Matrix Games Forums

Hi all

request for assistance... playing PBEM as Axis and am unsure as to whether I should be garrisoning the western Black Sea ports or at all. Baltic no worries - Leningrad has fallen. Suggested options as winter approaches in 1941. Any thoughts?

1) fortified zones in each port (allows the real troops to defend or hold cities vs partisans)

2) accept that it is a major risk and put rumanian cavalry brigades in each port (since I can't bear the thought of all those horses in the blizzard...: ()

3) don't bother, but keep 1 armoured division back there to crush any landings.

(or some combination).

Note - as luck would have it, I haven't conquered the Crimea so offensives in this region are very likely.

Matt

I have given some thoughts to the subject myself. I use a mixed approach, I put FZs in some and Rumanian infantry divisions in some. The concept has yet to be tested, as I have not been the victim of any landings so far, but I fear that any time the RKKA might decide to be cooperative in that regard with some live firing excercises on the subject. I have a niggling suspicion that a FZ will not be strong enough to resist a landing.

I keep the Rumanian cavalry as an anti-partisan-reaction force, as their extra MP:s can be useful when doing the partisan whack-a-mole.

The Soviets have a powerful tool in their amphibious capability. I have played the Soviets and it is usually possible to land a substantial force and follow up with transported reinforcements. Landings at choke points on the Crimea (which obviously won't be a problem in your case, something to be thankful for at least [;)]) can be very effective. Or a landing coupled with a well timed land advance, the effect can be devastating.

Also remember that with the Crimea in Soviet hands, they can land west of the Crimea, even in Rumania. There is, I understand, a risk that this will knock Rumania out of the war, but I have not checked all the details on that.

thanks - time to mobilise all those Rumanians for coastal defence!

You are aware of the effect of the "port-zoc", which means that the enemy can't land beyond the first port along the coast? However, the port-zoc can be negated by bombing the port, so it cannot be depended on against a creative opponent.

In general, I am very concerned about landings, though I feel maybe the Soviet capability in that regard might be a bit overdone in the game. A creative Soviet player can create a whole lot of mischief with this capability, especially as the Soviets can afford to sacrifice a couple of divisions, even the threat of a landing will tie down troops to guard against the possibility. But as your opponent had missed the Finnish no attack line, maybe he hasn't read up on Soviet amphibious landings either...? But can you afford to take the chance?

I am not taking that chance .

I agree - amphib capacity is a little too dangerous for my liking. I've never once in 30+ years played a game where the Crimea was still held in late 1941 so I have little to go on except there's some almighty disaster about to befall me.

Port as blocker of movement - yep, got that. I am thinking some Rumanian airforce bases back there to ward off bombers in late 1941-1942 might be handy. They are not going to do anything near Rostov except die...

I think having taken Leningrad more than compensates for not having taken the Crimea. But you are going to get hit pretty badly down there come blizzard, be prepared for that!