The Leningrad Unicorn

[Beethoven1]

Historically, Leningrad was obviously cut off by land from the rest of Russia Lake Ladoga for more than a year. In early 1943, a narrow corridor was opened at Schlisselburg, although it wasn't until early 1944 that the wider Leningrad area was relieved with a wider corridor.

By contrast, in the game, from what I have seen from AARs it seems like either:

a) Leningrad is cut off, in which case it falls not too long afterwards (generally within 2-3 months at most).

or

b) Leningrad is not cut off in the first place, in which case it holds.

But what we never (or rarely) seem to see is something closer to the historical outcome, namely option c, "the Leningrad Unicorn":

c) The Leningrad Unicorn - Leningrad is cut off, but nevertheless holds out for well more than a year.

Has anyone seen games like that, where Leningrad gets cut off, but nevertheless holds out for a long period of time? More than a handful?

Why does this historical outcome not happen more often? Can anything be done to make it happen more often?

I would like for that sort of outcome to occur more often.

[Stamb]

my opinion is that because of insane isolation penalties that are applied already from 1 turn of isolation as i described here
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1#p4991401

same goes for Odesa, Sevastopol and etc
it discourages players to really defend it as it will be a waste of troops for a delay for a few turns in best case

[AlbertN]

I've 1 ongoing Axis game and I took Leningrad, after isolation - but after 10+ turns of it being isolated it fell.
Given, the isolation happened at November '41. Leningrad proper fell in early February '42.
I've also not dared to attack in, the isolation penalty seemed not to dent the massive CV present in the fort.

I've asked to the Soviet player a few times what was their supply situation and they had 2000 freight at end of December, the units in Leningrad still were bright green supplied by mid february with 2 airlift runs into it across the winter.

I do agree C is not possible to be seen - because to assault City frontally is bloodshed. Heavy Urban is worse.

And while isolation rules may be iffy - to find an adequate way to reshape them without going to the 'if isolated you're still unattackable' is problematic.

But presently we've many 'Unicorns'. How many Axis players even reach Rostov? How many hold it across winter? (Ahistorical? Yes. But it's supposedly within rubber band of the game.)

[Zebtucker12]

Cities and larger should have diffrent isolation rules. This damages the poor germans alot in VtB also...

[Joel Billings]

I have seen Leningrad cut off by land by the AI, but it hold out only supplied over the lake. If the lake ports are cut off, Leningrad will and should fall. If the port link is held and not closed by air, then Leningrad won't be isolated so the penalties don't apply. There is no reason Leningrad can't hold out assuming the ports are held and kept open. That may not be easy to do if the German player makes it a priority to cut off Leningrad.

[Light4bettor]

Game is fun and has its strengths for sure, but I couldnt expect a Demyansk type situation to develop, or a Rzhev type of sailent to form and hold in some form for a year, given this game engine.

[Joel Billings]

There's no reason you can't have a Demyansk situation, it's just hard to imagine a player getting themselves into that position. As long as you resupply by air, you minimize the isolation problem, so the units could hold out if strong enough and the opposition is weak (as they would be in the early part of the war).

[Xareon63]

Historically, when AGN reached Leningrad the German army was well placed to take the city, but Hitler ordered them to lay siege to the city instead for political and propaganda reasons.

[Light4bettor]

There's no reason you can't have a Demyansk situation, it's just hard to imagine a player getting themselves into that position. As long as you resupply by air, you minimize the isolation problem, so the units could hold out if strong enough and the opposition is weak (as they would be in the early part of the war).

Fair enough.

Historically, when AGN reached Leningrad the German army was well placed to take the city, but Hitler ordered them to lay siege to the city instead for political and propaganda reasons.

Maybe Oranienbaum should be looked at closer.
The decision to contain the Oranienbaum bastion rather than eliminate it-- suggests Army Group North's limited resources/combat power even in Sept/Oct 41 - (i.e., it may be that an either/or choice had to be made because a commitment of the forces/time/effort necessary to eliminate the Oranb. pocket may have precluded AGN from isolating Leningrad -at least in the short term).

The move not to commit to taking Leningrad by direct assault reads more like an unwillingness to commit AGNs limited combat power to an attritional situation (without a certain outcome) that would not have been able to be fully supported by OKH given the perceived/anticipated exigencies on the rest of the eastern front. Sure, they can say they have "opted" to lay siege for "propaganda purposes"-- but that could conveniently overlook AGNs insufficient combat power to accomplish that task (of actually taking the city).

[Saelon1]

I actually have the "historical" result on the Leningrad front most games I play as the USSR vs AI (at 125 morale). Possibly because the AI's 125 morale bonus lets it smash through the Schlisselburg corridor, and for whatever reason the AI doesn't prioritize very hard pushing over the Neva.

[Jango32]

Maybe Oranienbaum should be looked at closer.
The decision to contain the Oranienbaum bastion rather than eliminate it-- suggests Army Group North's limited resources/combat power even in Sept/Oct 41 - (i.e., it may be that an either/or choice had to be made because a commitment of the forces/time/effort necessary to eliminate the Oranb. pocket may have precluded AGN from isolating Leningrad -at least in the short term).

The move not to commit to taking Leningrad by direct assault reads more like an unwillingness to commit AGNs limited combat power to an attritional situation (without a certain outcome) that would not have been able to be fully supported by OKH given the perceived/anticipated exigencies on the rest of the eastern front. Sure, they can say they have "opted" to lay siege for "propaganda purposes"-- but that could conveniently overlook AGNs insufficient combat power to accomplish that task (of actually taking the city).

The decision to reorient the primary efforts to Moscow (after they had just been reoriented to Leningrad in mid to late July, but implemented in early August) seems to have been the primary reason and not the overall state of AGN.

[Light4bettor]

The decision to reorient the primary efforts to Moscow (after they had just been reoriented to Leningrad in mid to late July, but implemented in early August) seems to have been the primary reason and not the overall state of AGN.

Do you read my statement to say that I think the primary reason that the focus shifted from Leningrad was because of the overall state of the AGN ? Just to clarify, I wasn't addressing the reasons behind the changing of the Ost Heers objectives- only that AGN (even if to some degree replenished)- may have lacked the combat power to attempt entry into and the clearance of Leningrad city proper.

The previous poster had stated that the primary reason for not directly pushing into the city was for political/propaganda reasons. (I have not studied that history closely), but I wanted to add a possible practical reason of why they didn't attempt direct assault into the city. They don't have to say "we are not strong enough to do it right now", instead they are saying "meh, we decided not too, but we will still get it in the end." Its a better sounding spin on the situation for the regime.

[Light4bettor]

According to Liedtke- we can speculate with a relative degree of confidence that Leeb's infantry battalions averaged 78 percent TOE when we account for replacements. Which is still within the realm of operational, of course. But, as we know, infantry battalions tend to attrit with increased intensity in heavy urban fighting.