Matrix Games Forums

Um...going for Stalingrad was a mistake, hindsight or not. It would have gained the Germans nothing.

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.

Please, we have had people here state that others have not read history since day one.  Such attacks should not be in the tenor of this forum.  The best assumption is that others have read sufficient history but perhaps have a different take on just what those facts actually mean...

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Please, we have had people here state that others have not read history since day one.  Such attacks should not be in the tenor of this forum.  The best assumption is that others have read sufficient history but perhaps have a different take on just what those facts actually mean...

My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.

You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?

I don't claim to be a huge student of eastern front history, but there's little evidence that Stalingrad would be a death blow to the Soviets. In fact, there's none. It was a death trap, which was directly due to Soviet intent to make it so. And the Germans took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

The real prize was the oil fields of the Caucasus and the Germans hamstrung their ability to take those by diverting units to the pointless taking of Stalingrad. History doesn't lie. It just gets misinterpreted by those with pre-judged opinions.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
My comment is not an attack, merely a statement of fact. If you were actually to read "findmeifyoucan" and "Mynoks" posts you will not find any resemblance to historical accuracy in either. Sorry if you are offended but I did think we were discussing a game that was intended to be based on history.

You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?

You do realize the irony in attacking someone when you say you are not?

No "attack" from me as far as I can see. Can you suggest a reason it is?

ORIGINAL: Mynok

I don't claim to be a huge student of eastern front history, but there's little evidence that Stalingrad would be a death blow to the Soviets. In fact, there's none. It was a death trap, which was directly due to Soviet intent to make it so. And the Germans took the bait, hook, line and sinker.

The real prize was the oil fields of the Caucasus and the Germans hamstrung their ability to take those by diverting units to the pointless taking of Stalingrad. History doesn't lie. It just gets misinterpreted by those with pre-judged opinions.

I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Someone else who has never read his history! Taking Stalingrad would have closed down the Volga which was a major transport artery, obviously not represented in the game. More importantly, and why it became so important, remember its name and why the WITE began.

IIRC, the origional objective was to bring it under long range artillery fire. But the effort diverged into both that and a drive for the oilfields.

There is a Russian proverb that states that if you chase two hares, you won't catch either. And it was true.

There was no need to take the city. If the objective was to cut the Volga, that could of been done either north or south of the city.

If the idea was to take the oil fields in way down toward Turkey, then 4th Panzer would of been much better used to do that than to head for Stalingrad.

Said city only became an objective in and of itself because the two big bubbleheads made it so.

And Stalingrad had nothing to do with why the war was started. Or Stalin either.

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.

See! You did it again!

Forget it PDH. He's too set in his own authority to hear anything that doesn't agree with his fantasies. There's not a historian out there that I've ever seen who thinks Stalingrad was anything but a futile effort. Sound and fury, accomplishing nothing. That's the historical record. No one can alter that, by big words or whining.

Oh I know, there is just something funny to me when someone says the equivalent of "I have never called anyone an idiot, you idiot." over and over.  My sense of humor is sometimes childlike (my ex-wife would say childish), but that is obvious from my posts.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815
I cannot argue with your comments because they are so uninfirmed that to do so would obviously not be worth the effort.

What did I do again?

What?

See! You did it again!

nvm

Please, please you guys.  Can't we all just get along?

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Please, please you guys.  Can't we all just get along?

+1

Please don't destroy my thread with bickering!

Getting the thread back on topic:

Throughout testing there was a lot of debate on what the instant win threshold should be, and the target VP number went up and down like a whore's drawers. In the end, the number was based on OKW/OKH's own assessment of what they thought they could/would achieve.

I am surprised so few people seem to be playing the Barbarossa scenario, as we would see threads headed "I got Moscow and lost!". The objectives have been based on OKHs objectives for the first 6 months, to purposely show just how hard a task the Axis had set themselves.

I can see the merit in having a "political collapse" % die roll, but will Axis players carry on playing if they miss the roll?

Games will end when players stop having fun. This will then rely on the mindset of mostly Axis players as to whether they will get as much fun from defending against the 1943/44 Soviet Juggernaut, as they get from ripping the Red Army to shreds in 1941 and 1942, assuming that the blizzard doesn't take all the fun out of the game for them.

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
Games will end when players stop having fun. This will then rely on the mindset of mostly Axis players as to whether they will get as much fun from defending against the 1943/44 Soviet Juggernaut, as they get from ripping the Red Army to shreds in 1941 and 1942, assuming that the blizzard doesn't take all the fun out of the game for them.

Yes, I agree. My idea was that if there were VPs that made it a priority to try to keep certain locations, that would make the defensive part of the game more interesting. It would provide a way to "win" in points even if you lost.

It would also provide incentives to for example keep or take the Crimea, as debated in another interesting thread (before it went OT).

Just as the Soviet player tries to avoid any large pockets in 1941 a German player will also try not to over extend his forces in 1942 & 43 unless the Soviets have collapsed  & or he has the chance of winning the game by ammasing enough VP's. However  IMO the only realistic way that the Germans are able to win is by being in control of Berlin & as much of Eastern Europe as possible by games end. Play the game & enjoy playing the game but remember that it is only a game & the world will still continue in blissfull ignorance of any decisions that you may have made.
Manstein63

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

Please, please you guys.  Can't we all just get along?

+1

Please don't destroy my thread with bickering!

My apologies, I was in the wrong.