quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer


Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

What that floor might be is debatable, but it's going to be higher than 0 in game terms.

They are intrinsically difficult targets.

Furthermore the reduction in entrenchment levels ought to be more gradual. In this game it is a one turn process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer


Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

After 1 turn next to the city the forts are at 0 for all units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

You are right Flaviusx, I forgot that Stalingrad was rubbled, although by Air bombardment, artillery shells. etc. Are the Siege guns only representing the rail guns, or do they represent the total effort and ordnance required during a siege of any large city.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Am doubting that restricting use to German rail actually solves the whole tactical nuke problem, at least so far as Leningrad is concerned.

Presumably, you can push those rails to Leningrad fairly easily. This might be ok for Moscow and especially Rostov.

The guns are simply too effective and work too quickly against big city targets. 4 days to zero entrenchment level once they arrive.

Maybe I'm confused (again), but since there will usually be Major Garrisons in strategic (red dot) and especially victory cities, reducing the structure points of that garrison to zero with, and only with, siege guns, can take several (3-5?) turns.

Until it reaches zero, it remains fully entrenched, right?

I simply don't think that entrenchment levels in a major urban center should ever be reduced past a certain level. Past a certain point bombarding them just makes more rubble for the defender to hide in. That's the story of Stalingrad in a nutshell. A place like Leningrad or Moscow would be even more difficult to reduce.

What that floor might be is debatable, but it's going to be higher than 0 in game terms.

They are intrinsically difficult targets.

Furthermore the reduction in entrenchment levels ought to be more gradual. In this game it is a one turn process.