Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I wonder if we should have a little better simulation of naval warfare in the black sea. Because at some point, Romanian coast would have been invadable by the Russian. Having Rumania surrender just because one invasion is irealist, but totally preventing Russia to invade Rumania is ab it as irrealistic.

Have russian unit in Rumania count for surrender only if they can trace a land path to a Russian Major City ot Moscow.

Tracing land supply route is a great idea.

Well yes the navy was good but what they considered an amphibious assault was different then what we did.  I bet that their amphibious assault procedures were made on the fly.  Projecting naval power is lots different then projecting landing forces. So I doubt (don't know) but based on what they did, any transporting of troops came from merchant shipping, sail boats, fishing vessels, etc.  If the romanians had worried about the soviets landing forces in constanta they probably would have garrisoned, so the game should put forces there to start and not the player.  Also the major landings that the sovs did were at ports not beaches.  They had no landing craft but offloaded from boats and ships to barges/piers.

Ok so let the sovs have the capability if you want but then you have to look at what they had to transport troops.  To go that distance from sevastopol to constanta in game terms 250 miles would have limited what they could carry, so that probably rules out most heavy equipment.  Even their successful landings in crimea took days of shuttling the craft to pick up troops.  So the further the distance the fewer troops could be taken.  Then supplying the troops, in the game they are in instant supply by sea.  I doubt the could have kept them supply, sorta like dropping paratroops 200 miles behind enemy lines to capture the capital causing the enemy to surrender.

Ok I give up, the soviets had a navy but didn't have the naval vessels to project large forces to a foreign shore.  The game allows you to do that, ok.  Now the amphibious assault becomes a major player in a campaign where is was just a nuisance. 

Come on patch.. I need something to do vice rant on the forums....[:)]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: MengJiao

ORIGINAL: abulbulian





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.

No way let down for me i never got to have my fun where i was stomping the german army. :'(

To me, this is yet another reason to stick with PBEM until the game is more mature: with PBEM you and your opponent just agree to revert to a previous turn and go from there.

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

I wonder if we should have a little better simulation of naval warfare in the black sea. Because at some point, Romanian coast would have been invadable by the Russian. Having Rumania surrender just because one invasion is irealist, but totally preventing Russia to invade Rumania is ab it as irrealistic.

Have russian unit in Rumania count for surrender only if they can trace a land path to a Russian Major City ot Moscow.

No, lets not just let a single unit that can trace a land/supply route back to sov lines. That is ridiculous. The whole reason I lost a game, because the logic for Rom surrender/side swiching was a hack. Let's not just replace a little better hack with a bad hack.

Please read my below comments. This would take very little effort to code into the current logic.

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)

Pompack, you better stick to old school and not a server game. Old school you can step back, server you are screwed.

Abulbulian, my proposal is not exclusive of yours. Calm down please.

Zort, if it is demonstrated that it was not possible or that other limit will go, most of us will accept it, but a simple going back with no other explanation than "it screw game" is not satisfactory, so don't rant and explain. I feel (but with no basis) that the soviet should have limited range for sea invasion.

In WiF such sea invasion in Baltic and Black sea are option (even if not very viable).