The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please)

[Flaviusx]

I'd happily play him if he accepted my conditions as stated above. He will never do this. I refuse to play with his.

[glvaca]

I'm not sure about the non-random weather. Certainly, the Sovs are really stressed without it. On the other hand, with 3 turns of mud in 1941, I think they have it too easy.
Something in between would carry my preference.

[Flaviusx]

It doesn't necessarily mean 3 mud turns, Glvaca. Oddly enough, you can get multiple weather zones with mud in a single turn. I've had two zones hit with mud in the past at once, presumably all 3 at once is possible.

Also, timing is important. An early mud turn in the North zone is essentially a freebie for the Axis. Then again, a mud turn in south and central early on is pretty nasty.

Sometimes, the weather Gods hate you and refuse to cough up mud at all. That happened to me last time I played James.

[notenome]

Prsonally I believe a forward defense is always possible, but it depends how you define it. If you create a scale, where on one side you have running to the dnepr with everything on turn 1, and sending everything to the frontline as the other extreme, both are stupid tactics. A forward defense to me means contesting the Axis advance and that is altogether a different proposition in each sector of the front.

For example: In the South the Soviets have three strong mechanized formations, one in Southern Front, one by the Dnepr and one near the Prypiat Marshes. Individual divisions of these formations have CV values of 6, which is something the Soviets aren't going to see again for the better part of a year. The problem is that most forward defending Soviet players use these formations to plug holes in the lines, where they inevitably get pocketed and can't bring their offensive potential to bear. In my mind the correct application of these formations is to be held in reserve, behind the MLR, being brought up to punch holes in pockets and then pulled back again. Once a hole is punched divisions in pockets should have their TOEs reduced and HQs stripped of their support assets, to reduce losses when the pocket is closed again.

Another example: A lot of divisions wind up in the swamps, where most players rail them out to feed western front. To me these units should be kept in the swamp, creating long flanks for the Axis. I actually feed units into the swamps and let the German player figure out how he's going to deal with them. Aside from favouring defense, swamps also burn through attacking mps at a prodigious rate, and because of the railroads the supply situation greatly favors the Soviets. Historically this strong northern flank forced the Axis advance southwards, forming the Uman pocket.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: notenome
Prsonally I believe a forward defense is always possible, but it depends how you define it.

Given that Michael has demanded this rule, I guess what matters is the definition accepted by him, don't you think? Well, as everyone knows Michael wrote many times about this issue (therefore this is no secret). What he clearly wants is the Soviet player doing what Red Army did in the real thing: bring forces forward and fight, in that order. If you don't do that you are avoiding the fight, and this, the Red Army never did it (millions were taken prisoners)...

Now if you want to play with words, definitions...

I don't give a flying f*** about the rules of this game. It's their problem, not mine. But I don't want people to reach the wrong conclusions [;)] This would harm more than help.

I'm pretty certain the game (as it is) simply has failed at simulating the Blitzkrieg IF the Soviet player does what their counterparts did. So Michael is demanding the moon. The sooner this fact is accepted the better.

And by the way, I honestly think he is right to demand this suicide fight (as per history). If only he was not that selective...

[Tarhunnas]

Turn 7

Things are getting worse and worse. I can't imagine how he can keep on pocketing turn after turn! [X(] I certainly could never match it as the German! Really Michael T is an amazingly talented player. And all the pockets are perfectly planned with each unit in the optimum position to take advantage of terrain or protected by a standoff zone of axis-controlled hexes.

Map before Soviet moves.

[Tarhunnas]

Here is an example of the mid-size pocket near Roslavl. Perfectly planned with the easternmost units protected by the river or in woods, and the axis-control-glacis in the southeast! Amazing! Note though that the CVs of the panzers are not really healthy.

[Tarhunnas]

Something which the heroic 4th Army under the inspired commad of Rodion Malinovski takes advantage of. A fierce attack from the northeast, the only weak spot, displaces not one but two panzer divisions in succession to bring relief to the trapped comrades in the pocket!

[Tarhunnas]

In the north, another counterattack against a regiment breaks the pocket southwest of the Luga.

[Tarhunnas]

Here is the center after Soviet moves. The front I can scrape up is a sorry sight. I am staring utter defeat in the face.

[Tarhunnas]

In the south, some maneuvering and an attack on a Hungarian brigade breaks the pocket in two places, isolating the panzer spearhead. But my frontline is reduced to a weak screen. A breakthrough towards Kharkov is a distinct possibility, and I have not had time and/or rail cap to evacuate the place!

Map after Soviet moves.

[Zonso]

Michael T is a bloody machine, very impressive. He is clearly in a league of his own, making all average German players very humble indeed. I think the theory fostered by some that he stacks the deck is a hollow cry and doesn't negate how skilled a player he really is. Taking shots at Michael T here is a disservice to him and the community.

I'm curious now what the Red Army numbers are. I do agree with what you said earlier that certain play styles match up well and that you can fight forward against some opponents. I think that is an advantage of the game though I'm still of the opinion the tipping point for either side is too precarious and it seems once over there may be no coming back. We will see.

[notenome]

very strong turn by you Tarhunnas, you definetly made lemonade with that turn 7. That said I fear you may be making a mistake up north by defending to the west of the novgorod line.

Also this game totally has a Soviet bias.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: notenome

very strong turn by you Tarhunnas, you definetly made lemonade with that turn 7.

Thanks, but I think it is not enough. I have lost too much already! [:(]

ORIGINAL: notenome

That said I fear you may be making a mistake up north by defending to the west of the novgorod line.

I think you are right. I won't be able to hold Leningrad anyway, so I should probably just cut my losses.

ORIGINAL: notenome

Also this game totally has a Soviet bias.

[:D]

[Balou]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I think you are right. I won't be able to hold Leningrad anyway, so I should probably just cut my losses.

Am I right you think LGD definitively is lost ? If so, what arguments AGAINST GIVING IT UP NOW ? And I mean retire with everything that can move. We see a professional in pocketing who might grab Leningrad AND units. You can't move Leningrad, but units you can (of which you're short of everywhere else). Of course the Fins will be freed, but I am not so sure that any attempt to delay up north is worth the price.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Balou

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I think you are right. I won't be able to hold Leningrad anyway, so I should probably just cut my losses.

Am I right you think LGD definitively is lost ? If so, what arguments AGAINST GIVING IT UP NOW ? And I mean retire with everything that can move. We see a professional in pocketing who might grab Leningrad AND units. You can't move Leningrad, but units you can (of which you're short of everywhere else). Of course the Fins will be freed, but I am not so sure that any attempt to delay up north is worth the price.

If I give it up too easily, that panzer group will go hunting somewhere else. So the trick is to strike a balance. Make him use as much force as possible while not losing too much.

[Balou]

I can't see anything covering the lower Volkhov river. If he's going for a LGD pocket, it could become a rather large one. And with low (?) fort levels, he's not going to need a lot of power from Pz/Mot Divs anyway.

[hfarrish]

Is the industry out of Leningrad? One thing to consider is that trying to move a huge quantity of troops out now will drain the ability to evac industry - I tend to prefer doing a phased withdrawal rather than simply pulling up stakes and bugging out. This keeps him fighting to some extent up there, gets most of your men out and doesn't overtax the rails.

[hfarrish]

Of course, it doesn't look like there is much up there period in terms of serious manpower...out of curiosity, Tarhunnas, why so many FZs on Leningrad? Seems like an awful lot of APs to give up for a city you would be unlikely to hold no matter who the opponent was...

[Balou]

Both of you are probably right. And I have to correct myself, for Michael T is such a fox. He's very low on Pzs, so this whole LGD maneuver could easily be a feint in order to dislodge the Sovs from there almost for free.