Proposal to make Russians fight for territory

[MrLongleg]

I think we saw quite a number of AAR's where the Russians gave away territory without a fight to avoid losses. I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently. Even if you loose towns and cities, a part of the population is beamed star trek like to areas further east.

I think the automatic evacuation feature should be switched of and replaced with a manual one. If the Russian player decides to evacuate population it should cost rail capacity, meaning he has to make a balancing act between moving troops, factories or population to the east. I saw 250,000 people leaving Kiev when it was completely surrounded by German troops. No train would go in such a situation.

So that would also help to balance the enormous Russian manpower and for the Germans it would be even more interesting to capture as many towns as possible while the Russian player would loose a lot of manpower if he decides to retreat fast.

Just an idea - all in all I think the game is great and I am spending a lot of time with it.

[Altaris]

Good suggestion. I'm all for anything that makes the Soviets have to put up a fair fight, without iron shackling the strategies. It annoys me to no end as well to see encircled populations leaving en masse.

[Flaviusx]

Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it.

Sure is dumb, as I found out.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it.

Despite this fact, the OP's suggestions for manpower re-location costing rail capacity (or being outright impossible when isolated) is a great one, as I see it.

Another point of consideration:
Retreating in 1941 ought to count as negatives toward Soviet commanders win/loss ratio the way losing a battle does to German ones. How that's calculated, don't ask me. People tell me I'm a moron, and I believe them.

[2ndACR]

We need the new Beta so we can see how that effects things. In the big picture.

[kfmiller41]

As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D].

[timmyab]

I'd also like to see rail movement tweaked a bit.At the moment huge forces can be moved from one side of the map to the other with no regard to the practicalities what so ever.This is making the Soviet defence far too flexible and I think is a factor in the early game balance favouring the Soviet side.
One idea I like is to limit the ammount of traffic that can be railed on individual lines with main lines being able to carry more.Also rail juntions could be given finite capacities aswell, with large cap rail junctions becoming important objectives, as they were historically.

[Klydon]

I think a lot of people need to try out the Russians in 1941 to understand their limitations and exactly where their new troops show up at before jumping off the deep end claiming Marshal SirRobin is in charge of all Russian forces.

First off, a well executed opening turn by the German AGC and AGN will leave the Russians with very little left north of the marshes. There are a couple of rifle corps and some of those are frozen, but in general there is very little left between the German spearheads and Moscow. What can be moved generally sets up shop to try to delay the Germans as much as possible. Unless the Russians rail in troops for a forward defense, there just isn't a lot there to work with the first couple of turns, giving the impression that the Russians have run for the hills.

Now, in the south with AGS, it is an entirely different matter. There are tons of Russian units and even a perfect opening move by the Axis still means there are significant forces left in the south. Historically, these forces put up a strong fight and caused a lot of issues. On top of it, most of the new Russian units are either east edge and/or in the southern military districts, so there is a tendency to have more mass in the south. A Russian intent upon saving Leningrad needs to send troops up there from other military districts to give them time to dig in at key positions and also to eventually delay the Germans if he expects to save Leningrad.

[Skanvak]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Running away is dumb. The really dangerous Soviet players don't do it.

Despite this fact, the OP's suggestions for manpower re-location costing rail capacity (or being outright impossible when isolated) is a great one, as I see it.

Another point of consideration:
Retreating in 1941 ought to count as negatives toward Soviet commanders win/loss ratio the way losing a battle does to German ones. How that's calculated, don't ask me. People tell me I'm a moron, and I believe them.

Thought I agree with the above, I do think that for the sake of the game interest the soviet strategy should be free and rail-driven. retreating without fighting should be an option evenif not the best one. That is the game that will tell us that.

[ComradeP]

Many evacuations were pre-planned according to Pavel, so they're not literally all happening in the week you see them happening in. With the rail capacity requirements being doubled for factory evacuations, I'd say the Soviets should finally be feeling some rail capacity crunch, so there's no need to further limit the available rail capacity in my opinion, at least not for now.

[MrLongleg]

ORIGINAL: miller41

As one of the people who has an AAR I hope people don't think I just ran away. I conducted a fighting withdrawal and fought when I had an opportunity and I take exception that anyone thinks the Russian can have a "Fair Fight" with the german army in 41. If you stand and fight for no reason, you will get surrounded and destroyed. Now i have no problem with making things more realistic but remember the Russians made about as many stupid decisions as possible in 41 and I doubt any sensible player will do the same[:D].

I am not accusing you of having done anything "gamey", in fact I think the strategy you chose was perfect, because you were able to save a lot of forces and made a stand where it was needed (remember our battle for the Leningrad rail line - you stopped me one hex before I could cut the last rail). The problem for the overall game is, that the German player then faces 7 million Russians in 42, far more than historically. As a Russian player I would have done the very same ting you did - it is smart and sensible.

My point is - if you can save your forces that easily there should be a price to pay in population points due to huge amounts of lost territory. So you save your forces from destructions, but will receive less reinforcement due to lost population.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Haudrauf1962
I think the game does not punish the Russian player sufficiently.

Several alternatives spring to mind. You could start the game in 1939 and nobody would know what was supposed to happen so
the war would just have to be fought -- perhaps to a ceasefire even.

You could suppose Hitler delayed Barbarossa until 1942 and had plenty of winter clothing ready and the Russians would have say 3000 more
T34s and possibly have redeployed in some deceptive fashion in depth (secret weapon stuff eg kaytushas). Then you could just fight the war as is and see if Berlin would fall in one year or two.

You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941.

[GBS]

I'm doing the same thing right now in Jan. 42 as Germans. I am slowly pulling back trying to stay just out of reach and using rivers to park behind. I choose not to fight in the blizzard except in the north where I have the Fins active with some good CV. I have to say this is very boring way to play and it just doesn't seem right, even though I'm doing it. I haven't had a Panzer Div engaged for weeks, laying on the rail line well behind the front.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941.

Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44.

This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations.

This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

[CapAndGown]

Should the Germans also be forced to stand and fight ala Stalingrad? No retreats during the first blizzard?

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941.

Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44.

This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations.

This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't
get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There
is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

[Tarhunnas]

How about some "sudden death" victory conditions that would trigger an automatic victory for the Germans if certain objectives are met by certain dates? This would a) Force the Soviet player to fight for territorry and b) Give the German player the incentive to try to reach those objectives (and hold them through the winter).

This is very nicely done in the excellent little East Front boardgame "No retreat".

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: MengJiao
You could fight the campaign as is and not worry that it was not the same war as the real 1941.

Or, we could ensure that there are either settings, or scenarios, which provide forces that have the same capabilities as the historical forces, German and Russian, as they existed in 1941. This will not mean that the historic 1941 campaign will be replayed, as players will inevitably wish to try different strategies. It should be possible for the capabilities of these forces to evolve in the game, as they historical did, through 1942/43/44.

This in no way stops other players having available other settings, or scenarios, which give more balanced opposing forces, or any other what-if situations.

This does not have to be a question of either one configuration, or any other, it should be possible, eventually, for all of us to have a game we can enjoy. [:)]

The more reasonable configurations the better. I think it would be better for the morale of Axis players to stop obsessing over how 1941 plays out (eg. the Russians don't
get punished enough for not getting wiped out as badly as they did in the real 1941) and -- if they must have an historical 1941 -- just start in 1942. There
is a 1942 campaign and it guarantees an historical 1941.

You are still failing to understand the point, I don't think anyone wants an historical 1941, but to play with forces that have the capabilities as they existed in 1941 and achieve a different result by trying alternative strategies.

Why ignore 1941 and throw away 25% of the game, when 1941 is potentially the most balanced scenario, as it gives perhaps the only chance the Germans might win (I doubt anyone wants an automatic victory for either side). By 1942 and certainly by 1943 the balance has gone, because the only question becomes how quickly the Russians can get to Berlin.

[MrLongleg]

We wil have to see how the patch will change things.

With the current version a smart Russian player can avoid having historical losses and then have 7+ million men in 42. At that point the game is practically over for the German player and the rest is a slow fighting retreat to Berlin. Nothing wrong with that - probably it was never possible for the Germans to win that war in the first place.