Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Actually for me, the land in the Crimea tends to become secondary in '41. What I'm most intersted in is destroying the units that tend to accumulate in the area. When these plus other forces that the AI dispatches in the area, attack in winter, they can become a real pain in the neck (almost lirerally) since they threaten the supply lines to Stalino etc.. Sevastapol is a target, but not the main one plus the bulk of the units used (Romanian 3 Army except fot the mountain corps) are basically useless in '41 at the front (too slow to reach the frontline and too weak to really effect the outcome).

What I meant was: if you don't commit to taking it, you have to hold 3 hexes to prevent the Soviets from getting out. If you do commit to taking the Crimea and fail to take it, your frontline will be much longer than 3 hexes and will thus require more troops. Good troops, so not primarily the Romanians, who with their combined strength would still have serious difficulties with invading my backyard.

Yea i made a house rule with my opponent that he has to take the crimea. Since we both agreed now strat air after you told us its issues comrade. So we figured it was a fair compromise that he has to come after it and take it. I've got all the hexes leading in upto level 4. And i've got a line of hexes halfway down upto level 3. So my guys should have some good fallback positions i have about 20 divisions in there. Hopefully i can get them to retreat out before they all surrender though.

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Actually for me, the land in the Crimea tends to become secondary in '41. What I'm most intersted in is destroying the units that tend to accumulate in the area. When these plus other forces that the AI dispatches in the area, attack in winter, they can become a real pain in the neck (almost lirerally) since they threaten the supply lines to Stalino etc.. Sevastapol is a target, but not the main one plus the bulk of the units used (Romanian 3 Army except fot the mountain corps) are basically useless in '41 at the front (too slow to reach the frontline and too weak to really effect the outcome).

What I meant was: if you don't commit to taking it, you have to hold 3 hexes to prevent the Soviets from getting out. If you do commit to taking the Crimea and fail to take it, your frontline will be much longer than 3 hexes and will thus require more troops. Good troops, so not primarily the Romanians, who with their combined strength would still have serious difficulties with invading my backyard.

Yea i made a house rule with my opponent that he has to take the crimea. Since we both agreed now strat air after you told us its issues comrade. So we figured it was a fair compromise that he has to come after it and take it. I've got all the hexes leading in upto level 4. And i've got a line of hexes halfway down upto level 3. So my guys should have some good fallback positions i have about 20 divisions in there. Hopefully i can get them to retreat out before they all surrender though.

It is not my game, but as a observer, I would point out that the Russian player can really take advantage of knowing the Axis player "must" take the Crimea. What sort of other parameters have been laid out here? How much force does the Axis player have to use? How long do they have to take it?

Not invading the Crimea should be an option for the Axis to exercise much like deciding to make a push for Leningrad should be made or not.

ORIGINAL: bwheatley
I love most everyone on matrix games forums.

Can't the Soviets just ship the units to port?

Sure, I was just talking about their offensive capabilities to land on Axis controlled territory when Sevastopol and the other ports on the Crimea are not taken.

Yea i made a house rule with my opponent that he has to take the crimea.

It's your choice of course, but as Klydon pointed out I'd say such a house rule has some issues. It's pretty easy to defend the approaches as the Soviets and the Axis forces moving into the Crimea are essentially advancing in the wrong direction. If there's any threat that should be neutralized, I'd say the Black Sea Fleet's a better candidate than what would pass for a Soviet attempt at strategic bombing.

Are attacks allowed across the Straits of Kerch? What are the "penalties?"

It's treated like a major river hexside, so generally the attacker's CV will be around 1/3 of what it would normally be.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: ComradeP



What I meant was: if you don't commit to taking it, you have to hold 3 hexes to prevent the Soviets from getting out. If you do commit to taking the Crimea and fail to take it, your frontline will be much longer than 3 hexes and will thus require more troops. Good troops, so not primarily the Romanians, who with their combined strength would still have serious difficulties with invading my backyard.

Yea i made a house rule with my opponent that he has to take the crimea. Since we both agreed now strat air after you told us its issues comrade. So we figured it was a fair compromise that he has to come after it and take it. I've got all the hexes leading in upto level 4. And i've got a line of hexes halfway down upto level 3. So my guys should have some good fallback positions i have about 20 divisions in there. Hopefully i can get them to retreat out before they all surrender though.

It is not my game, but as a observer, I would point out that the Russian player can really take advantage of knowing the Axis player "must" take the Crimea. What sort of other parameters have been laid out here? How much force does the Axis player have to use? How long do they have to take it?

Not invading the Crimea should be an option for the Axis to exercise much like deciding to make a push for Leningrad should be made or not.

Well we have a gentleman agreement that he will try to take it. We have no force requirements. I'm not trying to open a can of worms. But if strat air worked properly i'd compel him to take the crimea by constantly bombing polesti. Even if my losses are through the roof i'd imagine any axis player would not want to have to worry about it.
But then again i could be wrong. I doubt a single air raid will do 18% damage to the polesti oil fields once they have worked out the kinks.

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Can't the Soviets just ship the units to port?

Sure, I was just talking about their offensive capabilities to land on Axis controlled territory when Sevastopol and the other ports on the Crimea are not taken.

Yea i made a house rule with my opponent that he has to take the crimea.

It's your choice of course, but as Klydon pointed out I'd say such a house rule has some issues. It's pretty easy to defend the approaches as the Soviets and the Axis forces moving into the Crimea are essentially advancing in the wrong direction. If there's any threat that should be neutralized, I'd say the Black Sea Fleet's a better candidate than what would pass for a Soviet attempt at strategic bombing.

Are attacks allowed across the Straits of Kerch? What are the "penalties?"

It's treated like a major river hexside, so generally the attacker's CV will be around 1/3 of what it would normally be.

That's a good point about the black sea fleet. Thanks comrade.

Yes, I realize I'm replying to a 2-month-old post, but I like the topic
 
I think many of you are overlooking the potential outcomes of by-passing the Crimea, namely that those German units could be used in other offensive moves elsewhere. Let me give you an example. In the old WIR I tried a completely ahistoric Axis plan by focusing the major northern thrusts at the expense of the South. Thus Army Group South, after pocketing the usual area south of Kiev, and then forging a bridgehead across the Dniepr, and then linking with a panzer thrust from AG Center and pocketing Kiev (all closely historical), I drove the panzers of AG South northeast to support AGC's drive to Moscow. Thus, I completely by-passed Karkov and the Crimea.
 
I thought that If I took Moscow & Lenningrad in '41 (which I did [;)]), then I could take care of the Ukraine in '42 (which I did). I guess what I'm getting at is that the Axis can not attack equally strong EVERYWHERE and that to beat Russia it must concentrate on the biggest targets. Trade-offs must be made somewhere, and I think this is what Terminus was kind of getting at (?). Trading the Crimea for Moscow was a good trade-off for me in that WIR game. Not capturing Karkov/Ukraine/Crimea was a calculated gamble that paid off then.
 
(PS - I thought I saw an older German war plan that initally had only x2 major thrusts - not x3. One went north of Pripet/Minsk/Smolensk/Moscow, the other was south of Pripet/Kiev/Bryansk/Moscow. I'm not at home so I donot have the source [&:]. This is what I replicated).

Have any PBEM players actually made a good effort at the Crimea? I gave up on trying, simply due to lack of forces. I couldn't afford to send a whole army down south when I was just barely able to reach Kursk/Kharkov line (with Stalino being taken later in snow). I have no idea how any German PBEM player could afford to send the resources needed to take it.

I took the Crimea in my PBEM.

Why if a computer game is purchased at considerable cost is a "house rule" needed as mentioned many times in this thread? In my current pbem game, very graciously, my SU opponent is playing with a very restrictive "house rule" during "The Blizzard", are there any other recommended "house rules"

Most of the "house rules" in place now (specifically the winter rules) are what the community has come up with as a temporary fix while a newer version of the game is worked on. If you look at 1.04, there are a lot of changes to first winter. 

Why should an expensive computer game need "house rules"?

The game does not need house rules.
It's the players that have a strong opinion on how things should turn out who needs house rules.

I, in particular don't care about house rules and play the game "as is".

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Why should an expensive computer game need "house rules"?

You asked, I gave you an answer. At this point, I think your user name should include the name "troll" in it.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Why should an expensive computer game need "house rules"?

You asked, I gave you an answer. At this point, I think your user name should include the name "troll" in it.

You asked, I gave you an answer. At this point, I think your user name should include the name "troll" in it.

Why if I dare question aspects of how this game works, or does not, do you think describing me as a "troll", whatever that is, helps forward your argument?

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

ORIGINAL: Klydon

ORIGINAL: bdtj1815

Why should an expensive computer game need "house rules"?

You asked, I gave you an answer. At this point, I think your user name should include the name "troll" in it.

You asked, I gave you an answer. At this point, I think your user name should include the name "troll" in it.

Why if I dare question aspects of how this game works, or does not, do you think describing me as a "troll", whatever that is, helps forward your argument?

Even if WitE is an expensive computer game it's still not perfect. That's what 'house rules' are for.

You get called a troll because your criticism is not constructive. I sent you the link to what a troll is, so you cant claim innocence.

Cheap games have house rules too. Monopoly for example.

The house rules in Monopoly for my family was always that two hours after the game ended we had to start talking to one another again, no matter how mad we were.

Just realised the last people who have responded to my posts have either not read them, or more likely not understood them, so my apologies.

You think it's easy to simulate history, to the point of no one complaining?  You demand too much.