Matrix Games Forums

And the OOB:

And the ground losses so far:

And the state of Soviet production so far:

ORIGINAL: squatter
"Crushing defeat? Hardly the case here. I look at the size of the Soviet army and the remaining amount of production and the Soviets are far from being crushed. Losing Moscow and Leningrad does not mean the war is over."

Well, yes, you're right, but that's kind of what I mean: I don't think the Axis player can be expected to do any better than Pelton in this game, it's simply not possible. Yet despite that, the game is designed in such a way that the Russian army bounces back in the space of a couple of months. Which means there is no feasible way for the Axis to win this game short of 1945. IMO, that shouldnt be so. Of course this goes back to the old debate of 'what would have happened if x,y or z' happened which no-one can answer. But as far as the GAME is concerned, a victory on the scale of Pelton's should trigger an auto-victory in my book. Otherwise, WitE is a game that runs to 1945 no matter how well the German plays.

Squatter I don't really understand where you're coming from. Are you saying that in this situation the USSR would have surrendered to Hitler? I doubt it.

And why would you want the game to end? Wouldn't it be interesting to play it out to 1944 or 1945 if the USSR isn't really beaten?

In any case it seems like when you sign up to play Germany you're most likely signing up for a couple of years of panzers east in 41 and 42, then possibly a swing year in 43 followed by panzers west in 44 and 45. We've seen some AARs of games vs AI where Germany managed to tip the USSR into permanent decline after taking Leningrad, Moskva and Stalingrad IIRC. And I suppose that might be possible vs a human. But more likely if you do well in 41/42 you are probably just ensuring you'll have more assets to counterattack with and defend with in 43/44/45. It's sort of the job description as Germany invading Russia - right?

Its not the beginning, Barbarossa, or the end, Götterdämmerung, that holds my attention.

Its the journey spaced between. The fast slow pace of the war-game. The test of wills as each adversary seeks to dance on the others virtual corpse. The hard choices in a shared moment of time. The memories of the journey we can all be part of, even if we only lurk in the shadows.

Thanks for allowing me to look over your virtual shoulders to read, interpret and comment.

I salute you all for the dedication shown in all the AAR's. 

"I strongly disagree that this kind of German success in 1941 should trigger an auto-victory. In fact, this kind of success in 1941 sets up the German very well for a 1942 victory, but they should have to earn it. Look at PDH's last AAR for an example."

Have you counted how many VPs the Axis need to capture for auto victory? Have you tried to work out how many cities you'd need to hold to do that? It's a ridiculous amount. Practically impossible. I wouldnt say Pelton wont manage it in 42, but if Mr Fulkerson learns his lessons, Pelton wont get them.

"I agree that the Germans could hardly be expected to do better, but so what? This is a historical wargame after all and should reflect reality. I do think it might be appropriate for this level of German success to generate at least the possibility of additional Sov penalties (drop in morale, perhaps *possibility* of Sov collapse) but not an auto victory."

You seem to know what would have happened had x,y and z happened. Unless you are Nostradamus, you dont. Once Lenningrad/Moscow etc fall, none of us know what would have happened. Anything was possible. In which 'reality' did you read about how the Soviets continued fighting after the loss of Leningrad, Moscow, the donbass, Rostov and the Crimea in 1941, as well as being utterly defeated on the battlefield - could you point me in the way of the history books that chronicle these events?

I find it stunning that people seem to want a game where no matter the genius of the Axis play, no matter how much more the Axis player outperforms reality, he can't win other than sitting it out till 1945. What kind of 'reality' are you shackled to? This is a game based on reality, but which departs from reality the moment you move your first unit.

ORIGINAL: squatter
You seem to know what would have happened had x,y and z happened. Unless you are Nostradamus, you dont. Once Lenningrad/Moscow etc fall, none of us know what would have happened. Anything was possible. In which 'reality' did you read about how the Soviets continued fighting after the loss of Leningrad, Moscow, the donbass, Rostov and the Crimea in 1941, as well as being utterly defeated on the battlefield - could you point me in the way of the history books that chronicle these events?

I find it stunning that people seem to want a game where no matter the genius of the Axis play, no matter how much more the Axis player outperforms reality, he can't win other than sitting it out till 1945. What kind of 'reality' are you shackled to? This is a game based on reality, but which departs from reality the moment you move your first unit.

Um, you're the one asking for a determined outcome (automatic victory), not me. I don't know what would happen if Lgrad, Moscow, and Donbass fall, and therefore think that the players should keep playing to find out. If you read my post, you would have noticed that I suggested that to keep things interesting, it might be appropriate to have some possibility for the Sovs to collapse if those locations were captured. You, on the other hand, think a automatic victory is necessary because you don't want to keep playing.

And I find it stunning that some German players want a game that no matter what the material and manpower resources of the two sides, the Germans should be able to win an automatic knock-out victory in 1941. And you are mistaken--while the game departs from HISTORY as soon as you move your first unit, it should not depart from REALITY (as far as possible as games go), don't you understand the difference?

ORIGINAL: 76mm
And I find it stunning that some German players want a game that no matter what the material and manpower resources of the two sides, the Germans should be able to win an automatic knock-out victory in 1941. And you are mistaken--while the game departs from HISTORY as soon as you move your first unit, it should not depart from REALITY (as far as possible as games go), don't you understand the difference?

So true. It would take a two year military campaign at the very least to reach the line initially perceived by Hitler. The only other option would be a political collapse. Not very likely.

If we're talking semantics, I think you mean REALISM not REALITY.

I think our argument boils down to this: I think that in exceptional circumstances (and Pelton's results here to me should be considered exceptional - you wont see this in your average evently matched game), the Axis player should be able to achieve a total victory in 41. You seem to be hedging your bets: "I strongly disagree that this kind of German success in 1941 should trigger an auto-victory..." "I do think it might be appropriate for this level of German success to generate at least the possibility of additional Sov penalties (drop in morale, perhaps *possibility* of Sov collapse". So are you saying that you'd rather certain conditions triggered a dice roll to determine whether the Axis wins outright, or whether he has to see out three years of extra gameplay to confirm his victory? The entire game to hinge on a single dice roll? Surely it's all or nothing?

My point is not that x,y, and z WOULD have led to Russian collapse, but that they COULD have led to Russian collapse, and a judgement should be made in the name of game balance, as no jugement can be made in the name of realism, reality, history, or whatever term you want to use. Furthermore, in pursuit of 'realism' dont you want to see Axis players throwing everything they have into Barbarossa because there is a chance of victory, rather than playing the long game from turn 1?

"I don't know what would happen if Lgrad, Moscow, and Donbass fall, and therefore think that the players should keep playing to find out."

Well, we're finding out, and the answer in the game as it stands is that the Soviet rapidly recovers his strength despite these losses, condemning the German player to several hundreds of hours of gameplay to confirm his most-likely inevitable (if perhaps minor) victory. If I am wrong and Fulkerson still stands a chance of victory at this point, then the game balance is such that the German player is practically condemned to defeat, whatever he does.

ORIGINAL: squatter
I think our argument boils down to this: I think that in exceptional circumstances ...the Axis player should be able to achieve a total victory in 41. You seem to be hedging your bets...Surely it's all or nothing?

I'm not hedging my bets at all. Russia's is an enormous country, and I think it should be very difficult, indeed almost impossible, for the Germans to win an automatic victory. However, to keep the Sovs from being too blase about losing massive tracts of territory (which a real government would strongly resist) and in recognition of the fact that in 1941 no one could be sure what kind of shocks the USSR could survive, I think it would make sense for there to be some chance of penalties, possibly including some small chance of collapse of the USSR and surrender, if the Germans really clean up in 1941-42. As you have repeatedly pointed out, no one knew what would happen in 1941, and I think there is some merit in reflecting that uncertainty in the game.

ORIGINAL: squatter
My point is not that x,y, and z WOULD have led to Russian collapse, but that they COULD have led to Russian collapse, and a judgement should be made in the name of game balance, as no jugement can be made in the name of realism, reality, history, or whatever term you want to use. Furthermore, in pursuit of 'realism' dont you want to see Axis players throwing everything they have into Barbarossa because there is a chance of victory, rather than playing the long game from turn 1?

I believe that my point above fully addresses this issue.

ORIGINAL: squatter
Well, we're finding out, and the answer in the game as it stands is that the Soviet rapidly recovers his strength despite these losses, condemning the German player to several hundreds of hours of gameplay to confirm his most-likely inevitable (if perhaps minor) victory. If I am wrong and Fulkerson still stands a chance of victory at this point, then the game balance is such that the German player is practically condemned to defeat, whatever he does.

I am really puzzled about your repeated complaint about the poor German player having to play several hundred hours just to confirm his victory. I mean, boo-hoo. If you want a game that ends in a dozen turns, you've picked the wrong game...this was a massive, intense, long war, and the game is therefore fairly massive, long, and intense.

"If you want a game that ends in a dozen turns, you've picked the wrong game...this was a massive, intense, long war, and the game is therefore fairly massive, long, and intense."

I dont want a game that ends in a dozen turns. I want a game that CAN be won by the axis in 41. I'm currently in 43 as Axis in my PBEM. I didnt do enough to deserve a victory in 41 (by my standards), and had a great time playing through 42. Now in 43, I feel I can win a '45 victory and am playing for it. It's a huge investment of time, however, and if I had done to my opponent what Pelton has done to Fulkerson, I wouldn't want to expend 100s of hours on a forgone conclusion. I'd rather take the victory, and move onto another game. That's how I'm thinking.

Anyway, you see it differently, each to their own, agree to disagree and all that.

With all the Soviet cities Pelton has captured and all the Soviet industry Pelton has destroyed I think maybe Pelton should have won an auto-victory outright.  The fall of Moscow alone should trigger the auto-victory or at least a massive drop in Soviet morale IMO.  But I'm playing on with what I have left just to see what effect playing on will have on the 1.04 game now that the new patch is out.  I'm finding that the Soviets have the capacity to "bounce back" and with what manpower and armaments that are left I'm building a respectable army again but it's in no condition to push the Axis around yet.  Pelton will probably enjoy a prosperous spring and summer of '42 and I'll probably see the loss of Stalingrad at the very least, but in '43 and early '44 I expect to see some more bouncing back by the Soviets and perhaps we'll see a turn around and the Soviets might be able to gain the upper hand in this game.  I still think Pelton should win though. 

Hi,

Just wanted to thank Larry again [&o] for playing after turn 20. Its been a great learning exp for me. Started 8 41-45 games and this is the only 1 to make it past turn 15.
The Blizzard went just about as I expected it to go. My rotating corps tactic ( saw-tooth )seemed to really blunt the first blizzard months effects. I lost a few city's, but not much ground and hardly any InF and most of my mech corps are at close to 100% other then my 3 fire brigand Corps, I used to counter attack an plug the line where needed. They are at 70% and should be at full tow by early June. I don't beleive in pulling Div's back to Germany, so many have fallen below 85 moral, which is fine. I only need 3 at plus 90 to get things done in 1942.

One thing I learned from playing Larry is don't waste the snow turns. So I have 2 spearheads started 1 in the north and 1 in the south. A third is set-up in the center waiting for a weak spot to present itself.

The north is going as planned, several corps into the hole with 2 more arriving at the base HQed up and ready to roll next turn.

The south went better then expected, I managed to bag close to 70 units. I still have 5 mech and 4 inf divisions at the base of the breakthough. I don't see any units in the rear behind the encirlced units to help out at least from my reconing planes. So Larry will have to train in what he can and hope for the best. I fully expect to be able to 100% seal the trapped units next turn IF Larry is able to reopen the pocket this turn close it again.

The SHC has good numbers, but I was able to break through much easyer then I thought.

I guess the GHC will have operation control over the battle field during 1942.

My strategic plans from the start have been for a war lasting the full 4 yrs. I just have never been able to see if my plans would work on the battle field after Dec 1941.

Thanks again Larry and good luck in 1942.

Pelton

Here's the front line in T38 before any Soviet movement:

Here's the front lines AFTER the Soviets get to move:

Here's the T39 front lines before any Soviet moves:

Here's the ground losses so far:

And the OOB:

And the state of Soviet production :

ORIGINAL: squatter

I'm now absolutely of the mind that house rules are necessary, along the lines of if the Axis hold 2 of Lenningrad/Moscow/Donbas by the end of blizzard 41, then it's game over.

And if they don't, it's game over. Soviets win.