So how easy is it to run away from the enemy?

[vicberg]

Therefore, the way I see it, Stalin was not the czar Alexander. The czar could not be deposed, while Stalin could; immediately after the invasion he thought he would be killed, and being so neurotic I bet that he wasn't too comfortable even by 42. I doubt that the official discourse in the STAVKA on 41 was: "Comrades, let's allow the Huns come to the gates of the capital, when a very timely winter will freeze them solid and we'll unleash our Siberians to victory!!". I think it was more in the lines of "Comrades, we'll protect Minsk to death!"; then "Comrades, the enemy will NEVER conquer Kharkov!"; then "Comrades, the war will be won at Smolensk!". And so forth.

Have you read Russian History? Stalin took a census prior to the war. He didn't like the results. He purged the entire department. The next group told him what he wanted to hear. Of the two, Alexandra was much easier to depose than Stalin, who repeated purged every part of his government and country until everyone was afraid to stand against him. The entire country was at his disposal.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Therefore, the way I see it, Stalin was not the czar Alexander. The czar could not be deposed, while Stalin could; immediately after the invasion he thought he would be killed, and being so neurotic I bet that he wasn't too comfortable even by 42. I doubt that the official discourse in the STAVKA on 41 was: "Comrades, let's allow the Huns come to the gates of the capital, when a very timely winter will freeze them solid and we'll unleash our Siberians to victory!!". I think it was more in the lines of "Comrades, we'll protect Minsk to death!"; then "Comrades, the enemy will NEVER conquer Kharkov!"; then "Comrades, the war will be won at Smolensk!". And so forth.

Have you read Russian History? Stalin took a census prior to the war. He didn't like the results. He purged the entire department. The next group told him what he wanted to hear. Of the two, Alexandra was much easier to depose than Stalin, who repeated purged every part of his government and country until everyone was afraid to stand against him. The entire country was at his disposal.

Purged anyone he thought just might try and replace him.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Have you read Russian History? Stalin took a census prior to the war. He didn't like the results. He purged the entire department. The next group told him what he wanted to hear. Of the two, Alexandra was much easier to depose than Stalin, who repeated purged every part of his government and country until everyone was afraid to stand against him. The entire country was at his disposal.

Well, Stalin's pal, Mr. Krushchev, was removed quite easily, as was Robespierre (who was even more bloodthirsty than Stalin). Any dictator remains in power because of a power base - when that is gone, they fall. Do you really believe that Stalin would continue in power if he had lost the war?

But, more to the point, Stalin was neurotic and aggressive. He had a nervous breakdown and thought he would be purged when Germany attacked, so I doubt that he took as granted as we do that he could do anything he wished. He saw enemies everywhere. He had 10,000 tanks and 300 divisions in early 1941 - there's no way he could justify ordering a general retreat for better positions.

What he did in 1941 was, in my point of view, the best political (but worst military) decision, which was to order the generals to hold fast and attack, and then blame them for any defeats. If he ordered retreat, the blame would be with him. I can't see him telling the Politburo in July 1941 that "Comrades, we have the biggest Army in the world, but we can't defend a river line. We better run like rabbits all the way to the Urals. Seeya in Gorky!".

[marty_01]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Imagine it's 1980, and the Soviets launched a surprise attack against NATO, and are rolling in all fronts.

Would you order your troops to march to the front and stand and die, so the population can evacuate and reinforcements can build a 2nd line of defense, or would you pull back your troops, face the media (that will call you a coward) and leave the civillians to their fate?

I would stay in the front, for a matter of ethos: it's very difficult to run away and leave the enemy run rampant in your country - even if staying means a high chance of defeat. That's a fundamental dilemma that, I believe, many professional soldiers would struggle with in real life.

Meanwhile players are not troubled with (or punished for) trading territory for time in the game. The lack of attachment to the little dots in the map is, for me, the biggest difference between a player playing WITE and a real general playing the war. The former will choose "X" with mathematical precision because he will get whatever maximum probability, while the later will choose "Y", even if that's not the best mathematical choice, but is the one he can live with in real life.

Any thoughts?

A fair number of those little dots along the frontier are actually Polish or Bessarabian or Lithuanian, Latvian or Estonian...i.e. the political stigma associated with Russian Field Marshals abandoning Polish\Bessaribian\Lithuanian (etc.) wasn’t quit on par with your above example. In fact, there was actually great deal of debate amongst the Red Army General Staff prior to the commencement of Barbarossa as to the best strategy to employ if the Germans attacked the Soviet Union. The two possible options being either to fight the German Army on the Frontier -- or as Zhukov argued -- retreat into the hinterland and trade space for time. It therefore wasn’t a particularly inconceivable strategy for the Red Army to retreat into Russia rather than nailing itself to Lvov, Bialystok, Kaunus and etc. And of course there is also historical precedent for the Russian Army employing Fabian strategy – ala. Kutuzov’s 1812 Campaign.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

A fair number of those little dots along the frontier are actually Polish or Bessarabian or Lithuanian, Latvian or Estonian...i.e. the political stigma associated with Russian Field Marshals abandoning Polish\Bessaribian\Lithuanian (etc.) wasn’t quit on par with your above example.

That's a great point. I agree.

Minsk and Kiev are different, though. Players in game just give up both too easily compared to real life.


ps: a per-turn bonus in say administrative points might be motivation for a player to try and keep them a bit more (although I'm not sure anyone would try too hard, whatever the bonus, in face of those death star panzer units).

[MechFO]

ORIGINAL: marty_01

ORIGINAL: fbs

Imagine it's 1980, and the Soviets launched a surprise attack against NATO, and are rolling in all fronts.

Would you order your troops to march to the front and stand and die, so the population can evacuate and reinforcements can build a 2nd line of defense, or would you pull back your troops, face the media (that will call you a coward) and leave the civillians to their fate?

I would stay in the front, for a matter of ethos: it's very difficult to run away and leave the enemy run rampant in your country - even if staying means a high chance of defeat. That's a fundamental dilemma that, I believe, many professional soldiers would struggle with in real life.

Meanwhile players are not troubled with (or punished for) trading territory for time in the game. The lack of attachment to the little dots in the map is, for me, the biggest difference between a player playing WITE and a real general playing the war. The former will choose "X" with mathematical precision because he will get whatever maximum probability, while the later will choose "Y", even if that's not the best mathematical choice, but is the one he can live with in real life.

Any thoughts?

A fair number of those little dots along the frontier are actually Polish or Bessarabian or Lithuanian, Latvian or Estonian...i.e. the political stigma associated with Russian Field Marshals abandoning Polish\Bessaribian\Lithuanian (etc.) wasn’t quit on par with your above example. In fact, there was actually great deal of debate amongst the Red Army General Staff prior to the commencement of Barbarossa as to the best strategy to employ if the Germans attacked the Soviet Union. The two possible options being either to fight the German Army on the Frontier -- or as Zhukov argued -- retreat into the hinterland and trade space for time. It therefore wasn’t a particularly inconceivable strategy for the Red Army to retreat into Russia rather than nailing itself to Lvov, Bialystok, Kaunus and etc. And of course there is also historical precedent for the Russian Army employing Fabian strategy – ala. Kutuzov’s 1812 Campaign.

I can't judge the above, but I would like to point out that the imperatives of dictators and general staffs are quite different. General staff concentrate first and foremost on military considerations, not politics. However politics is what's the driver of a dictators decisions, since his survival is dependant upon them. It's irrelevant whether the general staff thought it's a good idea or not, it's down to whether Stalin would have thought he could safely give it up without diminishing his authority, and more importantly, if he would be willing to take even an outside chance on it in order to save a few 10'000 soldiers.

I would argue no. A few 10'000 soldiers vs. even slight possibility of diminished authority= soldiers lose every time.

[RCHarmon]

Against Napoleon the Russians fell back and sucked him ever deeper into mother Russia to his eventual defeat. If the Soviet wants to run let him. The problem is that there are no ill effects at all to how far he can run. The Axis therefore should be left in a better position especially after not launching a snow offensive. Soviet runs because he is like a rubber band that will bend, but never break. He knows this and plays accordingly. The Axis no matter what preparations he makes will be taking a licking in the first blizzard. The game mechanics allows for the soviet to conserve and develop into a steamroller. The Axis, because of game mechanics lose all "what ifs" and gets his numbers and CVs manipulated to fit into the Soviet players model.

Carrots are given to the Axis players with dumbed down Soviet CVs in 1941 (or it might be that the Germans infantries CVs are too high)and the Lvov pocket.