Lvov Pocket exploit - Q for developers

[Flaviusx]

Redamrkus was referring to the opening moves where NW and Western Fronts get more or less destroyed in full in the first two turns. This is still happening. It certainly happened in the game in question. The point here is that the Axis can accomplish these historical pockets further north and at the same time get SW front.

Possibly Q-ball made a minor error in the sense that two additional panzer corps in the south isn't strictly speaking necessary -- the Lvov gambit can be pulled off with just a single additional panzer corps.

[Wild]

Either way i still see nothing wrong with the Lvov gambit. Perhaps it is just a difference in perspectives between Axis and Soviet players.

What i do know is that this thread just seems to be going round in circles.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Um. That Q-ball game is just another game where AGS is moving along at a very rapid rate, far more so than historical. About what you would expect.

Nobody is getting much out of SW front nowadays.

Yep, he is a couple weeks ahead of schedule in the south.

Just as by closing the pocket at Minsk on Turn 1, the Axis player is already one week ahead of schedule.

But if you don't have a Lvov pocket, what is the chance of AGS trapping three Soviet armies near Uman, as happened in history?

Nil, I'm afraid.

My proposition is that if routing troops didn't fly off and out of danger, that you could very well see an Uman pocket, just as you could very well see a much more significant Minsk pocket, after first closing the Białystok pocket.

By limiting the distance units rout and by forcing the Germans to have to attack routed forces instead of just moving adjacent to them, the game changes completely and IMHO, results in a better simulation.

Not only does it slow the Panzers down just a tad enough to prevent these vast first turn pockets, but also goes far to encourage the Soviet player to try to "save" units which could be bagged quite easily in the subsequent turn. Thus standing and fighting instead of just running away.

As a side note, factory evacuation shouldn't be allowed until turn 3 or possibly even turn 4. Doesn't matter here nor there that "most good Sovs" don't start evacuating their factories until turn 3, the fact is, they shouldn't have the option to begin with.

EDIT: A successful attack against a routed unit should result in surrender/shattering.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Empire101]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

A couple of explanations - if the rail is cut south of Tarnopol the Soviet player can't evacuate the Lvov region except on foot. Beyond this, the norm is to head 2-3 tank units south to near the border. Instead, either leaving the pocket open or closing it with one tank unit knowing it will be reopened leaves far more chance for later turn disruption.

Proskurov can be taken, and beyond (another panzer corps is sent south determines the "beyond"). This can tear up the middle portion of the Stalin Line and make it possible to have 3-4 armor, 2-3 motorized in the region between Vinnitsa and Zhitomir at the end of turn two (the infantry will be lagging, but the turn 1 Proskurov move by the tanks means they get most of their move in the clear).

In this scenario, a turn 2/3 Lvov pocket will perhaps net more, or at least catch the Soviets pulling back so there is less formal defenses. Beyond this, the rail is closer in the center of the Ukraine, and the German will still have fair movement on turn 3 for more movement. The now mobilized Slovaks, Hungarians, AGS infantry, and Romanians can help clear up stuff.

Too many whine about the Soviet running away, but if you can get them running, all the while encircling, you can create movement and opportunites that may well far outstrip the Lvov opening. The unexpected is far harder to counter anyway.

Are these the vital rail lines in your post?

[Flaviusx]

It's more than "a couple of weeks." It's rather more like a month -- and then some. He's well past Kiev at the beginning of August.

[BletchleyGeek]

Wild is right that this thread is going on circles.

I'm of the opinion that what WitE lacks are reaction rules for the non-phasing player. Sorry lava, but your proposals look to me as the good old "hacking the rules" approach. Introducing special rules, asymmetric rules, is bad, always, for any game system. The 1:1 -> 2:1 rule is perhaps one example of such a special rule, which nobody is really sure what it is accounting for.

PS: I don't consider myself a "good" player at all (because it means being "better than something else", I don't really see what's that something else). Actually, I'd rather be a "lucky" player than a "good" player, if the former getsmore often those leader, experience and morale rolls right

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Are these the vital rail lines in your post?

You cut that rail line two south of Tarnopol (by moving one hex south of the city), and the Soviets can't rail out of the Lvov Region (the rail line in the south is adjacent to the Romanians and so not functional.

This allows the mass of AGS to take a right turn at Albuquerque and cut the Stalin line to the east of Proskurov. Instead of wasting that AGC panzer corps making the pocket - use them to slice up the forts. If you are sad that AGC loses a corps, send the XIV there on turn 2...

[Redmarkus5]

(A failure to agree does not equal a circle. I am sure that opinions are being influenced beyond those expressed in the thread itself).

Another issue that affects the game throughout, but which is surely a major factor in determining Soviet 1941 strategy, is the fact that the historical objectives set by STAVKA need not be met by the Soviet player. The same applies to the Axis to a lesser degree.

The brutal reality was that however stupid (I prefer ill informed) some orders from the top were, failure to comply generally meant death, imprisonment or disgrace. In WiTE, the player has no such constraints and is free to do as he wishes, with few penalties - almost none in the Soviet case.

Thus, the game does not really put the player in the position of a Zhukov or a Guderian. If the fall of key cities and strategic zones within given timescales led directly to the execution of senior generals in the game (instead of random deaths as at present) and possibly other penalties, the Soviet player would be forced to defend locations he would rather abandon, so creating more realistic battles.

I am reminded of the Political Points system in WitP which really constrained all aspects of play. You needed to win battles and take or hold ground in order to remain viable as a military force, IIRC.

An idea might be to have a series of optional strategic plans to choose from before Turn 1, hidden from the other side. The chosen strategy would determine the scenario setup (northern focus, central, southern, all three, random, etc. for the Axis. Hold the borders, hold Kiev, Uman and Smolensk until X date, or fall back in stages etc. for the Sovs). Once the game had started each player would be required to achieve the chosen strategy in phases by given dates, ending at 12/41 or suffer various penalties. From 01/42 anything goes.

This would require big changes and a number of alternate scenario setups, but for realism and replay-ability something along these lines is needed, no?

Just brainstorming...

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: Empire101
Are these the vital rail lines in your post?

You cut that rail line two south of Tarnopol (by moving one hex south of the city), and the Soviets can't rail out of the Lvov Region (the rail line in the south is adjacent to the Romanians and so not functional.

This allows the mass of AGS to take a right turn at Albuquerque and cut the Stalin line to the east of Proskurov. Instead of wasting that AGC panzer corps making the pocket - use them to slice up the forts. If you are sad that AGC loses a corps, send the XIV there on turn 2...

I cut that rail line without using any troops from AGC. And I play like a novice. It's too easy...

[Redmarkus5]

How about we actually put failing players to death? That would be realistic!

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

I cut that rail line without using any troops from AGC. And I play like a novice. It's too easy...

Of course, easy to do. However, the goal of the manuever is to break the Stalin Line to the east of Proskurov to facilitate the later turns. Switich a panzer corps allows this (and still keeps the relative level of forces in each front from turn 2 on...

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Lava
But if you don't have a Lvov pocket, what is the chance of AGS trapping three Soviet armies near Uman, as happened in history?

Nobody ever answers the hard questions... [:D]


[;)]

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Lava
But if you don't have a Lvov pocket, what is the chance of AGS trapping three Soviet armies near Uman, as happened in history?

Nobody ever answers the hard questions... [:D]


[;)]

It's already been answered, not directly though.

He might not get that one, gets several smaller ones, with a similar or greater effect.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
(A failure to agree does not equal a circle. I am sure that opinions are being influenced beyond those expressed in the thread itself).

You're right. But this is a bit like the cat in the room with the Prussic (not Prussian but almost) acid pot. Is it alive? Is it dead? [;)]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
I am reminded of the Political Points system in WitP which really constrained all aspects of play. You needed to win battles and take or hold ground in order to remain viable as a military force, IIRC.

Note that we have Admin Points rather than Political Points, and they have a similar role (I'm no WitP:AE guru, the better informed, please, correct me if I'm wrong). Tying AP's to comparing current victory levels to some "historic standard", per turn, might be something really interesting.

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
An idea might be to have a series of optional strategic plans to choose from before Turn 1, hidden from the other side. The chosen strategy would determine the scenario setup (northern focus, central, southern, all three, random, etc. for the Axis. Hold the borders, hold Kiev, Uman and Smolensk until X date, or fall back in stages etc. for the Sovs). Once the game had started each player would be required to achieve the chosen strategy in phases by given dates, ending at 12/41 or suffer various penalties. From 01/42 anything goes.

This would require big changes and a number of alternate scenario setups, but for realism and replay-ability something along these lines is needed, no?

I like that. A certain WW1 "game" which will remain nameless scooped me because of giving at the start a choice between plans for the Entente/Central Powers.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Lava
But if you don't have a Lvov pocket, what is the chance of AGS trapping three Soviet armies near Uman, as happened in history?

Nobody ever answers the hard questions... [:D]

[;)]

It's already been answered, not directly though.

He might not get that one, gets several smaller ones, with a similar or greater effect.

[:D]

If that was true we wouldn't be having this discussion and every AAR that you read on the boards wouldn't start with a Lvov Pocket.

Nice try though. [:)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Lava
But if you don't have a Lvov pocket, what is the chance of AGS trapping three Soviet armies near Uman, as happened in history?

Nobody ever answers the hard questions... [:D]


[;)]

It can be done, you have to play your opponent. If he gives you the pocket, do it - if he runs, pursue and pocket him later. I have made pockets inside the Ukraine before the Dnepr...up to 20 divisions...

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Lava
If that was true we wouldn't be having this discussion and every AAR that you read on the boards wouldn't start with a Lvov Pocket.

Nice try though.

Are you serious? I guess you're not [:)]

[timmyab]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Guys why are you using the word gambit? [&:] Have you played chess? There's no gambit at all in this Lvov thing: you don't sacrifice anything. The only sacrifice... er, the Soviet Southwestern Front... [8D]

Yes I've noticed this as well.It's definitely not a gambit.The day I see a genuine gambit I'll know that opening theory is getting serious.

[Michael T]

gam·bitNoun/ˈgambit/


1. (in chess) An opening in which a player makes a sacrifice, typically of a pawn, for the sake of some compensating advantage.

2. A device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage

It is common knowledge in the wargaming world (at least in mine) that the use of the term 'gambit' in wargaming speak is related to the 2nd definition above.

[Ketza]

When you play as Axis you just feel the absolute need to bag those Soviets and free up 11th army. You weigh every other option but nothing gives you the bang for your buck that a Lvow pocket gives you.

When you play as the Soviets and you open the first turn to find the Lvow pocket has not happened you feel as if you have been given a great gift.


Just a few random thoughts on the subject!