Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: 76mm

...the question is how to best limit the panzers' mobility.

Exactly.

Double post.

ORIGINAL: 76mm


That's exactly what we are trying to find out. In my opinion, many of TD's suggestions in this thread (particularly concentrating in front of the panzers) are outright dangerous for Sovs playing against Germans with a certain playing style. Until we see it head-to-head, we wont' be any the wiser.

As I wrote earler my current opponent overdid it IMHO and it cost him very dear. Had me v. worried for 1st 3 turns though. I am doing checkerboard strategy in my current game but opponent has not given me a single chance to cut off his panzers in the 4 turns we have had, tho' I have been quite annoying with pocket-breaking. If he's too aggressive I will cut him off. If I'm too aggressive he will eat my cardboard.

The premise - Russians must slow the Panzers the Panzers is unarguable. The question is: how?

The best answer: know the 'good' options, and TD's is one such, and be prepared to do what will work best against your opponent. If you can also sucker him into making mistakes that will make your favoured approach work: bingo.

Also know 'the bad' options eg a full-on Sir Robinovitch. There may be times when even that may be the best option for a limited time and/or in a limited area. The aggressive approach can be good, but to do too much can lead to the massive destruction of the red army.

Conclusion: not all strategies are created equal, they all have utility and all you have to do is to keep your options open so have good chance of being able to switch when you need, and to see when you must switch in time to be able to. All this takes is practice, study of the AARs to learn what works when.

Most of all, keep an open (but not vacant) mind and don't think that any strategy is always bad or always good. Some specific tactics can aways be good (eg capture and ship troops to Riga on T1) and some general concepts almost always ( eg isolating baddies is good) but never always in every situation.

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
...be prepared to do what will work best against your opponent.

Conclusion: not all strategies are created equal, they all have utility and all you have to do is to keep your options open so have good chance of being able to switch when you need...

I completely agree, and one of my concerns with TD's posts is that he seems to be proposing that his strategy is "one-size-fits-all", which I don't believe is true...

Emir, it's just funny how you took that game (when we ALL were starting to play) and MADE it the NORM... Yes, both YOU and OLEG did that [;)] It's like you could do no wrong... I will never buy this. I find it ridiculous in the first place. I would have NEVER done that... I UTTERLY massacred my first opponent (13 German divisions + 2 brigades BEFORE mud hits, the 100% of AGN panzers included) and do you know what was my conclusion? Much more humble than yours, that's for sure... "This particular game is NOT normal, no one should draw any conclusion, which might be utterly wrong...". Go read it, it's on my first AAR. One of the last messages...

Don't worry, there is a game going on between PHD vs Jamian. Both excellent players... Let's see what the Germans are allowed to do. Because it's about this: what a competent Soviet will allow his German opponent to do...

76mm, you missed the part where I said "this will not always work"... But if you don't try it and leave the Panzers alone, yes, I would make testament.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Emir, I defend my case on MY AAR. Now if you all have decided that 2ndACR sucks, what can I say [8|] I too could say Oleg sucked big time on that game vs yourself... Did I say that? NO, that would be an outright lack of respect... And to be honest, from what I saw I didn't like the way he defended: linear defences with 2 or 3 units stacks in the front-line

You see, I cannot forget all this:

1) the game is well designed ergo the Soviets are not doomed (I trust the designers)
2) the testers have said many times the Red Army can do MANY things to slow the Germans down. Ergo, again, the Soviets are not doomed (I trust the testers aka the experts)
3) me AND other players are doing precisely this. Some of this stuff can be seen on the AAR section. Others are doing it without writing an AAR. But we know they exist because their Axis opponent are informing us about this. Somehow all these examples do not count. Ok.

NO game to prove anything, thank you. I avoid like pest these things. I only play for fun. And I mean it [;)] And believe me, I could not care less about who I will be playing: utter noob or expert, all I want is fun. And I will have it since I like this game. In fact, maybe my next opponent will be Ketza, an excellent Axis player...

You might find a Soviet tester (aka expert) interested in this "challenge"...

As Klydon perfectly understood, this was supposed to help Soviet players... Way too many games in which Leningrad and Moscow are in the bag. This should NOT be normal (again, IF the game is well designed). This should be the exception.

Fair winds [:)]

I would not put myself in the category of an excellent Axis player. I have done ok in my game against 76mm and my game against Larry was before he really learned the game. My game with 76mm started as both of our first PBEMs and if anything I made progress because he was still learning the game and we were a couple of noobs banging heads.

Right now my game against Manstein is showing me I still have more to learn as I am already seeing that I will be unable to pocket him or take advantage of mistakes because he quite simply does not make any. I will be lucky to cause him 2 mill casualties at the most before blizzard. Industry wise I have destroyed very little.

I actually think at this point I am a much better Soviet player. I have had 5 different Axis opponents quit or surrender on me before turn 10. One lasted to turn 18 and surrendered. My second game as a Soviet taught me a lot against Blurking. He spanked me pretty hard to the point I surrendered.

Overall its hard to match up opponents in this game. There is no ladder or rating system which leads to mismatches and sometimes frustration.

Sillyflower, the problem is you don't have a lot of options... You only have two in fact:

a) either you face the panzers
or
b) either you leave them alone

I'm saying you better do a)... Now feel free to do b)...

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Emir, it's just funny how you took that game (when we ALL were starting to play) and MADE it the NORM... Yes, both YOU and OLEG did that [;)] It's like you could do no wrong...

It is even more funny how you are avoiding essence of what other people are trying to tell you. I never said or claimed my game is norm. Also, please pay attention - when I'm discussing your "active defence tactic" I am using "possibly" wrong (I even bold it). Also, I said "I'm not 100% sure who is right and think it would be interesting to check this out" etc... But you are acting like you received ten WitE commandments from Mt. Sinai.

I think the premise could be summed up as "Think before you run away, as you can achieve important things by surging in to fight where appropriate."

I think one of the things to perhaps keep in mind here is we have seen several AAR's where the Germans are getting Pskov on turn 2 or 3.

Trying to defend Leningrad (which has pretty much been a major target in just about every AAR I have seen except 1 recently) and the amount of times it is falling is an indicator that some discussion/tactics for the Russians is in order I think (much like there were discussions for the opening turn). Trying to stop a determined German advance that starts on turn 4 in Pskov (meaning there are still 12 turns to go until mud) short of Leningrad is a tall order, so the first obvious thing is to try to figure out how to delay the Germans from getting to Pskov so fast in such strength seems to be a prudent discussion as well.

I believe TD has noticed all this and has come up with what he thinks is a workable idea. Like most ideas in this game, there is no absolute it will work every time and against every opponent, BUT it is an alternative to what we have been seeing in most of the AARs where the Germans face very little opposition west of Pskov. It makes sense to try something different in order to keep the Germans from breaking out so fast from Pskov towards Leningrad or pulling a right hook.

Part of the question may also be can the Russians hold Leningrad against a really good Axis player who is determined to take it? The answer may be no unless other factors (like random weather) come into play.

ORIGINAL: Emir Agic

"I'm not 100% sure who is right and think it would be interesting to check this out"

I am 100% sure that IF you ignore the panzers you are doomed... It's all I need to know. I can do 2 + 2, thank you, no need to go to the Mount Sinai... [:D] And that's what I want the Soviet players to understand. That's in fact the goal of this thread, started by me.

And then you came with your screenshot which had nothing to do with the ESSENCE of this strategy... Yes, you must always try to cut enemy units off, this we all know, but E S P E C I A L L Y on the first turns of the Blitzkrieg. The ultimate goal? Buy time to bring and prepare a PROPER defence. That's the thesis defended by me. And I suspect most people would agree.

That screenhost was minimum turn 7 or 8, I suspect... panzers backed by infantry. As opposed to the initial turns... In the end what were you trying to say? "Nah! You will not cut my forces off!". Big deal... Was that particular situation supposed to prove it's IMPOSSIBLE to cut enemy units off? I doubt it (experience -other players, the reality- show the opposite). Then why the screenshot? [;)] Perhaps, again, you just came here to say that "you will not cut my forces off"? Ok, I will not cut them off. You are somewhat special. Happy now? I just need to cut my current opponent's forces off by the way. It's all I need, so don't worry

If you still have doubts you will need to find a competent Soviet player (not me, for sure)...

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the question may also be can the Russians hold Leningrad against a really good Axis player who is determined to take it? The answer may be no unless other factors (like random weather) come into play.

Klydon, the "really determined" German thing has been said many times. Let's remember dialectics, as they are useful here. Determined German push? Ok. MASSIVE Soviet defence... Action... reaction. That's what many people tend to forget. To add another essential factor in the equation: the Soviets that is [:)] If they don't add them then yes, who would stop these "determined Germans"?

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the question may also be can the Russians hold Leningrad against a really good Axis player who is determined to take it? The answer may be no unless other factors (like random weather) come into play.

Klydon, the "really determined" German thing has been said many times. Let's remember dialectics, as they are useful here. Determined German push? Ok. MASSIVE Soviet defence... Action... reaction. That's what many people tend to forget. To add another essential factor in the equation: the Soviets that is [:)] If they don't add them then yes, who would stop these "determined Germans"?

If the German player shifts 2nd and 3rd Panzers north along with reinforcing 18th Army, there's not much the Soviet player can do to save Leningrad. The trade off though is Moscow will be safe as will much of the center.

I've always used an active defense, but again you can over do it at the expense of what your other goals might be.

The checkerboard, which is just one part of this style of defense, is designed to slow down the Germans. It can't stop them. It was created out of necessity due to the lack of units in the early war period. In military terms, it is an economy of force type strategy where you use minimum forces to delay the enemy. The whole purpose is to slow them down enough so the more traditional type of linear in-depth defense can be created and entrenched.

The other aspects of an active defense include infiltration to cut supply, counter-attack when possible, deception, diversions, and feints. Also using your air is important here. Too many folks take all their air and hide it in the reserves. You need your air recon out there as well as your fighters and tactical bombers.

Myself and Pieter (ComradeP) who is one of our testers too, will be starting a new 41 Campaign using our latest test patch within the next couple days. I will play as the Germans and he the Soviets. He has a very good grasp of how to play the Soviets so it should prove interesting, plus I'm sure he has a few tricks up his sleeve. I'm not sure if this will be posted on the public forum though, that will be up to Joel.

ORIGINAL: Sabre21

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

ORIGINAL: Klydon
Part of the question may also be can the Russians hold Leningrad against a really good Axis player who is determined to take it? The answer may be no unless other factors (like random weather) come into play.

Klydon, the "really determined" German thing has been said many times. Let's remember dialectics, as they are useful here. Determined German push? Ok. MASSIVE Soviet defence... Action... reaction. That's what many people tend to forget. To add another essential factor in the equation: the Soviets that is [:)] If they don't add them then yes, who would stop these "determined Germans"?

The other aspects of an active defense include infiltration to cut supply, counter-attack when possible, deception, diversions, and feints. Also using your air is important here. Too many folks take all their air and hide it in the reserves. You need your air recon out there as well as your fighters and tactical bombers.

To be honest most Germans dont leave the Soviets any planes to hide anyway, but I never hide my recon planes as they are to valuable not to have any eyes out there in the opening turns.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
76mm, you missed the part where I said "this will not always work"... But if you don't try it and leave the Panzers alone, yes, I would make testament.

I didn't miss anything. You pretty clearly seem to be saying that your way is the only viable strategy, and that the only alternative to your strategy is "ignoring the panzers":

Sillyflower, the problem is you don't have a lot of options... You only have two in fact:

a) either you face the panzers
or
b) either you leave them alone

I disagree that these are the only two options, there is a whole range of options in between. While I guess "ignoring the panzers" is the essence of a "Sir Robinski" (I've never understood the reference, but whatever...) strategy I don't recall anyone defending this strategy lately.

I also disagree with your "dialectic" analogy. The fact is that in 1941 the German action is much more powerful than the Sov reaction. While I cannot say that Lgrad is impossible to defend against a determined German player, it certainly looks very difficult, whatever strategy you adopt. Since your games many of the German players have really improved their opening moves.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
While I guess "ignoring the panzers" is the essence of a "Sir Robinski" (I've never understood the reference, but whatever...) strategy I don't recall anyone defending this strategy lately.

With regard to the continuing reference, it is from the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". Here is a YouTube link you can follow to show the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYFefppq ... re=related

Edited a better version in the link.

haha, haven't seen that movie in years, forgot that scene.

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

Sillyflower, the problem is you don't have a lot of options... You only have two in fact:

a) either you face the panzers
or
b) either you leave them alone

I'm saying you better do a)... Now feel free to do b)...

If you leave panzers alone, eventually they'll come to you...so it's really more like "face the panzers now" or let them come to you.

What interests me about this forward checkerboarding ( if I dare call it that ) is not only the German rate of progress but also Soviet losses that happen from it, compared to what happens from a different D strategy.

I'm a checkerboarding Russian player.

Two things that I've noticed in both my games so far (apologies to both my opponents for my slow play btw!) is that checkerboarding results in a minimum of three million Russian casulties (which I think means the game is balanced according to folk on here). It does work though

The second thing is that HQ build up can cause you massive problems if used correctly, and then is despite checkerboarding