Matrix Games Forums

In real life 2 of the 3 front were demolished from the getgo. The Lvov gambit turns it into 3.

Yep, and the 2 out of 3 fronts were hopelessly outnumbered and unprepared. This wasn't the case for the 3rd one since the south axis is where the Soviet expected the main blow and where they concentrated most of their forces. Only the magic of first player first turn IGO YGO make it different.

It's a little strange to see people saying nothing should change because we don't want to script the German 1st turn whereas there are a ton of special rules in place on this turn to allow the Germans to do as good or better as historically.

I think Flavius managed to formulate nicely on the mark why there is good reason to discuss the 1st turn issue with the Lvov pocket. To me it seemed so far only to change the dynamics in the south (i.e. a big pocket immediately, and only small ones later). But he is right that this must consequently influence the op-tempo in the south.
At least if the goal is to reach a close-to-realistic(~history) experience with the engine, thinking about this openly should be independent of which side you prefer. After all, who wants to win, no matter what side or whether due to a 2:1 rule or anything else, just knowing that it was only due to smart (mis-)use of game mechanics?

I would support Bletchley_Geek suggestions for putting on the wishlist -- I think a reaction option would be neat to counter the static nature of the long I-Go-U-Go turns and would enable something like meeting engagements and block moves. Whether feasible, or whether there are more pressing issues, is developer decision, but finding a concept and putting it on the wishlist won't do damage.

ORIGINAL: Rafo
It's a little strange to see people saying nothing should change because we don't want to script the German 1st turn whereas there are a ton of special rules in place on this turn to allow the Germans to do as good or better as historically.

Ah, presently, with a static behavior of one side during the turn of the other, you can easily script the 1st turn -- Flavius pointed this out for a "historic" first turn above. You could think of a set of different scripts, say one with an extra Pz.-Korps for AGS, one with historic staging, etc. And implement the ideal moves for each of them. Then the first turn of a GC for the Germans could be just selecting the one of choice, and watching it being performed by the book -- every time. Acknowledgments should go the original author who optimized it, and the player for successfully copying it. And the real challenge starts after the 1st Russian turn.

What about the fact that Kiev's 600,000 prisoners is never going to happen?
How, exactly, does that impact the delay of operations in the South, Flavius?
Might I remind everyone that the Germans took Rostov in 1941...

I thought it was you who yesterday was arguing that there is a tradeoff for the Germans in that parts of 6th and 17th Armies can end up 4 turns behind their historical advance as they try to destroy this Lvov pocket.

I can show you a screenshot of a game of mine on Turn 8 where I have 2 corps of 17th Army, 1 of which is a little west of Krivoi Rog and the other is barely east of the Romanian NE frontier, because I had to chase SEC brigades around the Hungarian mountains at 1 hex a turn.

Two more points:
1) Half of the Soviet AARs I see still advocate taking the strong units from SW front and railing them north towards Leningrad on Turn 1. If you guys end up stealing more advantage from the Axis via this unctuous whining about the Soviet not moving first on Turn 1, I want all rail prohibited of Soviet units west of the Dnepr for the first 3 turns. You f@ckers can stand and fight all along the front like Stalin expected.

2) We all know that no matter what changes you make to TUrn 1, Soviets are going to run to Kiev and D-town as fast as they damn-well can, no matter how many pop centers there are there, and the Germans will be denied what they accomplished in the first 8 weeks of the war. So start planning how you're going to take something away from the Soviets while you're busy trying to ensure the Germans can't actually you know, challenge you.

I made no such argument. You've got me confused with somebody else.

heliodorus, you make a lot of assumptions couched as facts that are not born out all the time. Players have made huge Kiev pockets, not all players run to the Dnepr bend, nor do all do such things as send a front to Leningrad. I understand, this is called "overplaying your hand" but it does make it a bit less insightful.

While we have seen a lot of players cut and run as the Soviets, the more experienced know this is not the best play. While it is in the interest of the Soviet players to avoid large encirclements, it is not always possible (and given the deteriorating nature of their army after turns 8-10 perhaps even likely) to avoid.

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

heliodorus, you make a lot of assumptions couched as facts that are not born out all the time. Players have made huge Kiev pockets, not all players run to the Dnepr bend, nor do all do such things as send a front to Leningrad. I understand, this is called "overplaying your hand" but it does make it a bit less insightful.

While we have seen a lot of players cut and run as the Soviets, the more experienced know this is not the best play. While it is in the interest of the Soviet players to avoid large encirclements, it is not always possible (and given the deteriorating nature of their army after turns 8-10 perhaps even likely) to avoid.

I make assertions, not assumptions. My assertions have the weight of multiple AARs to back them up, and I could cite them if necessary.

In 1.04, bagging all that crap in the Lvov pocket had no noticeable effect on Soviet players' ability to bash the hell out of the German army as soon as 1942. So I would like to assert that the Soviet players are doing nothing more than whining. Even losing all those "elite, best of the best" Soviet force, Soviets were crushing Germans far faster than history.

If people want to discuss the Lvov pocket's effect on 1.05, let's wait for at least 10 AARs to get to 1942, and then we'll parse the data.

This is a non-problem problem, or at least it was under 1.04. Complaining about it makes Soviet players look foolish, IMO. I don't know why it would be a bigger problem under 1.05, but I'm willing to listen.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

heliodorus, you make a lot of assumptions couched as facts that are not born out all the time. Players have made huge Kiev pockets, not all players run to the Dnepr bend, nor do all do such things as send a front to Leningrad. I understand, this is called "overplaying your hand" but it does make it a bit less insightful.

While we have seen a lot of players cut and run as the Soviets, the more experienced know this is not the best play. While it is in the interest of the Soviet players to avoid large encirclements, it is not always possible (and given the deteriorating nature of their army after turns 8-10 perhaps even likely) to avoid.

I make assertions, not assumptions. My assertions have the weight of multiple AARs to back them up, and I could cite them if necessary.

In 1.04, bagging all that crap in the Lvov pocket had no noticeable effect on Soviet players' ability to bash the hell out of the German army as soon as 1942. So I would like to assert that the Soviet players are doing nothing more than whining. Even losing all those "elite, best of the best" Soviet force, Soviets were crushing Germans far faster than history.

If people want to discuss the Lvov pocket's effect on 1.05, let's wait for at least 10 AARs to get to 1942, and then we'll parse the data.

This is a non-problem problem, or at least it was under 1.04. Complaining about it makes Soviet players look foolish, IMO. I don't know why it would be a bigger problem under 1.05, but I'm willing to listen.

What about the fact that Kiev's 600,000 prisoners is never going to happen?

Assumption - I can give you off the top of my head 3 1.04 AARs/Games that had Kiev Pockets. Pelton had perhaps the largest, what looked to be 100+ divisions in his entire marshes across to Bryansk Pocket. I pocketed 50+ divisions against Pawlock, Tarhunnas had similar large pockets. You assert a totality that does not exist, it is an assumption. I expect the counter to be "those were against poor players," but yet I bagged 30+ in my AAR against JAMIAM around Kiev. It is possible, with good play against good players.

1) Half of the Soviet AARs I see still advocate taking the strong units from SW front and railing them north towards Leningrad on Turn 1. If you guys end up stealing more advantage from the Axis via this unctuous whining about the Soviet not moving first on Turn 1, I want all rail prohibited of Soviet units west of the Dnepr for the first 3 turns. You f@ckers can stand and fight all along the front like Stalin expected.

And oddly enough those AARs show poor play and losing by the Soviets. It is when they tighten up, slow down the Axis, and actually defend that they are not sliced up. You make the mistake of assuming that numbers is the deciding factor, when in reality it is the results. Against a new Axis player, running is wonderful as they do not know how to handle their army. But even a relatively new Axis player with a few games under their belt can bust this.

2) We all know that no matter what changes you make to TUrn 1, Soviets are going to run to Kiev and D-town as fast as they damn-well can, no matter how many pop centers there are there, and the Germans will be denied what they accomplished in the first 8 weeks of the war. So start planning how you're going to take something away from the Soviets while you're busy trying to ensure the Germans can't actually you know, challenge you.

Again, they lose. See my AAR against JAMIAM (yes, the one where I did make a Kiev Pocket) to see how a determined defense in the Ukraine will bleed the panzers white, and make any "last 6 turns" of the season dash impossible.

.
.
.
In short, you make assumptions based on a totality that is rather bellicosely stated, one which uses combative language to assert the authority of your argument. However, there are examples that show you to not be always correct, and therefore you are left with misstated positions and that combative language, a far weaker place from which to argue.

While raising issues and concerns does good work, claiming things as absolutes does not. I understand the nature of the internet is to do such, and the language follows: combative, over-assertive, and at times mean spirited. This does little good in actually figuring out the problems and the solutions unless one is to believe they have all the answers and just need the idiots reading the posts to understand.

There is no ill will in this post. There is a call for a reasoned, calm, and thought out process in which to discuss such things. Many times, upon reflection, there are better ways to hash out a point. Even on the internet.

What you describe as bellicose is passion, and as you refuse to state directly: a sometimes penchant for being right.


There are opinions.  Ours differ. I'm not one of your students, professor. You don't get to mark me down because you dislike my tone.

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

What you describe as bellicose is passion, and as you refuse to state directly: a sometimes penchant for being right.


There are opinions.  Ours differ. I'm not one of your students, professor. You don't get to mark me down because you dislike my tone.

Well from what I can see is that there is a problem in the opening south moves, and that by pointing at other problems you are just trying to misdirect. Do you think that it is perfectly okay for the Russian southern army to be carved up like it was the North in a week or two? That there is no problem at all?

The trouble is, the closer you are to the start of a game, the easier it is to detect ahistorical anomalies. The longer a game goes on, the farther you drift from the 'center-line' of history. So looking at the Kiev pocket of September is disengenious at best, as games will have evolved by then.

So how about you come back to the topic and discuss why you think the Russian Southern Front would collapse quickly if only the Germans used a couple more panzer divisions?

To use your tag line at the end...is it historically plausable?

I know your comment was not directed at me, but i think that if the Germans used an extra Panzer Corps and headed to the Rumanian border the destruction in the south would be PLAUSIBLE. Whether it would have happened that way we will never know.

I am looking forward to the France 1940 discussions!

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

What about the fact that Kiev's 600,000 prisoners is never going to happen?
How, exactly, does that impact the delay of operations in the South, Flavius?
Might I remind everyone that the Germans took Rostov in 1941...

I thought it was you who yesterday was arguing that there is a tradeoff for the Germans in that parts of 6th and 17th Armies can end up 4 turns behind their historical advance as they try to destroy this Lvov pocket.

I can show you a screenshot of a game of mine on Turn 8 where I have 2 corps of 17th Army, 1 of which is a little west of Krivoi Rog and the other is barely east of the Romanian NE frontier, because I had to chase SEC brigades around the Hungarian mountains at 1 hex a turn.

Two more points:
1) Half of the Soviet AARs I see still advocate taking the strong units from SW front and railing them north towards Leningrad on Turn 1. If you guys end up stealing more advantage from the Axis via this unctuous whining about the Soviet not moving first on Turn 1, I want all rail prohibited of Soviet units west of the Dnepr for the first 3 turns. You f@ckers can stand and fight all along the front like Stalin expected.

2) We all know that no matter what changes you make to TUrn 1, Soviets are going to run to Kiev and D-town as fast as they damn-well can, no matter how many pop centers there are there, and the Germans will be denied what they accomplished in the first 8 weeks of the war. So start planning how you're going to take something away from the Soviets while you're busy trying to ensure the Germans can't actually you know, challenge you.

Great point, again the German player does something great and it must be nerfed quickly, because of "history". Where is the history of the Russian player building what units they want ect.

The desk is alrdy stacked HVYly against the German to the pt there is almost zero reason to adance into Russia now.

How about getting the Russians to do something other then run? If you nerf the southern opening the russians will just run like chickens still and the historical 600,000 pocket will never happen. The game balance will be 100% freaking screwed AGAIN because of somes pet project.

The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?

Guys get of the nerf bat wagon, its getting old and your arguments are all about how big of a Russian fanboy you can be.

Take your own advice and look at things from both sides not one side every single time. Your really starting to bore poeple with this Lvov nerfbat crap.

Pelton

I a new game going as the Soviet and I am finding it much more of a challenge then before. Time will tell but the game feels more "right" atm.

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The desk is alrdy stacked HVYly against the German to the pt there is almost zero reason to adance into Russia now.

How about getting the Russians to do something other then run? If you nerf the southern opening the russians will just run like chickens still and the historical 600,000 pocket will never happen. The game balance will be 100% freaking screwed AGAIN because of somes pet project.

The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?

Several points:

1) I hate to keep bringing this up, but IRL life the war was very heavily stacked against the Germans; in fact the current version of the game IMO is slanted too far in favor of the Germans, but I guess we'll see. I don't want to see changes just to make the game "fair", I want a game as realistic as possible, with "fairness" determined by the victory conditions, not hacks to the game to keep it "balanced".

2) I agree that one of the problems with the game is that the Russians have no incentive to defend to the West, and a too-perfect ability to retreat out of the way of the panzers. Does anyone really think that the Sovs could retreat without any thought of defending the Motherland? Politcally impossible, even if militarily justifiable. Does anyone really think that such considerations are not important?!

3) While I'm accustomed to your hyberbole by now, to say that preventing the Lvov Gambit would "100% screw the freaking game balance" is a bit much, dontcha think?

4) Not sure what you mean when you say that the Germans can't "screw with history" in this game, of course they can, to great effect. That doesn't mean that they should be able to do whatever is possible under current game mechanics on Turn 1 (ie, Lvov Gambit). If you want to give both sides an unlimited ability to "screw with history," why not allow the Sovs to pull all of their units back to Vinnitsa before the war starts? I mean, that is something the Sovs could have done, right?

Pelton.. the knight in shining armor fighting a crusade for the german side [:D]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
What you describe as bellicose is passion, and as you refuse to state directly: a sometimes penchant for being right.

There are opinions.  Ours differ. I'm not one of your students, professor. You don't get to mark me down because you dislike my tone.

More than your tone, it is that your n-th rant lacked any facts. And I don't like the way you answered to PDH.

You say that doing something to prevent the "T1 Grand Opening" would prevent anything like the Kiev Pocket. The Germans didn't do anything like the "T1 Grand Opening" - actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening, since I think it was Klydon the one who came forward with the concept first. And they got their Kiev pocket - and another one, which wasn't either small around Uman - basically at the same time. In terms of game time, that was in Turn 12? And AGS got to Kharkov, Stalino and Rostov...

PDH has pointed you that a few AARs have shown similar - because exact reenactment is impossible unless both players agree to do so - pockets. So? Are you basing your assertion on personal experience with WitE? On what, precisely?

I still remember the first post I saw by you on the WitE forums. Curiously enough, it was a discussion on how to prevent the fall of Leningrad into Axis hands (that was something like 10 months ago). I posted a screenshot, where I had to leave a 1 hex gap on the Svir line (because I needed one division to bolster Leningrad defenses). My opponent and fellow spaniard sitito - a master in psychology - had squiggled a Finnish infantry div on the gap, trying to rile me and have me to do something dumb (like attacking it). Do you remember your answer? It was something like

"lol how did he [that's me] allow his opponent to do that?"

helio, some of your proposals are interesting, and give some food for thought. But about 50% of your incensed replies and complaints show to me that you're one of those guys that project your expectations on your opponents: he should do that, because that is the most convenient thing for me. Human opponents do not necessarily comply and do the most convenient thing for you. And when they don't you tend to look for real or imaginary problems in the game mechanics.

Are you always right helio? Do you ever make a mistake? Seems to me that you don't, ever.

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek
..."actually we should call it Klydon Grand Opening"...

I like that -- sounds like chess... well, in the end it is, just more complex, with many more parameters and some random numbers. Let's call it that way!

ORIGINAL: Cannonfodder

Pelton.. the knight in shining armor fighting a crusade for the german side [:D]

Someone has to.

Many pts are valid, but really nothing thats not possible under real world conditions at the time. I can see nerfing the old HQ build up rules and switching between HQ corps build up ect. But the Lvov pocket is nothing azing and could have happened if the German committed more units.

Not a knight thats for sure and no one wants a red win button, we all looking forlong games. 1.05 has done that probably.

Again great patch best ever. Lvov pocket is nothing amazing at all. Poeple are assuming it was not possible.

Pelton

ORIGINAL: Pelton
The German player are smarter then the Germans at the time just like the Russians. Why to hell is it dam ok for the Russians to screw around with history, but bad when Germans do?

The Germans do as much as the Soviets -- you have pretty much have no worries about absurd orders ("brainfarts" I'd almost have said...) coming from Hitler, for example forcing the German player to halt value Inf or even Armored Divisions in stronghold like Smolensk or such, which are evident to be surrounded by the Russians soon and sure to be lost. Image the game would give you such orders, and require you to watch a few of your divs to be pocketed in 44 and 45 at random? Fortunately that isn't there (though I don't say it wouldN'T add to increase the historic accuracy).

Anyway, the Russians have lost some of their "freebies" like the 2:1 and some perhaps initially overestimated production. The developers try to get the game right, for the right reason. It is an iterative process, sometimes slow as other side-effects need to be watches and adjusted, but as far as I know Matrix and G&G games by know, they are not going to cut support until that is achieved satisfactorily. The thing that makes them different is that they are listening to their customers, and eventually will incorporate one or the other wish from the wishlist. Yet I am not sure whether they keep reading if a thread turns into ranting, or in circles.

Just arguing that the Lvov pocket needs to remain because the Germans are otherwise too much disadvantaged, and balance would be better, would be accepting one shortfall to fix another. At present, it is a total freebie to the Germans as pretty much nothing can go wrong: huge gains with no risk. It is quite a "no-brainer" (aside from failing to copy the moves from Klydon), and not an achievement by a German player, rather a free present of the game design.

That brings me to 76mm's second point: if the Russian opponents tend to withdraw too fast, it is either a good feature and freedom of the game to allow you to test its military sensibleness (which some advanced testers have already stated that it will hurt in the long run), and that also allows the Germans in the later campaign years or blizzards to use such withdrawals/"winter quarters in Poland", or alternatively, it could be countered with some additional rules. I need to say, though, that in some recent 1.05 AARs it doesn't look as if the Russians perform their bug-out as quickly any more, it rather appears a slow fighting withdrawal. If you really wanted to fix the Russian forward and force him to fight for each city until losses will be critical, and want to force Soviets to allow their forces to be trapped in huge pockets, then in all logical consequence (and fairness), I would feel that the German should be forced to hold strongholds with value divisions, even if militarily equally stupid. I'd doubt anyone would favor this, unless as an optional rule.
For the idea of additional rules, I recall that Q-Ball (or was it Cannonfodder?) suggested that VP points for holding cities on a per turn basis, maybe even skewed upward for the more forward cities for the initial turns in 7 and 8/41, would be an incentive to hold on to them as long as possible. Another idea would be coupling the national morale to retreat speed, i.e. if certain cities fall to early (say Kiev before turn 12), the national morale is reduced a bid, and if the places hold longer, if is upped. Both are a significant changes, though, and especially the latter could lead to more balance issues through side effects, though it sounds a lot more dynamic and might represent the peoples mood.

ORIGINAL: 76mm
2) I agree that one of the problems with the game is that the Russians have no incentive to defend to the West, and a too-perfect ability to retreat out of the way of the panzers. Does anyone really think that the Sovs could retreat without any thought of defending the Motherland? Politcally impossible, even if militarily justifiable. Does anyone really think that such considerations are not important?!

PS. Important typo corrected...

It's amazing enough that it is happening in each and every game. (The few Axis players who are not doing it are consciously playing under a handicap.) The only question is how much AGC sends south. Somebody out there, that is to say, everybody out there, evidently thinks this is a pretty sweet move. Hell, I'd do it myself as a German. It's that good.

And of course it's going to keep happening because the game heavily rewards it. But this I believe to be largely a result of game design, and most unlikely to have happened in real life.