Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
was found in the Balkans.Intenso82 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:43 amNot yet. But of course there were such thoughts.PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:45 am Oh I hope we are not witnessing an evolving turning point in the East right now...
Intenso82 wrote:Partisans
Soviets digging in Gorky.
The Soviets are trying with all their might to prolong their agony and thereby annoy us greatly.
Actually I did not even expect that the Axis would attempt to capture the Middle East after the capture of the Caucasus. Interestingly, a few turns earlier, when the Axis forces were aproaching Baku, Intenso wrote something that due to some of his ground units visible to me were already upgraded to desert versions, I could have learned about these plans. However, I honestly do not remember seeing them, but even if I did, in multiplayer game one can never be sure of the opponent's real intentions. As for example, what if he only upgraded them to desert versions to make me believe that he intends to invade the Middle East, in order the force me to reinforce it, instead of moving against Rommel's forces or to Tunisia? With other words, what if it is only a deception? "Seeing is believing" is not always the case in multiplayer. Which is of course one of the things that makes it much more fun than single player.Intenso82 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:29 am Iraq
The crisis in Iraq continues.
In the Kirkuk region, large enemy forces appeared. Including Shermans.
The enemy destroyed our Stug and launched a major offensive in the Middle East.
The Command decided to withdraw to Baghdad. Take advantage of mobility.
But even this option does not save us from losses.
The chances that we will be able to stop and keep the oil is very small.
Partly as a result of this, I have decided to reduce the hard attack value of most artillery units by 30-40%. Which means from now it will be harder to fully suppress an enemy tank unit with artillery and force surrender it. Even though in this particular case, it took me two attempts to do so. A few turns earlier I also encircled and almost fully suppressed it by bombarding it with 4-5 artillery, 1-2 bomber and a ship. But due to its high ground defense it still had some unsuppressed strength and despite a promising battle prediction, my attacking unit failed due to an unlucky dice roll. As a result in the next turn I lost like 2-3 units which were right next to it. Nevertheless, I decided to give it another go and this second time I was more successful. But I lost my own Tiger unit under very similar circumstances near Moscow in my Axis game. And the suppressive fire of enemy artillery was the main cause of many other tank units of both sides in this match and it describes the heavy tank losses of the Axis side. Which is not very good, I believe. I would rather see tank units being weakened first by air and ground units. I do not think it is right or very realistic to lose a full strength heavy tank unit in only one turn due to enemy artillery bombardment. Artillery shells should have little effect on heavy tanks. And even if we assume that a tank unit in the game also contains some soft and vulnerable supply elements like trucks and such, the tanks themselves should still be able to fight back after a heavy artillery bombardment.Torch
This morning in the Headquarters darkened by the very sad news.
All the officers were shocked.
The Allies somehow managed to destroy the Tiger.
According to the calculations of the staff officers, the Allies did not have the necessary amount of artillery to suppress the Tiger.
But the reality turned out to be different.
Obviously the artillery of the Allies turned out to be stronger experienced and more successful.
They also probably used ships.
A former Wehrmacht soldier once told me that in case Germany had won the war in the east (i.e. just as a theoretical/unrealistic thought of course), he believed that he had “never” been able to return home to Germany due to the literally “infinite” occupation requirements in the east…McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm (Historically the Germans deployed a significant force for occupation duties: hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers were stationed in occupied France, Norway, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus. It may have made a difference if more of them were being used in the front instead, but only at the cost of losing even more of the vital supply lines to partisan attacks which could had had an equal or even worse effect.)
It was an interesting psychological effect, when you seem to have won in the East, but you do not feel this victory.McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Although it might seen a bit nasty, I think it makes sense. In fact it is a built-in trade off with a purpose. Basically the Axis player has two choices: he either commits the majority of his units to the frontline to ensure a quick advance, but risks losing the control over the area behind the front, or moves forward somewhat slower with more units in the back to keep the partisans at bay. And of course the more successful he is, the possiblities are greater for the Allied player to make trouble in the back due to the large number of occupied cities. So it creates a more balanced gameplay even if the Allied side is about to lose as he can still strike back. Actually I was a bit surprised to see that it was fairly easy to find empty victory objective cities to retake with partisans and renagade regular army units as there were only a very few units left behind for occupation duties. Maybe a few more should have been left behind, even at the cost of a bit slower advance.
(Historically the Germans deployed a significant force for occupation duties: hundreds of thousands of Axis soldiers were stationed in occupied France, Norway, the Balkans, the Ukraine and Belarus. It may have made a difference if more of them were being used in the front instead, but only at the cost of losing even more of the vital supply lines to partisan attacks which could had had an equal or even worse effect.)
Yes, I remember how I showed a tank with a desert camouflage when repelling a raid on Dieppe, which I then went to the Caucasus and Iraq.McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Actually I did not even expect that the Axis would attempt to capture the Middle East after the capture of the Caucasus. Interestingly, a few turns earlier, when the Axis forces were aproaching Baku, Intenso wrote something that due to some of his ground units visible to me were already upgraded to desert versions, I could have learned about these plans. However, I honestly do not remember seeing them, but even if I did, in multiplayer game one can never be sure of the opponent's real intentions. As for example, what if he only upgraded them to desert versions to make me believe that he intends to invade the Middle East, in order the force me to reinforce it, instead of moving against Rommel's forces or to Tunisia? With other words, what if it is only a deception? "Seeing is believing" is not always the case in multiplayer. Which is of course one of the things that makes it much more fun than single player.
Besides the fact that it was a safer way, unlike the McGuba game for the Axis, the Allies at this game had an advantage at the sea.McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm But then again, as it is usual in multiplayer, the practise is always different from the theory: the forces that I sent to Tunisia were quickly discovered and eliminated near Tripoli as I did not expect it to be a major supply point swarmed with fresh enemy units (I was expecting that the most of the enemy reinforcements would be sent directly to Tunisia in the shorter route like I did and not to Tripoli in the longer but somewhat safer route)
Yes, now it seems a mistake.McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm and the Germans sent an expeditionary force down from the Caucasus immediately after its capture. In the end, the German forces reached Baghdad even before the British reinforcements could arrive there (as first I wanted to upgrade most of tanks to Shermans in Alexandria, but had to wait a bit until they became available) and thus at first I was disadvantaged. And then instead of attacking the Caucasus I had to go on defense to keep the Iraq somehow.
In the end, I think the German invasion of the Middle East was a strategic mistake: in my opinion those units would have been better used to help to finish the Soviets off, or even being used for occupation duties to ensure a faster defeat of the Red Army. But of course it is always easier to be smart in the end.
I also think that perhaps it is also also be worthwhile to review and increase the combat capabilities of Soviet AT units.McGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Partly as a result of this, I have decided to reduce the hard attack value of most artillery units by 30-40%. Which means from now it will be harder to fully suppress an enemy tank unit with artillery and force surrender it. Even though in this particular case, it took me two attempts to do so. A few turns earlier I also encircled and almost fully suppressed it by bombarding it with 4-5 artillery, 1-2 bomber and a ship. But due to its high ground defense it still had some unsuppressed strength and despite a promising battle prediction, my attacking unit failed due to an unlucky dice roll. As a result in the next turn I lost like 2-3 units which were right next to it. Nevertheless, I decided to give it another go and this second time I was more successful. But I lost my own Tiger unit under very similar circumstances near Moscow in my Axis game. And the suppressive fire of enemy artillery was the main cause of many other tank units of both sides in this match and it describes the heavy tank losses of the Axis side. Which is not very good, I believe. I would rather see tank units being weakened first by air and ground units. I do not think it is right or very realistic to lose a full strength heavy tank unit in only one turn due to enemy artillery bombardment. Artillery shells should have little effect on heavy tanks. And even if we assume that a tank unit in the game also contains some soft and vulnerable supply elements like trucks and such, the tanks themselves should still be able to fight back after a heavy artillery bombardment.
Yes, I still think soMcGuba wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:39 pm Intenso claimed that he fears that German heavy tanks would become really invincible as a result of this, but I do not think so. Air units like strategic bombers and later war Allied heavy tank hunters will still be able to fight these, just as battleships. And artillery will still be able to suppress them, just not always fully. So that it would not be so easy to destroy them in just one turn.
We did not have prestige to buy more such units.Yes, that is true of course. I read detailed history of the Hungarian occupational forces. As the Hungarian army was generally weak the Germans preferred to use them for occupational duties. And the Hungarian government also tried to minimize its involvement in the war against the Soviet Union as it was preparing for the war with Romania over the ownership of Transylvania. Hungary only sent a corps in 1941 and an army strength unit in 1942 to the east to fight in the frontline. But these were withdrawn after less than a year. The Hungarian army was mainly active in 1944-45 when the Red Army reached the Carpathian basin.As far as I know, mainly the occupation troops had a lower degree of combat capability, the quality of soldiers (old, with no experience, etc.) low level of weapons.
Therefore, they were not assigned to participate in important combat operations. These were conditional combat units. The so-called garrison divisions.
I added a script that all partisan units disappear from the map in the last few turns. So that it is not possible to make a last minute victory for the Allied player. And it is already there in v1.94. But new partisans can still appear until like spring 1945. So that the Axis player still needs to keep some occupation units in the east after the defeat of the Soviet Union. In reality some anti-communist Ukranian partisans continued to resist until 1949:And of course, I think that after the capture of all points of victory, after a delay of 5 or another number of turns, the units of the Soviets should be disbanded.
Otherwise, it is possible to capture the VP on the last turn.
Yes, in retrospect it makes sense, but still I was somewhat surprised back then.Besides the fact that it was a safer way, unlike the McGuba game for the Axis, the Allies at this game had an advantage at the sea.
I used Tripoli as a short shoulder.
I upgraded units already in Tripoli, so as not to waste time on upgrades in Germany, as well as not to upgrade twice.
Because the sea route to Africa is quite long and during this time new models of units may appear.
Sure, the German intelligence was nicely mislead here, and the persons responsible have already received their "reward".There were no huge numbers of enemy submarines near Tripoli
Sure, but only if they are close to each other and do not move too much as these German heavy units usually have little fuel. So that they can be easily encircled or just avoided. But we will see later.Yes, I still think so
But if he doubled. Having a few such powerful units together will be a very powerful force.
