Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Thats what I am talkinf about. Good post 76MM, mybee I will ask
you to be on my buddy list

I hope, I hope, I hope... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
Compare your exploits to history

I think you're missing the point. Your "exploits" should be driven by the victory conditions.

Two obvious examples from the current game:
1) SOV DEFENSE:
--No VPs awarded for defending Kiev, Western Ukraine, in summer, 1941: While this is debated among players, many Russians think the best course of action is to retreat behind the Dnepr, losing as few units as possible.
--Significant VPs awarded for defending Kiev, Western Ukraine, etc. as long as possible: Sov player now has to weigh the risk of defending these cities to gain the VPs vs the risk of losing the defending units to encirclement. Thanks to the VPs, this calculation is in fact much more realistic than giving zero weight to holding key cities, as now.

2) GERMAN OFFENSE:
--No VPs given to the Germans for capturing Baku, Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk: Why on earth even try to gain land in 1942? Chances are very much stacked against you, and by now the factories have been evacced and the other resources probably won't hurt the Sovs or help you. Best to be be passive or at best launch local offensives in 1942; in game terms, Case Blue frankly looks like a pretty idiotic decision.
--Significant VPS given to the Germans for capturing key cities in Russia: Unlike now, Germans now have reason to seek to capture real estate in 1942.

Don't you think that having proper victory conditions could make a major difference to game play? Comparing your game exploits to history is completely meaningless and pointless if the the goals, objectives, and constraints of the historical actors are lacking in the game.

ORIGINAL: Ketza
Not sure how it would all work out but imagine the desperate offensives and defenses that would arise knowing you had to capture X or defend Y or the game would end. It would actually promote offensive action when in the games current form you have no need to take any.

This sounds too deterministic to me--do X or lose... German players should have a choice between pushing on to City X and holding it for the winter for Y VPs, or conserving their forces by making a more conservative offensive whose gains could be held for longer (thus earning more VPs).

Geting the VP balance would be very difficult, but the rule of thumb should be, the further East, the more points! Holding Sverdlovsk for one turn should be worth more than holding Brest for 1941-1944...

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Victory conditions are but an artificial way to "end" a game... IMHO the least interesting part of any game.. How would changing the scoring system change the way people play the game? Autovictory if axis capture x, y and z? And the reward? A scoring screen at game end?

Is that why you play the game?

Actually victory conditions are a spur to the losing side: An AV condition based upon geographic objectives is a goad to force the LOSING side to hold on at least as much as a spur the WINNING side to try harder. Done properly, AV should be impossible to meet unless the defender is pursuing a major Sir Robin defense. I always thought the 4:1 42 AV for WitP was very well done; the Allies had a bit of backs-to-the-wall defense and the Japanese a bit of stretch-just-a-little-bit-too-far.

ORIGINAL: Wild

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

ORIGINAL: 76mm



Such as how?

Compare your exploits to history

I agree. Victory points don't interest me much. I would rather see more direct consequences for taking cities than is currently in the game. Such as more impact for capturing Resources,oil,supplies,heavy industry etc.

In general make cities more important and give the Germans more reason to fight for them.

Am i the only one here who thinks making cities have more effect on the game so the Germans are motivated to attack them more and the Soviets trying to defend them more is a good idea. If so i will stop going on about it.

But what i think would be a very bad idea is for the game to be stopped arbitrarly because of some auto victory due to victory points.
Play till the end. The players will know who won and if they don't then it's a draw. Time for a rematch.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

--No VPs given to the Germans for capturing Baku, Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk: Why on earth even try to gain land in 1942? Chances are very much stacked against you, and by now the factories have been evacced and the other resources probably won't hurt the Sovs or help you. Best to be be passive or at best launch local offensives in 1942; in game terms, Case Blue frankly looks like a pretty idiotic decision.

You don't think it was an idiotic decision?

In any case, each is entitled to their opinion. VP just don't do it for me. I agree with Wild, there should be a reason to capture a city (massive concentration of army units, industry, manpower being examples).

If the player is forced to defend "critical" cities through a VP point system or otherwise the other side will get autovictory is sliding down a slippery slope...

For myself, I've always thought that Fall Blau was pretty boneheaded. The plan didn't make a lick of sense. Neither the logistics nor forces were adequate for it, and dividing one army group into two half army groups seeking wildly divergent objectives looks pretty bad on general principles.

It failed and imo very predictably so. It opened up brilliantly enough, sure, and took advantage of Soviet fiascos in Kharkov and the Crimea to wreck the southern position; but it all went south after that. (pun intended.)

I've always thought the Germans should have turned north after reaching Voronezh and rolled up the Soviet positions. And chop off the bizarro salients by Rzhev, etc. in conjunction with such a move.

To paraphrase Grant vis a vis Lee: the Red Army is your objective. Wherever it goes, you go. This is even the completely orthodox Clausewitzian strategy -- and Hitler, who fancied himself some kind of expert on Clausewitz, threw out that playbook completely.

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder
You don't think it was an idiotic decision?

In any case, each is entitled to their opinion. VP just don't do it for me. I agree with Wild, there should be a reason to capture a city (massive concentration of army units, industry, manpower being examples).

If the player is forced to defend "critical" cities through a VP point system or otherwise the other side will get autovictory is sliding down a slippery slope...

Well, in retrospect it seems it was an idiotic decision, but it was made by presumably rational people playing a "game" with the highest stakes imaginable, so presumably they had some compelling rationale to undertake Case Blue (unlike players, who have absolutely no incentive to pull a Case Blue or any other major offensive whatsoever).

And I'm not suggesting that players be "forced" to defend any particular city or cities--simply that the further east the Germans go, or the longer the Sovs hold to the west, the better they will do. I am also not in favor of autovictory conditions unless one side is just getting completely crushed (maybe current autovictory conditions could be slightly softened, but not a big deal).

The compelling reason for Fall Blau was Hitler's hard on for oil and then later on for a city that happened to be named after Stalin. (I am burlesquing a bit here, but not much.) This wasn't some kind of carefully reasoned out General Staff plan. It was an Adolf show, and such staff work as went into it was merely done to place it in the most rational light.

He never bothered willing the means to match the ends, he figured that his will by itself was enough to get the job done.

Again...

It seems there is an interaction of cause and effect.

HQ build-up is abused (sometimes) as raiding is effective.
Raiding is effective because factories are instantly destroyed on entering a city.
Raiding is required, because by focussing Rail Capacity the Soviets can empty most cities in 1-2 weeks, at least of the 'critical' components - and normal attacks are usually not broad or fast enough to make this an unsolvable problem.

If the evacuation of factories takes longer but uses the same capacity (e.g. plan move 1, disassemble & entrain move 2, evacuate move 3) then the Soviet player must think further ahead, and the German player might sometimes do something 'normal' but unexpected that wrong-foots the evacuation schedule - additionally if the evacuation capacity is limited to some multiplier of the local rail-capacity from city and factory rail sidings, then a huge effort is not practical in one area of the front... and it becomes harder to finesse the evacuation.

If also the complete destruction of facilities is something that happens at the start of the following attacker's turn, rather than before the defender's turn, then there is less point in suicidal 'raids' which are no more than inconveniences, and more reason to defend the city and the local area strongly. Also more reason to isolate a city to hold the contents, rather than 'capture' it with an improbable assault into a BUA with armour.

Without the instant results of a deep raid, they would be far less attractive, as they are largely unsustainable - if they are 'big enough' and shallow enough to hold, then they may be a valid manoeuvres in their own right.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

For myself, I've always thought that Fall Blau was pretty boneheaded. The plan didn't make a lick of sense. Neither the logistics nor forces were adequate for it, and dividing one army group into two half army groups seeking wildly divergent objectives looks pretty bad on general principles.

It failed and imo very predictably so. It opened up brilliantly enough, sure, and took advantage of Soviet fiascos in Kharkov and the Crimea to wreck the southern position; but it all went south after that. (pun intended.)

I've always thought the Germans should have turned north after reaching Voronezh and rolled up the Soviet positions. And chop off the bizarro salients by Rzhev, etc. in conjunction with such a move.

To paraphrase Grant vis a vis Lee: the Red Army is your objective. Wherever it goes, you go. This is even the completely orthodox Clausewitzian strategy -- and Hitler, who fancied himself some kind of expert on Clausewitz, threw out that playbook completely.

Very well put sir!![8D]

I've been reading this thread with interest, as it has raised many interesting points. What I would say however is that while denying those resources in Caucasus to the Soviets is important, there should be a mechanism to allow the Germans to utilise those resources in some meaningful and realistic way.

This then can lead to players formulating their own equivalent 'Fall Blau's' in 42. I think it could only be good for the game, and would lead to some very interesting games, and putting some measure of uncertainty into the Russian players planning ( ie Are the Germans going south for the oil or OMG!! He has switched his axis of advance and is rolling up the defences and heading North. Break out the vodka, its going to be a grim year. )

Conversely it would add to piling up pressure on the Germans to actually let rip in 42 before the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army begin to tell. If those resources can in some measure contribute to the German war effort ( again I emphasise in a meaningful way ), then perhaps players will start coming up with alternative strategems to get their greasy mitts on them. It puts both players in the seat of aquiring/denying access to these valuable assets, and would stretch each player to attack/defend to the absolute limit.

Lets not forget that Fall Blau came close to success. The immolation of VIth Army at Stalingrad led to disaster, and the whole plan unravelled faster than a ball of wool. Although the fixation of Stalingrad came largely from Hitler, I have always looked to von Paulus as the architect of the German disaster on the Volga.

Humour me, as I hope this post bears relevance ( I hope I'm not waffling ) to what is being argued in this thread.

Lets see, what would I do if there was a large, bombed out, 20km long city on a river, with 90% of the city on my side ( ie the western side) of the river.

Would I:-

a) Look at the situation and apply a 'Verdun' approach to the whole battle. Apply frontal assaults in ever increasing brutality and ferocity, attempt to cut off river traffic with artillery and aircraft, and basically sacrifice the lives of my men in WWI types of assaults to literally 'push' every single one of the gallant defenders off the western bank and out of the city?

or

b) Get to the northern end of the city and river bank ( achieved by 16th Panzer Div and 60th Motorised Div). Get to the Southern end of the city and riverbank. ( achieved by 14th, 24th Panzer Division, and 94th Inf Div). Cut off river traffic with artillery and aircraft. Then work up and down the riverbank respectively, denying the Russians their landing stages and jetty's, until 62nd Army is either cut off or they retreat back over the Volga.
Battle over.

It seems amazing, sitting here in my armchair, that von Paulus never really latched onto the signifcance of (b), which is an adaption of the Blitzkrieg mindset, and instead went for (a), the tried and tested WWI mindset, that could'nt possibly match the results of (b), and as we all know, paved the way to disaster.

As an aside, in my opinion, fate played a huge hand in the outcome of Fall Blau. Von Reichenau had died of a heart attack in January 42.
If this fellow had lived for another year, the strategy employed at Stalingrad would almost certainly have been (b), and the outcome very different.

I hope you'll pardon the slight digression from the topic, but I'm trying to show that Fall Blau could have ended very differently, no matter how half cocked it was at the planning stage. Which brings me back to the whole reason for Fall Blau.....the simultaneous aims of denying the oil to the Soviets, while at the same time the Germans being able to boost their own war effort. Those resources and VP's in the Caucasus must be made more meaningful to the German player, he must start weighing in his mind those far off glittering prizes, what they are worth and what to do about them. The Soviets too would have to carefully weigh up the strategic significance and defence allocations made accordingly.

Lets face it. In most games, the German player is going to have basically four strategic choices in 1942.
1) A new Operation Typhoon to invest Moscow.
2) Capture Vorenzh, wrong foot the Soviets, roll up their defences and attack towards Moscow from the South
3) Capture Vorenzh and head south for the oilfields.
4) Sit behind his defences and do vitually nothing.

Well, none of us ( I hope ) want to see (4) becoming a viable option. We all need to come up with the workable and achievable idea to plant this seed in the German players mindset, not just in 42, but 43 as well.... which is this....

'Mein Fuhrer, the final objective is just over the next hill..... obtain it, and the war is ours!!'[;)]

Apologies for going on a bit, and I hope there was'nt too much waffle.

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Lets face it. In most games, the German player is going to have basically four strategic choices in 1942.
1) A new Operation Typhoon to invest Moscow.
2) Capture Vorenzh, wrong foot the Soviets, roll up their defences and attack towards Moscow from the South
3) Capture Vorenzh and head south for the oilfields.
4) Sit behind his defences and do vitually nothing.

But let's face it, there isn't really any good reason for the Germans to attack or capture Moscow, Voronezh, or really any other city in 1942. Industry will have been evacced, and any incremental loss in population is meaningless.

In my view, in 1942 the German's only rational objective is to launch a bunch of smallish attacks intended to encircle as many troops as possible, until the Sovs can't hold the front any more.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Lets face it. In most games, the German player is going to have basically four strategic choices in 1942.
1) A new Operation Typhoon to invest Moscow.
2) Capture Vorenzh, wrong foot the Soviets, roll up their defences and attack towards Moscow from the South
3) Capture Vorenzh and head south for the oilfields.
4) Sit behind his defences and do vitually nothing.

But let's face it, there isn't really any good reason for the Germans to attack or capture Moscow, Voronezh, or really any other city in 1942. Industry will have been evacced, and any incremental loss in population is meaningless.

Just got to late February 1942 with a GC started with 1.04, got updated to 1.05 in late December. Axis reached Moscow (actually they cutoff Moscow direct communications by rail with the Urals), conquered Leningrad, Orel, Kursk and Stalino. I'm having trouble replacing the 1M troops that went poof bashing the Germans during December and January, to recover the last three cities and push them back from Moscow a few hexes. Out of 533 infantry units, 40 are below 50% TOE, over 200 between 50 and 60%, and only 30 with TOE over 80%.

Now I'm really worried about my opponent going after my army and the manpower.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Lets face it. In most games, the German player is going to have basically four strategic choices in 1942.
1) A new Operation Typhoon to invest Moscow.
2) Capture Vorenzh, wrong foot the Soviets, roll up their defences and attack towards Moscow from the South
3) Capture Vorenzh and head south for the oilfields.
4) Sit behind his defences and do vitually nothing.

But let's face it, there isn't really any good reason for the Germans to attack or capture Moscow, Voronezh, or really any other city in 1942. Industry will have been evacced, and any incremental loss in population is meaningless.

In my view, in 1942 the German's only rational objective is to launch a bunch of smallish attacks intended to encircle as many troops as possible, until the Sovs can't hold the front any more.

I did not make it clear in my post that not only are the oilfields made a more meaningful objective, but Moscow as well. I've mentioned Vorenzh in the post as it has to be secured to ensure a possibility of success in either the North or South offensives. It is a strategic lynch pin to both plans, in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

Just got to late February 1942 with a GC started with 1.04, got updated to 1.05 in late December. Axis reached Moscow (actually they cutoff Moscow direct communications by rail with the Urals), conquered Leningrad, Orel, Kursk and Stalino. I'm having trouble replacing the 1M troops that went poof bashing the Germans during December and January, to recover the last three cities and push them back from Moscow a few hexes. Out of 533 infantry units, 40 are below 50% TOE, over 200 between 50 and 60%, and only 30 with TOE over 80%.

Now I'm really worried about my opponent going after my army and the manpower

That sounds like one fantastic game....who is your opponent? I'd be awarding him the Ritterkreuz!!
If he can achieve results like that against an excellent Soviet player like yourself, I want to know his strategy....its better than mine!!

ORIGINAL: Empire101
That sounds like one fantastic game....who is your opponent? I'd be awarding him the Ritterkreuz!!
If he can achieve results like that against an excellent Soviet player like yourself, I want to know his strategy....its better than mine!!

You can check it here (in Spanish)

http://www.puntadelanza.net/Foro/phpBB3 ... 41&t=12384

he used a very "historical" Axis outlook on the game, hitting me with massed PzGruppes lavishly supported by infantry (and making sure he had always the better leaders in the critical places). I only managed to stop him when I started counterattacking him, even with "lousy" odds (that was VERY expensive).

Turn 23

[center][/center]

the German spearheads shattered three good Russian armies, and 11 turns afterwards

[center][/center]

I'd certainly want him to be further away from Moscow. I tried to bait him pressing elsewhere, but didn't fell for it, and gave a No Step Backwards stance in Moscow that has costed me dear. Now we have a very nice situation

[center][/center]

which I will try to capitalize. I want him off the manpower which is within his reach and hasn't already raided. You can see what's the bait like, and what's the kind of fight I want to try my hand at.

EDIT: This should be encouraging to Axis players. My opponent used just one buildup, as far as I know. And I frustrated it because I did an operational retreat the same turn

Very interesting. He wants to get those fort levels up in the south quickly or he will be in trouble. It looks quite similar to my current game vs Vaspasian ( my brother ), although I wimped out at Moscow and instead started to dig in and did'nt push it like your opponent did.... and he came close to success, but no cigar. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The compelling reason for Fall Blau was Hitler's hard on for oil and then later on for a city that happened to be named after Stalin. (I am burlesquing a bit here, but not much.) This wasn't some kind of carefully reasoned out General Staff plan. It was an Adolf show, and such staff work as went into it was merely done to place it in the most rational light.

He never bothered willing the means to match the ends, he figured that his will by itself was enough to get the job done.

Yes, it was all Hitler's fault... Where I have heard it before?

The Germans had very, very strong economic reasons to capture all the oil they could. Combine that to the chronic underestimation of Soviet abilities and the Fall Blau appears to be less irrational, at the time. Stalingrad was a sideshow, whose significance, as Glantz points out, has been exaggerated afterwards due to its peculiar nature.

ORIGINAL: Keke




Yes, it was all Hitler's fault... Where I have heard it before?

The Germans had very, very strong economic reasons to capture all the oil they could. Combine that to the chronic underestimation of Soviet abilities and the Fall Blau appears to be less irrational, at the time. Stalingrad was a sideshow, whose significance, as Glantz points out, has been exaggerated afterwards due to its peculiar nature.

I agree with the first part of your arguement completely. Stalingrad did indeed not figure as a prominent objective at all in the original drafting of Fall Blau.

But, 'Stalingrad was a sideshow', and 'its significance has been exaggerated'.... come now sir, can you not see the glaring contradictions in those statements, that is without even taking the herculean efforts taken by both sides to win the battle, let alone the courage and stoicism shown by both the Germans and the Soviets in the face of such adversity, even if Stalingrad did'nt figure prominently on the maps of AGS at the start of the campaign.

Jyri, it was Hitler who dictated the objectives of Fall Blau. He certainly had strong economic motives to get oil. But Baku might as well have been on the moon. They never even got close. The drive stalled well before it for lack of forces and rickety logistics. No matter how much he wanted and needed the oil, the mere desire couldn't overcome these objective limitations. He willed the end without willing the means. The plan was an impossible one.

And Stalingrad was 100% a prestige objective that Hitler wanted for propaganda purposes -- the Germans didn't need to actually take the city to support a drive to the Caucuses.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Jyri, it was Hitler who dictated the objectives of Fall Blau. He certainly had strong economic motives to get oil. But Baku might as well have been on the moon. They never even got close. The drive stalled well before it for lack of forces and rickety logistics. No matter how much he wanted and needed the oil, the mere desire couldn't overcome these objective limitations. He willed the end without willing the means. The plan was an impossible one.

And Stalingrad was 100% a prestige objective that Hitler wanted for propaganda purposes -- the Germans didn't need to actually take the city to support a drive to the Caucuses.

It was not he that needed the oil, it was the German war economy that needed it to fight efficiently against the Allies. Only with hindsight one could claim that the plan was impossible. I'm not defending Hitler here, but to put blame solely on him is the oldest trick of the German generalship - far too many have believed it.

City fighting in Stalingrad have been greatly dramatized over the years, when much more significant fighting with more troops actually happened outside the city - especially on the steppes NW of the city.