Redmarkus5
Posts: 4456
Joined: 12/1/2007
From: 0.00
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
quote:
ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lieste
The Russians IRL found that the Panzers could penetrate areas 'impassible to motorised units' - I have an account of the assault by elements of 6th Pz towards Leningrad - ultimately defeated by supply problems (in part caused by the advance itself).
They penetrated 250km in 5 days across mostly swamp, building bridges across each of the small streams encountered, continually having to recover vehicles lost in the swamp terrain, and pausing to allow villages torched by the retreating Soviets to burn out enough to allow passage - the only passable terrain being the "main road" through the village - which had last existed as a formal route in 1905, and had degenerated since.
The advance was successful - grabbing bridges across the Luga, but the supply troops could not reach the spearhead, which after weathering counter attacks had to retrace it's steps across the swamp.
Perhaps an/the answer is to significantly increase movement costs for supply determination, but not for the actual movement of troops across swamp and wooded areas.
Of all the suggestions made in this thread, I like this one best. It deals with my original concern about how such a long advance into the wilderness would be supplied, without removing the ability of units to move where the player wishes to send them.
Having said that, I also think that the wilderness in the region east and southeast of Leningrad is not adequately represented. While roads may be abstracted on much of the map, particularly in western Russia, they rarely existed in this and several other regions, and this should also be factored in.
I would agree that this is more like a solution, although I think that it is the swamp hexes which are the most significant obstacle.
I am using Panzer Operations, Memoir of Erhard Raus describing the approach to the River Luga. - 'The region we initially entered consisted of sand dunes that were in part sparsely overgrown with coniferous trees (light woods ?). The march unit, now using the method of following in the tracks of the preceding vehicle, was able in spite of all difficulties to traverse this area at the rate of ten kilometers per hour'. -and after passing though an area of swamp- 'We regained our momentum once beyond the swamp'. There is a lot more about river crossings, terrain, etc..
The original map posted shows only small amounts of swamp in the highlighted area (I don't know how accurate that is), however, after 6 PZ had advanced over the swampy terrain, it was not just supply that could not follow, the passage of the Division had so wrecked the tracks that no one could follow for several days, until log corduroy roads had been constructed.
We have had the discussion on accounting for roads in the game before and I think that the general terrain in each hex indicates the effect on MPs adequately. Joel has a point, as a week turn can be a reasonable time to overcome obstacles, if there is no opposition.
If there were to be an additional cost for supply determination, especially in swamp hexes, would it be permanent, or would there be an allowance for the engineering of roads, trackways and bridges on supply routes, to reduce the penalty in following turns. 
I'm using Raus as a key source as well - an excellent book, but not well known.
My first comment is that he was describing the challenges of making the historical advance, and they were many, but the screen shot from the game shown at the start of this thread shows a vastly longer move, so those historical challenges would have been hugely accentuated. What really concerns me is that this flanking move is listed in the game play library on this forum, leading new players to regard it as a genuine option when it's clearly a nonsense only achievable given the features of the WiTE engine.
I fully agree with what you say, however, and I have also raised the issue of roads and the construction of log roads as key requirements in the game. For example, the Soviets made an important advance through the Pripyat in 1944 based on a huge network of log roads built by their engineers.
This engineering and logistic effort isn't a side issue for nerds, as you clearly know yourself - it's the key to military operations in Russia. Failing to represent it totally distorts the history and the player's decision making process IMO. Until the game includes provision for different road levels and the engineering effort/AP cost of converting wilderness and swamp hexes to include various road types, it fails as a simulation and remains a game only.
I'm sure that statement will boost my popularity even further ;)
_____________________________
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
|
Printable Version
RE: How realistic is this? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread