Isolation and supply

[Gam3r]

There is a rule that if you drop 500t of supply to isolated units it then negates isolation penalty.

But what about city-fort Odessa?

Army there sits on a kilotonnes of supplies, yet one interdiction followed by well prepared assault and they are surrenders.

Maybe it is worth made rulechange: say, if isolated units can trace to a depot with >5000k supply in it, they do not get isolation status at all?

[Beethoven1]

+1, this seems like a good idea to me. It would allow for more historical lengths of time for the Odessa and Sevastopol sieges to be more common, among other things.

[AlbertN]

To me seems potentially negative as a single turn that a port is open a bucket of freight comes in. Potentially turning some zones in impregnable fortresses. Especially in turns where bad weather can severely hinder air efficienty if one ever gets there.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

To me seems potentially negative as a single turn that a port is open a bucket of freight comes in. Potentially turning some zones in impregnable fortresses. Especially in turns where bad weather can severely hinder air efficienty if one ever gets there.

Port sizes should limit how much freight can come in on a single turn like that to plausible levels. If they don't, then it seems like the port sizes should be adjusted so that they are more realistic.

Keep in mind also a proposed change along these general lines would not only affect ports. It would also affect the ability to hold in pockets such as the Stalingrad pocket. In a StB game I am playing now as Soviets, I took Stalingrad probably too easily partly because I think the effects of air supply not counting as isolation may not have been working quite as it should. On turn 7, German troops surrendered easily, all that I had to do was attack them twice and on the 2nd attack after losing a single battle they would surrender, despite having lots of supply etc still in the depots and (apparently) getting 500+ air supply.

[AlbertN]

Yes the Air Supply business is relative - but I think that means to bring fresh supplies.
It is not a scenario that compelled me as it would burn me a lot to start in a situation where I get encircled by default - and if I've read it proper in AAR happens on both ends in different sectors.
Ontop of Stalingrad zone having tier4 forts which I do not think are obtainable in open grounds in mundane circumstances.

If that's the case there is possibility to have to alter the air supply stuff - but I think it only denies the 'penalty' of combat, but during the logistic phase units are OOS or so and thus suffer a bucket of attrition.

I'd rather have a rework of air supply limitations that can be hindered better via flak and air intervention over a pocket than the wish-washed naval affairs presently in the game.

[carlkay58]

The reason Odessa falls quickly when it is naval and ground interdicted is that it has very few supplies left. The Odessa depot is in the front lines from turn 1 on and is the major supply source for the entire Southwestern Front. This depletes the depot very quickly and if the Axis then naval interdicts it and then cuts it off by land the depot is never able to stock up again. If Odessa is cut off by land first then you will find that the depot will fill back up and support a lengthy siege. It is very important for the Soviets to counter interdict the area around Odessa from turn 2 on in order to keep it from falling quickly.

[GibsonPete]

+1 on what Carlkay58 wrote.

[Beethoven1]

Let's be real here for just a second. The reason why Odessa falls much faster than historical, every single game, has nothing to do with supply, or being close to the front line, or anything like that. The reason is that German artillery is so powerful that it, by itself, guarantees an easy German victory in every single battle in which a single artillery shell is fired by a single German artilleryman. Even if the artillery shell doesn't hit anything, a single shell fired in the general direction of Odessa is enough to disrupt hundreds of thousands of Soviets and cause them to not fight at all. I exaggerate, but only slightly. That's right, you actually need 2 whole artillery shells [;)]

[carlkay58]

Beethoven1 - but I have been taking Odessa around turn 5 to 8 with only Rumanians for quite some time. This means across versions that stretch back over a year and includes playtesting. It really does come down to a lack of supply left in the Odessa depot that gets drained supplying the Southwestern Front by about turn 4, isolate it on turn 5 with both naval and ground and then gather the Rumanian army around it and take it in two or three assaults.

[Gam3r]

But SW Front taking supplies from Kiev.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: carlkay58

Beethoven1 - but I have been taking Odessa around turn 5 to 8 with only Rumanians for quite some time. This means across versions that stretch back over a year and includes playtesting. It really does come down to a lack of supply left in the Odessa depot that gets drained supplying the Southwestern Front by about turn 4, isolate it on turn 5 with both naval and ground and then gather the Rumanian army around it and take it in two or three assaults.

Historically Odessa fell on the equivalent of turn 17, so if you are taking it on turn 5-8 with only Romanians and not even using Germans on it every game, then you are taking it quite a bit faster than historical, so that seems to me to prove the point that Odessa is too weak...

[GibsonPete]

Claiming Axis artillery is too strong as a reason for Odessa falling early makes no sense. Artillery is not biased. Why not claim the Soviet artillery is too strong in the StB or Red God of War campaign? IF you want Odessa to last longer commit the necessary forces, air and land to its defense. carlkay58 makes a valid point.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1
Historically Odessa fell on the equivalent of turn 17, so if you are taking it on turn 5-8 with only Romanians and not even using Germans on it every game, then you are taking it quite a bit faster than historical, so that seems to me to prove the point that Odessa is too weak...

Historically Odessa fell because Soviet units was transferred to Crimea.

Maybe depots need option to stockpile supply.

[panzer51]

Odessa falls because player does interdiction from the start and runs it for several weeks (turns) and Soviet AI don't interfere. IRL Romanians failed to do that, and Luftwaffe wasn't around to do that, so supplying Odessa over sea from Sevastopol was never a problem. Stockpiling supplies shouldn't help because most players bomb the hell out of the railyard in there. I know I do. So I think it WAD.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

Claiming Axis artillery is too strong as a reason for Odessa falling early makes no sense.

The comment about artillery was partly in jest. Odessa always fell much earlier than historical in every game I have ever heard of with a competent Axis player even before the artillery changes. So it is true, the fact that Odessa always falls much earlier than historical is not really because of the artillery changes, although the artillery changes do make it even more lopsided towards an ahistorically early fall.

Artillery is not biased.

Actually, that is not true. Artillery is biased, especially in the 1941 scenario. Why? Because Soviets have an artificial malus to their artillery where they have reduced ammo except on assault fronts. In addition, Soviets have a shortage of heavy artillery that lasts until the late war. So any buff to artillery, as a matter of fact, will tend to help the Axis during the early part of the war, whereas buffs to other sorts of equipment types would have a more even effect. I am not even saying that it is totally bad - Axis needed some sort of buff IMO before the land combat changes - but it is simply not true that artillery doesn't have a biased effect in the sense of helping one side more than the other.

Why not claim the Soviet artillery is too strong in the StB or Red God of War campaign?

Because I have played StB (and am playing it now) and that simply isn't true, or at the very minimum it is offset by German artillery which is at least as good. Soviets still have a shortage of heavy artillery in that scenario.

IF you want Odessa to last longer commit the necessary forces, air and land to its defense. carlkay58 makes a valid point.

If Soviets put 7-10 divisions or so in Odessa, a competent Axis player will simply walk right up to it, stack pioneers and artillery, and take Odessa in a single turn. It has been tried before in many multiplayer games, Soviets defending Odessa never works and never obtains anything remotely like historical results.

[K62_]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1
Odessa always fell much earlier than historical in every game I have ever heard of with a competent Axis player even before the artillery changes. So it is true, the fact that Odessa always falls much earlier than historical is not really because of the artillery changes, although the artillery changes do make it even more lopsided towards an ahistorically early fall.

If Soviets put 7-10 divisions or so in Odessa, a competent Axis player will simply walk right up to it, stack pioneers and artillery, and take Odessa in a single turn. It has been tried before in many multiplayer games, Soviets defending Odessa never works and never obtains anything remotely like historical results.

I haven't tried it in the GC but at least in DoSWF it's possible to defend Odessa for a while. I'm currently in mid-September against a very competent Axis player and it's still holding. The keys are to fall back gradually, contest naval interdiction and use a good leader (Tolbukhin in my game). I doubt it can hold for another month but a big part of that is you can't force the Axis to only commit Rumanians against it.

[GibsonPete]

K62 +1

[K62_]

By the way, Odessa starts at fort level 3 and should have no isolation combat penalty as per 23.14.4 in the manual:

Isolated units in ports that have a fort level of 2 or greater do not suffer a combat
penalty for being isolated. They still suffer normal penalties for any shortages of
supply, fuel, or ammo.

[carlkay58]

The key to how the game plays out vs history is the naval interdiction. If there is no naval interdiction and only Rumanians are used against it, Odessa can hold out for a very long time. That is historical. But the Axis players don't do that. Most use both the German 11th Army AND naval interdiction in order to capture it quickly. In both the game and reality Odessa is not necessary for the success of AGS. The main eastward supply rail does not go through Odessa so the Axis can afford to besiege the city and keep driving eastwards without slowing down.

The naval interdiction is the real key here for the Soviets. They MUST do everything in their power to avoid a successful naval interdiction by the Axis. The Soviet AI does nothing to protect itself and thus the city falls fairly easily. A Soviet player has to address this in order to have Odessa hold out for a while. As it currently stands, the Axis are picking up an easy 6 Bonus VPs in almost every game.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: K62

By the way, Odessa starts at fort level 3 and should have no isolation combat penalty as per 23.14.4 in the manual:

Isolated units in ports that have a fort level of 2 or greater do not suffer a combat
penalty for being isolated. They still suffer normal penalties for any shortages of
supply, fuel, or ammo.

you are misreading the rule, it works as written, so they unit doesn't suffer in combat for isolation per se but

a) it suffers in combat if that isolation has produced a supply shortage; and,
b) it suffers the other consequences of isolation

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

...

Maybe depots need option to stockpile supply.

they do [;)]

the practical issue in the campaign is that the game routine sends out most of the at-start stockpile to S Front, so its really hard to build up an excess. It might work to set S Front to pri #0 on T1 and see if that allows the stockpile to be retained ... but I can think of lots of good reasons why that is not a good idea, and I'm not sure its lack of freight per se that is the problem to clinging onto Odessa.

carlkay has made this point above.