Bobo's Cheesy soak off attacks, historical?

[Peltonx]

This has to be the all time epic failure for any SHC attack on a single hex. A cheesy tactic to say the least.


GHC loses: 548
SHC loses: 8873

Combat Ratio: 16.2 to 1

He tried 12 soaking attacks before 2 main assaults.

I think he was tring to get reserves to react and they did on the 2 main assaults heheheh. Only 1 CV cav, but more moral is a good thing. I have no idea how many points of moral the unit in the city gained, but I can only guess 6+ anyways heheh

I think Bobo was tring to game the system and get units to run out of ammo, but there in a city which is a depot hheheheh nice try!!!

His over all ratio for turn 9.4 to 1.

[AFV]

Just your reserve committment alone would have won, lol.

[821Bobo]

Seems I need to start my own AAR because from this topic perspective it looks like I am a complete retard. True is that the casualties ratio is something between 1:1 and 1:2(without attrition). Very good for SHC.

[Aurelian]

No more cheesy than a Lvov opening.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

Seems I need to start my own AAR because from this topic perspective it looks like I am a complete retard. True is that the casualties ratio is something between 1:1 and 1:2(without attrition). Very good for SHC.

Permanent losses from game this turn: 6.1 : 1 I did make a mistake it was not 9:1 but 6:1 for last turn.

GHC Killed total: 636,000 GHC POW: 156,400
German - killed 7,000; POW 87; Total permanent losses = 7,087

SHC KIA Total: 1,374,300 SHC disabled Total: 2,131,000 SHC POW: 2,182,700
Soviet - killed 15,000; pow 400; change in disabled 19,000; actual disabled casualties caused in the turn ~30,000. 1/2 of disabled will return eventually, others will be permanent loss. Total permanent removed from game = 45,400

Its easy to track, German disable return to the game 1% per turn as Russian disabled 1/2 are never returned, they are "thrown out" in Helpless words

The one battle you can simply add up the losses in the battle report screen.

Your also a very good SHC player, just a cheesy way to try and bait reserves and a bad turn over all.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No more cheesy than a Lvov opening.

While I don't have much experience with the game to begin with, I wouldn't necessarily call the Lvov opening cheesy in the current condition of the game. If you call the Lvov opening cheesy you also could call the massive runaways by the SHC in summer or GHC in winter cheesy. I personally am in favour of correcting the opening turn in the south, the toughest front for the Germans in June-July 1941 should not turn into the easiest. But on the other hand the balance should be maintained, e.g. through a adjustment of the blizzard or incentives for the SHC player to stand and fight.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

No more cheesy than a Lvov opening.

While I don't have much experience with the game to begin with, I wouldn't necessarily call the Lvov opening cheesy in the current condition of the game. If you call the Lvov opening cheesy you also could call the massive runaways by the SHC in summer or GHC in winter cheesy.

Yes you could. But I've never won as the Soviets running away. And a Lvov *encourages* running because there is little left to fight with afterward.

Winter runaways. You could spend most of the summer 42 taking back old ground.

My own game, that's what happenned. My opponent spent most of the year retaking ground instead of taking new ground. Sure, I lost @ a million thanks to my stubborness (went too far during the winter and tried to hold what I gained.) Nut now it's the middle of 43 and I'm grinding my way forward.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Yes you could. But I've never won as the Soviets running away. And a Lvov *encourages* running because there is little left to fight with afterward.

Winter runaways. You could spend most of the summer 42 taking back old ground.

My own game, that's what happenned. My opponent spent most of the year retaking ground instead of taking new ground. Sure, I lost @ a million thanks to my stubborness (went too far during the winter and tried to hold what I gained.) Nut now it's the middle of 43 and I'm grinding my way forward.

That's certainly correct. It would be interesting to see a game with no Lvov opening and a SHC player that plays rather forward, just to see how the 1941 campaign up till spring 42 turns out in the current version. As for GHC retreats in winter 41-42, that's the old trade-off between preserving troops and preserving ground. I for my part am no fan of running away, but then again I'm only playing my second GC as the GHC against the AI.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Yes you could. But I've never won as the Soviets running away. And a Lvov *encourages* running because there is little left to fight with afterward.

Winter runaways. You could spend most of the summer 42 taking back old ground.

My own game, that's what happenned. My opponent spent most of the year retaking ground instead of taking new ground. Sure, I lost @ a million thanks to my stubborness (went too far during the winter and tried to hold what I gained.) Nut now it's the middle of 43 and I'm grinding my way forward.

That's certainly correct. It would be interesting to see a game with no Lvov opening and a SHC player that plays rather forward, just to see how the 1941 campaign up till spring 42 turns out in the current version. As for GHC retreats in winter 41-42, that's the old trade-off between preserving troops and preserving ground. I for my part am no fan of running away, but then again I'm only playing my second GC as the GHC against the AI.

Oh please stop with the propaganda of "the Russians would fight forward if there was no Lvov opening". Bull

First, there are still several reserve armies in the south, so the Russians don't exactly have "little left" to fight with. What is left can't hold, it is true, but take a look at the troop count some time and you will quickly realize there are far more substancial forces left after the border districts get wiped out than what is left in the north against a good German opening.

If the German doesn't pull a Lvov opening, the Russians are still going to run away in the south, except they will just have that much more to work with. In addition, the Russians are far more likely to send their reserve armies north to either the center or reenforce the Leningrad area. All those troops are certainly not staying in the south.

The game is such right now that there is absolutely no reason for the Russians not to play run away regardless of what happens at the border on the German first turn. Between two good opponents, for the Russians to stay is asking for a big encirclement for little gain in time. Until the Russians are tweaked to be able to at least take the historical beating they took, a lot of this isn't going to matter and without sudden death victory conditions in place, the Russians have no incentive at all to fight forward.

[SigUp]

If you are replying to me, where exactly have I said that the Russians would fight forward? I just said it would be interesting to see a game without Lvov opening and a SHC player who fights rather forward. Furthermore, if you have read another thread, I am in favor of bolsting Soviet combat power, with incentives to fight forward of course. No need to accuse somebody of spreading bull, do we.

[Peltonx]

tm.asp?m=3231294

[Jazzbo]

Note to self, read up on Reserves.

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: SigUp

If you are replying to me, where exactly have I said that the Russians would fight forward? I just said it would be interesting to see a game without Lvov opening and a SHC player who fights rather forward. Furthermore, if you have read another thread, I am in favor of bolsting Soviet combat power, with incentives to fight forward of course. No need to accuse somebody of spreading bull, do we.

Sorry, but I am not buying that any Russian would fight forward, or fight rather forward (or whatever language you want to use) if only the Lvov opening didn't take place.

What would happen is exactly what I outlined; most Russian players are going to ship those third echelon reserves north to help with the center and Leningrad if they have more troops to play with as a result of no Lvov.

The Russians do not fight forward (or kind of forward) in this game unless they like to actually risk losing since the German can't really do anything about it if they run.

No Lvov opening means the German probably gets beaten that much faster.

[hfarrish]

The only thing I might disagree with here is that I do think no Lvov would encourage a stronger Dnepr defense - I would certainly take a flier on it with a few more stronger divisions to play with just to see what the possibilities were.

[Aurelian]

People still complain because the Soviets will not willingly stay and allow recreations of the massive pockets.

Not historical they cry.

But neither is taking Leningrad/Moscow, the Finns moving beyond their 1939 borders et al. The Lvov thing certainly isn't. But that doesn't stop its use.

They want to implement political decisions, only cherry picked one though, despite the oft made statement that the players will *not* be hobbled with Hitler/Stalin.

Not much point in the game if you're going to do that.

[SigUp]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: SigUp

If you are replying to me, where exactly have I said that the Russians would fight forward? I just said it would be interesting to see a game without Lvov opening and a SHC player who fights rather forward. Furthermore, if you have read another thread, I am in favor of bolsting Soviet combat power, with incentives to fight forward of course. No need to accuse somebody of spreading bull, do we.

Sorry, but I am not buying that any Russian would fight forward, or fight rather forward (or whatever language you want to use) if only the Lvov opening didn't take place.

What would happen is exactly what I outlined; most Russian players are going to ship those third echelon reserves north to help with the center and Leningrad if they have more troops to play with as a result of no Lvov.

The Russians do not fight forward (or kind of forward) in this game unless they like to actually risk losing since the German can't really do anything about it if they run.

No Lvov opening means the German probably gets beaten that much faster.

Are you reading what I'm writing at all? I wrote that I would like to see a game in which the Soviet player fights a forward defense (=delaying defense, not staying to get pocketed), not that SHC players would fight forward without the Lvov opening.

[Klydon]

@ Sigup

This was a terrific AAR from earlier this year between two very top notch players in Michael T as the Axis and Tarhunnas as the Russian. There were some house rules that basically said no run away. While Michael did pull a Lvov opening, I do not believe it changed the outcome in the least as Tarhunnas didn't really lose it in the south. I found this to be one of the most exciting AAR's in a long time simply because of the decision by Tarhunnas to play a more forward defense. It also highlighted the shortages the Russians face later in 1941 from the shortages the game has for the Russians compared to what they got historically.

tm.asp?m=3108453