WWII-Stalingrad [QUENCHED]

[cairnswk]

I think some bonuses can be reconsidered, just because of new bombardments or whatever. The city should be worth much more, since it can be attacked by snipers, artillery, infantry, and various planes and tanks and other instruments of destruction.
There are a few others, like Rynok, Kuporosonya, Chulkov, and some of the other ones along the river which can probably be pushed up one or so.

I agree Captain...suggestions?

[cairnswk]

....BTW the sector thingy at meat combine area kinda blocks it & mameyev. Perhaps do it transparently.

I had a good look at that jefjef, i wasn't happy with the transparent thing, it actually made the graphic worse.
So i've adjusted The Hill to ensure there is no doubt about what can attack what there

I see arty & AA in same regions. I'd not give a region both. At least not in a edge of map region.
Number of arty sites. Knock 2 off or add two. imo.

Not sure what you mean here and where you are referring to, can you expand that please.

Version 28a.
Changes include:
1. adjustments to the artillery direction bombardment indicator
2. in the xml, I plan on having each territory listed as eg. "Mamayev Hill Inf." so there is no confusion for players as to what territory is what in places where there is both infantry and other.
This has necessitated the renaming of some terts....
Art. A -> Sadvaya
Art. C -> Barrikady Woods
Art. B -> swaped with G 76th Div Front, territory renamed as Airfield.
There was an local unimportant airfield right next to the hospital but it couldn't be used for Gernan Airfield Base such as that at Pitomnik.
3. Punkts have been removed from G or R in front of tert names.

Hopefully we can get this gameplay wrapped up shortly.
I've tried to contact Saraith to determine if he is still interested in doing the xml, but he hasn't replied. so i'll try again.

Click image to enlarge.

[jefjef]

I was referring to Goemark & Russian 62nd having an arty and an AA but no biggy.

What do you think about dropping those artys? Having just 1 site in each sector?

[cairnswk]

I was referring to Goemark & Russian 62nd having an arty and an AA but no biggy.

What do you think about dropping those artys? Having just 1 site in each sector?

It would seem fair i guess, but i also think it is fair at present with two against one in each N-S sector.
Let's see what lt_oddball or others have to say!?

[lt_oddball]

It would seem fair i guess, but i also think it is fair at present with two against one in each N-S sector.
Let's see what lt_oddball or others have to say!?

I thought you'd plan for only the parallel to the river arty demarcation line ( and that the perpendicular line would be removed at the next update).

Like I said , either one is fine wrt the mentioned game aspect.

For "historic" reasons , there can be said something for both..
You will take away one of the dotted demarcation lines , don't you ?

Or you plan to make it "an arty in one sector (NSE orW) can only bombard targets in the next adjacent sector (N hits E & W, E hits N &r S, S hits E & W ) "
Also very good.
Even better.

The mamyev hill makes it a perfect natural hinge point (though historically..if some player has the hill top he could/should be rewarded with arty ability diagonally ...but that is not possible to xml and difficult to write in the legend..).

[cairnswk]

It would seem fair i guess, but i also think it is fair at present with two against one in each N-S sector.
Let's see what lt_oddball or others have to say!?

I thought you'd plan for only the parallel to the river arty demarcation line ( and that the perpendicular line would be removed at the next update).

Like I said , either one is fine wrt the mentioned game aspect.

For "historic" reasons , there can be said something for both..
You will take away one of the dotted demarcation lines , don't you ?

Or you plan to make it "an arty in one sector (NSE orW) can only bombard targets in the next adjacent sector (N hits E & W, E hits N &r S, S hits E & W ) "
Also very good.
Even better.

btw....the way the map is laid out, the compass points in that bombardment indicator are very close to the real thing.

I think to emulate the RL warfare, I'd prefer to stick with what is on the map now....i'm not in favour of W <-> N or S <-> E bombardment.

The mamyev hill makes it a perfect natural hinge point (though historically..if some player has the hill top he could/should be rewarded with arty ability diagonally ...but that is not possible to xml and difficult to write in the legend..).

Direction Bonuses
OK, how about we stop adding bits and pieces and other aspects and let's run with what is there now.
The map is well complicated enough now. I'd be happy to start looking at numbers for the exissting bonuses please.

[cairnswk]

I was thinking about placing some smoke on the map in some places, but i'm afeared it might be simply too much, and i've already spoken about not working any more stuff into the map.

[lt_oddball]

But what do you mean exactly by "artillery bombardment range W <--> S" ?
Arty in W sector can bombard only targets in S sector (and vice versa) ?
or arty in W and S sector can bombard all targets in W and S sectors ?


no smoke.
(why in first place ? having what game effect ? = indeed too much stuff on map)

[cairnswk]

But what do you mean exactly by "artillery bombardment range W <--> S" ?
Arty in W sector can bombard only targets in S sector (and vice versa) ?
or arty in W and S sector can bombard all targets in W and S sectors ?


no smoke.
(why in first place ? having what game effect ? = indeed too much stuff on map)

Thanks for no smoke.


Yes this ---> Arty in W sector can bombard only targets in S sector (and vice versa) ?

[jefjef]

ARTILLERY for every one. Bombard away. HE - Phosphorus - Smoke whatever. Why not be able to attack every other sector?

[cairnswk]

ARTILLERY for every one. Bombard away. HE - Phosphorus - Smoke whatever. Why not be able to attack every other sector?

OK. let's vote on it, and see wqhat the rest of the community feels about it.

[jefjef]

ARTILLERY for every one. Bombard away. HE - Phosphorus - Smoke whatever. Why not be able to attack every other sector?

OK. let's vote on it, and see wqhat the rest of the community feels about it.

Not necessary. My word is good enough.

Hey see what others say about 1 Arty site in each sector too.

[cairnswk]

ARTILLERY for every one. Bombard away. HE - Phosphorus - Smoke whatever. Why not be able to attack every other sector?

OK. let's vote on it, and see wqhat the rest of the community feels about it.

Not necessary. My word is good enough.

Hey see what others say about 1 Arty site in each sector too.

Too lat for the poll, sorry.

[ender516]

I just voted for "Every Other Sector" in the poll. I understand the idea behind limiting the range to match what the Nazis and Soviets would have done, but this isn't a reenactment, it's a game, and if the tides of war flow in a different way for me today than they did 67 years ago, I don't want to be thinking, "Gee, it's a shame I can't bombard that territory, but I should not have had to, because historically, it didn't change hands."

[cairnswk]

I just voted for "Every Other Sector" in the poll. I understand the idea behind limiting the range to match what the Nazis and Soviets would have done, but this isn't a reenactment, it's a game, and if the tides of war flow in a different way for me today than they did 67 years ago, I don't want to be thinking, "Gee, it's a shame I can't bombard that territory, but I should not have had to, because historically, it didn't change hands."

Mmmm...not sure if I understand that completely ender516, especially the part of the "this isn't a reenactment, it's a game"

Here's my argument for the W <> S & N<> E condition.

As i read it, If what you stated was everyone's logic, then I might as well place this battle across the Hudson in NY and have your "gameplay".

A reminder that the map was requested as the Battle of Stalingrad, not "The Battle of a similar representation of what Stalingrad might have been 67 yrs later if it was planned by ender516 (or any other player) as a game".

Yes in the actual battle i'm sure the opposing sides would have thought about bombarding themselves in the north from the west if they were germans and also about bombarding themselves in the east from the south on the russian side of the river bank, but would they have wanted to if their troopos were in those locations.

The overall idea of the map is to re-create the original battle as close as possible within the constraints of what the XML engine will allow.

And if we don't put close to the original battle conditions on the map then we haven't created the Battle of Stalingrad.

[jefjef]

Artillery can and was redirected as needed. For gameplay I voted that they can attack all other sectors.

As for the Russians. They sent waves of infantry ahead of tanks thru mine fields and Germans to save the tanks. They shot their troops for retreating (especially in this battle) AND they also bombarded where ever the enemy was whether or not Russian infantry got shelled too.

[lt_oddball]

Artillery can and was redirected as needed. For gameplay I voted that they can attack all other sectors.

As for the Russians. they also bombarded where ever the enemy was whether or not Russian infantry got shelled too.

Technically a regiment can place artillery ( heavy mortar would not range that far <and accurate> as per what we discuss here) within an hour and start bombing away on any grid position...yes.
But one or five or twenty artillery pieces will have no complete devastating effect on targeted units that far (one corner to other corner of this map) away (who may have rubble shelters anyway).
Especially on a front that is mobile (say troops from E advance to enemy in W on this map outside the city ) you won't be able to arrange arty in masses and concentrate all that bombardment fire in an appointed sector...when the front is mobile.

So the only way to simulate that incredible devastating effect on a map such as this is when a front is static in which both parties have more than sufficient time to call for all the arty capacity in the area to be placed and arranged in proper defendable positions far from any assault threat and then combine the artillery and blast away at defined spots .
Then, you can recreate the effect of bombarding complete divisions (who will have bunkers or fortifications or shelters built in the area) to smithereens.

The river line and now chosen the city rubble line are a good line of "stable" front behind which one arty bombards the other on the other side.

The perpendicular line on it to divide the sector is to allow for advancing from one sector to the other when a pesky player annoys you by only bombarding you from a far away safe place in one sector.
And in RL to recreate the near impossibility to have an arty spotter of an arty unit in the SE corner be able to spot targets in the NW corner of the map (with all the snipers, troops in center, fights going in waves to and fro).
So no diagonal bombarding.

[jefjef]

Well which ever way is decided I don't think it will really impact game play. Arty will be a primary target of the planes anyway.

Might be worth considering not having arty attacked by planes for game play reasons.

[cairnswk]

Click image to enlarge.

Artillery can and was redirected as needed. For gameplay I voted that they can attack all other sectors.

As for the Russians. they also bombarded where ever the enemy was whether or not Russian infantry got shelled too.

Technically a regiment can place artillery ( heavy mortar would not range that far <and accurate> as per what we discuss here) within an hour and start bombing away on any grid position...yes.
But one or five or twenty artillery pieces will have no complete devastating effect on targeted units that far (one corner to other corner of this map) away (who may have rubble shelters anyway).
Especially on a front that is mobile (say troops from E advance to enemy in W on this map outside the city ) you won't be able to arrange arty in masses and concentrate all that bombardment fire in an appointed sector...when the front is mobile.

So the only way to simulate that incredible devastating effect on a map such as this is when a front is static in which both parties have more than sufficient time to call for all the arty capacity in the area to be placed and arranged in proper defendable positions far from any assault threat and then combine the artillery and blast away at defined spots .
Then, you can recreate the effect of bombarding complete divisions (who will have bunkers or fortifications or shelters built in the area) to smithereens.

The river line and now chosen the city rubble line are a good line of "stable" front behind which one arty bombards the other on the other side.

The perpendicular line on it to divide the sector is to allow for advancing from one sector to the other when a pesky player annoys you by only bombarding you from a far away safe place in one sector.
And in RL to recreate the near impossibility to have an arty spotter of an arty unit in the SE corner be able to spot targets in the NW corner of the map (with all the snipers, troops in center, fights going in waves to and fro).
So no diagonal bombarding.

Good argument.

Well which ever way is decided I don't think it will really impact game play. Arty will be a primary target of the planes anyway.

Might be worth considering not having arty attacked by planes for game play reasons.

That is possibly true, but the artillery can be reinforced from armour and infantry in all cases except at the airfield.

Does infantry in the same territory qualify as bordering? I think we need to discuss this one.

[jefjef]

Why wouldn't infantry in same tert be considered bordering?

[cairnswk]

Why wouldn't infantry in same tert be considered bordering?

Just looking at whether players might interpret infantry in the same territory as armour or other as being bordering.
Traditionally there would be a "black" border or similar between two items.
That's all.

If that's the case, then the armour can assault airfield and rearm the artillery there.

So i don't think that the fact that the artillery can be easily re-armed can be good enough reason to remove the plane bombardment of artillery.

[jefjef]

Why wouldn't infantry in same tert be considered bordering?

Just looking at whether players might interpret infantry in the same territory as armour or other as being bordering.
Traditionally there would be a "black" border or similar between two items.
That's all.

If that's the case, then the armour can assault airfield and rearm the artillery there.

So i don't think that the fact that the artillery can be easily re-armed can be good enough reason to remove the plane bombardment of artillery.

What? I thought only HQ can assault airfield. Or did that change?

I see armor in Germ HQ 1. Does that have some significance?

[cairnswk]

Why wouldn't infantry in same tert be considered bordering?

Just looking at whether players might interpret infantry in the same territory as armour or other as being bordering.
Traditionally there would be a "black" border or similar between two items.
That's all.

If that's the case, then the armour can assault airfield and rearm the artillery there.

So i don't think that the fact that the artillery can be easily re-armed can be good enough reason to remove the plane bombardment of artillery.

What? I thought only HQ can assault airfield. Or did that change?

I see armor in Germ HQ 1. Does that have some significance?

Mmmm. You are having been mistaken i think....
Are there any planes on the Airfield territory (beside the Hospital)?
What does the legend say?
Armour in German HQ 1 means it can be assaulted by neighbouring G 100th Div Arm. & G 76th Div Rear Arm. and vice versa.

[jefjef]

Why wouldn't infantry in same tert be considered bordering?

Just looking at whether players might interpret infantry in the same territory as armour or other as being bordering.
Traditionally there would be a "black" border or similar between two items.
That's all.

If that's the case, then the armour can assault airfield and rearm the artillery there.

So i don't think that the fact that the artillery can be easily re-armed can be good enough reason to remove the plane bombardment of artillery.

What? I thought only HQ can assault airfield. Or did that change?

I see armor in Germ HQ 1. Does that have some significance?

Mmmm. You are having been mistaken i think....
Are there any planes on the Airfield territory (beside the Hospital)?
What does the legend say?
Armour in German HQ 1 means it can be assaulted by neighbouring G 100th Div Arm. & G 76th Div Rear Arm. and vice versa.

MMM I thought you were speaking of the HQ & the planes. I see the airfield tert you speak of now.

[ender516]

I just voted for "Every Other Sector" in the poll. I understand the idea behind limiting the range to match what the Nazis and Soviets would have done, but this isn't a reenactment, it's a game, and if the tides of war flow in a different way for me today than they did 67 years ago, I don't want to be thinking, "Gee, it's a shame I can't bombard that territory, but I should not have had to, because historically, it didn't change hands."

Mmmm...not sure if I understand that completely ender516, especially the part of the "this isn't a reenactment, it's a game"

Here's my argument for the W <> S & N<> E condition.

As i read it, If what you stated was everyone's logic, then I might as well place this battle across the Hudson in NY and have your "gameplay".

A reminder that the map was requested as the Battle of Stalingrad, not "The Battle of a similar representation of what Stalingrad might have been 67 yrs later if it was planned by ender516 (or any other player) as a game".

Yes in the actual battle i'm sure the opposing sides would have thought about bombarding themselves in the north from the west if they were germans and also about bombarding themselves in the east from the south on the russian side of the river bank, but would they have wanted to if their troopos were in those locations.

The overall idea of the map is to re-create the original battle as close as possible within the constraints of what the XML engine will allow.

And if we don't put close to the original battle conditions on the map then we haven't created the Battle of Stalingrad.

My comment about a reenactment was intended to refer to those folks who have a lot of fun going through all the stages of a battle just as it originally happened: the same initial troop placements, the same advances and retreats, the same gains and losses. Clearly we won't be doing that here: random.org will start things in different places and drive them in different ways, as will the tactics and strategy of the players, which will differ from that of the real life officers.

Obviously no officer would bombard his own troops, given an alternative. I'm suggesting, though, that, for example, should the troops in W advance into S, capturing an artillery emplacement, they should be able then to bombard from S to E.

I agree that the original battle conditions are important and you have done a stellar job of putting them on this map. Troop locations, impassables, and the distances over which weaponry can be applied are elements that can be recreated here, but restricting the azimuth of the guns would be detrimental to game play. However, lt_oddball's arguments are sound regarding diagonal bombardments (and the diagonal of a square is approximately 41% longer than its side), so I am changing my vote to "Other Suggestion" and proposing each sector should be able to bombard adjacent sectors, but not the diagonal one: W bombards N or S ; N bombards W or E; E bombards N or S; S bombards W or E.

A small problem with this is that we have in a sense limited the range more in the diagonal than we have in the other directions. I would like to be able to suggest that a central sector be carved out which could be bombarded from any direction.

Imagine setting a drawing compass with its point on one corner of a square, and its pencil point on an adjacent corner, then drawing a quarter circle reaching to the other adjacent corner. The diagonal corner is outside this quarter circle. If you repeat this at each corner, there is an area in the centre which is inside all the quarter circles.

On this map, this area might include Mameyev Hill, the Refinery, the Meat Combine, and the Lazur Chemical Plant. However, I recognize the difficulty in showing this sort of thing on the map (it would spoil that very neat NSEW icon) and the limited value it might have, not to mention the real life difficulty in bombarding a high point like the Hill from below, so I will understand if you take a pass on this idea.