The Great Patriotic AAR II (No Michael T please)

[notenome]

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

Show me an AAR in which the Soviet player has lost circa 6 million soldiers (among them 3 million prisoners)... and Moscow and Leningrad are in Soviet hands and a blizzard offensive is launched...

Also note that -to emulate his counterparts- Tarhunnas should have 1 million more men trapped... Do you think this is possible, counting his counters?

Are you serious?

Ok, everything is perfect! Don't fix anything [8|] No problem: I will NEVER fight like the Red Army fought.NEVER. Not as long as they don't fix this lunacy...

[governato]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: notenome

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

Ok, everything is perfect! Don't fix anything [8|] No problem: I will NEVER fight like the Red Army fought.NEVER. Not as long as they don't fix this lunacy...

This was an interesting experiment, but should we really expect the results to be much different? The SU tried an aggressive forward defense in real life with disastrous results. Why should this strategy work any better against a very competent German player with full hindsight? There are surely many things to improve, but I'd rather see this as a positive test of the game engine.

[Flaviusx]

M60, in any defensive situation the restriction on reserves will also hurt the Axis. But Michael obviously contrived things so that no such situation would ever arise.

Don't try this as the Axis in the 1943 scenario. Actually, most of these house rules would suck pretty badly for the Axis in the 1943 scenario.

The game engine is systemically biased in favor of the offense. The only interesting question is who is on the offense. The house rules are preposterous in light of said bias.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: governato
This was an interesting experiment, but should we really expect the results to be much different? The SU tried an aggressive forward defense in real life with disastrous results. Why should this strategy work any better against a very competent German player with full hindsight? There are surely many things to improve, but I'd rather see this as a positive test of the game engine.

And yet the Red Army held Moscow and Leningrad and kept fighting with much much much more losses (as this is rather pertinent)... whilst on the game Tarhunnas sees no point continuing...

Can't you see something is really wrong here?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

Notenome, the house rules afforded the Soviet player no such choice, it was all forward defense all the time. The results of this are fairly predictable.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus


Can't you see something is really wrong here?

- make the Lvov pocket harder to achieve
- give a reason for the SU to defend forward in 1941
- make the supply logistics a little harder when on the offensive
- implement a local railway capacity

I suspect the developers cannot add one feature at the time without unbalancing the game, so I guess it will have to wait for WITE.2

[Flaviusx]

Big changes are going to have to wait until WITE2, yeah. WITE has been taken as far as it can without an extensive redo that will require equally extensive testing. The game may see some tinkering around the edges and bug fixes, but basically, what you see now is what you'll have until the next iteration.

WITW is the test bed for the these changes.

[timmyab]

No need to feel bad about being beaten by Michael.He's an excellent player and even small inbalances in player ability can quickly snowball in this game.
Your defensive technique would have to be virtually faultless to stand forward against him, even then you'd probably lose quite a bit of stuff in 41.
To be frank, I think your forward defensive technique can improve as i'm sure you've learnt in this game.As an example, your checkerboard in the South on turn 1 is asking to have a hole blown through the middle of it followed by a major encirclement.It's particularly vital that you don't lose significant numbers of units in the opening turns so that your force density increases steadily and your defense becomes ever more solid so making pockets ever more difficult.This is the snowball effect of this game in reverse.A well positioned and totally committed picket/MLR/strongpoint technique is the only way that I know to achieve this.The next best strategy is to simply run away to the Axis logistics dead zone and accept the loss of a lot of territory in 41.I would try the first against him and adopt the second if my force density dropped to critical levels.
As Flav says, certainly don't accept any unfavourable house rules when playing him, he doesn't need any help.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I'm getting rather tired of people posting a forward defense is inviable as the Soviets when a lot of Soviet playrs use it. The trick is to know when to run and when to fight.

I wish this were true - I used to be in favor of fighting as much as possible, but the rules post fort nerf enable a German who knows how to handle panzers properly to simply tear such a defense to ribbons. Even the no reserve rule is, I'm afraid, not what cost Tarhunnas the loss - in a fluid situation like this battle reserves would have been activated on a very limited basis anyway. The loss is due to the fact that the Germans have a lot of movement points and the Soviets have few, and under an IGOUGO system this will result in big pockets for a Soviet who does not fall back to terrain/forts that favor some kind of defense.

[hfarrish]

And just to put some meat on those bones, I recently had a game where I had lost 3M men by turn 14, which was probably roughly where the real life Red Army was...and believe me, there was no point in continuing. I could maybe have held Moscow, but only at the cost of having the German army romp all over the SE (Stalingrad and South of the Don) through the snow turns.

[RCHarmon]

I think this challenge is only half done. I hope Tarhunnas accepts the offer to change sides and play again with the same rules. As I see it, this is unfinished.

Before conclusions are set in stone, I'd like to see what damage Tarhunnas can do as the Axis. I'd like to see what Michael can do with the Soviets.

This experiment needs to be seen to its completion.

[hfarrish]

I agree with that - MT has always said he would play as Sovs under the same rules, but no one has taken him up on it; would be an interesting match to see for sure.

[Klydon]

A interesting game to say the least and congrats to Michael on the win against a very skilled opponent.

I am sure Tarhunnas learned quite a bit on this go around, which is saying something as he is a very tough Russian player, no question.

Thank you both for a very entertaining AAR.

[Walloc]

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Show me an AAR in which the Soviet player has lost circa 6 million soldiers (among them 3 million prisoners)... and Moscow and Leningrad are in Soviet hands and a blizzard offensive is launched...

By the very nature of it, this wont ever happen. U start with 4m man and get around 3 to 3,5mil manpower in reinforcement/replacement before the start of the blizzard. This is set high not low. Thats around 7 mil in all. If u lose 6 mil u wouldnt have any thing left in ur combat forces.
What u get in game arent close to the historic mobilization numbers. Hench u cant lose historic numbers and have any thing left. If u have no troops u ofc cant defend/hold any thing.

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

And just to put some meat on those bones, I recently had a game where I had lost 3M men by turn 14, which was probably roughly where the real life Red Army was...and believe me, there was no point in continuing. I could maybe have held Moscow, but only at the cost of having the German army romp all over the SE (Stalingrad and South of the Don) through the snow turns.

See above.....

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[Michael T]

I am continuously astonished at the number of venomous shots that are fired my way at this site. I am not going to be drawn in to even try to defend/deflect that rubbish anymore. But I will say a few things to set the record straight in relation to this game.

First the rules agreed to in this game were of Tarhunnas own design bar two. The Reserve limit and No runaways. These were my requests. All others his. Tarhunnas was free to reject mine and play someone else. Ultimately we are all free to play under whatever rules we like. And contrary to the opinion of others I do not deliberately stack the deck in my favour. I honestly try to evoke a better, more fun, more stimulating game from these house rules. I do not try to deceive anyone.

The stock reserve rules, IMO are rubbish. I do not believe putting the entire Soviet Army, or German Army in reserve mode is ok. Hence the more realistic limit. As for its effect on this game, it is a non issue because we did not get to a point where the possible abuse could have made any difference at all.

The run away rule. IMO this is the biggest failing of the game. There is nothing in the game that dissuades running by either side. I am not going in to theories and fixes here. But when I play a game that is supposed to represent a 1941 Barbarossa situation I want to actually fight the enemy, not chase them across a map devoid of units and never get a chance to come to grips with them. That is not my idea of a fun 1941 game. No matter which side I play.

Muling nullified this running ploy. It allowed me to punish a runner. Now that muling is gone I will only play as German with some kind of penalty for Russians who run (Fredrik and I did discuss some political rules that involved penalties for running, on both sides) or my opponents word not to. I also believe that the run ploy, in capable hands guarantees a victory for the SU. I absolutely refuse to sit down and play a game, spending hour upon hour, knowing that I am dooming myself to some desperate defensive game in 1943/44. No thanks. If other players are happy to do that well good for them.

For me in 1941, as German, I want to think I have some chance to pull off the win, or set it up for 1942 or even 1943. If I get to have my shot in 41/42 and fail I am more than happy to then try to survive in to 44/45. But I want my chance at victory first. Running Soviets rob me of that chance/fun. The Soviet only players want to have their winter 41 fun and 44/45 fun but deny the German players their chance at victory and the fun of actually fighting the 1941 Russian Army. Soviet units that disappear in to the depths of Russia should be something for 1942.

I will be more than happy to play *anyone* as Soviet with no house rules. Sounds like a nice relaxing game to me. But I would honestly prefer mirrored games with the limited reserve and no run rule. And as of now a para limit rule as well. I truly hope WITE 2 does a better job at simulating the desperate war of 1941 that occurred. As it stands, the Soviets in WITE can run whenever they feel any heat at all, not much desperation there at all.

A final thing about the house rules. I am willing to play under the same conditions as Russian against any player who will let me play German under those very same conditions. Fredrik has declined the return match at this stage. He has valid reasons. One of which is not having played German for some time. I fully understand this. However, Fredrik I am willing to wait a week or two for you to get up to speed, even longer if you are keen on the return match. I had my fun, you have every right to have yours.

I don't know what else I can say about the rules. If I were saying I will only play German under those conditions then sure that’s pretty sad. But I am willing to play Fredrik again as Soviet with said very same rules.

As for this game. It was the most challenging I have faced. His defensive method was intimidating and it was no walk in the park. It took hours to figure out how to unravel it. Even my wife commented on the time it was taking for a move. A first. This is the great myth, winning as Axis is easy. What rubbish. Winning as the Soviets is easy when you can run for hills at the slightest sign of trouble. The Soviet only crew can never appreciate the effort, pressure, stress and time commitment it takes to achieve the results the good Axis players do. If you don't apply yourself fully against a good Russian player its curtains by late summer.

I think Tarhunnas forward strategy may well work with some tweaking. More than a few of my advances were almost stopped. With a breakthrough coming only with the last throw of the dice. A 2.2 : 1 win or some such. The thing the German must have is momentum. As soon as it stops, trouble.

Tarhunnas has been a great opponent. I truly enjoyed the game. I wish him well in his other games. But I hope he takes up my offer of the mirror. I can wait.

[Flaviusx]

Micheal, nothing personal, strictly business.

But you are deluding yourself if you think these house rules are ok just because you are willing to play a mirror match with them. They're not. Given two equal opponents, or even two comparable ones, you'll get similar results as here. Only a huge disparity in skill would result otherwise.

Tarhunnas could have done some things better, Timmyab I think summed it up well, but in the end, it wouldn't have mattered much and possibly the things he's looking at doing (and I would also do) are simply not compatible with your house rules. A picket and MLR strategy with the occasional runaway isn't a forward defense as such. A Soviet player adopting a limited liability defense would be accused of not standing and fighting.

[76mm]

Michael T, very impresive game. i dont think anyone is saying winning as axis is easy< but the fact is that against a good german, the sov player is just along for the ride.

As i read more about the opening months of this campaign, i have become more convinced that the game simply doesnt model the red army very well. under certain circumstances, it could put up a much stiffer fight than in this game. at the same time, C&C was much worse. in game, the germans can simply run roughshod over all sov units, but in the real capaign the sovs were able to actually hold ground in some cases.

[Michael T]

@ 76mm in most wargames I have played that do Russia 1941, C&C is way more chaotic than in WITE AND Soviet units are stronger than in WITE (along with Romanians I might add). So your reading and my reading/gaming agree here. It is WITE that is different (in many things other than C&C and units strength too). But some people just don't want to hear that. They dismiss game other than WITE as archaic and all literature written by anyone other than Glantz as simply wrong or biased. WITE 2 will not improve until a much more open/wider view is taken. I just don't have confidence that will occur.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: RCH
This experiment needs to be seen to its completion.

+1