Looking at DCCB

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: James Ward
I'm not sure what can be done about the AI movement, I'm not sure how hard it is to change.

I'm no programmer, but I expect that this would be fairly hard to fix. The German AI in WitE has essentially the same problem.

But what do other players think about this "out of supply" issue? I had a couple of frustrating situations: around Stalingrad I had a traffic jam of units crossing the Volga, and I moved one regiment onto the island south of the city. Unfortunately for some reason it got stuck there and could not move back off the island until the river froze a couple of months later. Another time I had a security unit chasing a partisan unit up by the north map edge, and the partisan unit moved on, leaving a trail of Sov-controlled hexes which immobilized the security unit, which I found very odd.

I think there should be a road bridge over the Volga at Stalingrad. It is very difficult to take the city back as the Russian or advance past it as the Germans as it is now.

[Redmarkus5]

But it would have been very difficult to do either in real life, precisely because there was no bridge, just a very wide river...

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

But it would have been very difficult to do either in real life, precisely because there was no bridge, just a very wide river...

True but they were able to run ferry's across and these are not portrayed in the game nor do you have the ability to build temporary bridges.
It's a little odd that to advance past Stalingrad you need to capture a city hundreds of miles north or south of it and convert a rail line all the way back to Stalingrad.

[76mm]

All this talk of rail lines makes me recall another question I had about the game: I could not use rail transport on the east side of the Volga, even after all of the rails had been converted. It is a long long march from Stalingrad to Baku, why could I put my guys on trains? I also had problems with putting the Romanians in the Crimea on trains...

[stonestriker]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

But it would have been very difficult to do either in real life, precisely because there was no bridge, just a very wide river...

True but they were able to run ferry's across and these are not portrayed in the game nor do you have the ability to build temporary bridges.
It's a little odd that to advance past Stalingrad you need to capture a city hundreds of miles north or south of it and convert a rail line all the way back to Stalingrad.

I think that ferries and temporary bridges are abstracted in the movement/supply rules. The capacity of these bridges and ferries are just so low, that it takes a lot of AP to cross it.

Men, tanks and supplies are all able to cross rivers in the game, and how would they do this otherwise?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: stonestriker
I think that ferries and temporary bridges are abstracted in the movement/supply rules. The capacity of these bridges and ferries are just so low, that it takes a lot of AP to cross it.

Men, tanks and supplies are all able to cross rivers in the game, and how would they do this otherwise?

In the game it is practically impossible to advance past Stalingrad without controlling Saratov or Astrakan AND converting the rail lines to and from the cities. Why would Stalingrad have any significance if it's just a dead end?

[Bonners]

Is that quite correct?

I seem to recall that major cities act as supply centres in the rules, but take a few turns to get their new supply status once you take them? I'm sure in my game against the Soviet AI I was able to gradually advance down the east bank of the Volga as the supply net gradually recovered in the turns after Stalingrad was taken, i.e. major supply centres increase the length of the supply line.

I', sure I've got an old saved game so I'll have a check when I get home from work.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: Bonners

Is that quite correct?

I seem to recall that major cities act as supply centres in the rules, but take a few turns to get their new supply status once you take them? I'm sure in my game against the Soviet AI I was able to gradually advance down the east bank of the Volga as the supply net gradually recovered in the turns after Stalingrad was taken, i.e. major supply centres increase the length of the supply line.

I', sure I've got an old saved game so I'll have a check when I get home from work.

Once the rail is converted and the damage to the city is repaired it can be the point where supply leaves the rail net but it costs to count supply over the Volga, a LOT in some cases. You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.
I have had to play a speed card just to move a unit back across the Volga even though there was a rail line two hexes away with the HQ on it. It just didn't have the supply/AP's to make the move.

[stonestriker]

ORIGINAL: James Ward

Once the rail is converted and the damage to the city is repaired it can be the point where supply leaves the rail net but it costs to count supply over the Volga, a LOT in some cases. You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.
I have had to play a speed card just to move a unit back across the Volga even though there was a rail line two hexes away with the HQ on it. It just didn't have the supply/AP's to make the move.

I am not sure that Stalingrad was as important for the germans, as it was for the russians (supply-wise). AFAIK was the last direct railroad link between Caucasus and the rest of russian, so denying that city to the russians would hinder the flow of oil. Furthermore, any river transport on the Volga could be bombarded as well. Have a look at this map for instance, where you can see the railroads:

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: James Ward
You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.

Which rail lines are you talking about, the one through Palloschovka? After taking Stalingrad I took Saratov but never took that rail yet was able to advance to Astrakhan and then to Baku, and to Chapaev in the east.

The rail leading south from Saratov is on the wrong side of the Volga so that shouldn't help...

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: James Ward
You are very limited on how far you could advance without taking one of the two bridges that cross the Volga and convert the rail lines.

Which rail lines are you talking about, the one through Palloschovka? After taking Stalingrad I took Saratov but never took that rail yet was able to advance to Astrakhan and then to Baku, and to Chapaev in the east.

The rail leading south from Saratov is on the wrong side of the Volga so that shouldn't help...

I'm not at the game right now but isn't there is a road/rail line down the east side of the Volga that runs basically from Saratov to Astrakan? If you want to move east from Stalingrad you need one of those cleared to get supply.

[76mm]

I'm not at the game right now but isn't there is a road/rail line down the east side of the Volga that runs basically from Saratov to Astrakan? If you want to move east from Stalingrad you need one of those cleared to get supply.

There is a line from Stalingrad to Astrakhan which basically hugs the east side of the Volga. From Saratov, however, the rail stays more than ten hexes east of the Volga, and only joins the Stalingrad-Astrakhan line at the town of Bastunyak, SE of Stalingrad and about 16 hexes east of the Volga. I only managed to capture part of the rail to the north, towards Saratov but was able to continue south without much of problem.

[EDIT] You can actually see these rail lines on the map posted above.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm not at the game right now but isn't there is a road/rail line down the east side of the Volga that runs basically from Saratov to Astrakan? If you want to move east from Stalingrad you need one of those cleared to get supply.

There is a line from Stalingrad to Astrakhan which basically hugs the east side of the Volga. From Saratov, however, the rail stays more than ten hexes east of the Volga, and only joins the Stalingrad-Astrakhan line at the town of Bastunyak, SE of Stalingrad and about 16 hexes east of the Volga. I only managed to capture part of the rail to the north, towards Saratov but was able to continue south without much of problem.

[EDIT] You can actually see these rail lines on the map posted above.

I think there is also a road that runs close to the east side of the Volga. It can provide a little better supply than tracing across the Volga though not as good as the rail line.

[LiquidSky]

The cost in AP's to move over the Volga is +100AP. For supply as well. In other words, it is a brick wall to the Germans, who will not be able to cross it and fight effectively on the other side. The same goes for the Russians..at least, until winter hits (which effectively eliminates ALL rivers)

The Russians did build a bridge over the Volga into Stalingrad. They finished it just before the Germans reached the city, and where told to dismantle it right after, to prevent it falling into enemy hands. (In Beevor's book, Stalingrad). The Russians do have a rather large number of river craft which can be used as ferries, and should be able to cross the Volga for a cheaper ap cost then the germans, who have no way of building or capturing their own rivercraft.

In the game, the only way to fight over the Volga is at Saratov (an impossible scenario, given the size of the Russian forces north of the map), or at Astrakahn... but then, you only need Baku and Stalingrad to get an auto victory. No need to even cross it.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
The cost in AP's to move over the Volga is +100AP. For supply as well. In other words, it is a brick wall to the Germans, who will not be able to cross it and fight effectively on the other side. The same goes for the Russians..at least, until winter hits (which effectively eliminates ALL rivers)

While you say makes complete sense, it seems like I didn't have the extreme problems that you are referring to. Frankly I can't remember if I turned on the "hard core" supply rules for my first game, would that have made a difference?

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



The cost in AP's to move over the Volga is +100AP. For supply as well. In other words, it is a brick wall to the Germans, who will not be able to cross it and fight effectively on the other side. The same goes for the Russians..at least, until winter hits (which effectively eliminates ALL rivers)

The Russians did build a bridge over the Volga into Stalingrad. They finished it just before the Germans reached the city, and where told to dismantle it right after, to prevent it falling into enemy hands. (In Beevor's book, Stalingrad). The Russians do have a rather large number of river craft which can be used as ferries, and should be able to cross the Volga for a cheaper ap cost then the germans, who have no way of building or capturing their own rivercraft.

In the game, the only way to fight over the Volga is at Saratov (an impossible scenario, given the size of the Russian forces north of the map), or at Astrakahn... but then, you only need Baku and Stalingrad to get an auto victory. No need to even cross it.

I understand that but if Stalingrad is just a dead end as far as advancing past it, what is it's strategic worth? Why do you need to take it to win the game? It seems pretty easy to take as it is easy to isolate and hard to defend for the Russians.

Would it be better to make the automatic victory taking Baku and Saratov, make it really hard to accomplish?

[Pawsy]

Surely the whole point was to take and hold Stalingrad as well as advancing to the south. If it was a worthless objective it would bring in to question the whole context of the game. Its a historical political important objective and the ones in the south are important strategic resource goals that the military were directed to be taken together.

I ofc avoid mentioning the primacy of focusing on the destruction of enemy forces rather than taking ground. But political and strategic considerations are very much a limiting factor even on to days operations.

[James Ward]

ORIGINAL: starbuck310

Surely the whole point was to take and hold Stalingrad as well as advancing to the south. If it was a worthless objective it would bring in to question the whole context of the game. Its a historical political important objective and the ones in the south are important strategic resource goals that the military were directed to be taken together.

I ofc avoid mentioning the primacy of focusing on the destruction of enemy forces rather than taking ground. But political and strategic considerations are very much a limiting factor even on to days operations.

Wasn't the main goal of Case Blue was the oil fields? Didn't Stalingrad become the focus AFTER the offensive was launched due to the insistance of Hitler to take the city named after the leader of the USSR?

The Volga may have been a good defensive line to anchor the advance to the oil fields on but if there is no way across the Volga in the south except at Astrakan then why not make that the strategic target to hold? You could keep making Stalingrad an objective with big penalties for not holding it but I'm talking strictly from an automatic victory point of view. Why Stalingrad?

[Bonners]

Been reading a fair bit around Case Blue recently and that is my understanding of the original German plan. Take the line of the Volga, eventually stretching down to Astrakhan and only once that had been taken to advance into the Caucasus to take the oilfields which were always the strategic objective. It was only through Hitler's interference that both objectives had to be taken concurrently.

As an aside, on British TV at the moment there is a Russian made documentary series about the war in the east, has been very interesting. From my western eyes it seems very biased towards the Russians, but I guess that is to be expected and there are plenty of documentaries around that have a bias towards the German side.

[Pawsy]

Think your mixing up political and military objectives. I totally agree with your point from a purely military point of view. But Stalingrad like Moscow and Leningrad to a lesser extent had a lot of political and moral importance for the leadership and the nation.

von Clausewitz on war stressed the moral and political nature of war. There are not divisible. Often misquoted as meaning war is the extension of politics by another means. Can I recommend Eric Von Manstien by Mungo Melvin for a feel for the political interference and although this is from the German perspective Churchill but other leaders such as Churchill ignored their military advisors (Alanbrooke) and military disasters or dissipation of effort inevitably followed.