Is this even vaguely realistic?

[CharonJr]

Personally I am in the swamps/heavy woods should cost more MPs for mech/armor camp here as well, this has the additional benefit of making the supplies getting through this terrain more expensive, too.

[Klydon]

The other issue with capturing Leningrad was that Hitler did not want the responsibility of feeding the masses there. The German war economy was having enough food issues as it was and to add Leningrad's population to the mix would have been very tough. The preference at this point was to bomb and shell a city to induce flight of the population towards the east and make it the Russian government's issue to feed/care for the civilian population. The initial orders for Typhoon were to surround Moscow, but not enter it. The plan was to shell/bomb it into surrender and send the population packing to the east. Booby traps were also a concern as well after Kiev, but I think the food issue was the big reason. Better to starve the city out and not take the casualties was the thought.

I also agree about having heavy woods/swamps motor/mech movement costs getting bumped a bit. While the swamp combat was silly (much better since it was fixed) and rough is tough ( [:D] ) I don't know that woods (light or heavy) seem to have a lot of effect on movement or combat to a point although they have a huge effect when it comes to recon. Not a strong topic to me, but it would be interesting to test it a bit.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak


Throughout testing, it was obviously that the resources used to get Leningrad meant they could not be available in other sectors such as Kharkov, the Donbas and the Crimea, so in terms of manpower and industry the soviets come out even, but the capture of Leningrad does help the Axis survive the blizzard in better shape, and this is probably the biggest benefit from capturing Leningrad.

My AAR says "hi".

Err, +1

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

1. That list is intended to be a rational list of issues, a substantial percentage of which have actually been reported by other players and not by me. I am just logging them in a central location.

Yeah, gonna have to +1 here also.
--------

I'm with Oleg on the map. It's ok, and presents a balanced set of circumstances. You know what you get across all terrain types.

It would be decidedly unfun to have to memorize or reference different costs for different zones of the map. Or even different terrain types. Is this heavy forest, or heavy heavy heavy forest? "Oh, jeez it was heavy forest to the 10th power, I am so screwed now..."

How many grades of forest do we really need in a game?

It's a conscious design choice that you disagree with.

And that's fine. Of course.[:)]

Edit:

Sorry to DP your thread.

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: 76mm



ooops, I edited my previous post before seeing yours--please see my point about not using an unrealistic map for play balance issues. The fact is that even if the Germans don't divert any extra troops towards Lgrad, the Sovs have a harder time than they should defending it. I guess I have a hard time understanding why this is so controversial?

76mm, how many troops should the Germans need to commit to take Leningrad in your estimation?

Should all OKH reserves through mud be sufficient? An extra army? What in your estimation, please.
-----------------------------

Wow, a TP. Should I go for the fabled fourth P? I remain undecided.

Sorry, Red.

Second edit: I won't take the cheesy opportunity to hit the fabled fourth P.

But 76mm, did you run off to read my AAR after I asked my question? I see you in there.[;)]

I'm just kidding around.[;)]

I really want your opinion here.[:)]

[randallw]

Perhaps the future projects could have a medium forest, to stick in between the light and heavy. [;)]

[Senno]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Perhaps the future projects could have a medium forest, to stick in between the light and heavy. [;)]

Perhaps. That doesn't seem to be what the OP's point was though.

Away with your reasonableness, I say. Away![;)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

"Slightly heavier forest with a bit of underbrush and some swampy bits that make a sucking sound"

[Encircled]

In game terms, its light woods, so its perfectly possible

In real terms, it isn't

I have to be honest, I look at a game map, and if I see light woods, then I treat them as light woods, and defend them accordingly.

What it does do is make Leningrad a lot harder to defend, especially against a human.

[Aussiematto]

[/quote]

76mm, how many troops should the Germans need to commit to take Leningrad in your estimation?

Should all OKH reserves through mud be sufficient? An extra army? What in your estimation, please.

I have just taken Leningrad in 2 PBEMs as the Axis player and found it easy on both counts vs Human than AI (because, I think, the AI is designed to defend Leningrad).

The answer lies in a combination of how many forces and where you position them.

18th Army and 16th Army should be able to do the job, with 4th PzGroup, PLUS - around 6 divisions from the OKH (so, yes, most of the reserve infantry, including the corps) and attach 1-2 divisions to 4th PzG from 3rd PzG - probably 1 armour and 1 mot inf. One alternative is to put the most northerly 9th Army corps into the drive north and, after a few turns, transfer it to 16th Army and put the weaker infantry into 9th or 2nd Army. Transferring the 9th army corps means you send lots of support units too. I rail the RHG HQ from AGS up to the north and stick all the artillery from it into the 16th and 18th army corps, and then disband the HQ.

Where they go depends on the opponent's defensive posture. I'm not comfortable with the Nerva line of attack but you need to threaten it with at least 1 corps. Getting to the river north of Pskov as fast as you can is essential. Getting armoured units in the corridor to the east of Leningrad, west of the Volkhov to drive on the ports is essential. Getting infantry over the Volkhov helps too.

But, in both cases, taking Leningrad came about because I was able to pick out the weak hexes, hammer them with infantry, then push mobile forces through the hole. So it was probably operational stuff that made it work, once I'd assembled the force.

of course, for future opponents, the real strategic delight is to locate the forces in such a way that they can threaten Moscow from the north . That way it's a guessing game.

My view is that Leningrad must be taken before the mud so as to allow you to redistribute forces south via rail in time for winter - otherwise it could be a hollow victory.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Senno

76mm, how many troops should the Germans need to commit to take Leningrad in your estimation?

Should all OKH reserves through mud be sufficient? An extra army? What in your estimation, please.
-----------------------------

Actually, I have no idea, and really that's not my point. I'm sure it should be possible to take Lgrad without any additional reinforcements if the Sovs screw up.

But the point is that the game map should be a more realistic reprenstation of the actual terrain in the area, so that the force allocation decisions faced by the Sovs are more realistic.

I'm sorry, but I think the fact that Lgrad falls so easily and so often in this game means that something is not right.

[randallw]

You'll have to pry the flawed Leningrad terrain map from Joel's cold dead fingers. [;)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

A month ago Leningrad could never fall to a human vs human. Now it is easy pickings...what gives?

Perhaps again we are seeing the "learning" of the game - tactic/understanding leads to learning from the other side. Often there is a middle ground of "frustration" there that leads to posts that the game is flawed or broken.

There is still a lot of game here to understand, overcome, and be able to nuance - I consider myself still a newbie at it, I have only been playing since release day. I am not sure the defense of Leningrad is broken, rather I think that defenders will have to understand more to take advantage of it. (like, for instance, that the defense of Leningrad starts with Pskov...)

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Actually, I have no idea, and really that's not my point. I'm sure it should be possible to take Lgrad without any additional reinforcements if the Sovs screw up.

But the point is that the game map should be a more realistic reprenstation of the actual terrain in the area, so that the force allocation decisions faced by the Sovs are more realistic.

I'm sorry, but I think the fact that Lgrad falls so easily and so often in this game means that something is not right.

As you know I wholly agree with you on the terrain issue.

However, the fact that Leningrad tends to fall often might be the effect of German players realizing that Leningrad is the most important target the Germans have in 1941. It is the only target whose capture will substantially alter the balance of forces, in that it will trigger the release of the Finns, which will in turn ease German survival in winter. Rational German players see this and make Leningrad a priority.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: PeeDeeAitch

Perhaps again we are seeing the "learning" of the game - tactic/understanding leads to learning from the other side. Often there is a middle ground of "frustration" there that leads to posts that the game is flawed or broken.

I totally agree, and am not saying that it is impossible to defend Lgrad. I lost it because of some dumb mistakes, next time I hope to keep it. That said, to me it seems like it is harder than it should be.

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
However, the fact that Leningrad tends to fall often might be the effect of German players realizing that Leningrad is the most important target the Germans have in 1941. It is the only target whose capture will substantially alter the balance of forces, in that it will trigger the release of the Finns, which will in turn ease German survival in winter. Rational German players see this and make Leningrad a priority.

Well, yes, but conversely most Sov players therefore also see it as critical to defend Lgrad, and yet cannot do so. And while Sov defenders will probably learn new tricks, so too will the Nazi invaders. And I don't think that the reduction in fortification abilities in the next patch will help the defenders!

In the various on-going GCs, I will be interested to see to what extent losing Lgrad means that Moscow is doomed (in 1942). It certainly doesn't help, but maybe the Sovs will generally be able to shrug it off.

[color]

I think the best solution to this 'problem' would just be to remove the release of the finns by executing this pincer movement ... i.e. only way the finns activate is if Leningrad falls.

That would effectively stop dead in the tracks any desire to try this crazy stunt, and people would revert to something more in line with what the Germans did in history.

(NOTE, I'm not making a statement regarding if it were historically possible or not)

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: color

I think the best solution to this 'problem' would just be to remove the release of the finns by executing this pincer movement ... i.e. only way the finns activate is if Leningrad falls.

(NOTE, I'm not making a statement regarding if it were historically possible or not)

Executing the pincer will only free the Finns partially (to move south where the Germans have cleared the way). The important thing about the right hook is that it will isolate Leningrad and make it easy to capture, which will in turn release the Finns.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: color

I think the best solution to this 'problem' would just be to remove the release of the finns by executing this pincer movement ... i.e. only way the finns activate is if Leningrad falls.

But when I think 30 seconds more about it, that is maybe a very good idea! I would say it's pretty unlikely that the finns would have moved anyywhere south of what they did historically regardless of if Leningrad had fallen or not, so why not simply have a Finnish no-move-ever line, that would solve part of it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: color

I think the best solution to this 'problem' would just be to remove the release of the finns by executing this pincer movement ... i.e. only way the finns activate is if Leningrad falls.

That would effectively stop dead in the tracks any desire to try this crazy stunt, and people would revert to something more in line with what the Germans did in history.

Interesting idea; the Germans could still isolate Lgrad by doing this, but it would at least be harder/more risky for them without the Finns. People on this forum often talk about the Russians not knowing that the Finns would not attack, but I wonder how certain the Germans were that the Finns would pour across the border if they linked up in some extremely remote, backwoods region? (I have absolutely no idea...)

[Joel Billings]

Ok I can't resist another post. Players are always welcome to add in their own house rules re the Finns. You could agree they can never move south of the no move line, or they could agree that there is some chance that this will be allowed (figure out a fair way to roll the die, we used to use ending stock values in old PBM games (CRTs had to be converted to D8 since stocks were in 1/8s).