Smolensk 41 opponent wanted

[Metnegomilj]

Soviet player for grand campaign is wanted. Moderate to somewhat serious experience prefered. Ready to play up to 10-14 turns per week.

[larsonney]

I will give you a game...which campaign do you want to play?

[Metnegomilj]

I will give you a game...which campaign do you want to play?

The Drive on Smolensk

Please, recommend the rules.

[email protected]

[larsonney]

OK, sounds good...its a VM alt scenario, so the standard alt rules should be used, I think.

My only question is that the scenario description says explicit supply, though that is not usually used in a VM alt scenario??

What are your thoughts on the supply? I want to make sure we get it right!

I posted my message here so we could get feedback on the supply question???...thanks!

Jon

[Metnegomilj]

All rules in this scenario are subject to change.
I've never played with explicit supply, nor I have will to debut with this one
:)
As I am concerned I would include following rules ON: aut def fire, Alt ind fire res, art set up, recon spot, virt suplly, op sur, low vis air eff, qual fat mod, locking zones, count batery fire, night fat, progr weather, lim air recon.
I think this set of rule is balanced between being fair and realistic.
Any comment is appreciated.

[Compass Rose]

Over on Volcano Man's web site http://volcanomods.com/index.php?option=...&Itemid=28
he suggests using the options show below.

[Metnegomilj]

Thanks, King, on your suggestion, but I would add on that Locking ZOC as mandatory one and also ,Alt inf fire' ON as moderate recomendation. Btw I always play , Optional surrender', don't know why it would harm anyone. :)

[larsonney]

Thanks, King, on your suggestion, but I would add on that Locking ZOC as mandatory one and also ,Alt inf fire' ON as moderate recommendation. Btw I always play , Optional surrender', don't know why it would harm anyone. :)

As I said, earlier, I think we should use the standard ALT rules only. Regarding your add-ons:

Locking zone of controls are huge...here is the Blitz comment on it:

Locking Zones of Control
Selecting this rule prevents units moving through an enemy ZOC into an adjacent friendly occupied hex, this movement is allowed by default and this rule should not be used as it allows the attacker to trap defensive units more easily.

Alt indirect fire is described as:

Alternative Indirect Fire Resolution
Indirect Fire of non-mortar, non-heavy weapon units is conducted under different rules. First, each such Indirect Fire is doubled in fire value, but the cost of firing is doubled (so arty units will only fiire once). Second, such Indirect Fire is applied against all units in the target hex, proportional to their strength, instead of being applied against a single target unit, so the more men/vehicles/guns you have stacked in a hex the greater your losses will be.

Finally, optional surrender is described as:

Optional Surrender
When this rule is selected, then Broken units which have been assaulted and have lost the assault, but have no valid retreat are eliminated.
This rule will help the attacking player and should not be used unless the historical situation in the scenario justifies it.

So, all three of those drastically help the attacker...

Since I am the defender, I would have a real problem with the first two, since I think they give the attacker a significant play advantage.

I might consider the optional surrender, but even then, with the low quality Russian units involved, I think it would speed up the German advance.

What are your thoughts/justifications for wanting these play advantages?

[alaric99x]

larsonney, you are correct on all points. Just do as Checkmate King suggests, it's a VM alt scenario and works best with the VM recommended options.

Locking zones is a particular nightmare for the defender, it makes it almost impossible to conduct an orderly retreat, not that there is ever such a thing as an "orderly retreat."

[Metnegomilj]

Ok, I am ready to give up on ,Locking zones of control', even ,Alt ind fire'.
But it would be fair to keep at least , Optional surrender' ON.
After all there are 2-3 rules here turned ON which are on defender side, to name , Limited air recon' as one.
So, can we start as recommended + ,Optional surrender'?