Be sure to garrison Constanta

[PeeDeeAitch]

ORIGINAL: Zort

Great, we don't allow the germans to be smart and dig in to mitigate the blizzard but we give the soviets the capability to amphibious assault div/corps when they never had that capability.  If you are going to model sea power then it is needed to not be abstracted so it becomes so outrageous it might break the game.  Sorry to harp on this but the soviet navy was the pits, they didn't have the materials to regun the battleship once the barrel liners were worn out.  They wouldn't sail their ships because they feared the axis airpower.  What they did was well within their means not landing normandy style assaults.  Sorry.... the first time a soviet invades romanian captures a city then lands max divs, takes out the entire southern flank is so far from history might as well give the germans ray guns....[:)] 

The Soviets did land troops outside of Odessa in September 1941 (where they suprised and defeated Romanian defenders), and there were larger landings at Feodosia in December of 1941. To say the Soviets did not have such capacity shows a distinct slanted view of what happened. The Feodosia landings were initially at least 5000 to 10000 men - at least division sized in game terms. While I do not think the Soviets should be allowed to open a "Southern Front" in Romania, you do sell the Black Sea Fleet a bit short in your hyperbolic statements.

[Zort]

Ok not to get into a pissing contest, you probably have more info then me. Yep in Feodosia and the Kerch Naval base (44th and 51st Army) the soviets landed almost 42k troops, 43 tanks and other items. But they came from across the straight. They used barges, fishing boats, sail boats, minesweepers, gunboats and other ships.  They used the barges as piers.  Once they captured the port they offloaded on piers.  They even did it in a storm.  It took 5-6 days to complete the operation.  Yes they could put people ashore but not the same way as we did in eastern europe.

You can argue all you want but in game terms, the naval aspect has not been modeled like the land/air aspect has, just a large abstraction.  If the game modeled every warship the way everything else is then yes.  But to imply that the soviets were capable of landing large forces with heavy equipment across a beach at any time, is I believe not correct.

All I am saying is because the abstraction seems to be too far fetched it could cause those landings in Bulgaria etc etc.  Now there should be no capability in the baltic once talinn is axis unless you know of amphib assaults there too.  If the game allowed the ships to be sunk that would be nice.  But now there is no support from the sea just the landings. 

[PeeDeeAitch]

Don't get me wrong, I personally don't think the Soviets should be allowed to invade Romania.  I simply think that dismissing the ability of the Black Sea Fleet to project power (even ad hoc as they did) should not be dismissed. The fleet showed drive and dash to do what they did, and they certainly threw a wrench or two into the works.  My objection was the (I know, humorously intended) over the top response.

[Zort]

No problem, I shouldn't get so excited.  I just hate seeing a good land game get messed up with a poor naval model.  I think there should be some capability but not so much that is messes up the game.  There is a lot that goes into amphibious ops, spent 20 years in the navy so have some experience with it.  I think the soviets should have limits like, inf divs can land/assault only in ports. They can only be supplied thru ports not off the beachs due to their size.  Brigade size inf can land anywhere but with no heavy equipment.  Limit the distance landings can be conducted from a qualifying port. 

The naval portion of the game shouldn't become a main focal point, a threat but not a major concern (a lot like the german paratroopers).

[VictorCharlie]

What about having random losses to units amphibious landing to reflect the effects of defensive minefields and the Rumanian navy?

[LiquidSky]

How does a Russian invasion 'mess up' the game? You need Bucharest to make Rumania surrender before 1942. Odessa should be garrisoned, and there isnt a lot of ports that need guarding.

The game will only be 'messed up' if the axis ignore the threat. Which I am pretty sure they didnt do in the war, so why should you?

[ComradeP]

The Black Sea fleet would not have been capable of dropping 4-5 full strength Rifle corps in Romania in a single week, yet it's perfectly capable of doing so in the game.

[Zort]

Amphibious landings should be a concern but a minor one.  Like comrade said landing corps should not be a viable option.  There are a lot of things that should be considered when making a naval model vice just abstracting it away.  Just because a warship can sail a long way doesn't mean that the tug pulling the barge can do the same.  If I remember correctly once the Kerch peninsular was crossed the soviets (couldn't) didn't launch another major port assault.  They might have done small unit assaults but I don't know.  A lot of the 'ports' in the crimea were anchorages so they were viable landing areas so the germans garrisoned them too.

Question, does the Axis have black sea, sea transport capability?  Never looked yet, heck never captured Sevastopol yet.


 

[Pawsy]

Historically it was the Soviets who dominated in the Black sea.

[ComradeP]

As long as they held Sevastopol, yes. After Sevastopol and Novorossiysk were captured by the Axis, maintenance standards and thus operational readiness plummeted. The domination was also for a great deal due to the lack of a close second. The Black Sea Fleet itself wasn't all that impressive, even though it had a large number of surface ships compared to the Romanian and Bulgarian navies, many of the ships were quite old. A total of 1 battleship and 5 cruisers for heavier naval support would never have been adequate for supporting a landing in Romania. The heavy ships would quickly be sunk by the Luftwaffe, the Romanian air force.

As an aside, I just noticed that Nikolaev doesn't have a port, nor is there a port in the direct area.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Historically it was the Soviets who dominated in the Black sea.

Yes. There's some interesting stories about how the Germans dismantled some subs and ships and transported them to a Rom Black Sea port for reassembly and launch. Although interesting, it didn't do much to budge the sov dominance of the naval supremacy in the Black Sea.

The Luftwaffe had best ability to hamper sov operations in the Black Sea. Although the Germans some what mismanaged this advantage to some extend and only had partial success. A period of the partial success was during the final siege of Sevastopol in spr 42 when extra Luftwaffe air groups were station to hamper Sov troop and supply movements to and from Sevastopol.

The larger issues is with the current rules for a chance of a Romanian surrender or side switching in 42 if Constanta is invaded for a 1 week or so. It was my game that this happened. Sequence,

- sov player invades Constanta
- axis player reacts and rails in part of a Pz Corps to contain it.
- next axis player turn Rom switches sides and some German armies disappear from map and go into manpower pool.
(German armies loss seems to be maybe edge case or just armies that had units stacked with Rom units. Not sure yet the cause).
- game over ..
[:(]

I firmly believe this is a serious flaw in the game mechanics and the reality of the Romanian state at that point in time. It would have taken a lot more for even a consideration for Rom surrender/side switching in 1942. I think Roman surrender (apply this logic in some fashion to other minor allies, exception Italy) should be based on these factors:

- sov unit strength in Rom
- German unit strength in Rom
- key cities under Sov control
- current year(/month?)
- current front line (key sov cities still under axis control)

Anything less of these considerations, IMO, is a hack job on the Romanian (minor allies) diplomatic game rules/mechanics.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Historically it was the Soviets who dominated in the Black sea.

Yes. There's some interesting stories about how the Germans dismantled some subs and ships and transported them to a Rom Black Sea port for reassembly and launch. Although interesting, it didn't do much to budge the sov dominance of the naval supremacy in the Black Sea.

The Luftwaffe had best ability to hamper sov operations in the Black Sea. Although the Germans some what mismanaged this advantage to some extend and only had partial success. A period of the partial success was during the final siege of Sevastopol in spr 42 when extra Luftwaffe air groups were station to hamper Sov troop and supply movements to and from Sevastopol.

The larger issues is with the current rules for a chance of a Romanian surrender or side switching in 42 if Constanta is invaded for a 1 week or so. It was my game that this happened. Sequence,

- sov player invades Constanta
- axis player reacts and rails in part of a Pz Corps to contain it.
- next axis player turn Rom switches sides and some German armies disappear from map and go into manpower pool.
(German armies loss seems to be maybe edge case or just armies that had units stacked with Rom units. Not sure yet the cause).
- game over ..
[:(]

I firmly believe this is a serious flaw in the game mechanics and the reality of the Romanian state at that point in time. It would have taken a lot more for even a consideration for Rom surrender/side switching in 1942. I think Roman surrender (apply this logic in some fashion to other minor allies, exception Italy) should be based on these factors:

- sov unit strength in Rom
- German unit strength in Rom
- key cities under Sov control
- current year(/month?)
- current front line (key sov cities still under axis control)

Anything less of these considerations, IMO, is a hack job on the Romanian (minor allies) diplomatic game rules/mechanics.

Brilliant! So you knocked Roumania out of the war and won the game?

[ComradeP]

It can be a problem that the smallest dot hex can theoretically force a country to surrender if captured by the Soviets, regardless of whether they're actually getting anywhere.

I do think that it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening, at least in the Hungarian case and in part for the Romanians too. With a large stack in the capital, I'm assuming that's supposed to represent an abstracted regime change, but there's no effect on combat effectiveness of the units of that nation, not even slightly. I'm not sure what the effect is when Romanian divisions switch sides, but from what I've read it doesn't seem too substantial.

[Zort]

This is sorta fun.  Soviets couldn't do massive landings but some are saying why not.  This is the problem of abstracting things in a game.  This is like saying the germans could have launched sealion and landed in scotland.  We have to remember there are different types of amphibious assaults.  The ones the soviets did were nowhere close to what the western allies did.
Oh yea don't forget that the germans evacuated sevastopol with little or no interference from the soviet navy.  They had more warships in the Black Sea but they were always worried that they might get caught by the luftwaffe.

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It can be a problem that the smallest dot hex can theoretically force a country to surrender if captured by the Soviets, regardless of whether they're actually getting anywhere.

I do think that it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening, at least in the Hungarian case and in part for the Romanians too. With a large stack in the capital, I'm assuming that's supposed to represent an abstracted regime change, but there's no effect on combat effectiveness of the units of that nation, not even slightly. I'm not sure what the effect is when Romanian divisions switch sides, but from what I've read it doesn't seem too substantial.

Well not exactly:
- my sov opponent invaded Constanta
- next axis turn I sent part of a PZ corps to contain it
- logistic phase after axis turn, Rom switched sides as well as bug that removed 6th, 11th, and 1st Pz army units from the map.
- game over at t65
[:(]

Joel has our last PBEM server turns and was looking into the issues.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: Zort

This is sorta fun.  Soviets couldn't do massive landings but some are saying why not.  This is the problem of abstracting things in a game.  This is like saying the germans could have launched sealion and landed in scotland.  We have to remember there are different types of amphibious assaults.  The ones the soviets did were nowhere close to what the western allies did.
Oh yea don't forget that the germans evacuated sevastopol with little or no interference from the soviet navy.  They had more warships in the Black Sea but they were always worried that they might get caught by the luftwaffe.

Well, at least Abubullian got to win in a sneaky way. maybe some frozen fixed defenses on the Roumanian coast would be a good idea, though?

[abulbulian]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It can be a problem that the smallest dot hex can theoretically force a country to surrender if captured by the Soviets, regardless of whether they're actually getting anywhere.

I do think that it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening, at least in the Hungarian case and in part for the Romanians too. With a large stack in the capital, I'm assuming that's supposed to represent an abstracted regime change, but there's no effect on combat effectiveness of the units of that nation, not even slightly. I'm not sure what the effect is when Romanian divisions switch sides, but from what I've read it doesn't seem too substantial.

I don't think the statement "it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening" is the proper way to address a issue in the actual game mechanics such as this. Yeah, it might be a band-aide to a more serious flaw, but in no means should be considered as the 'fix'.

Minor allies surrender should be handled a bit more sensible IMO. If the existing logic was a first attempt to handle this aspect, it now needs to be revisited. I hope changes in these rules will come later down the road.

[Zort]

Yea you could make every urban area have an intrinsic defense but why allow the soviets to do something they were never capable of in the first place.  

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It can be a problem that the smallest dot hex can theoretically force a country to surrender if captured by the Soviets, regardless of whether they're actually getting anywhere.

I do think that it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening, at least in the Hungarian case and in part for the Romanians too. With a large stack in the capital, I'm assuming that's supposed to represent an abstracted regime change, but there's no effect on combat effectiveness of the units of that nation, not even slightly. I'm not sure what the effect is when Romanian divisions switch sides, but from what I've read it doesn't seem too substantial.

Well not exactly:
- my sov opponent invaded Constanta
- next axis turn I sent part of a PZ corps to contain it
- logistic phase after axis turn, Rom switched sides as well as bug that removed 6th, 11th, and 1st Pz army units from the map.
- game over at t65
[:(]

Joel has our last PBEM server turns and was looking into the issues.

Does seem like a spectacular end to WWII. What a let down for the Italians, Finns, Vichy, Slovakia and Hungry though. And Japan.
And what happens in a case like that? Does Sweden intern the Nazis in toto or something? The legal costs alone would cripple a small Empire. The Portuguese or the Dutch.
I guess it would be nice for the millions sitting in concentration camps: hey, the war is over. We gave a genocide and nobody came.

And what about Dr. Pavlovic and the Pavolicchecks? Not a pretty thought.

And what would Rommel say? Zooming over the desert he learns he is to report to Tunisia for Internment. Not a happy event for him.

[MengJiao]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

It can be a problem that the smallest dot hex can theoretically force a country to surrender if captured by the Soviets, regardless of whether they're actually getting anywhere.

I do think that it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening, at least in the Hungarian case and in part for the Romanians too. With a large stack in the capital, I'm assuming that's supposed to represent an abstracted regime change, but there's no effect on combat effectiveness of the units of that nation, not even slightly. I'm not sure what the effect is when Romanian divisions switch sides, but from what I've read it doesn't seem too substantial.

I don't think the statement "it's also fairly easy for the Axis to prevent it from happening" is the proper way to address a issue in the actual game mechanics such as this. Yeah, it might be a band-aide to a more serious flaw, but in no means should be considered as the 'fix'.

Minor allies surrender should be handled a bit more sensible IMO. If the existing logic was a first attempt to handle this aspect, it now needs to be revisited. I hope changes in these rules will come later down the road.

Hmmm. I don't know. If 500 casualties to a Panzer division in a hasty attack is madness beyond imaging, then the complete disappearance of 6th and 11th and 1st Panzer armies must be just one of those things to be accepted with a philosohical shrug, I would think.