New S42 Campaign!

[Volcano Man]

My mistake, I meant to say that the Refuel Percentage effects the probability of the unit being refueled, not the probability of unit becoming "Low Fuel".

[JDR Dragoon]

My take on the ahistorical results points to unrealistic flexibility of Soviet artillery which works just as well as late war US artillery. Anyone who has done any serious reading knows that the Soviets where still shooting direct fire with everything up to divisional level artillery right up to Berlin, and that all those higher level artillery units took days if not weeks to setup, register, plan and coordinate their fires.

One way to emulate this is to play with "Artillery Setup" as an optional rule and give the soviets a low "Setup value" in the .pdt.

[Dog Soldier]

VM,

Maybe it is time the refuel parameter was split by HPS like many other pdt parameters have been.

Rick,
Remember when adjusting terrain movement point values, this will also affect VST. So higher terrain movement costs could fix both VST and the Russian artillery issues you bring up.

Dog Soldier

[Ricky B]

The movement costs could help Brian, but I was thinking that the road movement rates are probably right on, not sure about the off road, which is why I think a lower artillery movement rate might do the trick rather than terrain costs. If the road rates aren't touched, then I don't think the impact on VST would be significant since the bulk of it travels along roads anyway. But still a custom pdt with specific lower movement rates might do some of it.

Rick

[Dog Soldier]

I was thinking there is a shortage of roads on the CG map for S42. But I have not looked lately. The snow conditions would also effect road movement. IIRC the standard is 150% of normal road costs for snow.

This gets complicated....

Dog Soldier

[James Ward]

The movement costs could help Brian, but I was thinking that the road movement rates are probably right on, not sure about the off road, which is why I think a lower artillery movement rate might do the trick rather than terrain costs.

I'll tell you what will do the trick, 3 straight days of STORMS!

[Volcano Man]

Maybe it is time the refuel parameter was split by HPS like many other pdt parameters have been.

Yes, that would be nice.

I think that in S42 case, working with what we have, both sides did have difficulty supplying fuel so maybe the single modifier at 10% might be justified. :chin:

[Dog Soldier]

I do not recall reading the Axis relief effort having fuel issues. In fact they got a priority for supply, IIRC.

It was just the distance, the 2nd Guards Army, and the Russian attack on the other satellite country army near Voronezh Front, that defeated the Axis relief effort.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

Ah yes, good point. I keep forgetting about the Axis relief force. Still, I think that having a lower Refuel Percentage PDT value might help, but maybe not a value as low as I once thought.

As Rick mentioned, explicit supply would work but it would be very tricky to get correct. I did notice that the Russian supply level increases throughout the campaign, but this seems to be contrary to the effect that we want to have on them. Perhaps the positive supply level increases should be changed to negative values instead, to represent the straining supply lines.

[Ricky B]

I don't see it permanently dropping Ed, but I can see the supply taking a big drop as the initial stocks are run down and the spearheads drive forward, then as time goes by the supplies start moving more smoothly again - so maybe a 90 level for the first 2 days, drop to 70 on the third day, 50 on the fifth day, then stay there for a couple of weeks, then back up to 60, 70, 80.

Just throwing out numbers, would need to look at the scenario in more detail - but I assume 50 would leave the spearheads at a very low level. One thing I recall is that the push from south of Stalingrad was in a terrible supply position even at the beginning because there were no good supply lines in the area.

Rick