Matrix Games Forums

I have seen the House Rules and am following them. My opponent playing the Russians was kind ebnough to question the Finn hose rule about not attacking the north part of Leningrad by land and taking the city.

His point and I have seen the same idea posted without a reply
was:

If the Finns can not attack by land then the Russians could completely withdraw from the hexes directly north of the Leningrad hex itself leaving them vacant or with simply an artillery unit or something and use forces for other contested areas.

We understand the political stance of the Finns but at the same time I do not think that the Russians would be so trustworthy with a country that they were at war with to completely vacate the city hex direcrly north of Leningrad.

Stalin trusts that the Finns would not just walk into the suburbs of Leningrad ???

I think that they rules should be changed to only allow static attacks.The finns should not be moving in to the hexes.

I think it should be pointed out clearly that the whole idea behind this (and for the most part all the PBEM home rules) is common sense. The Finns were unwilling to attack by themselves and take Lenningrad...something that is fairly easy to accomplish in the game. On the other hand Nothing in my original suggestion for this had anything to with the hexs north of Lenningrad...only the city itself. I have a hard time translating the actualy stop lines of the Finns with the map...but given the importance of holding the hex to the NE of Lenningrad if the russian puts a single ARTY division there the Finns would roll over it. What the Finns should not do is attack Lenningrad itself except as part of a join action with the Germans. But in the end the idea is to use common sense and good judgment NOT to look for ways to manipulate the rules to advantage in ways that are total artificial. This is not directed at anyone in particular BTW it is just my philosophy on rules in games...the whole point of rules in a game is to re-create reality not to exist as a new reality. This is absolutely critical to a good simulation or recreation type game. Rather pointless to have a world war 2 tank combat simulator where you can drive around in a sherman and blow up tiger tanks with shots against their front armor from 3 Km away and that is no different than what was occuring in WIR...

Mark,my current Russian opponent, to his credit, was not trying to manipulate the rules but was initiating a discussion with me about the details of the rule as we are both newbies.

Thanks for the replies ...I believe that the ability of the Finns to advance to the hexes direclty beside the Leningrad hex clarifies the situation for both as it makes sense by forcing the Russians to keep a reasonable army there to prevent direct confrontation on the Leninggrad hex once the Germans have arrived.

Originally posted by techex
I have seen the House Rules and am following them. My opponent playing the Russians was kind ebnough to question the Finn hose rule about not attacking the north part of Leningrad by land and taking the city.

His point and I have seen the same idea posted without a reply
was:

If the Finns can not attack by land then the Russians could completely withdraw from the hexes directly north of the Leningrad hex itself leaving them vacant or with simply an artillery unit or something and use forces for other contested areas.

We understand the political stance of the Finns but at the same time I do not think that the Russians would be so trustworthy with a country that they were at war with to completely vacate the city hex direcrly north of Leningrad.

Stalin trusts that the Finns would not just walk into the suburbs of Leningrad ???

Yes you are right, the soviets can withdraw the units so an update of this rule is needed. I think that with a garrison of 4 or 5 FULL Rifle Divisions would be enough.

Originally posted by Josan



Yes you are right, the soviets can withdraw the units so an update of this rule is needed. I think that with a garrison of 4 or 5 FULL Rifle Divisions would be enough.

Josan

Or as mentioned, static attacks could be launched (from one hex only?)
If, after Nov '41, the german starts his turn with
that city hex empty he may advance the Finns into it.

Loki

You guys are more trusting then I am. I'll keep at least a tank corp and 4 divisions there (north Lennigrad), with enought strenght in Lenningrad to counter attack this threat ( 2 tank corp 5 divisions). The Finns are strong but there replacements arn't. Supply early is also very poor. Ever wonder why there rail dosn't convert as fast? Gary built it in. This house rule sucks. The threat is real. Deal with it... If Hitler hadn't called the assault off in late Aug. and early Sept., Lenningrd would have fallen. Didn't his plan call for Lennigrad to fall, before the Moscow attack?

Jon
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Die Kriegerin
You guys are more trusting then I am. I'll keep at least a tank corp and 4 divisions there (north Lennigrad), with enought strenght in Lenningrad to counter attack this threat ( 2 tank corp 5 divisions). The Finns are strong but there replacements arn't. Supply early is also very poor. Ever wonder why there rail dosn't convert as fast? Gary built it in. This house rule sucks. The threat is real. Deal with it... If Hitler hadn't called the assault off in late Aug. and early Sept., Lenningrd would have fallen. Didn't his plan call for Lennigrad to fall, before the Moscow attack?

Jon
:rolleyes:

Jon

Quite true, personally i defend the hexes north of Leningrad fairly strongly. (approx 1 tank and 2 to 3 inf). Better safe than sorry.

Loki

Folks, square 40,6 just north of Leningrad WAS TAKEN by the Finns! 40,6 is an urbanized area, but not literally part of the city of Leningrad. They held positions ADJACENT to Leningrad, but at no time was Finland even considering an attack on Leningrad. Heck, the Finns allowed the Murmansk food supply route to Leningrad to remain open during the war. If you want to play this historically, then as the Soviets, you can simply abandon the areas north of Lenngrad and form your line on Leningrad and the square to the northeast of the city. Heck, you can leave Leningrad undefended if you wish! The Finns only took back the land they believed to be theirs, they NEVER considered Leningrad to be Finnish, it wasn't. There was NEVER a military threat to Leningrad from the Finns, they never even built up their forces near Leningrad, an act that could be construed as a threat. Stalin's claims about the Finns threating Leningrad were simply lies.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Folks, square 40,6 just north of Leningrad WAS TAKEN by the Finns! 40,6 is an urbanized area, but not literally part of the city of Leningrad. They held positions ADJACENT to Leningrad, but at no time was Finland even considering an attack on Leningrad. Heck, the Finns allowed the Murmansk food supply route to Leningrad to remain open during the war. If you want to play this historically, then as the Soviets, you can simply abandon the areas north of Lenngrad and form your line on Leningrad and the square to the northeast of the city. Heck, you can leave Leningrad undefended if you wish! The Finns only took back the land they believed to be theirs, they NEVER considered Leningrad to be Finnish, it wasn't. There was NEVER a military threat to Leningrad from the Finns, they never even built up their forces near Leningrad, an act that could be construed as a threat. Stalin's claims about the Finns threating Leningrad were simply lies.

Ed, if soviets knew that Leningrad was free of any finn attack, no soviet garrison would be required I think. But if soviets didn´t know this maybe some forces must stay to reflect the situation.

Btw, the Grizzlies have now the best rookie of the year (well, we must wait to the next week to be offcial) the great Pau Gasol so next year will be the Grizzlies year;)

Go Gasol!!! Go Grizzlies!!!! Go Tennessee!!!!:)


P.S. Sorry if you dont like the NBA.

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir


Josan

Or as mentioned, static attacks could be launched (from one hex only?)
If, after Nov '41, the german starts his turn with
that city hex empty he may advance the Finns into it.

Loki

I thought that only artillery attacks was allowed. Static attacks, in coordination with german attacks, can easily surrender the city.

Originally posted by Josan

Ed, if soviets knew that Leningrad was free of any finn attack, no soviet garrison would be required I think. But if soviets didn´t know this maybe some forces must stay to reflect the situation.

As I understand it, Finland made their position clear to the Soviets, but Stalin insisted on categorising the Finns as a major threat, a country in league with the despicable Nazis. He convinced the West of this, so Finland was treated badly after the war.

You're right though, players are going to have to decide how "historical" they want to be with Finland. Should Finland be totally passive, aggresive solely for taking back their own territory, or at least opportunistic if the Soviets leave an opening to the Finnish military.

Go Gasol!!! Go Grizzlies!!!! Go Tennessee!!!!:)

....

P.S. Sorry if you dont like the NBA.

If Tennessee had a pro basketball team, I'd love the NBA. As it is I must suffice with just the pro football team Titans, and the collegiate football team the Volunteers, expected to be ranked in the top 5 of the country come August. Yes, a shameless plug, I can't help myself. Go Tennessee! Go Grizzlies!

Folks, sorry for bumping up this old thread, but I felt the need to make my own views on the matter apparent.
It seems to me the Finnish leadership of the time was cautious and opportunistic; national survival depended on it. Thus I firmly believe that the Finns would've been willing to help capture Leningrad IF it would've been plainly obvious that Russia would collapse; eg. the capture of Moscow and the utter failure of the Winter Offensive or something to that effect, even if this is only relative and the Russian player might actually win in the end.

Originally posted by Mikser
Folks, sorry for bumping up this old thread, but I felt the need to make my own views on the matter apparent.
It seems to me the Finnish leadership of the time was cautious and opportunistic;

Do you have any references to this opportunism of the Finns? What I've read of the matter says very clearly the Finns wanted nothing to do with attacking Leningrad.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthen ... INNLIV.HTM

Contrary to Soviet propaganda, Finland did not join Hitler in the siege of Leningrad either, in fact Finland did what it could to keep the Murmansk supply lines open, according to the writer's father who was there. Most of the nuisance was caused by Hitler's submarines in the North Sea. General Mannerheim himself said he did not want the blood of the Leningrad people on his hands.

Keep in mind the Finns didn't attack the Soviet Union at the beginning of Barbarossa, the USSR attacked them first, The Soviets made it clear they would attack Finland if Germany attacked the USSR, regardless of circumstances. The Finns wanted no part of the Continuation War, they just simply had no choice, it was fight or die.

Another thing, the Finns actually demobilized much of their army after all the initial advances were over in the Continuation War to allow manpower to return to agricultural work that Finland depended on. So there was never a build up of Finnish forces near Leningrad, in reality the number of Finnish troops in and around Leningrad actually went DOWN.


http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumax ... D=69.topic

Another discussion like ours that occured elsewhere, including a Finn, or someone familar with the history, who says virtually the same thing I did in my first post in this thread. One excerpt:

Also, the "attack phase" of the Finnish "Continuation War" (1941-1944), in where Finns advanced to the old border in the Karelian Isthmus and took a big chunk of Russian Karelia (NE and E of Lake Ladoga), was very costly as casualties. The Finnish manpower pool couldn't have supplied enough men to replace very heavy losses, which are usual to urban combat.

I've read this elsewhere too, the Finns just didn't have the population to fight a war of attrition. Because WIR doesn't separate the individual nations manpower pools on the Axis side, you can't see this weakness.

One of the main reasons to the Winter War (1939-1940) was the Soviet claim that Finland "threathened" Leningrad. So even while Finland was at war with the USSR, so for political reasons, no Finnish plane ever attacked the city itself, and no gun ever shelled the city.

....

(Finns could've cut the supply road to Leningrad, without needing to invade into the city itself). Also, the Finns could started to shell the city, harass the supply transports by air units, all which weren't made).

http://www.geocities.com/ojoronen/ALIE.HTM

Finland never posed a threat to Leningrad even when it was in its power to do so in 1941- 44. Especially when it was under siege by Hitler, Finland kept the Murmansk food supply line to Leningrad open, thereby proving that no threat existed from Finland. Despite evidence to the contrary, the Allies insisted that such a threat existed as per Stalin's insistance, even labelling Finland as a Fascist country - a serious error, the consequence of which was born by Finland. Many history maps still show Leningrad being attacked from the South by Germany, and from the Karelian Isthmus by Finns, which is false.

I'll repeat my claim. If you want to play Finland historically, then Finland only takes back the Karelia, and NEVER attacks deeper into the Soviet Union (north and east of lake Ladoga) and NEVER attacks Leningrad (the other disputed area where Finns attacked is off the map). If you want, you can make a rule that requires some minimum Soviet force in Leningrad and the square to the northeast as long as 40,6 is held by the Finns to represent the Soviet's alleged suspicions (which I believe is a lie, the Soviets knew d*a*m*n well the Finns had no interest in Leningrad, but I can't prove that) about Finland's intentions.

I also must throw in my personal opinion!
I agree with Ed about the rule in the game but there where many people in the armed forces and politicians who wanted to go on. Many thought they had things to settle(winter war) with the reds and that they where on the rope. This was fortunaly rejected by Mannerheim amongst other. One has to remember that the civil war wasnt that far away in time. Where the to sides was called "whites" & "reds". The "whites" consisted of middle and upper class mostly, as it happends from the same place where the army recruited they´re officers.......
Mannerheim came from this background but it is here where he shows his brilliance, not so much on the battlefield but as a stateman. He always saw on Finnlands position with clear eyes.

Where do you keep a version of these rules ?
I am personaly of fan of doing any "idiotic" thing that is NOT historical. I am more interested in What-ifs than replaying it exactly as it was.
Like, I am upset that you have to produce italian tanks in Italy - why not allow for Mussolini to be intelligent and ask Hitler to build Pz under licence agreement (I think they actually thought about it) -why wouldn't that work ?
By hte way, how would i play with one of you ? max 1-2 plays per week (1 in WE, 1 the week when i am lucky).
best regards.

The Finns did in fact stop along a line that was roughly equivalent to their pre-1940 borders and made it very clear to the Germans they would go no further. They were pursuaded late in September 1941 to push a little further than their old borders and attacked and took Petrozavodsk and a line along the Svir river (actually east of Leningrad). However, beyond that, they would not budge.

Its really impossible to simulate what the Finns did in a game, because the Finns were playing for the "end game" beyond the war. The wanted no responsibility, should the Germans lose the war" for some kind of war of aggression. The Finns wanted it clear that they were merely trying to recover the territory the Soviets had taken from them when Stalin invaded in 1940.

So, I don't think a house rule is necessarily a good idea. I've played many games and have as the russians stopped the finns butt cold. I personally don't see a problem. Any kind of house rule is just some russian player attempting to squeeze a few extra divisions and a tank corps or two down to the main front.

Originally posted by Bernard
I am personaly of fan of doing any "idiotic" thing that is NOT historical.

Where did anyone say that playing the Finns differently from history was "idiotic"? Some people want to know what happened historically so they can make up their own minds about how to handle the Finns in the game, that's all.

I am more interested in What-ifs than replaying it exactly as it was.

I really get tired of people saying that. A game with more historical restrictions is NOT a game that is played "exactly as it was". Within the historical restrictions many many outcomes are still possible.

Like, I am upset that you have to produce italian tanks in Italy

Providing for unlikely what-ifs takes time away from the programmers that could be better spent enhancing the basics and essentials of the game itself.

- why not allow for Mussolini to be intelligent and ask Hitler to build Pz under licence agreement (I think they actually thought about it) -why wouldn't that work ?

I'll bet this had about as much chance for success as the Germans consolidating all their energies on the FW-190 and dumping the ME line of fighters. We just had a discussion about that recently. The extreme nationalism of Mussolini would have made dependence on another country for such important items unlikely, I think. Besides, the agreement would have broken down almost immediately after the Barbarossa invasion when the Germans found themselves unable to build enough tanks to replace their own losses they were suffering, much less serve the needs of the Italians at the same time.

Ed

""(you) ** (me)
-------------------------------
"I really get tired of people saying that. A game with more historical restrictions is NOT a game that is played "exactly as it was". Within the historical restrictions many many outcomes are still possible."
-----------------------------
**Yes, within the objectively possible historical restrictions quite a lot can be changed.**
-----------------------------
"I'll bet this had about as much chance for success as the Germans consolidating all their energies on the FW-190 and dumping the ME line of fighters. We just had a discussion about that recently. The extreme nationalism of Mussolini would have made dependence on another country for such important items unlikely, I think. Besides, the agreement would have broken down almost immediately after the Barbarossa invasion when the Germans found themselves unable to build enough tanks to replace their own losses they were suffering, much less serve the needs of the Italians at the same time."
_____________________________
**A cheap shot, you and i both know that that if Hitler had of ordered it then Kurt Tanks'190
design could of easily been produced by Me with only a couple of months retooling. You seem to be stuck on this point. Face the 'objective' facts that there is nothing but pride stopping such a retooling, in hitler's germany (and everywhere)
fear outguns pride every time.
Are you saying that Me 'would' not produce the 190
if ordered to do so?
Think again.... or die(as would have happened)**


Loki

I dont see the problem?? I FDR had said to Boeing
'Build a copy of the NA B-25', well boeing would have no trouble doing that and would do so (are you going to argue with the president? (And unlike Hitler he can't order you into the Gestapo dungeons)
Get real, align your objective freedoms of action on the map with the objective freedoms of action in the political/industrial sphere. There is NO
reason why the FW190 'could not' have been produced en-mass instead of the 109.

Loki

Originally posted by Lokioftheaesir
Ed


I dont see the problem?? I FDR had said to Boeing
'Build a copy of the NA B-25', well boeing would have no trouble doing that and would do so (are you going to argue with the president? (And unlike Hitler he can't order you into the Gestapo dungeons)
Get real, align your objective freedoms of action on the map with the objective freedoms of action in the political/industrial sphere. There is NO
reason why the FW190 'could not' have been produced en-mass instead of the 109.

Loki

Allowing any nation to produce whatever weapon it wants as soon as it was historically designed essentially allows a game to be played with complete historical hindsight. This is unrealistic.

Using your argument, there is no reason why the ME262 could not have been mass-produced in 1942, the Spitfire in 1938 instead of the Hurricaine, the Sherman 90 instead of the 76 in 1942, the T-34 instead of the T-28 in 1940 instead of 1941, the Mustang instead of the Thunderbolt in 1942, and on and on and so on and so forth.

I'm afraid that the relative capabilities of a weapon were not so easily known at the time design was completed, and nations and military forces were not so willing to stake their existence on an unknown quantity. This fear/reluctance, or just plain ignorance, had decisive impact on the outcome of the war.

Unless a game designer puts in some limitations on the production choices that can be made by players to reflect these considerations, you have a "labratory" simulation with very little connection to the period it is trying to simulate, and it therefore becomes a boring numbers and stats game.