The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21, elmo3

Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Walloc »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Stalin's will, and his regime, kept the Soviet Union fighting in late 1941 - had the Germans been more succesful (and in our WiTE they can be) and took Moscow, who know's what would have happened. And I'm referring to taking Moscow before the onset of Winter - no diversion south.

Nothing guarranteed of course, but plausible. Just as plausible if the plot to take out Hitler succeeded (at any time), German would have capitualated, perhaps with other than unconditional surrender if his death occurred prior to 1944.

After 1941 when what was going on in the German "liberated" areas become known, and the intial German attack held, I agree - no possibility of collapse. But that first summer and fall, yes. And it should be built into the game - as a variable.

Hi Ed,

Apart from that we are on the disagreeing side here. I think 1917 and 1991 are poor examples. Those had the population in a "revolution" sentiment, i see from stories about the ordinary russian very different in 1941. Much more of 1812/1709ish sentiment. Fighting an external enemy that unifies not divides the population. Church going is way up as its allowed, artist/intelletual retoric is not anti goverment, but anti fasists. To me these are among other things good indicatiors of the popular mood. Making it as Flavio says a fight to the death.
Are there exceptions sure. The baltic countries have just "become russian", the polish part of white russia the same and ofc to some extend Ukraine. I do think in reality that the germans shoots them self in the foot alrdy in the summer/fall of 1941 in regards to ukraine. They are in german mind as much untermensch as the rest of the USSR. Which means the chance is over before it starts. Any how we disagree on that and no need to go to lenghts in that.

My question is from a purely gaming POV. If the russian side should be able to collapse. Should as u point the same be possible on german side if any random assasination of Hitlers lead to an arministic. Does that mean at any time randomly u should for game purposes have an event says. Turn 12. Hitler died, Game is over?

I could be wrong, but i see such pissing off ppl in a huge way. If and underling if not, why only allow such for one side and not both. As u say its just as plausible. Arent u inheritly biasing the game one way?


Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: gingerbread

Seems like all straight jacketing is to be done to the Soviets. To balance this, I propose:

Reduce the At Start Axis vehicle pool with 100k, from 250k to 150k.
The Axis cannot disband any unit during '41 (no harvesting of vehicles from spare HQ:s & Air Bases)
The Axis cannot change the TOE% setting of any unit until December '41 (no Manpower or ARM pool surplus build up)
Sevastopol must fall '41 (the intent is to force the allocation of one FBD unit to fix the rail to the Crimea)
Smolensk must fall during July '41 (burn those trucks [:D] )

This will put the Axis player in a more historical situation as in: Yes, it's possible to bag those 10 divisions, but is it worth it in terms of vehicles destroyed? Waiting until the rail catches up a bit more is perhaps better?
The Gorilla can still move anywhere he wants, but not everywhere at the same time. The HQ Chaining (a very good move as it is now) will have a very high opportunity cost, and that cost will be felt in '42 as well. Putting AGN on static could be the only way to get an offensive going.

A Soviet forward defence becomes more viable, since an Axis pocketing operation will cost them where it hurts.

Does anybody has experience trying to vary the initial Logistic levels? What can one expect from, say, setting up the Axis to 50% and the Soviets to 50%? But indeed, what you suggest makes a lot of sense.

I'm however reluctant to consider trucks destroyed/loss as a factor in the alternate VP tracking I was suggesting. Truck damage/loss is influenced by pretty much any kind of action the player does, either being a sound decision or a bad one.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Well ground in itself should also be a great factor - in the end, the capture or loss of a given city was what made headlines in WWII. Rarely did NM rise or fall because new resources etc was captured.

Therefore I would suggest that ground or cities recieve different VP during the course of the war. In the begining, the SU should not feel the pinch and losses should be minimal - though they should recieve a body blow if places like Moscow/Leningrad or other large cities are lost. The Axis should also recieve the present rate of points though VP should be apportioned if possible amongst the Axis states (ex Odessa was not very important from a German point of view but was a veritable war aim for the Rumanians - thus capture of Odessa by Romanian units should boost Romanian morale).

As the war is prolonged, the heat should be on the SU to regain its territory and drive into axis lands. Thus, for both sides, the possession of real estate should be more important so that even the Axis would be willing to fight to preserve territory. (this would simulate a little what happened during the war. It should be noted that Kursk was a disaster not only because of the material losses themselves, but also because the Russian counterattack netted them significant cities like Orel and Belgorod).

Finally, National Moral and overal army morale should be tied to the gain or loss of territory. Very few states evein in WWII fought to the bitter end but the writing was on the wall for those states who lost big chunks of territory with their armies becoming rather dispirited.  

The problem with dynamic NM levels is that we can't influence that from the outside. However, the idea of variable VP's, say, using different tables according to the turn number, makes a lot of sense and is easily doable. For instance, the Axis VP value of Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine cities should go up during 1944, remaining lower during 1941-43.
carlkay58
Posts: 8778
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:30 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by carlkay58 »

BG- I have played around some with the starting resources - it really does not change much because both sides are operating with surpluses through most of 41. I have a GC with HI reduced to half of starting levels. It does make a difference on both sides - the Axis start to have some supply problems in late July and early August and really need the rail heads to catch up. The vehicle production seems to be the most hit production wise - the Soviets also see less a/c being built.

I have not played around with the starting truck pool but that does sound intriguing. Remember that the large portion of Axis units were supplied by horse and wagon. The Axis reported that they had lost over 800,000 horses in December 41 alone. This put a major crunch on their supply capability to pull supplies from the rail head to the front lines. I think WITE 'converts' all of the horse drawn stuff on both sides to 'truck' equivalents - but this may be a portion of the supply problems in the game.
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: carlkay58
BG- I have played around some with the starting resources - it really does not change much because both sides are operating with surpluses through most of 41. I have a GC with HI reduced to half of starting levels. It does make a difference on both sides - the Axis start to have some supply problems in late July and early August and really need the rail heads to catch up. The vehicle production seems to be the most hit production wise - the Soviets also see less a/c being built.

Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance?
ORIGINAL: carlkay58
I have not played around with the starting truck pool but that does sound intriguing. Remember that the large portion of Axis units were supplied by horse and wagon. The Axis reported that they had lost over 800,000 horses in December 41 alone. This put a major crunch on their supply capability to pull supplies from the rail head to the front lines. I think WITE 'converts' all of the horse drawn stuff on both sides to 'truck' equivalents - but this may be a portion of the supply problems in the game.

I have always thought - since December 2010 - that supply flows too far, far too easily. Indeed the conversion ratio horse carrying capacity -> truck carrying capacity might have something to do with this. The Red Army really needed those L&L trucks to sustain its offensive operations from 1943 onwards. Perhaps combining logistic levels reductions and editing starting truck pool we might find a sweet spot for 'hardcore logistics'. Because, to be honest, they aren't much of a concern with vanilla settings (beyond that of avoiding having units isolated).
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Walloc »

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
ORIGINAL: carlkay58
BG- I have played around some with the starting resources - it really does not change much because both sides are operating with surpluses through most of 41. I have a GC with HI reduced to half of starting levels. It does make a difference on both sides - the Axis start to have some supply problems in late July and early August and really need the rail heads to catch up. The vehicle production seems to be the most hit production wise - the Soviets also see less a/c being built.

Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance?

I think what he is saying, but feel free to correct me Carl is that it doesnt matter in 41 cuz of the starting pools of supply. So u can use up that pool in 41. Come 42 the situasion would be different. If u halved SU HI by half in 42 there would be no game. U cant turn off factories(well, directly. There are ways around it for the creative minded) so they would eat up all the supply made leaving nada for the army. That would affect the CV in way u cant even imagien. Aka my comment of no game. The same would happen to german side tho it might set in a bit futher into the game. U ofc cant get creative on german side as u cant evac fac's. In short and without the full nuances on SU side u could choose between no production or supply for the army or the opposite with a significant lag in effect.

Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
Michael T
Posts: 4445
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:35 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia.

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Michael T »

It’s a pity you can't set the Morale, Fort build, Logistics, Transport and Admin levels on a per year basis. Then you could really sort a few issues out.
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Klydon »

Another thing that would be handy is the ability to have the VP's change over time or more flexiblity in what you can do with them. IE, take it by turn 8 and its worth 100 VP. After that, not worth anything.
User avatar
IdahoNYer
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:07 am
Location: NYer living in Boise, ID

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by IdahoNYer »

Rasmus - I fully agree an external threat unifies, and the situation in the Soviet Union in 1941 was different than 1917. However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade?

The Alt victory is a step in the right direction. Taking away the auto Finnish activation if Leningrad falls would balance the chance of Soviet collapse if Moscow falls - and I'm talking maybe a 10% or chance - in 1941.

And no I don't want a Hitler assasination check every turn.....
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Another thing that would be handy is the ability to have the VP's change over time or more flexiblity in what you can do with them. IE, take it by turn 8 and its worth 100 VP. After that, not worth anything.

Yeah, that would be great. Imagine how you could manipulate the dynamics of the campaign with that!
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Interesting carlkay58. Would you say that a GC with a 50% level reduction to each side does really constrain players in a significant way? Or is it just a relatively minor nuisance?

Yes, great to see you back here in the forums! It has been an interesting time, imagine that some of those formerly convinced of the rumored pro-Soviet bias have meanwhile switched sides and now are getting roughly handled... seems to be an eye-opener as well. Discussion here have gotten a lot more constructive and unbiased of late.

Interesting thought, you mean to half HI for both sides? What do you plan to achieve with that? Make HI more of a factor in the GC, to be evacuated more often (i.e. an alternative history scenario?)? Not sure that HI is underestimated already as Pelton pointed out elsewhere. The second aim here could be getting the logistics rates down, i.e. the forward delivery, so that at times of increased consumption parts of your frontline will run dry and require a pause. If you manipulate anything that corresponds to the global pools instead, I think what you will get is a shortage across the whole front?

One thing to look at would be either the manpower pool or manpower centers, and possibly adding a number of empty shells to boost reinforcements from August to say November or so (I believe it was Klydon's suggestion). I think the recent reduction of the manpower multiplier was a bit too much. The best counter might be adding a constant of say 1M to the pools, or adding more "big" centers west of the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov stop-line so that pretty much only the summer campaign is affected (however, even the destroyed centers could come back haunting Axis in 44/45). It would be fun to throw the kitchen sink at any Axis player, if you knew you'd loose most of those poor guys and yet increase your chances to win with that rather than too lose, as now.

With increased replacements, Lvov also may not be as serious anymore. Although any change that would turn it into a possibility, but not a given would be great. Someone suggested that initial MPs for the surprise turn can be modded. Maybe reducing AGS Panzers MPs for the first turn by a bit ought to be one point, and may some Soviet counters should be repositioned to make a deep penetration less lightly/require more attacks -- even if it is not historically accurate, the result might be more plausible and fun still.

The other thing I have no clue how it could be modded is the blizzard. How can you prevent a too huge disaster (assuming the other changes work, Soviets will likely be stronger commonly)?
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
Rasmus - I fully agree an external threat unifies, and the situation in the Soviet Union in 1941 was different than 1917. However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade?

The Alt victory is a step in the right direction. Taking away the auto Finnish activation if Leningrad falls would balance the chance of Soviet collapse if Moscow falls - and I'm talking maybe a 10% or chance - in 1941.

And no I don't want a Hitler assasination check every turn.....

Although I also have my doubts about a Soviet disintegration, I agree that we don't really know. We can only speculate about the probability. It would make a fun "optional rule", though. Maybe a dice roll every month, and the probability affected by the course of the campaign: e.g. once Moscow falls, the probability raised from 0.5% to 5%, and Leningrad, Rostov, etc. add another 0.5% each. Maybe troop losses would add also, say 1% for each 1M.
This rule could be implemented in a "PBEM balanced" fashion, with the Hilter assassination given similar rules...

As for the Finnish, a similar logic can be applied: Would we have known how far that could have gone if say Moscow had fallen in October 41? Some chance of them doing all, just as now, or sitting tighter than now would also be a fun optional rule. Perhaps more ideas for WitE2...
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade?

I agree with this--while I consider it highly unlikely that the Sovs would have collapsed in 1941, there is some chance that it could have happened, and more important, I expect that both the Germans and the Sovs thought that it could happen, and this impacted their strategies: The German plan for a brief campaign was surely premised on an expectation that the Sovs would suffer a military and/or political collapse, and while they turned out to be very very wrong, their strategy was ultimately based on this expectation. Similarly, the Sovs did not run for the Urals, but started to fight back, and hard, once they'd been pushed back to Moscow.
User avatar
Flaviusx
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:55 pm
Location: Southern California

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Flaviusx »

There isn't the slightest evidence that the USSR was on the verge of cracking up in 1941, guys. No, not even if Moscow fell. The government had already evacuated a lot of its functions to Kuybyshev and would have been able to carry on the war from there.

It's true that Hitler invaded based on the premise of such a crack up. But the entire way he conducted the war made such an implosion a non starter. His whole genocidal policy tended to strengthen the Soviet regime. In order for the Nazis to force the Soviet Union to fall apart, they needed to, well, not be Nazis. It's really that simple. It was part of Hitler's "genius" that he found a way to make Stalin look good.

What I find difficult to understand is why people have a such hard time believing this. It seems to me that most westerners suffer from a severe lack of imagination here; they really just don't get it. This was war to the knife, folks, no short cuts. It was going to end in utter ruin and defeat for one or the other side.
WitE Alpha Tester
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4766
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by 76mm »

Flav, while I agree with you, it is sort of beside the point: a Germany which assumes that the Sovs are on the verge of collapse will use a different strategy than a Germany which knows it is in for a four year war (in which case they presumably would not have invaded at all).

Although maybe in this game it doesn't really matter, since the Germans are so overpowered in 1941 that they stand a good chance of forcing a Sov "collapse" in the form of the Sov player quitting...
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by mmarquo »

"Although maybe in this game it doesn't really matter, since the Germans are so overpowered in 1941 that they stand a good chance of forcing a Sov "collapse" in the form of the Sov player quitting..."

The main frustration and paradox of this and perhaps every other East Front game is that if one plays like a Russian one loses. As an aside, this is why I really enjoy GMT's East Front Series as the VPs degrade over time, forcing the Soviet player to defend certain cities while imposing a timeline on the Axis player - and it is on the edge. There is also the concept of mandated attacks; i.e. a certain amount of offensive activity has to occur or the Soviet player loses even more VPs.

As for the Lvov pocket, it is utterly ridiculous, especially when coupled with muling as we suffered with until recently. This combo lead to some of the most absurd fantasy AARs I have ever read. It is not "gamey" because the rules and engine of the game allow it to happen; the problem is not with the players who play the game to their advantage, rather with the mechanics of the game itself. And it is really only a problem if one desires a simulation which is more rigidly adherent to historical capabilities. For me, I now accept it for what it is, and realize that I am playing more of a Star Wars East Front game. Despite the warts I am very happy with the game as it entertaining and enjoyable as such, and I will play if without reservation until WITE2 arrives.

Marquo
User avatar
Klydon
Posts: 2305
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:39 am

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Klydon »

Some othere interesting observations in this thread.

On the possibility of a Russian collapse. I disagree and think it was a real possibility. Of course the government in control is not going to think it is going fall, but the fact is Stalin imposed draconian measures to both keep the Red army from collapsing (some of this happen anyway, but more on that in a minute) and to also prevent the communists from losing control. I am sure the Czar didn't think he and his family would wind up dead at the hands of communists either and that was after they were out of power.

The best time line for this was in 1941 and both Leningrad and Moscow (along with other reverses) could have pushed things to the limit, despite whatever measures Stalin may have taken. Even with all those measures taken, it didn't prevent the Red army from surrendering and/or running when the German summer offensive open in the south. (This despite Stalin's order of "not one step back"). It was clear that Moscow had lost some control of the army in the south during the German advances. (A good comparision might be the French army mutiny of 1917).

Even with all this going on early, there were some peace feelers sent out to see what the terms would be. Stalin was willing to temporarly write off a lot of the country if it meant the revolution would survive. He likely had no intention of sticking with the terms of any deal long term, but rather use it as a delaying tactic before trying to recapture what was lost and then some.

While I think Sevastopol was high on Hitlers list to capture due to political considerations, to mandate that the Germans take it out in 1941 is a very tall order. He also ordered Moscow and Leningrad be taken as well and that didn't happen either in 1941 or ever. The issue with a manditory take out of Sevastopol with both sides knowing the Germans have to take it in 1941 (especially in the face of fact it didn't fall until mid 1942) means some potential "gamey" reactions, especially the way the game is modeled. The Russians could put 12 infantry divisions down there digging from the start of the game and the Germans would be faced with a wall of forts 3 deep and that was after trying to get into the Crimea in the first place. The Germans are hard pressed in the far south to start with and I don't think 11th Army is capable of the task should the Russians dig in like that.

In the past, I have advocated for there to be a reason for the Germans to take the Crimea as it was a important pollitical target, but from a military standpoint of view, it makes no sense from the German standpoint of view to go into the place for the most part. Making Sevastopol a manditory capture in 1941 is a bit much tho.

I also agree it makes a difference for the German to plan for a 4 year war rather than a short one. Unfortunately I don't think you are getting that genie back in the bottle. :D
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

I just noticed your "Enhance SW Front" mod. Strange I have not noticed that thread before... Oh well, it seems definitely one way to go.

Perhaps it would even be best not to mod the Axis MPs or freeze some of them for one turn, but maybe much better to reposition the Soviet units so that Axis will have fight several engagements before breaking thru to Tarnopol. If necessary, split a few divisions into brigades to create more "obstacles". Then, if the dice gods are happy, we can still succeed in closing off Lvov, although probably in leakier fashion than in stock. Even that would make it more plausible, and get some more live out of the units instead of their usual "near-fightless" surrender. If the dice gods would be unhappy and a lot of (tank) units committed to reserve actions, Kleist would have to bully his way East at a cost. This way, a historical course would be added to the possibilities in the South, and neither end would be a given.




Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by Walloc »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Rasmus - I fully agree an external threat unifies, and the situation in the Soviet Union in 1941 was different than 1917. However, while not PROBABLE, it was POSSIBLE that the Soivet Union disintegrated if the Stalin Regime disolved. Wasn't that the premise of success to the German plans? Valid or not, especially with hindsight, it should be included in the game - if not, why - as the Germans, invade?

Your right it was it was the german premise that it would happen, it didnt. It isnt isnt the first time some one have been wrong and it wont be the last. Neither was it the first time some one made a decision in this case to invade based on a wrong assumption and again it wont be the last time.
Any how it is actually in the game Normal scn 290 VP and alt scn 260 VP.
ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
The Alt victory is a step in the right direction. Taking away the auto Finnish activation if Leningrad falls would balance the chance of Soviet collapse if Moscow falls - and I'm talking maybe a 10% or chance - in 1941.

And no I don't want a Hitler assasination check every turn.....

So u dont want a Sword of Damocles hanging on one side, but u do on the other. While claiming both are plausible. From a gaming POV this makes absolutly no sense. Nor is it fair in any way. The only fair way is as it more or less is, to remove that factor from both sides. No one want to be subject to random die rolls ending the game arbitrarily at any given time.

ORIGINAL: janh
Although I also have my doubts about a Soviet disintegration, I agree that we don't really know. We can only speculate about the probability. It would make a fun "optional rule", though. Maybe a dice roll every month, and the probability affected by the course of the campaign: e.g. once Moscow falls, the probability raised from 0.5% to 5%, and Leningrad, Rostov, etc. add another 0.5% each. Maybe troop losses would add also, say 1% for each 1M.
This rule could be implemented in a "PBEM balanced" fashion, with the Hilter assassination given similar rules...

As for the Finnish, a similar logic can be applied: Would we have known how far that could have gone if say Moscow had fallen in October 41? Some chance of them doing all, just as now, or sitting tighter than now would also be a fun optional rule. Perhaps more ideas for WitE2...

While i cant disagree in adding optional rules at all. Still see above, i cant see any one wanting to play with all of the hard work going into the game being decided by a arbitrary die roll.

I wasnt very understanding there was i, No. I dont actually think any one want actually wants a Sword of Damocles hanging over any ones head. What u in realty want is shaping a game that is flawed to a feel that is more historic. I can understand that and i agree in that the feel and balance of 1941 is off. Problem is the above becomes a strawman arguement. Instead of fixing the issues creating the cuircumstances creating the current 1941 u try a another approche to force it. Now such can work and with the knowledge that there wont be any more real balancing from Devs side it could have merit. Problem is IMO the above suggested just exchange one set of problems with another set of problems. Not really solving any thing.


As to sudden death rules. I would by far prefere such to the above, but again u here encounter problems that ppl seems to pass by with little expressed thot. I remember reading Joels suggestion to 1941 SD cities and remember almost falling off my chair. Leningrad, Kalinin and Sevastopol was the three 41 cities IIRC, but i could remember wrong. Tho german side didnt know which of the 3 cities in question was the one.
One should be aware of the way such will shape the game. Not saying every one would do so but those wanting to win with knowing those 3 cities would alter the game from now hugely.
For those wanting to win above all. The following will be true in my estimation. Since nada between Moscow and Krim has any importance now. The game would play out as following.
At leased one more pz group/corps from AGC would race to Leningrad. Making 100% sure this will fall.
Since every thing south of Moscow is irrelevant AGC would press on Moscow and just N of it, largely ignoring every thing from Tula to Stalino. Freeing up most of the inf in AGC to such a pressure. U just need to screen any thing from Smolensk and south.
Forcing SU side to defend not only Moscow cuz of facs/manpower but u now equally have to defend Kalinin. So in all Kalinin would fall.
AGS / 4th pz group would now ignore Kiev/Donbas area. Do Lvov and then shoot strait for Krim. Only russian option is to pack 1,5m man on Krim hoping, what i deem to be in vain, to be able to dig enough forts to slow /stop the axis.
Do this sound like a historic 41?

My reasoning isnt to dizz Joel, while he tries to improve stuff, but to show that when u have SD options. Set to some limited objectives. Since this is known by the attacker. It WILL inenvitably influence the way one will attack and advance, more than any other factor and no matter what else happens. Cuz they have a certain knowledge if A B and C is true then D = surrender will happen. They could care less that is actually a house of cards and 4 turns after D happened in game the whole german army would have been surrounded in Krim. They are vindicated by winning so what would happened after is of no consequence.
Problem is and we all agknowledge it is non of us in fact really know if A B and C happend if indeed D would have happend, but we do know it will influence how the game plays out. A B and C will trumph what ever else happens in the game. Russians could be at the out skirts of Berlin for all, not that any one cares. In real life u never would have the certainty of consequence of ur actions, given here. It has consequence on game play.

I by far prefere the current methode cuz there is many way to 260/290 and many ways to defend against is. If any thing, all the above mussings puts the game in a box. The thing ppl seems to hate.

Kind regards,

Rasmus
janh
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:06 pm

RE: The Lvov Pocket and why its "gamey"

Post by janh »

The Sword of Damocles so to say... That's why being optional would make most sense, just with every other rule that limits player operational freedom.

Right now we can optimize our strategies by hindsight in a vacuum of all other soft factors, and while this also has its merits, having optional rules that would limit this freedom (by VP accumulation, VPs changing over time forcing players to definitely go after certain targets at given points/else miss those VPs etc.) can only add to the game. And with optional rules you can more people happy than otherwise, which is probably a point when thinking about sales.

Back to the Sword, I would tune those percentages to a low level, i.e. even if Moscow fell make sure that the probability peaks in the next 4 turns, and decays after. And tune it so that it is primarily a teaser, something that players can try to go after, but still a "rare event". Perhaps only every 20th game or fewer that sees Moscow fall should also see Stalin's end. Same way for Hitler's fall.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”