Is this even vaguely realistic?

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Sabre21

ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by ComradeP »

I think we'd have a better understanding of whether it was actually possible if we looked at a map with (or rather, without) roads. Even one ten mile (ie, one hex) stretch of forest without a road would be an enormous obstacle to overcome in a week, and we are looking at about 18 hexes from Lake Ilmen to the Finish border! I seriously doubt that there was an uninterrupted network of roads through that stretch of "undefended light woods", although I could be wrong.

A lot would depend on how dense the woods/forest really was.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
User avatar
76mm
Posts: 4765
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 4:26 am
Location: Washington, DC

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by 76mm »

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
A lot would depend on how dense the woods/forest really was.

I don't really think so, it is not like they are driving through an orchard, or the steppe.

While I have not been in this particular stretch of Russia, I've travelled very extensively here and much of the forest is the same--lots and lots and lots of rather thin birch trees, interspersed with meadows, streams, and bogs. While we're probably not talking about primeval forest with oak trees with ten-foot-wide trunks, it doesn't mean you could just ram through it without building a road, all the while with pesky snipers and partisans taking pot shots. If there weren't existing roads, I think it would have been absolutely and completely impossible to cover this distance with a mechanized army in the couple of weeks it took in the game.

[EDIT] If someone is really curious, I'm sure they can look at the area on google earth: while roads have surely been built, towns expanded, and huge swathes of trees felled by logging, much of the area is probably not too different from in the 1940s.
Adnan Meshuggi
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Adnan Meshuggi »

Hi,
 
i think this move cannot be done. But to be honest, if the axis player has one advantage that is not historically true i have zero problems with it, knowing that the blizzard"bug" and the Fortress-Russia-Level-4-4-5hexes-deep-Defence-zone in 42 will crush any axis move to be better as historically in 42 or later on will help the russian side.

But i agree, this "bug" should be repaired, after the blizzard-thing. Such movement in that area sounds mad.
The road-net was to thin in this area, never ever could the german army (or any other army) have moved so far - not even in peacetime.
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
Adnan Meshuggi
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2001 8:00 am

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Adnan Meshuggi »

ORIGINAL: 76mm

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I don't think this is realistic at all! As I have pointed out in another thread, I think the game seriously underestimates the difficulties with terrain in this area. These are not nice european woods, this is serious roadless wilderness!

I tend to agree with Tarhunnas, this is not the Ardennes, it seems far too easy for panzers, indeed any large military force, to move through this area. Would be interesting to see some WWII vintage maps of this area...

Just seems like if it were this easy, the Germans would have done this rather than beseiging Lgrad for 900 days?

nope - the germans still had tried to siege leningrad.
Why?
because hitler feard the russian timebombs.
In kiev some timebombs had been used, so hitler feared that in leningrad the whole city would be full of timebombs, causing thousends of axis casulties.

Also, the hick-hack about "what is going on" costs a lot time. But without the try to conquer moscow, the axis could have taken leningrad. instead doing the "right thing" (take leningrad, free one army, shorten your frontline, have a free ride to leningrad so no partians could cost supply in the northern sector, have a good place in blizzard) they tried both and failed.
The siege was the result of this.
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

I don't think this is realistic at all! As I have pointed out in another thread, I think the game seriously underestimates the difficulties with terrain in this area. These are not nice european woods, this is serious roadless wilderness!

I live in Sweden and I have visited parts of Russia (though not the exact parts e are talking about here I admit) and I did my military service as a tank platoon commander in similar terrain. You simply cannot drive large mechanised forces through that kind of terrain just like that! Especially not when most of their stuff and supplies come on two-wheel drive trucks not made for off road driving.

100% correct. 5 minutes off the road in these regions and any tank that hasn't shed its tracks is bogged down or hopelessly trying to bulldoze trees...

I have also lived and worked in Sweden, the Baltic States, Russia and the Ukraine. I was also a mech infantry company commander many years ago and there is just no way on earth that an operational unit could make these moves over this terrain in combat conditions and after marching and fighting all the way from the Polish border. As for armour - just forget it. I can only laugh at the idea.

Sorry, but the crazy movement capabilities, the "checker board defense" (total rubbish that needs to be penalized by deducting CV for any unit that doesn't have friendly units on both flanks), the never ending blizzard and the Soviet march into Berlin in 1942 or 43 are all indications of a game that needs some really serious work before it can be described as a convincing representation of WW2 operations in Russia.

I know that will upset a lot of folks, but I'd love to hear from anyone with experience of major combat operations (Senior NCOs and above, please!) who seriously thinks their unit could have made this move in the conditions (equipment, supply, etc.) of 1941 (see below).

Image
Attachments
Realistic2.jpg
Realistic2.jpg (711.9 KiB) Viewed 202 times
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33027
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Joel Billings »

To me it's all about the opposition. To really get a sense of how realistic this would be (unless there was a total lack of any kind of roads through the area) we'd have to see the saves at the start of the 2-4 Axis turns that the player used to make the move. What kind of opposition was there. Now the IGO UGO system does present a problem in that in especially poor terrain it might have been possible to react with enough troops to slow down the offensive during a the week in order to allow time to get more reinforcements into the area (see Ardennes, 1944). But it's hard to make definitive statements without seeing the situation, because I think it would be possible to drive through this territory in a week if there was little or no opposition.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by ComradeP »

If you can't prevent at most 6 mobile units from moving 11-12 hexes through terrain like that, there's something seriously wrong with your defensive strategy.
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
User avatar
Apollo11
Posts: 24801
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Apollo11 »

Hi all,

Joel, I think that this is all due to misunderstanding of fact that every HEX based simulation/game has to make compromises...


The HEX is 10 miles in WitE and that is quite big area - let us not forget that!

And this also implies that all roads and bridges are all approximated as well!


Thus the "Heavy Forrest" HEX does not mean that there is no road at all and that the area is 100% superdense impassable forest with trees all next to eachother and impossible to pass even for humans (and that "Clear" HEX is 100% plains)... [;)]


Leo "Apollo11"
Image

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Sabre21 »

This was one of Jon's favorite tactics. He was the first tester for WitE. Going thru swamps used to be a lot easier prior to release which made this a reasonable tactic, not anymore if properly defended.
Image
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Gents - you are all missing the point. Nobody has complained when units drive 20 hexes in a turn across the Ukraine.

The issue here is the ACTUAL terrain that exists E and NE of Leningrad in the REAL WORLD. Even with zero opposition, the idea of moving multiple armoured and mech divisions against the grain of the few roads that exist in this region is ludicrous.

I'm still waiting to hear a comment from an ex-military player on this.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

If you can't prevent at most 6 mobile units from moving 11-12 hexes through terrain like that, there's something seriously wrong with your defensive strategy.

No doubt I have a huge number of gamey tricks I need to learn before I can master WiTE.

But anyone who thinks you can drive 6 divisions cross-country in terrain like that which exists here has something seriously wrong with their appreciation of the ground and real world logistics.

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Mynok »


Sheesh if it bothers you so much, stop playing. [8|] Or find an opponent who will accept your endless list of houserules banning this or that.

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Your signature says it all, my friend.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
karonagames
Posts: 4701
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:05 am
Location: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by karonagames »

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

Are you being serious?

The reason the area was poorly defended was that you defended it poorly.

I can understand your embarrassment at allowing your defences to be so poor as to allow the breakthrough, but to cast the blame at everything other than yourself is ludicrous.

You made a mistake - learn from it.
It's only a Game

ComradeP
Posts: 6992
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:11 pm

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by ComradeP »

The reason the area was poorly defended is simply that such a move is impossible in reality.

Even the quickest glance at the MP cost chart, specifically the values for light woods hexes, would've made it clear that it's possible in the game.

This was a failure by you, not by the game. If the terrain isn't accurate, that still doesn't remove the fact that you can see the hex types in that area and can guestimate with a pretty good certainty how far your opponent will go in that area with the current MP rules. One of the first things to learn when playing computer games is that the game is almost always right, it does what it's programmed to do except when it bugs. In this case, the terrain in that area is primarily composed of light woods hexes, so the game allows mobile units to move into that area with relative ease.

You've allowed yourself to be caught with your pants down even though this move was entirely predictable. That says more about your defensive planning than about the game, doesn't it?
SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer
gids
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:02 pm

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by gids »

atm im playing against tarhunnas and several times i really got shocked but tbh it was my doing totally and love the game :)learning while playing mate.i only had 1 prob and that was the blizzard in 1941 ,and from what i read its being taken care off.Against humans its tottaly different playing,they test your defenceline,find holes make em and exploit em.MAke sure as a russian you have ALWAYS 2 to 3 defence lines at weakspots.IF possible make OBVIOUS weakspots with Strong units behind em so he gets lured in there.try to make him attack where you want him to attack
FB jacky heusequin
User avatar
IdahoNYer
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:07 am
Location: NYer living in Boise, ID

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by IdahoNYer »

Redmark -

Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem.

Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Redmarkus5
Posts: 4454
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 1:59 pm
Location: 0.00

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Redmarkus5 »

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer

Redmark -

Very few pieces of terrain are truly "tank proof" - especially if lightly defended or undefended. Witness the Ardennes in 1940, the jungles of Vietnam, or the Thunder Run in Bagdhad in 2003. I've maneuvered M1s during REFORGER exercises through "impassible" forests of then West Germany through spider trails of forrester trails - not on maps, barely wide enough for tanks to pass - but ultimately pass without problem.

Obviously I haven't been to this part of the world maneuvering tanks, but if there are forest roadways, railroads and other farm/logging roads, mechanized forces can pass - perhasp slowly, but can pass.

Fair enough, but an M1 with todays logistics trail is one thing, a Pz 3 followed up by an army still using horses is another.

If you google the 'log roads' that the Soviets had to build through here during the Tikhvin operation, you'll get an idea of just how tough the terrain really was.
WitE2 tester, WitW, WitP, CMMO, CM2, GTOS, GTMF, WP & WPP, TOAW4, BA2
User avatar
Mynok
Posts: 12108
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2002 12:12 am
Contact:

RE: How realistic is this?

Post by Mynok »

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4

Same old story, really. The testers defend the game and any criticism from a newer player merely reflects their poor game skills. The game itself is perfect.

Now, I have readily admitted my poor skills above. When will you lot admit that the game has some really serious design flaws?

Utter bullscheiss. They continue to tweak the game, including a major overhaul of the first winter. You're whining because they disagree with your pet little rants. Time to green button your waste.
"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”