Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
Actually there is a common condition with a name where people do see numbers as having colour

My daughter says numbers have colors and she is really convinced about this! lol!

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
...having them play each side does not mean they are controlled for ability.

Indeed. And furthermore a player always learns new things, so it can be argued that he gets better with each games, and not necessarily at the same speed as his opponent.

ORIGINAL: Bitburger
But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?

You got an interesting point, close to the one Matt makes if I understand both of you correctly, and others said things along the same lines, and you guys could be right of course. That said, I really don't know, because most AAR never get to that point, at least not in recent times!!! So I made this reflection on things I heard and my limited experience and it's really hard to get more scientific than that.

But that brings us back to the idea that it heavily depends on both players abilities, so it's the same story here

ORIGINAL: Bitburger

But when i see the loss of Moskow in an AAR, well, can anyone show me one where the Russian was able to get to Berlin in time?

I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.

Loss of Moscow&Red Reaurgance:: See Smokindave vs BrianG

ORIGINAL: Wixit

I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss

again, not saying you're wrong, but those kind of things heavily depends on the level of play of each opponent. And WitE is a really hard game to master.

I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.

That particular city = loss of 100 manpower, most likely a lot of factories, 15% of total rail capacity not to mention try using the rails to shift troops along the front without going through Moscow. Further, stopping the Germans say 10 hexes west of Moscow versus 10 hexes east is a 20 hex difference which could be as much as 10-20 turns longer to get to Berlin. It doesn't make it impossible to get to Berlin, but it sure is a sharp stick in the eye and definitely a game changer.

ORIGINAL: MattFL

loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity

First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

ORIGINAL: MattFL

I think I'll manage to do it, having just finished overrunning Hungary in Jan '44, but the AAR is on the Paradox Off Topic forum. While I'm not particularly experienced I don't see why losing that city in particular would cause a loss that stopping the Germans 5 or 10 hexes away would avoid.

That particular city = loss of 100 manpower, most likely a lot of factories, 15% of total rail capacity not to mention try using the rails to shift troops along the front without going through Moscow. Further, stopping the Germans say 10 hexes west of Moscow versus 10 hexes east is a 20 hex difference which could be as much as 10-20 turns longer to get to Berlin. It doesn't make it impossible to get to Berlin, but it sure is a sharp stick in the eye and definitely a game changer.

Highlighting additional hexes taken works against your point: it's the 10 or 20 extra hexes that actually hurt, not the loss of the city itself, and taking part of the Moscow-Ryazan rail has the same effect on redeployment. And while moving through Arzamas is not a short detour how often do you really shift troops to and from Leningrad? The vast majority of the front and anything useful is south of Moscow along with prime tank country as opposed to the heavy woods and swamps of the north.

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.

ORIGINAL: Wixit

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.

That fact is also one of the main reason of this thread. Loosing Moscow is not such a big deal in this game, and to me that is very wrong. I have had many discussions on this with Telemecus and others, and not everyone agrees with me, but I believe that OKH assumptions were right, Moscow was the key to the edifice and loosing it would have meant a really rough time politically for Stalin and the Soviet regime. He had starved the population in the thirties with his 5 year plans to build a modern army bigger than any other in the world, and then looses Moscow in 6 months? That would have meant a lot of friction from the top to the bottom for sure!

ORIGINAL: Wixit

Highlighting additional hexes taken works against your point: it's the 10 or 20 extra hexes that actually hurt, not the loss of the city itself, and taking part of the Moscow-Ryazan rail has the same effect on redeployment. And while moving through Arzamas is not a short detour how often do you really shift troops to and from Leningrad? The vast majority of the front and anything useful is south of Moscow along with prime tank country as opposed to the heavy woods and swamps of the north.

I'm not saying it doesn't hurt, but at the end of the day it's just a city like any other.

Oh goodness. "Moscow is just a city." Well, technically that's true. But in practical terms...not so much.

Just for clarity to be sure we're talking about the same thing, particulary when you say "anything useful is south of Moscow", what part of the game (i.e. year) are you referring to?

ORIGINAL: joelmar

ORIGINAL: MattFL
loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity

First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!

I think many players do not realise how dispersed manpower is, and why we should stop thinking about cities as capturing manpower. Capture a lot of those size 3 and 4 towns and it really does add up. You can see for example the map I made which is uploaded to the library of WitE resources (see 2.4 1942 offensive plan tm.asp?m=4317692 ). In it I started circling regions of the map that would commonly be conquered together and counting all the manpower centres including cities and villages (numbers in green) - and it changed my view of what is important. For example, although Baku is a big city there is not a lot around there or on the way there. So in manpower terms a summer spent attacking towards Baku is wasted. And similarly conquering regions with a lot of villages could easily add up to more than the big cities. Admittedly there are a lot of towns around Moscow too - but it also shows that capturing a salient up to and including Moscow is not the best manpower capture you could have made.

An old sudden death house rule was that it would be an Axis win if you captured 2 out of 3 of Leningrad, Moscow, or both Voronezh and Rostov. This has fallen out of favour. But it does show some players thought at least Leningrad, Voronezh and Rostov together was worth more than Moscow.

Wixit's game would have been a sudden death Axis victory by this rule, and yet Soviet forces are now in the Reich in 1944 with a good chance of a decisive victory. We can see the Axis player was good enough to "beat" his opponent in 1941, but the Wixit good enough to win a decisive victory later in the game. And the game probably has lasted the distance because both players have seen it as a competitive game to carry on with.

ORIGINAL: joelmar
And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

We started to pick up how susceptible rail was to strat bombing in the 8MP game - and how much easier it is to attack as does not necessarily have the flak of cities. I think this may be a strat of game to come ..

I suppose we can debate how important Moscow was to communist rule historically. The administration had already been moved to Kazan by the end of 1941 and the communist party had conducted a civil war where who held Moscow was not too relevant. So I think the same civil war experience would have been replicated in 1941 - the communists would have continued to hold power with or without Moscow. But I do think the game does not model well its importance logistically for instance in rail transportation.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
...communist party had conducted a civil war where who held Moscow was not too relevant

That might be true, but I'm talking about a crisis that would have arised inside the communist party, the army and the population in general had Moscow been lost. Also from all I remember about the German High command opting for Moscow, it was more a question of it being the communication hub and link between north and south than a administration thing. Also, between the Bolchevik revolution and the war, a lot of things had changed in the economic and infrastructures of the country, I wonder if both can be compared?

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Wixit's game would have been a sudden death Axis victory by this rule, and yet Soviet forces are now in the Reich in 1944 with a good chance of a decisive victory. We can see the Axis player was good enough to "beat" his opponent in 1941, but the Wixit good enough to win a decisive victory later in the game. And the game probably has lasted the distance because both players have seen it as a competitive game to carry on with.

That is really cool and really shows the complexity of this game.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus
We started to pick up how susceptible rail was to strat bombing in the 8MP game

yes, your comments about that were what made me realize the possibilities of attacking the railyards

ORIGINAL: joelmar

ORIGINAL: MattFL

loss of 100 manpower... 15% of total rail capacity

First time I hear or see you bother about manpower! 100 is 1/40th of the manpower capacity of Soviet Union, so it's not that much of a big deal in itself, but still a sizable chunk that anyone will be happy to swallow!

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

And talking about rail capacity I realized this week that is where I should have hit you with strat bombing instead of Arms.

[:D][:D][:D][:D] I'm not usually bothered by manpower losses so long as I hold Lenningrad and Moscow. [;)]

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

Can I ask what was the gross Soviet OOB? Manpower , AFV, and Artillery? Greater than 7M?

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.

ORIGINAL: MattFL

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.

Both were lost in '41 with Leningrad lost first, and there is literally nothing else north of Moscow worth defending and so everything that was there was railed elsewhere and the entire front effectively abandoned until sufficient units were rebuilt and refit to reopen it. A brutal winter counteroffensive and a few lucky breaks - won't spoil it for any new readers - saw me rapidly advancing earlier than expected.

The Soviets themselves thought losing Moscow was not the end of the world, and based on the way this game models it I'm inclined to agree. They would likely have lost a WitE game, but they would have won the war.

ORIGINAL: MattFL

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I am the Axis Player in Wixits game and I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game. Combined with the very deceisive Victory at Leningrad (Which freed up an entire soviet front to go to Moscow) cost me the game in 42. I was way to focused on not letting go of Moscow and its surroundings that I both stripped the South of to many forces and forced my army into a slugging match it shouldnt have gone into. Had I just fallen back, preserved my fighting power and then refocued on 42 I would have very likely fared much much better.

Just so I understand this correctly, you took Moscow in 41 and Lenningrad in 42? It's interesting that you feel you lost the game in '42 as '42 should be when you are still pressing decisively east. Unless you mean you took both Moscow and Lenningrad in '42 which would I think explain a lot because it would mean you took neither in '41....

Just curious.

Here is what I am suspecting that happened .. Axis went hell bent for objectives and did not surround, isolate, and destroy Soviet units. The Soviet Army even without Moscow and Leningrad grew to some size that in late 1942 was able to steamroll the Germans. If true .. it reinforces my belief that it is a combination of isolation and objectives to win this game as the Germans.

ORIGINAL: MattFL
I'm not usually bothered by manpower losses so long as I hold Lenningrad and Moscow.

lol! I guess you are entitled to! That said... Moscow is not safe yet, there is still time so wait a little for the champagne!

ORIGINAL: GoodbyeBluesky

I have to say that I attached way to much importance to Moscow during our game

honest comment thank you, so in the case of your game getting back to Berlin in 1944 is more down to your strategic mistake than to the normal flow of the game if it was played without mistakes. Your comment tells me you learned from it, which is what it's all about Same happened to me in my game against Matt, the main reason I know for sure I won't take Leningrad in 1941 is because of too slow decision making and too much caution, the mark of the newbie. I should have gone ruthlessly for the Luga from turn 4 and I didn't before turn 7 I think. Add to this that Matt is a no non-sense player with a solid understanding of strategic and tactic concepts, and all the ingredients were there for failure. So now it's a slug march and I doubt I will get much farther than the Luga. But I learned... And there is still a good possibility at Moscow, even though I was also too slow to get there.

For Moscow. The thing is once it's taken, the damage is done, there is no need to hold it indefinitely. I think it is better to take a leaf from Clausewitz in this, unless there is a big strategic implication, holding territory is rarely important, better think in terms of positionning and managing your troops. So if I take it before first blizzard there are good chances that I will give it back a few turns later.

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Here is what I am suspecting that happened .. Axis went hell bent for objectives and did not surround, isolate, and destroy Soviet units.

Well... this might be of course in the case of Goodbyebluesky and Wixit game, I don't know the details so I will leave them to say...

But it's not necessarily the case. In my game against Matt, he just ran away, always staying near the end of my leash except at Pskov where he has dug in deep and early, so result, there was never any chance of pocketing units after turn 1. So all I got were crumbs here and there. And now his OOB is near 4.5 millions on turn 14, and grows fast. And he says he still has a high manpower pool and arms points which is expected. And I didn't take Leningrad which was the main focus of his defense and even though I am 2 hexes from Moscow. He's solidly dug in there also so it's not certain I will get there yet. Time is running short and I probably will have to rely on a winter offensive in november if I see a possibility.

But even if I take it, he will start blizzard with a massive OOB and I will have my hands full.

ORIGINAL: Wixit
The Soviets themselves thought losing Moscow was not the end of the world

They might have said so, but I have never read it anywhere, which proves nothing of course. But history tells us they made it the priority of their defensive system, sending all their best units there and working feverishly to dig in to deny the Germans getting there, so maybe not the end of the world, but certainly not a benign thing!