Leningrad

[Crackaces]

[Just for edification I am a German Fanboy -- will be playing Soviets soon]

So in this game I have shifted elite infantry from the center to the north, selected the best leaders for my Northern Army group and the very best leader for I Corps, packed my units with SU's and yes isolated Leningrad by either bombing the a critical port or sealing off Lake Lagoda. By turn 13 Leningrad is toast.
No in real life the Germans did not do this .. in fact they reallocated forces from AGN to AGC and decided to siege. Even then in this game one might still crush Leningrad in two weeks after isolation, So what's missing?

I visited [Leningrad] last June. When the war first starts a gathering of women start stripping the palaces of artwork and gold, packing it in creates, and shipped the treasures to safety. The local leadership turned the palaces into magazines. Further, Leningrad is not your usual urbanized combat environment. Not only is there a big river than divides the city, tall palaces with spires that dominate every corner with canals interspersed and interconnected within dominated "high ground".
If you thought Stalingrad was a place of attrition .. Stalingrad was urban but did not have the additional defensive terrain of Leningrad.

So in real life without an assault Leningrad lasted 900 days and was relived. How bloody this piece of terrain would be in an assault would be anybody's guess. How much ammo was stored in magazines is not truly documented but we do know they made bread out of sawdust.


A little bit of a rant .. but if one contends that this is a game and not a simulation then one can plan to lose Leningrad in 13-15 weeks (or sacrifice Moscow and possibly keep Leningrad). A simulation is designed to cover "what if's". There is no "what if" Leningrad was stuffed with enough ammo and supplies to last 20 weeks.

So we shall pay the game and accept no siege of 900 days [;)]

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[thedoctorking]

My sense of the game is that, between players of equal ability, the Germans can pick one objective (Moscow, Leningrad, or Rostov) and be pretty sure of getting it. Two objectives is a stretch. Three is very unlikely.

But to the original post's question: I think the Germans decided not to push to take Leningrad once they realized that they could not cut it off. I think the trick of bombing Osinovets is a gamey tactic, not a historical possibility. The port damage and repair rules are probably going to be revised in the next patch to address the equally gamey tactic of getting Odessa back on line one turn after capture and advancing the Axis supply lines in the south, and this will probably have a similar effect on the Osinovets gambit. So realistically, without that, you have to sweep the Lake Ladoga shore. Sviritsa is really hard to take. The Volkhov is a major river, and then there are two more rivers and a bunch of swamps to go through.

Another thing this game ought to do is make Leningrad and other major city hexes in the USSR into supply sources (maybe only if they have armaments factories present). Realistically, as you point out, Leningrad would not have had a shortage of ammunition or capacity to make/repair weapons. Currently, the manpower produced in isolated cities cannot be used to replace losses in those cities' garrisons due to lack of armaments, and the troops in those cities suffer isolated penalties. Properly simulating the intense urban combat that took place in these cities - one of the distinguishing features of this war and the main reason that the Germans did not try to fight their way into Leningrad - means treating Leningrad as in supply and able to produce replacement elements for its garrison as long as it has armaments factories. This would probably require a substantial code change, though, so I'm not counting on any changes.

This would also be an issue if the Germans manage to isolate Moscow. With Moscow's huge population, substantial industry, and location in the middle of a big agricultural region, I can't imagine that troops there would die from attrition or surrender because they were "isolated". I would expect them to fight to the end.

This is a feature of World in Flames. Any home nation city is a supply source, so Russians in Leningrad (or any other cut-off city) are always in supply.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[thedoctorking]

You're an extremely experienced player, at least at the 1941 part of the game. I said between players of equal ability.

[Crackaces]

Excellent post thedictorking .. I do think isolating All ports should have an effect just not as dramatic. Maybe attrition through starvation but certainly the city itself would have ammo... my understanding is that Hitler thought it would be a blood bath. He would make the mistake a year later.

I am not sure the strategy is “gamey” as it is defensible. Stack 3 bases and put fighters in place with flak and it would be very expensive. I call things with no defense and sure results “gamey”. If you would have asked “why are you bombing this port every turn “ .. I would have told you

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[HardLuckYetAgain]

Nada

[GamesaurusRex]

I have to agree with HardLuckYetAgain... Regarding Player vs Player games..

IF THE 'GC' IS PLAYED WITH STANDARD INITIAL SETTINGS, any German player who understands the supply mechanisms, rail repair, and Panzer Ball routines will take Leningrad, Moskow, and Rostov before the end of 1941 in this game as it stands today. Only the best Russian players have any chance of preventing just Rostov from falling.

Under the current patch, you have to give the Russian some morale and/or AP bonuses to get a game that looks anything like the historical event.
Additionally, the 1-1=2-1 option is really required to make the necessary Russian counter attack possible in late 41'. Without it the Russian will not get the number of Guards units and morale increase that he needs for a decent 1942 defense. Add to this the fact that for some reason ([8D] ) most German players seem to want to play without the 'extreme blizzard' option and you often end up with a cake walk for a German victory by 1942.

The issue of getting a "fair and balanced and reasonably historic" game that is entertaining for both sides is complicated by the fact that necessary initial game settings that must be used to achieve this is only understood by people who have played both sides and thoroughly understand the capabilities and limitations of both sides and the game mechanics.

In short, a good game is possible... but you have to have experienced players to who understand what you have to do to get it.

PS: I like some of the supply ideas that thedoctorking has outlined here. It would make for a better simulation.

[Crackaces]

This would also be an issue if the Germans manage to isolate Moscow. With Moscow's huge population, substantial industry, and location in the middle of a big agricultural region, I can't imagine that troops there would die from attrition or surrender because they were "isolated". I would expect them to fight to the end.

That is quite interesting. Maybe pay AP's for a magazine that becomes a supply source at any urban center. Enough AP's and it becomes a decision not a game breaker. Maybe Morvel could pick up on that.

[thedoctorking]

Right, Crackaces, let's not say "gamey" but instead "unrealistically effective". If a level 25 port is back on line in a week or two, a level 2 port should be, too. It should not be harder to repair a small port to the level where it can receive supplies. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

[56ajax]

If I may be so bold.....

If the AXIS plays an historical game they lose. No doubt. Thus we see HQBUs, Panzer Ball (love it), re allocation of corps and leaders, air supply, chained railway repair, staging airbases etc; In some sense not historic. But it does achieve 'kicking the door in and the whole rotten regime will collapse'.

Against a very good Axis player the Soviets have very little chance of surviving and the response to T1 is critical. Unfortunately for the Soviets they are essentially stuck to a historical timetable ie manpower, reinforcements, frozen units roughly come as what happened in 1941 regardless of the whereabouts of AXIS forces. Thus we can have the ludicrous situation where the AXIS forces can be approaching the Southern outskirts of Leningrad and the Northern Front is substantially frozen.

To alleviate the Soviet plight somewhat I propose

Increase in railway capacity
Unfreeze all units, except for those currently frozen on T1 directly on a border, or at least allow units to be unfrozen by the expenditure of Admin points
Increase the experience level of all new units arriving in the first 10 turns.
Allow the disbandment of Soviet Corps HQs with no attached units for free

and consider SAD disbands being an automatic rename instead even if it costs 1 admin point to do so.

I am sure there are others and I am also hopeful that fixing the experience bug will have a positive impact on Soviets capability.

[Telemecus]

Do also remember Leningrad has the great advantage of supply witout a port over the Ladoga when frozen.

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Right, Crackaces, let's not say "gamey" but instead "unrealistically effective". If a level 25 port is back on line in a week or two, a level 2 port should be, too. It should not be harder to repair a small port to the level where it can receive supplies. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

I think thedoctorking is right that smaller ports should be quicker to repair than larger ports. But the system was made it like that to cope with another problem. Armies could break into areas such as the Caucasus and suddenly have huge armies being supplied by a small port. So small ports were made to repair longer to avoid this sort of thing happening. The problem now of course is you have one mechanism trying to do two things where you would want the opposite behaviour in each case. And to some extent it is designed for neither - the problem of small ports supplying big armies should really be solved by a limit of supply throughput (as being discussed in WitE2.0 etc) rather than simulating it by taking longer to repair.

Some of us remember when you could capture Talinn on turn 2 of the game and ship in Models infantry ready to fight their way to Leningrad from Narva on turn 3. So things are better than they were.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Right, Crackaces, let's not say "gamey" but instead "unrealistically effective". If a level 25 port is back on line in a week or two, a level 2 port should be, too. It should not be harder to repair a small port to the level where it can receive supplies. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

But again a defensible move. Meaning, stuff flak and fighters over the target and the port does not get sealed by turn 11. So Osinovets as the game is currently modeled has to be defended. Maybe in real life it did not. The other thing as pointed out is to make a home rule of no bombing of Osinovets. I might say to the German with the new flak rules .."Bring it on!"

[thedoctorking]

I would say that no German supplies should run through the Black Sea until they have captured all the major ports. The Soviet Black Sea Fleet was much more powerful than the Romanian Navy.

Crackaces is correct that a proper air defense of Osinovets can keep the German bombers away. In the Connect4 game, our opponents tried bombing a couple of times and 7PVO air defenses were able to see them off with heavy losses. In fact, the two best fighter regiments in the Red Air Force are up there because of all the German bombers they were able to shoot down - with I-16's and I-153's! In the 2by3 game, our air commander in the early going decided to withdraw all our air units to Siberia and we had no air support for the first ten turns or so. This is totally contrary to my personal approach to the Soviet air force, which is very aggressive.

Ports should probably never completely stop moving supplies. Even if the docks and cranes and such are destroyed, you can still unload supplies over the beach. Here's an image of barges loaded with grain being unloaded by hand with the iconic Osinovets lighthouse in the background:

[Crackaces]

There were three things that could have been thought out better:

1. You point out that the Soviet Air Force spent a lot of time in reserve. What was deployed .. well it was positioned very badly. IL-4’s in Bases within Stuka Range.

2. The Air Policy was always 50% required to fly. Some recon and fighter sweeps, and the Soviet Air Force was not bothering my bombers for the rest of the turn. Once no fighter support .. airbases and a certain port was easy pickings.

3. Position of Air Baeses on Osinovets . I could make a case that only 2 attacks per hex makes this a “gamey” play, but it is a reasonable defensive play given the rules and game behaviors.

Due to the above mistakes the ground commander took the consequences and Leningrad Fell. Now with flak and better Air Power play .. that tactic is matched up well.

I do still think that al least Leningrad have a stored ammo magazine. The locals stored enough ammo for turn 20. At least that is what my guide explained