Matrix Games Forums

What are the penalties of unit fighting in frozen lakes? I haven't yet noticed any, which is quite ridicilous to say the least.


EDIT:
As it currently stands, at least in FitE, the frozen shallow water hexes make just force the defender to defend even more ground, while the attacker can move through these hexes fast and even attack and defend in them. As far as I know the lakes were death traps. There is no cover there. NONE. Machineguns, artillery and aircraft would cause massive losses to any force trying to do such a thing. There are several examples of this to be found in Winter War.

I would imagine forces attacking from river or water hexes would suffer the usual 0.7 multiplier to their combat strengths regardless of whether those hexes are frozen.

This seems pretty reasonable; I don't see how it can be harder to attack across water over ice than in boats.

ORIGINAL: Karri
There are several examples of this to be found in Winter War.

Is there? The most dangerous Soviet maneuver during the war was when they crossed the frozen Bay of Vyborg. No massive losses there.

.

I think it depends, wheter the other bank is defended or not. The historical problem was, that after the lakes were frozen, the axis hat to defend a much longer frontline than befor. Sudden there where a lot of big holes in the front - this was the danger. On the other side, if the banks were defended, the soviets had only poor chances to cross. So I think a 0,7 multiplier is ok - and enough ...

right, but we should really ask, what does the game do as we have suddenly many sea and lake hex turning solid!, watch out for the thaw though!

ORIGINAL: Keke

Is there? The most dangerous Soviet maneuver during the war was when they crossed the frozen Bay of Vyborg. No massive losses there.

Where are you getting that information? The finnish coastal guns alone decimated several attempts. In the bay area the soviets enjoyed massive superiority in men and material, yet they failed to make a berakthrough.

Now something else that is completely ridicilous is the fact that you can fortify in frozen water hexes. I mean, what the hell?

ORIGINAL: Zerberus

I think it depends, wheter the other bank is defended or not. The historical problem was, that after the lakes were frozen, the axis hat to defend a much longer frontline than befor. Sudden there where a lot of big holes in the front - this was the danger. On the other side, if the banks were defended, the soviets had only poor chances to cross. So I think a 0,7 multiplier is ok - and enough ...

Not actually. I mean the Soviets could have crossed with boats as well, therefore those beaches required just as much defenders. The problem is that the troops can dig in and spend several turns in the frozen lakes. It's pretty much the same if the troops would get on ships and then sail within few hundred meters of the shore and stay there for a few months. IRL they would be destroyed.

The biggest problem of course is Finland. Their frontlines doubles with the frozen lakes, and unlike Germans they do not have the units to defend those shores.

ORIGINAL: Karri

Where are you getting that information?

From Finnish military history. Good enough for you?

ORIGINAL: Karri
The finnish coastal guns alone decimated several attempts. I canno't remeber the exact losses, but I think in the end the losses stood at about 100-200 dead finns and around 2000 dead russians.

I prefer not to invent numbers out of my backside, but even 2000 dead for two infantry Corps in two weeks isn't that massive.

ORIGINAL: Keke


From Finnish military history. Good enough for you?

Funny thing, the finnish military history I am reading shows otherwise.

I prefer not to invent numbers out of my backside, but even 2000 dead for two infantry Corps in two weeks isn't that massive.

I edited those numbers out as I think they actually referred to fighting elsewhere(on ice, but not in Vyborg), however two corps versus ONE division should be enough to prove how difficult sich actions would be.

ORIGINAL: Karri
Funny thing, the finnish military history I am reading shows otherwise.

Otherwise to what?

I edited those numbers out as I think they actually referred to fighting elsewhere(on ice, but not in Vyborg),...

Probably not.

however two corps versus ONE division should be enough to prove how difficult sich actions would be.

You have a point there.

ORIGINAL: Keke
Otherwise to what?

Well, what I've read indicates that casualties were quite heavy on both sides.

Probably not.

I can't find the thing right now...I think it referred to coastal batteries. But let's disregard it as can't find it.

You have a point there.

Let's also not forget that finns at that point were short of everything.

ORIGINAL: Keke

I prefer not to invent numbers out of my backside, but even 2000 dead for two infantry Corps in two weeks isn't that massive.

On a second thought 2000 dead for two infantry Corps in two weeks is pretty massive, considering that there's usually 4 wounded per one dead, and the combat strength (first line troops) suffer the most.

ORIGINAL: Karri

ORIGINAL: Keke

Is there? The most dangerous Soviet maneuver during the war was when they crossed the frozen Bay of Vyborg. No massive losses there.

Now something else that is completely ridicilous is the fact that you can fortify in frozen water hexes. I mean, what the hell?

..why not if the ice is thick enough..

ORIGINAL: Karri

Not actually. I mean the Soviets could have crossed with boats as well, therefore those beaches required just as much defenders.

...

It's pretty much the same if the troops would get on ships and then sail within few hundred meters of the shore and stay there for a few months.

I think, it's easier to attack across a frozen lake or river than to swim through it with boats.

You can drive with light tanks (and may be medium tanks too), you can move artillery and supply easier, the only problem is the lack of cover, so the option "dig in" is really a little bit strange.

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..why not if the ice is thick enough..

Because when you start to dig in the ice is not that thick anymore...I think in Bay of Vyborg the ice was around 1 meter thick. Enough for light tanks, but you can't dig in there. The only thing you can do is try to make some cover from snow, but any artillery can decimate these(and heavier ones will crack really big holes there). Plus any movement is easily detected and will be completely in the open.

ORIGINAL: Karri
Because when you start to dig in the ice is not that thick anymore...I think in Bay of Vyborg the ice was around 1 meter thick. Enough for light tanks, but you can't dig in there. The only thing you can do is try to make some cover from snow, but any artillery can decimate these(and heavier ones will crack really big holes there). Plus any movement is easily detected and will be completely in the open.

Assuming these are fairly small lakes, it would be fairly straightforward to cart earth from the friendly shore onto the lake to build simple defences. Of course this isn't as good as actually being able to dig down.

I think, the Soviets never seriously thought about "Trenchs on Ice", they only wanted to surprise their opponents with such moves, becaus they expected less resistance there. So I think nobody would cart earth to frozen lakes (which is frozen in winter too), it's enough to save the own shore ...

Well...that sounds pretty...stupid. Sorry, but that's what it is.

Although, Ihere are island so I guess in a sense...

ORIGINAL: Zerberus

I think, the Soviets never seriously thought about "Trenchs on Ice", they only wanted to surprise their opponents with such moves, becaus they expected less resistance there. So I think nobody would cart earth to frozen lakes (which is frozen in winter too), it's enough to save the own shore ...

Quite. I suppose unit entrenchement on frozen lakes ought to be at penalty, and the hexes should not be able to acquire an entrenchment percentage.