EFB Siege of Kiev

[Silvanski]

EFB Siege of Kiev

Scenario design by: Don Lazov

TOAW IV conversion by Silvanski

This scenario recreates the first of the series of games that came from 3W's:
Blitzkrieg in the South
East Front Battles Series #1
-
Scenario 1
Siege of Kiev
-

Date: August 1, 1941
Map Scale: 5 km per hex
Time Scale: Half-Week Turns
Unit Scale: Division/Regiment/Brigade
First Turn: Axis German 6th Army
Length: 5 Turns

::PBEM::
::PO::

[DanNeely]

I gave this one a quick whirl vs Elmer.

I ran into a few issues; most seriously that the German offmap airfield is both lacking a supply point and was within range of the soviet rail artillery allowing the Russians to kill most of the aircraft on turn 1.

Other than that the main problem I ran into was that there's nothing on map to cover the German right flank; and on both turn 1 and a few turns later when the main counter attack occurred the Soviets launched large attacks along the southwest bank of the river. I suspect the scenario'd work better with German brigade/regiment sized units that would allow covering the flank more easily. I suspect smaller units would've helped Elmer'd Russians avoid getting pocketed and wiped out during the counter attack too.

As it was I ended up with about half my divisions split at any time between dealing with flank attacks and generating surrounds; and after 8 fairly chaotic turns which briefly saw about half the German army cut off from supply and the entire force reorganizing a turn later, ended with all but one of the minor victory hexes in German control. 1 more turn would almost certainly have seen the last one retaken and the last Russian remnants mopped up.

[DanNeely]

I moved the airfield beyond reach of the railroad artillery and added a supply point, but didn't make any other changes.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
I moved the airfield beyond reach of the railroad artillery and added a supply point, but didn't make any other changes.

This thread is already dedicated to Silvanski's original scenario. Maybe you should move your update to a different
thread so I can list it in the Grand Master List of Scenarios. What do you think about that?

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

I moved the airfield beyond reach of the railroad artillery and added a supply point, but didn't make any other changes.

Some of these older scenarios have glitches in them. Thanks for tweaking this one

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
I moved the airfield beyond reach of the railroad artillery and added a supply point, but didn't make any other changes.

This thread is already dedicated to Silvanski's original scenario. Maybe you should move your update to a different
thread so I can list it in the Grand Master List of Scenarios. What do you think about that?

If I'd done a substantial rework (eg splitting down to brigade/regiment sized units), I probably would have; just fixing the airfield was a quick bandaid on what was either a mistake in the original authors design, or something that was broken in the TOAW IV conversion I didn't think it was worth a separate thread.

[larryfulkerson]

ORIGINAL: DanNeely

ORIGINAL: larryfulkerson

ORIGINAL: DanNeely
I moved the airfield beyond reach of the railroad artillery and added a supply point, but didn't make any other changes.

This thread is already dedicated to Silvanski's original scenario. Maybe you should move your update to a different
thread so I can list it in the Grand Master List of Scenarios. What do you think about that?

If I'd done a substantial rework (eg splitting down to brigade/regiment sized units), I probably would have; just fixing the airfield was a quick bandaid on what was either a mistake in the original authors design, or something that was broken in the TOAW IV conversion I didn't think it was worth a separate thread.

Works for me if you're happy.

[JapLance]

You can always split German Divisions yourself if you need to cover a longer frontline.

I just played against the Soviet PO with Silvanki's conversion, and found it easy to get through the Soviet lines. My only problem is that the scenario is extending through an unusual number of turns. It says 5 turns, and I know that scenarios can last longer than the number of turns indicated by the briefing, but I'm playing turn 15 right now, which seems a bit over the top.

[Oberst_Klink]

Just turn the 'variable turn length' off.

Klink, Oberst

[JapLance]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Just turn the 'variable turn length' off.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks, just did that.

I thought that adding a +20 distance to the airfield hex would be enough to avoid the bombarding, but to my surprise it's not. Rail artillery has a range of 12, but still can reach a +20 hex. Is this working as it should?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: JapLance

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink

Just turn the 'variable turn length' off.

Klink, Oberst

Thanks, just did that.

I thought that adding a +20 distance to the airfield hex would be enough to avoid the bombarding, but to my surprise it's not. Rail artillery has a range of 12, but still can reach a +20 hex. Is this working as it should?

Compañero

Can you dump you already modified version into the cloud or here? I'll have a look at it. Also busy finalising Tutorial '45, but will do.

Klink, Oberst

[Silvanski]

ORIGINAL: JapLance


I thought that adding a +20 distance to the airfield hex would be enough to avoid the bombarding, but to my surprise it's not. Rail artillery has a range of 12, but still can reach a +20 hex. Is this working as it should?

That adds to the range of the aircraft to reach its target. A solution can be to swap out the gun for one with a shorter range.

[JapLance]

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


Compañero

Can you dump you already modified version into the cloud or here? I'll have a look at it. Also busy finalising Tutorial '45, but will do.

Klink, Oberst

Sure, here it is. A 20 second job [:D]. Added +20 distance and a 100 Supply point to the airfield hex.

Found the reference in the manual to distant hexes:

10.4.3. BomBardment of or from dIstant loCatIons

In some Scenarios, some locations may be
“Distant.” These locations are usually used to
represent off-map Anchorages and/or Airfields
and are frequently surrounded by Non-Playable or
Deep Water locations. The distance of a Distant
location is included when determining attack
ranges. Distant hex values have no effect on
movement, however.

Also:

17.2.2. map edItor defInItIons

Distance (available only from popup menu):
You can set a Distance Value for the location.
Bombardment missions against or from
distant hexes adds the distance value to the
bombardment range. The maximum distance
is 254, and the minimum (and default) is 0.

I'd say it's not working as it should. On the other hand, in TOAW3 it works perfectly. The Rail Artillery unit can't reach the airfield once you add the distance.

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

That adds to the range of the aircraft to reach its target. A solution can be to swap out the gun for one with a shorter range.

I know, but I thought it was a good trade off for not losing most of your Ju-88 by the 2nd turn.



Still. I played the scenario as the Germans a couple of times and had no problems getting most victory points, and as the Soviet played once and kept the Germans out of Kiev and most objectives (without bombarding the airfield).

[DanNeely]

ORIGINAL: JapLance
I'd say it's not working as it should. On the other hand, in TOAW3 it works perfectly. The Rail Artillery unit can't reach the airfield once you add the distance.

Sounds like a bug then. Makes me wonder if it's broken in both directions, or only for incoming fire?

ORIGINAL: JapLance

ORIGINAL: Silvanski

That adds to the range of the aircraft to reach its target. A solution can be to swap out the gun for one with a shorter range.

I know, but I thought it was a good trade off for not losing most of your Ju-88 by the 2nd turn.

Agreed, and since the Germans wouldn't've put their planes within range of those huge guns, any advantage gotten from being a bit closer isn't something they should have really had anyway.

ORIGINAL: JapLance
Still. I played the scenario as the Germans a couple of times and had no problems getting most victory points, and as the Soviet played once and kept the Germans out of Kiev and most objectives (without bombarding the airfield).

Sounds like it's reasonably balanced overall then; Elmer just doesn't do well with low unit densities.