Impact of minor rivers?

Impact of minor rivers? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Across the Dnepr - Second Edition

Message

killkess -> Impact of minor rivers? (4/25/2010 8:59:02 PM)
What exactly is the impact of minor rivers on movement and tactical shifts? So far i only regognized that tracked units cannot cross major rivers, minor rivers can be crossed even by tank units?

ComradeP -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/25/2010 10:03:06 PM)
The extra OP cost for crossing a minor river is fairly low, about 2 to 4 OP's depending on movement type. Aside from that, you don't get a tactical shift when attacking across minor rivers. Tanks shouldn't have too much trouble with crossing streams and minor rivers. Many tanks could travel through a small amount of water, so all that would be required would be a small bridge or ford/crossing if they can't actually simply traverse the water. The pontoon units create permanent bridges, but I normally assume bridging capabilities of tank divisions are abstracted, which is why they can cross minor rivers. It's somewhat "suspension of disbelief" but it works for me. Infantry can cross on small boats, swim or simply move through the water. With a scale of 1 turn/day, it's a small part of the day, hence the low OP cost. I have more trouble with believing infantry can do 80 kilometre marches every day than with the minor river system.

jjdenver -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/25/2010 11:22:43 PM)
Minor rivers generally didn't prevent the advance of panzer units. The Germans improvised in numerous ways to get panzers across - sometimes fording, sometimes using organic pioneer companies to bridge minor rivers, sometimes using local construction materials, sometimes forming ersatz bridges by chopping down local trees and piling them into the water barrier, sometimes seizing small bridges by coup de main and then reinforcing the structures with lumber and steel/iron beams procured locally or carried along w/ the panzer division/corp engineer units, allowing bridges that previously couldn't support panzers to support crossing of entire panzer regiments. You can read the first few chapters of Raus' book "Panzer Operations" and find numerous examples of his kampfgruppe of 6th panzer division figuring out ways to cross various water and terrain barriers quickly. Raus also points out that water barriers vary greatly with the seasons. During the spring a river that was fordable during the summer could be engorged and be far more difficult to negotiate. ATD2 happens after quite a long relative dry season (summer). I don't think you have to suspend disbelief to think that panzer divisions can maintain an offensive across minor water barriers - they did it consistently in reality.

Carl Myers -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/26/2010 12:05:20 AM)
quote: I have more trouble with believing infantry can do 80 kilometre marches every day than with the minor river system. Aw, shucks, 40 minutes of speed marching will get you 4 miles down the road.

TargAK -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/26/2010 4:15:44 AM)
We did 30 miles in 8 hours and that was going from Hunter ligget to the Coast over the big Sur Mountains. Raus in the same book talks about encountering Soviet infantry units that had travelled 75km in a day.

JudgeDredd -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/26/2010 7:05:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Carl Myers quote: I have more trouble with believing infantry can do 80 kilometre marches every day than with the minor river system. Aw, shucks, 40 minutes of speed marching will get you 4 miles down the road. The UK Army Combat Fitness test required all soldiers to perform an 8 mile route march with combat kit (about 60lbs) and 100m firemans lift in 2 hours. However, you were knackered afterwards. It's fair to say some "elite" units could do further or perhaps faster (prob not both for any length of time) - but even they would be knackered at the end. Also, they wouldn't be required to do it every day. I guess what comradep is suggesting is that the movement rates for foot units is too much. I have only just got the game and never really analysed Kharkov in such a way, so don't know if it's true or not.

ComradeP -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (4/26/2010 11:08:35 AM)
Infantry formations that marched 50+ kilometres a day won't be as combat effective as those that didn't, but attrition from movement isn't modelled as the game system uses an "all inclusive" OP system now. That's not a problem per se, in this case infantry OP's are higher to allow them to move into enemy territory, but that also means German infantry units can move ~20 hexes over friendly terrain (and that was cross country, if you select one of the infantry divisions the Germans start with on turn one, it can travel 20 hexes to the North). After 80 kilometres of cross country walking in July heat, your feet won't be a pretty sight. You can probably forget about trying that the day after. Also: the German summer uniform was pretty heavy and not all that comfortable, a Rifle Regiment would be travelling lighter and be more used to hardship than a typical German infantry formation. As such, movement rates are slightly unrealistic over friendly terrain, especially as they can do it every day. In the DB series, you could have your guys march 50+ kilometres each day but they'd burn through OP reserves quickly through extended movement.

JSS -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (5/7/2010 11:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd The UK Army Combat Fitness test required all soldiers to perform an 8 mile route march with combat kit (about 60lbs) and 100m firemans lift in 2 hours. However, you were knackered afterwards. It's fair to say some "elite" units could do further or perhaps faster (prob not both for any length of time) - but even they would be knackered at the end. Also, they wouldn't be required to do it every day. The current US Army standard for badge award (air assault, expert medic, etc...) is 12 miles in 3 hours in combat gear. Takes a bit of doing to meet this standard (not too hard to do really, just requires a bit of stamina). 12 miles in in 2 hours is an arse kicker... 12 miles in 3 hours for an individual in good physical shape is a rolling pace event. More relevant are association marches of 25 miles in a day/night... these are put on by infantry units and considered an accomplishment. My understanding is that 50miles/80km per day is at the human indurance limit (for this type of effort). JSS

hank -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (5/8/2010 11:23:47 PM)
This is an interesting thread. It would be nice if some type of fatigue factor was developed for this engine. Foot soldiers can march and fight day after day without any adverse affects. ... except losing steps in combat. In my last game against the Axis AI, those Hitlerites attacked day after day after day ... even after marching dozens and dozens of miles. I'd be really tired ... too tired to fight effectively.

Gregor_SSG -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (5/9/2010 10:18:17 AM)
Units can usually only achieve long marches in friendly territory and assume that, away from the front line, some sort of motorised transport can be organised to speed things along, even if the unit doesn't have organic transport. As for fighting every day, the bullet system ensures that no unit can do that. You have to at least stop fighting or you will run out of bullets, and the refit system actively encourages pulling units back from the front line to rest and refit. Gregor

ComradeP -> RE: Impact of minor rivers? (5/9/2010 2:25:39 PM)
Would there be a way to update the combat display in future games so it doesn't indicate green arrows/a tactical shift across rivers? I almost had a feeling the engine actually gave shifts for attacks across rivers, although it probably didn't in reality. It's odd that a hex with a detachment will indicate that on the combat display and show no tactical shift arrow, but rivers show the tactical shift arrow.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375