Matrix Games Forums

Well, we have to be very careful that this isn't tweaked too much the other way so that the Germans have to "siege" Kiev, Lvov, Misk, Brest Litovsk, etc. for a month or more early in the campaign. That WOULD be what happens if it's tweaked too much. Operation Typhoon might be at the gates of Misk.

I agree that the isolation rules are a bit off, but the game still seems to flow rather well as they are. In some cases they don't work well, but in other instances they work fine. So, I think any adjustments would have to be very carefully thought out. I'd just caution that you might regret what you wish for.

ORIGINAL: bwheatley



This seems like a lot of selective searching.
Siege of Sevastopol oct 30 1941 - july 4 1942 - 8 months about 32 turns.
Odessa - Aug 8 - Oct 16 (9 turns)

I mentioned Sevastopol, although it is not isolated. I have seen Odessa resisting many turns in some PBEM games. It is difficult to create an unbiased list of cities, because when the fight is longer , tends to be more famous. But if I look at the map, there are a lot of cities whose captures seem to be less known. My guess (and it is only a guess, I admit it) is that in most cases the fight was not very long. For instance, I know nothing about the Battles of Gomel , Novgorod , Pskov, Bryansk. There should be at least 2 battles each (German capture and Russian liberation). Any random city is OK for that. Leipzig, Lodz, Orel, Lvov, Zhitomir, BUDAPEST! (this is famous!). The question is: which one is the "rule" and which one is the exception?

As most people here thinks that a city should resist a couple of turns, I would expect that they have checked that most of those battles did last something between 10 and 17 days (1.5-2.5 weeks). Then even we can debate if 8 days are 1 turn or 2 turns. Or 9 days.[:)]

And in reality, as I have not made that study, I am not sure at all. But I am curious why many players seem to think there is something wrong. Wrong when compared to what?

Sevastopol is definitely an exception as it was massively fortified. Odessa I'm not so sure about. The critical difference with those two is that they both received supply via sea and were NOT isolated.

For me its not the isolation its the fact that cities are so valueless that nobody risks isolation trying to defend them

Indeed what's a value of the city once the industry is destroyed? I took Moscow in one PBEM, and am trying to decide, if and when the counter attack comes, should I defend it desperately or just leave at first sign of trouble....? Industry that was there was captured and (I presume) destroyed for good. What exactly will I lose and Soviet gain by retaking huge city like Moscow? What happens to manpower when a city changes hands repeatedly?

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
What exactly will I lose and Soviet gain by retaking huge city like Moscow? What happens to manpower when a city changes hands repeatedly?

They will have more recruits latter, I guess. If my calculation is correct and Soviets retake one of three Moscow hex at 89% damage and if it has 29 manpower points at turn X, with 3% repair rate (manual p. 282) Soviets will start to recruit there in about 4,5 months (20 turns). They will be able to recruit:

29 x 0.51 (damage) x 50 (multiplier for 1942) = 740 soldiers at turn X+20,
29 x 0.52 (damage) x 50 (multiplier for 1942) = 754 soldiers at turn X+21
etc.

Can someone confirm is this correct?

EDIT 1: Data in example above are taken from my first game against AI (turn 25 - 4. december. 1941).
EDIT 2: Or it shoud be 15 turns if we start with damage base of 11% (+ 3% each turn)?

I think that cities would be much more significant if they took on their rightful role as transport hubs.This might require a lot of coding and it's possibly not even practical at this stage, but I do think it would add enormously to the stratigic possibilities on the map.
If you gave each rail line a value so that the number of units, factories and amount of supply that could be carried was limited, then the main lines and particularly places where those main lines meet (i.e. cities) would become very valuable.At the moment, if your opponent captures one of your cities, who cares?There are loads of alternative rail lines, the stuff just goes around the city.If the other lines had limited capacity, then you'd start to feel the real significance of major cities.This would be particularly relevant for units close to the captured city with supplies, replacements and reinforcements all potentially affected.

I also saw this as a problem and have posted on it in the past.  Bottom line is the isolation model just does not "ring true", along with 41-42 German winter casualties.  More than simple tweaking is needed here, as one posted has noted, simple changes risk the dynamics of the early game to fix both issues.

I think the root both isssues is the combat model and how combat is modeled.  2-1 odds and you win, less you don't, with lots of possible factors (dice rolls) to get there.  There is a reason why in the military we use a MINIUM of 3-1 odds for any attack, and really prefer 4 to 5-1 and that includes all modifiers to that.  Remember I said combat power not numbers, very different.  Combat power takes into account ALL factors, morale, training, leadership, discipline, equipment, supplies, and these factors are not equal. I would argue that leadership, (at all levels) is the most important, then training, then discipline, morale, equipment and last supplies. A well lead, well disciplined, well trained unit can make due with very little when the chips are down....IMO

Also, I think the casualties model does not feel right to me, and I cannot really say what it is, but certain combat losses should be high, losses for the losser should be very high if they panic or break, while loses should be lighter for attacking units with overwhelming combat power in open terrain, with lots of tank support, (Panzer Division or Tank Corp) attacking a low moral, 0 fortification level, understrength infantry unit.

it seems to me that Hube's "wandering"pocket would be impossible to replicate in the game on account of cv drop.

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

it seems to me that Hube's "wandering"pocket would be impossible to replicate in the game on account of cv drop.

From Wikipedia

"On 25 March 1944, the last line of communications corridor out of Hube's bridgehead located on the northern bank of the Dniester was severed at Khotyn"

"By 5 April, the advanced guards of both the northern and southern columns had reached the Strypa River, and on the 6th, near the town of Buczacz, they linked up with the probing reconnaissance elements of Hausser's SS Divisions"

25 March-6 April=12 days isolated. Not that long. One of the most renowned pockets in the East front lasted 2 TURNs. I would think this was somewhat extraordinary.

What was the duration of the Korsun pocket? 2-3 weeks? has anyone re-created (or tried to) that scenario in the game?

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

it seems to me that Hube's "wandering"pocket would be impossible to replicate in the game on account of cv drop.

Yes. And there were many other wandering pockets - even some Soviet 1941 pockets marched east at high speed and many of the troops within actually made it back to friendly lines...