RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2



Message

xhoel -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 8:41:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?



I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

There are two arguments against allowing the Germans to do this in Soviet territory. One is that they didn't, cities were declared fortified zones but in the main were defended within the current stacking rules. The other is that it might unbalance the game?


The first argument is a bit odd though since "City Forts" is just a name that the devs came up with to explain the gameplay mechanic that allows you to stack more units.

As for the second argument: It might unbalance the game, but I dont think it will for two reasons: 1) The Germans cant afford to have so many units defending City Forts or you recreate a Stalingrad situation and 2) there is a counter to it, in that the Soviets bypass, isolate and destroy such key locations.

As long as there is a trade off, Im fine with it:

-The Soviets get slowed down at a key locations but at the expense of multiple German formations that are completely destroyed.



Iam5not8 -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 9:21:38 AM)

Demyansk pocket was 60km by 50/70 km wide. IN game terms, that is roughly 3*3 hexes.
Stalingrad pocket, even at the end, was not limited to the city Stalingrad Maps
In Stalingrad, many divisions were declared out of combat even before the encirclment, by German HQ. In game terms, they will have been merged (which can leads to weird divisions with TOE over 100, because of the damage elements).
Then as Stalingrad (as Volgograd nowadays), is a line following the volga, the map can hardly represent the reality. That"s a limitation of any cartography at this scale.

Velikye garrison was a single inf regiment, with a security battalion. It was heavily fortified which in my understanding, is a fortified unit in game, at least lvl 3. When Soviet launched the offensive, the 83rd division front was more than 100km long.
Most of the German losses came from the relief attempts, and some regiments surrounded north & south of the town. When you go through the Ops Diaries, there is an Mountain inf rgt reporting the loss of 20 out 22 officers in 1 week of fight, and a remaining force of 60 men. (so a big platoon, not even a company). Same high losses of the soviet sides, as some guard rifle divisions were taken out of combat in 3 to 5 days.
Anyway, even nowadays Velikye is quite a small town of about 100.000 people.
When you look a map of VL in 1940, there is no way any Head of Staff would have garisonned many divisions there (map at 1:25000)
VL in 1940

Orienbaum & Kronstadt were old "Coastal" Forts built to protect the naval entrance to St-Petersburg. (even if we could challenge the fort level of Orienbaum).

Nevertheless, on a pure game point of view, I can't see why German could not build City Fortress, even in Soviet Union, within the current rule set.
Fortified units are avalaible to both sides. Merging units is the best way to represents multiple badly beaten divisions making their last stand in a one-hex location.


(sorry for the english)



xhoel -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 9:58:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iam5not8

Merging units is the best way to represents multiple badly beaten divisions making their last stand in a one-hex location.



It is what I am using constantly as the Germans in VtB. No other way to do it and it gives you a historical feeling.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 2:28:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel
-The Soviets get slowed down at a key locations but at the expense of multiple German formations that are completely destroyed.

I doubt this can be seen as a compromise.
The German player will be able to create fortresses, for example, in Leningrad, where there is a port. He can, if desired, hold him for a while, and then evacuate from the city by sea. Having crossed, for example, to Tallinn, without losing a single division. The same is with the southern ports on the Black Sea. Sevastopol, Novorosiysk and others.
There may be many points that are not taken into account in the proposal. Which can greatly upset the balance of the game in both directions.

In fact, I see some pretty interesting counter-arguments. On the one hand, they say, "The Germans need forts in order to plant more divisions there and stay on Soviet soil," I say: "Then you will have the opportunity to create a fortress city in cities for the Soviet player, if you take them, which will completely win the game at 41, with no chance of a comeback "
to which I hear the geometrically opposite, "The German player does not have so many divisions to put at least 5 divisions in 1 hex!", well, if you do not have these 5 divisions, why do you need a fortress on Soviet territory?



xhoel -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 3:08:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The German player will be able to create fortresses, for example, in Leningrad, where there is a port. He can, if desired, hold him for a while, and then evacuate from the city by sea. Having crossed, for example, to Tallinn, without losing a single division. The same is with the southern ports on the Black Sea. Sevastopol, Novorosiysk and others.



It is your job as the Soviet player to prevent that. Run Naval interdiction on the port so no supplies make it in and so that the units are isolated or rush your armor to Tallinn to threaten the Axis rear. Also attack the city to wear the enemy down?
You are making a mountain out a mole hill. No German player will build a fortress in Novorosiysk or any other Black Sea ports except for Sevastopol, since there is very little gain from it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

On the one hand, they say, "The Germans need forts in order to plant more divisions there and stay on Soviet soil," I say: "Then you will have the opportunity to create a fortress city in cities for the Soviet player, if you take them, which will completely win the game at 41, with no chance of a comeback "
to which I hear the geometrically opposite, "The German player does not have so many divisions to put at least 5 divisions in 1 hex!", well, if you do not have these 5 divisions, why do you need a fortress on Soviet territory?


I legit dont understand what you even wrote here. The point is very clear: Forts should exist so that IF
the German player is willing to sacrifice his units to slow the Soviets down, he can do so. Its a simple trade off.

The whole 5 division thing came from your Moscow example, which you now conveniently forgot about. You brought that point up and were rebutted. Just play 1 game as the Axis before speaking about them please. Your comment about admin points clearly shows that you are out of your depth here.



ShaggyHiK -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 3:42:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel
I legit dont understand what you even wrote here.


I say that people's argumentation is interesting, "Where it is convenient we will talk about balance, where it is not convenient we will talk about historicism"

Judging by Joel's comment, I conclude that at the stage of developing the game, these issues were worked out to one degree or another, and in fact it was decided that such a possibility was unnecessary.

You know that in all games there are discussions about the balance of the game and new chips? Often, players playing the same game come to geometrically opposite opinions. One says Axis OP, the other says Axis sucks, Soviet Union OP. And who to believe? One says to fix the Germans, the second says to fix the Soviet Union.

I really liked the comment by Iam5not8, which clearly showed that from a realistic point of view, Demyansk / Velikiye Luki and Stalingrad cannot be considered a "fortress CITY", because the defense was not built around the city as a key point of defense. What destroys the arguments given in the topic about the fact that these cities were "fortress cities" therefore, the Germans should be able to build fortress cities on Soviet territory.

From your comments, I see that in general you are aware of the real state of affairs in a real war. I understand your desire to give more freedom of action to the players in the game, but do you realize how this will potentially work?
I gave an example with Moscow to show how unreasoned the proposal for which you are speaking is not thought out. There are weak players who will start by planting 10 divisions in 1 hex and then complain that the Soviet player is surrounding them and that the fortress cities are useless and harmful, an experienced player can use this opportunity to isolate the Soviet player in the early stages of the game. Agree, if you take Moscow playing for Germany, you want to keep it in the winter. I am sure that you would rather spit and give Kharkov than Moscow.

I gave an exaggerated example to show that this player's proposal has aspects about which the player who proposed did not bother.



loki100 -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 3:51:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?



I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

...


except that the big example as to why this is needed cited above is that the poster can't hold the Stalingrad pocket in StB - so its not just 'one example' its the example that is used to claim this change is needed. And as we both agree, its not a very good example as there are plenty of ways a German player can keep the pocket going to its historical collapse unless the Soviet player responds in a very particular way?



jubjub -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (12/16/2021 4:27:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: xhoel


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100

I've tended to see the axis pocket at Stalingrad hold on pretty much as long as it did historically, so that suggests that the lack of a city fort is not the issue?



I agree, in StB, Stalingrad almost always holds out as long as it did historically, so I dont see a problem there. However, one example does not mean that this will be the case everywhere.

...


except that the big example as to why this is needed cited above is that the poster can't hold the Stalingrad pocket in StB - so its not just 'one example' its the example that is used to claim this change is needed. And as we both agree, its not a very good example as there are plenty of ways a German player can keep the pocket going to its historical collapse unless the Soviet player responds in a very particular way?



If by the 'poster', you are referring to me, my issue is not holding Stalingrad, but I'm able to take it extremely quickly without the city forts. I was able to take the north city 3 weeks early even with a city forts and 100,000 men in it. Without the city forts, I could've taken it 2-3 turns earlier with far fewer casualties.

I was forced to abuse the urban combat mechanics, or it would've never fallen due to the unrealistic supply and air supply situation. This kind of gets into several other issue that I'll probably bring up in separate posts.



Stamb -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 12:13:44 PM)

If Axis player decides to hold Sevastopol - what he can do? Leave 2 divisions + HQ in the city? It is free VP when Soviets get there.
City fort is needed or review of the rules for unit stacking. There is a difference between 3 ID and 3 riffle corps and 3 regiments in 1 hex in terms of men count but currently game counts only "boxes" for this people.



Beethoven1 -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 12:27:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

If Axis player decides to hold Sevastopol - what he can do? Leave 2 divisions + HQ in the city? It is free VP when Soviets get there.


You put 3 divisions there and you have the HQ sit 5 hexes off the coast in a boat (indefinitely long naval transport where you never disembark).

However, this is assuming that it makes sense to significantly defend Sevastopol in the first place, which I doubt. Sevastopol has to hold out until longer than ~ turn 151 to get bonus VP down due to the historical capture time. That is unlikely to be really achievable, so it is likely to be better to put your troops on the main line instead. Holding Sevastopol is also not going to materially hurt Soviet logistics until at the minimum they are starting to get into eastern Europe I would think, so there is not much reason to try to deny Soviets the port either. And there is hardly any manpower/industry there either.



Stamb -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 12:38:57 PM)

Soviet naval HQ can destroy any nearby unit in a water, right? Axis can not keep their HQ there.

But overall probably you are right about it. Still I think that there must be such an ability if a player really decides to defend this or any other major city



loki100 -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 12:52:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

Soviet naval HQ can destroy any nearby unit in a water, right? Axis can not keep their HQ there.

...


No, but I'd like it if the Soviet player did that as I'd sink it using naval interdiction and remove that threat for the balance of the game



Stamb -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 12:57:31 PM)

24.6.2
[image]https://i.ibb.co/FwCcGCs/Screenshot-from-2022-01-21-14-55-03.png[/image]

It is not working like that? If Axis HQ will be near Sevastopol in the sea, and naval HQ moves near it, it (Axis HQ) will still stay in the same place?



xhoel -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 1:55:22 PM)

The naval rules have been taken over from WitW, so what Stamb is saying should be correct.



Jeff_Ahl -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 5:26:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesertedFox

I don't see an issue with "altering" the historical doctrine set by Hitler and Stalin.

1. Russians are under no obligation to do suicidal and very expensive useless attacks on the Germans or stick around whilst they get surrounded.

2. The Germans are under no obligation to stick their neck in a noose aka Stalingrad and not withdraw to a better defensive position.

3. The so-called "fortress" cities will not happen out of thin air as in a Harry Potter movie. It will take time, engineers, and especially SUPPLIES, and lots and lots of supplies to build them.


+1



RedJohn -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 5:32:20 PM)

I think the Axis should have the ability to make city forts in the SU. It's not like Soviets in late 42 and the rest of 43/44/45 can't absolutely smash them anyway, and it's a serious commitment as the Axis where if you decide to shove >3 IDs into a hex you're no doubt weakening other parts of the front massively.



TallBlondJohn -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/21/2022 6:41:58 PM)

I'm new to this debate, so here's my thinking (as a newbie):

1. The 3 unit limit of the WITE/WITW/WITE2 family is sometimes a bit odd, but it does work (except for HQs, they should be free IMO).
2. Ideally, the limit should be - whatever an army can stick in the area represented by the hex without insurmountable difficulties (traffic, physical space to deploy etc). And the surmountable difficulties should incur penalties.
3. These limits rarely occurred on the Eastern front, so are they worth the complexity?

Which brings us to...

4. They did happen on the Western front, especially invasion bridgeheads. For instance the big MP hit at the start of Operation Goodwood.
5. So how would a higher stack limit affect WITW2, or the hoped for all Europe game we all dream of? Normandy, the Westwall and Italy's fortified lines all come to mind.

WITE2 is part of a family, and its system should be able to reflect the physics and doctrines of warfare throughout Europe. We do need a 'city-fort' (not the best name, I think the Devs admitted that) mechanic that allows a hex to be overstacked. I think it can be improved (e.g. an AP cost, and various potential penalties - say an automatic delay for anything moving through the hex, artillery bonus to the enemy firing into it), but anyone can create them anywhere. Obviously cities and urban would be best, mountains probably impossible.

Once overstacked, well all you have is a lot of units in one place with corresponding weaknesses elsewhere, plus the penalties. Fortifying this position is a completely separate matter - you need admin, supplies and time, and the level of fortification possible will depend on the terrain. The more you create, the thinner those engineering experts and special supplies of wire and concrete will be spread. You might have extra men in the hex for digging, but as usual can you spare them?



loki100 -> RE: Germans need city forts in Soviet Union (1/22/2022 10:16:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stamb

24.6.2
[image]https://i.ibb.co/FwCcGCs/Screenshot-from-2022-01-21-14-55-03.png[/image]

It is not working like that? If Axis HQ will be near Sevastopol in the sea, and naval HQ moves near it, it (Axis HQ) will still stay in the same place?


here's a confession - I've never read that [:o]. Guess I've never seen it happen in WiTW as the only times the axis are doing naval moves is in the early game around the Italian islands and the Allied TF counters are usually very much tied up



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375