RE: Soviet turn 106
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:15 am
Here's what Leningrad looks like these days:


What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Karri
God damn it. 2 infantry regiments evaporated and other units suffered massive losses due to interdiction. It still doesn't stop my units from advancing though...BUT, in my opinion the Soviet airforce needs to be much weaker. Right now it rules the skies and is able to do pretty much anything. And this in a situation where only Moscow and Leningrad stand with Germans knocking on the doors...and it's only '42, the soviet airforce should still be recovering from Operation Barbarossa.
At least I know what my airforce will be doing in the next FitE game I play, if Axis I will just concentrate on interdiction and destroying the Soviet air force...if Soviet sit back and commit everything in the first winter offensive and then enoy the superiority...
Had Larry placed his air units on interdiction earlier, perhaps no breakthrough would have happened.
Or yeah, perhaps I just suck at air war.
ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Howdy all,
My 2 cents re disbanding is, are you disbanding the unit so as to redistribute its equipment or are you disbanding it to save its sorry arse?
In FITE, the first option would rarely occur, and the second option is, IMHO, pure fantasy when compared to what could the unit really do if its almost surrounded, or totally surrounded. Oh, and because supply status of units is clculated at the start of the German turn, Russian units completely surrounded during the German turn, but in supply at the start of the turn are legal for disbanding......abuse or what?
Thus, disbanding is a big no no in my FITE games.
If you want to save Soviet units from being surrounded, plan ahead. Yes, its impossble to stop them getting surrounded now and then, but its up to your strategy to ensure it doesn't happen all the time.
Thanks for a great fight Karri and Larry, you do the scnario and game justice.
Mark
I agree... I don't see much point in disbanding anyway...
If Soviet player wants to disband something in Gorkiy or way deep behind I don'tr have much problem... maybe some low grade militia to get some equipment (but they are light inf. squads not rifle...).
Soviet player, anyway have too much work to do in trying to plug the holes, rail the units etc... he must plan ahead so disbanding is uselless, if you want that this or that unit die then let it die, but disbanding at the front is just way unhistorical. Just my take.
ORIGINAL: Jaylord14
ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Howdy all,
My 2 cents re disbanding is, are you disbanding the unit so as to redistribute its equipment or are you disbanding it to save its sorry arse?
In FITE, the first option would rarely occur, and the second option is, IMHO, pure fantasy when compared to what could the unit really do if its almost surrounded, or totally surrounded. Oh, and because supply status of units is clculated at the start of the German turn, Russian units completely surrounded during the German turn, but in supply at the start of the turn are legal for disbanding......abuse or what?
Thus, disbanding is a big no no in my FITE games.
If you want to save Soviet units from being surrounded, plan ahead. Yes, its impossble to stop them getting surrounded now and then, but its up to your strategy to ensure it doesn't happen all the time.
Thanks for a great fight Karri and Larry, you do the scnario and game justice.
Mark
I agree... I don't see much point in disbanding anyway...
If Soviet player wants to disband something in Gorkiy or way deep behind I don'tr have much problem... maybe some low grade militia to get some equipment (but they are light inf. squads not rifle...).
Soviet player, anyway have too much work to do in trying to plug the holes, rail the units etc... he must plan ahead so disbanding is uselless, if you want that this or that unit die then let it die, but disbanding at the front is just way unhistorical. Just my take.
Disbanding on the front lines simulates the commanders telling the troops to "bug out" (to borrow a term from the Korean War). It means everybody high-tails it to the rear as fast as he can. A similar situation on the Western Front would be the Germans fleeing the Falaise Pocket. Lots of personnel get out, but very few organized units did. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a penalty in lost men and equipment dependent on supply, etc.
ORIGINAL: Jaylord14
quote:
ORIGINAL: Monkeys Brain
quote:
ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Howdy all,
My 2 cents re disbanding is, are you disbanding the unit so as to redistribute its equipment or are you disbanding it to save its sorry arse?
In FITE, the first option would rarely occur, and the second option is, IMHO, pure fantasy when compared to what could the unit really do if its almost surrounded, or totally surrounded. Oh, and because supply status of units is clculated at the start of the German turn, Russian units completely surrounded during the German turn, but in supply at the start of the turn are legal for disbanding......abuse or what?
Thus, disbanding is a big no no in my FITE games.
If you want to save Soviet units from being surrounded, plan ahead. Yes, its impossble to stop them getting surrounded now and then, but its up to your strategy to ensure it doesn't happen all the time.
Thanks for a great fight Karri and Larry, you do the scnario and game justice.
Mark
I agree... I don't see much point in disbanding anyway...
If Soviet player wants to disband something in Gorkiy or way deep behind I don'tr have much problem... maybe some low grade militia to get some equipment (but they are light inf. squads not rifle...).
Soviet player, anyway have too much work to do in trying to plug the holes, rail the units etc... he must plan ahead so disbanding is uselless, if you want that this or that unit die then let it die, but disbanding at the front is just way unhistorical. Just my take.
Disbanding on the front lines simulates the commanders telling the troops to "bug out" (to borrow a term from the Korean War). It means everybody high-tails it to the rear as fast as he can. A similar situation on the Western Front would be the Germans fleeing the Falaise Pocket. Lots of personnel get out, but very few organized units did. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a penalty in lost men and equipment dependent on supply, etc.
I disagree. A commander telling the troops to bug out means that you start trying to move your equipment out via counters.
For example, if, in history, the Allies had closed the gap a little quicker the Germans would not have gotten out, organized or not. However, if, in game, the Allies had closed the gap a little quicker the Germans would still have had the opportunity to disband every unit in there saving the entire German (what 5th Pazner?) Armee in the pocket, so they could reconstitute 2-4 weeks later ready to primed and fight again.
I don't know, either. [:D]ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Hi Veers,
I enjoy reading your comments on the game, though I always wonder what a good looking shelia like your girlfriend sees in you...LOL.
He was quite new (his first PBEM) and after I showed him the error of his ways he was fully prepared to offer his surrender. I just let him replay the turn and we greatly enjoyed the game.As for the above oppoent of yours disbanding an entire army once it was surrounded, well that would have be a have a good life mate and game over for me. Find your self another opponent.
Part of the fun of PBEM wargaming is the often great people you play against, thankfully there are only a few idiots out there to avoid.
ORIGINAL: Silvanski
extraordinary campaign... the battle for fortress Moscow will go down in TOAW/FitE history, no matter what the outcome