Can we nerf this at some point next patch?

[delatbabel]

Someone abuses the game system to produce an ahistorical outcome and someone else abuses the game system to counter it.

Funniest thread ever.

[AFV]

Aurelian, I did miss that one.
 
But the point is not that they could not try.  To be effective, it takes more than a few planes and a few hundred men and some petrol. I never said they could not try- of course they could. Did they have the capability to pull off what was done in the game in '41?
 
We will have to simply agree to disagree, I say no, you say, apparently, yes.

[mmarquo]

AFV,

The point is that there were in fact well organized Soviet airborne forces in Southern Russia, and they were trained and able to particiapte in combined arms operations. That the Soviets use of paras in 2 large scale operational manuvers met with mixed/dismal results does not mean that other outcomes were not possible. But in the case of Pelton's game, it is a single raiding brigade being dropped into a hex not so far from Odessa. Is this plausible, the use of paras as "partisans?" Well yes, and here is the source:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/geronimo/index.html

"Other missions carried out by Red Army paratroopers were generally on a small scale. Small parachute sections are believed to be attached to armies for espionage and sabotage purposes. Small groups of troopers have been used in cooperative roles with partisan groups behind enemy lines, and one entire brigade was dropped near Smolensk, in 1941, behind German lines. Many of the personnel in this drop were dressed in civilian clothing, and were expected to operate as Partisans."

This vindicates the use of para brigades as partisans to disrupt RR?

Marquo [:)]

[Seminole]

We might not have this airdrop exploit if the game had supply that could move by roads

Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. The game does have supply by road. The motor pool is utilized moving supply between rail head and units. The issue here is the severing of the German rail net far to the west (because it had no redundancy, for reasons Pelton hasn't offered to explain yet).
The Western allies faced the same issue in France, having demolished the French rail net in '44, that after they got a certain distance from the controlled ports their motorized supply network couldn't maintain operations and the previous tempo.

For those that have not played the German side, you get a total of 5 units that can fix rail lines that you have control over. 3 start in the north and 2 in the south.

So why does Pelton only have ONE rail line leading from Rumanian (11th Army's FBD 5)? What happened to FBD 1 (starts the war NE of Lvov)? Only Pelton can tell us, and so far he's mum on the issue. He just wants a nerf to allow him to do things in the gamey way he's become accustomed to. I don't think that's the solution to the problem he faces.
Had he built the line from Lvov to Prosukurov (or through Rovno to Zhitomir) with FBD 1 the operation staged in Odessa could not have severed his rail net.

You have no control over the other repair units and as someone else mentioned, they are typically great at fixing lines going to nowhere that you could care less about instead of working on cross connects that would actually be useful.

I asked about this, but didn't receive an answer, so I'll repost in the hope someone can answer:

Does it not work as the manual indicates?

For human players only, there is a limit to the distance that the automated rail repair units will operate from the HQ unit that they are attached, which is based on command range (7.6.4). For example, if a construction battalion is assigned to a Corps HQ unit, it can only repair rail line hexes up to 5 hexes from that HQ, but the same construction battalion attached to a High Command HQ unit (e.g. OKH or STAVKA) could operate up to 90 hexes away.

Wouldn't placing a Corps HQ, with the appropriate construction SUs, at the sites you want interconnected result in the AI performing this function during the logistics phase (and restricting them from going to Courland)? Sounds like you're leaving them in the Army Group, which while useful for repairing partisan damage, isn't necessary early on and results in leaving that element of rail construction up to the AI. [edited to add: from your description is sounds like the AI prioritizes rail repair of the construction SU it controls from West to East, so assign them to lower HQs with that in mind and see what your results are)

I'd like to hear what Pelton did with his construction SUs, and FBD 1. Hopefully he didn't disband them for manpower or something on turn 1.
A picture of his entire rail net at this phase would be interesting.

The Germans will sometimes "partisan proof" a line with units every two hexes, which is not very realistic either, but if they now have to "para proof" it, give me a break.

As I've stated previously, the para drops should include a strong element of randomness in the target hex, based on distance. Drops made a few miles from the front should have a high probability of hitting the target hex, but those at longer distances should be more likely to miss (possibly by several hexes) than hit the target hex.
Furthermore, para drops from behind the front line (the airbase is unlikely to sit on the front itself) cover a limited amount of the rail net, so 'para proofing' the line as a whole is unnecessary.
The readiness and strength hit a para unit suffers appear to make it unready, and thereby unable to move, once dropped.

The Soviets were pioneers in airborne operations. Had apparently conducted them during the Winter war and the seizure of Bessarabia, so there is no historical basis for denying them this capability until some arbitrary date.

Seminole, have you ever played the German side?
Because your crap attempt to teach the most successful German player in the game about 'lateral rail lines' wreaks of the kind of player who never played the German against a human opponent.

No, I haven't played the German side (I've played through one campaign, and am playing two concurrently now), that's why I asked what he had done with FBD 1, and why he hadn't assigned his construction SUs to Corps HQs to focus their attention where interconnects were needed as the FBDs push east. So far, no one is addressing this, which would have prevented the severing of Pelton's rail net. Pelton has avoided several opportunities to answer questions I've posed about this. Even his original picture was self serving in that it conveniently didn't show Odessa was still under Soviet control and led to the assumption by 'Germanophiles' that the para drop had occurred at a range of 500 miles!
My 'crap attempt' is to get him to explain to me how he's utilizing the existing FBDs, and construction SUs. Does it not work as the manual suggests? From the rail net picture Pelton provided, he's using them in a way that creates what I would consider an unacceptable level of risk, and a 'crap' rail net. But of course he sees "no weakness on my logictic's system", whereas a look at the map suggests otherwise to me.

Please, ANYONE, find me an example of a partisan unit or airborne drop in 1941 that stopped ALL supply from going to an army group for two weeks?

Did the German Army actually try to support itself in '41 on a single rail line from Rumania? Perhaps it didn't happen because the DRG had a more redundant rail net than Pelton chose to build. Perhaps that's why they didn't build as far east as fast as Pelton did. Is there no room for trade-offs and risk/reward considerations? Pelton relies on a 100+ mile section with single point of failure. He places himself at the mercy of partisans, and apparently left an airborne brigade and airbase in range of this bottleneck without any air cover. And yet all the fault lies with the Soviet player for seeking advantage in this and baiting Pelton east with the appearance of weakness?

It did not happen, yet a ZOC break in the right place of any of the 3 Army Group's will require at LEAST a 2-turn break.

As in real life, the German player needs to create a rail net, and protect chokepoint/bottleneck positions in that rail net, to obviate this risk.
I think that introducing randomness to the drop zones will go a long way in nerfing this problem in a historical manner (without arbitrary distance limits, or airborne operation time frames). Air transports groups are precious few, so it's not like these attacks can be spammed. Risk would still exist (as Pelton currently entertains with partisans given his approach), but dropping on a particular 10 mile hex shouldn't be automatic.

[darbycmcd]

Also, the reason why you never saw this kind of long range sacrificial drop in RL was that no army would ever expose itself with such an obvious critical supply bottleneck. If any army identified such a vulnerability you can be they would throw the dice with just about any portion of their airborne to try and exploit it. He is lucky it was the small break it was, can you imagine what a brigade of highly motivated air dropped rail wreckers could do in the time it would take him to react... trains wouldn't get through for a while. But you really have to be careful crying about 'ahistorical' when the underlying situation is itself very very 'ahistorical'.

[Klydon]

To answer the issue with construction units, most start at the army and AG level. Some are in corps, but not many. Part of the issue of using a corps for what Seminole suggests is the corps is typically right at the front in order to keep its units within range of supply/command, so 5 hexes is a fairly short leash. I think the range on army HQ's is 30 for the Germans, which is better, but is such a big increase from 5 that you don't have the control on where the construction units go. For AG and OKH level, (I think 60 and 90 respectively) forget it.

There is some evidence/belief (or I have heard mention) that some players will keep German army HQ's up close to the front because they have a better chance of backing up the corps commanders with die rolls and you also have the truck transport issue (IE, keeping them closer means the trucks go less distance pulling supplies).

To do something as Seminole suggests would probably mean using a minor Allied HQ (Rumanian probably) and getting construction units assigned to it and then moving it up to where you want rail repair to take place. Part of the issue is both sides are AP starved for this in the early going and to do so is not a insignficant AP investment when so much else needs to be done.

The other issue is even if you lock HQ units, construction units are not affected by this and generally can go where they please at the whim of the AI.

Seminole also mentions Pelton's Germans relying on a single section of 100+ mile track. Umm, the Germans did that in the actual campaign as well.

One final note as well about Odessa. Historically the Germans went well past Odessa, leaving the Rumanians to siege and take the city. They didn't do so hot and required German help. The city didn't fall to the Axis until the middle of October. Why should Pelton catch heat for "screening" Odessa at this stage of the game? Mounting a paratroop operation out of a area that is cut off. Yeah, that would have happen. [8|]

I wonder how long it will be before the Russians figure out a way to come up with a paradrop on Berlin to not only wreck the manpower there, but also any and everything in it. But hey, that isn't broke since the Russias have airborne troops and could do it since it isn't protected.

[Flaviusx]

Klydon, yes, but the Germans in game can get a lot more juice out of that single line than the Germans ever did in real life or would have dared to try. That's a problem with the game engine.

Doesn't make this suicide drop business right, mind you, but there's little doubt that the limitations of the logistics system are being pushed to extreme limits by good Axis players. It is far too generous and abstracted. There's a real mismatch between the abstraction of the game at this level and the detail of it elsewhere that can be leveraged in a big way.

[AFV]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

As I've stated previously, the para drops should include a strong element of randomness in the target hex, based on distance. Drops made a few miles from the front should have a high probability of hitting the target hex, but those at longer distances should be more likely to miss (possibly by several hexes) than hit the target hex.
Furthermore, para drops from behind the front line (the airbase is unlikely to sit on the front itself) cover a limited amount of the rail net, so 'para proofing' the line as a whole is unnecessary.
The readiness and strength hit a para unit suffers appear to make it unready, and thereby unable to move, once dropped.


The Soviets were pioneers in airborne operations. Had apparently conducted them during the Winter war and the seizure of Bessarabia, so there is no historical basis for denying them this capability until some arbitrary date.

Quoting source:
The closest the paratroopers came to an airborne combat operation was in 1940, when three brigades were dropped ahead of ground troops during the Russian reoccupation of the Romanian province of Bessarabia. There was no opposition during this operation, so it was basically another training exercise.

Not denying what you said, just clarifying it. So again, yes they could put men in planes and drop them. However unlikely they would hit the target, and be effective, as was done in the game in question.

However, it appears from your post you seem to agree regarding how effective they should be. I agree, in concept, to the first part of your sentence above. The Soviet ability would get better as the war moved on- but in '41 it would be quite limited, and pulling off what was done in game would equate to multiple very lucky die rolls- although I believe the range needs to be dialed back as to what they could even attempt.

[mmarquo]

AFV,

Please read the link I posted above about the Soviets dropping an entire para brigade to be used as partisans.

Klydon,

"Why should Pelton catch heat for "screening" Odessa at this stage of the game? Mounting a paratroop operation out of a area that is cut off. Yeah, that would have happen."

He is not catching flak, rather the result of allowing a robust combined force to remain in Odessa, which is not cut off, rather supplied by sea. Players should pay attention to their flanks and rear.

Marquo

[Klydon]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Klydon, yes, but the Germans in game can get a lot more juice out of that single line than the Germans ever did in real life or would have dared to try. That's a problem with the game engine.

Doesn't make this suicide drop business right, mind you, but there's little doubt that the limitations of the logistics system are being pushed to extreme limits by good Axis players. It is far too generous and abstracted. There's a real mismatch between the abstraction of the game at this level and the detail of it elsewhere that can be leveraged in a big way.

Absolutey agreed the rail line capacity is very simplified as it stands now for both sides. To "fix it" would require a ton of code and a new level of detail on logistics not to mention a new overlay of trying to keep track of differing capacities over such and such a stretch of rail line. In short, it would be a nightmare to a point to try to figure all that out and deal with it. I don't have a good solution to the situation unfortunately, but do realize that the entire logistics situation needs to be looked at and something better that what exists would probably go a long way to fixing a lot of underlying issues with the game. In addition to all this would be trying to deal with upgrading lines, etc as of course, rail line capacities didn't stay the same throughout the war.

The basic issue will be the Germans are going to have at most 2 rail head lines going in the south because you have 3 repair units in the north and 2 in the south and those lines generally don't connect for a long time or if they do, it is usually well back from the front.

Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified).

[AFV]

Marquo
I went back and read the article.
I do not deny they had men, planes and petrol. Unless you can quote the length of that drop (I suspect something like 100 miles, unless I missed it), and the actual results (cut off entire Army Group supplies for 2 weeks?), I am still not convinced in 1941 the Soviets had the 1989 capability of a Spetznatz team, and the effectiveness of para drops (particularly lengthy ones) should be scaled way back in 1941, similar to what Seminole posted.
 
As a side note, I think RR repair units should be able to use any length of connected rail not just rail that is connected to the rail network. That too is an abstraction- it works ok for large combat units but for a smallish RR unit does not make that much sense (for either side). The abstraction is good, the last thing I want is to have another couple dozen RR train units I have to move about, but it works better for some things than others.

[Seminole]

The other issue is even if you lock HQ units, construction units are not affected by this and generally can go where they please at the whim of the AI.

That's a problem that should be addressed. Locked should mean locked. The point of the AI RRR is to allow the player to focus on the main axes and the AI to fill in the interconnects. If it does this to poor effect the player needs more control over where they do this (which is the point of assigning them to lower HQ). AP cost could even be removed from construction SU assignment.

I wonder how long it will be before the Russians figure out a way to come up with a paradrop on Berlin to not only wreck the manpower there, but also any and everything in it. But hey, that isn't broke since the Russias have airborne troops and could do it since it isn't protected.

Once the Russians get to Bromberg, look out! Berlin will be in range...

[mmarquo]

"Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified)."

I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Marquo

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Marquo
I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Not to add to a thread derailing here, but...

This is the problem with the game engine's unit recon level deciding the probability of interdiction, rather than the having a hex-based recon level factoring into the formula. Units moving from areas that haven't been reconned (through lack of range, or effort on the player's part) are immune to interdiction attacks, no matter how close to the front lines they move. So, you get the silliness of being able to freely sea transport units into a bypassed port with hundreds of nearby aircraft absolutely blinded to your movements. The reverse, however, as you note is a bit dicier, since the units in the port may very well have a decent enough recon value against them that they are "spotted" the entire sea move back to your rear, and subject to interdiction all along the way.

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM]

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.

But is that something easily fixed?

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM]

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.

But is that something easily fixed?

Unfortunately, it doesn't look to be an easy fix. With the current data structures set around unit-based recon, rather than hex-based recon values, saved games wouldn't be compatible, without a lot of specific code to make the transition. This type of design decision needs to be made at the beginning of development, and not afterwards. Hopefully, future War in the (fill in the blank) titles will incorporate hex-based recon, rather than unit-based.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Marquo

"Pointing out that Odessa is supplied by sea and could do the para drop from there also brings to light continued issues with the air model that has intercept that sucks at times and also totally ignores the ability to interdict ships coming into Odessa let alone how Odessa is treated on the Russian supply grid (treated as connected, meaning it can even evac whatever industry is there, even tho there are no connecting rail lines, because that part is also simplified)."

I have had moving ships interdicted before; but I think it was in the Baltic as I was moving troops from Riga to Tallinin.

Marquo

The point is it happened in center and in more games then just mine.

I was told by another player the crap this guy was pulling and only way to prove it was by playing him.

You can drop 3 units or 5 units in a single turn and cut all 5 rail lines.

Its clearly and exploit that is a HUGE game changer and reading poeple defend it is really a hoot.

Marquo I know you play German side from time to time.

Turn 8 you get a breakthrough that could be a huge pocket its almost closed with 80 units in it. You also get one in the south. You send in turn. Get it back and because of 3 para drops Tula south is cut off, no supplies for 3 turns. the SHC player simply walks out of trap and laughs at you for your complete lack of skills.

You would be here posting it so fast it would not be funny.

Get out of the mud and stop defending stuff thats 100% turning poeple off from the game.

Who wants to play a game when someone can pull this crap at will?

Zero skill needed.

You could make Jamiam look like a newbie doing stuff like this.

Pelton

[Flaviusx]

I don't think there's enough airlift to drop 5 units at once in autumn of 41. I'd be surprised if they can do more than 2 drops at once.

But this is just quibbling. Even a single drop is a big deal.

[Harrybanana]

I have to agree with Flaviusx on this one; using airborne in this way seems to me to be an exploit. I don't think the Russians should be resrticted to not using airborne until the blizzard, but there should be a range restriction of 10 hexes or so.

Having said that I can certainly see why Savanniperkele did what he did. I wouldn't have done it myself, but I don't necessarily fault him for doing it. I have yet to play an expert German Player who, as Flaviusx puts it, "severely games the supply system of the game", but I can see where I would be tempted to do the same as Savanniperkele or something similar.

[AFV]

Pelton, where did he drop from, do you know for sure?