1942 and Caucasus attack

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:
And so fast and so easy, that is not funny.

Exactly how I feel. Its not funny. I tried an experiment based on what you said, and the rule changes that I thought would make this kind of tactic much less useful, are apparently not enough. Given enough airlift, and enough escorts to take care of nearby enemy fighters, a corps with a panzer division and 3 infantry divisions could last indefinitely behind Soviet lines without equipment losses as long as it stayed in close range of the aircraft providing the supply.

I've always hated this exploit, and argued with Arnaud for a new set of rules for unsupplied units, but to no avail.

What do you guys know of airlift capacity for the Germans? Did they have any plane which could fly in a medium or heavy tank? How many of those planes did they have? Vehicles are the most glaring flaw in the current rules for unsupplied units. I don't believe they could fly in many tanks, and I wonder if they could actually fly in enough fuel to keep an entire panzer division, from tanks to trucks, on the road. Or could they?

The only well known example was the airlift for the 6th Army in Stalingrad, but the 6th Army wasn't mechanzied or armored and it was static, not moving, yet the airlift failed to keep the 6th Army supplied enough. Then again this was a large force, not one armored division, but then again an armored/mechanized division needs an enormous amount of fuel to keep it active and moving.

Airlift supply should just be something to keep an unsupplied unit alive while it waited for ground supply to catch up with it. It should not be used to keep a unit indefinitely in supply behind enemy lines. But there is no way this hole can be plugged until we adopt different rules for unsupplied units, because we know the Luftwaffe has no real resistance early on and can easily conduct massive air-lifts, whether realistic or not.

At the heart of my idea for unsupplied units is the rule that unsupplied units, regardless of readiness, should pay dearly for moving, but at the other end of the scale, an unsupplied unit that remains still and is not attacked should not lose much. A unit that remains still and has no adjacent enemies would lose nothing.

One of these months, later on down the road, we need to hold Arnaud at gunpoint and make him to fix this problem.

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[matt.buttsworth]

I can confirm from tragic experience (I just lost) that Lorenzo's tactics work.
The drive to the Caucasus is a good one and feasible although without the air supply that Lorenzo uses to deadly effect, it would not work as well as it did capturing Batumi, Grozny and Tblisi.
The effect of the air supply tactics are deadly. Panzers used in this way not only stay alive but continue advancing against weaker units (infantry supported by armoured regiments), over rivers, into cities, the works, despite resistance, continued weak to moderate attacks and air attacks.
Very infuriating. The only thing that stopps them is full Russian armour - one armoured division, four infantry divisions and artillery) plus supporting units, but to keep them in the rear to stop the kamikaze attacks all over the front, while at the same time keeping enough armour at the front to stop enemy breakthroughs, is an almost impossible task especially in the 1942 scenario where at the beginning half the Russian armoured units (all the mechanized ones) are missing.
The light mountain units attacking over the caucasus also works, enabling them to capture cities etc, and more infuriating still to hold them against repeated, although weak Russian assualts while supplied only by air.
In short, it makes the Wir game almost a fantasy game, with Axis forces attacking beyond supply in all directions and stopped only by a double layer Soviet defence wall which is very difficult to construct and hold (I did lose twice although the second time was much closer and with mud not snow in October could have been won.)
This problem is exacerbated in 1942 by the Soviet dependence on Saratov which has eight factories in it (Stalingrad and Leningrad have five, Volvagrod, Rostov, Voroshnez 1, the rest nill, and only Moscow has eight) almost a third of the Soviet on board total and is in the wrong position, three squares forward of the real Saratov and easily captured.
In short well executed, brilliantly conceived tactics that go beyond the historically credible. The Axis drive into the Caucasus mountains stopped as soon as they ran out of supply, and Panzer units had to wait to get into supply. Axis pockets, especially the Demyanask pocket Winter 1941, did survive on air supply, but there is no Axis unit I know of, that survived on air supply and fought its way forwards and forwards against opposition (In the case of this game some ten squares along the railway to Grozni - I did not initially move large forces to stop it, as I thought it would stop by itself as soon as it ran otu of supply and could be surrounded and destroyed - not breaking through surrounding forces and advancing onwards).
Axis forces that did break out of pockets late in the war did so at tremendous cost, lost lots of men, and very much equipment.
So it is a bug Arnaud should tackle, and the sooner the better.
Whether Lorenzo's tactics will be so deadly in the 1941 game where the Soviets have the full number of armoured units to begin with will be very interesting to see.
I hope not.
Whatever the air supply bug though the drive on the Caucasus is a definite winner!
I lost.

[Don Shafer]

Germany didn't have any heavy-lift airlift capabilities, so physically moving tanks into an unsupplied area would be impossible. It would be possible to move spare parts to keep the tanks moving, but you couldn't replace destroyed tanks.
I'm intrigued by this idea of using air supply to keep a German Army supplied to make a deep strike into the Caucasus. In order to be successful at it, I would think the German player would have to strip about all aircraft from other armies, leaving them vulnerable to the Red Air Force. It's not a tactic that I would like to try myself, but it does put a very interesting twist to the game.
I'm not sure it's an exploit, since devoting a large quantity of the Luftwaffe to supporting airlift to units that are operating behind the lines, could cause some real adverse effects to the Germans. I would consider it more as a different strategy to solving Hitler's problem of taking the oilfields of Baku. From the Soviet side, I've already thought of some effective counters, but I'm not telling.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



Exactly how I feel. Its not funny. I tried an experiment based on what you said, and the rule changes that I thought would make this kind of tactic much less useful, are apparently not enough. Given enough airlift, and enough escorts to take care of nearby enemy fighters, a corps with a panzer division and 3 infantry divisions could last indefinitely behind Soviet lines without equipment losses as long as it stayed in close range of the aircraft providing the supply.

I've always hated this exploit, and argued with Arnaud for a new set of rules for unsupplied units, but to no avail.

What do you guys know of airlift capacity for the Germans? Did they have any plane which could fly in a medium or heavy tank? How many of those planes did they have? Vehicles are the most glaring flaw in the current rules for unsupplied units. I don't believe they could fly in many tanks, and I wonder if they could actually fly in enough fuel to keep an entire panzer division, from tanks to trucks, on the road. Or could they?

The only well known example was the airlift for the 6th Army in Stalingrad, but the 6th Army wasn't mechanzied or armored and it was static, not moving, yet the airlift failed to keep the 6th Army supplied enough. Then again this was a large force, not one armored division, but then again an armored/mechanized division needs an enormous amount of fuel to keep it active and moving.

Airlift supply should just be something to keep an unsupplied unit alive while it waited for ground supply to catch up with it. It should not be used to keep a unit indefinitely in supply behind enemy lines. But there is no way this hole can be plugged until we adopt different rules for unsupplied units, because we know the Luftwaffe has no real resistance early on and can easily conduct massive air-lifts, whether realistic or not.

At the heart of my idea for unsupplied units is the rule that unsupplied units, regardless of readiness, should pay dearly for moving, but at the other end of the scale, an unsupplied unit that remains still and is not attacked should not lose much. A unit that remains still and has no adjacent enemies would lose nothing.

One of these months, later on down the road, we need to hold Arnaud at gunpoint and make him to fix this problem.

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Germany didn't have any heavy-lift airlift capabilities, so physically moving tanks into an unsupplied area would be impossible. It would be possible to move spare parts to keep the tanks moving, but you couldn't replace destroyed tanks.
I'm intrigued by this idea of using air supply to keep a German Army supplied to make a deep strike into the Caucasus. In order to be successful at it, I would think the German player would have to strip about all aircraft from other armies, leaving them vulnerable to the Red Air Force.

Not at all, remember how pathetically weak the Soviet fighters are in '41 and '42. A couple of +100 German fighter groups is all that is necessary to make it work. Beyond that its just a matter of concentrating the Ju-52s and other hi-load bombers to fly the supplies in, how many being decided by how big the force you are trying to supply.

It's not a tactic that I would like to try myself, but it does put a very interesting twist to the game.

Its not an interesting twist, as Matthew implied it stretches reality to the breaking point.

I'm not sure it's an exploit, since devoting a large quantity of the Luftwaffe to supporting airlift to units that are operating behind the lines, could cause some real adverse effects to the Germans.

Its a loophole in the game's design which leads to unrealistic play and exploitation by Lorenzo and others.

If the tactic will almost certainly win the game for you, then why not use all available aircraft? You don't need a dozen of these interlopers behind Soviet lines to win. One or two in the south, doing what Lorenzo has done, and one or two in the north penetrating deep to outflank the Leningrad defense and cut it off from suppliy.

The only adverse affect on the Germans is that the tactic leads to a short game.

I would consider it more as a different strategy to solving Hitler's problem of taking the oilfields of Baku. From the Soviet side, I've already thought of some effective counters, but I'm not telling.

This should NOT be about looking for counter measures, it should be about *removing* this possibility if there isn't evidence that it could have been done historically. As you said there is no way to move tanks by air, a unit should not be able to get tanks when its out of supply, and this doesn't cover the heavy artillery, recon vehicles, heavy flak and large AT guns (including the transportation needed to move these weapons around). Could those have been flown in in significant numbers? To this day, US airborne troops rely on lighter equipment which can be air-lifted, no heavy tanks or heavy artillery.

In the meantime, you guys will just have to get Lorenzo to promise not to use this exploit in your next game with him.

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Don Shafer]

Problem with that is, we keep taking things out on the premise that it's ahistorical. I don't mind taking out the obvious cheats, but if someone wants to devote the resources to try this type of attack, why prevent it?
We've tweaked the system to prevent airlift from increasing supply levels, so if airlifting is just keeping readiness levels up and not replacing destroyed equipment when at supply level 0, then I'm not convinced that this is really a problem. If airlifting is replacing destroyed equipment, then I would say that's where the fix should be. Also any supply level 0 unit should only be able to plot 1 hex at a time, so any units running loose in the Caucasus would be slowed down by that also.
Not to give all of my secret planning away, but......If the Soviet player is still holding Leningrad and Moscow, then in 42 he/she should be in good position to make this tactic for the German extremely risky. If the attempt is made in 41, then the Soviet Winter Offensive should turn the German Army to mulch, which in effect would accelerate the end of the game, since you would have the problem the German Army faced in 42-43 of being too spread out. In 42 the La-5's and Yak-1's should be at a high enough experience level to be able to inflict some damage on the Luftwaffe. Plus that fighter coverage for the airlift had to come from somewhere, use the Red Air Force and inflict a little punishment of you're own.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



This should NOT be about looking for counter measures, it should be about *removing* this possibility if there isn't evidence that it could have been done historically. As you said there is no way to move tanks by air, a unit should not be able to get tanks when its out of supply, and this doesn't cover the heavy artillery, recon vehicles, heavy flak and large AT guns (including the transportation needed to move these weapons around). Could those have been flown in in significant numbers? To this day, US airborne troops rely on lighter equipment which can be air-lifted, no heavy tanks or heavy artillery.

In the meantime, you guys will just have to get Lorenzo to promise not to use this exploit in your next game with him.

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

:p

[matt.buttsworth]

I do not think this tactic would work in the 1941 game (too busy conquering Russia), or in the continuation of the 1941 game into 1942 where the Russians should be strong enough to resist it (although it is very, very difficult to resist).
Where it is absolutely deadly is in the 1942 scenario where the Russians start off with half the armoured units they had in the 1941 game, (they start to arrive only in Autumn 1942 and then slowly), where coupled with a vulnerable Leningrad, nothing to fight back with at Rostov, not enough armoured units to defend Moscow, Leningrad and Rostov, and an extremely vulnerable wrongly placed Saratov, it is almost impossible to fight against.
Coupled with Lorenzo's great tactical skill, and practised ability in using this tactic it makes the 1942 scenario a nightmare.
I believe in playing the game however possible, but would like to see air supply twigged to stop this tactic, as not only is it nonhistorical, but it is almost impossible to stop if you do not have the armoured units in the rear on all fronts to counter it which is impossible as you need most on the front to stop Soviet breakthroughs in the first place.
In the version 1.0 you could move out of supply armoured units five squares by boosting them with air supply (now that was fantasy, but it made the Germans hell of a strong) and just as that was stopped by Arnaud so that Axis armoured units cannot be airlifted to level four, so I think it would be good, if possible, to stop this tactic as well as historically, air supplied units could survive and stay motionless until and if help came, or desperately try and break back to their lines before they were wiped out, but they could never, ever advance indefinitely without, with air supply not being enough to allow even the mountain units to hold the line (not advance!!!) when they were deep in the Caucasus in 1942 and had gone beyond their supply lines.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Don Shafer:
Problem with that is, we keep taking things out on the premise that it's ahistorical. I don't mind taking out the obvious cheats, but if someone wants to devote the resources to try this type of attack, why prevent it?

If this tactic is possible only in the computer game "War in Russia", and not in the real world (circa 1941), then its ahistorical and should be removed.

We've tweaked the system to prevent airlift from increasing supply levels, so if airlifting is just keeping readiness levels up and not replacing destroyed equipment when at supply level 0, then

Guess what. The units aren't losing any equipment, and can maintain two square movement indefinitely. I can keep a panzer corps (2 panzer divisions, a motorized division plus miscellaneous battalions) above or near %50 readiness with all the JU-52 groups and two Ju-88 groups. Even though he's in a square identified as supply level 0, he doesn't lose *anything*. Arnaud must have set a low readiness level that triggers equipment losses, meaning if you can keep their readiness high the losses never kick in.

I'm not convinced that this is really a problem.

Why? Given the power of this tactic, if it were historically possible, then it would have actually happened. It didn't happen because the tactic isn't possible in the real world, now or 60 years ago.

If airlifting is replacing destroyed equipment, then I would say that's where the fix should be.

I can't test that. That panzer corps I was playing with spent 4 turns cutoff behind enemy lines and didn't lose a single tank.

Also any supply level 0 unit should only be able to plot 1 hex at a time, so any units running loose in the Caucasus would be slowed down by that also.

At some low readiness level this will happen, but it won't if you keep the readiness up.

Not to give all of my secret planning away, but......If the Soviet player is still holding Leningrad and Moscow, then in 42 he/she should be in good position to make this tactic for the German extremely risky.

I don't see the risk, the German player sacrifices 2 panzer korps .... wait a second, if the only goal is to reach a rail line and cut it as Lorenzo was doing, you can put a single battalion of any type in the corps and send it off on a merry jaunt through the Soviet's backfield. It should be *easy* to keep one battalion above %50 using air supply.

If the attempt is made in 41, then the Soviet Winter Offensive should turn the German Army to mulch....

You seem to be trying to defend this tactic on the belief that the Soviet player can counter this action, or some other condition will defeat it. I don't know if its possible to counter it, maybe the Soviet player could garrison every square of rail line in range of German forces. Keeping a weak screen behind the main line with fast reinforcements available to reinforce could be enough too. My point is its not historically possible and therefore should not be in the game, *regardless* of whether the Soviet player has a counter strategy for it or not.

The issue now is do we bring up this problem with how the game handles out-of-supply units with Arnaud all over again? At some point this must be addressed with a more comprehensive solution than what we have now, and what we have now is NOT a coherent set of rules for OOS units. I probably should not be the one to bring this up, since Arnaud probably hasn't forgotten about my whining on this issue the last time.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[RickyB]

I think the loss of equipment begins at readiness of 20% or 10%, and the 1 plot movement at 10%, based on Arnaud's prior posts. Probably both occur at 10%. I thought, though, that equipment loss could occur if moving while out of supply, period, and that no equipment loss only happened when not moving and above the 10-20% level, but it has been long enough that I don't remember.

[Svar]

I would love to try this tactic but in the PBEM 1941 Campaign game I'm in with a very skilled Soviet opponent, I have never been able to get a Panzer Korp behind his lines anywhere. Believe me I have tried, he never leaves any holes and if a strong Panzer Korp can penetrate a couple of hexes with a secure supply line, he still throws it back because he can attack from 5 sides sequentially.

Against the AI is another story, I'm sure that this will work very effectively

Svar

[Micha]

Svar, I can't believe that. In 1941 there is hardly any opposition for a strong Panzer Korps, no matter how skilled the Soviet player is. There might be enough Soviet armies to form a continuous front, but very few of them are able to hold against an attack, especially since you should have air superiority. And Soviet counterattacks should be ineffective as well because of the Soviet problem of following orders and attacking simultaneously in 1941. Just keep your panzers supplied, by air if necessary, and smash through. Believe me, I know what I'm saying. I play against Lorenzo and had to learn the hard way that there is almost nothing you can do against a strong Panzer Korps.

[matt.buttsworth]

The problem is the 1942 scenario. In the 1941 game you have twice as many Russiantank units even if most get hit hard
In the 1942 scenario the tactic is murderous.

[Svar]

Originally posted by Micha:
Svar, I can't believe that. In 1941 there is hardly any opposition for a strong Panzer Korps, no matter how skilled the Soviet player is. There might be enough Soviet armies to form a continuous front, but very few of them are able to hold against an attack, especially since you should have air superiority. And Soviet counterattacks should be ineffective as well because of the Soviet problem of following orders and attacking simultaneously in 1941. Just keep your panzers supplied, by air if necessary, and smash through. Believe me, I know what I'm saying. I play against Lorenzo and had to learn the hard way that there is almost nothing you can do against a strong Panzer Korps.

Micha,

I guess I should have been more clear, I was speaking of 1942. You are right, in 1941 the Panzer Korps just walked through the opposition. It was after the winter of 41/42 that things got a lot tougher. I didn't try to send an unsupplied Panzer Korp deep into enemy territory in 1941. My guess is that my opponent would have immediately surrounded it though. Even if he could not have forced it to surrender, it would have had to fight every inch of the way no matter which way it went and if it was still hehind enemy lines when the blizzard started, it would be eliminated.

Svar

[matt.buttsworth]

I eliminated five and lost to the sixth and seventh.
Surrounding a panzer costs six armies (18-24 units and with air supply it can break out).
Surrounding three or four at once even if weak takes eighteen to twenty-four armies (fifty plus units).
Where do they come from and transporting them to meet new attacks anywhere on the front while still meeting other needs is a nightmareish problem.
It can be tackeled but better still to keep the game on realistic levels or to abandon playing the 1942 scenario completely.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by RickyB:
I thought, though, that equipment loss could occur if moving while out of supply, period

Exactly, that is what I thought too.

and that no equipment loss only happened when not moving and above the 10-20% level

No, this wasn't implemented, but I wish it was. It sounds like it came from my suggestion for a ruleset that I kept as #5 in the issues list. Yesterday, I went back and made some changes to it after this last conversation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules for readiness and equipment losses by out-of-supply (OOS) units:

• Any OOS unit immediately drops to just one square movement per turn.
  
  Readiness losses:
• When readiness of all division units in an OOS corps drop below %20, the unit becomes IMMOBILIZED.
• Readiness loss for movement should be significantly increased for OOS units, perhaps a %25 per square readiness penalty in addition to the normal readiness loss for moving. This means an OOS unit that moves 2-4 turns in an OOS state will have its divisions drop below %20 and become immobilized as above, but a stationary unit can "survive" on airlift supply until ground supply reaches it.
  
  Equipment losses:
• if OOS unit moves: 50% equipment losses (1)
• if OOS unit is attacked: 25% losses minus 5% for every entrench level (2)
• if OOS unit remains stationary:
• if enemy adjacent: 10% losses minus 5% for every entrench level
• if enemy not adjacent: 0% losses.
  
  (1) No matter the destination square. If square occupied by enemy unit,
  the 50% losses are taken BEFORE combat.
  
  (2) Losses should be taken *after* combat.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this ruleset my basic rule (opinion) is air-supply operations should not keep armored units alive indefinitely behind enemy lines, but air supply for stationary units can prevent them from equipment losses if they stay still.

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Micha]

Svar,
Okay, it is certainly different in 1942. But in 1941, even surrounding advanced Panzer Korps with Soviet units doesn't help. First of all, they leave a "trace" of German-controlled hexes, so you cannot completely surround them, and there are hardly any Soviet units strong enough to even cause noticable losses to the panzers. And if you mass units anywhere then they make an inviting target for the next panzer strike. Lorenzo once forced a lot of my armies to surrender by simply sending one Panzer Korps south and another north. There were at least eight undefended german-controlled hexes surrounding the pocket, but hardly any of my units escaped because they ignored the plot orders. So in 1941 with two Panzer Korps you can trap any amount of Soviet armies. It is very hard to play against that.

[Lorenzo from Spain]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
[QB]


My point is its not historically possible and therefore should not be in the game, *regardless* of whether the Soviet player has a counter strategy for it or not.

Why is unrealistic the tactic of deep advance supplied by air?
A division needs some tons of food, medicines, ammunition and oil, and in armored divisions, spares. It́s the same if this tons came by train or by air. (No panzers can go by air, of course).
To advance two hexes a week is realistic, if well supplied by air.
This isńt historic, of course. I think, air supply not was employed this way: Ju-52 supplied slightly advancing divisions or, massively, units in “cauldrons”. But why not concentrate them in a couple of units to allow them advance deeply? Must we repeat the tactics or can we innovate, limited only by the real limitations of the age?
We can use Lutwaffe to strategic bombing in Russia, or attack Leningrad in 1942, or retreat during the 1941 winter... this is the “spice” of this game: we can replay history, limited by real limitations, no by our minds.

About “light” mechanized corps: they are very useful to “surprise” cut of supply (i.e. in the advancing to Stalingrad, the German must carefully control his supply line, to avoid this). They will be destroyed, but causing a big trouble.
But if you want advance fighting and after resist in a strategic point until reinforcement arrives, they must be “heavy” mechanized corps. This is dangerous, of course.

About the soviet units, when surrounded: they rested confused, without know what do. This was same in Poland, in France... Blitzkrieg was shocking.
When I played as Russian, in 1941, Ím been surrounded... and most part of my armies where not capable of react. But this is really historical. The panic, the confusion, the loss of communication with the HQ, the bombs of Lutwaffe... is necessary more?

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:
Why is unrealistic the tactic of deep advance supplied by air?

If it were possible, don't you think it would have happened historically? If it were that easy to supply a armored/motorized corps by air, the Germans would have scraped up all the bombers and transports they had to provide air supply, and would have sent 3 or 4 panzer korps screaming "Banzi!" and heading straight for Moscow and/or Leningrad, ignoring their flanks, relying solely on air supply for movement and combat.

In reality, whether in 1941 or today, show me a full strength armored/mechanized corps, out of ground supply and only receiving air supply, moving and fighting continuously, losing little equipment due to being unsupplied, and doing this for 3 months behind enemy lines, and I'll shut up.

It can't be done, never has been done, plain and simple, except in WiR.

Now if we're talking about a single unmotorized infantry division then that may be a different story, but here you have the problem that the unit isn't strong enough to handle the enemy it meets on the way to its objective, and once it gets there, it can be defeated by the presence of just a single enemy infantry division garrisoning that location.

[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Lorenzo from Spain]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



If it were possible, don't you think it would have happened historically?

First: I use this tactic this way: the massive bombing conquest the place, the advancing division only occupies it and defend it against counterattacks. The advancing division don´t must (and can´t) fight heavily. Haf Lutwaffe must be back this division, fighting, bombing and supliyng.
Second: This tactic only works against an enemy not entrenched and weakened, and in plain terrain. In Moscow or in Leningrad, the russians where very well entrenched.
Third: Is dangerous. If enemy concentrate air and armored reinforcements...
Fourth: The counter-tactic: Deep defense, with armored reserves in rearguard, fresh and veterans. Any pz division isolated, will be anhilated, then, with rail or air supply.

But if your enemy has not reserves, the Lutwaffe rules the skies, there is not natural obstacles, you see a great goal and your have a lot of Ju-52 waiting without nothing else to do... Why not?
[ July 15, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:

But if your enemy has not reserves, the Lutwaffe rules the skies, there is not natural obstacles, you see a great goal and your have a lot of Ju-52 waiting without nothing else to do... Why not?

Why not indeed. We have a difference in perspectives here. You play to win, and any tactic that works is valid. The game being played, whether WIR or Chess, is irrelevent, winning is the important thing. I play to win too, but only using tactics that are historical. That the game is a simulation of an *historical* event *is* important to me.

Your strategy is a great one, and can lead to German victory in '41 often. There is only one problem with your strategy: It could not in '41, and to this day it still cannot, happen on a real battlfield in a real war. I don't consider a win achieved by using exploits/bugs in the game's code to be a real win.

[Lokioftheaesir]

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:


Why not indeed. We have a difference in perspectives here. You play to win, and any tactic that works is valid. The game being played, whether WIR or Chess, is irrelevent, winning is the important thing. I play to win too, but only using tactics that are historical. That the game is a simulation of an *historical* event *is* important to me.

Your strategy is a great one, and can lead to German victory in '41 often. There is only one problem with your strategy: It could not in '41, and to this day it still cannot, happen on a real battlfield in a real war. I don't consider a win achieved by using exploits/bugs in the game's code to be a real win.

Hi Ed

Exactly


Nick