BillRunacre
Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013 Status: offline
|
Thanks for the link, I have been watching some of the videos and enjoying them. A cut-off city like Lwow will have a maximum supply value of 3, which means that the unit occupying it can reinforce up to a maximum of strength 6. In the video clip at 22:00, the defending unit was at strength 10 and brought down to 9. If you've seen it reinforce to anything higher then do let me know. The units adjacent to Lwow would be able to reinforce up to a maximum strength of 5, and all of them should be easy to destroy in a turn or two. Cutting units off really does make a huge difference, as in the following Axis turn attacks against them would be much easier. However, looking at the video, one big problem for the Axis on the Eastern Front is that there don't appear to be any German HQs in the area around Lwow. This would make a massive difference to the combat results, especially if any Tanks and Tactical Bombers were also in range to support. As Germany is fighting a two front war, invading the UK as well as the USSR, the Barbarossa offensive isn't quite as strong as it might have been. Since Paradogs Gamer started his game we have changed one of the rules on resources, so that the presence of just 2 enemy units adjacent to most resource types (Capitals and Fortresses are excepted) will reduce their strength by 1 per turn. So this means that Lwow would reduce in strength over coming turns and any ability to reinforce would be further reduced... effectively to zero. The way it is in the game, units may be able to hold out for a while when they are cut off and with access to resources if only a limited effort is put in to destroying them. But even so, a serious effort will swiftly destroy them. This means that the various pockets on the Eastern Front like Stalingrad can be created and slowly reduced, with the onus being on the side that has units cut off to launch a counter-attack before their cut off units are destroyed on low supply.
< Message edited by Bill Runacre -- 10/23/2016 11:15:48 AM >
_____________________________
|