Public Beta 1.02 updated to subversion G

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The siege guns need some kind of constraints while allowing them to take out lesser value targets. Otherwise the German will be hung up with sieges all over the map, and that's not right, either. Riga and Odessa in particular can be a pain to clear. But I win cards on Leningrad and Moscow are silly, yes. These aren't tactical nukes for crying out loud.

The funny thing is, neither Odessa nor Riga were taken using siege guns. The first was taken early in the campaign due to lack of a strong garrison (so maybe a C&C problem of the Red Army). Odessa cost the Rumanian army 100,000 casualties and fell October 19, 1941 after a 70 days siege, almost 20 turns in game terms! The only mention of `heavy' artillery I have seen says it was used in August, obviously to not great effect. Odessa, was WWI warfare.

What I am saying is : to my knowledge there is no historical reference to the use of siege guns to take any minor russian city in 1941. Sevastopol was taken in 1942 using siege guns because it had serious fortifications where it made sense to use them.

warspite1

Odessa wasn't really 'taken' at all. The Soviets abandoned the city by sea right under the Romanian and German noses....

I'd love me some Black Sea Fleet cards as the Soviet to simulate this and other such things. Sovs need a little more love and chrome of this sort.

You're of course correct about this, Odessa was abandoned by the Sovs in order to reinforce Sevastopol.

The siege of Odessa was kind of a disaster for the Romanians, they lost a lot of troops here to no effect and the siege may have gone on for who knows how long but for developments on other parts of the front.

But in game terms I think the German side needs some kind of ability to simulate an effort dedicated to expediting these affairs, with constraints. Problem now is the lack of constraints.

[governato]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: governato

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I think the reinforcement schedule in 1.01 is too accelerated, and in 1.02 is too slow.

But, shouldn't the armies arrive roughly when they actually arrived ? Is that the problem? That in 1.01 Stavka armies arrive earlier than what happened historically?
Then what you suggest is great. Also, finding when they first engaged in combat with their full(ish) OOB is easy to find.

Otherwise by arbitrarily altering the arrival of Red Army reinforcements you would not be improving the game, just twisting it to compensate for other perhaps less obvious shortcomings.

Dates of arrival here are very approximate regardless, as is their location of arrival.

I'm more interested in overall effect here than strict accuracy. This isn't that kind of game, and since armies are treated as generic blocs in this game, meh. If you want to get into the weeds here, you'd be doing it by division, the divisions themselves wouldn't be portrayed as they are in this game, you'd need a replacement system, blah blah blah.

Sure enough and for the reasons mentioned above, but also as suggested there could a few arrival options linked to degrees of difficulty and then one that is marked as 'well, umm this is our best guess at historical, do what you want with it'. The forum briefly obsessed at how many regiments the SS divisions had, so we may as well figure out when the Red Army forces arrived.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If I want that kind of jazz, I'll fire up WITE. Some imprecision is not only allowable in a game like this, it's part of its charm.

Do not ever mention WITE after sunset, you crazy man.

[Michael T]

IMO the game is in favor of Germany for PBEM in 1.01. I would not play 1.02 as it stands ATM, the balance fix went in the wrong direction IMO.

In my Soviet games (1.01) I was happy enough with everything bar the conscripts. The conscripts need some starch added.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: governato




The funny thing is, neither Odessa nor Riga were taken using siege guns. The first was taken early in the campaign due to lack of a strong garrison (so maybe a C&C problem of the Red Army). Odessa cost the Rumanian army 100,000 casualties and fell October 19, 1941 after a 70 days siege, almost 20 turns in game terms! The only mention of `heavy' artillery I have seen says it was used in August, obviously to not great effect. Odessa, was WWI warfare.

What I am saying is : to my knowledge there is no historical reference to the use of siege guns to take any minor russian city in 1941. Sevastopol was taken in 1942 using siege guns because it had serious fortifications where it made sense to use them.

warspite1

Odessa wasn't really 'taken' at all. The Soviets abandoned the city by sea right under the Romanian and German noses....

I'd love me some Black Sea Fleet cards as the Soviet to simulate this and other such things. Sovs need a little more love and chrome of this sort.

You're of course correct about this, Odessa was abandoned by the Sovs in order to reinforce Sevastopol.

The siege of Odessa was kind of a disaster for the Romanians, they lost a lot of troops here to no effect and the siege may have gone on for who knows how long but for developments on other parts of the front.

But in game terms I think the German side needs some kind of ability to simulate an effort dedicated to expediting these affairs, with constraints. Problem now is the lack of constraints.

warspite1

Agreed. I think cards for the Black Sea Fleet would have been a great addition. Thinking typically of Odessa or Sevastopol (but also Nicolayev too), they could be used to reinforce a fortress city and add weight to the defence via their shore bombardment (the latter could also assist Leningrad of course).

I read somewhere that the Soviets conducted a great many amphibious invasions during the war. This threat to German rear areas would have been a potential inhibitor to their advance.

[devoncop]

I will +1 Michael T's opinion. Germans with good play under 1.01 had in my view an advantage in the North and South given the activation problems the Soviets have. In the North the limited distance means supply is less of an issue in my experience whilst in the South by the time the Russians get activated armies....all conscripts... the terrain is very difficult to defend and most of the regular troops are toast.

The large numbers of Central Front Armies do need staggering a bit but the ability and cost to change posture I would argue do not given other Soviet handicaps.

As to the defensibility of major cities I would favour an increasing percentage chance of fortifications being reduced much like the chances of Finnish entry. The automatic fall to zero once the Siege Train arrives makes a protracted seige impossible.

As my PBEM opponents will corroborate I am a keen rather than expert player (30% win rate ) so my points may not be valid for true grogs !