Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: War in the East Q&A

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the East Q&A Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 9:23:51 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


Bulgaria and the Balkans in general are not in the game. The dynamics of the game are such that if you don't defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 your chances of doing so become progressively less. It is difficult to imagine a game in which both the Russians are holding on by their fingernails in 1944 and the Germans actually need the help of a couple Slovakian infantry divisions.


Ok ... can you expand a little on this , are you saying that Slovakia,Hungary,Rumania and Finland will leave the Axis Alliance on set dates no matter what the strategic situation is? or is there other criteria involved for these countries to change side



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 181
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 10:20:55 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Can you name an amphibious operation the Germans conducted in the Black Sea?



Operation Bluecher. Planned as an attack across Strait of Kerch (from the Kerch Peninsula to the Taman Peninsula) in early August by 5 out of Eleventh Army's 7 German divisions after the fall of Sevastopol, according to Hitler's Directive 43, written in early July 1942. The objective was to capture Anapa and Novorossiysk, turning the flank of what would be the Soviet 47th Army at a crucial time if it had been executed.

Hitler changed his mind and decided that if German troops succesfully pushed towards the Caucasus, the operation would be scrapped and the 5 divisions moved to Leningrad, with most of the siege artillery from Sevastopol to launch an attack on Leningrad in September at the latest.

Eventually, Operation Bluecher was decreased in size to Bluecher II, executed on September 2, 1942, which brought a Romanian mountain division and a German division across the Strait of Kerch to help the Third Romanian Army already on the other side. Enough aircraft were diverted from the Stalingrad front to keep the Black Sea Fleet from messing with the landing.

If the player could have the means to execute the original Bluecher plan, that could seriously help in trying to secure the Caucasus.

quote:

Bulgaria and the Balkans in general are not in the game. The dynamics of the game are such that if you don't defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 your chances of doing so become progressively less. It is difficult to imagine a game in which both the Russians are holding on by their fingernails in 1944 and the Germans actually need the help of a couple Slovakian infantry divisions.


The Germans might not need the help of the Slovak Fast Division or the Slovak Security Division, but over a dozen Bulgarian or Romanian divisions fighting for the Soviets magically popping at the western edge of the map at set times would be quite troubling for the German player, and quite unrealistic. If the player is forced to stick with historical surrender dates, regardless of whether the Soviets are losing badly, I'd like to know how the appearance of formerly allied troops that switched sides would work. If they're excluded, I'd also like to know why as those troops could make offensive operations easier for the Soviets as they approach Germany.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 9/18/2009 10:28:05 AM >

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 182
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 10:36:41 AM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


Bulgaria and the Balkans in general are not in the game. The dynamics of the game are such that if you don't defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 your chances of doing so become progressively less. It is difficult to imagine a game in which both the Russians are holding on by their fingernails in 1944 and the Germans actually need the help of a couple Slovakian infantry divisions.


Ok ... can you expand a little on this , are you saying that Slovakia,Hungary,Rumania and Finland will leave the Axis Alliance on set dates no matter what the strategic situation is? or is there other criteria involved for these countries to change side




Slovakia withdraws due to the internal political situation in Slovakia (essentially same reason Italy withdraws); Hungary, Rumania, and Finland have to be forced to surrender by Russian forces invading their countries.

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 183
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 10:45:11 AM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

Can you name an amphibious operation the Germans conducted in the Black Sea?



Operation Bluecher. Planned as an attack across Strait of Kerch (from the Kerch Peninsula to the Taman Peninsula) in early August by 5 out of Eleventh Army's 7 German divisions after the fall of Sevastopol, according to Hitler's Directive 43, written in early July 1942. The objective was to capture Anapa and Novorossiysk, turning the flank of what would be the Soviet 47th Army at a crucial time if it had been executed.

Hitler changed his mind and decided that if German troops succesfully pushed towards the Caucasus, the operation would be scrapped and the 5 divisions moved to Leningrad, with most of the siege artillery from Sevastopol to launch an attack on Leningrad in September at the latest.

Eventually, Operation Bluecher was decreased in size to Bluecher II, executed on September 2, 1942, which brought a Romanian mountain division and a German division across the Strait of Kerch to help the Third Romanian Army already on the other side. Enough aircraft were diverted from the Stalingrad front to keep the Black Sea Fleet from messing with the landing.

If the player could have the means to execute the original Bluecher plan, that could seriously help in trying to secure the Caucasus.

At the scale of WitE this is not an amphibious operation. An amphibious operation in WitE is a "blue water" operation involving major naval assets none of which the Axis possessed in the Black Sea.

quote:

Bulgaria and the Balkans in general are not in the game. The dynamics of the game are such that if you don't defeat the Soviet Union in 1941 your chances of doing so become progressively less. It is difficult to imagine a game in which both the Russians are holding on by their fingernails in 1944 and the Germans actually need the help of a couple Slovakian infantry divisions.


The Germans might not need the help of the Slovak Fast Division or the Slovak Security Division, but over a dozen Bulgarian or Romanian divisions fighting for the Soviets magically popping at the western edge of the map at set times would be quite troubling for the German player, and quite unrealistic. If the player is forced to stick with historical surrender dates, regardless of whether the Soviets are losing badly, I'd like to know how the appearance of formerly allied troops that switched sides would work. If they're excluded, I'd also like to know why as those troops could make offensive operations easier for the Soviets as they approach Germany.


See my next post explaining who withdraws and who surrenders. BTW, no one changes sides in WitE, they just surrender.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 184
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 11:14:20 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

At the scale of WitE this is not an amphibious operation. An amphibious operation in WitE is a "blue water" operation involving major naval assets none of which the Axis possessed in the Black Sea.


So, in short, the Germans can't bring troops across the Strait of Kerch unless it's frozen?

It's also a bit odd that the Soviets do get amphibious capabilities if scale is an issue, as most of their operations were of a smaller scale than what 5 German divisions+support assets would amount to in terms of manpower strength.

As the main ports for the Black Sea Fleet were in the Ukraine, the Black Sea Fleet was also stuck without adequate facilities, which means that by the end of the war it had lost most of its operational strength, due to ship losses and poor maintenance.

quote:

Slovakia withdraws due to the internal political situation in Slovakia


That's just plain silly. Tiso was one of the most popular leaders Slovakia had in the 20th century, and it's very unlikely the uprising would have happened without threats of a German occupation and proximity of Soviet forces.

Italy withdrawing: OK, the Allies would probably land in Italy and knock it out of the war, but an automatic Slovak surrender due to the "internal political situation" is by no means historically accurate.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 9/18/2009 11:16:51 AM >

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 185
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 12:33:27 PM   
Helpless


Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

So, in short, the Germans can't bring troops across the Strait of Kerch unless it's frozen?


They can. Kerch strait is considered to be a major river and doesn't require amphib capacities to cross it.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 186
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 3:05:16 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP


quote:

Slovakia withdraws due to the internal political situation in Slovakia


That's just plain silly. Tiso was one of the most popular leaders Slovakia had in the 20th century, and it's very unlikely the uprising would have happened without threats of a German occupation and proximity of Soviet forces.

Italy withdrawing: OK, the Allies would probably land in Italy and knock it out of the war, but an automatic Slovak surrender due to the "internal political situation" is by no means historically accurate.


That is your opinion and not a question. This thread is to answer questions about the game not debate how aspects of the War are treated in the design. If the treatment of the Slovkians in the game is so important to you, I suggest you start a threat to debate it with others on the forum. I'm here to answer questions not argue.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 187
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 4:31:48 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw



Ok ... can you expand a little on this , are you saying that Slovakia,Hungary,Rumania and Finland will leave the Axis Alliance on set dates no matter what the strategic situation is? or is there other criteria involved for these countries to change side




I checked with the design team and the actual mechanics of Axis Allies surrendering has yet to worked out. The final rules could be more elaborate than simple surrender or withdrawal.

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 188
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 6:28:26 PM   
thackaray


Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Is the player forced to follow Hitler's philosophy that more divisions could do "more with less", which turned out to be "less with more" as many weaker divisions couldn't quite match the achievements of several early war full strength divisions? As the player is forced to stick with historical production, does that also mean that we're stuck with weaker units or can we increase their strengths up to early war standards?

The Axis player gets the units historically assigned to the Eastern Front. The TOEs of all units, Axis & Russian, change over time so you cannot go back to an outdated TOE. The actual strength of your units depends as much on how well you play the game as it does the production system or your current TOE.

Do late war German infantry units simply get their infantry squads cut by 1/3 as they're missing a battalion in each regiment, regardless of losses or does a "wear and tear" system set in which makes the divisions full strength as long as manpower is available?

As state above, the TOEs change over time so most of your German infantry divisions will adopt the '44 infantry division TOE.



In previous postings when a unit refits to new equipment there is an experience loss. What happens to a unit's experience when they change TOE's automatically?

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 189
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 6:56:55 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thackaray


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw


ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Is the player forced to follow Hitler's philosophy that more divisions could do "more with less", which turned out to be "less with more" as many weaker divisions couldn't quite match the achievements of several early war full strength divisions? As the player is forced to stick with historical production, does that also mean that we're stuck with weaker units or can we increase their strengths up to early war standards?

The Axis player gets the units historically assigned to the Eastern Front. The TOEs of all units, Axis & Russian, change over time so you cannot go back to an outdated TOE. The actual strength of your units depends as much on how well you play the game as it does the production system or your current TOE.

Do late war German infantry units simply get their infantry squads cut by 1/3 as they're missing a battalion in each regiment, regardless of losses or does a "wear and tear" system set in which makes the divisions full strength as long as manpower is available?

As state above, the TOEs change over time so most of your German infantry divisions will adopt the '44 infantry division TOE.



In previous postings when a unit refits to new equipment there is an experience loss. What happens to a unit's experience when they change TOE's automatically?


TOE changes don't effect the experience of elements carried over from the old TOE but if new elements were called for in new the TOE (such as a new model of medium tank) they would be added at the then current national morale level which may be higher or lower than existing elements in the unit.

(in reply to thackaray)
Post #: 190
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 7:28:48 PM   
Jison

 

Posts: 66
Joined: 7/1/2009
Status: offline
Jaw, thanks for your clear and informative answers - much appreciated!

Are the finnish units prohibited to enter soviet territory not owned by Finland before the winter war?

Will the map change visually to reflect mud and snow, or is this yet to be decided?

Are national borders visible on the map?

Jison

_____________________________




(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 191
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 8:09:46 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

They can. Kerch strait is considered to be a major river and doesn't require amphib capacities to cross it.


OK, that seems to be pretty logical considering that many major rivers in Russia can be quite a bit wider than the Strait of Kerch.

How do vehicles cross a major river? I'm guessing pontoons, if included, would not be enough to bridge a major river.

quote:

That is your opinion and not a question.


OK, my point as a question: why does Slovakia automatically leave the war at a certain date, specifically what is the historical foundation for that action?

I can always start the thread you suggested if you can't answer that clearly at this point.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 9/18/2009 9:00:44 PM >

(in reply to Jison)
Post #: 192
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 9:51:41 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jison

Jaw, thanks for your clear and informative answers - much appreciated!

Are the finnish units prohibited to enter soviet territory not owned by Finland before the winter war?

They can't attack into pre-'39 Soviet territory but they can move into it if the Soviets don't garrison the frontier.

Will the map change visually to reflect mud and snow, or is this yet to be decided?

There is a switch to turn on and off weather graphics.

Are national borders visible on the map?

Not yet but it is being added.

Jison


(in reply to Jison)
Post #: 193
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/18/2009 9:58:15 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

They can. Kerch strait is considered to be a major river and doesn't require amphib capacities to cross it.


OK, that seems to be pretty logical considering that many major rivers in Russia can be quite a bit wider than the Strait of Kerch.

How do vehicles cross a major river? I'm guessing pontoons, if included, would not be enough to bridge a major river.

The game isn't at that low a resolution. The on map units are regiments or larger and they pay extra movement points to cross rivers.

quote:

That is your opinion and not a question.


OK, my point as a question: why does Slovakia automatically leave the war at a certain date, specifically what is the historical foundation for that action?

The actual mechanics of how Axis Allies surrender or defect have yet to be determined. Currently Slovakian divisions have a fixed withdrawal date but that may change if a mechanism can be devised that won't be subject to player abuse. Sorry but I cannot be more specific than that at this time.


I can always start the thread you suggested if you can't answer that clearly at this point.


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 194
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/19/2009 11:58:35 AM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The game isn't at that low a resolution. The on map units are regiments or larger and they pay extra movement points to cross rivers.


Scale isn't much of an issue when it comes to bridging units, as there were no true dedicated bridging units as regiments. Most units were company size or possibly battalion size and could build boat bridges, the units were not intended to build permanent bridges.

Of course, the Germans did not have Bailey bridges and the larger Bailey bridges covered about 350 meters and would be incapable of covering many of the major rivers in Russia without supporting pillars in the actual river, which would be fairly impossible in the Strait of Kerch unless they were on barges.

Although it would, of course, be possible to build a bridge across the Strait of Kerch it would be more than a few engineer units could handle in a limited amount of time. Most divisions lacked the equipment to cross such an obstacle within a practical timeframe (a day or two) in general without help from boats or barges.

I understand that the designers can't make every river unique, as that would be very impractical, but being able to cross major rivers with units that didn't have the equipment to do so would be quite gamey.

Can actual bridges be constructed on the map as permanent features, or are they tied to an engineer unit with pontoons remaining at the location like in, say, the Decisive Battles series?

quote:

The actual mechanics of how Axis Allies surrender or defect have yet to be determined. Currently Slovakian divisions have a fixed withdrawal date but that may change if a mechanism can be devised that won't be subject to player abuse. Sorry but I cannot be more specific than that at this time.


OK. Earlier on, you made it sound like the mechanics of Slovakian surrender were fixed and would not be altered, whilst the surrender mechanics of the other minor Axis nations were still being worked out, hence my surprise.

I'll save further questions on the matter until the game is closer to release.

< Message edited by ComradeP -- 9/19/2009 12:03:26 PM >

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 195
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/19/2009 10:01:52 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

The game isn't at that low a resolution. The on map units are regiments or larger and they pay extra movement points to cross rivers.


Scale isn't much of an issue when it comes to bridging units, as there were no true dedicated bridging units as regiments. Most units were company size or possibly battalion size and could build boat bridges, the units were not intended to build permanent bridges.

Of course, the Germans did not have Bailey bridges and the larger Bailey bridges covered about 350 meters and would be incapable of covering many of the major rivers in Russia without supporting pillars in the actual river, which would be fairly impossible in the Strait of Kerch unless they were on barges.

Although it would, of course, be possible to build a bridge across the Strait of Kerch it would be more than a few engineer units could handle in a limited amount of time. Most divisions lacked the equipment to cross such an obstacle within a practical timeframe (a day or two) in general without help from boats or barges.

I understand that the designers can't make every river unique, as that would be very impractical, but being able to cross major rivers with units that didn't have the equipment to do so would be quite gamey.

Can actual bridges be constructed on the map as permanent features, or are they tied to an engineer unit with pontoons remaining at the location like in, say, the Decisive Battles series?


I don't think I explained river crossing adequately. The game scale is 10 miles to the hex and one week turns. At this scale crossing a river is merely a question of time not physical construction. Units pay a movement point cost to simulate the time it would take to cross the river. Bridges (temporary or permanent) are not represented on the map.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 196
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/19/2009 10:43:19 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
There goes the submerged tank attack in Bug River...

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 197
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 7:00:21 AM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
but don't forget, the Russians had the submerged attack dogs waiting for that attack

oops, that is not a question

so, how are Aircraft upgrades going to be handled ?, if you can't build what you want, how do you handle what you already got ?

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 198
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 12:09:49 PM   
thackaray


Posts: 50
Joined: 1/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

I don't think I explained river crossing adequately. The game scale is 10 miles to the hex and one week turns. At this scale crossing a river is merely a question of time not physical construction. Units pay a movement point cost to simulate the time it would take to cross the river. Bridges (temporary or permanent) are not represented on the map.



Thank you for your answers so far. I have a question about movement points when crossing a river in a hex that has already been captured and under your control.

If a unit not involved in the original crossing of a river in a hex that is now under your control, moves through that hex, what happens to it's movement points?

The scenario I have in mind is when a unit is setup up in defensive posture a few hexs away from the main front. That unit may be used to exploit any offensive gains by passing through a river hex (major/minor/frozen/unfrozen) which is now under your control. My current understanding based upon what has been explained, is that the original unit making the river crossing uses up a lot of movement points, to cross the river. It follows, that any other unit going through that hex, pays the same movement cost.

Has Gary and other designers thought that other units should pay a less cost in terms of movement points through a captured river hex? This would simulate, that the necessary brigdes have been built by the original unit making the crossing and do not have to be rebuilt.

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 199
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 12:49:03 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

There goes the submerged tank attack in Bug River...


No, that is an effect that would not be simulated at this scale.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 200
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 12:53:33 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


so, how are Aircraft upgrades going to be handled ?, if you can't build what you want, how do you handle what you already got ?


Aircraft are subject to upgrade as soon as the model goes out of production and there is a sufficient accumulation of production of the new model to swap them out. Unlike say the tanks of a panzer division, an air group cannot contain two different models of aircraft at the same time.

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 201
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 1:06:44 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thackaray


quote:

ORIGINAL: jaw

I don't think I explained river crossing adequately. The game scale is 10 miles to the hex and one week turns. At this scale crossing a river is merely a question of time not physical construction. Units pay a movement point cost to simulate the time it would take to cross the river. Bridges (temporary or permanent) are not represented on the map.



Thank you for your answers so far. I have a question about movement points when crossing a river in a hex that has already been captured and under your control.

If a unit not involved in the original crossing of a river in a hex that is now under your control, moves through that hex, what happens to it's movement points?

The scenario I have in mind is when a unit is setup up in defensive posture a few hexs away from the main front. That unit may be used to exploit any offensive gains by passing through a river hex (major/minor/frozen/unfrozen) which is now under your control. My current understanding based upon what has been explained, is that the original unit making the river crossing uses up a lot of movement points, to cross the river. It follows, that any other unit going through that hex, pays the same movement cost.

Has Gary and other designers thought that other units should pay a less cost in terms of movement points through a captured river hex? This would simulate, that the necessary brigdes have been built by the original unit making the crossing and do not have to be rebuilt.


The simplest way to explain this is to show you the movement point costs for crossing rivers:

.................................................................Motorized.............Non-motorized

Minor River hexside (not into enemy ZOC)..........+2..........................+1
Major River hexside (not into enemy ZOC)..........+4..........................+2
Minor River hexside (into enemy ZOC).................+6..........................+2
Major River hexside (into enemy ZOC)..............+24..........................+8

(in reply to thackaray)
Post #: 202
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 2:25:33 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 2013
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
How big are air units usually?
Can I break them down like land units?

_____________________________


(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 203
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 2:59:09 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

How big are air units usually?
Can I break them down like land units?


LW are Gruppen or Stab (with maybe a odd Staffel tossed in), SU is normally Polk, Axis Allies are more likely Escadrille/Squadron size

no, they are one unit and stay that way

_____________________________


(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 204
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 3:16:10 PM   
ComradeP

 

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Aircraft are subject to upgrade as soon as the model goes out of production and there is a sufficient accumulation of production of the new model to swap them out. Unlike say the tanks of a panzer division, an air group cannot contain two different models of aircraft at the same time.


Is there a safeguard to prevent exploitation of this rule?

For example: if an air group can't contain multiple types, it seems the quickest way to let an air group upgrade its aircraft according to what you describe is to make all the aircraft die, basically. Kill all the I-16's in an air group and in general supply the air group will automatically convert to some better plane?

(in reply to Hard Sarge)
Post #: 205
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 3:20:09 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
LOL

that is a interesting idea, good luck trying to kill them all off :)

Ratas go down like , well, flying rats, as do Yaks and Migs and Laggs

_____________________________


(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 206
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 8:48:51 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

Aircraft are subject to upgrade as soon as the model goes out of production and there is a sufficient accumulation of production of the new model to swap them out. Unlike say the tanks of a panzer division, an air group cannot contain two different models of aircraft at the same time.


Is there a safeguard to prevent exploitation of this rule?

For example: if an air group can't contain multiple types, it seems the quickest way to let an air group upgrade its aircraft according to what you describe is to make all the aircraft die, basically. Kill all the I-16's in an air group and in general supply the air group will automatically convert to some better plane?


Actually the reverse is true. You want to keep the old stuff flying as long as possible because Russian planes are better than Russian pilots. You want to have the Germans shooting down and bombing the old stuff while your pilots train up on the newer aircraft far in the rear. Even if the old planes are ineffective, killing them causes wear and tear on the Luftwaffe.

(in reply to ComradeP)
Post #: 207
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/20/2009 9:39:25 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

No, that is an effect that would not be simulated at this scale.


Yep, 10 days is too much time to factor a relatively small tactical advantage.

quote:

but don't forget, the Russians had the submerged attack dogs waiting for that attack


Probably you didn't know but it did happened. For Barbarossa 18th Panzer Division got submersible tanks that were build for operation Sea Lion. The Divison tanks crossed Bug River underwater in 22 June 41 surprising Soviets. When local Soviet HQ could be convinced that Germans crossed the river with submerged tanks they were already a dozen miles too far...

(in reply to jaw)
Post #: 208
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/21/2009 12:20:47 PM   
Sentinel Six

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 9/3/2009
Status: offline
How does the game represent the damage and dislocation of German production capacity caused by the combined bomber offensive or loss of capacity through the Western Allies overrunning German territory?

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 209
RE: War in the East Q&A - 9/21/2009 1:20:22 PM   
Hard Sarge


Posts: 22741
Joined: 10/1/2000
From: garfield hts ohio usa
Status: offline
LOL

I haven't gotten that far yet !

_____________________________


(in reply to Sentinel Six)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> RE: War in the East Q&A Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.766