Matrix Games Forums

to effectively trap the Lvov forces you only need to reach the rail on the y89 hex row anyway as this
means the Lvov units can't use rail to escape. Can this be done with AGS existing forces?
I would find this OK, its the driving all the way to rumania that irritates.

Yes. There are some older threads in the war room where I proposed and demonstrated this. It works but it is slower because you take longer getting the area cleaned out.

One other thought on gambits and the overall movement and leader system;

I still have a reverse leader roll theory. As the player, you shouldn't exactly know you can accomplish a gambit or even have complete PERMISSION to try it.   I think the game needs to reflect the doctrines and commands of the Higher HQ's and their Leaders a bit better, with Initiative and Admin DOWN the chain of command.   Currently, the system works UP the chain of command, and works to decrease MP rather than increase it.

For example, the base Axis mechanized movement MP could be 40, Bold and organized commanders could increase it, conservative and disorganized commanders could decrease it.
+4 for OKH successful roll, +3 for Army Group, +2 for Army, +1 for Corps, max of 50. Or, the other way around,
+1 for OKH successful roll, +2 for Army Group, +3 for Army, +4 for Corps, max of 50
depending on the theory.

The theory is whether or not the overall doctrine permits lower level commanders to make their own decisions to a greater or lesser extent.  For the Axis side (or at least the Germans perhaps) yes, but otherwise more emphasis from higher HQ orders.

Currently, the chain is looking for "Yes-Men". If a Corps commander roll fails, the next guy up tries only to say "wait a minute - good idea go ahead" EVEN THOUGH the lower HQ decided to back off or it couldn't be done (if it's roll was missed). There is nobody that ever says 'No, you are not permitted to do so’.   If there should be a German advantage to letting lower level leaders make their own decisions then more potential MP from lower levels would apply but that should not as readily apply to the Soviet side. Who is really the boss? The lower or the higher ranks?

or if you exceed a doctrine you have exceeded orders and can be dismissed! That would be a lot of fun.

Sir Robin Soviets running away gambit could lead to shot leaders also in some manner. Hitler would not approve of fort building in preparation for winter.

Game starts same, because at turn 0, it is always same. Why no variability in setups?

ORIGINAL: jazman
Game starts same, because at turn 0, it is always same. Why no variability in setups?

You don't necessarily need variability in the set-up, if the combat itself had some variability as well, such as perhaps one too many attacks failing for the precise moves involved in the Lvov / Riga gambits to develop.

Unfortunately, the Russians are always so weak and the Germans have enough spare units to cover any failures, that you can always stick to the script and have it go off.

One more point is that (I think) the rolls and checks for determining MP allotment don't apply at the very start of the game, which means that the German side always has the same amount of MP on all of their units. It probably wouldn't amount to much even if it did, seeing as how all these units are fresh and have good morale, but anything else, such as shuffling the units around, would be ahistorical (granted, the gambits themselves are ahistorical).

Probably need to break this thread into a couple of different categories:

Gamey = procedure to circumvent the intent of the game design.

Gamey example: German breaking down a division into regiments, reassigning the first regiment to the new location they want, then recombine with the entire unit (save command points moving units around).

Gambit (as used in this thread) A game strategy. In most cases, this refers to a German opening that does not follow the German historical opening. (IE, sending PG2 panzers south to help AGS on turn 1 or doing the "dash for the Rumanian border").

The difference between "Gamey" and "Gambit" is that "Gamey" specifically attempts to defeat some rule or intent of the game and if the designers had their choice, would make changes not to allow its use. A "Gambit" does not bend or break the rules, but is rather a strategy or plan that has specific objectives it wishes to accomplish. In this game, two of the biggest ones referred to are landing troops in Riga after its capture and the "dash to the Rumanian border" to put about 1/3rd of the SW front out of supply and form the mega Lvov pocket.

If players want to put restrictions on the Germans to avoid these "situations" because it is "unfair", then I need to hear about what restrictions are going on the Russians on turn 1. Perhaps requiring an immediate attack on the nearest German unit would be a good start. All Russian units would be required to be no further from the border than where they started the turn.

@gradenko_2000; The reason these strats generally work is they were designed to have enough "fluff" in them to cover most anticipated failures. What good plan does not have some contingencies for some unexpected set backs? I am fairly sure each running of the Lvov pocket strat varies and no two are ever exactly alike.

@jazman: There is a scenario editor. Make up your own alternate start so things are not "the same". Good luck trying to find a German willing to give it a try. That and the community has shown that there has been very little interest in any scenario not released as a "official" scenario.

I think they're rather related, Klydon - people pursue the Riga gambit *because* the game allows troops to be transported by ship. That the game allows for unrealistic amphibious operations is gamey, which then leads to the gambit being viable in the first place.

Now, I don't know if the rule regarding early Romanian activation was put into place was put in there specifically to incentivize players to try and get to the activation line, but again, that the rule is there is what makes the gambit an appealing strategy (coupled with the fact that, as below, it has a very good chance of being pulled off)

ORIGINAL: Klydon
@gradenko_2000; The reason these strats generally work is they were designed to have enough "fluff" in them to cover most anticipated failures. What good plan does not have some contingencies for some unexpected set backs? I am fairly sure each running of the Lvov pocket strat varies and no two are ever exactly alike.

That's mostly what I already said: There *is* some variance in the combat results, but the Germans have enough troops and the Soviets are weak enough that you can generally count on the plan working most of the time. Have we seen an AAR where either of the Riga or Lvov gambits "failed" because a combat was lost and the German didn't have enough units to cover for it.

So, the variable set up is actually a great idea, and easily accompished with the editor. And many EF games do allow a Sovier setup followed by an Axis set up and move; TRC and WWOM come to mind; let the Soviet player edit the campaign and then send it to the Azix palyer who edits it and moves.
 
1. What would the rules for editing be?
 
2. Can Riga's port value be edited down to almost zero or is it hard coded?
 
3. House rule: no Soviet amphibious operations out of the Crimea; no ampnibious operations in the snow/blizzard turns.
 
Marquo

Depends on the definition of "failure". If you consider the Russians breaking the pocket a "failure" I have seen some of those. (I do consider a broken pocket a failure because it defeats one of the big reasons of doing it in the first place and that is the immediate followup on turn 2 to reduce the pocket).

Not sure on the hard code for Riga value, but part of the issue is that the game doesn't look at how much a port can handle when offloading troops it seems.

I believe there is a much needed revamp of Russian amphibious capabilities in the Black Sea coming, so will be interesting to see what the changes are.

If players want to put restrictions on the Germans to avoid these "situations" because it is "unfair", then I need to hear about what restrictions are going on the Russians on turn 1. Perhaps requiring an immediate attack on the nearest German unit would be a good start. All Russian units would be required to be no further from the border than where they started the turn.

+1

If we were to consider the 'ahistorical gambits' used by axis players as opposed to 'ahistorical play' by soviet players I know which is by far the more deviant.

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Probably need to break this thread into a couple of different categories:

Gamey = procedure to circumvent the intent of the game design.

Gamey example: German breaking down a division into regiments, reassigning the first regiment to the new location they want, then recombine with the entire unit (save command points moving units around).

Gambit (as used in this thread) A game strategy. In most cases, this refers to a German opening that does not follow the German historical opening. (IE, sending PG2 panzers south to help AGS on turn 1 or doing the "dash for the Rumanian border").

The difference between "Gamey" and "Gambit" is that "Gamey" specifically attempts to defeat some rule or intent of the game and if the designers had their choice, would make changes not to allow its use. A "Gambit" does not bend or break the rules, but is rather a strategy or plan that has specific objectives it wishes to accomplish. In this game, two of the biggest ones referred to are landing troops in Riga after its capture and the "dash to the Rumanian border" to put about 1/3rd of the SW front out of supply and form the mega Lvov pocket.

I would revise your definitions. What you call "gamey" I would call an exploit.

What I call gamey is something well within the rules and design of the game but which would probably not have been feasible in real life (checkboard defense, Stavka touring, etc.).

I generally agree with your definition of "gambit", although I would call the "Riga gambit" gamey at best and probably an exploit. I don't think the "Lvov gambit" is an exploit, and don't really know enough to call it "gamey" or not--just because it is not what the Germans actually did does not mean it is gamey.

If some form of risk was involved in the riga gambit it might be more acceptable.
the russians did have means of interdicting any german sea movements in the bay of riga
1. shore batteries on the moon islands including a 170mm? one covering the southern channel.
A single hit on a transport and glug, glug, there goes an entire infantry regiment. The battery could have been
suppressed of course but that has risks as well.
2. russian subs. They moved the subs to Riga just before the invasion so they were in the area and difficult to sink.
Again a single sub could have caused havoc!

I like the idea of balancing the german historical restrictions with russian ones as well. No sane player is going to
behave like Stalin BUT you can simulate the command paralysis of the first week(s).

Cast your mind back to the last century and the ancient game of WITE. This had a rule which could simulate russian
command paralysis and some historical insanity.

1. on turn 1 if a unit moved on completion of movement a 6 die was rolled and the unit was displaced one hex. If the displacement
was into a enemy occupied hex the russian unit immediately attacked. on turns 2 and 3 there was a reducing chance of displacement.

2. If the russians lost a combination of Riga, Minsk, Kiev, Odessa in the first 4 turns they lost the war. This forced the russian player
to at least think some more about the running away strategy.

I do think you guys are focussing way too much on the 1st turn, which doesn't necessarily have much of an impact on the game (raise your hand if you've managed, against a capable Soviet opponent, to get as far as the Axis historically did, whilst also inflicting similar losses on the Soviets and taking similar losses as the Axis to the historical outcome), and not on the next 224.

Losing all the troops in the pockets the Axis can create with their opening move is at worst an inconvenience. You get most of them back for free, and you start with enough manpower in the pool to cover all the losses.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Losing all the troops in the pockets the Axis can create with their opening move is at worst an inconvenience. You get most of them back for free, and you start with enough manpower in the pool to cover all the losses.

when you say you get them back for free do you mean that if you didn't lose them you wouldn't get the extra units? or that you get the free units anyway

as a general comment on reading the forums (not playing) i get the impression that the Germans very rarely actually win the game whatever stategy they choose - even where they seem to do very well in the first year it seems that they still lose in the end

the Germans very rarely actually win the game whatever stategy they choose - even where they seem to do very well in the first year it seems that they still lose in the end

Well it isn't a fantasy game after all...

A couple of German players have pulled off total victories, however, very impressive!

when you say you get them back for free do you mean that if you didn't lose them you wouldn't get the extra units? or that you get the free units anyway

If you don't lose them, you would of course not get units of the same name appearing as reinforcements. The mountain divisions and possibly the cavalry divisions, as well as brigade and regiment sized units won't reappear, but the Rifle divisions will, as will the Motorized and Tank divisions (as Rifle divisions and Tank brigades).

The Riga gambit is no big deal at all. The net effect: It saves 2 Infantry divisions about 8 MP each. Hardly a game changer. I don't understand all the attention it gets. Riga should have rail service by turn 4 anyway.

The Russian Amphib capability is too great, simple house rule: Limit it to 3,000 amphib points. Blizzard landings should be allowed because they actually happened (Fedosiya, Dec 1941). Most amphib landings in game, though, end the way that one did, with a wipe-out of the Soviet troops.

I have no issue with the Lvov pocket. Is a dash to the Romanian border not historically realistic? Maybe, but neither is a pull-back by the Russians. Stalin ordered "hold fast"; if we want to be realistic, you can't move Russian units eastward the first 3 turns.

If the setup is inaccurate in the south as has been alluded to, then perhaps adjusting this will help.
 
Marquo

ORIGINAL: sanderz

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Losing all the troops in the pockets the Axis can create with their opening move is at worst an inconvenience. You get most of them back for free, and you start with enough manpower in the pool to cover all the losses.

when you say you get them back for free do you mean that if you didn't lose them you wouldn't get the extra units? or that you get the free units anyway

as a general comment on reading the forums (not playing) i get the impression that the Germans very rarely actually win the game whatever stategy they choose - even where they seem to do very well in the first year it seems that they still lose in the end

Interesting point, just how big would the russian army have got if they had not suffered all those casualties?
All those new divisions and reserve armies being created in 1941 might be mostly a response to the stream of disasters during the summer. Without the almost 3 million killed and missing in 41 would russia have maintained the historical mobilisation rate? Or would they have adopted a slower, more considered approach?

According to glantz the red army strength peaked at 6,770,000 in the 4th quarter 1944 despite all the casualties.
In the game what size are the late game russian armies. Are they seeing more than 7 million men? Is there a cap to the size of the army beyond which no more men will be mobilised until a some are killed?

Or are we seeing the game succeeding and because of that success ultimately failing as a simulation of the east front.
If the germans don't kill the 3 million in 41 they are doomed. If this is true and it probably is the game fails because no soviet player is as crazy as Stalin and all your little electronic counters are not manned by men who are willing to fight and die for every pixel on the screen.

what might be needed is a identification of just why the russians behaved as they did and what would be the consequences of doing something different. Maybe the player should be a Stavka representative and uncle joe is not there at all, except to step in now and again and shoot a few generals for giving up a couple of dozen pixels. So if you adopt a cowardly approach the army will suffer. get a few blocking detachments in there. Give up smolensk without a fight? senior general gets shot and 10% of his men get purged.

could be fun, cities must be defended by a full stack and all those little dots by at least one unit.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

The Riga gambit is no big deal at all. The net effect: It saves 2 Infantry divisions about 8 MP each. Hardly a game changer. I don't understand all the attention it gets. Riga should have rail service by turn 4 anyway.

The Russian Amphib capability is too great, simple house rule: Limit it to 3,000 amphib points. Blizzard landings should be allowed because they actually happened (Fedosiya, Dec 1941). Most amphib landings in game, though, end the way that one did, with a wipe-out of the Soviet troops.

I have no issue with the Lvov pocket. Is a dash to the Romanian border not historically realistic? Maybe, but neither is a pull-back by the Russians. Stalin ordered "hold fast"; if we want to be realistic, you can't move Russian units eastward the first 3 turns.

I agree with what you say here. Too much emphasis is being placed on what the Axis can accomplish on turn 1. Folks need to look at the long term consequences and realize what happens on turn 1 has little impact over the course of the entire game. Whether the Axis shoots for the Lvov pocket on turn 1, which by the way is risky without the aid of 2nd Panzers, or for the larger Proskorov pocket on turn 2, the loss of those units is not a death blow to the Soviets.

FYI, the amphib and transport ability will get refined in future patches. This includes the ability to transport troops into damaged ports. Both the Lvov and Riga first turn moves were being done by testers long ago. Some changes were made to make the Lvov move more difficult but it was intended so that it wasn't impossible.

There are only 2 guys that are doing any coding...Gary and Pavel, and there are plenty of priorities they have so getting things smoothed out takes time. We are down to only a couple active testers. It's summertime and most folks prefer to enjoy the good weather and considering testers are just volunteers, it's hard to keep any around for any length of time anyways.

ORIGINAL: Marquo

If the setup is inaccurate in the south as has been alluded to, then perhaps adjusting this will help.

Marquo

Actually from what I know the set-up is accurate. Pavel would have to comment on this. Joel and I moved a few units about long ago to try and slow down any Rumanian gambit, but Pavel and Trey moved units to their historical locations, and that's what we have.