Motorized and/or Panzer units and rivers

[JTP]

Hello;
Did a search but came up with nothing. Why can't these units attack across rivers as they actually did, i.e. Dvina and Dnepr in the Smolensk battle ? Just curious as to the reason this is not possible in the game.

[SparkleyTits]

Panzers and motorised can attack across major rivers but it costs an extra 12 MP for them to do so perhaps you don't have the MP to do so?
So to do a deliberate attack over a major river costs 28MP which is a very large amount to save ahead of time
They also get bigger debuffs in rolls for attacks over major rivers comapred to infantry

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

Panzers and motorised can attack across major rivers but it costs an extra 12 MP for them to do so perhaps you don't have the MP to do so?
So to do a deliberate attack over a major river costs 28MP which is a very large amount to save ahead of time
They also get bigger debuffs in rolls for attacks over major rivers comapred to infantry

Ok, thanks. Seems strange to make it so overly difficult as it was fairly common to do.

[SparkleyTits]

The trick is to do it with infantry and not the panzers but everything has an increase in MP costs with minor and major river actions as they were harder to do than just attacking over a field etc
the costs are in the manual on the ground movement bit I think?

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

The trick is to do it with infantry and not the panzers but everything has an increase in MP costs with minor and major river actions as they were harder to do than just attacking over a field etc
the costs are in the manual on the ground movement bit I think?

Yeah I know, thanks. But historically, armored/motorized units fought their way across major rivers. Battle of Smolensk 1941, they were the first to cross the Dvina and Dnepr. Let alone 1940 France. And other examples by all sides.
In the game, it's virtually impossible.

[MarauderPL]

It is very prohibitive. In history they fought over the rivers but do we know how many MP's they used by doing so? [:D]

On the other hand, im unsure why motorized infantry has penalties fighting over rivers, its gonna establish the bridgehead just like a normal inf div would - and then get its stuff over to the other bank way easier - it is motorized after all (moving artillery park, supply columns etc would be much faster).
Panzer divisions have debuffs as the bridges to hold tanks need to be sturdier (and take more time to build) - but it is not the case of mot inf.

[AlexSF]

In my opinion on the contrary, the game is one of the few wargame that properly simulate the difficulty to cross major rivers in Russia. Have a look at a picture of the Dnepr for instance, it's super wide, virtually impossible to croos without a bridge and I'm not even talking about the Volga. It would take days or easily a week of MPs to have engineers build some sort of bridge.

[MarauderPL]

So why normal inf division have an easy time crossing it comparing to the motorized? In my post i wanted to emphasize the difference between regular and motorized inf - why it is so big? Not talking about absolute MP numbers, they are and will be always arbitrary.

[SparkleyTits]

I did not know this existed I thought they both had the same debuff so good to know if not but if you mean that only armour get a 66% decrease in CV and MOT do not?
If so then I would imagine the different with MOT and armour is that the MOT can just get out of their transports and assault over the river same as normal infantry, armour cannot do that

[MarauderPL]

My post appeared to be super confusing [:D] in-game tanks and mot inf have debuffs while "foot" infantry has not. My question was why does the mot inf has the debuffs, because in my opinion it shouldnt have. Sorry for the confusion [:D]

[MrBlizzard]

ORIGINAL: MarauderPL

So why normal inf division have an easy time crossing it comparing to the motorized? In my post i wanted to emphasize the difference between regular and motorized inf - why it is so big? Not talking about absolute MP numbers, they are and will be always arbitrary.

Probably because in mot div you have thousands of trucks more to cross the river, it need a long time to move them with barges or you have to build a bridge.
Normal infantry instead cross the river with rubber dinghys, it's easier and quicker

[MarauderPL]

But there is the issue, foot infantry has to transport all its artillery, baggage trains, support units etc. as well - they are all horse drawn. They cant be transported in rubber dinghys. The bridge (probably multiples of) has to be built regardless if the unit is motorised or not. And once the bridges are in place, the motorised formations will go much faster through them than the horse-drawn ones.

[SparkleyTits]

I think that ZOC tries to simulate how it is easier to move over a major river once the bridges are in place etc without ZOC I don't know enough about weight limits on pontoons and such to speculate on what would be easier tbh

The attack debuff might be there to simulate trying to force a crossing by making a bridgehead, holding it so the engineers don't get shot at from quite as much nearby and then making the pontoons
Infantry would be better at that than armour for sure although I don't see why MOT inf couldn't just get out of their vehicles and force a crossing without the CV penalties that they take atm

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: MarauderPL

It is very prohibitive. In history they fought over the rivers but do we know how many MP's they used by doing so? [:D]

On the other hand, im unsure why motorized infantry has penalties fighting over rivers, its gonna establish the bridgehead just like a normal inf div would - and then get its stuff over to the other bank way easier - it is motorized after all (moving artillery park, supply columns etc would be much faster).
Panzer divisions have debuffs as the bridges to hold tanks need to be sturdier (and take more time to build) - but it is not the case of mot inf.

Agreed. Great game, but the difficulty said units have is not historically realistic.

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: AlexSF

In my opinion on the contrary, the game is one of the few wargame that properly simulate the difficulty to cross major rivers in Russia. Have a look at a picture of the Dnepr for instance, it's super wide, virtually impossible to croos without a bridge and I'm not even talking about the Volga. It would take days or easily a week of MPs to have engineers build some sort of bridge.

In the Smolensk campaign, the XXXIX Pzc of Pg3 constructed a bridge across the Dvina in one *night* and crossed that morning. 20th Panzer specifically, midway between Polotsk and Vitebsk.

Pzg 2 started their attack across the Dnepr on 7/10 and crossed it in force that same day. They had spent the previous two days traveling to, and organizing at, their jump off points. Not building bridges, etc.

Neither example is possible in the game. Similar events occurred in France 1940.

Above examples from Glantz.

[AlexSF]

ORIGINAL: JTP

ORIGINAL: AlexSF

In my opinion on the contrary, the game is one of the few wargame that properly simulate the difficulty to cross major rivers in Russia. Have a look at a picture of the Dnepr for instance, it's super wide, virtually impossible to croos without a bridge and I'm not even talking about the Volga. It would take days or easily a week of MPs to have engineers build some sort of bridge.

In the Smolensk campaign, the XXXIX Pzc of Pg3 constructed a bridge across the Dvina in one *night* and crossed that morning. 20th Panzer specifically, midway between Polotsk and Vitebsk.

Pzg 2 started their attack across the Dnepr on 7/10 and crossed it in force that same day. They had spent the previous two days traveling to, and organizing at, their jump off points. Not building bridges, etc.

Neither example is possible in the game. Similar events occurred in France 1940.

Above examples from Glantz.

You have a point. On the other hand even if they did cross these rivers on the first night it was not the whole Pzr division, probably recon elements at first..etc To deploy the full strengh of the division in game terms and use its CV against an enemy it would translate into many MPs and I think the game simulates that well.
As for France the Meuse is hardly comparable to the Dnepr or the Volga.

[SparkleyTits]

If major rivers did not have the kind of debuffs attached to them as they do then you would quickly find prepared defences being removed by hasty attacks, needing no prepping and planning to assault beforehand and becoming pocket traps for anyone who tried to defend them, they are already dangerous to defend as it is, they just ultimately buy the Soviets a bit of time

Anyhows you can hastily assault a major river now when the enemy is not prepared and you can catch them off guard which was the intended plans in a lot of the quick river crossings but if there are any prepared defences ready then you have to prepare an assault yourself which is fair enough to me

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: AlexSF

ORIGINAL: JTP

ORIGINAL: AlexSF

In my opinion on the contrary, the game is one of the few wargame that properly simulate the difficulty to cross major rivers in Russia. Have a look at a picture of the Dnepr for instance, it's super wide, virtually impossible to croos without a bridge and I'm not even talking about the Volga. It would take days or easily a week of MPs to have engineers build some sort of bridge.

In the Smolensk campaign, the XXXIX Pzc of Pg3 constructed a bridge across the Dvina in one *night* and crossed that morning. 20th Panzer specifically, midway between Polotsk and Vitebsk.

Pzg 2 started their attack across the Dnepr on 7/10 and crossed it in force that same day. They had spent the previous two days traveling to, and organizing at, their jump off points. Not building bridges, etc.

Neither example is possible in the game. Similar events occurred in France 1940.

Above examples from Glantz.

You have a point. On the other hand even if they did cross these rivers on the first night it was not the whole Pzr division, probably recon elements at first..etc To deploy the full strengh of the division in game terms and use its CV against an enemy it would translate into many MPs and I think the game simulates that well.
As for France the Meuse is hardly comparable to the Dnepr or the Volga.

Actually, it was the bulk if not the entire division as it advanced over sixty kms that day and was lead by a panzer regiment "along with the main body of the division" on another axis towards Vitebsk after this advance.

In short, in the Smolensk campaign in the game, one has to wait for the infantry corps to catch up to the panzer/motorized forces sitting on the two rivers. Historically, this is what Hoth and Guderian chose NOT to do and crossed both rivers in force in very short time frames.

[JTP]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

If major rivers did not have the kind of debuffs attached to them as they do then you would quickly find prepared defences being removed by hasty attacks, needing no prepping and planning to assault beforehand and becoming pocket traps for anyone who tried to defend them, they are already dangerous to defend as it is, they just ultimately buy the Soviets a bit of time

Anyhows you can hastily assault a major river now when the enemy is not prepared and you can catch them off guard which was the intended plans in a lot of the quick river crossings but if there are any prepared defences ready then you have to prepare an assault yourself which is fair enough to me

I'm not saying it should be overly easy. I am saying it is overly difficult. Actually, it is the historical results saying it.

[Bokonon]

Still a beginner, but hoping to move into 'intermediate' level. Ran up against this in my first real run through of the scenario "Road to Moscow" yesterday.

Had to wait a turn for the infantry to come up to the front to help smash my way across the Dniper.

Sounds like I will need to do better management of my motorized divisions to get them more MPs and also I need to focus on getting enough infantry to the front quickly. Perhaps not running the motorized guys at max speed and keeping them closer to supply and/or just conserving fuel might help in that regard, but it is just too tempting to keep driving deep into enemy territory.

Thanks for the post.