Soviet Airborne Operations; HELP!!!!

[darbycmcd]

Well, it was certainly possible, and did in fact happen, that small detachments like this interupted supply. But the problem is with the game mechanics and scale. With one week turns, and lack of small subunit reaction, the amount of blockage is just unrealistic. Remember that ZOC represents zone of operations roughly, so that para bde (-) is in the AO of 2 x ID and at least one MD. Its ability to completely block supply throughput for a 10 mile wide corridor for a week is completely a result of scale, not capability.

I just don't think soviet airborne should have any impacts, such as cutting rail lines, blocking supply, displacing units, until AFTER the german player has a chance to respond.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

Its ability to completely block supply throughput for a 10 mile wide corridor for a week is completely a result of scale, not capability.

But supply runs over a road and in 41 Russia you don't get many roads. So for me it's completely conceivable that 400 men can block a road for some time and greatly reduce supply.

I agree with you that the scale is a major problem.

[darbycmcd]

You are right, they could and did.... but not for a week. That is the problem, it would be somewhat trivially easy to reopen that supply line, being as it is between two combat units, in just a short time. But here the Axis player has to watch his guys get cut off for an entire week before he can do anything. Realistically, dropping in that kind of a position would be absolute suicide. Remember also that counters and hexes are highly abstract representations. Units don't sit in a box within a hex area. That corridor would be completely swarming with troops of various types. But it does also show why real life military plans did not use these super thin tap-root type advances, they are very vulnerable. I suppose in some way it is really just gamey countering gamey.

[rmonical]

Can someone please explain to me why this is historically impossible.

For completeness:
tm.asp?m=3448454

1. Because it never fails.
1.a - the game engine always tells the Soviets where it is safe to drop.
1.b - the game engine does not provide for reaction to air drops.
1.c - the game engine does not allow the Axis to create battalion size rear area security units. Realistically, every hex in that corridor is occupied by two to three battalions of combat and support units. The fact that it shows vacant in the game is just an artifact of the unit abstraction.
If this was a viable tactic for ad hoc, weekly use, then we would have seen it in WWII. Either the capability to launch this many airborne attacks did not exist, or their effectiveness in the game exceeds what was historically possible.
2. Displacement

I encourage you to try a small scale game like Panzer Corps (battalion/company). Lay out a situation like this and see if 400 airborne troops dropped at night can even get to the road, much less gain control for even a few hours.

For example, to get an idea how it might work, just set up a single motorized flak battalion and see if your 400 men can push it off the road. In WITE, the flak battalions are displaced away. In real life, the guns and the 180 rifles would kill a lot of paratroopers. Add a construction battalion with its 360 rifles and you start to get a sense of what the paratroopers would face in a more realistic rear area security environment.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I encourage you to try a small scale game like Panzer Corps (battalion/company). Lay out a situation like this and see if 400 airborne troops dropped at night can even get to the road, much less gain control for even a few hours.

For example, to get an idea how it might work, just set up a single motorized flak battalion and see if your 400 men can push it off the road. In WITE, the flak battalions are displaced away. In real life, the guns and the 180 rifles would kill a lot of paratroopers. Add a construction battalion with its 360 rifles and you start to get a sense of what the paratroopers would face in a more realistic rear area security environment.

We have already agreed on that. It's absurd to think that 400 men can displace 2 HQs and an airbase. The main purpose of this particular drop, however, was to make the supply even worse then it already was. The rest was just gravy. I don't find the effects on supply inconceivable at all.

The automatic displacement needs to be fixed. The German player needs to get the opportunity to move his HQs and airbases on the next turn before they get displaced.

[rmonical]

We have already agreed on that. It's absurd to think that 400 men can displace 2 HQs and an airbase. The main purpose of this particular drop, however, was to make the supply even worse then it already was.

The reason you get displacement of HQs loaded up with combat units is because the designers decided the combat units are spread out over the area of operations. So in a congested area like that pocket, there are no true "empty" hexes. In reality, every hex has support units that would prevented the air drop from accomplishing its mission.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I just wanted to show that I'm not just randomly dropping airborne brigades on rail lines etc. It's not always that easy. This was my first drop on T12. As everyone can see it's part of a counter attack in the south because it's mainly defended by Romanian units. Cavalry storms west and that makes the air drop deep into enemy territory possible. You can say that it's gamey. I think it's cool! [8D]

[loki100]

I'm sorry - its gamey, its as much an exploitation of the game engine as MKTours got up and the turn 1.

In this time period, no army could organise airdrops on the fly - least of all the Soviets, in Sept 41 the entire state was collapsing as power shifted to/from army/party.

WW3, yeah, exploit a gap with helicopters - standard tactic for both NATO and WP.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I'm sorry - its gamey, its as much an exploitation of the game engine as MKTours got up and the turn 1.

I'm not asking for your approval. I know it's gamey. I'm just a gamer and I like stuff like that. I totally understand that other players hate it. Just like they hate fuel delivery by air plane or rerouting of Panzer Corps south etc. etc. etc.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I also wanted to point out that this thread was first created by lastkozak because he wanted to learn how to use the air drop feature. I was happy to comply and help him out. The thread was then hijacked by rmonical because he feels the need to complain about my use of paratroopers. May I suggest that all these complains regarding paratroopers and perceived bugs should be moved to a different thread or the tech forum.

I myself am thinking about creating some sort of guide regarding this subject. Maybe I'll call it "A Bozo's Guide to Airborne Operations."

[rmonical]

rmonical because he feels the need to complain about my use of paratroopers.

Almost right. I'm complaining about the design features that allow ahistorical results. I thn started the appropriate thread here
tm.asp?m=3448454

[gingerbread]

Hmm. I would not mind if the rules for paras were amended so that the drop could only take place w/i a friendly hex, not a friendly to be converted. This would disallow pushing units forward in order to expand the para range.

[darbycmcd]

Actually, this seems to me to be a textbook use of airborne for deep battle. They are dropped 70 miles in front of an advancing spearhead, on an MSR, in a relatively sparcely populated (by the enemy) zone.... I don't get what is gamey about it. Lets not argue about staff planning time, soviet operations of this kind could actually happen rather quickly, much much more so than say re-alignment of German corp level axis of advance.... none of us want to put in realistic staff planning overhead. For all game operations the assumption is that staff work is done invisibly ahead of time, and operations are a result of such. This operation is exactly the kind of thing that airborne SHOULD be used for in the game. the only problem is that the units reconsitute far too quickly because they use regular rifle squads.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

I'm sorry - its gamey, its as much an exploitation of the game engine as MKTours got up and the turn 1.

How could you possibly compare those two things? Mktours strategy was brilliant but it was totally unintended by the game designers. However, the game designers gave me a large number of para brigades and a suitable number of transport planes on turn 1. For what purpose? To use them all as line infantry? This makes no sense to me.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Bozo_the_Clown

I'm sorry - its gamey, its as much an exploitation of the game engine as MKTours got up and the turn 1.

How could you possibly compare those two things? Mktours strategy was brilliant but it was totally unintended by the game designers. However, the game designers gave me a large number of para brigades and a suitable number of transport planes on turn 1. For what purpose? To use them all as line infantry? This makes no sense to me.

Because they both are the same. Its the core mindset and there is no point debating it as those who see things differently are never going to agree.

You both, in different ways, have abused the game engine by taking the view 'its not banned by the rules so its ok'. Now you make a lot of claims just to be a gamer, and as such the only constraint you'd consider is banned by the rules.

Yes the Soviets have a lot of paras and a lot of transports, but they used the first as line infantry (need) and the second for the nascent partisan war. They needed the front to stabilise in mid-autumn to pull the paras out the line.

So its the same issue as the flying fuel tank bombers. Maybe, just maybe it could have been done but it wasn't for very practical reasons. Maybe, just maybe the Soviets could have done weekly para drops in the summer/autumn 1941 but for very good reasons they didn't.

More to the point when they did, until one instance in late summer 1943, what they dropped was sub-scale for this game. As has been rehearsed to death in your other thread, the Germans lack the low level (battalion and less) security units that would have been a counter to the sort of para war, just maybe, the Red Army was capable of. So since your opponent lacks the tools to respond, I personally think its pretty gamey - and given the problems with air interception it is not really the case to stress that as the solution.

But as above, there is little point to this discussion - I'm interested in a game constrained by realism, you're interested in game constrained by the rules.

In my case, I don't care if the Germans commit 2 Panzer armies into the Ukraine, in effect decide that the historic focus on Moscow was a dead end. I do care, if that then leads to a massive exploit of turn 1 to wreck SW Front beyond use.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

More to the point when they did, until one instance in late summer 1943, what they dropped was sub-scale for this game. As has been rehearsed to death in your other thread, the Germans lack the low level (battalion and less) security units that would have been a counter to the sort of para war, just maybe, the Red Army was capable of. So since your opponent lacks the tools to respond, I personally think its pretty gamey - and given the problems with air interception it is not really the case to stress that as the solution.

In my opinion you guys are just unwilling to find an in game solution to the problem. There are other players who obviously have, for example, figured out air interception. For example STEF78 has figured it out or why is he shooting down my planes like birds?

There is always a solution for every problem. That's what makes games interesting. Books are interesting too! I like reading. I just don't mix my games and my books.

[lastkozak]

How can I get more, or increase, the number of Transport squadrons/rgmts?

How does one night trans to partisans, but still have maximum transports available later for Air Operations?


"Comrade-General Zhukov has asked me to gather all information necessary for planning airdrop for Vinter attack!"

[Bozo_the_Clown]

How can I get more, or increase, the number of Transport squadrons/rgmts?

This is done automatically. You have no influence over it. You may have noticed that at the beginning of the game you are receiving two new U2 transport regiments every turn. I don't know what the maximum number is but you have more then enough regiments because you are only producing so few Li-2 in 41.

How does one night trans to partisans, but still have maximum transports available later for Air Operations?

You can use IL-4, DB-3B or SB-2 instead of transports for partisan supply. Or you can save the Li-2 for airborne operations and use TB-3G for partisan supply. You need to plan ahead.

[lastkozak]

Thanks Bozo!

I noticed with airborne drops that the fewer transports I have the more trips they need to take to drop the paratroopers. This resulted in a low survival rate of the Airborne Units. I thus like to keep my transports for airdrops only, and drop a few with as many transports as possible. When I did this in the past, I had a higher survival rate of the airborne, and they landed with more personnel. Did you find the same thing?

I thus like to keep my transports in national reserve until I need them. did not know I could use Bombers to supply partisans too.

[Bozo_the_Clown]

When I did this in the past, I had a higher survival rate of the airborne, and they landed with more personnel. Did you find the same thing?

Yes, the fewer sorties the more men are going to land. But keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish. If it's just about cutting the rail line it doesn't matter whether the unit is depleted or not. In that case go with as few transports as possible.

If you plan to make two drops in one turn make sure to NOT have both para brigades at the same airbase. If you drop the first brigade the men that are not participating will be pushed into the second brigade. All of a sudden you have a brigade with 5000 or 6000 men and won't be able to transport it.