Is this even vaguely realistic?

[CharonJr]

I am currently not reading all of the AARs, but have the Germans managed to take Leningrad from a determined defender (including weakening other fronts as the Germans have to)?

[Tarhunnas]

You know now I more or less agree with the original poster, I just want to add an alternative standpoint. This is a screenshot from another PBEM Road To Leningrad game, just to show that really, anything can happen in a game. How realistic is this? End of Soviet turn 18.

[Mehring]

Resistance or not, I return to a hobby horse- the map needs roads depicted on it.The lack of them is one of the biggest realism detractors in the game. The construction battalions should be building corduroy roads and maintaining them against road attrition, not helping the already absurdly fast rail repair.

I found a really interesting link on the subject which I've gone and bloody lost. It deals with the problems of Russian roads in summer, in a somewhat more specific and useful way than the often repeated "Russian roads were no better than cross country" and "Russians didn't have any hard surfaced roads."

Within the generalisation that hundreds of miles of corduroy road was laid in 1941 (and of varying quality) it turns out that this was often laid in stretches of just a few hundred meters, through boggy areas which were ripped up by heavy traffic. This refutes the view that the entire dirt track network was wrecked by military vehicles, something which is demonstrably false when you see vintage footage of tanks running along dirt tracks. The attack could not have been maintained at all if it had been.

The article argues that if the Germans had been proactive in their repair of stretches of road through such damp areas, the "stitch in time saves nine" principle would have been invoked. Instead, the Germans tended to just force their way through such road, destroying it, and paid the price.

Like I argued in another thread, a road is not merely the quality of its surface- it is its ability to shorten the distance between connected points by crossing obstacles.

Represent roads on map!

[CharonJr]

And yes, a lot can happen in RtL - Tallinn will be liberated, too T17 without having make all the moves yet.

[color]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Represent roads on map!

Wouldn't that clutter up the map immensively?
I suspect 95% of hexes would have roads in some form or another . . .

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Represent roads on map!

Wouldn't that clutter up the map immensively?
I suspect 95% of hexes would have roads in some form or another . . .

I would agree. And it would be very hard to find the data. Better to factor in road availability, for example by makingn woods hexes heavy woods where there are few roads, for example in the area southeast of Leningrad! [:D]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: Mehring
Represent roads on map!

Wouldn't that clutter up the map immensively?
I suspect 95% of hexes would have roads in some form or another . . .

Yes it would.

And for having them to make any sense, the movement costs would have to be redone I suspect.

[Mehring]

Yes, let's say even all hexes have some sort or roads or tracks on them. But we're dealing with 2 main factors which make them worthy of representation- road surface (yawn) and obstacle crossing capacity, the latter making the difference between a long windey road and a relatively straight one. Stretches of dirt road with obstacle crossing technology capable of carrying heavy vehicles are not only fairly rare, so map cluttering is not such an issue, but of enormous operational importance. The OCS 5km/hex maps represent various levels of road, the best being "secondary road" as I recall. You could even have a road filter to toggle them on and off. The implications for logistics are very interesting.

Changing the density of a forest to abstract the presence of a road is a very unsatisfactory solution. I'd like to know exactly where, if anywhere, this has actually been implemented. certainly the explanation that railways also represent roads is not supported by the movement benefits they DON'T give, but changing the combat modifier of a hex because it has a road in it don't seem quite right to me.

[squatter]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Well, one big thing that has changed is that the bonus to defender CV in swamp has been reduced by 50%. Previously they had been treated as if in urban, which was found to be a bug.

Now, for my mind this is correct as previously every swamp hex was like some kind of mini Sevastopol. But as I argued back when the swamp defence debate was up in the air, the remaining issue is how relatively easy it is for armour to move through the wetlands (not to mention heavy woods).

Step by step this game edges towards a complete masterpiece, I hope that before the tweaking stops for good, some extra MPs will be added for motorised movement through the 'wilderness' terrain of swamp and heavy woods.

[Klydon]

I believe there is an ebb and flow to tactics in a community. When the game was first released, the Axis had issues getting out of the gate on the first turn. The community had several discussions on it and players submitted ideas, etc to come up with better Axis tactics. By and large, there has been a huge improvement.

Axis thought right now for the most part is that Leningrad is THE prize of 1941. Its capture solves several issues for the Axis by bringing in the Finns in time to help with the winter defense, freeing up troops (especially 4th panzer) to go to other parts of the line to help out. Consequently, there has been a lot of thought go into how to capture Leningrad. From what I have seen, most Russians have not been ready for this type of onslaught, but I think if folks are patient enough, the Russians will figure out a way to make it much tougher on the Axis to capture Leningrad. The Russians may not always succeed in defending the city, but the Axis will absolutely pay a higher price in blood and time for it along with position issues along the rest of the front.

I don't think it is necessary to come out with rules changes, etc every time something happens to one side or the other without careful consideration. For those familiar with Star Fleet Battles, they were notorious for changing things all the time to the frustration of the community and it was rare they let the community come up with counter tactics to situations that came up as players got more experience with the game.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
This is a screenshot from another PBEM Road To Leningrad game, just to show that really, anything can happen in a game. How realistic is this? End of Soviet turn 18.

Of course not realistic, but for very different reasons...physical impossibility is one thing, but you can never rule out someone (Germans in this case) really making some bad mistakes.

[randallw]

I suspect the addition of roads might actually help the Soviet player, with the Soviet Union being notorious for a lack of roads while Germany is known for having Autobahns.

[Lieste]

The Russians IRL found that the Panzers could penetrate areas 'impassible to motorised units' - I have an account of the assault by elements of 6th Pz towards Leningrad - ultimately defeated by supply problems (in part caused by the advance itself).

They penetrated 250km in 5 days across mostly swamp, building bridges across each of the small streams encountered, continually having to recover vehicles lost in the swamp terrain, and pausing to allow villages torched by the retreating Soviets to burn out enough to allow passage - the only passable terrain being the "main road" through the village - which had last existed as a formal route in 1905, and had degenerated since.

The advance was successful - grabbing bridges across the Luga, but the supply troops could not reach the spearhead, which after weathering counter attacks had to retrace it's steps across the swamp.

Perhaps an/the answer is to significantly increase movement costs for supply determination, but not for the actual movement of troops across swamp and wooded areas.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Lieste

The Russians IRL found that the Panzers could penetrate areas 'impassible to motorised units' - I have an account of the assault by elements of 6th Pz towards Leningrad - ultimately defeated by supply problems (in part caused by the advance itself).

They penetrated 250km in 5 days across mostly swamp, building bridges across each of the small streams encountered, continually having to recover vehicles lost in the swamp terrain, and pausing to allow villages torched by the retreating Soviets to burn out enough to allow passage - the only passable terrain being the "main road" through the village - which had last existed as a formal route in 1905, and had degenerated since.

The advance was successful - grabbing bridges across the Luga, but the supply troops could not reach the spearhead, which after weathering counter attacks had to retrace it's steps across the swamp.

Perhaps an/the answer is to significantly increase movement costs for supply determination, but not for the actual movement of troops across swamp and wooded areas.

Of all the suggestions made in this thread, I like this one best. It deals with my original concern about how such a long advance into the wilderness would be supplied, without removing the ability of units to move where the player wishes to send them.

Having said that, I also think that the wilderness in the region east and southeast of Leningrad is not adequately represented. While roads may be abstracted on much of the map, particularly in western Russia, they rarely existed in this and several other regions, and this should also be factored in.

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Lieste
The Russians IRL found that the Panzers could penetrate areas 'impassible to motorised units' - I have an account of the assault by elements of 6th Pz towards Leningrad - ultimately defeated by supply problems (in part caused by the advance itself).

They penetrated 250km in 5 days across mostly swamp, building bridges across each of the small streams encountered, continually having to recover vehicles lost in the swamp terrain, and pausing to allow villages torched by the retreating Soviets to burn out enough to allow passage - the only passable terrain being the "main road" through the village - which had last existed as a formal route in 1905, and had degenerated since.

The advance was successful - grabbing bridges across the Luga, but the supply troops could not reach the spearhead, which after weathering counter attacks had to retrace it's steps across the swamp.

Perhaps an/the answer is to significantly increase movement costs for supply determination, but not for the actual movement of troops across swamp and wooded areas.

Of all the suggestions made in this thread, I like this one best. It deals with my original concern about how such a long advance into the wilderness would be supplied, without removing the ability of units to move where the player wishes to send them.

Having said that, I also think that the wilderness in the region east and southeast of Leningrad is not adequately represented. While roads may be abstracted on much of the map, particularly in western Russia, they rarely existed in this and several other regions, and this should also be factored in.

I would agree that this is more like a solution, although I think that it is the swamp hexes which are the most significant obstacle.

I am using Panzer Operations, Memoir of Erhard Raus describing the approach to the River Luga. - 'The region we initially entered consisted of sand dunes that were in part sparsely overgrown with coniferous trees (light woods ?). The march unit, now using the method of following in the tracks of the preceding vehicle, was able in spite of all difficulties to traverse this area at the rate of ten kilometers per hour'. -and after passing though an area of swamp- 'We regained our momentum once beyond the swamp'. There is a lot more about river crossings, terrain, etc..

The original map posted shows only small amounts of swamp in the highlighted area (I don't know how accurate that is), however, after 6 PZ had advanced over the swampy terrain, it was not just supply that could not follow, the passage of the Division had so wrecked the tracks that no one could follow for several days, until log corduroy roads had been constructed.

We have had the discussion on accounting for roads in the game before and I think that the general terrain in each hex indicates the effect on MPs adequately. Joel has a point, as a week turn can be a reasonable time to overcome obstacles, if there is no opposition.

If there were to be an additional cost for supply determination, especially in swamp hexes, would it be permanent, or would there be an allowance for the engineering of roads, trackways and bridges on supply routes, to reduce the penalty in following turns. [:)]

[johnnyvagas]

Great pocket. Congrats to the German player on a well conducted encirclement.

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

ORIGINAL: Lieste
The Russians IRL found that the Panzers could penetrate areas 'impassible to motorised units' - I have an account of the assault by elements of 6th Pz towards Leningrad - ultimately defeated by supply problems (in part caused by the advance itself).

They penetrated 250km in 5 days across mostly swamp, building bridges across each of the small streams encountered, continually having to recover vehicles lost in the swamp terrain, and pausing to allow villages torched by the retreating Soviets to burn out enough to allow passage - the only passable terrain being the "main road" through the village - which had last existed as a formal route in 1905, and had degenerated since.

The advance was successful - grabbing bridges across the Luga, but the supply troops could not reach the spearhead, which after weathering counter attacks had to retrace it's steps across the swamp.

Perhaps an/the answer is to significantly increase movement costs for supply determination, but not for the actual movement of troops across swamp and wooded areas.

Of all the suggestions made in this thread, I like this one best. It deals with my original concern about how such a long advance into the wilderness would be supplied, without removing the ability of units to move where the player wishes to send them.

Having said that, I also think that the wilderness in the region east and southeast of Leningrad is not adequately represented. While roads may be abstracted on much of the map, particularly in western Russia, they rarely existed in this and several other regions, and this should also be factored in.

I would agree that this is more like a solution, although I think that it is the swamp hexes which are the most significant obstacle.

I am using Panzer Operations, Memoir of Erhard Raus describing the approach to the River Luga. - 'The region we initially entered consisted of sand dunes that were in part sparsely overgrown with coniferous trees (light woods ?). The march unit, now using the method of following in the tracks of the preceding vehicle, was able in spite of all difficulties to traverse this area at the rate of ten kilometers per hour'. -and after passing though an area of swamp- 'We regained our momentum once beyond the swamp'. There is a lot more about river crossings, terrain, etc..

The original map posted shows only small amounts of swamp in the highlighted area (I don't know how accurate that is), however, after 6 PZ had advanced over the swampy terrain, it was not just supply that could not follow, the passage of the Division had so wrecked the tracks that no one could follow for several days, until log corduroy roads had been constructed.

We have had the discussion on accounting for roads in the game before and I think that the general terrain in each hex indicates the effect on MPs adequately. Joel has a point, as a week turn can be a reasonable time to overcome obstacles, if there is no opposition.

If there were to be an additional cost for supply determination, especially in swamp hexes, would it be permanent, or would there be an allowance for the engineering of roads, trackways and bridges on supply routes, to reduce the penalty in following turns. [:)]

I'm using Raus as a key source as well - an excellent book, but not well known.

My first comment is that he was describing the challenges of making the historical advance, and they were many, but the screen shot from the game shown at the start of this thread shows a vastly longer move, so those historical challenges would have been hugely accentuated. What really concerns me is that this flanking move is listed in the game play library on this forum, leading new players to regard it as a genuine option when it's clearly a nonsense only achievable given the features of the WiTE engine.

I fully agree with what you say, however, and I have also raised the issue of roads and the construction of log roads as key requirements in the game. For example, the Soviets made an important advance through the Pripyat in 1944 based on a huge network of log roads built by their engineers.

This engineering and logistic effort isn't a side issue for nerds, as you clearly know yourself - it's the key to military operations in Russia. Failing to represent it totally distorts the history and the player's decision making process IMO. Until the game includes provision for different road levels and the engineering effort/AP cost of converting wilderness and swamp hexes to include various road types, it fails as a simulation and remains a game only.

I'm sure that statement will boost my popularity even further

[Redmarkus5]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Totally correct. The problem is that the Soviets made defensive calculations based, in large part, on a correct appreciation of the ground and the knowledge that operations in many environments were physically and logistically challenging, if not impossible. Consequently, they didn't need to defend some areas as strongly as they do in the game.

The historical Axis advance was dictated largely by logistics - roads and road junctions, rail and rail junctions, rail yards, industrial centers, food production areas, ports and major urban areas, etc. Important parts of this infrastructure are not represented in WiTE and strategic/operational decision making, not to mention unit capabilities and logistical limitations are seriously flawed as a consequence.

These are all concerns I raised a long time ago as as result of my experiences in my GC as the Soviets vs. Carnage and vs. the AI. My defeat in the Road To scenario only provides one more example, although this time I was the victim.

[BletchleyGeek]

Just one simple question for you redmarkus. How long did take to your opponent to take his troops from the Pola river to the Oyat?

[Lieste]

Judging by the SS, one week.