xhoel -> RE: T57 (7/6/2019 9:06:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist That are rather high casualties in the air and on the ground, hard fight. Still I think the Soviets will break eventually if you keep pocketing them. Indeed. Very heavy casualties and at times very strange. I will make a separate post about this but will give you a sneak peak. Deliberate attack by a German Infantry Division with arty support against a lone Rifle Brigade (which routed) caused 200 KIAs for the Germans and 15 KIAs for the Soviets. I am seeing such strange results over and over and these kind of results are what are driving casualties up the roof. Attacks that push the enemy across a major river also have little impact on losses. In my opinion they should be higher. quote:
ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist Why do you try to capture Sevastopol against such resistance? If it is gifted one can take it, but I doubt that the investment of 3-4 strong corps over several weeks is worth it to be honest for location that has neither manpower nor industry nor too much strategic relevance (at least not when I would shoot for 1942/43 victory as in this game, otherwise it may have?). But it looks like you slowly get the upper hand (unless the Sovs ship in another rifle corps). Attritional warfare Kraut style. The Soviet's player Sevastopol Setup is not optimal, better would be two rifle corps attached to an airborne corps HQ. Without HQ, his defenders are chronically short of ammo and supplies, otherwise the loss ratio would be much worse for the Axis. I know that if you see it in a rational way, it doesn't make a lot of sense but I have my reasons for doing so. The most important one is the way I'm interpreting the VP system. I am seeing the VP cities as objectives (either strategic or political) set by the OKH. As such Sevastopol in game fits both those roles: a) it is the greatest fortress in the world in 1942 and taking it would mean a major boost of morale for the Germans, b) taking the city would mean I no longer have to worry about naval invasions (due to implemented house rules) and c) it will bring me VP points (tied to point a) until at least 1944 and d) it makes for a fun and immersive game. I am confident the city will fall next week. That will free all those strong divisions to assist the push on Moscow, with the rest joining AGS in the push towards the Kuban. And I am not aiming for a victory in 42/43. I know my opponent is ready to go until 1945 and I am willing to meet him at that so I am planning for the long run. That was initially his plan, but it seems my opponent is lacking the naval capacity to move another Corps in. It seems that he is doing just fine without an HQ there so far. He has resupplied the units by air. One thing that really bothers me with Sevastopol however is that the Soviet defenders will probably all rout which is very unrealistic and it present a win win situation for the Soviets. It would be much better for them to surrender (as they did historically) as it would present the Soviet player with a decision: Should I hold the city and risk losing these units or should I abandon it and save them? The way it works now, I have no clue why any Soviet player would want to give away Sevastopol. It is a defenders dream: narrow front, good fort levels, good defensive terrain, secure supply etc. I hope I have shed some light into why I am doing what I am doing.
|
|
|
|