Page 1 of 1
Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:51 am
by lancer
Hi,
Here's a glimpse at proposed changes to this area.
Minor city ports (grey dot) will no longer receive Soviet supply by sea. It's assumed that the Germans could interdict here at will.
Supply for these cities will be land based only.
Major city ports (red dot - Riga, Talinn, Odessa, Sevastopol), receive seaborne supply which will flow into any surrounding pocket centred on the port. Major ports would likely have the capability to remain open and functional as the Germans were presenting fairly low level naval/air threats in both the Baltic and Black seas.
Cheers,
Cameron
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 11:10 am
by ernieschwitz
Seems like a good idea
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:12 pm
by Flaviusx
Low threat in the Baltic sea? The Baltic was a German lake.
You guys have got this all wrong. Black Sea is underrepresented in this game in many ways, and the Baltic is seriously overstated. WTB amphibious ops, naval movement of troops and those goodies in the Black Sea...and shut down the Baltic for the Soviets, please.
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:16 pm
by baloo7777
What happens to Talinn? Is it resupplied from Leningrad?
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:14 pm
by Speedysteve
Agree with Flav. The Baltic ports should get no supply when cut off. Black Sea the opposite
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 1:44 pm
by willgamer
Thank you for addressing this and making the situation much better than it was!
[&o]
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:27 pm
by Gunnulf
Given the minor massacre that the attempted naval evacuation of Tallinn was, this would give support to the idea that the Baltic was not a good place to be a Soviet ship... This is progress though, at while it might now be technically correct that they are receiving endless supplies and at least the defenders will fight if you order them to stay and make a stand, and not roll over straight away. Otherwise the Soviets will just run every time, all the time until Narva. This way at least they need to beaten out, which they already do before too long.
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:32 pm
by RCHarmon
Vic needs to create a type of supply depot in major cities that when cut off the defenders can live on and the city doesn't fall so quickly. This is a problem in DC Case Blue with Sevastopol. It always fell quickly because the defenders were cut off and out of supply.
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:35 pm
by Gunnulf
Incidentally, Lancer you must be the first German player to divert a couple of mobile divisions to hit the the Baltic sea there, and the rest of 4 PzGp is at terrible risk of being cut off... Thats going to be even worse than me losing 16th Army. Fancy a game? Lets make it interesting at $10 a win..?
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:10 pm
by CaptCarnage
He plays as a Soviet as there is a ? over the German SS unit, right?
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:12 pm
by Gunnulf
Good point, well presented.
Carry on.
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 4:25 pm
by Speedysteve
LOL[:D]
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 3:56 am
by governato
ORIGINAL: lancer
Major ports would likely have the capability to remain open and functional as the Germans were presenting fairly low level naval/air threats in both the Baltic and Black seas.
I respectfully disagree...from
wikipedia and
feldgrau
As a result of mining, ships and subs presence and air superiority supply TO Riga and Tallinn was cutoff pretty quickly. The fleet in Tallinn was only able to organize a desperate breakOUT..with 50% losses. A lot worse than Dunkirk.
Moreover..."the Germans deployed a large battlegroup—including the new battleship Tirpitz, cruisers, and destroyers—to the Baltic in August–September 1941, and laid a series of minefields across the Gulf of Finland" Even if Tirpitz was in the Baltic for only about a week, three other cruisers were also present, or at least available. The Russian Baltic Fleet quickly withdrew East...
I side with Flav here: no Red Army sea supply in the Baltic, add an evacuation card to remove divisions from Riga and Tallinn, sea supply Odessa and Sevastopol, with again a card for evacuations etc.
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 5:40 am
by lancer
Hi,
No great generalship on my part.
It was a quick test playing both sides to check the mechanics.
Cheers,
Cameron
RE: Ports and Supply
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:57 am
by Iñaki Harrizabalagatar
ORIGINAL: governato
ORIGINAL: lancer
Major ports would likely have the capability to remain open and functional as the Germans were presenting fairly low level naval/air threats in both the Baltic and Black seas.
I respectfully disagree...from
wikipedia and
feldgrau
As a result of mining, ships and subs presence and air superiority supply TO Riga and Tallinn was cutoff pretty quickly. The fleet in Tallinn was only able to organize a desperate breakOUT..with 50% losses. A lot worse than Dunkirk.
Moreover..."the Germans deployed a large battlegroup—including the new battleship Tirpitz, cruisers, and destroyers—to the Baltic in August–September 1941, and laid a series of minefields across the Gulf of Finland" Even if Tirpitz was in the Baltic for only about a week, three other cruisers were also present, or at least available. The Russian Baltic Fleet quickly withdrew East...
I side with Flav here: no Red Army sea supply in the Baltic, add an evacuation card to remove divisions from Riga and Tallinn, sea supply Odessa and Sevastopol, with again a card for evacuations etc.
I am not so sure, the Soviets were able to keep supplied the 23.000 strong garrison of Hanko until December 1941, when they withdraw it by sea. An evacuation under direct assault of the enmy, like the one from Tallin, is a very difficult affaire, much more dificult than keep the city supplied.