McGuba wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:25 am
George_Parr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:49 pm
That picture reminds me of something from a book I have lying around here. The BV-138 could, thanks to its Diesel-engine and a special device, pick up fuel from U-Boats in the middle of the sea. I guess that isn't really something that could be implemented here, could it?
I guess even it it was possible, it would be quite the hassle to get it done, especially for such a minute detail.
It could only be implemented by using AI zones. Which means it would only be possible at certain hexes/areas. A u-boat unit would need to move to this area and then if a seaplane is there as well it could receive some fuel. But it is not exactly ideal as it raises the question of why it can only happen in a restricted area and not anywhere in the seas? Then of course in multiplayer the Allied opponent would also know this area and would be able to easily block it, making it pointless.
The other problem is that in theory it would make it possible for the Axis side to have a continuous presence over the convoy routes with its seaplanes in single player. Which would be unrealistic as aircraft had to return to their bases regularly for maintenance and repairs, even if they did not suffer combat damage. This maintenance work cannot be done at high seas and it is unlikely that u-boats would also carry spare parts and mechanics for the seaplanes.
I think in reality it might have happened a few times, but I do not think that it was a regular practice. For instance these seaplanes could only land on calm seas and the North Atlantic is not the calmest area which already reduces the number of occasions. Then of course u-boats would need to surface and spend quite some time like that at full stop and refueling a seaplane would hardly worth the risk of being attacked when being so vulnerable.
Using (switchable) carriers is also not good as it would indeed allow any Axis fighters and tac bombers to benefit from this refueling.
Yeah, I thought it might not be worth it. Could have been an interesting gimmick, but the negatives would far outweight the positives.
Just started a new game with the new version. The last one I had played was 1.9 with some minor changes of my own for personal use. Only got to turn 11 or so, but I do like the changes so far.
I actually managed to do quite well around Tobruk so far. Even got to take out the AT-gun, which caused the AI to move its AA-gun in that spot. With the bunker next to it being heavily damaged, this might actually get done surprisingly quickly as far as my games so far are concerned. Usually I stood around for a few rounds, then pulled back to El Agheila, fend of all the Allied waves, before the landings in the west. Then I would head back to Tunisia and the Mareth line, wait for the enemy from both sides, destroy them, and then split my units to head in both directions. Usually taking everything in the west, while in the east it would either stop at the British fortifcations or see me break through and take the Middle East over the last few rounds of the game. That means I usually don't take out a unit from the actual Tobruk defenses around late 1943 or 1944 at the earliest.
The change to Crimea also came as a surprise to me. I usually didn't bother taking it until close to the end, which could be a nuisance in terms of allowing Soviet airpower to act further to the west than otherwise possible. As long as there are Soviet ships around, you can't really bring any of your heavy artillery in close, as they are far to fragile (and usually needed elsewhere anyway). And once you destroyed the ships, the only artillery that could do something is the 5-strength range-4 one. You couldn't really send units in without the risk of them getting devastated by the fortress, long-range artillery and the bunch of ground units around, at least not when you are one of the "play careful, don't risk losing any units" type of players, like I am
Generally, I put the Romanian tank and a Romanian infantry, plus one of their artilleries an their AA-gun at the bottleneck and let the Soviets lose units by trying to break out. Then, when I was mostly done with the Soviets, I sent in stronger units to take out what was left of the defenses. With the changes that have been made, that tactic has to change now.
I always get the big encirclements done, but I never can get to Moscow in time. I think once I managed to reach a field right next to it, but most of the time I get bogged down around Mozhaysk. I guess you could consider that to be rather historical
I have to ask though, does anyone really bother with besieging Leningrad?
I thought that was already a waste of resources in 1.9, and with the addition of Kronstadt fortress it is even more costly now. There's just way too much Soviet firepower around to keep units in those spots. You'd first need to focus your stronger units on removing at least some of the long-range weapons, and if you give that much effort, you might as well try and take the city entirely. I think in my most aggressive playthrough I pushed a bit past Novgorod, and that was about it. In most games I took down the fortress in Oranienbaum through a mix of air attacks and shore bombadement from the heavy cruiser and battleships, followed by a land attack once it was weakened a bit. That wouldn't work now, due to the range of the ships being reduced. The attack on Leningrad itself would always wait until almost everything else was taken, similarly to Crimea.
In the end, whenever I read someone explaining their moves to succeed quickly against a specific target, I try it myself, make some gains I hadn't made in the past, before eventuall slipping back into my old behaviour of not taking the risk of going all in
Or maybe Operation Sealion instead? 
And even the SU is still alive and kicking... 
