Matrix Games Forums

Hi, lots of positive feedback about this game, I'll probably get it. But first, one more question: does this game disincentivize the Soviets from just running away during the opening weeks to avoid encirclements (as happened often in WitE)?

If there are such disincentives, I would guess this is a question of how the VPs are structured? If there aren't any disincentives, doesn't it lead to ahistorical play?

Yes there are quite significant factors that discourage a cut and run. Firstly the Marshals at initial setup tend to be pretty hopeless Party apparatchiks whose forces often fail to mobilise until action is taken . In one of my pbems only the 12th army in the entire Soviet force activated so the rest had extremely restricted movement so we're crawling rather than running !

Secondly, and historically the armies are all set to Offensive posture until this can be changed giving offensive bonuses and defensive penalties.... I have found local blunting counter attacks by doomed forces to be more effective than a failed passive approach based on an attempt to withdraw.

Loss of cities (especially multiple in a turn, which would happen if you ran) make Stalin more prone to a paranoid episode, causing loss of PP and execution of generals.

From my brief experience so far:

The lack of AP that the Soviets suffer make a runaway strategy by the initial forces impossible anyhow. IMO this game models the chaos of the early weeks of the invasion about 500% better than WITE. No runaway, no massive Lvov pocket, difficulty in co-ordinating any kind of counter attack.

Soviet Infantry can't manage anymore than a one or two hex move each turn. Sometimes not even that.

My only complaint would be that 12th Army can't seem to escape to the east due to not having any bridges to cross the river (the name escapes me right now) directly to the east and they don't have enough AP to cross it without a bridge.

Thanks Michael and others, looks like I'll pick this one up today [8D]