Leningrad is a marshmallow?

[KenchiSulla]

Good suggestions all, and thank you for listening Cameron

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

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.

That is not how history papers describe it. To put things in perspective. Gustav fired ~50 rounds at Sevastopol for a total of 250 tons of ammo fired. The total artillery ammunition used by the Germans at Sevastopol counting all calibers? 30,000 tons.

The rail guns like Gustav and Dora were the equivalent of modern cruise missiles, both meant for important tactical targets like forts and bunkers. Not to draw an extensive parallel, but their impact at the operational level was small. The other important thing to consider is that these guns could not be used extensively and the barrel had to be replaced after ~ 100 rounds fired. Gustav only fired at Sevastopol.

Without going too far here is the wikipedia link.

Perhaps one can see the siege guns more like an abstraction of the logistic structure that 'd be put in place to take down a fortified city, but even then their use and capabilities should be limited, perhaps with a toning down of small garrisons.

[Michael T]

The Germans had more super heavy guns than just Gustav and Dora. I think people are getting fixated on just a couple of the really huge rail guns. 305mm and above falls in to super heavy artillery class. There are quite a number. DC3 rolls them all in to one counter. IIRC there are also some half dozen 600mm siege mortars as well that were self propelled. Maybe they are overstated. But they should not be understated either.

The total artillery ammunition used by the Germans at Sevastopol counting all calibers? 30,000 tons

This really is irrelevant. The whole point of bunker busting large caliber guns is that one direct hit, or even a near miss will put a big bunker out of action that perhaps hundreds of smaller caliber shells could not subdue.

[lancer]

Hi,

The Siege artillery does indeed represent more than just the headline big guns.

Halder's diary makes it clear that there was a single siege 'train' that was utilised in various places on the Ostfront.

The game encompasses both this and the big rail mounted guns which are abstracted into a single unit although it's a lot easier to represent it and talk about it in terms of the big fellas.

I've been testing it being restricted to German gauge rail and this alone makes a big difference to it's utility while adding to the importance of rail conversion decisions.

Cheers,
Cameron

[baloo7777]

lancer

I've been testing it being restricted to German gauge rail and this alone makes a big difference to it's utility while adding to the importance of rail conversion decisions.

I think this is the most elegant and realistic change for this problem. I hope you make this change in the next version update.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: 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.

@Cameron-

Are you also addressing the difficulty of assaulting Baltic ports whenever an entire SU army is present?

[JervisBay]

Just a couple of ideas; the besieged entrenchment could be reduced progressively by a variable factor, so you have to wait and pick your time to attack. Another thought with any strongpoint, city or not, would be an action card to call on extra Luftwaffe effort for a single action - I'm thinking of those large air attacks on Stalingrad later on - but the card would only be available (or be cheaper in PP to use, or more effective in result) if you have good relations with Goering - at the moment there's not much reason to cultivate him.

[Flaviusx]

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

[James Ward]

This game is not designed to simulate sieges like what occurred at Leningrad, on any major city for that matter. There were 4 soviet armies defending the city and an additional one keeping the supply line open. No wonder it could not be stormed. I doubt that Stalingrad could be simulated or a theoretical siege of Moscow either. If you get the right odds it's over in less than a week.
Probably the only way for the game to do it would be to designate certain cities as something other than a city, so the siege guns wouldn't have an effect, with a very high maximum fortification level or to nerf the siege guns.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

What that floor might be is debatable, but it's going to be higher than 0 in game terms.

They are intrinsically difficult targets.

Furthermore the reduction in entrenchment levels ought to be more gradual. In this game it is a one turn process.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: willgamer


Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

After 1 turn next to the city the forts are at 0 for all units.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

What that floor might be is debatable, but it's going to be higher than 0 in game terms.

They are intrinsically difficult targets.

Furthermore the reduction in entrenchment levels ought to be more gradual. In this game it is a one turn process.

Short and sweet. Agreed[;)]

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: willgamer


Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

After 1 turn next to the city the forts are at 0 for all units.

Yup, I was confused again. Was thinking of the gradual reduction to fortifications by theater arty.

Actually considering the way the theater arty mechanic works, I too wonder- why siege is so instant?

[baloo7777]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

You are right Flaviusx, I forgot that Stalingrad was rubbled, although by Air bombardment, artillery shells. etc. Are the Siege guns only representing the rail guns, or do they represent the total effort and ordnance required during a siege of any large city.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

What that floor might be is debatable, but it's going to be higher than 0 in game terms.

They are intrinsically difficult targets.

Furthermore the reduction in entrenchment levels ought to be more gradual. In this game it is a one turn process.

warspite1

Agreed - it should never be zero.