Matrix Games Forums

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.

The key difference here is that if we put both of them side-by-side in the context of having no political, only physical and temporal limits to what the armed forces of each side can do, then the Soviets making an orderly withdrawal is plausible (as is the Lvov gambit), whereas it remains just as unlikely for the Germans to have been able to use Riga as a major port of debarkation even if Hitler did not exist.

If a tactic is "gamey" I would think that some one would have developed an equally "gamey" response to combat it if it is really impacting game play to a significant level. It is odd how much people which to change the game and not adopt different tactics and strategdy. JMHO

in addition just wondering, if you know exactly what a first turn move is for your opponent doesn't that make your planning more focused and possibly more impactful?

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

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).

Sorry, but just to be clear i think you are saying that you get the extra units no matter how high or low actual casualties are. So it is worthwhile pocketing units and destroying them - cos if not that would seem a little lame, not to say disheartening for the German player.

thanks

No you wouldn't get the additional units. The reinforcements you'll get are those units that entered service in the historical 'x' date and those (as Soviets) destroyed by end of September 41 (except units caveated by comradep before) will come back as shells.

I think the first turn is incredibly important for the Germans, but perhaps not in a way of what most people think of. In any campaign, there are decision points that go a long way to determining who wins and who loses the war. Sometimes the decision tree is "make the right move" and you get to continue to play in a situation where the outcome is in doubt while a wrong decision results in your eventual loss (or goes a long way to dooming you to a loss). In my thinking, the Germans absolutely need a good turn 1 to get the offensive rolling. Failure to do so means they will either face a stronger Russian army than necessary and/or they do not get to the territorial objectives they need to get to in order to set up potential success in the following turns.

This is not to say that if the Germans have a bad turn 1, the Russians will be in Berlin in 1942. It is to say that with a lot of AARs, Germans having a "bad" turn 1 usually don't last long.

Since the game begins with the same starting positions for everyone I don't see it as gamey for the german first move.  Once the entire WW2 game comes out then both sides will have the opportunity to modify their starting positions.  But since this will be an "issue" what I would like to see is:

1.  Soviets have the opportunity to move units around but within limits, ie, A front has X units and Y of these units have to be deployed within certain boundary limits with Z number on the border. 
2.  Germans then modify their starting positions.

The 'gamey' tactic that bugs me is the ability for the russians to run away and save their armies with no penalty for them doing this.  I would advocate a change to russian morale, as more land/cities/towns they give up the lower their morale gets.  Now I have had a hard time killing/capturing more then 3.5 million soviets before blizzard and the soviet army gets huge in 42.  I do think it is a viable tactic for the soviets to withdraw since we don't have any Stalin idiot rules but having some sort of penalty to do this should be applied.  This topic has been vigorously discussed before.

if some of Guderian's forces move into AGS domain wouldn't that really mean those forces should be attached to a AGS Panzer Korps or 1st Panzer Army?  The Command and Control (realistically) would be sort of interesting if this really happened.  Guderian down south is additional pressure on gaminess and exploitation of the game at the beginning...and where do we stand between game and simulation?  There is so much detail in the game with leaders and attachments and the like, that I'm leaning more towards simulation as the way to go...if we go anywhere.    Such as move would also increase supply requirements in the AGS area.

Open cockpits in winter:
The Hs 123 was the last German plane to still fly in worst winter weather, and it was open.

Soviet amphibious operations:
Did happen during Crimean campaign.

>Soviet amphibious operations:
>Did happen during Crimean campaign
 
But not into the Roumania or the Ukraine...
 
Marquo

In the end I am happy if a move or strategy is within the realm of possibility. No matter how remote. A big part of the fun of the game for me is trying out new ideas. I have worked out a new ploy that I beleive is better than the Lvov pocket on turn one. I am itching to try it in my next game as axis.

I would suggest if you are a 'historical' only type player then let potential opponents know before hand and impose some rigid guidelines. But thats not for me. I am generally ok with anything that is allowable within the rules as written. The only thing I would object to is a bug that allows an abuse of a well intended rule.

I guess it is essentially a gray area.  From the manual, which is not to hold to anything exactly;  


2.2. THE GAME
Gary Grigsby’s War in the East is a turn based simulation of the Eastern Front in World War
Two from June 1941 to September 1945. As the Axis or Soviet player, you take the role of
the military High Command to use the forces available to you to execute the conflict at the
strategic and operational levels of war. The game is an “Alternate History Creator” that focuses
on simulating the logistic and command and control problems that the historical commanders
on the Eastern Front had to deal with. It will allow players to explore many of the strategic and
operational “What ifs” that have been discussed by historians and armchair strategists for
many years. As such, economic and research based “what ifs” are not the focus.

I guess I am just feeling a little depressed about it.   I, for one, would like to play in just a bit tighter frame-work of historical parameters of
leaders, chain-of-command, supply, doctrine, and other factors, and not get gamed on either side.   I would love to see some RISK in the gambits and that
they could fail and have consequences, things like that, with increased historical FOW. 

It is a wonderful game and I do support it fully.

I think there are still a lot of other general fixes we will get over the months to come anyway.

ORIGINAL: Michael T

In the end I am happy if a move or strategy is within the realm of possibility. No matter how remote. A big part of the fun of the game for me is trying out new ideas. I have worked out a new ploy that I beleive is better than the Lvov pocket on turn one. I am itching to try it in my next game as axis.

I would suggest if you are a 'historical' only type player then let potential opponents know before hand and impose some rigid guidelines. But thats not for me. I am generally ok with anything that is allowable within the rules as written. The only thing I would object to is a bug that allows an abuse of a well intended rule.

I totally agree[8D]

ORIGINAL: entwood

2.2. THE GAME
The game is an “Alternate History Creator” .

I would have to wonder about that particular statement. If it's alternate history shouldn't you be able to do some things that were not historical and so not suffer the historical consequences of a historical action that you DID NOT take? Perhaps too many historical events are hard coded.

Didn't I run a topic almost exactly like this a few weeks back? Boring Turn 1 Moves?
 
In the end I decided that the game needs a lot of work on the supply model, and some other meaningful potential objectives for the Germans in the early part of the game (right now its "take cities, kill Russians, and then after the summer of 1942, try to keep the Russians out of Berlin").
 
Oh, and the Industrial Evacuation is too easy for the Russians.
 
I find the complaints about pockets amusing because historically there were a whole bunch of pockets which accounted for a LOT of captured Russians (but also accounted for German casualties as they didn't just surrender as soon as they were surrounded). In this game, you get the Lvov pocket, and a number of smaller pockets, but you will never see the likes of the Minsk and Kiev pockets after the initial Lvov pocket. And as has been pointed out, the Lvov pocket doesn't exactly cost the Russians the game, it simply prevents them from crushing the Germans too quickly.
 

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
I find the complaints about pockets amusing because historically there were a whole bunch of pockets which accounted for a LOT of captured Russians (but also accounted for German casualties as they didn't just surrender as soon as they were surrounded). In this game, you get the Lvov pocket, and a number of smaller pockets, but you will never see the likes of the Minsk and Kiev pockets after the initial Lvov pocket. And as has been pointed out, the Lvov pocket doesn't exactly cost the Russians the game, it simply prevents them from crushing the Germans too quickly.

Ahem.

I have made the Kiev Pocket in several games, once netting about 500k prisoners. I have also made the Stalino Pocket, the Kaluga Pocket, the Corner Pocket, and the "Wooded area between Vyazma and Moscow" Pocket.

They can be done...

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

ORIGINAL: neuromancer
I find the complaints about pockets amusing because historically there were a whole bunch of pockets which accounted for a LOT of captured Russians (but also accounted for German casualties as they didn't just surrender as soon as they were surrounded). In this game, you get the Lvov pocket, and a number of smaller pockets, but you will never see the likes of the Minsk and Kiev pockets after the initial Lvov pocket. And as has been pointed out, the Lvov pocket doesn't exactly cost the Russians the game, it simply prevents them from crushing the Germans too quickly.

Ahem.

I have made the Kiev Pocket in several games, once netting about 500k prisoners. I have also made the Stalino Pocket, the Kaluga Pocket, the Corner Pocket, and the "Wooded area between Vyazma and Moscow" Pocket.

They can be done...

Not to mention the Leningrad Pocket, the Volkhov Pocket, and for devotees of the extreme Right Hook, the Svir Pocket

Don't forget the Moscow Pocket. Also the "Hot Pocket". A source of food, for those inside looking out.

If I can't pocket the Soviets, I surround the Romanians.

ORIGINAL: WarHunter

Don't forget the Moscow Pocket. Also the "Hot Pocket". A source of food, for those inside looking out.

[:D][:D][:D]

How about taking a "Fortress Europa" type approach to the game? Allow a scenario type that allows for a variable setup from each of the players. You could limit this to select army groups or what have you in given 'regions'. Allow the Soviets to place their units first followed by an Axis placement. If you play with FOW then this could make for some very interesting positioning. In order to prevent repetition and predictability, the game could randomize the select units that can be custom placed. Just an idea.

EDIT: Yeah just realized this idea has been pitched before. *doh!* I should have known...