Possible Lvov pocket fix?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

The point is that the Soviets did "react" in the game sense of "reserve activation" - maybe uncoordinated, disjonted - but they did react and the Lvov pocket did not occur. This really needs to be fixed. And as for upsetting the current "balance" of the game (Pelton's comment) --> Good.

Marquo

Now now, you'll upset more Axia fanboys than you already have.

[SigUp]

This comment is kind of funny, considering the threadstarter is Pelton. [;)]

This aside, a fix to the Lvov situation is needed (albeit hand-in-hand with other issues, like the more than generous blizzard penalites, all in all the Soviets in 41 should cause more casualties, while the effect of the blizzard has to be lessened), as it really breaks the Southern front. The toughest area for the Wehrmacht in the Summer of 41 turns into a laugher with the Lvov opening.

[Klydon]

This is nothing new for Pelton as he has often made suggestions for play balance that don't necessarily help the Germans; something a lot of people seem to miss.

As far as being a "Axis fanboy" over the Lvov opening; please. I have also made a lot of suggestions for both sides, so don't even go there. The fact is for the Russian fanboys is they badly want to make sure history is followed when it comes to the opening of the game and totally ignore the fact the panzers advanced a further distance over worse terrain in the center to complete the Minsk pocket than what it would take to pull the Lvov pocket off. They also have a tendency to ignore that most Lvov pocket manuvers require strong forces from PG2 (almost doubling the striking power of the available panzer formations on turn 1).

My comment is play the game as is with just the forces of AGS and it plays out fairly well as far as the amount of resistance and progress that takes place. The forces coming down from PG2 make all the difference in the world.

Sorry Russian Fanboys, you got enough "I win" keys already. It just takes a bit longer and only if you can find some German willing to put up with the track meet that takes place with or without the Lvov opening. Oh yeah, you have to have house rules in place as well in order to keep the Luftwaffe from being turned into smoking ruin by the middle of 42 and then bombing the snot out of any German in sight.

Fact is right now, the Russians still usually win with or without the Lvov opening in most cases. It just takes longer and maybe.. just maybe the Germans have a shot at a minor victory.

[Michael T]

I have to agree with Klydon here. The Lvov opening with just the historical forces is asking for trouble really. It's only when the extra Pz Corp or 2 is committed that it's a closed deal.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: Klydon

@Bletchley: How did the reduction in logistics affect the game? This is one of the key issues in that logistics is too generous as far as allowing units to sustain drives over multiple turns and it applies to both sides.

I need to playtest further, to be honest. Right now I´m playing a GC as the Soviet with Logistics reduced to 50% and with my alternate VCs.

Things in the South were far different: it's also true that my gracious opponent didn't pursue the Lvov opening. Southwestern Front could put up a fighting withdrawal, losing as many divisions as it would have lost in the Lvov pocket rather than in one turn, in eight. Kiev had to fall (and with it quite substantial VP) when my opponent got too greedy and tried a too wide re-enactment of the Kiev encirclement.

Since things in the South were more or less under control, I could deploy most of the STAVKA 2nd echelon armies into more or less their historical positions between Vitebsk and Rogachev, covering Smolensk, by turns 4 or 5. Not that it made a great difference: my opponent concentrated 3 Panzer Gruppes along the Minsk - Smolensk - Moscow axis. He's now 50 miles out of Moscow, this is the last clear turn before Mud, having destroyed three times already the thrice rebuilt Western Front. He's forgone Leningrad, but I can't hardly criticize that move.

I think that reducing Logistics to 50% is too harsh, though. Maybe my opponent (Rafo) would like to chime in the thread. Or if he doesn't want to give away any intel, maybe anyone interested can get in touch with him over PM.

I would like him to try and capture Moscow: that would allow me to calibrate better my alternate VP scoring rules. I consider that the Axis should be highly rewarded by capturing Moscow and holding it for a significant amount of time. Perhaps as much as in ruling out the possibility of a Decisive Soviet Victory (that is, a 3:1 ratio in VP's).

[janh]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
I have to agree with Klydon here. The Lvov opening with just the historical forces is asking for trouble really. It's only when the extra Pz Corp or 2 is committed that it's a closed deal.

The question shouldn't be whether the Germans could have done a Lvov pocket similar to the opening in game, but what chance they had to succeed so with or without additional divisions from AGC.

Apparently without AGS struggled for weeks (turns) before the Kiev encirclement and going was expensive and slow and with reverses. In game, one doesn't need much assistance from AGC to seal the "small Lvov" encirclement on turn 1 and this is a pretty safe bet. Almost never fails. That's what doesn't feel right. With an addiotional Pz. Korps from Pz. Gruppe II logically chances should and must be much better for the small Lvov, (i.e. a safe or almost bet ok) and the large Lvov becomes an option as well, a tough one though. No question one or two additional Korps justify something like the Lvov pocket, but shouldn't it be a bit more of a challenge and less certain given that Soviets in this area did react?

What doesn't feel right is just the chance with which it can be done. The end result is probably the same in most cases after 2-8 turns, but is it the correct result for the right reason? I think no, the defender being too idle while the attacker has 3-7 days until the isolation mechanics kicks in with its harsh penalties before the Russian player can even do a thing, not even to mention to react as the Russian did.

[turtlefang]

I'm not so sure that I agree that the Lvov opening is "ahistorical". The Germans made a strategic decision to drive on Minsk/Moscow line and the Northern Front, starved the south of resources as they didn't see a major strategic objective there outside of Odessa and Kiev initially.

If the Germans had decided to make a major effort in the south, I don't see any real reason to believe that they couldn't have driven as far and as fast as they did in the center.

At least by the operational reports, the Soviet forces didn't really react much better than elsewhere EXCEPT they faced fewer mech forces, didn't initially have to fight surrounded, and had some better equipment (more T34s and KV1s). And the Germans had fewer support guns, fewer tanks, and less artillery per division after corps assignments. Truth is, if anything, I think some of the Soviet mech units are over rated in the south initially based on their historical performance.

So, I'm not sure that the Lvov opening is that non-historical if the German's willing to commit the resources. Strategically, they weren't. But with a change in priorities by a player - I'm going after a grind, AP crunch, and manpower centers - then that could can the focus of the campaign.

We can argue that the isolation mechanics need to be relooked at - but I think that true for the entire campaign not just the opening move. However, someone pointed at in the forum that if the units in an encirclement kept full movement and CV for the first turn, it would be virtually impossible to isolate anyone. And that's not historical. So there is no easy fix.

[heliodorus04]

Why this fascination with ensuring the game corresponds to history on Turn 1, when the rest of the game enables the Soviet to unshackle itself from the various doctrine and organizational problems it had? It's not like the Soviets are losing game after game after game.

[janh]

You misread me if you think I consider it ahistorical. Quite the contrary, it should be a possibility to pursue, so eliminating it entirely would be... foolish. Especially with extra Pz Korps from the north at least the small Lvov should be a feasibility with very good chances to succeed. If not even also the large one.

I am putting out the question whether it is too easy to achieve given that the South saw the heaviest fighting in the campaign up to the stalemate at Smolensk?

And that's not possible once you decide to do the Lvov as all the forces are gone that could give you that fight, or they are encircled and can be considered dead at an operational level for the Soviet player due to the isolation. The Soviet player in that case never has a single chance to get anything out of them. The rest, aka hindsight and game experience suggestion to redirect everything to delay at Leningrad in order to better the chances for a final stand at Moscow and consequently the retreat in the far spaces of the South are clear by now.

Might be tampering with the initial MPs and stats to enable better reserve actions, or looking at the isolation rules (which I would also think wise in terms of German units isolated later...), or a new way at calculating hex possession/movement costs could help to make the Lvov attacks seems more believable, and give the Soviet side a little more of a chance to play with these units, and maybe in some more or less rare cases, really put up a fight for a couple of turns... So the question is not "that", but "how"...

[SuluSea]

I could be very wrong here, someone please point me in the right direction if so.

I'm a plankowner with the game but have litteraly hours on the Soviet side. The amount of evacuations not only from ports under enemy air cover without the threat of troop laden ships getting sunk and the sheer amount of troops the Soviets are able to rail out are just as big a problem if not more so than the LVOV pocket. Atleast the GHC has to make a strategic choice to invest assets at costs elsewhere.

Also factories should not be able to be broken down in a week, it takes much longer to break down and move equipment especially if transportation is limited.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea


Also factories should not be able to be broken down in a week, it takes much longer to break down and move equipment especially if transportation is limited.

They had no problem doing it. Even under fire. Somehwere on these boards is info on the Soviet rail capacity.

[turtlefang]

I have to agree strongly with Aurelian on the evacuation issue. I have over 30 years experience in logistics (sea, land, air) including moving factories and big equipment in combat/near combat/emergency situations. Despite what people think, moving factories isn't that hard and can be done very quickly if you have the manpower or the equipment and the willingness to do whatever you have to do - and your near a rail line or major port.

And I have spent nearly 20 years studing the WW2 Soviet rail systems, rail road stock, and engines. If anything, I would estimate that the rail capacity in WITE is under estimated rather than over estimated. The Soviets didn't have sophisticated signaling equipment but they more than made up for it with manpower and runners. Sounds very basic, but they had the manpower and knew how to use it.

People think the Soviets were not very advanced handling logistics. They were - given what they had to use.

Here's an example. The Soviets chose to use the wide rail guage for a strategic reason - it didn't mix with the European narrow guage. But, the wide guage also maximized the Soviet resources. Soviets were short on light metal and steel - all the rolling stock was made out of wood - a plentiful and non-strategic resource. By making the floor wider, it increased the decreased the car weight and increased the bulk out capacity of cars. Which increased the rail efficiency. And while Soviet rolling stock couldn't carry as heavy a weight as Western European rolling stock, they were actually more efficient about 80% of the time. Why? Rail road cars bulk out (have too much stuff in them that doesn't weight enough) before they weight out. This was even more true before the "container" cars of the sixties were developed.

It also allowed for wider doors for easier loading and unloading. And the cars were lighter weight than thier European counter parts which mean that the rails were lighter grade steel/iron and didn't required as well developed rail beds.

And so on and so on - I can bore you with this stuff for hours.

[Aurelian]

tm.asp?m=2928392&mpage=1&key=railroads&#2928464

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

It currently costs too many movement points for Soviet armor to launch deliberate attacks in 1941. There's a ton of big Soviet Mech units in the south that could potentially play havoc with the overextended German Lvov pincers, and German regimental breakdown units. But without the ability to mass high movement point units in deliberate attacks the Soviet player is left with the option to either run-away and leave the Lvov pocket to its eventual fate, or launch a series of ineffective piecemeal hasty assaults against the German cordon. And invariably sticking around to counterattack the German Cordon, just means more Red units get encircled on turns 2 & 3.

That's one of the things I'm trying to explore: increasing Soviet Tank Division MP's to the max. From what I gather it should be possible for them to retain movement capability in the 20-25 MP's range. In the editor, I noticed that one can cap the Max MP's of a unit. I've been removing the caps for Soviet Tank and Motorized Divisions, and I see that the maximum MP's they can achieve are precisely 25. It's quite narrow, but should be sufficient to move a few hexes through clear terrain and launch a counterattack.

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1

It also costs soviet units too many movement points to move back into hexes that were moved thru by Axis units. I think hex "possession" should have three possible states. Friendly Controlled -- Enemy Controlled -- AND CONTESTED. Contested hexes include any Friendly hexes that were moved thru during the opposing players movement phase by enemy units. Movement penalties for moving thru "contested" hexes should not be nearly as steep as movement penalties when passing thru "Enemy hexes. Contested hexes become Friendly Controlled\Enemy Controlled in the next friendly movement phase rather than the current system in which hex control switches during the enemy players movement phase.

Here I am not sure I agree with you. Actually I think the hex ownership system is quite neat and caters for a much more dynamic gameplay, than more traditional two impulse (combat and breakthrough) systems. Note that hexes being turned during the phasing player turn are more expensive to travel.

On the other hand there's quite a big hole in the rules: hex ownership changes during Logistic Phase should not consider only ZOC's, but also who's got a combat unit closer to a hex.

ORIGINAL: jwduquette1
And I also agree with some of the other posters above that the first turn surprise rules also act to limit Soviet counterattack options in the South during the first turn. Draw a demarcation line thru the Pripet Marshes. Soviet units North of the line get hit with the 1st Turn surprise rules -- Soviet units south of the line don't get penalized by the first turn surprise rules.

I think that lowering Western Front leader ratings, experience and morale levels of Soviet units, we could totally do away with First Turn Surprise rules (including the reduced costs to enter enemy hexes) and make sure that the Panzers are banging on Minsk doors by the end of turn 1.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I could be very wrong here, someone please point me in the right direction if so.

I'm a plankowner with the game but have litteraly hours on the Soviet side. The amount of evacuations not only from ports under enemy air cover without the threat of troop laden ships getting sunk and the sheer amount of troops the Soviets are able to rail out are just as big a problem if not more so than the LVOV pocket. Atleast the GHC has to make a strategic choice to invest assets at costs elsewhere.

Also factories should not be able to be broken down in a week, it takes much longer to break down and move equipment especially if transportation is limited.

Any criticism that something is better for the Soviet in WitE than it was for the real Red Army is dismissed by the overwhelming majority of Soviet-loving designers and playtesters because their bias is transparent; they cannot admit it for themselves, and they will respond to my post by bullying me.

The design is heavily biased in favor of the Soviet player being able to make a fantastical Red Army that suffers no negative impact from it's terrible experience, doctrine, strategic goals, and organization in 1941/1942. Get used to it. It's not changing.

Lvov is about the only thing they've left Germany where Germany can do better than historical.

[turtlefang]

heliodorus04 -

On this subject, you are utterly clueless and don't have any idea of what your talking about.

As I stated above, I have over 30 years experience doing EXACTLY this sort of thing in combat/near combat/emergency situations. Moving a factory in week as long as you have the manpower or the tools or both can be done.

Assuming the critical personal have been evacuated, and you have the rail or sea capacity without having to worry about bulking out, you dismantle the critical machine tools and parts and start loading. You have to make sure that you load in reverse order, pack the tools correctly, and get the marshalling yards/loading areas/docks clears as soon as the vessel or train bulked out. It is not container or vessel efficient - but that what your trading off - speed versus packing efficiency.

I've moved complete oil/heavy manufacturing/mining facilities/assemby plants factories in less than five days. Its doable. I've done it. In 3rd world countries. Under gun fire. Under near flood conditions. Under fire storm conditions. With minimal heavy equipment or loading equipment. Manpower can replace heavy equipment if that's all you have. Its not fun, its not easy, and its damn dangerous for the people doing the heavy work.

And it has nothing to do with being a Russian fanboy. It has to do with reality.

[Aurelian]

Part of the problem is that because the Germans/Americans/whatever couldn't do it, with all their 'sophistication", then the "primitive" Russians shouldn't be able to either.

But history shows they did.

[LiquidSky]

It took all of a day (or two) for the order to Relocate the factories went out from Moscow. The number of people involved in the actual bureaucracy/work numbered (if not 100,000) at least in the tens of thousands of people. Despite the textbook rapid advance of the Germans, the Russians managed to rail practically every factory of note that was in the way of the German advance. Even Stalingrad was fixed to be moved, before Stalin kyboshed it in the hopes it would increase Russian fighting spirit.

Another thing was the Russians had no regard for proper safety procedures. They would commonly overload the rail transport lift far more then what it was rated for.

In contrast the Germans had exactly what units who's job it was to 'destroy' captured factories? What orders, or bureaucracy? What german thought it even important to attack Russian production, if ever? I laugh when I see a single regiment 'destroy' a large industrial base just by spending half a day's movement in the hex. Or preventing its movement by being 10 km away in the adjacent hex.

But this is rather off the topic.

The real problem of the Lvov topic is the Germans are allowed to move a full weeks worth of movement in a 3 day period (for surprise) without any reaction whatsoever from a Russian who in reality did an awful lot of reacting. It doesn't take any real intelligence to play the Germans when your opponent is forced to tell you exactly where your units are, and will not move any of them until you are completely finished doing your one week of attacks/movement.

Strangely, I think that Pelton has a good enough fix. Knowing that the Russians will have full movement/supply, you will not do anything crazy with the Germans. Of course it wont prevent the Russians from running away (and would make it easier, in fact) and there will be Russians who try to make a stand to buy time. Might even prompt the Germans to swing two panzer corps around the swamp to take Kiev from the rear. *gasp*

[AFV]

Bletchly- I am very interested in the scenario you are working on. You are the only one that has offered a practical solution. The devs are not going to fix this issue(this is not a shot at them)- they have more on their plate, and their priorities are focused elsewhere.

I would be more than happy to test your scenario, and give you feedback (good, bad or ugly).

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: turtlefang

heliodorus04 -

On this subject, you are utterly clueless and don't have any idea of what your talking about.

As I stated above, I have over 30 years experience doing EXACTLY this sort of thing in combat/near combat/emergency situations. Moving a factory in week as long as you have the manpower or the tools or both can be done.

Assuming the critical personal have been evacuated, and you have the rail or sea capacity without having to worry about bulking out, you dismantle the critical machine tools and parts and start loading. You have to make sure that you load in reverse order, pack the tools correctly, and get the marshalling yards/loading areas/docks clears as soon as the vessel or train bulked out. It is not container or vessel efficient - but that what your trading off - speed versus packing efficiency.

I've moved complete oil/heavy manufacturing/mining facilities/assemby plants factories in less than five days. Its doable. I've done it. In 3rd world countries. Under gun fire. Under near flood conditions. Under fire storm conditions. With minimal heavy equipment or loading equipment. Manpower can replace heavy equipment if that's all you have. Its not fun, its not easy, and its damn dangerous for the people doing the heavy work.

And it has nothing to do with being a Russian fanboy. It has to do with reality.

Reading comprehension FAIL!

I might be clueless, if I said a darn thing about factory movement. Find me the word 'factory' in my post. Then when you cannot, do the decent thing and apologize for yet another hystrionic post claiming I know nothing...