Leningrad is a marshmallow?

[jjdenver]

How is this possible? Germans roll up to mighty Leningrad in a PBEM game. Granted, major garrison card not yet played but there are almost 50,000 Soviets entrenched. One hex attack (with siege artillery in place to reduce entrench to zero) takes it first try with few German casualties and Soviets set to not retreat until 100% casualties.

This sort of result seems crazy? Should Leningrad be tweaked to allow it to be defended? 4 day to take a city that held out for years seems silly? I had around 250 stacking points of Red Army troops there and Germans only attacked from a single hex.....

[Flaviusx]

Siege artillery is just that good in this game.

Same trick will work against Moscow, btw. And, if this was a 1942 game, Stalingrad as well.

Frankly, this is a bit on the overpowered side.

The game does need this in order to prevent interminable sieges in places like Riga or Odessa (or Sevastopol, if anybody cared about that in this game, which mostly they don't.) Yet it's a bit much to believe this siege train can reduce large urban concentrations to the effect of clear terrain in a matter of 4 days.

This, btw, is why I resigned my last 1.02 game against Micheal T. He had a path cleared to Moscow by rail. He wasn't going to take the city directly, the garrison was too strong and well dug in, but he didn't need to. The moment the siege train arrived it was game over.

There is no city objective in this game that can't be taken if the German can clear a path by rail to it, bottom line.

[WingedIncubus]

That would be easy to resolve through a HR until reviewed: No siege artillery on a Red-dot city, or used only once in the game?

[KenchiSulla]

Reducing fortification to 0 is a bit much, especially considering the nature of urban combat...

Perhaps the result of siege gun should be capped to reduce to around 100?

[governato]

a big question is if it would have been realistic to push a german gauge railtrack up to Leningrad by September and/or Moscow. That is too fast.
Can the siege artillery move on russian tracks? That should not be the case.

[WingedIncubus]

Good idea, this one. Siege artillery only available for cities within range of German gauges railways.

[Flaviusx]

Even if the railways allowed for it, I still have a hard time believing that those guns should be anywhere near that effective against big cities. I don't think the railways are the real problem here.

Those guns are just too damn strong.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Even if the railways allowed for it, I still have a hard time believing that those guns should be anywhere near that effective against big cities. I don't think the railways are the real problem here.

Those guns are just too damn strong.

It's two separate issues. Both relevant. One also has to keep in mind that those guns where used mainly for bunker busting, not for 'saturation/area fire'.

1) Large caliber guns required specialized infrastructure and so the need for German gauge. That is why they were used in Sevastopol in 1942, the railway had to get there first.

2) Then one could make them less effective when firing on a large city, just because the area to bomb would be larger. It makes sense to me.

Introducing both changes 'd probably fix the issue, and one could still flatten the fortress in Brest (close to the border, and historically it was the fortress, not the city, that took 6-8 days to take)

[WingedIncubus]

I propose that the presence of a siege artillery has a roll-dice chance of decreasing the entrenchement rating of divisions of neighboring hexes. A second roll could determine the how successful it is, with a cap and without dwindling it down to zero in a turn.

Right now it is not even used for bunker-busting. After Brest I seldom use it even for sieges, too long to move and set up.

[Speedysteve]

Good points in here. Places like Leningrad and Sevastopol probably should have some different kind of mechanism in place to prevent the Siege gun Death Star trick. After all we have known sieges that took place there and we know the reality of what happened.....

[James Ward]

Regarding the siege guns, perhaps certain hexes could be designated fortresses and the guns only have an effect on them and not every city with dug in troops? Sevastopol and Brest would start as fortresses and others could be created by cards with defensive pluses and the negative of being effected by the siege guns.

[Isokron]

I did that siege and I fully agree that the siege gun is to powerful. They in fact makes city hexes worse than open hexes since in a open hex you get 40-100 entrenchment depending on how long you have stayed there, while the city hex get 0 entrenchment.

[lancer]

Hi,

Restricting the Siege Artillery to German gauge rail is a good suggestion as is toning down the effects for Objective cities. Nobody has used them in that capacity until now.

One of the problems the Germans had was the very heavy calibre shells need an awful lot of explosive oomph to push them up and out which tended to wear out the barrel lining. The metallurgy of the day wasn't up to the task.

There perhaps should be a restriction on the number of times it can be used.

I've written a long post on Metrics a few days ago that looks at, among others, balance.

Should be up on the blog once Vic returns.

Cheers,
Cameron

[marcpennington]

I agree completely that the siege artillery is over-powered, but also think the garrison bonus might be a bit to big, at least in minor cities.

Would a house-rule/ game change work, where siege artillery can only be used when a city is surrounded work, at least as far as red dot cities go? That would seem to allow a Brest-Litovsk situation, while preventing abuses in a Leningrad/ Stalingrad kinda one.

[ChuckBerger]

Actually, I think there is a case for removing the siege artillery altogether. In this time frame, it was really only used at Brest-Litovsk, and a few rounds in the vicinity of Lvov. This is easily handled by the starting penalties for the Russians, which mean Brest can be taken without much fuss on turn 2 or 3 by concentric assault.

Are there any other instances during 1941 of the Germans using super-heavy siege artillery?

If it is retained, it should only be usable on German rail gauge, and should at most add +10% to the attackers, or knock a few points off entrenchment, not reduce entrenchment to zero. Even at Sevastopol, the actual battlefield impact of the super-heavies was limited. Destroyed a few installations, but hardly neutralized the fortress. The assault was bloody, lasting 4 weeks in total and costing both sides heavily. The Luftwaffe was far more important than the super-heavy rail guns.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: ChuckBerger

Actually, I think there is a case for removing the siege artillery altogether. In this time frame, it was really only used at Brest-Litovsk, and a few rounds in the vicinity of Lvov. This is easily handled by the starting penalties for the Russians, which mean Brest can be taken without much fuss on turn 2 or 3 by concentric assault.

Are there any other instances during 1941 of the Germans using super-heavy siege artillery?

If it is retained, it should only be usable on German rail gauge, and should at most add +10% to the attackers, or knock a few points off entrenchment, not reduce entrenchment to zero. Even at Sevastopol, the actual battlefield impact of the super-heavies was limited. Destroyed a few installations, but hardly neutralized the fortress. The assault was bloody, lasting 4 weeks in total and costing both sides heavily. The Luftwaffe was far more important than the super-heavy rail guns.

That's all well and good for cities, major or minor, that you can surround on 5 or 6 hexes. Others, with only 3-4 hexes can be real bears.

In fact, try taking Windau (AGN front), if the BMD HQ, 3 or 4 divisions, and a minor garrison stack into it. Since they are all in full supply, and with only 3 hexes to attack from, assaulting them dug in can go on for a month and severely degrade the attacking infantry army.

Without the siege arty to remove the entrenchment, it's really ugly.

[ChuckBerger]

Will, this is broadly as it should be. Most seriously held cities should be a bear to take, and in general should take several turns of assaults costing heavy casualties on both sides.

The problem with the 2 Courland ports is that the Russians shouldn't really have the ability to run supplies in, and probably not to Riga either. The Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe dominated these waters, the Russians had no capability to keep armies in supply through regular shipments to these ports.

But Odessa, for instance, should be able to hold out as it did historically. It should be a very hard nut to crack if the Russians decide to invest the troops there.

[Belphegor]

I'd prefer a siege to be a siege. If the arty is employed it prevents fort levels from increasing and reduces existing fort levels by 20%/turn. This gives diminishing returns and also takes a while for the arty to have an effect. It will slow the speed at which they succeed which feels more like an assault rather than siege.

[Michael T]

Not all German Super Heavy Artillery was rail only transported. But it was all rail or road AFAIK. The most meticulously researched game on the period I know of (at a similar scale) is a board game. GMT's Barbarossa East Front Series. It's been around for 20 years or so and is still a growing and well supported game. It is my favorite East Front Game. The effects of Super Heavy Artillery in that game are capable of reducing the modifiers of a Fortified Major city hex to zero. Just saying.

EDIT: Armour is halved though. But it is also similarly reduced in DC3.

[Flaviusx]

Have to agree that the Sov ability to hole up in Baltic ports is very overstated here. They weren't going to be getting supply there by sea. The Kreigsmarine dominated the Baltic all the way to the end of the war.