The Competition & Teaser Thread

[ComradeP]

I don't dispute the effectiveness of mines as such, I do feel that fewer, better defended, positions in depth would've been both more effective and more economical for a side which wouldn't have enough manpower to man lines effectively, like the Germans.

The Atlantic Wall, the Westwall/Siegfried line, various positions in the east: all positions that lost a significant part of their value as soon as they were decisively breached. The men to hold them were not there, and the resources they absorbed meant other positions could not be fortified. The Panther/Wotan line mostly existed on paper, partially because most resources went to the Atlantic Wall. The Atlantic Wall was decisively breached over a lengthy front in a matter of days. The Maginot Line simply flanked.

In Tunisia and Italy, mines and bunkers had a point and defensive positions were very difficult to take, but elsewhere?

Even taking Kursk as an example: the Soviets spent months building the positions that II SS Panzer Korps chewed through. The operation failed partially due to the extensive fortifications, but they didn't actually stop the Germans. They didn't buy all that much time either. Zitadelle was just as unlikely to succeed in terms of developing into the encirclement the Germans hoped for with more economical defensive works probably.

The late war Soviet offensives often had to go through well prepared positions, but there was nothing behind them and the Soviets knew it. Extensive mapping of German defensive positions before the Vistula-Oder offensive significantly decreased both the defensive benefits of the Vistula and the German positions, and the same goes for most offensives. The only static position that held was Kurland, but there was a large German force there.

Static defensive lines have their merits, but if you just fortify that one line, the enemy can just gather sufficient forces to breach it and you give up the initiative. Several unit histories of the Normandy campaign that I've read clearly specify that the units had more problems with getting through the inland defenses than anything on the beach. People often talk about Omaha, but it was an exceptional situation where Allied preparation failed to inflict the necessary damage. Considering the enormous investment in the Atlantic Wall, I wouldn't say the investment was economical based on how little the beach defenses accomplished during Overlord and Dragoon.

[Xaver]

Well, are 2 types of defenses for me.

1-strategic defenses, you can put here all megaprojects where concrete and steel were used with big minefields, extra defenses and garrison units, maybe more as deterrent element... sure could be effective BUT not allways specially when you compare the time, resources and money dug-in with the bunkers hehehe.

2-tactical defenses, you can put here all defensive lines made by local needs (even Kursk defensive works were a momentary need, a single use defense) they are created only for a single use but nothing made if is needed leave them stay on them to mantein in certain level of preparation.

For me the 2nd type are more usefull for an army but 1st are more usefull for a nation.

At this scale PzB or PzC we have a mix of them but nothing enough strong to prevent a break.

PD: even a few sandbags + 1 MG + some mines around the position could be an impenetrable wall

[Liebchen]

PD: even a few sandbags + 1 MG + some mines around the position could be an impenetrable wall

Not to a team with a mortar, it isn't.

[Strela]

Happy Sunday all.

Work never stops and we're testing a few new in game icons.

The first image below are the original icons and below that the new icons.

Changed are movement arrows, compass rose and suspected enemy positions (? mark).






David

[Compass Rose]

I defiantly like the new arrows.

The new suspected enemy positions icon looks almost exactly the same except for a subtle color change.

As for my name sake, the compass rose is a step in the right direction.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Take a look at the compass and the ? in the same brighter red as the movement arrows.

As for the unit designations, if you are looking for space, there are still a couple of things you could do............

Remove the . next to the unit numbers
PzGr Regt could also be posted as PG Rgt

I have 13 years as a Manual Drafter. When you do things by hand, you establish patterns that you use on all your drawings and find ways to make things fit. Sad that it is gone now.

I'm full of all kinds of crap, Ask anybody!

[Strela]

Take a look at the compass and the ? in the same brighter red as the movement arrows.

As for the unit designations, if you are looking for space, there are still a couple of things you could do............

Remove the . next to the unit numbers
PzGr Regt could also be posted as PG Rgt

I have 13 years as a Manual Drafter. When you do things by hand, you establish patterns that you use on all your drawings and find ways to make things fit. Sad that it is gone now.

I'm full of all kinds of crap, Ask anybody!

Thanks OJW,

The designations have all been fixed. Looks much better when combined with the new reporting when units are combined.

I'll toy with the redder red and see if its worth the change...

David

[Strela]

Take a look at the compass and the ? in the same brighter red as the movement arrows.

I'm full of all kinds of crap, Ask anybody!

It's useful crap :)


Here is the brighter red. I only tinted the existing objects, I can go back and start again if necessary and do it 'properly'.

This is pretty close though...




David

[Strela]

Thanks David for the new pics and explanations.

I just have some basic questions that most people can probably answer.

Is the first unit below the 1st Platoon, 6th Company, of the PzGr. Regt.4? So the Battalion designation is not showing? (Think I rememebr a previous post about this?)

Thanks,

Gerry

Gerry,

ComradeP is correct.

We have struggled with fitting the names on the front of the unit cards. One of the areas we decided was superfluous was the battalion naming. This was based on the fact that both sides used the company numbering as the basis of identification, not the battalion designation. The battalion identifier is still on the back of the unit card, just not shown on the front.

Using the highlight org it is easy to identify members of any particular battalion.

We have finished shortening the names as much as possible while trying to be 'historical'. The nationalities that caused the most grief were the Soviet Guards & the SS as they either have the Gds designation or a long text name.

David

[GerryM]

Hello All:

I am trying to imagine how this game would handle city fighting. I know all games have abstractions of some kind, even say at 40m hexes. But here we have 250m hexes. So for sure we cannot have room-to-room fighting. Or even house-to-house fighting? So are we thinking in terms of blocks with 250m hexes?

Gerry