quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM]

In other words, interdiction, IMO, is only working for half the cases that it should be.

But is that something easily fixed?

Unfortunately, it doesn't look to be an easy fix. With the current data structures set around unit-based recon, rather than hex-based recon values, saved games wouldn't be compatible, without a lot of specific code to make the transition. This type of design decision needs to be made at the beginning of development, and not afterwards. Hopefully, future War in the (fill in the blank) titles will incorporate hex-based recon, rather than unit-based.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

AFV,

The point is that there were in fact well organized Soviet airborne forces in Southern Russia, and they were trained and able to particiapte in combined arms operations. That the Soviets use of paras in 2 large scale operational manuvers met with mixed/dismal results does not mean that other outcomes were not possible. But in the case of Pelton's game, it is a single raiding brigade being dropped into a hex not so far from Odessa. Is this plausible, the use of paras as "partisans?" Well yes, and here is the source:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/geronimo/index.html

"Other missions carried out by Red Army paratroopers were generally on a small scale. Small parachute sections are believed to be attached to armies for espionage and sabotage purposes. Small groups of troopers have been used in cooperative roles with partisan groups behind enemy lines, and one entire brigade was dropped near Smolensk, in 1941, behind German lines. Many of the personnel in this drop were dressed in civilian clothing, and were expected to operate as Partisans."

This vindicates the use of para brigades as partisans to disrupt RR?

Marquo [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

MechFO
You simply don't understand that the 1941 SU, in game terms, had the capability of a well trained, well supplied, and well motivated 1989 Spetznaz team. Once you allow for the only slightly ahistorical SU ability to morph parts of it into an entirely different era, you will understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

Either they were well equipped, supplied, supported, and motivated and could pull off precision drops in '41, or they couldn't.

quote:

Yes, they had planes, men, petrol (and parachutes). You need more than that to insert a combat ready unit into enemy territory with precision

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

Not sure how that matters. Two drunk Mongolian shepherds on a meths binge could starve out Pelton's Ostheer in almost every campaign he's ever posted on the forums. And, likewise, do significant damage to the 1941 campaigns of most other German players.

That's the problem. Not the historic capabilities of the Soviets performing an airlift. Not the historic capabilities during any specific week after such an airdrop. But that any interdiction of the rail line stops that infinite supply and that effect is multiplied for German players who rely too heavily on 'optimised' (I believe that's the polite way of phrasing it) railroad building in 1941.

Only thing that's new is that someone's outcheesed Pelton with the game mechanics for a change and provoked this new plea to 'history'. Even the paradrop 'exploit' isn't new for a GG game; in fact, at least this is a brigade rather than just a squad.

Relative capabilities mean diddly squat when the problem is one of game mechanics. Could the Soviets put some men on a plane and dump them into swamps (not even with parachutes) with a sufficient survival rate for them to appear as a counter on map? Yup. Anything beyond that is the logistics mechanic - infinite supplies or not a bean. Can remove some options from the Soviet commander to prevent some elements of the clearly exploitative use possible but the fundamental issue remains. And it cuts both ways eventually.

quote:

Once again, there are all of two rail repair units that the Axis control in the southern part of the front. The rest is up to the AI.

quote:

I can't wait for some Russian to waste a brigade dropping on Berlin for giggles.

quote:

Either they were well equipped, supplied, supported, and motivated and could pull off precision drops in '41, or they couldn't.

quote:

But sorry, others here *are* supporting that, basically claiming because in '41 the SU had pushed a few soldiers out of planes that meant they could drop anywhere (in range of a plane), anytime, effectively, precisely, and consistantly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seminole
I've asked, but no one has offered to explain, what happened to FBD1 in Pelton's game? Had the rail line it starts NW of Lvov been connected through Proskurov, this 'exploit' from Odessa to the Rumanian border is for naught.

No in between, huh? Totally binary situation, whereupon we ignore that prior to the '41 invasion the Red Army conducted airborne operations moving brigade size units, and insist it must be 'well equipped, supplied, supported, and motivated and could pull off precision drops in '41' or nothing?

Have you tried dropping a para unit to see what it does to it?

quote:

It's not that they MUST be well-equipped, supplied, supported and motivated, it's that even when they're unequipped, isolated and have low morale, that parachute counter is still going to cause damage, and you still have to dislodge it with an actual on-map unit of your own, which you probably don't have any to spare since ... the para-drop was so far behind your front in the first place!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Savanniperkele

Sorry for peeking,

I just realized this is the game I am playing with GP. I was just browsing and pondering if I should report of this game something as well. Now you go on here :)

Luckily you have not posted last three turns so I shouldn't get too much intel. But I'd like to ask if I am welcome to read this or is it against common courtesy or your will, in which case I wont peek in again?

P.S. It would be very very interesting what you are going to post of this new STAVKA deviced partisan tactics utilizing those paradrop brigades in a small field test? I got the idea for it from the reports that Germany is only building three raillines to east (of which the center line has splitting into two), without connecting those into a unified network. There is some suspicion in the air but I'll put it bluntly. Has Hitler in his zeal disbanded small railroad repair units in the east to accumulate those horrific manpower pools Germany seems to start generating?


P.S. Couldn't help myself from inserting this screen capture from the Turn 9 as there might be a response for lightning advance of German supply with doubled FDB's on one rail.


[image]local://upfiles/17292/8E9112649689404CB3719AAABFF320CA.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: AFV

"Not sure how that matters. "
As I see it, that is actually all that matters. I really do not care about Pelton's game, his failures, successes, who's winning, losing, etc (no offense to Pelton or his opponent).

The only thing I care about is that in the GC, WITE will let the Soviets, in 1941, drop an airborne brigade at least 18 hexes (perhaps longer, we don't know for sure), with precision, accurately, every time, with a combat unit ready for action.

Yes, they had planes, men, petrol (and parachutes). You need more than that to insert a combat ready unit into enemy territory with precision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zebedee


Klydon - not sure why you even bothered to quote me. What you wrote has so little relationship to what you're quoting that the only linking factor is that they're both in the same thread. I laughed a lot though so well done on that score. Maybe try again by quoting someone who made even the vaguest suggestion that the fault solely lies with rushing rail line building?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

As I have said, the written word can suck at times for intent, especially since many do not have English as a first language.

You seem to come across with saying "right on" to the person making that para drop because Pelton "cheeses" the rail building mechanics that he supplies his troops all through 1 rail line at that point in time in the south. I call BS on such a comparison and that you continue to give a "well done" and defend that paradrop as "realistic" is silly.

I have tried (repeatedly) to point out that the game system and set up leave the German player little choice in part because of how the AI handles the repair units. I have also tried to point out that large sections of the front (even army groups) were fed by 1 line (or had a single choke point) in the real campaign, yet you appear to insist this is a valid tactic on the part of the Russians.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I have played both sides. Flat out, this abuse of paratroopers breaks the game as it stands. At least you recognize this with your comment about a "house rule".