Deadline question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Deadline question

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns Series >> Decisive Campaigns: Case Blue >> Deadline question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Deadline question - 12/20/2012 8:45:15 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

When I'm ordered to seize an objective by a certain date (say june 3rd), is grabbing it on this turn and holding it at start of the next turn (june 5th) enough to get higher prestige instead of a prestige penalty, or would I have to hold this location already at start of said turn (june 3rd in my example)?

Yep Bonners, you're still holding Kerch after my june 1st turn.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

Post #: 1

RE: Deadline question - 12/20/2012 10:17:54 PM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

I'll have to bite the bullet, don't want to risk losing 6 prestige this early in the game, so in absence of a competent answer here I'll request more time. There go 44 political points earmarked for LB replacements...

By the way if Kerch is impossible to clear by the historical date and Axis has to play at least one more time card before the initial Trappenjagd deadline runs out, then maybe - just maybe... - this deadline might need to be looked at. I have yet to see an AAR where Axis could fight his way to Kerch on time if the soviet player is willing to fight for it.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 2

RE: Deadline question - 12/21/2012 2:14:13 AM

LiquidSky

Posts: 2811
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline

Hmm...you have intrigued me. I never thought it possible for the Russians to hold on to Kerch. I have always taken it on time, but then, I have always put the entire Luftwaffe in range of it. And my great success at stopping supply moving into the Crimea has made Wallas a bit gunshy at leaving units to die useless deaths.

Perhaps if the Russians move their fighters to the Taman/Krasnador area to try and suppress my ummm..supply suppression, the Russians can hang on long enough to cause the Germans to take a 6 prestige hit, but at what cost to the Russian army/airforce?

I am going to have to try a solo game to see if using my strategy as the Germans I can actually hold Kerch as the Russians.

_____________________________

�My logisticians are a humorless lot � they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.� � Alexander the Great

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 3

RE: Deadline question - 12/21/2012 9:35:12 AM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

My new AAR is lagging behind, I hope to to catch up in january and document what went on.

Short version: Bonners (SU) moved down most if not all his fighers within reach of Kerch, after turn 4 I had 5 JG down there too. I had to bomb Sewastopol closed because his fighters - despite my sweeping efforts on each non-mud turn - kept open the sea lanes to a degree where his Sewastopol defenders could keep up their readiness.

But what really was annoying are the LB losses caused by a large part of the soviet navy anchored at Kerch itself. These ships suffered almost no damage while ripping apart my german LB which had to keep Kerch bombed to zero. I had to move down all my KG to rotate them (naval AAA within Kerch badly tore down their readiness). I'll document how high the losses of my german LB were, but if I recall correctly around turn 10 they had lost about 30% of their inital number on the map. Other repercussions of Bonners raping of my KGs on the Crimea: My troops up north had to operate without LB hex softening before attacks, so on the ground my losses probably were about 20% higher than they could have been if the soviet air force had been parked in Siberia from the begin.

My take on these developments: The invulnerability of soviet ships within harbors has to be removed and their AAA strength (at least while anchored) toned down. No way in history the soviet navy would have been exposed anchored at Kerch to nonstop air bombings of 100-150 level bombers for several weeks, as the german Luftwaffe would have torn apart such juicy targets within a harbor...

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to LiquidSky)

Post #: 4

RE: Deadline question - 12/21/2012 10:38:42 AM

Reconvet

Posts: 355
Joined: 1/17/2011
Status: offline

As for holding Kerch:

The soviet player won't be able to hold on to it forever of course , but if he choses to fight from the beginning (ground and keeping up fighter cover) and doesn't run away and evacuate early then Axis really has a deadline problem there, even if Kerch port is bombed to zero until this hex is taken.

_____________________________

The biggest threat for mankind is ignorance.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 5

RE: Deadline question - 12/21/2012 11:55:26 PM

wallas

Posts: 219
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline

Losing 1/4 million men and 70% of your air force to deny the axis these PP hardly seems worth it to me.

(in reply to Reconvet)

Post #: 6

RE: Deadline question - 12/22/2012 1:12:59 PM

Bonners