WWII-Stalingrad [QUENCHED]

[cairnswk]

Wiki tells me:
"The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft (AA) Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young female volunteers who had no training for engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other Soviet units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing Panzers. The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th’s gunners "shot for shot" until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. The German 16th Panzer Division was also shocked to find that it had been fighting female soldiers, due to Soviet manpower shortages."
That is why i have them marked as being able to attack the dark green armour only...but that will need refining to be only nieghbours.

So what does this say ?
That the 37 AA against the panzers had no particular devastating effect.
The girls didnt run away (knowing they would be raped by germans, or executed by the russians).
A (37 mm) AA gun fires rapidly, so a "shot for shot" from a tank (slower fire rate) versus this 37 mm AA gun means that within a few seconds each AAgun was silenced.
Conclusion : on a map scale this "fight" had no effect at all (stalling advance of germans over days ?).
Please take it away..

Be careful lt_oddball.

[cairnswk]

^^ oh dear. it's just hard to please some people

I would not tell you if I didnt think it can be easily fixed..

You may tell me all you like, but i'll decide what i want to do!

[lt_oddball]

Wiki tells me:
"The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft (AA) Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young female volunteers who had no training for engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other Soviet units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing Panzers. The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th’s gunners "shot for shot" until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. The German 16th Panzer Division was also shocked to find that it had been fighting female soldiers, due to Soviet manpower shortages."
That is why i have them marked as being able to attack the dark green armour only...but that will need refining to be only nieghbours.

So what does this say ?
That the 37 AA against the panzers had no particular devastating effect.
The girls didnt run away (knowing they would be raped by germans, or executed by the russians).
A (37 mm) AA gun fires rapidly, so a "shot for shot" from a tank (slower fire rate) versus this 37 mm AA gun means that within a few seconds each AAgun was silenced.
Conclusion : on a map scale this "fight" had no effect at all (stalling advance of germans over days ?).
Please take it away..

Be careful lt_oddball.

Do realise that Wikipedia is not, repeat, not necessarily precise. There are even strong nuance differences between wiki USa and WIKI Germany about some (especially) Waffen SS entries.
But in your same wiki entry we read: " (that day) the 16th Panzer Division advanced unresisted, until Gumrak, where they came under fire from anti-aircraft guns.
The 16th Panzer Division recorded that "right until afternoon !!!we had to fight 'shot for shot' against 37 anti-aircraft positions manned by tenacious fighting women, until all were destroyed".

So, we are talking about a couple of hours (2 AA units? 10 AA units ? 135 AAUnits ?) which was important that day for it gave time for the city defenses to organise..but on a larger strategic view (on which your map is based over a period of weeks/months) it is unimportant (to model it in the map).


further down we read "The Soviet official history of the war also makes mention of this action:"...
The so-vi-et OF-FI-CIAL history of the war ... right...
the same that says that only CCCP won the war ... and Putin is a war hero



anyway, bottom line: The AA gun icons and attack possibilities should not be in your map..
(be glad; as it keeps the map simpler for you the designer, and us the players)
The mere name "1077th AA R1" is enough merit for the map scale.

[lt_oddball]

here is another heroic idea : Dogs fitted with explosives.

I am sure that up till today it was always said that these dogs were ineffective as they ran towards the russian vehicles and blew those up (It was in a history book of some sort and I came across it a dozen times on internet).

But now Zvezda made a scale model about it and here is their (it's a russian company) text:
"In 1941-1942 because of high deficiency of anti-tank means the Soviet army had been used for fighting against the German tanks more than 60 thousands dogs trained in accordance with the special program and equipped with fixed on back tarpaulin bag carrying 2-4 kgs of explosives with antenna type exploder. It was enough for antenna to touch a metal for explode. Dogs were trained to run rapidly under a tank from short distance, so it quickly came into the dead zone of tank’s machine gun. Machine gunner had not enough time to point and fire such small and quick target. The first battalion of dogs fighting against tanks was sent to front in July of 1941. During the war those dogs destroyed more than 300 fascist tanks. Just during the battle of Stalingrad special troops of the 62nd army under the command of major Kunin and senior lieutenant Shantsev hit and burnt the whole enemy's tank brigade – 63 tanks and 2 armoured cars. As far as army was supplied with anti-tank artillery necessity in dogs fighting against tanks was reducing, and in October of 1943 such troops were disband. Remained dogs were redirected for mine searching tasks."
(more likely eaten up by their own troops ).

In 2009, what is truth , what is fiction ?

[captainwalrus]

I have heard of the dogs with explosives, but I heard they used it at Leningrad. I also heard they didn't work too well cause the Germans could just get the dogs before the dogs got them.
Also, for the AA guns, if you do keep them, what does "close" mean in reference to the tanks?

[thenobodies80]

Poll Result


Please indicate the answers to the questions below. (7Days)

Question: Artillery can attack next door? - Yes.....4.....8%

Question: Artillery can attack next door? - No.....9.....17%

Question: Should snipers have +1 autodeploy bonus? - Yes.....11.....21%

Question: Should snipers have +1 autodeploy bonus? - No.....3.....6%

Question: Should two army territories (including Mameyev Hill) be +1 bonus? - Yes.....8.....15%

Question: Should two army territories (including Mameyev Hill) be +1 bonus? - No.....5.....9%

Question: Should two army territories bonus be autodeploy? - Yes.....3.....6%

Question: Should two army territories bonus be autodeploy? - No.....10.....19%


Total votes : 53

[cairnswk]

Current Version 26.

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

I have heard of the dogs with explosives, but I heard they used it at Leningrad. I also heard they didn't work too well cause the Germans could just get the dogs before the dogs got them.
Also, for the AA guns, if you do keep them, what does "close" mean in reference to the tanks?

well, R. 1077A U1 & U2 would not be able to bombard the green tanks on G. 72nd Div and 76th Rear, only the green tanks on Orlovka Woods and 16th Div; and vice versa. But they would be able to bombard the German (dark) planes.
If you have a better word than close that will fit, i'd be glad to hear it.

I put them there to justify having the names R 1077AA on the map as "in some quarters" it seems they might have been part of the inital defence of Stlaingrad, ineffective as they might have been. However, in designing the map, it ithink it is important to get some historical aspect on the map to make it something like the real thing, otherwise we might as well just have a number of terts on pieces of land and players fighting over that. Yes it makes the map crowded but the map was already crowded before they appeared.

[cairnswk]

Poll Result

Question: Artillery can attack next door? - No.....9.....17%
Question: Should snipers have +1 autodeploy bonus? - Yes.....11.....21%
Question: Should two army territories (including Mameyev Hill) be +1 bonus? - Yes.....8.....15%
Question: Should two army territories bonus be autodeploy? - No.....10.....19%

These are already on the Version 26 above.

[lt_oddball]

Yes it makes the map crowded but the map was already crowded before they appeared.

so that is a technical argument ?


(at least "my" dogs <according to further non supported russian sources> destroyed whole german brigades ... put in a dog icon with the 62nd and add "dog can attack Panzer " but "panzer cannot attack dog" in the legend. and we make it a bit more crowded , if that's ok.)

[jefjef]

Yes it makes the map crowded but the map was already crowded before they appeared.

so that is a technical argument ?

I actually like AA addition. I just think there should only be a couple. Puts a nice strategic twist in the game and can potentially help those that have no planes find a solution.

Just have em on the russian side of the river and you can eliminate the tank assault aspect of the game. The infantry are there for the attack anyway.

But if it seems to clog or confuse the map too much dropping them doesn't hurt a thing.

[porkenbeans]

Thought I would pork my head in, and see the progress. I like it. I have only one issue at the present. I like that you have darkened the text. It was just to bright before, and seemed to jump out too much. However, I think that you may have gone a tad too dark. It needs to be brightened back up just a little to give it the needed contrast. I wonder what it would look like if it were black.
...carry on.

[cairnswk]

There is a poll to decided whether the AA Batteries remain on the map.
And the other issues i'll attend to after 18 Nov.
Cheers.

[cairnswk]

Mmmmm. not many voting.

Perhaps the map needs to be binned eh!
There doesn't seem to be a lot of support, but i'll wait to see until the poll is done.

[isaiah40]

Perhaps the map needs to be binned eh!

Negatory on that cairns!!

[ender516]

Perhaps the map needs to be binned eh!

Negatory on that cairns!!

Heaven forfend
Are you getting views without posts? I know I was a bit intimidated by this map the first time I looked at it. It is quite dense. Some people may be leery of wading through 20 pages to get the full picture.

[lt_oddball]

strange , I only voted NO on the AA batteries , and thus saw no reason to vote on the 2 other questions.
Yet we see "7" (2+5) voters on the first question and "7" (3+4) on the second question.

Who took my vote ?

[ender516]

strange , I only voted NO on the AA batteries , and thus saw no reason to vote on the 2 other questions.
Yet we see "7" (2+5) voters on the first question and "7" (3+4) on the second question.

Who took my vote ?

I wondered about that as well, when I believe the vote was 4 to 1 in favour of AAs and 4 to 1 in the second part as well, but thought perhaps you had given your opinion on the second question, in case the first was carried by the YESes.

[cairnswk]

Any others voting, people?

[Teflon Kris]

Sorry, we're back with this problem that jefjef thinks he resolved:

The doods and tanks assaulting next-door is what players would expect anyway - if you need space you might wish to take that bit out? Unless, these are the only assaults possible (e.g. tanks cant assault next-door artillery)? But then again, if that was the case then the doods wouldn't be able to assault the river. Hmmm. Help!

Mmmmm. I need help, don't know about you.

Sorry to be anally-retentive.

Have you got an answer on this question of what can assault what?

Upper right of map is the legend. Very understandable.

Have I missed the bit in the upper-right where it states whether the mentionned assaults are or aren't the only assaults possible?

If they are the only assaults then:

1. The snipers cant assault anything?
2. Infantry cant assault the river positions?
3. G 72nd Div cant assault R1077AA (for example)?
4. Only the buildings can assault snipers?
5. There would be no need to mentions that assault aren't possible within an airfield.

If the assaults in the legend aren't the only assaults then does this mean any adjacent assaults are possible? If so, there is no point having the section of the legend about adjacent assaults. If not, the other possible adjacent assaults (e.g. the 4 listed) should be mentionned.

Other Questions

1. 'Close': is German HQ I 'close' to R1077AA?

2. In the plane bombardments part of the legend, is RO (where O is the blue circle) referring to the river territories (just to check its not the snipers)?

[lt_oddball]

[
Sorry, we're still with this problem that jefjef thinks he resolved:

uhm Teflon, you know you can edit your message endlessly if you want.
Especially if no one has commented on it.
Saves us the extra message crap (3x) to read through (meaning the repetitive nature of it..not necessarily its content)

It looks like the AAguns stay (?).
I recently checked the Trafalgar map status, and saw how that map generated downhill (with its immense complexity) along with harsh comments <of criticisers> and <angry> deception from the maker <Cairnswk>.
Maybe that's a strong warning for this map not to implement these AAguns.

[cairnswk]

.....along with harsh comments and deception from the maker.

Care to explain what this comment is all about?

[cairnswk]

...
I recently checked the Trafalgar map status, and saw how that map generated downhill (with its immense complexity) along with harsh comments and deception from the maker.
Maybe that's a strong warning for this map and these AAguns.

Trafalgar is far less complex than this map is.
If anything sinks this map, it will be lack of support....

[cairnswk]

i gotta say that 31 votes is pitiful

[Teflon Kris]

Sorry - not sure how come my post came up 3 times - I thought I was editing it