The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please)

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

"Tarhunnas", how much time and effort (i.e. battles) did yor opponent "Michael T" spend on dealing with pockets he made?


Leo "Apollo11"

[janh]

Congrats to Michael, and thanks to Tarhunnas. It was a nice match to watch, though somewhat frustrating.

ORIGINAL: hfarrish
I agree with that - MT has always said he would play as Sovs under the same rules, but no one has taken him up on it; would be an interesting match to see for sure.

+1

I'd also vote for a rematch. Tarhunnas is an excellent player, beyond question among the most experienced on the Soviet side. Michael knows the rule set very well, and knows to maximize its benefits. A rematch would not be very useful now.

[janh]

ORIGINAL: governato
This was an interesting experiment, but should we really expect the results to be much different? The SU tried an aggressive forward defense in real life with disastrous results. Why should this strategy work any better against a very competent German player with full hindsight? There are surely many things to improve, but I'd rather see this as a positive test of the game engine.

It should not work better (unless the Axis player ignored hindsight and made worse mistakes), correct.

But keep in mind that the Russians did even counterattack furiously at many locations, and at various unit scales, not only at regimental level or below. And they suffered terribly with that, but they inflicted attrition with turned out to be important to slow Axis, and probably also set it up for the winter counteroffensives. More so than the lack of winter equipment, I believe. But this did not set Axis up for huge pockets and quick advances, either.

Tarhunnas also counterattacked, and quite impressively so. It cost Michael something like 1 turn across the board altogether, but that's it. Tarhunnas did not even counterattack at the rate the Russians did, else he'd ended up a lot worse because he'd have had even more troops forward. He already had to little depth behind his MBTL, as the pocketing showed. I am more assured now that the Russian side simply does not have the means to repeat the Russian feat in this game, even if the Axis would act more conservatively as if he wouldn't know about the Red Armies numbers, units, reinforcement/rebuild rules etc.

By end of August, the Axis side had loss in excess of 400,000 men, and some units were significantly depleted, especially in Panzergruppe 1. Most AARs also show this number to be roughly half, just as the Soviet losses won't amount to 6Mio, but more like 3-4M. Part of that probably is due to the uncertainty in numbers and differences in categorizing "truly permanent casualties", Glantz being at the upper limit of studies, while others using different sources or different criteria are significantly lower. I don't think this per se is telling anything.

But I am sure that getting so far in barely 7 weeks shows that the supply model is really in favor of offensives. And that reducing pockets is not a rate limiting factor either. It also shows that if Axis can use hindsight to make such gains, it also necessitates that the Soviet player accepts lessons, and one is that already just a forward defense is a very big "va banque" game. It may work against the right opponent, but it is a lot riskier and playing the "ground versus time" game.

Unfortunately there won't be a blizzard counteroffensive, nor would Tarhunnas probably be in any shape for it. The house rules Michael suggested seem like a "double-chance" for mutilation. First the Soviets, and during blizzard perhaps the Wehrmacht, assuming that Soviets survive in first place. It is the opposite of allowing both sides hindsight and withdrawals during the respective periods, which would be force conservation. Since this war was all about destroying the Red Army, and keeping the Wehrmacht intact, it guess hindsight points toward the withdrawals.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Show me an AAR in which the Soviet player has lost circa 6 million soldiers (among them 3 million prisoners)... and Moscow and Leningrad are in Soviet hands and a blizzard offensive is launched...

By the very nature of it, this wont ever happen. U start with 4m man and get around 3 to 3,5mil manpower in reinforcement/replacement before the start of the blizzard. This is set high not low. Thats around 7 mil in all. If u lose 6 mil u wouldnt have any thing left in ur combat forces.
What u get in game arent close to the historic mobilization numbers. Hench u cant lose historic numbers and have any thing left. If u have no troops u ofc cant defend/hold any thing.

Hey, I hadn't thought about that! Thanks [:)] So what do we have? The Red Army [according to some players] has to fight like their counterparts (and thus necessarily take more or less historical losses) when on the game they do NOT even have the men they had to stop the Germans in 1941... now that's funny [:D]

This we have clearly seen on this game. Compare Tarhunnas's losses vs historical and now just count the Soviet counters [not yet] annihilated...

In other words, a dwarf is supposed to do the giant's work... Rite, it makes a lot of sense...

Houston...

[juret]

hats off to MT for exellent axis play

Tarhunnas - ty for good AAR
- would u play MT with other house rules ? u think u would have bigger chance with different rules?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: RCH

I think this challenge is only half done. I hope Tarhunnas accepts the offer to change sides and play again with the same rules. As I see it, this is unfinished.

Before conclusions are set in stone, I'd like to see what damage Tarhunnas can do as the Axis. I'd like to see what Michael can do with the Soviets.

This experiment needs to be seen to its completion.

I don't think it is so easy as to just switch sides and that would sort of prove anything. Even though I have played Axis in two GC to 1942 and 1945 respctively, that was some time ago and several versions ago. My goal currently is to play a GC to conclusion as the Soviets. I have not practiced Axis openings or moves for several months, almost a year, while Michael T has played ten GCs as the Axis. I could never come close to matching his results, not without extensive practicing for several weeks, which I don't have the time or inclination for right now, and probably not even then. So while I appreciate his offer, I will take a rain check on that for now.

[RCHarmon]

Tarhunnas' reasons are valid. I have enjoyed the thread, thanks.

A lot has been made of the house rules, but how much did they come in to play? A Soviet player should have the option to fight forward. Historically, the Soviets caused the Axis many casualties. Casualties that you will not see if the Soviet runs.

I think I know the answer, but I must ask.......If there was no Lvov pocket and you had those troops, could a better fighting defense been possible? Would it had been a mere delay or could it have changed the game?

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: RCH
A lot has been made of the house rules, but how much did they come in to play? A Soviet player should have the option to fight forward. Historically, the Soviets caused the Axis many casualties. Casualties that you will not see if the Soviet runs.

As I said above, I would have fought much the same even without house rules. Not now, with hindsight though.

ORIGINAL: RCH
I think I know the answer, but I must ask.......If there was no Lvov pocket and you had those troops, could a better fighting defense been possible? Would it had been a mere delay or could it have changed the game?

Without a Lvov pocket, a forward defense is much more feasible, but a player with the abilities of Michael T might very well have made short work of a forward defense regardless.

[RCHarmon]

A key point, but not the main point may be found in Michael Ts own words.

"I think Tarhunnas forward strategy may well work with some tweaking. More than a few of my advances were almost stopped. With a breakthrough coming only with the last throw of the dice. A 2.2 : 1 win or some such. The thing the German must have is momentum. As soon as it stops, trouble." Quote from Michael T.

This momentum is a key and a reason for the Axis players success. Momentum would have been tempered by supply constraints historically, not in this game.

There is a lot of info to digest from this game, it is not all cut and dry.

[Tarhunnas]

I think Michael T is too flattering on my defense. Quite frankly, I have never been so completely outmatched in this game before! It did not feel like a close thing from my side! I was simply completely crushed and powerless to resist by turn 8!

[76mm]

I don't think the house rules made much of a difference, although a full-scale run for the hills strategy might have helped Tarhunnas in the opening turns (but would ultimately not have helped). I just think that against a really good German player, there is just not much that a Sov player, even a good one, can do. Meanwhile, almost any Sov player could handle an average German player pretty roughly. Success is asymmetric in this game...

[Encircled]

There is no doubt at all that it was an excellent performance from Michael

Thats not the issue.

A really, really, really good Russian player had lost by Turn 8.

Thats got to ring some warning bells somewhere, surely?

[randallw]

House rules like this let the Axis player use his advantages without facing the big disadvantages.
Limiting reserve commitments decreases the potential Soviet advantage in manpower/counters, and the forward defense means tighter encirclements ( and less risk of outrunning railheads ).

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

How does that apply to the historical situation? Did the Russians carry out a stubborn forward defense and then skillfully pull back at the right time? No, they more or less fought forward (which is why they had so many encirclements) and did NOT retreat when smarter/less restricted generals would have done so. German encirclements were largely due to Russian incompetence rather than purely German superiority. You had Panzers running circles around largely static defenses. What happens when you give the Panzers more than historical fuel and supplies going up against the same largely static defenses? It's not a game, and it's not history, it's plain fantasy. Might as well give them fricken' laser beams strapped to their turrets...

Telling Russian players to pull back at the right time simply encourages more fantasy play, and causes some players to complain that the game is unbalanced.

I think I'd be inclined to suggest that Russian MPs should be reduced for the summer of 1941, simulating their inability to competently move forces around. One could then cut out HQ build-up and the generous logistics, and generally reduce the tempo of operations to more realistic levels.

[hfarrish]

Yeah, as has been noted multiple times, if a Soviet player proactively chooses to make the same mistakes as the historical Soviets, there is virtually no chance at recovery - not because the German players are so much smarter, but because the rebuild/replacement schedule will never give you enough troops to reform and continue to defend the line.

Your suggestion is not a bad one...

[Encircled]

What is really needed is a set of house rules that make the game as playable as possible for both sides.

[hfarrish]

I would agree - what's probably prevented that to date is the dramatic number of balancing and other changes that have occurred over the past year and a half; I suspect we are pretty close to done with major changes and the game as is is probably as it shall be until after WITW - so perhaps mods and consistent house rules can now really be developed properly.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I am continuously astonished at the number of venomous shots that are fired my way at this site. I am not going to be drawn in to even try to defend/deflect that rubbish anymore. But I will say a few things to set the record straight in relation to this game.

First the rules agreed to in this game were of Tarhunnas own design bar two. The Reserve limit and No runaways. These were my requests. All others his. Tarhunnas was free to reject mine and play someone else. Ultimately we are all free to play under whatever rules we like. And contrary to the opinion of others I do not deliberately stack the deck in my favour. I honestly try to evoke a better, more fun, more stimulating game from these house rules. I do not try to deceive anyone.

The stock reserve rules, IMO are rubbish. I do not believe putting the entire Soviet Army, or German Army in reserve mode is ok. Hence the more realistic limit. As for its effect on this game, it is a non issue because we did not get to a point where the possible abuse could have made any difference at all.

The run away rule. IMO this is the biggest failing of the game. There is nothing in the game that dissuades running by either side. I am not going in to theories and fixes here. But when I play a game that is supposed to represent a 1941 Barbarossa situation I want to actually fight the enemy, not chase them across a map devoid of units and never get a chance to come to grips with them. That is not my idea of a fun 1941 game. No matter which side I play.

Muling nullified this running ploy. It allowed me to punish a runner. Now that muling is gone I will only play as German with some kind of penalty for Russians who run (Fredrik and I did discuss some political rules that involved penalties for running, on both sides) or my opponents word not to. I also believe that the run ploy, in capable hands guarantees a victory for the SU. I absolutely refuse to sit down and play a game, spending hour upon hour, knowing that I am dooming myself to some desperate defensive game in 1943/44. No thanks. If other players are happy to do that well good for them.

For me in 1941, as German, I want to think I have some chance to pull off the win, or set it up for 1942 or even 1943. If I get to have my shot in 41/42 and fail I am more than happy to then try to survive in to 44/45. But I want my chance at victory first. Running Soviets rob me of that chance/fun. The Soviet only players want to have their winter 41 fun and 44/45 fun but deny the German players their chance at victory and the fun of actually fighting the 1941 Russian Army. Soviet units that disappear in to the depths of Russia should be something for 1942.

I will be more than happy to play *anyone* as Soviet with no house rules. Sounds like a nice relaxing game to me. But I would honestly prefer mirrored games with the limited reserve and no run rule. And as of now a para limit rule as well. I truly hope WITE 2 does a better job at simulating the desperate war of 1941 that occurred. As it stands, the Soviets in WITE can run whenever they feel any heat at all, not much desperation there at all.

A final thing about the house rules. I am willing to play under the same conditions as Russian against any player who will let me play German under those very same conditions. Fredrik has declined the return match at this stage. He has valid reasons. One of which is not having played German for some time. I fully understand this. However, Fredrik I am willing to wait a week or two for you to get up to speed, even longer if you are keen on the return match. I had my fun, you have every right to have yours.

I don't know what else I can say about the rules. If I were saying I will only play German under those conditions then sure that’s pretty sad. But I am willing to play Fredrik again as Soviet with said very same rules.

As for this game. It was the most challenging I have faced. His defensive method was intimidating and it was no walk in the park. It took hours to figure out how to unravel it. Even my wife commented on the time it was taking for a move. A first. This is the great myth, winning as Axis is easy. What rubbish. Winning as the Soviets is easy when you can run for hills at the slightest sign of trouble. The Soviet only crew can never appreciate the effort, pressure, stress and time commitment it takes to achieve the results the good Axis players do. If you don't apply yourself fully against a good Russian player its curtains by late summer.

I think Tarhunnas forward strategy may well work with some tweaking. More than a few of my advances were almost stopped. With a breakthrough coming only with the last throw of the dice. A 2.2 : 1 win or some such. The thing the German must have is momentum. As soon as it stops, trouble.

Tarhunnas has been a great opponent. I truly enjoyed the game. I wish him well in his other games. But I hope he takes up my offer of the mirror. I can wait.

I saw this one a mile away. Everyone has been bitching about mules, and in the hands of TWO players on this site, mules were overwhelming. But has there been anything done about Soviet run away with picket strategy? Not much, other that German players pointing out it becomes a clickfest in 42 and 43. This game is making a point. It's not to side favor for Michael. The personal attacks are worthless. It's to show what happens if the Soviets are forced to fight historically. Because if they are allowed to run away and put silly pickets up everywhere with no consequences, the game becomes a silly clickfest for the Germans later. Michael may have shown that a historical Soviet game is weighted towards the Germans. OK. Now we have something to work with. Balance the game in 41 from this perspective. Run away should hurt the Soviets. Don't run away, and German panzers may be overweighted. Balance somewhere in middle. But don't sit here an try to tell me that the game is fine as is. It isn't. It needs to be better balanced.

[vicberg]

Flav, you are so weighted in Soviet perspective, I'm almost tempted to ignore everything you say in the future. You have no interest in creating a balanced game. I've seen too many posts from you.

[vicberg]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I don't think the house rules made much of a difference, although a full-scale run for the hills strategy might have helped Tarhunnas in the opening turns (but would ultimately not have helped). I just think that against a really good German player, there is just not much that a Sov player, even a good one, can do. Meanwhile, almost any Sov player could handle an average German player pretty roughly. Success is asymmetric in this game...

Disagree. Maybe you are right against 2 german players out of how many? But this would have been an entirely different game if Sovs allowed to run away. I would like to see a rematch with the Soviets allowed to run away. See what happens. See if game becomes a clickfest even in Michaelt's hands.

I'd highly encourage a rematch with the ability for Soviet run away. Michael, if you want to make your point, this is the way to do it.