RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow?

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: Leningrad is a marshmallow?

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] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa >> RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/11/2016 7:13:34 PM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Flaviusx -- 1/11/2016 8:15:09 PM >

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to willgamer)

Post #: 31

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/11/2016 8:13:22 PM

James Ward

Posts: 1183
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to willgamer)

Post #: 32

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/11/2016 8:22:53 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

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.

Short and sweet. Agreed

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 33

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/12/2016 3:55:22 PM

willgamer

Posts: 902
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Huntsville, Alabama
Status: offline

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.

Yup, I was confused again. Was thinking of the gradual reduction to fortifications by theater arty.

Actually considering the way the theater arty mechanic works, I too wonder- why siege is so instant?

< Message edited by willgamer -- 1/12/2016 5:03:23 PM >

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to James Ward)

Post #: 34

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/12/2016 4:45:38 PM

baloo7777

Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/18/2009
From: eastern CT
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

JRR

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 35

RE: Leningrad is a marshmallow? - 1/12/2016 4:58:43 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

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.