Rhine or Ruin (no glvaca)

[Klydon]

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

From Wiki:

The Finns, and Mannerheim in particular, clearly stated they would fight against the Soviets only to the extent necessary to redress the balance of the 1940 treaty (which would ultimately have dire consequences for Germany, when Finland refused to advance beyond its 1939 borders to complete the German encirclement of Leningrad.) However, for Hitler the matter was irrelevant and he saw Finland as an ally.[93]

I know I have seen Finns as part of the community here post on this subject before as well. Perhaps one of them will once again weigh in on this.

Also not that not only would the Finns not attack across the old border towards Leningrad, but they would not allow German forces in the area either.

[Flaviusx]

If anything, the game's rules allowing the Finns to march past the stop line post Leningrad are too liberal. Yes, this wrecks their morale. So what? I still see plenty of games with Finns hundreds of miles east of the Svir, which is surely not what Carl Gustav intended. It's this rather crazy eventuality which prompts the hard cork at the bottleneck. Nobody would give a damn if the silly Finns stayed put on the Svir like they ought to, Leningrad or no.

Personally, I wish this entire theater had been left out of the game. The Finns are just weird as is their role in the war. They were doing their own thing, largely disconnected from the war elsewhere. They also, uniquely among Axis minors, managed to preserve their independence post war. Finland is sui generis and could be cheerfully ignored altogether, as indeed is the case in a lot of east front games.

[Seminole]

Back to the Battle at hand. What's up with Western Front? If the Germans keep marching straight east they'll only know about the war from Commissar Bulletins.
MT is going to get a lot of shells in the next few weeks (20+ Rifle Div), but their window for effectiveness might be on the outside of utility if the Wehrmacht continues this Moscow bull rush. Potential for a lot of factories there too...

[Flaviusx]

Michael could easily start stripping the far south for reinforcement for Moscow. He's got way more there than is necessary.

But mostly I don't think the Axis can get to Moscow with the rail lines in their present location. The situation for Moscow will only become critical in 3 turns or so once the railheads get to Smolensk.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

There is also way too much information out there that Stalin intended to defend every inch of ground in the first 10 weeks of the war and plenty of examples of commanders being killed (as well as line troops) for retreating. Where is your outrage about the perfect zone-of-control retreat capability of the Soviet?

Your argument is invalid because you are inconsistently applying it. If you can't apply history 'everywhere' then you can't shackle either side to it anywhere. That has always been my position.

With that argument invalidated, you are faced with the stark reality of hard-coded limits imposed on Finland that produce strategically illogical AND a-historical result.

Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door rather than attacking eastward into what is effectively a 30-mile wide, 100-mile deep maginot line in 1941 brought about by arbitrary map edges, arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced 'political considerations' (that are only applied to the Axis when they are applied at all), and brilliant gamesmanship by people with no intention of pursuing the spirit of the rule.

You defend the indefensible.

If Mannerheim knew what would happen at Flavius's line, he would not bother to attack the Soviets at all.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Sorry Helio, but there is way too much information out there that Mannerheim had no interest at all in pushing the Russians hard beyond the original Finnish borders, especially in the Leningrad area.

There is also way too much information out there that Stalin intended to defend every inch of ground in the first 10 weeks of the war and plenty of examples of commanders being killed (as well as line troops) for retreating. Where is your outrage about the perfect zone-of-control retreat capability of the Soviet?

Your argument is invalid because you are inconsistently applying it. If you can't apply history 'everywhere' then you can't shackle either side to it anywhere. That has always been my position.

With that argument invalidated, you are faced with the stark reality of hard-coded limits imposed on Finland that produce strategically illogical AND a-historical result.

Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door rather than attacking eastward into what is effectively a 30-mile wide, 100-mile deep maginot line in 1941 brought about by arbitrary map edges, arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced 'political considerations' (that are only applied to the Axis when they are applied at all), and brilliant gamesmanship by people with no intention of pursuing the spirit of the rule.

You defend the indefensible.

If Mannerheim knew what would happen at Flavius's line, he would not bother to attack the Soviets at all.

What are you going to do next? Call me a Ruskie fanboy? Sorry, have had that happen and I got kicked out of the club.

That Finland has limitations in this game independent of the Germans is absolutely realistic given the independent nature of Finland and the fact they were able to exercise this independence repeatedly despite German efforts to get them to apply more pressure on the Russians. If you can't see the difference in POLITICAL limitations involving Finland and any "perfect" defense the Russians can do in this game with hindsight, then I don't know what to say except you need to step back and take a deep breath and rethink the position.

I already agreed that the map edge was an issue with its effect in an earlier post, but also noted this is often a issue in many games covering the Russian theater and the fact that games often have limitations on the Finnish theater due to game resources.

Is your goal to have no political considerations for the Finns or no stop line so they can take over a huge sector of the line during the first winter? Sort of makes that winter counter offensive a lot tougher now doesn't it? Of course in your world, you would have no issue putting in a game mechanic that allows the Germans to "ship some winter cloths to the front" and call it good about getting rid of any winter effects on the Germans despite the fact their equipment was crap in that below zero cold and even with warm cloths, the fact is the Germans were still tenderfoots in that type of element.

There are a lot of things I absolutely disagree with about this game, but having limitations on the Finns is not one of them, although like I mentioned in a earlier post, I would like to see an optional rule much like what was in FitE/Scorched Earth and the Axis take their chances about better than or worse than historical Finnish participation.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.

And yet your realism doesn't seem to take into consideration real Finnish political/military/social/cultural constraints. Likely, if the Russians had sent more forces to defend north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns would've gone as far they could there, before they would have reached their military/political limits (most likely high casualties going up against strong Russian defenses wasn't something the Finnish replacement system could keep up with, combined with the desire to maintain a strong military for defensive purposes more than anything). They wouldn't have smashed their heads against the Russian defenses: they would've simply halted and dug in where they stood.

From what I've read, any significant push towards Leningrad past the 1939 borders was a political and military non-starter for Finland. Whether Lenningrad was ripe for the plucking is irrelevant if the Finnish political apparatus wouldn't have allowed such a course of action in the first place.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...

Ultimately, wars aren't run by Colonels or Generals, but by the nation's political leaders. If the Finnish political leaders wouldn't allow a drive on Leningrad, then it isn't a military option. Another example I can think of (as a Canadian) was when 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was sent to liberate Dieppe in Sep 1944. Militarily it was NOT the best move to make (and IIRC Montgomery was against it), but Canadian POLITICAL influence forced the decision, as it was a morale boost to have 2nd Canadian march into Dieppe.

[Schmart]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Personally, I wish this entire theater had been left out of the game. The Finns are just weird as is their role in the war. They were doing their own thing, largely disconnected from the war elsewhere. They also, uniquely among Axis minors, managed to preserve their independence post war. Finland is sui generis and could be cheerfully ignored altogether, as indeed is the case in a lot of east front games.

I agree. It's just too much of a largely irrelevant side-show. Remove any historical Russian forces sent to the Karelian front, and cut the map off just north of Leningrad. Leave the Finns out, and maybe include some low-probability political die-roll that the Finns will provide a Division or two of volunteers to Germany if Lenningrad falls, just to spice things up a tad. Not official Finnish forces, but something like the Spanish Blue Division.

Or extend the map to the arctic ocean and include the Murmansk front. The Finns can advance to the 1939 border and require a low-probability die-roll to advance past it. But since the map is set anyways, this is really only something for the eventual War in Europe game...

And this nonsense about arbritraty map borders affecting gameplay by providing an 'artificial flank'. That's a problem with only about 100% of wargames ever made that don't include a map of the entire planet.

[M60A3TTS]

In a situation like this, Mannerheim is exactly where he wants to be. He can tell Von Ribbentrop that one of the best armies the Russians have is tied down on his front, making it easier for the Germans elsewhere. Meanwhile he doesn't have to anger the USSR so if Germany loses the war later, he keeps the integrity of his country, a favorable situation that Rumania, Hungary and Bulgaria will not share. Later, if it's obvious that the Soviets are going to be on the losing side, his troops can help the Germans more. Either way he follows the role he always intended, to be a less-than-full Axis ally.

[carlkay58]

Historically the MT defensive line is about where the front line was for the majority of the war. North of this area you have the problem of supply - the 'road' system was actually just trails on permafrost - darn near impassable almost the entire year- think MUD as a constant for weather. The Murmansk area saw both sides suffer 10 times more casualities due to the weather than combat. Almost all of the offensives were stopped well short of their goals due to the weather - not enemy actions.

Mannerheim could have done an attack on the peninsula and probably made some progress - but the Finnish people would not have supported the war. As it was, they barely supported what actions did happen - that is why the Finns demobilize so quickly in 41 - there was just too little public support for a long and expensive war. So Mannerheim did the minimal actions to appease the Germans and yet keep the people from protesting too much.

Yeah, FitE/SE had a good mechanic to represent the Soviet lack of knowledge of the Finnish intentions - it is all part of design decisions on what to focus on.

[Farfarer61]

ORIGINAL: Schmart

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
I'm talking realism here in the face of the exploits a hindsight-enabled Soviet is taking. Please: give me a reason why Finland, with its low tolerance for casualties, is just going to smash its head into Flavius's defense and do nothing to the Karelian peninsula when it's ripe for the taking.

And yet your realism doesn't seem to take into consideration real Finnish political/military/social/cultural constraints. Likely, if the Russians had sent more forces to defend north of Lake Ladoga, the Finns would've gone as far they could there, before they would have reached their military/political limits (most likely high casualties going up against strong Russian defenses wasn't something the Finnish replacement system could keep up with, combined with the desire to maintain a strong military for defensive purposes more than anything). They wouldn't have smashed their heads against the Russian defenses: they would've simply halted and dug in where they stood.

From what I've read, any significant push towards Leningrad past the 1939 borders was a political and military non-starter for Finland. Whether Lenningrad was ripe for the plucking is irrelevant if the Finnish political apparatus wouldn't have allowed such a course of action in the first place.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Any Colonel from any military academy would attack south toward Leningrad's back door...

Ultimately, wars aren't run by Colonels or Generals, but by the nation's political leaders. If the Finnish political leaders wouldn't allow a drive on Leningrad, then it isn't a military option. Another example I can think of (as a Canadian) was when 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was sent to liberate Dieppe in Sep 1944. Militarily it was NOT the best move to make (and IIRC Montgomery was against it), but Canadian POLITICAL influence forced the decision, as it was a morale boost to have 2nd Canadian march into Dieppe.

and for much the same reasons the Canadians were not permitted to liberate Rome

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Gorforlin

ORIGINAL: Michael T

So far no serious factory losses apart from the HI left behind.

Thanks for the info re bracketed supply state.

From my recon I gather he has from AGN 4 Pz xx, 3 Mot xx, AGC 7 Pz, 5 Mot, AGS 6 Pz, 5 mot. 1 Mot unaccounted for.

The far northern front still holds. See pic. 100 Fighters plus 140 bombers. A leader with a 6 rating for INF combat. I am confident this line will hold for now.

This tactic is cheesy for 2 reasons.

1. Its totaly unhistorical, in the north the Fins simply owned the Russians other then Murmansk area.

2. As I read the rules this area for both sides is froozen until the Fins are unfroozen first.

I am hoping 2by3 patches this cheese from game asap as they have patched out other cheesy moves.

This cheese should be part of everyones house rules until its nerfed.

I am surpised Michael T is using this cheese after his look what I found on my lunch break thread.

I am tring to figure out whos more cheesy Pelton for germans or Flaviusx for russians.

To be clear I am the King of cheese and Flaviusx the Queen.

Is this a cheesy move?

Yes, but some will defend it as is the standard MO.

[Seminole]

Where should Russia be 'allowed' to defend the northern flank?

[heliodorus04]

Honestly, I don't have a problem if Finland is removed from the game entirely as Schmart and Flavius have discussed.

What I have a problem with is the patently absurd exploitation of the Leningrad line versus the Ladoga line, which is only practical in game because of the no-attack construct. That's exploitation. That's the equivalent of empty HQ muling. That's min/maxing the system. That should be punished. All of your defenses of this absurdity turn off competitive game-players even if it gives history buffs erections.

To give you an example of a hard-coded but trade-off capable balance (which is what is needed in this instance), I'm thinking of Command: Europe at War.

If the UK removes its infantry from Gibraltar, Franco takes Gibraltar in between turns even if Spain is out of the war.

I would prefer something like this for the no-attack line at Leningrad. If the CV value of units on the Leningrad line falls below X, Finland can attack.

My ethical standards are apparently much higher than most of yours. I find it amazing that all of you know perfectly well what Mannerheim would do in all circumstances and insist he would never change his positions, yet you do not make any similar attempts to pin-hole Soviet or German play based on what Hitler and Stalin demanded. Why is there this hypocrisy amongst you? The fact is that we don't limit German/Soviet play based on history because it makes for a better game for each side. Why does Finland get excluded from the "let's make a better game" discussion?

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Honestly, I don't have a problem if Finland is removed from the game entirely as Schmart and Flavius have discussed.

What I have a problem with is the patently absurd exploitation of the Leningrad line versus the Ladoga line, which is only practical in game because of the no-attack construct. That's exploitation. That's the equivalent of empty HQ muling. That's min/maxing the system. That should be punished. All of your defenses of this absurdity turn off competitive game-players even if it gives history buffs erections.

To give you an example of a hard-coded but trade-off capable balance (which is what is needed in this instance), I'm thinking of Command: Europe at War.

If the UK removes its infantry from Gibraltar, Franco takes Gibraltar in between turns even if Spain is out of the war.

I would prefer something like this for the no-attack line at Leningrad. If the CV value of units on the Leningrad line falls below X, Finland can attack.

My ethical standards are apparently much higher than most of yours. I find it amazing that all of you know perfectly well what Mannerheim would do in all circumstances and insist he would never change his positions, yet you do not make any similar attempts to pin-hole Soviet or German play based on what Hitler and Stalin demanded. Why is there this hypocrisy amongst you? The fact is that we don't limit German/Soviet play based on history because it makes for a better game for each side. Why does Finland get excluded from the "let's make a better game" discussion?

Not sure if its hypocrisy.

I do respect what Flaviusx says, but I might strongly disagree.

I think its more like we are defending one side or the other to be totally honest.

If you look back over the last 18 months there are times when both Flaviusx and myself "cave" and see the light.

The changes 2by3 makes do not happen quickly in most cases but almost always have been in the right direction.

I beleive the game is way way more balanced now then it was before and the chances to getting to atleast 1943 are good.

I am not sure what should be done to fix the exploit, but I am sure 2by3 will fix it at some point.

Until then just simply make it a house rule before starting a game as in ours I have agreed to retreat from the hexes as it is even to cheesy for me to use.

King Pelton Lord over all Cheesedom [;)]

[M60A3TTS]

The whole do what Stalin would do discussion is at end. It's finished, dead and buried. Tarhunnas tried to fight forward and was crushed because the of isolation rules in their current form. Retreat by the Red Army in '41 is the only option to at least offer a chance of winning.

I really don't care if the Finns are excluded or if the map runs to Murmansk. What I do care about is this ficticious final battle where Leningrad becomes isolated and is taken at the cost of 400 German lives. It's rubbish.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

The whole do what Stalin would do discussion is at end. It's finished, dead and buried. Tarhunnas tried to fight forward and was crushed because the of isolation rules in their current form. Retreat by the Red Army in '41 is the only option to at least offer a chance of winning.

I really don't care if the Finns are excluded or if the map runs to Murmansk. What I do care about is this ficticious final battle where Leningrad becomes isolated and is taken at the cost of 400 German lives. It's rubbish.

I would be very carefull of what I wish for my friend [:-]

The longer units are in a pocket the better for me and my play style.

That one rule change would require allot of other changes or I be driving my panzer through so many loop holes its make your head spin.

Read the rules fully on isolation, before asking for a change.

One small change can have other unintended effects on several other parts of the game.

Pelton

Also its not about Stalin and his options he has tons, its about Hitlers lack of options or is that opinions? ask semi

[Flaviusx]

Pelton, if you think I'm going to let the Finns march halfway to the Urals, forget it. That's the real fantasy in this game. Corking them up in Karelia is small beer in comparison.

Axis players in this game take it for granted that Leningrad is a gimme and then they can unleash the Finns to do pretty much whatever. No, the morale hit does not in practice deter this.

Remove the Karelian theater from the game and make Leningrad defensible, and none of this need be an issue. So far as I'm concerned the Finnish cork is just putting things where they ought to be and mitigating the hash the game makes of this area up north and allowing something resembling a historical outcome. Leningrad will still probably fall, of course, but at least the damage resulting from that is minimized and the game's preposterous Finnish drang nach osten is eliminated.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton, if you think I'm going to let the Finns march halfway to the Urals, forget it. That's the real fantasy in this game. Corking them up in Karelia is small beer in comparison.

Axis players in this game take it for granted that Leningrad is a gimme and then they can unleash the Finns to do pretty much whatever. No, the morale hit does not in practice deter this.

Remove the Karelian theater from the game and make Leningrad defensible, and none of this need be an issue. So far as I'm concerned the Finnish cork is just putting things where they ought to be and mitigating the hash the game makes of this area up north and allowing something resembling a historical outcome. Leningrad will still probably fall, of course, but at least the damage resulting from that is minimized and the game's preposterous Finnish drang nach osten is eliminated.

It is part of the current rule set. I have nothing against playing withen the rule sets as you know an only have respect for poeple getting milk out of rocks as I love to do [8D]

I think it needs some tweeking for sure.

Like I said if you think it is cheesy simply put in your personal house rules.

[Seminole]

ORIGINAL: Pelton

[quuote] I have agreed to retreat from the hexes as it is even to cheesy for me to use.

King Pelton Lord over all Cheesedom [;)]

Which begs the question I already asked: Where 'should' the Russia player defend the northern flank?