Matrix Games Forums

I ask as I seem to remember something being said about that. Anyway, what do you think about this suggestion. Defenders are hard to move out of swamp terrain, fair enough. I suggest limiting the ZOC of troops in swamp terrain to just the hex they occupy. All other combat units project ZOC 10 more miles out in every direction which makes sence but if a unit is slogged in a swamp just daring the enemy to come in after them, then they shouldn't be able to project that same ZOC. Seems fair to me that enemy units not be subject to ZOC penalties and be able to bypass the swamp bound units with normal movement cost. A fair trade off? What do you think?

I agree something should be done.
 
I mean, historically wouldnt units have done their best to avoid swamp land, unless desperately fleeing attack? Sitting in foxholes flooded with stagnant pond water isnt good for moral.
 
I would suggest that attrition for units who end their turn in swamp be massively upped, to reflect sickness and tiredness and moral hits for troops in miserable conditions, and breakdown for heavy equipment slogging through muck.

ORIGINAL: GBS

I ask as I seem to remember something being said about that. Anyway, what do you think about this suggestion. Defenders are hard to move out of swamp terrain, fair enough. I suggest limiting the ZOC of troops in swamp terrain to just the hex they occupy. All other combat units project ZOC 10 more miles out in every direction which makes sence but if a unit is slogged in a swamp just daring the enemy to come in after them, then they shouldn't be able to project that same ZOC. Seems fair to me that enemy units not be subject to ZOC penalties and be able to bypass the swamp bound units with normal movement cost. A fair trade off? What do you think?

I see this totally opposite way. I see that it is much easier to block enemy movement in swamp than in open terrain even with small number of troops as there are plenty of places to ambush enemy. It is no way that whole German infantry division bypasses Soviets inside the swamp that nobody notices anything. It is much easier to detect moving troops than those who are hiding in terrain.

Swamp is definitely best terrain to delay and defend against enemy.

ZOC refers to surrounding hexes, not the swamp hex itself.

ORIGINAL: squatter

ZOC refers to surrounding hexes, not the swamp hex itself.

Hiding most of troops inside the swamp doesn’t block from sending small recon teams and forward observers all around you those recon teams could then call in artillery fire against any troop that is moving too close their positions and that is ZOC around them.

All you need German division moving in the open and one forward observer team detecting them.

Btw. this was exactly how Finnish troops devastated whole regiments of Soviet troops during continuation war with just artillery fire with few teams hiding inside forests or swamps detecting them moving in the open. In the worst cases Soviet took more than 5000 men casualties in less than minute’s times. Think about it next time when you say that you cannot control open terrain around you when you are deployed in the swamp.

Maybe some adjustment can be made. I like the idea squatter has about increasing attrition somehow. Looking at some of the calculations going on under the hood (supply) in WitE is almost like Rocket Science so I know some thing can be done. Oh well.

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Hiding most of troops inside the swamp doesn’t block from sending small recon teams and forward observers all around you those recon teams could then call in artillery fire against any troop that is moving too close their positions and that is ZOC around them.

This is where the zoc penalty comes from and I think it's reasonable.
I like the idea about a morale hit on swamp dwellers or possibly a supply penalty.Also it's a bit unrelated but I'd like to see an even greater mp cost for motorized and armoured units in swamps.

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept behind ZOC, and agree that it represents patrolling and harrassing fire.
 
I still fail to see why a unit in a swamp would be, in your argument, better placed to exert ZOC than one in, say, light woods.
 
The division in a swamp is going to have a much worse time moving its assets internally, artillery, ammunition trucks, etc. Mounting patrols and coordinating harrassing artillery fire over a horseshoe front of 60km is going to be harder if the conditions are terrible underfoot, compared to when the ground is firm, no?
 
As for the Finnish example: did the Finns put their artillery in the swamp too? Or just the spotters.

Here is an except of what Halder had to say about combat in the Russian swamps and forests. The Germans absolutely did not feel comfortable fighting in this terrain and usually just left them alone. Seems to me that the game handles these situations just fine as highly annoying defenses.

When the enemy has been maneuvered into a large forest and swamp region, the area cannot be sealed off by the same methods as a beleaguered fortress. Even a force with great numerical superiority will never have enough men available for such a task. It was also our experience that Russian forces, once they were driven into wooded and swampy areas, were extremely difficult to attack by normal means and could hardly ever be completely destroyed. On countless occasions, we were confronted with the fact' that the Russian was able to move about in these impenetrable forests and treacherous swamps with the certain instinct and sense of security of an animal, whereas any soldier reared and trained in a civilized country of the West was severely restricted in his movements and thereby placed at a disadvantage. There are no effective tactical remedies to compensate for this disadvantage. Even the most thorough training applied to troops from the West cannot replace the natural instinct peculiar to eastern Europeans who were born and raised in a region of forests and swamps. In the course of several generations the Soviet policy of concentrating masses of workers in large industrial areas will certainly have the effect of eliminating these natural instincts, even among people of the eastern type, but this is still far in the future. Until that time arrives, I am convinced that there is only one really effective method to use against the dangers of Russian forests and swamps, namely, to plan and conduct operations in a manner which will drive the Soviet forces from those areas where—for the time being—they enjoy a natural advantage, and force them to give battle in open terrain where western soldiers have an even chance in the tactical sense and superiority in terms of materiel. It is entirely conceivable that even the most modern weapon, the atom bomb, might serve as an effective instrument in support of such a strategy.

Trey

The division in a swamp is going to have a much worse time moving its assets internally, artillery, ammunition trucks, etc. Mounting patrols and coordinating harrassing artillery fire over a horseshoe front of 60km is going to be harder if the conditions are terrible underfoot, compared to when the ground is firm, no?

Possibly, but playing devil's advocate, perhaps swamp has elevated tracks for movement which mitigate the problems of internal movement. These would presumably be so few as to make concentration of force for their defence easy.

ORIGINAL: el hefe

... I am convinced that there is only one really effective method to use against the dangers of Russian forests and swamps, namely, to plan and conduct operations in a manner which will drive the Soviet forces from those areas where—for the time being—they enjoy a natural advantage, and force them to give battle in open terrain where western soldiers have an even chance in the tactical sense and superiority in terms of materiel. It is entirely conceivable that even the most modern weapon, the atom bomb, might serve as an effective instrument in support of such a strategy.

So, in effect, what Halder's saying is if they run into the swamps, nuke 'em until they glow, or leave the swamps. That's all fine and dandy, but then what do you do about the giant mutated crabmen that will swarm out and tear apart your Pz III's? Wait a minute...wrong game. That's Gary Grigsby's Fallout 3 in the East...[:D]

Halder's talking about 'large swamp regions' such as Pripyat, which we all agree is, and should be, a nightmare to operate in. In fact I agree with other posters that it should be even harder to move through for armour than currently.
 
What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations. Regularly.
 
I understand that engagement ranges for swamp were reduced shortly before release and that not all testers are convinced that the settings are correct as is?
 

Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps. I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go. No sense beating your head into the wall. Cut em off and leave them. If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes.

Trey

I agree evidence would be useful. I have none.
 
And naturally, after my first experience, I have desisted in assaulting weakly held swamps. But then I've also desisted from using air units to bomb airfields - it doesnt mean that it is realistic to do so.

I don't know what all the fuss is about bombing airfields, either. I have no problems at all in that area. After turn 1 in 1941 scenarios, just use level bombers, not tactical or fighter bombers and you'll destroy loads for little loss. Problem?

Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound.

The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 

Yep, Soviet airfield bombing in 1941 definitely sounds like a problem.

Trey

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound.

The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 

ORIGINAL: squatter
...

What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations...

I'll be running some tests to see if I can replicate this with the latest build over the next week or so.

Overall I see no problem with the way swamps work during good and bad weather.

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: squatter
...

What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations...

I'll be running some tests to see if I can replicate this with the latest build over the next week or so.

I may have exaggerated slightly. It's been known.