think that you might be right [:D] To me the top priority [as a Soviet] is -and will ALWAYS be- the CENTER. I fear this Lvov pocket, but hey, you' re correct! That means less panzers in the center ergo Moscow is safer...

What are they chasing in the south anyways? Ghosts, I suspect. They can have Rostov for all I [and the Soviets] care...

On this game we have seen two trends. First it was Leningrad. Now it's the south. How curious! We haven't seen yet [I'm talking about the rule, not the exception) the German plan in action: charge like a bull in the center and try to grab Moscow...

After all -geographically speaking- a Soviet offensive (43, 44 and 45) in the south will NOT lead you to the Reich. ONLY to Romania, Hungary... and Germany is still not close...

The CENTER will lead you to the vital part of the Reich you want to defeat. More geography: it's in the center and north where you [German in 43, 44 and 45] have excellent defensive terrain. The south = steppes. Make testament, my boy [:D]

It's simply a matter of time. Sooner or later the German players will stick to the German plan.

[Richard III]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

- Before you take Kharkov or Rostov you must spin around 6 times and say 'Soviet Fanboys are so cool'. You're on the honor system with this one.

Would you do that in all your AAR`s postings. I`d really like that [;)]

[Richard III]

tm.asp?m=2934258

An alternate `41 GC. Looks very interesting, and may actually encourage a Sov. partial forward defense and attempt to hold the Cities......like in the real War.
At least that`s how I`m gunna playtest it[8D]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch
Really, if there is a point to this it remains that in the south the Axis can do far more than it seems they could have in reality in the opening moves. Were it me I would not limit sending 2nd Panzer Group forces to the south (for instance), as this does directly impact the ability of the Axis to make fluid and unpredictable strategic changes, nor would I limit the Lvov opening against players of equal ability - it is a byproduct of the movement system of the game but also it reflects the game's ability that allows players to do things that were not tried.

I think that the fact that Turns 1 and 2 are half-week turns really distort things. I understand its purpose - to replicate the swift advance of AGC towards the Dnepr - but things really get out of hand in the south.

Perhaps I'll be a bit hyperbolic, but it is debatable the merits of the Germans enjoying one turn of MP's as if they were built up all over the front, pay less MP than usual for entering enemy hexes (morale is a non-issue in this regard) and then get a Turn 2, with normal rules, but with Soviet either pocketed or with the Soviets only being able to move 1 or 2 hexes into enemy hexes.

It works very well in the north and center, but in the south it flies in the face of what actually happened there.

Rich has posted a link to an alternate GC'41 scenario I'm working on. There I have displaced Kiev Military District second echelon toward the positions they hold 24-36 hours after Barbarossa started, awarded them full MP's and set all the units to Reserve Mode, and most importantly frozen 17. Armee and 6. Armee XXXXIV and LVI ArmeeKorps (just check how much did advance these units during the first three days of Barbarossa). Also all of the frontier Kiev Military District formations (non motorized) are frozen for two turns. So doing the Robinovich thing with the guys in the Lvov - Stanislav sector isn't going to work (the Germans would get a "Lvov pocket" all the same).

This results in a quite interesting situation developing, as German attacks in the Kovel - Lutsk - Lvov triangle are contested by reserve Soviet motorized formations, resulting in engagements with hundreds of AFV's being involved. A Lvov Opening like move might be still possible, but not without committing the whole of 2. PzGruppe, which isn't really a sound strategic move.

To each own its due, of course. On the pipeline for that work in progress scenario is hacking victory levels (somehow) to get a more realistic assessment of what would be truly outstanding Soviet player performance. Seems that the Lvov Opening biggest merit - or at least most people perceive it - is that it stacks the victory conditions into a more "balanced" position.

My rationale is to get rid of the southern Panzer shennanigans and fix victory conditions. I'd like to invite everyone interested in this topic to take a look on the scenario and share their opinions.

[janh]

B-G, just reading your scenario notes. Nice research you have done there. It might be nice simple fix for the first turn. I still hope they will address the fundamental issue of the static U-Go phase with some game mechanics in the next title (hopefully much like the reaction setting for naval in WitP).  I know people like Pelton or kirkgregerson don't see it this way and perceive the whole discussion as being about taking away the tool they think they need for reasonable chances later, but it really isn't about Lvov, which just stands by its name for the first evident appearance of that phenomenon.  Thus it is good that your approach still allows the Axis to attempt a Lvov pocket, but doesn't give the appearance that the Soviets remained idle and did not fight AGS fiercely as they in fact did in the first weeks.

I wonder whether these changes will have the side effect to induce the breakdown of the Southern Soviet a few turns later than turn one, and closer to the Dejnepr, which could give the the Germans the necessary chaos to rush deeper and faster towards Rostov and Voroshilovgrad than seen now. I wouldn't be surprised. My impression is that the so much earlier breakdown of the Soviet Southern Front causes Soviet players to bring more reserves down south (and sooner, which they can they will be less pressed by a weakened AGC) than AGS faced historically. These have time to stiffen resistance around the Djenepr again after a few turns while the Axis is still digesting Lvovs gains. And once the Soviets regain balance at this excellent position deeper in the rear, they can give ground in ordered fashion, thus disallowing a adventurous drive of Kleists tanks. It is possible like other players say, that the low-hanging Lvov fruit distracts from far more better German long-term strategies.  Too bad it is almost a scripted first turn move by now, and the Soviets will soon also find an optimum counter-move.

As such, I begin to agree with Tullius and others. It could be a one-shot "benefit" for the Axis. Unfortunately no 1.05 AARs have reached 44 and the breakdown of the Axis army yet, which could actually turn the same benefit around at a larger scale since the Russians have a greater number of mobile formations, and the Germans lack the number to defend in great depth -- so the Russians, once wider breakthrus are possible, might be able to administer many Lvov-pockets to the Germans, which could lead to a quicker disintegration of the Axis Army. But that would be fair game then. Since I am not a fan of the Russian side, though, I still think giving a more plausible representation of the fighting south without an easy fruit for the German players makes more sense and in turn would also allow the Axis late war to ask for the same benefits. They later will need them much more than the Soviets on turn 1... So I believe B-Gs changes do make much sense from a fundamental point of view.

Late Edit: Yeah, why not -- mods like B-G's will allow everyone to enjoy WitE in their own taste, and will show which way people prefer to play out the game. It will settle itself, so why discuss it anymore. If the game engine allows a move, then let be fine -- for both sides.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: janh

B-G, just reading your scenario notes. Nice research you have done there.

Thank you for the kind words. I think it's far from perfect. I've been working with one single source (the book by Kamenir) which furthermore is a secondary source, and a somewhat vague and self-contradicting source at times. I need to cross reference that with Glantz's work, and I would like to find some German scholar who has wrote on this topic based on German archival sources. Initial deployment and TOE's were near perfect. TOE's tended to iron out some of the quite stark contrasts in readiness and equipment of some Kiev MD units, but still almost perfect. Deployment was also almost in line with Kamenir's, with the exception of bunching 22nd Mech Corps on top of Kovel and some other minor discrepancies with Kamenir.

ORIGINAL: janh
It might be nice simple fix for the first turn. I still hope they will address the fundamental issue of the static U-Go phase with some game mechanics in the next title (hopefully much like the reaction setting for naval in WitP).  I know people like Pelton or kirkgregerson don't see it this way and perceive the whole discussion as being about taking away the tool they think they need for reasonable chances later, but it really isn't about Lvov, which just stands by its name for the first evident appearance of that phenomenon.  Thus it is good that your approach still allows the Axis to attempt a Lvov pocket, but doesn't give the appearance that the Soviets remained idle and did not fight AGS fiercely as they in fact did in the first weeks.

The discussion we had on the Reaction rules was the fundamental inspiration for this. In order to account - at least during the first Axis turn - for those mechanisms which we don't have in the game was to tweak MP's and initial deployments, to navigate the problems of the strict IGOUGO turn structure. Note that these MP's will go away after Axis turn, as soon as the 22nd June Surprise Rules kick in during the Soviet logistic phase executed after first turn Axis moves.

Regarding the Lvov pocket, that's more of an hypothesis than a statement. I have played 10 times first Axis turn in the south without using 2nd PzGruppe at all. And reached in every instance an advance similar to that of 1 PzG and 6. Armee in the period of 23rd June to 26th June. Losses also felt about right. On average, the Axis lost about 6,000 casualties and about 100 AFV's, while the Soviet losses where in the range of 150,000 casualties and over 1,000 AFVs.

So I'd like to invite crafty Axis player to try to replicate the Lvov Opening committing 2nd PzGruppe there. I don't see at the moment any reason for it not being feasible, and further tweaks might be needed in order to make it feasible. The goal is to make that decision to be as unsound as - I think - it seemed to OKH during Barbarossa planning. I'm pretty sure the generalstab guys discussed that, they were professionals though lacked the hindsight and ability to have perfect information on Soviet dispositions, but obviously, it was discarded.

ORIGINAL: janh
I wonder whether these changes will have the side effect to induce the breakdown of the Southern Soviet a few turns later than turn one, and closer to the Dejnepr, which could give the the Germans the necessary chaos to rush deeper and faster towards Rostov and Voroshilovgrad than seen now. I wouldn't be surprised. My impression is that the so much earlier breakdown of the Soviet Southern Front causes Soviet players to bring more reserves down south (and sooner, which they can they will be less pressed by a weakened AGC) than AGS faced historically. These have time to stiffen resistance around the Djenepr again after a few turns while the Axis is still digesting Lvovs gains. And once the Soviets regain balance at this excellent position deeper in the rear, they can give ground in ordered fashion, thus disallowing a adventurous drive of Kleists tanks. It is possible like other players say, that the low-hanging Lvov fruit distracts from far more better German long-term strategies.  Too bad it is almost a scripted first turn move by now, and the Soviets will soon also find an optimum counter-move.

As such, I begin to agree with Tullius and others. It could be a one-shot "benefit" for the Axis. Unfortunately no 1.05 AARs have reached 44 and the breakdown of the Axis army yet, which could actually turn the same benefit around at a larger scale since the Russians have a greater number of mobile formations, and the Germans lack the number to defend in great depth -- so the Russians, once wider breakthrus are possible, might be able to administer many Lvov-pockets to the Germans, which could lead to a quicker disintegration of the Axis Army. But that would be fair game then. Since I am not a fan of the Russian side, though, I still think giving a more plausible representation of the fighting south without an easy fruit for the German players makes more sense and in turn would also allow the Axis late war to ask for the same benefits. They later will need them much more than the Soviets on turn 1... So I believe B-Gs changes do make much sense from a fundamental point of view.

Very well written janh. I couldn't write this better. Do I have your permission to quote/paraphrase your thoughts on the scenario notes?

ORIGINAL: janh
Late Edit: Yeah, why not -- mods like B-G's will allow everyone to enjoy WitE in their own taste, and will show which way people prefer to play out the game. It will settle itself, so why discuss it anymore. If the game engine allows a move, then let be fine -- for both sides.

Just something to add: if the game engine and the scenario designer allow for a move to be done, then it's fair game.

[Klydon]

I took a look at the scenario B-G. Interesting is my initial reaction. Then I figured out that the entire 17th army and 1 corps of 6th army is frozen for turn 1 for the Axis (I don't see where this was mentioned in any of your scenario notes or posts, so I am not sure if it was intended or not). This turns it into a non starter for me and I don't believe any Axis player would be willing to try this out under any conditions.

One of the motorized divisions is also marked as a "guards" unit, which was intended by your notes. I don't know that I would give it guards status due to the chaotic nature of the summer campaign in 1941. Giving it 60 exp/moral is not an issue. What would happen is the unit would be fragile. It would be powerful (for a Russian unit) until it got into combat and suffered losses and the unit would not be the same again simply because replacements would be so far below what was normal for that unit.

There will also be no real need for a Kovel mini-pocket to work around either, which does make things a bit easier, but there simply isn't enough infantry to do much of anything down south.

I would be interested to see how much interest there is in such scenarios. I released several campaigns based on what could have been for both sides and none have gotten any interest at all from the community at large in part because I think they are only interested in "official" scenarios. (Or so I would like to think that is the reason. [;)] ).

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I took a look at the scenario B-G. Interesting is my initial reaction. Then I figured out that the entire 17th army and 1 corps of 6th army is frozen for turn 1 for the Axis (I don't see where this was mentioned in any of your scenario notes or posts, so I am not sure if it was intended or not). This turns it into a non starter for me and I don't believe any Axis player would be willing to try this out under any conditions.

That was introduced in the last revision (0.3). It's 17. Armee, and LV and XXXXIV ArmeeKorps of 6. Armee. Those forces didn't advance much or at all into Soviet territory, or so tell me the situation maps I'm reading. Another option would be to reduce their MP's to simulate that sluggish performance.

The Soviet forces facing them on the Lvov bulge are (or should) be frozen for two turns.

Does that change your opinion? If not, could you ellaborate on why would you consider it a non-starter? (Answer in the thread on the Scenario & Modding scenario). Did you actually try to breakthrough Kiev MD positions?

ORIGINAL: Klydon
One of the motorized divisions is also marked as a "guards" unit, which was intended by your notes. I don't know that I would give it guards status due to the chaotic nature of the summer campaign in 1941. Giving it 60 exp/moral is not an issue. What would happen is the unit would be fragile. It would be powerful (for a Russian unit) until it got into combat and suffered losses and the unit would not be the same again simply because replacements would be so far below what was normal for that unit.

Intended but, as I said debatable. It's all about the "Guards" mechanism in the game accounts well for the standing of this distinguished unit. My take is that the Guards title is something completely honorific, not really meaning much other in-game than the +5 Morale and prioritized replacements and equipment reflected in the TOEs to some extent (but mostly something the Soviet player has to look after himself, by the way). The unit is really fragile. After first contact with the Germans it's gutted.

ORIGINAL: Klydon
There will also be no real need for a Kovel mini-pocket to work around either, which does make things a bit easier, but there simply isn't enough infantry to do much of anything down south.

What I thought. I need to do more research on 17. Armee and those 6. ArmeeKorps activities during June 22 - 26.

ORIGINAL: Klydon
I would be interested to see how much interest there is in such scenarios. I released several campaigns based on what could have been for both sides and none have gotten any interest at all from the community at large in part because I think they are only interested in "official" scenarios. (Or so I would like to think that is the reason. [;)] ).

Best way of learning about that is to keep them coming I didn't notice your campaigns Klydon, could you link to them? Regarding the last part: I think it's a matter of "promotion".

Shall we move to the other thread to discuss the specifics of the scenario? And thank you for checking it Klydon, I'm really looking forward to feedback from you. I'd really be grateful if you tried a couple playthroughs over the first Axis turn.

[Klydon]

Some of the scenarios I have done:

The original OKH plan called for a panzer drive out of Rumania to link up with AGS at the Dniepr. Hitler canned the plan since his "intuition" told him the river was too hard to get across. This was done before the Balkans campaign and OKH could have brought it back by pointing out it could have been possible to get 2nd and 5th panzer to Rumania instead of being shipped across the sea to Italy (and running into a minefield, resulting in all the tanks of both divisions being sunk). This scenario obviously favors the Germans.

The first link is for the Barbarossa scenario. The second is for the campaign and also features some reworked command that puts most of the Rumanians under Rumanian army control.

tm.asp?m=2661896

tm.asp?m=2744951

This one is a alternate start for the Russians that sees many of their frozen units (not along the Finnish or Turkish border) unfrozed due to Stalin's more coherant actions during the start of the campaign (He didn't go hide out for 3 days or whatever it was while the entire Russian command structure seemed to be paralyzed). Obviously, this is one that favors the Russians.

tm.asp?m=2745123

I had another one early one that featured 1st PG units not frozen. This was more in line of a Fire in the East type move since this was the first game I have ever seen that 1st PG had over 1/2 of their panzer units unavailable on turn 1. Since getting some feedback and doing some of my own research, I concur with a lot of the original game frozen units and if anything, they are generous to the Germans (one of the SS divisions first saw combat in the Crimea as an example). It also makes it much clearer to me as to why the Germans may have struggled to get going in the south simply because they had a whopping 4 panzer divisions and no motorized divisions active at the start and on top of that, also had bad ground conditions to deal with as well.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Some of the scenarios I have done:

The original OKH plan called for a panzer drive out of Rumania to link up with AGS at the Dniepr. Hitler canned the plan since his "intuition" told him the river was too hard to get across. This was done before the Balkans campaign and OKH could have brought it back by pointing out it could have been possible to get 2nd and 5th panzer to Rumania instead of being shipped across the sea to Italy (and running into a minefield, resulting in all the tanks of both divisions being sunk). This scenario obviously favors the Germans.

The first link is for the Barbarossa scenario. The second is for the campaign and also features some reworked command that puts most of the Rumanians under Rumanian army control.

tm.asp?m=2661896

tm.asp?m=2744951

This one is a alternate start for the Russians that sees many of their frozen units (not along the Finnish or Turkish border) unfrozed due to Stalin's more coherant actions during the start of the campaign (He didn't go hide out for 3 days or whatever it was while the entire Russian command structure seemed to be paralyzed). Obviously, this is one that favors the Russians.

tm.asp?m=2745123

I had another one early one that featured 1st PG units not frozen. This was more in line of a Fire in the East type move since this was the first game I have ever seen that 1st PG had over 1/2 of their panzer units unavailable on turn 1. Since getting some feedback and doing some of my own research, I concur with a lot of the original game frozen units and if anything, they are generous to the Germans (one of the SS divisions first saw combat in the Crimea as an example). It also makes it much clearer to me as to why the Germans may have struggled to get going in the south simply because they had a whopping 4 panzer divisions and no motorized divisions active at the start and on top of that, also had bad ground conditions to deal with as well.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Some of the scenarios I have done:

The original OKH plan called for a panzer drive out of Rumania to link up with AGS at the Dniepr. Hitler canned the plan since his "intuition" told him the river was too hard to get across. This was done before the Balkans campaign and OKH could have brought it back by pointing out it could have been possible to get 2nd and 5th panzer to Rumania instead of being shipped across the sea to Italy (and running into a minefield, resulting in all the tanks of both divisions being sunk). This scenario obviously favors the Germans.

The first link is for the Barbarossa scenario. The second is for the campaign and also features some reworked command that puts most of the Rumanians under Rumanian army control.

tm.asp?m=2661896

tm.asp?m=2744951

This one is a alternate start for the Russians that sees many of their frozen units (not along the Finnish or Turkish border) unfrozed due to Stalin's more coherant actions during the start of the campaign (He didn't go hide out for 3 days or whatever it was while the entire Russian command structure seemed to be paralyzed). Obviously, this is one that favors the Russians.

tm.asp?m=2745123

I had another one early one that featured 1st PG units not frozen. This was more in line of a Fire in the East type move since this was the first game I have ever seen that 1st PG had over 1/2 of their panzer units unavailable on turn 1. Since getting some feedback and doing some of my own research, I concur with a lot of the original game frozen units and if anything, they are generous to the Germans (one of the SS divisions first saw combat in the Crimea as an example). It also makes it much clearer to me as to why the Germans may have struggled to get going in the south simply because they had a whopping 4 panzer divisions and no motorized divisions active at the start and on top of that, also had bad ground conditions to deal with as well.

Some of these can be used to obtaine new scenarios with "buffs" to Soviet deployments (just to keep things interesting). Seriously, if I could I would like to do a "cartesian product" thing between these Axis-oriented initial setups and other Soviet-oriented setups.

Regarding the SWE scenario we were discussing... well, some of the variants you have (the freed up 1PG) are certainly compatible.

Thank you for the links (and to other people on this thread, if interested, take a look on Klydon's variants).

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Do I have your permission to quote/paraphrase your thoughts on the scenario notes?

Thank you, and of course are free to use any thought you find helpful. There are no big secrets here, rather speculation and wooly thoughts that hopefully get other people thinking a bit more and some constructive discussions started. I hope the idea will slowly settle that the whole reaction discussion was not at all about eliminating the Lvov pocketing strategy, but merely to refine IgoUgo much in the same fashion that naval forces in WitP or AE are given the opportunity to react to enemies bypassing or approaching them, for similar reasons.