WWII-Stalingrad [QUENCHED]

[uckuki]

I know. My question is: are they supposed to just
bombard (annihilate) or conquer terrs as well?
in the Underground Fighting section only
bombardment is mentioned.

[jefjef]

I know. My question is: are they supposed to just
bombard (annihilate) or conquer terrs as well?
in the Underground Fighting section only
bombardment is mentioned.

The sniper position is allowed to exit/attack into the same terts it uses to enter. They only bombard/neutralize the long range terts. So yes.

[Backside]

I know. My question is: are they supposed to just
bombard (annihilate) or conquer terrs as well?
in the Underground Fighting section only
bombardment is mentioned.

Well i know u got answer, but i'll just say that imo it's quite clearly stated there.
"Enter sniper positions thru regions bordering coloured building; sniper-fire can bombard the same edge-coloured regions as the entered buildings

So yeps if sum underlining helps lol ^^

[Incandenza]

The large artillery terits appear to be basically worthless, at least after the first round or two... at the very least, could they be able to attack neighboring terits? Otherwise dropping them is a major disadvantage.

I have a game in progress where those terts have been kept in play by the fact that the opponent keeps wanting to bombard them with aircraft. In any 2 region bonus I wouldn't consider them invaluable.
I am not agreeing with you entirely in saying "Otherwise dropping them is a major disadvantage".
If you have dropped them and are not able to access the adjoining INF then yes that is a major disadvantage.
But if no-one attacks your ART unit in the first few rounds before your go, then it would probably be wise to use this to your advantage and bombard your opponents to reduce region numbers if not bonuses.
As for attacking neighbouring regions...well no, they are very specific gameplay units.

What I'm talking about is, for instance, R 1077AA U1 AA Bat. Worthless goddamn terit, it bombards 2 somewhat nearby terits (and not Orlovka for some reason) and the german planes. So basically it's about a tenth as valuable as a soviet plane. You may as well have that terit start neutral and have the infantry unit in the same box part of the drop, at least you can do something with an infantry.

[Queen_Herpes]

Again, I love your maps. This one, as mentioned by at least one previous poster leans heavily towards the player who goes first. I've won all of my games on this map simply because I've gone first in 1v1 and me or my teammate went first in doubles.

The reason is not based on bonuses, rather, it is based on the airplanes. The first player can bombard the second player's boats, planes and other territories into oblivion rendering the second player's ability even to bombard back limited based on territory count and the number of armies awarded for that.

IMO, if the number of neutral territories were increased and the number of player territories were decreased, this might solve part of these issues. Secondly, if the airplanes bombardment capability was restricted to say Russian Planes bombard 1/2 of the boats and German planes bombard the other 1/2, this might also have an effect. Just a thought.

Also, someone else noted the ease with which a sniper can be conquered for a +1 bonus. This also comes down to a "who goes first" benefit. Again, I deploy all my armies to one airplane on my first turn, bombard my opponent into oblivion, then attack the snipers with whichever adjacent territories to the snipers. If the snipers were to start with, say 2 or 3 neutrals, instead of 1, this would also have an effect to diminish the "player who goes first" bonus.

To recap, any player who goes first> deploys all to one airplane> bombards as many enemy airplanes, boats, and bombardable territories as possible> attacks all adjacent snipers> then fortifies one airplane> =enormous benefit in going first. While this is certainly a strategical perspective, I think the map would be more interesting to play if it was harder to obliterate the opponent in round one and made similarly harder to acquire the +1 bonus from the snipers.

I realize that in most maps, he-who-goes-first in round 1 is often the winner in 1v1 and other games. However, the benefit to he-who-goes-first on Stalingrad seems to be clearly greater than on other maps.

I get your points Queen_Herpes, i am in favour of increasing the neutrals on the snipers to +2 or +3 as mentioned in my reply to pamoa above, please advise if you want +2 or +3....i am leaning towards +3.

Yes, there is strategic advantage in obtaining a good drop on the planes etc. but then that's what happened at Stalingrad where the planes were used to almost obliterate the city anyways, whereafter you know the ground warfare started.
I also have played 1v1 games and am in round 17 on one so i wouldn't say that he who goes first always wins, as this game is far from over.

So i am not in favour of altering this aspect.

Secondly, if the airplanes bombardment capability was restricted to say Russian Planes bombard 1/2 of the boats and German planes bombard the other 1/2, this might also have an effect.

Of course this would have a desired effect, but it wouldn't be Stalingrad, since the Germans were able to bombard all the Russian boats, and although the Russians didn't do it, they would have had the same capacity with the reduced number of aircraft.

+2 on snipers. +3 might prevent people from attacking them entirely.

I'd like to say again that the planes offer too much on turn one. While you are in round 17, I don't think too many make it that far without a decided winner. I, too, appreciate the historical accuracy. However, I think something should be amended with this map to make the airplanes a little bit less powerful. If a player is dropped all the airplanes, or if the player goes first and has enough airplanes to obliterate just the enemy presence in the airplanes, I think they are too powerful. But, time will tell.

[Raskholnikov]

I agree. Airplanes DO dominate and really decide the game. Whoever gets the HQs and controls the planes, wins. The game would be substantially improved by restricting the range of the planes. Simple example: with a 5 unit plane, one can easily wipe out up to 8 enemy territories with 1s on them, as can happen in the middle of the game. Usually, that is a fatal blow.

Snipers at +2 is a very good idea.

[jefjef]

I agree. Airplanes DO dominate and really decide the game. Whoever gets the HQs and controls the planes, wins. The game would be substantially improved by restricting the range of the planes. Simple example: with a 5 unit plane, one can easily wipe out up to 8 enemy territories with 1s on them, as can happen in the middle of the game. Usually, that is a fatal blow.

Snipers at +2 is a very good idea.

Well I just won a trips where they owned all but two plane terts and early on really messed us up. We eventually held bonus and was able to overcome and won. We also held like 3 snipers for many rounds.

I actually believe the +1 is plenty for the sniper. If we didn't get them we may not have been able to overcome.

[cairnswk]

I agree. Airplanes DO dominate and really decide the game. Whoever gets the HQs and controls the planes, wins. The game would be substantially improved by restricting the range of the planes. Simple example: with a 5 unit plane, one can easily wipe out up to 8 enemy territories with 1s on them, as can happen in the middle of the game. Usually, that is a fatal blow.

Snipers at +2 is a very good idea.

Well I just won a trips where they owned all but two plane terts and early on really messed us up. We eventually held bonus and was able to overcome and won. We also held like 3 snipers for many rounds.

I actually believe the +1 is plenty for the sniper. If we didn't get them we may not have been able to overcome.

I agree with jefjef. i've been playing several 1v1 games, and although i haven't won them all, there is merit on leaving the snipers bonus on +1 to counter the consequences of being wiped out early on by the planes etc.

I still find nothing to convince me that the planes etc are too powerful to start. I've also held the HQs and still not been able to get to the planes through army placement numbers. But then i have gone to street fighting and managed to gain ground.

[cairnswk]

spelling fix
Orlovak Woods Arm to Orlovka Woods Arm
http://h1.ripway.com/cairnswk/_stalingrad_230710.xml

[jefjef]

I will say I like the idea of relocating R62 92nd Div to the South sector for arty purposes. Be a little more balanced.

[cairnswk]

I will say I like the idea of relocating R62 92nd Div to the South sector for arty purposes. Be a little more balanced.

Why do you say it would be more balanced jefjef?

What do others think on this?

[skillfusniper33]

I would have to agree with him there, maybe switch the locations of the text with army placement.

For me Pavlov's house is hard to read, probably because it is located in the river, and the same color text as all the other land regions. I am not sure if you want to change this to the color of the river text or keep it that way.

[fumandomuerte]

The map experience is awesome. My only complain is that I need to open Firefox to get BOB... That's not cool imho

[Army of GOD]

Ohhhhmygawd.

Well, the confusing ass gameplay just lost me a game. I was pretty pissed (check the game chat) =(

[the.killing.44]

Ohhhhmygawd.

Well, the confusing ass gameplay just lost me a game. I was pretty pissed (check the game chat) =(

HAHA YOU SUCK

[jefjef]

I will say I like the idea of relocating R62 92nd Div to the South sector for arty purposes. Be a little more balanced.

Why do you say it would be more balanced jefjef?

More balanced potential tert targeting and a more natural North - South. I also found myself wanting to bombard it with Sadvaya arty and couldn't and it just made sense that I should of been able to.

[cairnswk]

I would have to agree with him there, maybe switch the locations of the text with army placement.

For me Pavlov's house is hard to read, probably because it is located in the river, and the same color text as all the other land regions. I am not sure if you want to change this to the color of the river text or keep it that way.

I'll change the colour to the same as that of the river texts

Version 38.
Let me know if this is OK.
1. changed the Pavlov's house text to river boat text colour
2. Fixed the R 62nd 13th Div text so that it is more legible

Click image to enlarge.

[ender516]

Those changes do seem to be an improvement over what I am playing now.

[fumandomuerte]

Snipers range attack is still not clear on the legend.

[Kabanellas]

couldn't pass by without leaving a warm and happy - THANK YOU!!!! - for this map. I'm loving it.

[cairnswk]

Snipers range attack is still not clear on the legend.

Please explain

couldn't pass by without leaving a warm and happy - THANK YOU!!!! - for this map. I'm loving it.

Thanks Kab.

[cairnswk]

Above images sent forth for uploading.

[skillfusniper33]

Yes it is much better thanks.

[canadianbacon99]

Why can't I reinforce out of Artilleries?

I don't think that makes much sense.

[ender516]

Why can't I reinforce out of Artilleries?

I don't think that makes much sense.

Artilleries do not attack, they only bombard, and you can only reinforce along attack routes. Think of the artillery as being dug in and essentially immobile. The adjoining infantry (which helps to form a +1 bonus with the artillery) is the mobile force in the area. Just remember not to deploy or advance more troops into the artillery position than you plan on using for bombardment (aside from simple defensive numbers, in case of an attack on the artillery).