Finnish units immune to blizzard?

jager506 · Post by **jager506** » Sun Jul 29, 2001 2:06 pm

I seem to recall reading somewhere the Finnish units do not suffer the 1941 blizzard effects and if even one Finn unit is in a corps then the WHOLE corps will not suffer from blizzards. Can anyone verify this? Thanks!

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Jul 30, 2001 12:37 am

Originally posted by Chimera:
I seem to recall reading somewhere the Finnish units do not suffer the 1941 blizzard effects and if even one Finn unit is in a corps then the WHOLE corps will not suffer from blizzards. Can anyone verify this? Thanks!

I don't see this. German units in a Finnish Korps still suffer blizzard penalties, while the Finnish units do not, which is correct.

SoleSurvivor · Post by **SoleSurvivor** » Mon Jul 30, 2001 11:58 pm

If a single finn division would make the whole korps ignore blizzard the finns would be deployed unhistorically through all the German korps after the fall of leningrad. If it was the finn koprs that prevented blizzard effect then "finn" krops would be filled with German crack forces to create a bad weather attack force. etc etc etc. The finns shouldn't fight outside finnland at all I think. Another one, Territories occupied north of Leningrad seem not to repair rails ???

kisslove · Post by **kisslove** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 12:18 am

Originally posted by SoleSurvivor:
Another one, Territories occupied north of Leningrad seem not to repair rails ???

Yes I , but sometimes they do, I once skipped few turns on BothHuman and saw that one hex repaired, then I've played to that point but nothing happened...

Patris · Post by **Patris** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 1:14 am

I'm not totally sure at this, but in a test I've made in blizzard '41 a german panzer korps with 3 pz div and other units (CV about 80 at the time), entrenched, has shattered 3 times under the same attack, repeated from a saved game, at odds about 50:1.
The 4° time in the german turn I've railed in the Pz korp a Finnish artillery batallion (not a division!) and the attack has been resolved with odds 0:1 (obviously, the result was "held").

Regarding the Finnish rail conversion in '41, I've noticed that it begins the 1° turn of September, when the special supply boost cease. It has sense for me, because the manual states that during the special supply period the level of supply of a square for converting the rail must be 8 (6 in August) instead of the regular 4, and the supply in Finland is only 5.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 9:31 am

Originally posted by Fabio:
I'm not totally sure at this, but in a test I've made in blizzard '41 a german panzer korps with 3 pz div and other units (CV about 80 at the time), entrenched, has shattered 3 times under the same attack, repeated from a saved game, at odds about 50:1.
The 4° time in the german turn I've railed in the Pz korp a Finnish artillery batallion (not a division!) and the attack has been resolved with odds 0:1 (obviously, the result was "held").

Did you keep that save game file? If so send it to RickyB or I.

Regarding the Finnish rail conversion in '41, I've noticed that it begins the 1° turn of September, when the special supply boost cease. It has sense for me, because the manual states that during the special supply period the level of supply of a square for converting the rail must be 8 (6 in August) instead of the regular 4, and the supply in Finland is only 5.

Yes, it is an oversight by Gary, but since its never been really important, the issue has never been raised.

Patris · Post by **Patris** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:57 am

Sorry, it was a test I made just for fun some months ago just for curiosity, because I and my friends have agreed that sending the Finnish Army ravaging in all Russia is not fair play anyway.
Maybe it was only a lucky (or unlucky) circumstance, I've made only one test.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 12:41 pm

I've made a test in blizzard conditions.
Both combat odds and traces show that finnish unit does not make all other units stacked with it to be immune to blizzard.
But blizzard combat looks extmelemely corrupted to me. German readiness is reduced by weather effects and then it is divided by 4(or 3) in combat. Losses taken by German divisions during artillery and assault phase are almost equal to the amount of "effective" squads and this leaves negligible amount of men and equipment for the combat resolution resulting incredible odds like 2560:1. IMHO this is all corrupted and should not be done in this way. Why reduce before combat German readiness if it is already reduced by weather?
Ricky, how did you manage to beat yourself as Russian in your test game? Were Russian units so terribly weak that they could not shatter all German units? I can't believe that this can happen in pbem game.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 5:20 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
But blizzard combat looks extmelemely corrupted to me. German readiness is reduced by weather effects and then it is divided by 4(or 3) in combat. Losses taken by German divisions during artillery and assault phase are almost equal to the amount of "effective" squads and this leaves negligible amount of men and equipment for the combat resolution resulting incredible odds like 2560:1. IMHO this is all corrupted and should not be done in this way. Why reduce before combat German readiness if it is already reduced by weather?

I agree, so put this on the mailing list, Arnaud doesn't read much, if any, on this forum.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 7:10 pm

I believe Arnaud knows and understands this problem with the German combat strength being reduced so badly. That is where I learned it after finding the signs of the problem in the last release is from Arnaud. It should be better with new version when released as the CV will only be reduced by a third (or a half???). Low readiness units will hold up much better than higher readiness ones, so special supply must be avoided before and during 1941 blizzards.

Mist, using the latest test version, I reached within 4 hexes of Moscow in early September with 5 panzer korps at or over 100 CV at SL 4-5. The Soviet defenders were outnumbered all along the front in infantry and artillery and even in tanks, but much lower in experience. Although dug in in front of Moscow, most corps/armies only had a CV of 20-30. Leningrad was cut off from supplies and would have fallen within 2 turns, freeing up the panzers there to go south after the mud in October. I stopped at that point as I had no doubt that I would be able to capture Moscow possibly before the mud in October, but definitely in November before the blizzards. At this point, the Soviets would be crippled and losing a matter of time. Also, the blizzard effects are less than in the current release, which my testing showed it being fairly difficult for the Soviets to shatter anybody, although they could gain ground and cause some heavy losses.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 10:37 pm

Originally posted by RickyB:
I believe Arnaud knows and understands this problem with the German combat strength being reduced so badly. That is where I learned it after finding the signs of the problem in the last release is from Arnaud. It should be better with new version when released as the CV will only be reduced by a third (or a half???). Low readiness units will hold up much better than higher readiness ones, so special supply must be avoided before and during 1941 blizzards.

and you think it is right? such rule looks like madness. Doesn't it? Would't it be simplier and more logical just increase actual readiness loss for Germans or may be blizzard attrition instead of this VERY strange rule when stronger unit has great chance of being shattered by weaker one and weak unit can still hold its positions or simply retreat. Why not let the player to choose either use special supply or not. It is known that there is readiness penalty for having low OPs. Current blizzard combat system turns things up side down. It has no sence of historical situation.

Mist, using the latest test version, I reached within 4 hexes of Moscow in early September with 5 panzer korps at or over 100 CV at SL 4-5. The Soviet defenders were outnumbered all along the front in infantry and artillery and even in tanks, but much lower in experience. Although dug in in front of Moscow, most corps/armies only had a CV of 20-30. Leningrad was cut off from supplies and would have fallen within 2 turns, freeing up the panzers there to go south after the mud in October. I stopped at that point as I had no doubt that I would be able to capture Moscow possibly before the mud in October, but definitely in November before the blizzards. At this point, the Soviets would be crippled and losing a matter of time. Also, the blizzard effects are less than in the current release, which my testing showed it being fairly difficult for the Soviets to shatter anybody, although they could gain ground and cause some heavy losses.

sounds like hell for Russians. If Arnaud will accept no-entrench-for-batalion-sized-armies rule, it will become even worse. well.. I hope that the game against yourself is too much easy for stronger side and result of your test will be "softened" in real play.

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 11:33 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
and you think it is right? such rule looks like madness. Doesn't it? Would't it be simplier and more logical just increase actual readiness loss for Germans or may be blizzard attrition instead of this VERY strange rule when stronger unit has great chance of being shattered by weaker one and weak unit can still hold its positions or simply retreat. Why not let the player to choose either use special supply or not. It is known that there is readiness penalty for having low OPs. Current blizzard combat system turns things up side down. It has no sence of historical situation.

No I agree it is messed up. I actually made a couple of recommendations to the group based on entrenchment level affecting the level of readiness drop. Nothing happened from it over and above what changes were made.

sounds like hell for Russians. If Arnaud will accept no-entrench-for-batalion-sized-armies rule, it will become even worse. well.. I hope that the game against yourself is too much easy for stronger side and result of your test will be "softened" in real play.

Hard telling. I didn't push too hard on this. Again, I made a recommendation but this part was left alone.

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Tue Jul 31, 2001 11:44 pm

Originally posted by RickyB:

No I agree it is messed up. I actually made a couple of recommendations to the group based on entrenchment level affecting the level of readiness drop. Nothing happened from it over and above what changes were made.

I'd like to see your recomendations again because I propably missed them. Now I just have a comment that according your rule above highly entrenched units will have higher readiness and so will be more likely to shatter. Nice, eh?

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 12:53 am

Originally posted by Mist:

I'd like to see your recomendations again because I propably missed them. Now I just have a comment that according your rule above highly entrenched units will have higher readiness and so will be more likely to shatter. Nice, eh?

Actually, I guess it would have helped even then. Basically, it was if a unit was entrenched at level 3 or higher or in a city, it would only be halved in readiness, but keep the quartering for Axis (non-Finns) below ent level 3. Thus, only the ones lightly entrenched would suffer the full affects of blizzards and have the higher risk of shattering. This seems very historical to me (except for the readiness impact on shattering), as it would show the benefits to the Germans of stopping their offensive early and preparing, rather than advancing in November to the utmost. It would provide a nice risk/reward tradeoff, rather than the current situation where digging in rather than advancing only helps a little bit. Thus, units that prepared would not be at much risk, at least until they moved back into the open due to collapsing flanks.

Thus, a two level readiness effect. At the time, I didn't know but was beginning to suspect the problems that high readiness units have in these situations. Arnaud has never mentioned the same thing happening to the Soviets in early 1941 battles, but I would just about guarantee it does.

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: RickyB ]

PMCN · Post by **PMCN** » Wed Aug 01, 2001 3:20 pm

I hope the changes make digging in more or less a reasonable alternative. I will never forget seeing a level 5 entrenched Korp in the mountains with a readiness over 80% shatter.

As far as the soviets go, it is very clear that boosting the readiness of the soviet forces in the early part of 41 hurts them baddly. I have seen very strong, well dug in forces, defending accross a river shatter during an attack for no apparent reason while units which were in 0 supply and had no effective readiness would not. In that case they were in the Pripet marshes and I got a guards infantry division out of that silliness.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:54 am

Originally posted by Mist:
If Arnaud will accept no-entrench-for-batalion-sized-armies rule, it will become even worse.

How many corps do you regularly use with just a battalion in them, Mist? I don't think this rule would hurt anybody, but if it does have an effect, it applies equally to both sides.