Simple proposition for Moscow

[jomni]

ORIGINAL: cookie monster
Russia is a very large country, losing Moscow would only have made the Russian Army fight very hard to regain the capital.

You are correct. But if nohting is at stake at losing Moscow, then the Russian player as no incentive to recapture it.
Morale is game mechanic that affect the whole Soviet Union so both sides have a big incentive to grab Moscow.
But logically it may not be the right incentive as some has pointed out.

BTW, I don't have any concrete opinion on this issue and I like the current setup.

[jwduquette1]

ORIGINAL: Scook_99

I am kinda happy with the way it is, especially if you can bag any industry with the fall of Moscow. The rail and manpower hits are large, imo. I could go with a small morale hit, but we can speculate whether it should be up or down (depends on circumstances). I wouldn't change AP in the least though.

I also think the game -- at least with respect to this particular item -- is fine as is. The incentive to capture Moscow by an Axis player is strategic and long term. The industry as well as manpower and rail capacity loss associated with Moscow are actually pretty substantial long term hits to the Soviet war effort. There is a lot of key industry focused in these three city hexes -- so much so that evacuation to the Urals is a pretty tough proposition.

Moscow is also a key strategic rail road hub. Loss of Moscow makes east-west shifting of reserves back and forth between fronts a real challenge. If German players arent seeing any real benifit in a 1941 strategy that focuses on the capture of Moscow, than it's pretty evident that they havent played the Russians side of the game.

[pat.casey]

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

ORIGINAL: Scook_99

I am kinda happy with the way it is, especially if you can bag any industry with the fall of Moscow. The rail and manpower hits are large, imo. I could go with a small morale hit, but we can speculate whether it should be up or down (depends on circumstances). I wouldn't change AP in the least though.

I also think the game -- at least with respect to this particular item -- is fine as is. The incentive to capture Moscow by an Axis player is strategic and long term. The industry as well as manpower and rail capacity loss associated with Moscow are actually pretty substantial long term hits to the Soviet war effort. There is a lot of key industry focused in these three city hexes -- so much so that evacuation to the Urals is a pretty tough proposition.

Moscow is also a key strategic rail road hub. Loss of Moscow makes east-west shifting of reserves back and forth between fronts a real challenge. If German players arent seeing any real benifit in a 1941 strategy that focuses on the capture of Moscow, than it's pretty evident that they havent played the Russians side of the game.

Oh, I think German players see a benefit, its just that its not a sufficiently large benefit, especially relative to the bounty of goodness that comes from a capture of Leningrad.

Its entirely possible that the real issue isn't that the game undervalues moscow's capture, but rather that the game overvalue's lenningrad, but regardless of where the error lies virtually all 1941 German players prioritize Lenningrad, and moscow is up there with the Donetz basin; nice to have, but not necessary.

Consider in game, taking Leningrad frees the fins, the single most important thing a German player can do to offset the 1941 winter.

Taking Moscow, in contrast, destroys (maybe) some factories and give you three nice urban hexes to hide in in 1941.

Playing the game as written, and given a choice in september of 1941 between moscow and lenningrad, I'd pick lenningrad every time which I do not believe is either historical or good for gameplay purposes.

[hfarrish]

I've been following this debate with some interest - wouldn't the easiest solution just to have additional "permanent" VPs accrue to the German player for the period of time they hold Moscow? This would give an extra incentive without adding a questionable blunt instrument (like APs or especially morale). Maybe I'm missing something on the scoring system though, since I've never paid that much attention to it.

[Klydon]

Part of the issue is that while there is a scoring system for the various scenarios (and you can put different point values on each location), there is none for the campaign game. It goes strictly by city hexes held. 

[Joel Billings]

Moscow is 16 VPs, and thus about 5% of the total VP points on the map (Berlin is the same). I can appreciate the arguement about rail capacity due to the reality of the rail lines. As has been stated, not all rail lines are the same. Back in 2000 when we first started on this game, Keith and Gary had the idea to track the amount of activity going over any rail hex, both units and supplies/production items. However, after writing some code, it became clear this was a huge issue to deal with and not something we felt was worth the cost in coding time, speed of play and added complexity to the player (and code). One way to have dealt with this would be to make the rail capacity of Moscow greater than it is as a percentage of the Soviet total, but I'm not saying that the way it is done now is wrong. I'd want to hear from people that know more about the importance of Moscow as a rail hub before coming to the conclusion the the current railyards in Moscow aren't enough. Also, keep in mind that both the Germans and Soviets benefit from being able to move too many units down the same track. Someday maybe a way to deal with this will be developed, but it would be a major undertaking.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Moscow is 16 VPs, and thus about 5% of the total VP points on the map (Berlin is the same). I can appreciate the arguement about rail capacity due to the reality of the rail lines. As has been stated, not all rail lines are the same. Back in 2000 when we first started on this game, Keith and Gary had the idea to track the amount of activity going over any rail hex, both units and supplies/production items. However, after writing some code, it became clear this was a huge issue to deal with and not something we felt was worth the cost in coding time, speed of play and added complexity to the player (and code). One way to have dealt with this would be to make the rail capacity of Moscow greater than it is as a percentage of the Soviet total, but I'm not saying that the way it is done now is wrong. I'd want to hear from people that know more about the importance of Moscow as a rail hub before coming to the conclusion the the current railyards in Moscow aren't enough. Also, keep in mind that both the Germans and Soviets benefit from being able to move too many units down the same track. Someday maybe a way to deal with this will be developed, but it would be a major undertaking.

I haven't lived in Moscow during WWII times and have only visited there in post-Soviet times but I can tell you that Moscow is an important rail hub for the entire country even today. One of the things about the Moscow rail network is that it's a "spider web" type construction (and has been since the pre-war days). The main stations connecting to the other cities of Russia are around the outside of the web, and there is a network of inner lines connecting those up. The marshalling yards are in the inner part of the web.

So even significant damage to the rail infrastructure in the city will significantly disrupt transport between, say, Leningrad and Rostov. Capture of outer parts of the rail network will only disrupt that and nearby parts of the network, and damage to or capture of part of the inner network can be routed around, but significant damage to the marshalling yards will probably put a strain on the rail capacity right throughout Russia.

I am not a railroad engineer so this is my best guess at best. Try getting hold of a railways map of Moscow. The underground network is new of course as are several of the lines but a lot of the infrastructure has been in place for a long time. Someone with a better understanding of rail networks may be able to understand quite well what would have happened in a theoretical WWII loss of Moscow situation just from studying the modern network.

[delatbabel]

Another suggestion:

Allow the Finns to attack and move south of the no-attack line only after the capture of Moscow.

Finnish reluctance to enter into a full blown attack on the Soviets was engendered by a belief that the Soviets would eventually defeat the Germans based on their manpower and industry capacity, not from the fall of one nearby city.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

Another suggestion:

Allow the Finns to attack and move south of the no-attack line only after the capture of Moscow.

Finnish reluctance to enter into a full blown attack on the Soviets was engendered by a belief that the Soviets would eventually defeat the Germans based on their manpower and industry capacity, not from the fall of one nearby city.

That was a good suggestion, thinking outside the box! However, the disadvantage is that the fall of Moscow would then more or less guarantee the fall of Leningrad. Not sure that is what we would want.

[ComradeP]

I'm not sure if Leningrad is "overvalued". It's almost impossible to retake for the Soviets due to it not being a city they can isolate (there's a port and the Karelian Isthmus allows for normal supply in any case. If the Soviets push across the Svir, the Finns should be able to hold the 3 hexes from lake Ladoga to the map edge pretty easily.

What makes Moscow a primary target, it being in a central position, is also what makes it far more difficult to defend the city in a strategic sense, as it can be isolated with far less difficulty than Leningrad (which would require retaking Tallinn and knocking Finland out of the war). That's also why the manual advises against going for Moscow in 1941, I think, because you can't really push the front far enough to be sure that you can hold it most of the time.

[BletchleyGeek]

Interesting discussion, but I find two of the contributions here to be right on spot:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
I'm not sure if Leningrad is "overvalued". It's almost impossible to retake for the Soviets due to it not being a city they can isolate (there's a port and the Karelian Isthmus allows for normal supply in any case. If the Soviets push across the Svir, the Finns should be able to hold the 3 hexes from lake Ladoga to the map edge pretty easily.

What makes Moscow a primary target, it being in a central position, is also what makes it far more difficult to defend the city in a strategic sense, as it can be isolated with far less difficulty than Leningrad (which would require retaking Tallinn and knocking Finland out of the war). That's also why the manual advises against going for Moscow in 1941, I think, because you can't really push the front far enough to be sure that you can hold it most of the time.

Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb.

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the issue is that while there is a scoring system for the various scenarios (and you can put different point values on each location), there is none for the campaign game. It goes strictly by city hexes held.

Unless the German Army gets to the Urals in Summer of 1942, the fact that Moscow garners 16 VP's is insignificant, because you only get them if you hold the city by september 1945. Something I don't think will - or should - ever happen. The asymmetrical VP system available in the scenarios is for me one of the most neat things in WiTE. I wonder why it couldn't be available for the GC

[ComradeP]

Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb.

Not just in the blizzard. Defensive CV's can be very, very high for 3 German divisions in level 4-5 forts in city or urban terrain. Without being able to attack such a hex from at least 3 sides with some very serious artillery support, you can forget about taking it as the Soviets, especially with some of the combat changes we're currently testing that may or may not eventually make it to a public release.

Leningrad is also easy to reinforce even if there's pressure on it, unlike Moscow. With Soviet pressure on the flanks, it's likely that only the rail line through Vyazma is going to be operational (the northwestern rail line would need to go past Rzhev and through Velikiye Luki if it is to use a different line than the southwestern one) and even a single partisan strike could wreck that at an inconvenient time. Axis rail cap isn't great to begin with.

With Leningrad, even if through some miracle all 4 rail lines (assuming a frontline south of lake Ilmen, there's one rail line through Estonia, two through Pskov and one east of Pskov through Dno) are disrupted (it's at the least extremely unlikely that the rail line through Narva will be hit by a partisan attack, though), the Kriegsmarine can easily sealift a substantial number of troops to Leningrad directly or to Oranienbaum (could be cut-off)/Kotka (in Finland, very difficult to cut-off).

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Comrade is pointing directly to the reason why most Axis players go for Leningrad and seem reluctant to go after Moscow: you can both take it and keep it during the blizzard without risking disaster. Tarhunnas - Q-Ball game shows this pretty well: it looks to me that Moscow is going to become a frosty tomb.

Not just in the blizzard. Defensive CV's can be very, very high for 3 German divisions in level 4-5 forts in city or urban terrain. Without being able to attack such a hex from at least 3 sides with some very serious artillery support, you can forget about taking it as the Soviets, especially with some of the combat changes we're currently testing that may or may not eventually make it to a public release.

Leningrad is also easy to reinforce even if there's pressure on it, unlike Moscow. With Soviet pressure on the flanks, it's likely that only the rail line through Vyazma is going to be operational (the northwestern rail line would need to go past Rzhev and through Velikiye Luki if it is to use a different line than the southwestern one) and even a single partisan strike could wreck that at an inconvenient time. Axis rail cap isn't great to begin with.

With Leningrad, even if through some miracle all 4 rail lines (assuming a frontline south of lake Ilmen, there's one rail line through Estonia, two through Pskov and one east of Pskov through Dno) are disrupted (it's at the least extremely unlikely that the rail line through Narva will be hit by a partisan attack, though), the Kriegsmarine can easily sealift a substantial number of troops to Leningrad directly or to Oranienbaum (could be cut-off)/Kotka (in Finland, very difficult to cut-off).

What a nightmarish scenario. However, the sooner or later an Axis player will find to be a very poor long term strategy to keep 9 or 10 good German infantry divisions there (and rotating them regularly, since after last patches attrition can eat alive frontline units as turns pass). It's very likely such units would be sorely needed elsewhere along the 100+ hexes long front [:)]

[ComradeP]

That would depend on what those divisions are tying up in terms of Soviet strength.

I've never felt that the number of on-map units was the problem for the Germans, at least not after 1942. The problem is their individual strength, which is often not too great.

As the war turns ugly for the Axis, the frontline will usually start to shorten at some point, so an army in the Leningrad area is something I can live with as the Axis. Also keep in mind that the Finns are still there too and especially if you just hold the 3 hexes north of Lake Ladoga instead of the Svir line they'll have some guys to spare.

[Mynok]

Unless you plan to give up Rumania without a fight, the line doesn't shorten significantly until you get back to Riga....and then only in the north, which is probably not going to be the high-pressure area.

[ComradeP]

Even at the times when the line doesn't physically shorten in terms of hexes that need to be covered, it will shorten in terms of units needed to economically hold an area, as both the Carpathians and the Pripyat marshes don't require a division in every hex.

The line will also tend to straighten, as normally AGC and AGS are ahead of AGN, whilst when you start retreating you'll end up with something resembling an actual vertical line, instead of a diagonal one with a bulge or two.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

That would depend on what those divisions are tying up in terms of Soviet strength.

I've never felt that the number of on-map units was the problem for the Germans, at least not after 1942. The problem is their individual strength, which is often not too great.

As the war turns ugly for the Axis, the frontline will usually start to shorten at some point, so an army in the Leningrad area is something I can live with as the Axis. Also keep in mind that the Finns are still there too and especially if you just hold the 3 hexes north of Lake Ladoga instead of the Svir line they'll have some guys to spare.

ORIGINAL: Mynok
Unless you plan to give up Rumania without a fight, the line doesn't shorten significantly until you get back to Riga....and then only in the north, which is probably not going to be the high-pressure area.

Indeed, Comrade, there are more than enough single units - either divs or KGs - to cover the line. The problem is that you need to balance depth in your defence - depth is time for your mobile reserves (if you managed to keep such a thing, of course) to arrive and avert the risk of a massive breakthrough - and pile up enough CV on the frontline, so the Soviets are obliged to perform multi-hex deliberate attacks if they want to have a chance of success. I think that as time passes, the Soviet army will literally carve several bulges on your lines, which will make the line longer, making more difficult to achieve the balance I mention.

As you say, it's all very context dependent. The perfect scenario for this, from my point of view, would require to:

1) To gimp SU manpower before 1941 (taking Leningrad, Moscow and the Donbass)
2) To weather well the 1941-42 blizzard yielding land when and as necessary (surely Moscow, perhaps part of the Donbass)
3) To inflict massive losses during the summer of 1942

Then would be very probable that the Red Army won't have enough strength to both pin the forces around Leningrad - and attrite them - and assemble one or more massive battering rams to smash Axis lines south of Bryansk.

Very interesting discussion. Most Axis strategy discussions in the forums focus on the short-term - basically from Barbarossa to early 1942 - and very little has been written or discussed over the long-term strategy to make the possibility of an Axis Minor Victory in the GC 41-45 likely.

EDIT: Just remembered the English word for "saliente": bulge [:'(] and spelling

[ComradeP]

The focus on the short term by some is also something that worries me in terms of what the endgame will look like for those people.

Now, in 1941 I also tend to just push as the Axis and see where I end up, but there's sort of a psychological moment when you also need to know: OK, this is it, time to stop. To me, that moment is usually when the Rifle brigades start arriving en masse as there's no way to attack them in any way that's nearly as economical as attacking Rifle divisions, because losses go from an average of 1000-2000 to just 200-700 whilst your own losses still tend to be around 100.

I'll slap a non-fortified Rifle division around whenever I can in 1941, because the loss ratio is generally going to be in your favour, but attacking Rifle brigades just wears out your forces. That's currently (as I see it) a substantial problem: if you place regiments/brigades at the frontline, your losses will decrease whilst the enemy's loss ratio is going to worsen quite a bit. That goes for both sides, there's a big difference when you just have regiments at the frontline as the Germans too. However, personally I'm not into doing something gamey like that, so I only place regiments at the frontline if they're in forts or if I don't really have much of a choice.

One thing you always need to think about as the Axis is: why do I want to hold the particular sector of the frontline I'm holding and is it worth the current level of commitment? As the years go by, the answer to both questions should (from a strategic perspective) turn from "no" to "maybe" to "yes" because you no longer have a choice. However, most people seem to play as if the answer to that question is always yes. As of late, we've seen several examples of games where the Axis player allowed divisions to be encircled or his overall strategic position weakened by holding on to certain areas. They forget that for most of the game, they're fighting in territory they didn't hold at the start of the game and don't need to hold to win.

By dogmatically holding on to their own "not a step back" orders, they weaken their armed forces (either through losses or through spreading them out) and thus decrease their overall chance for a minor victory or draw.

As the Soviets, most people also seem to think that they really need to recapture territory ASAP, slowly advancing from east to west again. I'd say: try to create as many bulges as you can. If the Axis try to hold them, they'll stretch out their frontline and become weaker overall. If they pull back due to the pressure on the flanks, you've just captured territory without having to make a single attack to do so.

I see a lot of operational level play and thought, but the strategic level play and thought is mostly limited to where AP's go and a general idea of what the next summer/winter offensive is going to be like.

As the Axis, you can forget about holding a frontline later in the war if the Soviets really want to break through (especially with single divisions), just like you can forget about holding a frontline as the Soviets in 1941 if the Axis really want to break through it.

If in 1944, you've managed to keep the Soviets at bay and have a (slightly) better frontline than historically, but you don't have much of an army left due to a too costly defensive strategy, what have you gained? We should all be realistic here and realize that, especially in the center, the historical summer 1944 starting point is going to be east of where most Soviet players will be by 1944. Holding more of the Ukraine than historically should be possible, though.

Anyway, for me it's force preservation first and holding territory second as the Axis, not the other way around. And no, those two are not as directly related to eachother as some seem to think.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The focus on the short term by some is also something that worries me in terms of what the endgame will look like for those people.

Possibly a complete disaster, hence the high dropout ratio for Axis players after 1942.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Now, in 1941 I also tend to just push as the Axis and see where I end up, but there's sort of a psychological moment when you also need to know: OK, this is it, time to stop. To me, that moment is usually when the Rifle brigades start arriving en masse as there's no way to attack them in any way that's nearly as economical as attacking Rifle divisions, because losses go from an average of 1000-2000 to just 200-700 whilst your own losses still tend to be around 100.

I'll slap a non-fortified Rifle division around whenever I can in 1941, because the loss ratio is generally going to be in your favour, but attacking Rifle brigades just wears out your forces. That's currently (as I see it) a substantial problem: if you place regiments/brigades at the frontline, your losses will decrease whilst the enemy's loss ratio is going to worsen quite a bit. That goes for both sides, there's a big difference when you just have regiments at the frontline as the Germans too. However, personally I'm not into doing something gamey like that, so I only place regiments at the frontline if they're in forts or if I don't really have much of a choice.

Indeed, but here you're threading on dangerous ground ComradeP. I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply). And as the German on the defense a 1:1 exchange is bad: you want to hurt and alarm your Soviet opponent by inflicting massive losses on him. He gains a hex, yes, but having him to lose 10,000 guys in the process is a very good thing for you.

But I digress. I completely agree with you, German players have to solve the "When to stop" puzzle in 1941, but rather than just "pushing" east, I would make priority targets Armaments, Vehicles, AFV, Plane and Manpower installations. If the German player pushes hard enough for that and doesn't lose focus, he can well prevent the Soviet player to evacuate them fully to the East and at the same time throw the Red Army out of balance, achieving the two goals: destroying short term Soviet power - the Red Army - and long term Soviet power - the ability to transform the Soviet Army in a force that can compete and win. Achieving these two goals doesn't entail that the Axis player has to hold the ground it captures: it just requires her to occupy those hexes at some point during the game, not during the whole game.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
One thing you always need to think about as the Axis is: why do I want to hold the particular sector of the frontline I'm holding and is it worth the current level of commitment? As the years go by, the answer to both questions should (from a strategic perspective) turn from "no" to "maybe" to "yes" because you no longer have a choice. However, most people seem to play as if the answer to that question is always yes. As of late, we've seen several examples of games where the Axis player allowed divisions to be encircled or his overall strategic position weakened by holding on to certain areas. They forget that for most of the game, they're fighting in territory they didn't hold at the start of the game and don't need to hold to win.

To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
As the Soviets, most people also seem to think that they really need to recapture territory ASAP, slowly advancing from east to west again. I'd say: try to create as many bulges as you can. If the Axis try to hold them, they'll stretch out their frontline and become weaker overall. If they pull back due to the pressure on the flanks, you've just captured territory without having to make a single attack to do so.

It gets even better when it is the case that the Axis hasn't been able to build any meaningful backup fortified line because being spread out. Then these retreats can turn into routs.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Anyway, for me it's force preservation first and holding territory second as the Axis, not the other way around. And no, those two are not as directly related to each other as some seem to think.

The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength.

In 1942 the Axis needs to behave like Attila and his Huns: the Axis has to use his more experienced forces to shatter and smash as many of the shiny new toys the Soviet player puts in the table, not being interesting in holding ground at all.

In 1943 it's time to become a ninja turtle. Use your though shell - entrenched German infantry - to deflect or muffle incoming blows but do not allow it to get shattered. Use your ninja moves to maneuver around your enemies and evade incoming blows. Use your ninja weapons to inflict locally crushing blows to your enemy [:D]

[ComradeP]

I'm not convinced that the casualty ratio is right when the attacking force is outnumbering the defenders by an order of magnitude (10 or more times bigger). I agree that it is a sustainable gamey thing to do as the Soviet, the manpower lost when those small units are crushed will be recovered. As the German, holding the line with KGs is plainly a bad idea. Attrition will eat those KGs and reduce them to reinforced battalions fairly quick (especially during winter, where fatigue levels become high due to poorer supply).

The casualty ratio's currently, in my opinion, quite a bit off when attacking smaller units. That's also what makes those NKVD regiments so effective: after the first turn and after they become ready, you're playing whac a mole with them.

I'm also not talking about holding a line with regiments, as the intention would not be to hold the line, but to minimize losses. For some reason, casualties don't necessarily differ much when the Soviets attack a regiment from when they attack a division, whilst your own losses will be much less as the Axis. I'm still not sure how that's possible.

One of my pet peeves is the (potentially) huge gap in casualties between a failed attack and a successful one, no matter whether it succeeds at 1:1>2:1 or at "natural" 2:1 or higher odds or fails at any odds. The difference can literally be thousands of casualties. It's like the defenders just stop firing at some point, but still keep taking pretty brutal (by Axis standards) losses themselves. We're currently trying some experimental changes whilst Pavel's on his holiday, so by the time he gets back we should've tested the experimental changes enough for Joel and Gary to decide whether they want to go public with (some of) them.

To draw an analogy from an - strategy - wargame I also play a lot: Dominions 3. If the war is going on some other player lands, then it's going well. Period. If the war comes to your lands, it's going badly. Period. A winning strategy is the one that keeps the war far from your homeland the longest.

There comes a point when trying too hard to fight in the RSFSR will seriously harm defensive efforts in later years. For example: if you end 1943 in the RSFSR in some parts of the front, but hold the line with 2 CV units, the Soviets will just steamroll over you in 1944 and you can forget about establishing a line ever again.

Knowing when to retreat towards the west is a crucial skill for the Axis player to master.

The key 1941 game as the Axis is to preserve "future" - not present - forces, thinking about operations that have long-term effects. Such as destroying or shattering many Soviet units - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up experience - and damaging/destroying manpower & material production centers - the Soviet Army isn't allowed to build up strength.

Indeed. As the Axis I'm more worried about morale losses than about manpower or AFV losses in 1941. I can replace the latter, but not the former. The Wehrmacht consisting mostly of ~70 morale infantry divisions at the end of the first winter is not necessarily a problem. Only having ~70 morale mobile units is a huge problem, however.