Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Each turn, between Turn 2 and Turn 10, the Axis player chooses a city. The Soviet player won't be able to evacuate any industry from that city.
***
The idea is to simulate the chaos in the early stages of Barbarossa.

OK, I'll bite--why should the Axis decide which city will be non-evacuable? How does the Germans' ability to designate presumably the highest value city represent "chaos"? Looks like cherry-picking to me...

I don't particularly like the Lvov Gambit, but would never invoke a house rule against it; as this thread shows it is just too complicated.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Each turn, between Turn 2 and Turn 10, the Axis player chooses a city. The Soviet player won't be able to evacuate any industry from that city.
***
The idea is to simulate the chaos in the early stages of Barbarossa.

OK, I'll bite--why should the Axis decide which city will be non-evacuable? How does the Germans' ability to designate presumably the highest value city represent "chaos"? Looks like cherry-picking to me...

I don't particularly like the Lvov Gambit, but would never invoke a house rule against it; as this thread shows it is just too complicated.

You're my guest to bite me [;)]

Yes, it's sort of cherry-picking indeed. The point is to limit the Soviet operational freedom. And menacing an asset of strategic value is indeed a constraint on the operational freedom of the Soviet player: he has to choose to stand and fight or to forego the defense and give it away for a fraction of the potential cost for the Axis. That's a meaningful choice, and my suggestion was in that direction (I'm not saying it's perfect nor without flaws).

Sorry, it doesn't really make sense to have the Axis determine where the Sovs will stand and fight.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
Sorry, it doesn't really make sense to have the Axis determine where the Sovs will stand and fight.

It makes sense when one wants to introduce a HR to avoid the Axis doing something, such as the Lvov Pocket Opening. Certainly, not in isolation.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Sorry, it doesn't really make sense to have the Axis determine where the Sovs will stand and fight.

Ok we here you, but the point here is to try and make a positive contribution. I find 2ndACR's idea interesting and would welcome a game with a slightly exotic set of HR that might make it more interesting.

After reading all of this with interest, my sympathies for the Soviet player's position is over-shadowed by my sympathies for my own.

I'm starting to feel that it's better for both sides to do what the engine allows (with some minor house rules for buildup) than to get caught up in a discussion of how to roleplay the consequences of a hypothetical stratagem.  While the former leaves a bad taste, the latter, I fear, will lead to a lot of arguing over what is in fact 'realistic given the opening.'  I fear I'd feel like I'm getting into a marriage counseling situation where we have to argue over both our goals and our capabilities.  It seems like it would be a tremendous amount of work to figure out, and a relatively small oversight could lead to having to abandon the game because a downstream monster might have been created.

The game is what it is right now, and the Lvov tradeoff is reasonable (to me!) given the production issues the game has.

While I acknowledge the impossibility of making the Romanian border in 3 days, even as Soviet player I am inclined to leave HR's alone, and let the Lvov pocket happen. The problem for both sides is that there just isn't the political pressure to "hold fast" on certain points, putting units at risk. The German pocketed huge amounts of Sw Front anyway, but not because of Lvov pocket, because of orders from Moscow.

The German players eventually halt for much the same reason the real Wehrmacht did: They outrun supply lines. It's very very tough keeping Panzers fueled past the Donbas.

Q-ball, the big pocket down south occurred as a result of Guderian swinging south. Before that point, the Germans got very little. One medium sized pocket at Uman with 100k lost, and that was about it. They more or less just shoved back SW Front gradually. (But neither did the Sovs just immediately run away to the Dnepr. Nor should there be a need to do this. SW Front is perfectly capable of conducting a fighting retreat in the Western Ukraine against an unreinforced AGS.)

As for house rules, this is a matter of negotiation between the two players. I think giving up the Lvov opening in exchange for some kind of requirement to ship out HI is a rational enough bargain, but it's going to be difficult to enforce.

To some extent, this kind of bargain is otiose. Given a slow enough German advance, I actually would rail out some HI for the simple reason that I can do so. Cutting out the HI entirely and giving up all the stuff west of the Dnepr is my solution to the ahistorical advance rates down south resulting from the Lvov opening; I wouldn't handle my evacuation the same way under different circumstances.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The German players eventually halt for much the same reason the real Wehrmacht did: They outrun supply lines. It's very very tough keeping Panzers fueled past the Donbas.

My Southern Front troops thank the [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] Flying Spaghetti Monster for getting Southern Russia geography the way it is [&o]

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
The German players eventually halt for much the same reason the real Wehrmacht did: They outrun supply lines. It's very very tough keeping Panzers fueled past the Donbas.

My Southern Front troops thank the [&o][&o][&o][&o][&o] Flying Spaghetti Monster for getting Southern Russia geography the way it is [&o]

Well, now you know why I sat there for 3 turns. (Not the only reason, also to conserve tank strength and build forts). But I wasn't going to make it across any more major rivers with my supply situation.

With all respect, I don`t think house ruling against the Lvov ploy makes the game too complicated, if ( as one example) the Sov. player trades off a commitment to fight for Smolensky, Kiev, Cherkassy, with 3 units, one a Tank Div. in the city hexs as well as leave _some_ industry there. IMO it gives the axis player a chance to encircle the units as well as being somewhat historical...it bothers me alot as a Sov. newbie that the engine forces Sov.players to abandon the big cities and fight on the river lines......

Also the Sov player sends the Lvov armies right east, no sending them north.

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
Each turn, between Turn 2 and Turn 10, the Axis player chooses a city. The Soviet player won't be able to evacuate any industry from that city.
***
The idea is to simulate the chaos in the early stages of Barbarossa.

OK, I'll bite--why should the Axis decide which city will be non-evacuable? How does the Germans' ability to designate presumably the highest value city represent "chaos"? Looks like cherry-picking to me...

I don't particularly like the Lvov Gambit, but would never invoke a house rule against it; as this thread shows it is just too complicated.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball
Well, now you know why I sat there for 3 turns. (Not the only reason, also to conserve tank strength and build forts). But I wasn't going to make it across any more major rivers with my supply situation.

The UI also told me how many MP's were you away from the nearest railway. That, your HQ's strategically placed so they could keep the units supplied (barely) and the inactivity lead to an inescapable conclusion

I`m amazied that there are no AG boundries lines on the Map, and that the Pz. Groups still stay in full supply while flitting from AG to AG. They ( German Player ) really need to spend the AP to attach them to the AG ( or Army HQ) in the AG area they are in. That`s the way it worked, and would enforce a more realistic pace to the axis Pz. units.....but I doubt any German player will go for this, or any other House Rule, because they believe that they need to crush the Sovs. in `41 OR cripple them so badly that `42 will be a walk over.... and Pelton`s AAR shows it quite easy to do that with the current game engine.

ORIGINAL: entwood

I would say require attachment of whatever AGC units move into AGS's domain to AGS HQ's! 

I would think this works for both sides and make for a more balanced ( and Fun ? ) PBEM Game.

With guys sending AGC Pz. Corps to AGS at T 1, at no cost it seems, along with the Lvov ploy, it`s becomes a walk over down South.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

I am not Flaviousx or a veteran alpha/beta tester, but here is my 2 cents.

Would limit 1 buildup by the PG vs army group as a suggestion if you are going to limit them.

I would say the swamp line is more or less a hard line. If it starts south of the swamp it stays south. This would prevent a Russian from sending forces up north to either slow down AGC or AGN. A Russian player will almost always do this with some of the reserve armies just behind or in front of the Dnepr because if the Lvov pocket doesn't happen, they really are not needed for a successful defense in the south and are urgently needed up north. Even with a Lvov pocket, some players will send at least 1 army north. At some point, this would likely set up a situation where the Germans have to decide to make a move south with AGC as they historically did or push on to Moscow.

I also think 5 to 1 is too generous of a ratio. Perhaps 3 to 1 is more appropriate.

Imho the game is "broken" if it needs some houserules.

- Lvov pocket should be there to simulate Stalins mistakes at early war. In human vs human game, every single Soviet
player would avoid all real mistakes.

- Buildup costs a lot of trucks and if the German player likes to take too many of them, its his own choice. Taking too many
at -41 will be penalized later for sure. HQ buildup is quite well balanced after all and doesn't need houserules.

- Airwar IS BROKEN. Thats where some houserules are musthave until its fixed. Luftwaffe will get raped in first 14
turns without any houserules.

- Lvov pocket should be there to simulate Stalins mistakes at early war. In human vs human game, every single Soviet
player would avoid all real mistakes.

Unfortunately, I have found that I do not need Stalin around to make real mistakes!

Thank you for considering my view on it. The Dev's are not going to change anything here, and I would rather see much needed fixes to the Air War if anything. Funny thing is, I play the Axis and I feel the Lvov Gambit stinks and is a gamey exploit. Now, if you paid the price and 1st Panzer Army, it's Corps, and Army Group South only got AGC units via attachment on Turn 1, then I would consider that closer to being fair, and an alternate opening.

ORIGINAL: Richard III

I`m amazied that there are no AG boundries lines on the Map, and that the Pz. Groups still stay in full supply while flitting from AG to AG. They ( German Player ) really need to spend the AP to attach them to the AG ( or Army HQ) in the AG area they are in. That`s the way it worked, and would enforce a more realistic pace to the axis Pz. units.....but I doubt any German player will go for this, or any other House Rule, because they believe that they need to crush the Sovs. in `41 OR cripple them so badly that `42 will be a walk over.... and Pelton`s AAR shows it quite easy to do that with the current game engine.

ORIGINAL: entwood

I would say require attachment of whatever AGC units move into AGS's domain to AGS HQ's! 

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

I can see it know.

The phone rings in the Kremlin. Stalin picks it up.

"Hello."

"Hi Joe, this is Adolf. Would you mind terribly if you don't move that huge T-34 factory in Kharkov till after Turn 10.? That way we can use HQ build up and take it from you."

"Sure Adolf. Happy to help."

Me, I'd choose Leningrad until I isolated it, then Moscow if it still had anything left.
But I see your point Bletchley.

Aurelian attempt at humour is a clear sign of lack of imagination. The idea is to simulate the chaos in the early stages of Barbarossa. Not to enact a gag from some British comedy act.

Nope. It's a ridicule of a ridiculous idea that showed a lack of foresight.

I wish real life worked like the Lvov pocket..... I can imagine all traffic at rush hour freezing in place while I speed by until I get home, then they can have their turn.

Looking at the AAR`s, I cannot imange why anyone would want to play against the overpowered Axis, with their Death Star Pzs. Divs. made more so in 1.05.. without some reasonable trade off in house rules.

See thread below:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1.05 made WiTe about 95% right on.



If the rabid Axis fanboy says, in RED LETTERS, that the game is now 95% right on I find that pretty alarming So do Ruskies still have any chance in the long run?

I was away from boards, just keeping my PBEM games on life support for quite a some time, so I don't yet have an opinion on the changes introduced in the meantime. Nowe I am back, started some new games, and I notice there were quite a few of them (changes). Not easy to keep track... [quote]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

1.05 made WiTe about 95% right on.



If the rabid Axis fanboy says, in RED LETTERS, that the game is now 95% right on I find that pretty alarming So do Ruskies still have any chance in the long run?

I was away from boards, just keeping my PBEM games on life support for quite a some time, so I don't yet have an opinion on the changes introduced in the meantime. Nowe I am back, started some new games, and I notice there were quite a few of them (changes). Not easy to keep track...


Well, if you make a cursory glance over most AAR's you'll see that by December 1941 Gebirgsjäger divisions are camped on the Elbruz summit, 6. Armee has already conquered Stalingrad and the Kremlin is being redecorated to suite the tastes of the General Governor of the "Ostmark", Hermann Göring.

That's about right, isn't it?

Bletchley_Geek
[quote]

tm.asp?m=2933128&mpage=3&key=