Is swamp defense being looked at? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

GBS -> Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 2:57:02 PM)

I ask as I seem to remember something being said about that. Anyway, what do you think about this suggestion. Defenders are hard to move out of swamp terrain, fair enough. I suggest limiting the ZOC of troops in swamp terrain to just the hex they occupy. All other combat units project ZOC 10 more miles out in every direction which makes sence but if a unit is slogged in a swamp just daring the enemy to come in after them, then they shouldn't be able to project that same ZOC. Seems fair to me that enemy units not be subject to ZOC penalties and be able to bypass the swamp bound units with normal movement cost. A fair trade off? What do you think?



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 3:06:26 PM)

I agree something should be done.

I mean, historically wouldnt units have done their best to avoid swamp land, unless desperately fleeing attack? Sitting in foxholes flooded with stagnant pond water isnt good for moral.

I would suggest that attrition for units who end their turn in swamp be massively upped, to reflect sickness and tiredness and moral hits for troops in miserable conditions, and breakdown for heavy equipment slogging through muck.



Jakerson -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 3:45:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GBS

I ask as I seem to remember something being said about that. Anyway, what do you think about this suggestion. Defenders are hard to move out of swamp terrain, fair enough. I suggest limiting the ZOC of troops in swamp terrain to just the hex they occupy. All other combat units project ZOC 10 more miles out in every direction which makes sence but if a unit is slogged in a swamp just daring the enemy to come in after them, then they shouldn't be able to project that same ZOC. Seems fair to me that enemy units not be subject to ZOC penalties and be able to bypass the swamp bound units with normal movement cost. A fair trade off? What do you think?


I see this totally opposite way. I see that it is much easier to block enemy movement in swamp than in open terrain even with small number of troops as there are plenty of places to ambush enemy. It is no way that whole German infantry division bypasses Soviets inside the swamp that nobody notices anything. It is much easier to detect moving troops than those who are hiding in terrain.

Swamp is definitely best terrain to delay and defend against enemy.



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 3:47:12 PM)

ZOC refers to surrounding hexes, not the swamp hex itself.



Jakerson -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 3:59:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

ZOC refers to surrounding hexes, not the swamp hex itself.


Hiding most of troops inside the swamp doesn’t block from sending small recon teams and forward observers all around you those recon teams could then call in artillery fire against any troop that is moving too close their positions and that is ZOC around them.

All you need German division moving in the open and one forward observer team detecting them.

Btw. this was exactly how Finnish troops devastated whole regiments of Soviet troops during continuation war with just artillery fire with few teams hiding inside forests or swamps detecting them moving in the open. In the worst cases Soviet took more than 5000 men casualties in less than minute’s times. Think about it next time when you say that you cannot control open terrain around you when you are deployed in the swamp.





GBS -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 4:10:28 PM)

Maybe some adjustment can be made. I like the idea squatter has about increasing attrition somehow. Looking at some of the calculations going on under the hood (supply) in WitE is almost like Rocket Science so I know some thing can be done. Oh well.



timmyab -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 4:28:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson
Hiding most of troops inside the swamp doesn’t block from sending small recon teams and forward observers all around you those recon teams could then call in artillery fire against any troop that is moving too close their positions and that is ZOC around them.

This is where the zoc penalty comes from and I think it's reasonable.
I like the idea about a morale hit on swamp dwellers or possibly a supply penalty.Also it's a bit unrelated but I'd like to see an even greater mp cost for motorized and armoured units in swamps.



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 4:48:26 PM)

Yes, I'm familiar with the concept behind ZOC, and agree that it represents patrolling and harrassing fire.

I still fail to see why a unit in a swamp would be, in your argument, better placed to exert ZOC than one in, say, light woods.

The division in a swamp is going to have a much worse time moving its assets internally, artillery, ammunition trucks, etc. Mounting patrols and coordinating harrassing artillery fire over a horseshoe front of 60km is going to be harder if the conditions are terrible underfoot, compared to when the ground is firm, no?

As for the Finnish example: did the Finns put their artillery in the swamp too? Or just the spotters.



Great_Ajax -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:09:53 PM)

Here is an except of what Halder had to say about combat in the Russian swamps and forests. The Germans absolutely did not feel comfortable fighting in this terrain and usually just left them alone. Seems to me that the game handles these situations just fine as highly annoying defenses.

When the enemy has been maneuvered into a large forest and swamp region, the area cannot be sealed off by the same methods as a beleaguered fortress. Even a force with great numerical superiority will never have enough men available for such a task. It was also our experience that Russian forces, once they were driven into wooded and swampy areas, were extremely difficult to attack by normal means and could hardly ever be completely destroyed. On countless occasions, we were confronted with the fact' that the Russian was able to move about in these impenetrable forests and treacherous swamps with the certain instinct and sense of security of an animal, whereas any soldier reared and trained in a civilized country of the West was severely restricted in his movements and thereby placed at a disadvantage. There are no effective tactical remedies to compensate for this disadvantage. Even the most thorough training applied to troops from the West cannot replace the natural instinct peculiar to eastern Europeans who were born and raised in a region of forests and swamps. In the course of several generations the Soviet policy of concentrating masses of workers in large industrial areas will certainly have the effect of eliminating these natural instincts, even among people of the eastern type, but this is still far in the future. Until that time arrives, I am convinced that there is only one really effective method to use against the dangers of Russian forests and swamps, namely, to plan and conduct operations in a manner which will drive the Soviet forces from those areas where—for the time being—they enjoy a natural advantage, and force them to give battle in open terrain where western soldiers have an even chance in the tactical sense and superiority in terms of materiel. It is entirely conceivable that even the most modern weapon, the atom bomb, might serve as an effective instrument in support of such a strategy.

Trey



Mehring -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:13:08 PM)

quote:

The division in a swamp is going to have a much worse time moving its assets internally, artillery, ammunition trucks, etc. Mounting patrols and coordinating harrassing artillery fire over a horseshoe front of 60km is going to be harder if the conditions are terrible underfoot, compared to when the ground is firm, no?

Possibly, but playing devil's advocate, perhaps swamp has elevated tracks for movement which mitigate the problems of internal movement. These would presumably be so few as to make concentration of force for their defence easy.



JAMiAM -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:22:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

... I am convinced that there is only one really effective method to use against the dangers of Russian forests and swamps, namely, to plan and conduct operations in a manner which will drive the Soviet forces from those areas where—for the time being—they enjoy a natural advantage, and force them to give battle in open terrain where western soldiers have an even chance in the tactical sense and superiority in terms of materiel. It is entirely conceivable that even the most modern weapon, the atom bomb, might serve as an effective instrument in support of such a strategy.

So, in effect, what Halder's saying is if they run into the swamps, nuke 'em until they glow, or leave the swamps. That's all fine and dandy, but then what do you do about the giant mutated crabmen that will swarm out and tear apart your Pz III's? Wait a minute...wrong game. That's Gary Grigsby's Fallout 3 in the East...[:D]



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:22:59 PM)

Halder's talking about 'large swamp regions' such as Pripyat, which we all agree is, and should be, a nightmare to operate in. In fact I agree with other posters that it should be even harder to move through for armour than currently.

What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations. Regularly.

I understand that engagement ranges for swamp were reduced shortly before release and that not all testers are convinced that the settings are correct as is?



Great_Ajax -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:30:10 PM)

Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps. I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go. No sense beating your head into the wall. Cut em off and leave them. If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes.

Trey



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:34:22 PM)

I agree evidence would be useful. I have none.

And naturally, after my first experience, I have desisted in assaulting weakly held swamps. But then I've also desisted from using air units to bomb airfields - it doesnt mean that it is realistic to do so.



Mehring -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 5:51:05 PM)

I don't know what all the fuss is about bombing airfields, either. I have no problems at all in that area. After turn 1 in 1941 scenarios, just use level bombers, not tactical or fighter bombers and you'll destroy loads for little loss. Problem?



Klydon -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 9:46:57 PM)

Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound.

The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 



Great_Ajax -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:08:10 PM)

Yep, Soviet airfield bombing in 1941 definitely sounds like a problem.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound.

The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 





elmo3 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:12:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter
...

What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations...


I'll be running some tests to see if I can replicate this with the latest build over the next week or so.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:32:25 PM)

Overall I see no problem with the way swamps work during good and bad weather.



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:40:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elmo3


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter
...

What I'm less sure about are the numerous small swamps dotting the map. With a single border regiment in them, these can become Alamos that stop entire corps in their tracks. 2000 poorly equiped, poorly trained and poorly led men costing 60,000 fresh shock troops a week's operations...


I'll be running some tests to see if I can replicate this with the latest build over the next week or so.



I may have exaggerated slightly. It's been known.



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:44:41 PM)


quote:


Here is an except of what Halder had to say about combat in the Russian swamps and forests.

the Russian was able to move about in these impenetrable forests and treacherous swamps with the certain instinct and sense of security of an animal, whereas any soldier reared and trained in a civilized country of the West was severely restricted in his movements and thereby placed at a disadvantage.

There are no effective tactical remedies to compensate for this disadvantage. Even the most thorough training applied to troops from the West cannot replace the natural instinct peculiar to eastern Europeans who were born and raised in a region of forests and swamps [yeah, Soviet metrosexuals too, eh? [:D]]. In the course of several generations the Soviet policy of concentrating masses of workers in large industrial areas will certainly have the effect of eliminating these natural instincts, even among people of the eastern type [what are they? Insects? [:D]], but this is still far in the future [aka I know I sound like a moron so here's my half-ar** retort. Yes, you're an utter moron. Amen].


Plainly racist, therefore irrelevant and ignorant stuff. I am NOT talking about you, El Hefe, ONLY about this Halder. Who's that guy? Is he into some aryan brotherhood perhaps...? [8|]

quote:

Interesting comments by Halder considering the Russians got a big dose of that from the Finns in the pristine woods during the winter war where the Finns moved through the woods with grace and the Russians were more or less road bound


You hit the nail on the head, Klydon. Looks like this Halder thing missed that one, eh? [:D]



Flaviusx -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 10:48:11 PM)

Yeah, I gotta say that after reading that bit from Halder, he was deeper into the untermensch koolaid than I thought. I get what he's trying to say here, but the way he is saying it is pretty revealing.

His diaries don't contain anything like that. Or maybe they were polished up.






squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:01:55 PM)

Very true. Halder scrabbling around with racist fantasies to basically save from admitting up front that the Russians are outwitting the Germans in the bad terrain.



B455 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:20:33 PM)



Well I think we should not consider every "swamp" hex actually a swamp...there are so many different types of them out there in the nature. I consider it just difficult terrain area with non-existent or very sparse/poor roadnetwork. Hard to go through with motorized force, especially if there is enemy to defeat as well. So, I am kind of satisfied with the current way it is in Wite. Particularly I like how the Leningrad region's primeval forests and peat bogs halt down German panzers.



budman999 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:31:11 PM)

Some of my reading indicates that the Germans simply were not comfortable fighting in woods, swamps, etc. because they had no (or very few) areas where they could effectively practice this skill - the forests in Germany being 'new' forests (ie. planted, spaced out, little undergrowth, etc.). As well they were jealously protected by the German administrations responsible for maintaining the forests.



elmo3 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:40:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I may have exaggerated slightly. It's been known.


I was not taking your comment literally. [;)] I'll be testing to see if swamp defense is giving the results we want.



Jakerson -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:46:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps. I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go. No sense beating your head into the wall. Cut em off and leave them. If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes.

Trey

Same to me I do not understand why people hit their head on the brick wall and attacking where enemy has strongest natural fortresses helping them to defend. Of course attacking against bad terrain delay operations and advance as it should be and it should take a longer to clear swamp from enemy troops than other terrain. It is just realistic. Choosing correct time table and attacking lines is important aspect for German player in this game and I do not want this aspect of game to cripple by allowing very unhistorical game play. Germans having problem with Swamps adds historical accuracy to game.

I love the fact that this game forces people to plan how they attack and where instead of just mindlessly attacking everything that move without taking any note about terrain.




Mehring -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:51:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon
The airfield bombing issues revolve around the Red Air force bombing the crap out of Luftwaffe airfields and at the end of the day, achieving a 1:1 loss ratio when in fact they would be slaughtered by German ME 109's in 1941. 

Wow! Can the LW destroy 6000 planes in T1 and the Russian airforce still bite back? On T1 or a few turns later?



squatter -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/12/2011 11:58:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL:  Jakerson

quote:

ORIGINAL:  el hefe
Personally, I don't know why people would be assaulting a swamp with a entire infantry corps.  I treat swamps like a level five fortification in that I find somewhere else to go.  No sense beating your head into the wall.  Cut em off and leave them.  If someone could provide a historical instance in which a German division or even a corps assaulted a 10 mile swamp area in Russia and cleared it out in less than a week, I might support some changes. 
Trey

Same to me I do not understand why people hit their head on the brick wall and attacking where enemy has strongest natural fortresses helping them to defend. Of course attacking against bad terrain delay operations and advance as it should be and it should take a longer to clear swamp from enemy troops than other terrain. It is just realistic. Choosing correct time table and attacking lines is important aspect for German player in this game and I do not want this aspect of game to cripple by allowing very unhistorical game play. Germans having problem with Swamps adds historical accuracy to game.
I love the fact that this game forces people to plan how they attack and where instead of just mindlessly attacking everything that move without taking any note about terrain.


Yes, that's exactly how I play. I head straight for the nearest swamp or heavy forrest, and throw everything I've got at them. It's actually a priority for me. If you cant control the wilderness, how can you control yourself?



B455 -> RE: Is swamp defense being looked at? (1/13/2011 12:01:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Budman

Some of my reading indicates that the Germans simply were not comfortable fighting in woods, swamps, etc. because they had no (or very few) areas where they could effectively practice this skill - the forests in Germany being 'new' forests (ie. planted, spaced out, little undergrowth, etc.). As well they were jealously protected by the German administrations responsible for maintaining the forests.


They were afraid of vast forests and total wilderness that exists in Russia. It certainly wasn't their home ground. And Germans always kept noise - a lot of noise. Russians could hear them coming and ambush accordingly.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.09375