Vulnerability of Sct. Petersborg to invasion.

[ulver]

I’m pretty sure the evil genius won a game against be by a sea born invasion against the Russian capital in the first impulse

I left one A corps in reserve dug into a level 3 fort as always. In the first impulse he launches an invasion that – obviously – crush the lone attacking German corps..

However after that attack the Fort in the Russian capital is gone – meaning at his second impulse attack is certain to succeed.

Is this intentional – that a sea born invasion destroys the defenders fort even when it fails? It forces Russia to keep a substantial garrison back to defend her capital – this may be intentional as a balancing feature but I don’t see the logic. Why would a failed attack destroy the fort?

[FrankHunter]

Petrograd doesn't have a fort so if that happened at Petrograd the only comfort I can offer is that the "evil genius" didn't destroy your fort.

Riga has a level 3 fort.

[ulver]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

Petrograd doesn't have a fort so if that happened at Petrograd the only comfort I can offer is that the "evil genius" didn't destroy your fort.

Riga has a level 3 fort.

Ups my mistake.

It remains a factor though that with no rail movement in the first turn Russia needs to keep a lot more then one corps back to protect against sea-born invasions in Petrograd since the second or 3rd attack is certain to succeed.

This seems a bit excessive to me – I assume that once he takes the city Russian production is reduced to 0 essentially ending the game since there is no way for the Russians to retake a fully garrisoned city and the Germans can sea-supply it permanently?

Unless there is some icing issue in the winter allowing the Russian to cut them out of supply in the months where – historically – the port was iced up?

In that case – while still a blow – it’s not a game ender to lose Petrograd in the first turn since some production can be restored by a counterattack during the winter 1914-15 against an isolated German garrison.

[FrankHunter]

Hmmm, that is an expensive invasion, requiring perhaps as many as 10 economic points but if it succeeds its certainly worth it. Perhaps Russia should be an exception to the rule where if you lose your capital your production goes to 0 and instead all they would lose is the industry at Petrograd? I had considered changing that rule for some of the other countries too (not Austria) so that they would lose only half their production while their capital was in enemy hands.

Or, to represent the ice I could simply not allow sea supply in the Baltic during winter.

[ulver]

The problem is that it is a “perfect” plan assuming Russia only leaves on corps in her capital. The second attack is virtually certain to succeed – the 3rd is certain.

That means that Russia is forced to keep two corps back to guard her capital. That may be OK in terms of game balance but it needs to be considered.

An icing rule affecting the whole Baltic would be overkill. German Baltic ports and Riga doesn’t usually ice up during the winter. The best solution would be to simply not have Petrograd function as a port for the winter months for any purpose – also having the side effect of icing in the Russian fleet. It doesn’t know if that is feasible to code but if it were it would IMO be the best solution.

Not making the Russians lose their production might be an easier solution.

Alternatively a level one or two fort in Petrograd should make one corps sufficient to hold the city.

Finally you could consider making a PD in port sufficient to prevent invasion or upgrade the Russian PD to DN without changing it’s stats. (Hence only having the defend against invasions effect)

[hjaco]

As far as I can tell you have already made that change Frank?

Hotseating this move Russia only lost the 4 Industrial infrastructure in Petrograd maintaining the remaining 7 in production capacity.

The major point in this maneuver is morale loss considerations and of course shutting down the Baltic supply route and does not come without a cost or risk to CP.

Actually I see this as an extension of the Russian setup of their entire army in the western most part of Poland with empty flanks - both possibilities to be quite absurd in real military life (sorry Frank [;)]) but it should at least force Russian players to in the future to safe guard Riga and Petrograd with 3 Corps instead of none.

[dpstafford]

What happened to the rule that so long as a CA or better was based at the port, it could not be invaded by sea?

[boogada]

I think that rule in fact says that a limit of naval strength points has to be available in port and not just a single unit. Russia has 1 PD and 1 CA, maybe thats not enough? 

[FM WarB]

I've been looking at Ellis & Cox's The World War I Databook. I know a "Corps" is not necessarily a Corps in this game. They have XVII and XXII Corps in Leningrad (oops, St. Pete) with 6th Army HQ. (I know an army hq is not exactly an army hq in the game.) They have more Corps in the initial Russian oob, naming the following which do not appear in the game: Guard; Grenadier; I, II, III Caucasian; and II Turk, the last four presumably in the Caucuses facing the Turks with the Caucasian Cavalry Corps.
These extra Corps allow the Russkis to guard St. Petersburg and the Turkish border and still try a full bull against Prussia or Austria. There are Nine army HQs listed, 1-9 at start.

[EdinHouston]

I see no reason whatsoever to change the game rules or mechanism for this reason. The answer is simply to garrison St Petersburg sufficiently. Problem solved.

BTW, I am curious, doesnt it take a turn for the German battle fleet in Wilhelmshaven to 'arrive' in the Baltic? Meaning the only squadron that can patrol the Baltic in August is the PD in the Baltic port, and therefore that German control of the Baltic could not be certain if the Russians send out their Baltic fleet. Or perhaps the ships from Wilhelmshaven would contribute to 'control' in August even though they cant do battle in the Baltic until the 2nd turn of their patrol?

Also, I have to admit that I thought a garrison of a PD or better squadron was enough to prevent an invasion? In fact I thought that question had been asked and answered on this forum at some point? I agree it is ridiculous that the Germans could invade when the Russian Baltic fleet is in port. Those would have to be some heavily armoured transports, LOL.

[hjaco]

ORIGINAL: EdinHouston

BTW, I am curious, doesnt it take a turn for the German battle fleet in Wilhelmshaven to 'arrive' in the Baltic?

That's what the Germans build the Kieler kanal for [;)]

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: hjaco

As far as I can tell you have already made that change Frank?

Hotseating this move Russia only lost the 4 Industrial infrastructure in Petrograd maintaining the remaining 7 in production capacity.

The major point in this maneuver is morale loss considerations and of course shutting down the Baltic supply route and does not come without a cost or risk to CP.

Actually I see this as an extension of the Russian setup of their entire army in the western most part of Poland with empty flanks - both possibilities to be quite absurd in real military life (sorry Frank [;)]) but it should at least force Russian players to in the future to safe guard Riga and Petrograd with 3 Corps instead of none.

I recently posted in the support Forum that I captured Vienna, but my opponent informed me that he still received his Austrian production. So apparently capturing an enemy capital now does not cancel it's production. Was this intended Frank?

[Harrybanana]

My own opinion on this issue is that the CP has enough disadvantages so forcing the TE Player to setup with 2 or 3 corps in ST. Petersburg can be viewed as game balancing.

[FrankHunter]

BTW, I am curious, doesnt it take a turn for the German battle fleet in Wilhelmshaven to 'arrive' in the Baltic?

Nope it only takes them one naval impulse to get there from Wilhelmshaven and there's 3 naval impulses every turn regardless of weather.

[FrankHunter]

but my opponent informed me that he still received his Austrian production. So apparently capturing an enemy capital now does not cancel it's production. Was this intended Frank?

Nope, Austria should not have any production if Vienna is lost. In fact although I was thinking of weakening that rule for France and Germany I definitely wouldn't do it for Austria given the makeup of their empire. I'll check this.

[FrankHunter]

Petrograd is right on the line. The cruiser and the pre-dreadnaught battleship (both counters actually representing several ships of that type) are 1 point short of making Petrograd uninvadeable. I think it would be fair to simply lower that cut-off by the one point.

[FrankHunter]

Which I should add would make Petrograd vulnerable to invasion if the fleet was beaten up but I think that gives the Russians a reason to avoid contesting the Baltic.

The same also applies to the Austrian fleet and the port of Trieste.

[boogada]

Isn't the Russian Baltic Fleet to weak in the game? They had at least 4 Dreadnaughts in 1914.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangut_class_battleship

[FrankHunter]

For naval strengths I used Paul Halpern's "A Naval History of WW1" I think its titled.

I've long since returned the book to the public library system. I believe parts of the book are available through google books however.

I can't recall if he mentioned those Russian dreadnaughts or if he did why I would have left them out.

[boogada]

ORIGINAL: FrankHunter

For naval strengths I used Paul Halpern's "A Naval History of WW1" I think its titled.

I've long since returned the book to the public library system. I believe parts of the book are available through google books however.

I can't recall if he mentioned those Russian dreadnaughts or if he did why I would have left them out.

I just looked at up at Google books. Theres a listing of the Russian fleet at the beginning of the war and he only mentions some PD's. The Wikipedia link I gave says the DN's were completed in November and December 1914.