Sevastopol can't reinforce?

[Ancient One]

I'm playing the Allies against the AI and I've noticed the understrength Soviet army I have defending the Sevastopol fortress can't reinforce if there are two Axis units beside it, despite having 12 supply. Is this a bug or am I missing some rule about fortresses?

[sPzAbt653]

Maybe the rule about being 'surrounded', in which case a unit can only reinforce to 5.

[Numdydar]

Why a surrounded unit can reinforce at all is pretty stupid imho. Especially at this timescale. I'm sure the Germans at Stalingrad would have loved to be able to have done this [:)]

[BillRunacre]

Given that each turn represents some weeks, in that time units will have soldiers return to their formations who were initially separated from it in combat, or wounded return to the ranks, or those serving in rear areas and logistical support sent to the front line. That's not forgetting their location may have included troops under training, on leave, passing through who could be co-opted into serving.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Why a surrounded unit can reinforce at all is pretty stupid imho. Especially at this timescale. I'm sure the Germans at Stalingrad would have loved to be able to have done this [:)]

Unfortunately for your 'humble opinion', the Germans did reinforce [and resupply] Stalingrad, just not to 100%. So, it's not 'stupid' at all. It is in fact a decent 'rule' of the game that you should make an effort to grasp. Because once you grasp it [and the rest of the Supply and Reinforcement mechanics] you will spend your time enjoying the game as opposed to wasting your time fighting it. [:)]

[Ancient One]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Maybe the rule about being 'surrounded', in which case a unit can only reinforce to 5.

Yes, that appears to be the case. I don't know if this rule makes sense in regards to Sevastopol however, as surely it could resupply by sea.

[sPzAbt653]

Sevastopol could reinforce and resupply a little, but most of it went the bottom of the sea. What am I, the friggin' history teacher ?!? lol.

If you want to argue these kind of silly points, you need to find a game that takes into account shipping capacities, air and sea interdiction, and port facilities. Then we can debate minutia. Until then, abide by the rules you have been given ! HaHaha !

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Why a surrounded unit can reinforce at all is pretty stupid imho. Especially at this timescale. I'm sure the Germans at Stalingrad would have loved to be able to have done this [:)]

Unfortunately for your 'humble opinion', the Germans did reinforce [and resupply] Stalingrad, just not to 100%. So, it's not 'stupid' at all. It is in fact a decent 'rule' of the game that you should make an effort to grasp. Because once you grasp it [and the rest of the Supply and Reinforcement mechanics] you will spend your time enjoying the game as opposed to wasting your time fighting it. [:)]

They did. But not for several months, i.e turns, on end. It just takes too long for oos units to die off. Especially if they happen to be sitting on a city hex.

[sPzAbt653]

Siege of Sevastopol [November 1941 - July 1942]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... 2%80%9342)

Battle of Stalingrad (23 November 1942 – 2 February 1943)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

The lesson is, if you don't bring what you need to accomplish the task, then the task will not be accomplished. Leningrad never fell because the Axis never dedicated the necessary forces/assets. See also 'Atlantic pockets' on Wiki.

SC3 has the mechanics in place that are fair to the real life situations, and in reality are far too easy to take advantage of. By the use of Strats, Rail Guns, Rockets and even Med Bombers, we can quickly reduce defending hexes to mush and destroy the enemy [8D]

[Numdydar]

While the battle for Stalingrad lasted about 6 turns in the game, they were only surrounded for about 2 turns. Assuming they were an 8, or maybe a 6, in game terms they would not lose a single point to attrition because they are in a city hex.

Matter of fact they could actually get replacements and increase their strength in the game. Which did not happen in the real battle. As I pointed out in a different thread, units increasing their strength while isolated in a city is ridiculous.

As in many other games at this turn length and scale, a cutoff unit should have one and only one turn to get back in supply, no matter how poor the path is, otherwise it is dead at the end of that player's turn. Whether it is in a city or not.

The way the game is now, it is almost not worth trying to isolate units since you still have to attack and kill them anyway. While it is easier to do since they have low supplies, if you miss killing a unit by just 1 point, the next turn it will be a 5 if it is in a city or a city is in the pocket with the units. So another turn is needed to kill them all off. Again hoping with the weather and other factors you can completely kill the unit(s). This make the time scale for the game even more pronounced when this goes on. Plus randomly losing 1 point from attrition is pretty lame to try and make up for a unit just dying outright like they should.

Sevastopol and other cities with a port that is not reduced, I have no issue with getting replacements, supplies, etc. since they can be supplied by sea. What I am discussing above is land locked units. Just to be clear [:)]

[sPzAbt653]

While the battle for Stalingrad lasted about 6 turns in the game, they were only surrounded for about 2 turns. Assuming they were an 8, or maybe a 6, in game terms they would not lose a single point to attrition because they are in a city hex.

I didn't even notice the dates I posted in the previous post, so I went back and posted the proper start date. That would result in an historical duration of 69 days, which at 21 days per turn would be 3 turns. If this situation were reproduced in the game, and the Germans occupied an unsurrounded Resource, then the Germans could sit there for the duration and take no losses. This is fair as noted in the 'Atlantic pockets' article on Wiki. However, if the Resource is cut off it is reduced to 3, and if you get two or more enemy units next to the Resource, it would reduce by 1 each turn, and when it reaches 0 any units will be in 0 supply and be susceptible to desertions and eventual surrender. If the enemy brings appropriate force and attacks, any units would most likely be eliminated quickly, perhaps even in one turn. Also worth noting is that for every point of supply lost, units will lose Morale and Readiness and be more susceptible to losses due to being attacked.

Matter of fact they could actually get replacements and increase their strength in the game. Which did not happen in the real battle. As I pointed out in a different thread, units increasing their strength while isolated in a city is ridiculous.
Well, if you can say that then I can say what is ridiculous is that you won't use the rules to prevent that from happening.

As in many other games at this turn length and scale, a cutoff unit should have one and only one turn to get back in supply, no matter how poor the path is, otherwise it is dead at the end of that player's turn. Whether it is in a city or not.

Sighting other games' mechanics is no proof of validity. I loved Avalon Hill's Third Reich, but I think that units would disappear if caught out of supply is not realistic at all. Units didn't always give up when cut off, they often fought til they could fight no longer.

The way the game is now ...

I once took almost a year to take Denmark manually. Turn after turn was either bad weather or bad combat dice rolls. But that's not on the game, it's on me for not bringing forth proper assets to get the task done. Anybody letting Denmark hang around for more than one turn should be ashamed of themselves, not complain about the game.

Sevastopol and other cities with a port that is not reduced, I have no issue with getting replacements, supplies, etc. since they can be supplied by sea. What I am discussing above is land locked units.

I included Sevastopol because the other guy tried to use it as an example. But you should have an issue with the situation, because if there is no other port from where to get supplies, or if the enemy has naval or air superiority, then a port becomes very much land locked.

[sPzAbt653]

I am sympathetic to your plight, because in the past I had trouble with Malta and Sevastopol and asked for help from others. With their help I learned and now I see how easily the supply rules are overcome, and I didn't call the game ridiculous or stupid.

[Numdydar]

We are both hijacking the thread now. [:)]

So explain the results in I pointed out in this thread. As I'd like to see how you would have handled this differently. Other than getting luckier than I was and kill the unit the first time I attacked. [:)]

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4592771

[sPzAbt653]

I'm not playing WaW, so I can only relate to WiE. In WiE, Lille is usually defended by an Army, and that is better bypassed until a later turn. But if I want Lille on the first turn that I can attack it, it can be done but takes a dedicated effort. First, two or more Tacs must hit it in order to reduce it's Morale and Readiness, then hit it with one or maybe even two tank units to start reducing its' strength, then every Infantry unit that can reach it must hit it. If after all that it still survives, use the remaining Tac's to eliminate it.

To not spend so much effort that might be used better elsewhere, cut it off and leave two or more units next to it. If you have Strats or Rail Guns hit it with them and next turn it will be at one or zero supply, leaving the defender with really low Morale and Readiness. No Strats or Rail Guns takes another turn to get it down to one or zero supply.

[Numdydar]

I had bypassed it, but I had units with nothing else to do so what the heck [:)]

Unfortunately as I said in the thread, the unit was reduced down to 1 point and completely isolated at the end of my turn. I see no reason that on the Allied turn the unit should be able to reinforce to 5. This is why I have made comments calling the supply system stupid, etc.

This was a major issue in WiE as well. Below is my comments from that thread (now we are REALLY going off track [:)]

)

I did (and continue to) enjoy the game. Which made the issues above stand out so much more.

The pockets and Liberation/Conquest issues are the worst. As I did not mention that the pockets lasted from mid-43 to the end of the game. The biggest one between Moscow and the second capital (forgot the name). Even in '45+ I could not eliminate the troops there due to their massive supply base represented by ONE city.

Whatever you do with supply there has to be some major penalties for not being able to trace a path back to a capital/major city/port/etc.

That may require the simplistic method of supply being completely reworked. But the way the game sits now there is no reason to cut units off if a city is still owned in the pocket. To me this is a game breaking issue and after my current PBEM game is finished will move on until something is done to correct this.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4313067

Hubert took action on this and adjusted the game some to address this. Since you are plying WiE you can thank me [:)] So I am hopeful WaW can be adjusted as well.

But you could be correct that the map scale makes this issue more pronounced in WaW than WiE.