Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shawkhan

Considering the last three invasions of Russia:
1. Napoleon-Russians withdrew before L'Grande Armee, even forfeting Moscow, letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
2. WWI- Russians launch a shoestring invasion of E. Prussia, wind up losing two armies.(interestingly enough, virtually identical to Ulver's fiasco).
3. WWII- Russians withdraw to outskirts of Moscow once again. Letting winter take its toll before launching a crushing counterattack.
...What does this tell us? Russians should withdraw in front of invasion, then counterattack with winter reinforcements. This is not rocket science.

You can't compare these situations like that Shawkhan.

Against Napoleon Russia had no possibility to gather an force to seriously fight Napoleon before the gates of Moscow at Borodino where they were forced to make a stand.

During WW2 the far majority of the standing forces of Russia was deployed (and destroyed) in the border fighting in the west. Afterwards forces was simply deployed in dribbles in an attempt to stop the Germans no matter the loss.

In WW1 there were not enough troops to get around in the east for neither side so forces were more concentrated in areas. Tactically the war was conducted different in so far that holding ground was considered more important than preservation of forces which naturally increased losses.

ORIGINAL: hjaco



And Russia can rail enough forces to the south as well. Denying free advancement by CP cavalry in both north and south while Poland itself has to be cleansed its gonna cost one hell of a pack of OP [;)]

I don't think so....my current main opponent has done precisely this in 2 games......as many infantry corps has a for has levels in each city......if you only leave one in each then they're jsut speedbumps. It doesn't take THAT many German HQ points to over-run, and I have captured Minsk, Riga and Pskov, and I think it's Dvina (? 3 or 4 hexes south of Riga). I got adjacent to Tallin too, but that was extending a bit too far...

It might not KO russia, but it's a good start and means almost no German casualties, which means an easy defence in the west and an instant invasion of Italy when they declared as per SOP![8D]

now I'm holding that with a dozen corps, and am cutting off little bunches of Russians here and there in the Ukraine and Galicia where they thought they could attack and pushing back the French from their incursion into alsasce - they captured Mainz....but then were cut off - 6 French Corps destroyed outright, Verdun captured....French have retreated back to the Vosge.....

A Turkish attack on Cairo was easily defeated, but the British are finding a fully entrenched Jeruselum a bit too tough to take and the Russians stalled on a similarly fortified Kars...Austrian and Bulgarian troops are now helping the defences there too.....

All-in-all the failure of the Russians to defend poland and het Baltics makes life real easy for the CP.

In another PBEM game I just started I put significant Russian forces in and around the fortified cities to hold them for longer than they'd been held against me - just 1 or 2 extra turns would make a considerable difference IMO, but my opponent is going the Belgium route so the idea is not being tested.

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: boogada

But the Brusilov offensive also was kind of the end of Austrian offensive capabilities, they needed massive German support ever after. And it forced Austria to stop its offensive in Italy.

Well their offensive capabilities had ended before that but it meant that AH finally agreed to be put permanent under German military leadership for the duration of the war.

well both, Hötzendorf was still trying to kick the Italians asses.

but he was only army commander in italy, not Chief of Staff, and all Austrian plans were vetted by the German Supreme Command.....

He was head of the Austrian Staff though....

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



What hitler and Nappy had in common was an expectation of a short campaign - 1 season. Had either of them prepared for longer fighting they probably would have won.

A debatable point wrt to Hitler, (but one worth contemplating and debating!);

wrt to Nappy, less debatable, But mostly because Napoleonic warfare wasn't quite the "total war" that WWII was.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work


In another PBEM game I just started I put significant Russian forces in and around the fortified cities to hold them for longer than they'd been held against me - just 1 or 2 extra turns would make a considerable difference IMO, but my opponent is going the Belgium route so the idea is not being tested.

Is that me? [:)]

Since it is my first human opponent games, I hope I can provide some challenge. More importantly I hope I learn a lot.[8D]

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



What hitler and Nappy had in common was an expectation of a short campaign - 1 season. Had either of them prepared for longer fighting they probably would have won.

A debatable point wrt to Hitler, (but one worth contemplating and debating!);

wrt to Nappy, less debatable, But mostly because Napoleonic warfare wasn't quite the "total war" that WWII was.

Quite debatable with regards to Hitler. Conquering all of Russia west of the Urals is quite a feast.

Don't be mistaken. Napoleonic warfare was rather vicious too. Boney was used to receive a surrender when his opponents capital was taken. In the case of Russia he actually only managed to take Moscow and not Petersburg where the Tsars was located.

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



What hitler and Nappy had in common was an expectation of a short campaign - 1 season. Had either of them prepared for longer fighting they probably would have won.

A debatable point wrt to Hitler, (but one worth contemplating and debating!);

I don't think it's debatable at all - what is there saying hitler thought the Sov campaign would last longer than the 1st winter?

wrt to Nappy, less debatable, But mostly because Napoleonic warfare wasn't quite the "total war" that WWII was.

It doesn't matter how "total" the war is - he expected a short campaign and didn't get one - and his army suffered for it.

and yes the comments about my new PBEM game is the one against you....don't you owe me some moves??!![:D]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work



What hitler and Nappy had in common was an expectation of a short campaign - 1 season. Had either of them prepared for longer fighting they probably would have won.

A debatable point wrt to Hitler, (but one worth contemplating and debating!);

I don't think it's debatable at all - what is there saying hitler thought the Sov campaign would last longer than the 1st winter?

I think we were talking past each other. The point I'm saying is debatable is whether or not the Germans could have won the war even if they were prepared for a long campaign. The majority opinion, in the readings I've seen, seem to come down on the side that they probably could not have won. Though there is considered opinion that states otherwise.

I agree, that most German opinion did not think the campaign would last beyond a year for practical purposes and their army suffered from that opinion; and that is something that is not debatable by a sane person.

(there certainly existed German opinion to the contrary, but it was not heeded and/or expressed clearly.)

wrt to Nappy, less debatable, But mostly because Napoleonic warfare wasn't quite the "total war" that WWII was.

It doesn't matter how "total" the war is - he expected a short campaign and didn't get one - and his army suffered for it.

The "total war" comment wasn't about Napoleon's expectations or his army's suffering from those expectations, ("total war" doesn't matter with respect to that as you rightly comment); but rather to the likelihood of Russian Surrender or suing for peace, even if either invader had been more prepared. I think it less likely that Soviet Russia would have surrendered to a prepared German than 19th Century Russia would have surrendered to a prepared Napoleon, because Soviet Russia was in more of a "total war" situation against the Germans in WWII than against Napoleon in 1812 and therefore would more likely fight to the "last" in WWII.

and yes the comments about my new PBEM game is the one against you....don't you owe me some moves??!![:D]

They were sent 48 hours ago. [:(]

I just re-sent the moves in case cyber-space had gobbled it up.[:)]

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

They were sent 48 hours ago. [:(]

I just re-sent the moves in case cyber-space had gobbled it up.[:)]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Ahhh you have just saved my morning Joel.

I got his moves...he didn't get my reply!![&:][:(][:D]

Ahhh you have just saved my morning Joel.

Just pointing out that you owe me a move too.

- I lured your Austrian raiders into a French-Italian ambush!!!!!!!!

Can’t wait to write it up in the AAR. You know I might actually avoid losing this one.

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

I got his moves...he didn't get my reply!![&:][:(][:D]

It must be that infamous Cyberspace Pacman [:D]

Setting up far away with Russia Seems a bad idea to me!
1: You can't threaten ether Austrian or german food if germany goes west.
2: Just having a couple of army groups in Poland is going to keep the cp honest ( if he takes hexes with only 1 corp, he risk a massive counter attack. )
 
Your army can do a lot more on the front line, even if all of this is only psychological! This game is about FOW...
In my game against Wurger54 I stoped is german invasion of France cold in is track holding some forts in the alsace with 2 Cav and 2 HQ... It was enough for him to believe I had 2-3 Corps there... Luckily, he never tryed to attack me there

ORIGINAL: hjaco

ORIGINAL: Joel Rauber

They were sent 48 hours ago. [:(]

I just re-sent the moves in case cyber-space had gobbled it up.[:)]

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]



Ahhh you have just saved my morning Joel.

I"m wondering what your life is like, if that saved your morning.[:D]