Tackling the Russian bear (No Tarhunnas pls)

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Yes, he fights too far forward everywhere and his reluctance to yield ground is fatal. When force levels drop beyond a certain point, you have to fall back. An upfront defense requires a certain density to pull off. You can only reach those densities in 1941 on limited parts of the front. Elsewhere, discretion is the better part of valor.

A lot of the pockets made were indeed avoidable. He also tends to reinforce failure; sometimes it is best to let the remnants die off and work on building a new line in the rear rather than feed more men into a pocket.

Ironically, the one place where it can really pay off to put up a stiff defense is a place he always runs away, namely, the Finnish front north of Lake Ladoga. There is no reason at all to give the Finns a free pass to the Svir.

I think Tarhunnas tactics are part of his history really and the general problem most SHC players have.

Tarhunnas like many other players(SHC) win,win and keep winning using his basic strategy. They get confident in their strategy. Then comes allong a good GHC player or 2 and the old strategy which won easly time after time, flops.

I am guessing Tarhunnas being a good player will learn from his errors as I am many others have and be a better player in the future.

The game was very close as was MT's, but in the end the Red Army is just a shell because of losses over time.

I have to agree with Flaviusx there is no recovering from these losses and the lose of manpower centers. Hmm he recover but not until late 43 which will be much to late.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Pelton
I am guessing Tarhunnas being a good player will learn from his errors as I am many others have and be a better player in the future.

That's all? [&:]

Are you serious?

You and some other players have hysterically demanded this forward thing (NO runaways, remember?). Now you have it under your own eyes. See the results. And all you have to say is "he will learn from this"... [8|]

I would have hoped some er... coherence... really vocal when it's about the Axis getting stick... and now just really soft when the Soviets are getting some...

That's zero credibility on my book, sorry. Whilst Tarhunnas has been 100% honest, sticking to the rule (vs Michael T that is) [;)]

[glvaca]

TD, hang on a minute.
As Tarhunnas himself pointed out he did not play MT any different then he would otherwise and I dare say he proved his point by doing so in our game.
Secondly, a forward defense is effective up to a point. It is not easy to break, but once the odds are starting to go against the Soviet player, discretion is certainly the better part of valour.

Now I can sense you are in a worked up state and are going to try to use this game to prove your point that the Soviets are doomed to lose in 41. I would recommend caution. The important bit to remember is that what happened historically is only a a guideline to achieve historical plausibility. From the first move historical comparisons are just like comparing the previous years football final with the current. They should follow the same rules, but all the rest is just nice to know.

Tarhunnas chose his own strategy, he was not forced to fight forward or stay as long as he did in certain places. So the main lesson I take away is one I've been preaching all along, fighting forward to "much" is very risky. Sometimes you'll get away with it, most of the times you won't. As to what is too much depends on the German player.

Finally, the last thing I'm after is a pat on the back from anyone, including you, but breaking such a determined defense does require skill and judging from the whining of several individuals (being very quiet these days) breaking such a forward defense was put in doubt, let alone a run-away defense.

I'm about to start my game with Michael and I'm looking forward to see what he will come up with.

[juret]

if attack on the pz div east of moscow had succeded and big pocket had been opened before the mud the center would looked very different as axis would had time to reduce pocket and would been badly extended.

I dont think a game who runs 230 turns should be decided in 1 attack on turn 17.

my 2c

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: juret

if attack on the pz div east of moscow had succeded and big pocket had been opened before the mud the center would looked very different as axis would had time to reduce pocket and would been badly extended.

I dont think a game who runs 230 turns should be decided in 1 attack on turn 17.

my 2c

I think I said as much, the whole operation was one big gamble but it did pay of in the end. No risk no gain.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion off course. It's rather depressing from my point of view that you reach this conclusion and I would encourage you to read the AAR again. Maybe it will inspire you to reach a different conclusion. The game was not decided by one failed Soviet attack on turn 15; it was decided by a cummulation of events upto that point, leading to the Moscow pocket, and the disposition of the Russian forces and the disposition of German forces, leading to a lack of Soviet combat strength that could be brought to bear for that very important attack.

But don't let facts take you away from the Soviet biased point of view which is so fashionable on this forum.
I wonder why I actually do an AAR these days. Not to mention that there are very few Axis AAR's, very curious that...

[timmyab]

Don't be put off, the AAR is great.I'm hoping you'll do one when you play MT.
I guess juret means the attack on turn 16 which never looked like succeeding anyway.I think your 'gamble' here is well worthwhile.By far the greater risk is to your opponent and that's the kind of gamble you have no option but to accept.It's kind of like T went all in at poker with a poor hand and you called him.

[Flaviusx]

The game was certainly not decided in a single turn. Tarhunnas has been in serious trouble for many turns and kept getting one pocket after the other. After a certain point these disasters became unrecoverable and just snowballed, and that point imo was reached several turns ago. The Moscow pocket is just dancing on the grave.

The in game Soviet Union does not have the capability to bounce back from such disastrous pockets in succession. The replacement pool is too small (4.5 million replacements or so in 1941, and this is what the vast majority of your reinforcements feed off, note that in real life the Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors by July alone, with more on the way) and units come back from the deadpile too slowly.

[Klydon]

TD, you need to think about the changes that have gone on with the game as well and the effect they have had on defensive strategy along with countering current German tactics. The game has been under revision and the Russians are weaker in 1941 than they have been at almost any other point during the development that the public has seen.

The best analogy I have heard about the East front would be something I think Manstien mentioned and that he considered it a boxing match between a very skilled lighter weight boxer (Germany) and a powerful heavier brawler (Russia). We don't have that feel at all for the first two years of the game as in most cases, it is a lot of running by both sides, resulting in a very unsatisfactory experience. (IE, it isn't fun).

Until they fix certain underlying issues (logistics, the "trackmeet" feel for both sides, etc), the game is not going to be very good between two humans.

[Flaviusx]

Glvaca, if you're willing and have the time, I wouldn't mind a game. No braindead house rules, though (the ones you have in this game are acceptable, I don't do any of that cheese anyways.) Prefer random weather, indeed insist on it when playing somebody of your caliber. Not gonna lie, I think the random mud turns in summer of 41 are a necessary handicap at this point against a good enough Axis player given the state of the game's logistics.

[gids]

Great AAR and im sure tarhunnas will come back hes not easily put off

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The best analogy I have heard about the East front would be something I think Manstien mentioned and that he considered it a boxing match between a very skilled lighter weight boxer (Germany) and a powerful heavier brawler (Russia). We don't have that feel at all for the first two years of the game as in most cases, it is a lot of running by both sides, resulting in a very unsatisfactory experience. (IE, it isn't fun).

I agree, the game feels more like a raging bull plowing through a swarm of chihuahuas. The chihuahuas might eventually drag the bull down, but only if he doesn't stomp enough of them into the ground first...

[Seminole]

Not gonna lie, I think the random mud turns in summer of 41 are a necessary handicap at this point against a good enough Axis player given the state of the game's logistics.

I'm glad the fixed weather is in the game from a historical 'what-if' stand point, but I think random weather makes more sense between human opponents to prevent some of the (dare I say gamey?) moves that people make in anticipation of their perfect knowledge about the weather condition on turn X.

I wonder if a cumulative impact effect (similar to ice level) might not make the mud a little better. Should 1 week of rain have the same effect on supplies as 3 weeks? I'm not saying make the existing mud harsher, but to instead build to the degree of impediment it represents now. Maybe one week of rain in August shouldn't be the same as the third consecutive week of rain in October.

Just thinking out loud...

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

TD, you need to think about the changes that have gone on with the game as well and the effect they have had on defensive strategy along with countering current German tactics. The game has been under revision and the Russians are weaker in 1941 than they have been at almost any other point during the development that the public has seen.

The best analogy I have heard about the East front would be something I think Manstien mentioned and that he considered it a boxing match between a very skilled lighter weight boxer (Germany) and a powerful heavier brawler (Russia). We don't have that feel at all for the first two years of the game as in most cases, it is a lot of running by both sides, resulting in a very unsatisfactory experience. (IE, it isn't fun).

Until they fix certain underlying issues (logistics, the "trackmeet" feel for both sides, etc), the game is not going to be very good between two humans.

That's actually not completely true. The latest patches have 1.06+ have shifted back towards stiffening the Soviets.

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that the Axis logistics are so incredibly forgiving. There were plenty of times when I had to pause for supplies and refit because the panzers were getting worn out. Logistics and securing the RR which I was planning to convert were prime considerations in all my planning. IF you (and many others) want to delude themselves by thinking that the Axis can just run around without a secoind thought about their logistics, I think it's time you fire up a game as the Axis and put that to the test. We'll talk again after that.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Glvaca, if you're willing and have the time, I wouldn't mind a game. No braindead house rules, though (the ones you have in this game are acceptable, I don't do any of that cheese anyways.) Prefer random weather, indeed insist on it when playing somebody of your caliber. Not gonna lie, I think the random mud turns in summer of 41 are a necessary handicap at this point against a good enough Axis player given the state of the game's logistics.

Flav, just done my first turn with MT. I really don't have time for another right now (it will be tight the way it is). However, if you can wait a while I'd be happy to play.

I'm all for no braindead rules, but random weather is just to much of a dissadvantage for the Axis to agree on without some kind of compensation. I'm a firm believer that both sides should have operational flexibility in an operational game. I've never understood the desire for players to want to replay history to a tie, I'm for historical plausibility and what could have been. The problem is that allowing total freedom to the Russians together with guaranteed mud (and knowing my luck, probably the max) is just to much, I'll never get anywhere in 42 after the wacking I'll get during blizzard.

Besides, how could we compare Tarhannus's games, my game with MT if we don't use the same rules? Non-Random weather and for the rest you have total flexibility, no whining, no quitting.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The game was certainly not decided in a single turn. Tarhunnas has been in serious trouble for many turns and kept getting one pocket after the other. After a certain point these disasters became unrecoverable and just snowballed, and that point imo was reached several turns ago. The Moscow pocket is just dancing on the grave.

The in game Soviet Union does not have the capability to bounce back from such disastrous pockets in succession. The replacement pool is too small (4.5 million replacements or so in 1941, and this is what the vast majority of your reinforcements feed off, note that in real life the Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors by July alone, with more on the way) and units come back from the deadpile too slowly.

IIRC, the first versions of the game had a much higher manpower multiplier for the Soviets. It was tuned down again IIRC, to balance the game as you could capture 2/3rds of the map and the Soviets would still have an 8million army by 1942.

As a Soviet player I too have felt the pinch of losing to much. I too find that the Russian shells fill out to slow. Especially in mortars and machine guns. I'm unsure if this is WAD or just a side effect of something else.

The point is, new divisions don't arrive at the front fast enough. Secondly, buying new Sov. Divs. is much to expensive in 41. With the reduction of manpower, perhaps it would be acceptable to reduce the cost of new infantry divs. to 42 prices. That would give the Soviet player something to work with if he loses a lot of counters.

[Flaviusx]

Heh. Random weather doesn't take any of your flexibility away. You can still do a Lvov opening and whatnot, after all.

It just means there's a chance your finely tuned offensive machine will run into supply problems. As should be the case but really isn't.

Take this as a complement. I think you're good enough that I need the handicap. Against a lesser player I wouldn't ask for it. But it is my considered opinion right now that at a certain level of Axis skill, the Soviet needs such a handicap right now. Op tempo is very high.

We can take this up again after you are done with Michael.

[notenome]

Not to mention that (in my current game's case) there was actually less mud with random weather, as only one turn is guaranteed.

[juret]

ORIGINAL: timmyab

Don't be put off, the AAR is great.I'm hoping you'll do one when you play MT.
I guess juret means the attack on turn 16 which never looked like succeeding anyway.I think your 'gamble' here is well worthwhile.By far the greater risk is to your opponent and that's the kind of gamble you have no option but to accept.It's kind of like T went all in at poker with a poor hand and you called him.

ye thats whut i ment. timmy wrote it in better english
the gamble paid off. the game would been way different if attack had succed.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The game was certainly not decided in a single turn. Tarhunnas has been in serious trouble for many turns and kept getting one pocket after the other. After a certain point these disasters became unrecoverable and just snowballed, and that point imo was reached several turns ago. The Moscow pocket is just dancing on the grave.

The in game Soviet Union does not have the capability to bounce back from such disastrous pockets in succession. The replacement pool is too small (4.5 million replacements or so in 1941, and this is what the vast majority of your reinforcements feed off, note that in real life the Soviets called up 5 million men to the colors by July alone, with more on the way) and units come back from the deadpile too slowly.

IIRC, the first versions of the game had a much higher manpower multiplier for the Soviets. It was tuned down again IIRC, to balance the game as you could capture 2/3rds of the map and the Soviets would still have an 8million army by 1942.

As a Soviet player I too have felt the pinch of losing to much. I too find that the Russian shells fill out to slow. Especially in mortars and machine guns. I'm unsure if this is WAD or just a side effect of something else.

The point is, new divisions don't arrive at the front fast enough. Secondly, buying new Sov. Divs. is much to expensive in 41. With the reduction of manpower, perhaps it would be acceptable to reduce the cost of new infantry divs. to 42 prices. That would give the Soviet player something to work with if he loses a lot of counters.

Good call, as this pinpoints one of the game's primary issues other than the oft-mentioned logistics that cause runaways - the Red Army, at least in '41, doesn't regenerate fast enough compared with historical, which means that even historically low losses can cause complete disintegration. Seems like the manpower multiplier should be upped in '41 and then reduced further in out years...although this is only a guess at the right fix (and yes, I do support things like VP bonuses/penalties encouraging the Soviet to fight forward).

[glvaca]

That's certainly a solution, but that could lead to other extreme results.
Another way to handle it would be to determine the total replacement capability the Soviets had over their complete territory.
Then, deduct what has been lost (Axis conquest) from the complete pool. Taking into account what has been conscripted already, and what migrates.
Then, look at the maximum size of the Soviet Army over the course of the war.
As we can see from history, the Soviets called up enough men to replace losses and keep the Army at a certain level.
Then, simulate this by consrcipting not a set amount of manpower per week, but whatever is needed to keep that level. This level could vary over the course of the war as industry was getting back online etc...

If the Russian loses a lot, his pool will run out faster, if he manages to lose less, his pool will last longer.

This is just a rough outline, no doubt it should be refined. But a mechanism like this would make a lot more sense than some arbitrary number. At least it would reward how both players are doing.