Ivanov

This is a very good point that I haven't considered. Now the question is what to do in order to discourage the use of wolfpacks against the surface vessels of RN or USN in big, head on, naval battles as on the WWI example presented few posts before? I think that further reducing of striking punch of the U-boots after the move would be a sollution. Sure, the Allied player may try to block subs in the ports, but the sollution would be to bring some airpower agains the blocking ships. A loss of a battleship or a a cruiser due to the aircraft is much more severe than loss of let's say 30MMP due to the sub action. The German player may also bring some of his surface vessels and by achieving local superiority cause a serious damage to the dispersed Allied vessels. Also regarding the change introduced in the patch 1.02. It is a really good improvement but it actually increases the sub potential. If the sub is attacking a warship that didn't move in the previous turn, it's not really an ambush situation but an open clash, were both sides want it and are prepared for it. Sub ambushes a surface vessel when a suprise is achieved and I'm sure that 90% of the 15% RN ships sunken by the subs, mentioned by Xwormwood, were not knowing what actually hit them:) An example how the current system works in the actual game. A battleship bumps accidentally into a sub, taking some small damage and giving the sub a an opportunity to hit it hard it the next turn. Usually the warships operate in the battlegroups, so after bumping into a sub the Allied player has an opportunity to attack the sub with another vessel. He brings a destroyer which attacks the sub. The subs escapes evading the damage but losses the opportunity to strike the battleship in the next turn. So the BB stays relatively undamaged, but the sub commander may simply try do bump into the Allied ships in the next turn, due to the relative impunity of such a move and the striking power of the subs after they are moved. If there are few subs around, they can completely paralize the Allied battlegroup, even if it consists of destroyers and carriers. Due to that the Allied player will always take some serious damage, the U-boots - not necessarily. If the Royal Navy having 8:1 superiority feared a single sub, it wouldn't deserve a title of the Queen of the Seas

There were two major naval clashes during the current game I play, in both cases the Germans lost more wessels, but they should have end in the slaughter, due to the superiority of the British navy. The English had about 5 upgraded battleships, 3 upgraded cruisers and 4 destroyers and one seaplane carrier in place, while my opponent sent each time 2 battleships, 3 cruisers and 3-4 damn subs, that were screening his force, preventing it's total destruction. It was a wise tactic, considering the current sub abilities in the game, but has nothing to do with the realities of the war... I know that the introduction of the ambush mode is a bit controversial and it would be technicaly difficult to implement, but the bottom line is that the combat pottential of the wretched subs should be limited:mad: And yes, we will never surrender!

As mentioned in the previous posts, the principal taks of subs is attacking convoys, not surface ships. So it would be players choice if to use the sub in this role ( set to hunt mode ) or set it to ambush hoping to encounter a valuable target, but risking a confrontation with enemy's destroyers and disabling it's anti convoy characteristics. An accidental bump into a sub set to a different mode than ambush would just cause the ship to stop. Let's imagine that both sides were not ready to engage and they would need to decide if to fight or flight, what would occur during the next turn. A U-boot commander can then set his wessel to ambush and move away hoping that the enemy will bump into it during the chase. A introduction of the third sub mode would be a step in order to limit the U-boots current versatility and it would force the player to take decisions as to in which role use his submarines.

A special "ambush" mode would represent an intention of a player ( U-boot crew ) of attacking some valuable and vulnerable enemy surface wessels. It would be a matter of choice between the available modes. Accidental bumping into a sub represents just a random encounter, during which in the real life situation U-boot crew would rather try to escape than to engage.

The screenshoot from the WWII campaign isn't maybe the most fortunate example. Obviously placing a carrier next to the sub is not a good idea. It was just an experiment from my side, to see how difficult it would be to destroy a fully surrounded sub. In the Storm Over Europe campaign Germans start with the sub tech level 1 while the UK antisub tech is on the level "0", so fighting the U-boots is realy difficult. An example from another, this time WWI game. The warships of the Kaiserliche Marine confronting the might of British navy right on it's doorstep. In the real conditions it would be a suicidal move, but because the surface warships are screened by the subs ( not upgraded ), the battle ends inconclusive. The Germans lost one battleship but managed to withdraw, damaging heavily the English fleet. No sub was sunk, despite the presence of a considerable destroyer force.

This is a great idea - introduction of a third sub mode - "ambush". It would allow subs to cause a considerable damage to the warships that would bump into them. Ambush is the only real life situation when subs were able to sink a surface warship. I agree with the point about the coordination between the subs and the surface wessels. Let's just imagine a submarine taking part in a naval battle trying to engage enemy battleships with it's only cannon... The thing is that I don't see subs less efective against the surface wessels than other type of warships. About using destroyer battlegroups. A real life example from a game that I currently play against Abukede ( I hope we still play it ) One of my destroyers bumped into a sub. I didn't attack it fearing that it could escape. Four out of five British destroyers were based near Scapa Flow so I brought all of them, plus other nearby warships, just in order to surround the sub and prevent it's escape. Obviously during his turn, my opponent attacked the carrier, damaging it heavily. It took my three turns to sink the sub, using 80% of my Royal Navy. This example proves the point that subs are extremely difficult to destroy, which is correct. It other circumstances, considering the size of the map, a destroyer battlegroup consisting of 2-3 ships may only scare off the U-boots, but not destroy them. That kind of impunity along with the sub effectiveness against the surface wessels, tempts German player into head on confrontation against the enemy fleet, which I think should not happen. So the perfect sollution would be making subs difficult to detect and to destroy ( as it is done now in the game ) and introduction a new "ambush" mode that would be the only effective way of engaging the enemy surface warships.

Hi everyone, After completing few campaigns of SC2 The Great War, one the thoughts I would like to share with you is in regards of the combat performance of the submarines. Of course in most of the cases, we would be talking here about the German U-boots, because they formed the backbone of Kaiserliche Marine or the Kriegsmarine. I like the changes introduced in the patch 1.02. The U-boots are really difficult to detect and destroy, making them really effective weapon against the Allied convoys. So far so good, historically they were used to attack the merchant shipping and were extremely difficult to counter and eradicate, due to the stealth nature of their tactics. What I see as the big minus in the game, is that the submarines are turned into some kind of super-weapon, which is also very effective against the warships of the Allied navies. With a bit of luck in the tech research, the German player can easily unleash his U-boots against the Royal Navy and at least achieve some kind of draw in the fight agains the theoriticaly much stronger opponent. Unless the Allied player don't have some considerable advantage in the antisub tech, it is very difficult to destroy the subs, but they can cause a considerable damage to his fleet. We have to remember that U-boots are much cheaper to replace than the surface ships, so the loos of few of them is not the same for German navy, as the loos of few battleships or carriers to let's say Royal Navy. In the real life, German submarines were avoiding at all costs the open confrontation with the Allied warships, focusing on attacking of the defenceless merchant ships. When Allied navies introduced more numerous and advanced warships to counter the U-boots, the Battle Of the Atlantic was lost by the Germans. So my final conclusion is, that it would make the game more realistic, if the combat performance of the subs against the warships, would be keep at the minimum and the tech reasearch improved just their anti-convoy and stealth performance. I'm affraid, that in the real life, the super-subs as represented in the game, would starve Britan to death and destroy Royal Navy, winning the war on the seas. The consequences of it to the world could be really disastrous... Ps. I would like to thank everyone who is responsable for the creation of this wonderful game which is making my life better, happier and more fulfilled... Thank you all.

I agree that the German panzer formations were better ballanced than the Soviet ones. They had also more infantry, so along with more recon units and better communication due to the higher number of radio sets, it gave them better tactical flexibility. The Soviet tank corps of more than 1000 tanks mentioned above, was a totaly failed concept. They were way to heavy and impossible to operate on the mobile battlefield. The number of tanks made them also nearly impossible to refuel, a point that you mention in regards of the German panzer corps. The actual Soviet tank armies from the years 1942-45 had never more than 500 tanks, but they still lacked the infantry. In regards to SC, the heavy tanks tech is I think another necessary simplification. For example Panther tank was lighter than the Tiger but more advanced. The Guderians 2nd Panzer Group from the operation Barbarossa had 5 panzer, 3.5 motorized, 1 cavlary and 6 ( one in the reserve ) infantry divisions. So there were probably more horses in it's ranks than the motorized vehicles. I think that the more appropiate tech category for the SC2 would be a "mechanized warfare" not the "heavy tanks".

There is a constant controversy about the unit size in the game. The best sollution for Storm Over Europe campaign, would be to make it the corps/division scale, instead of army/corps. From the other hand if the scale was changed, there would be much more units involved in the game... I think sometimes the historical accuracy has to be sacrificed for the sake of playability... During the Operation Barbarossa Wehrmacht fielded four Panzer Groups, each one of them having various structure, consisting of panzer, motorized and infantry divisions. On the other side of the front, the Soviets did not deploy any Tank Armies. The main mechanized operational unit of the Red Army in 1941, was so called mechanized corps. Each one of them have identical structure of two tank divisions ( 375 tank each ), one motorized division ( 275 tanks - the German counterpart had no tanks ), independent motocycle regiment, anti tank battalion and other support units. In theory each Soviet "motorized corps" had 1031 tanks, more than any of German panzer groups. The most numerous 2 Panzer Group, led by Guderian, had 994 tanks. Of course most of Red Army units were in the process of reorganization and re-eguipping and only three of the mechanized corps, were close to the paper strenght. Let's not forget that there were twenty one mechanized corps in the Western Soviet Union on 22nd of June of 1941, against only four German Panzer Groups. Not to mention that they fielded around 1600 T 34 and KV 1 tanks, which outclassed any German tank of that time. After disastrous losses during first few months of Operation Barbarossa, the main Soviet tank unit was... a brigade. During the winter counter-offensive of 1941/42, the Red Army didn't fied any tank divisions nor tank corps. So getting to the point, representing Soviet units of 1941 as Tank Armies is historically incorrect, but from the other hand I don't think that it does any harm to the game playability. And what about the Allied armoured units? There were no "tank armies" nor "tank corps" in the armed forces of the Westen Allies. So what are these units? Tank divisions? Once again, the game has to be based on the generalization and simplification. It's worth mentioning here, that prior to the Operation Barbarossa, in order to double the number of Panzer Divisions, Hitler ordered to disband second panzer brigade in each of the existing divisions. As a result, the number of tanks in German panzer division during Barbarossa was half of the number from the time of Polish and French campaigns. So as we see, the unit structure was changing during the course of the war and it would be impossible to reflect it in the game of such a scale as SC2. Here a structure of German Panzer Division of 1939: And a Panzer Division from 1941:

Ok, thank you Bill.

For some reason I cannot attach another image, but the supply value for the Russian unit according to the the "S" key should be at 6. The attacking A-W units have their supply at 6 aswell.

Hi everyone, One of the games I am currently playing is the "Call to arms" campaign and I am having huge problems with the supply of my Russian units in Galicia. At some stage their supply value went down to 2-3 ( their were not cut off and there was HQ unit next to them ). I had to withdraw them next to Lutsk and Rovno, but their supply is still at 4 now. When I check the supply with the "S" key it shows me different values than the actual ones. The attacking me A-W units have their supply at 6. Is there something I am doing incorrectly because I don't remember having such a problems in the previous version of the game? The actual supply value of the unit:

Hi Ev! I'm not sure that inadequate equipment and poor leadership fully explains the fact, that the Italian forces were often simply melting away, when confronted by numerically inferior British forces, for example during the Operation Compass in 1940. Italian army wasn't able to break on it's own the resistance of Greece, which in this game is a minor country. Certain branches of the Italian armed forces like Regia Aeronautica or Bersaglieri were certainly up to the task, no doubt about that. But I think that some extra penalty, reflecting surrendering Italian troops, that didn't want to die in the name of Duce, could spice up the game a bit:)

That is a great and fresh idea! I think that in that kind of scenario the German National Morale should be set really low aswell and strategic bombings should affect it greatly as the Unrestricted Naval Warfare affects UK NM in IWW campaigns. And what about let's say "Festung Europa" campaign, that would start in the early 1943 that would represent last possible attempts of winning the war by Germany? Starting with the Kharkov counteroffensive and German attack agains weak US forces in Tunisia. It would be kind of last chance roll of dice, similar to the "Fate Of Nations" IWW campaign. The important features affecting NM would be the Allied strategic bombing and the submarine warfare waged by Germany as the last attempt in order to starve Britain?

I'm not sure if giving some experience bonus to the Germans would be historicaly acurate, as there were many low quality units within Wehrmacht aswell, and it was the superior tactics that was a decisive factor in the early war blitzkrieg-victories. French weakness is well represented by the rapid fall of the National Morale of that country. What I think would be worth doing, is penalizing Italian units that have lower morale, with some additional stenght loss, after each combat that would result in taking caualities or withdrawl. The additional strenght loose would be an acurate representation of some number of Italian troops that surrenederd to the enemy. This penalty may affect only regular infantry units. Italian tanks or special forces shouldn't be affected by it.

The book looks really promising:) Thanks for mentioning it. Another thing that could help to keep the economic balance right is the relocation of Soviet industry to the Uralus. After some time the new industry should be able to outproduce not only the lost Ukrainian mines, but the whole MMPs lost in the Westren Soviet Union. It would be logical due to the fact that the relocated factories were 100% war effort oriented and they were more efficient than the pre war industry due to the simplification of the production process.

I totally agree with EV, that the influence of air power should be limited or represented in a bit different way. It should be more indirect, affecting supply values, limit the movement or unit readiness. Aviation being able to obliterate completely in one turn a tank army or any other big unit, just don't seem to be right. It's worth mentioning here a Soviet study from 1942 regarding efficiciency of the attack aircraft in destroying ground targets. During those tests, three highly experienced Ilyushin Il-2 pilots, were attempting to hit captured German tanks and assault guns. Obviously during those tests the anti aircraft fire was absent, the targets were static and unmasked in the open field. Under the real combat conditions it would be much more difficult to spot and hit targets and the accuracy would be lower. Out of 300 cannon and 1290 machine gun projectiles fired, only 9 hits were scored. Even when the tank was hit, in most of the cases, it didn't mean that the armour was penetrated or any kind of serious damage was done. A theoretical study indicated that Il-2 would need to fly 4-5 missions in order to destroy one medium PzKpw III or IV tank and 12 missions in order to destroy a Stug III assault gun. In another test, also performed under perfect, "clean" conditions, the bombing accuracy was 4.3%. In another words, in order to achieve 50% probability of hitting a targed, at least 12 combat missions were needed. The times when a single missile, fired from an aircraft or an attack helicopter, could destroy a tank or any other target, were at least 30 years ahead. Appart from the tactical aspects of the combat, I think that the economics has decided the outcome of the game. Al few times mentioned that he was getting around 1000 MMPs per turn. I remember playing some scenarios of Patton Drives East, with US having level 5 of industrial tech and getting that amount of MMPs... But fully mobilized US is not the same as Germany, even if it is exploiting resources of the whole conquered Europe and parts of Soviet Union... I think that it would actualy take years, until German war machine could fully benefit from the resources of let's say Soviet Union. Just think of the logistic. In my opinion the resources value should grow slower and their efficiency should depend for example on the infrastructure tech level achieved.

I know:) I just made a general digression about National Morale in regards of WWII.

In my opinion the Order No.227 had some important practical implications, for example the creation of "blocking detachments" mentioned above, which changed the performance of the Soviet troops. Red Army was a demoralised and incoherent organization which reflected well the condition of the whole Soviet state and society, which without terror aparatus and coercion would fall appart, just the way Hitler was predicting it. Hundreds of tanks and airplanes lost during the first months of the war, were not destroyed by the Germans, but simply left behind by retreating in panic troops who didn't know how or had no intention to use them against the enemy. It is a generalization and oversimplification, but I though a "not step back order" event would be a cool thing in the game. Stalingrad Battle had a huge importance for both sides from the propaganda point of view, but we cannot forget that is outcome wasn't decided in the ruins of the city, but on the frozen steps around it, when operations Uranus and Saturn were unleashed.

Red Army was actually counterattacking all the time since the commencement of Operation Barbarossa and it was one of the reasons it suffered such a tremendous casualties. 1942 also began with Soviet offensive actions which culminated in the Second Battle of Kharkov, a crushing defeat of Red Army after which Fall Blau got its momentum.

I think "Not a Step Back" directive had huge impact on the fighting performance of the Red Army and subsequently led to it's victory in the Battle of Stalingrad. How it could be reflected in the game? I see two possible ways. First, a simpler one - after deployment of Siberian troops and loss of some important cities ( e.g Moscow or Kiev, Kharkov and Rostov ), Stalin simply automatically issues the directive which increases morale and readiness of the Soviet units. Second possible way in which it may be done, would be a decision event for the Red Army. In exchange of some MMP penalty, Soviet player deploys some NKVD detachments, actual units which placed next to the combat units, would increase their parameters but cause them rather to stay in place and die, preventing their retreat. The second option is of course more interestig but it would probably require some major changes in the games engine.

I don't thing that the fall National Morale should be to relevant in case of WWII. If the "fall of morale" certainly lead to the capitulation of France, I doubt tha anything but total military defeat could cause the colapse of Great Britain and especially Soviet Union. During first few months of Operation Barbarossa Soviets took heavier casualties and lost more territory than the Tsarist Russia during the whole First World War, yet they kept on fighting. As long as comrade Stalin and his terror apparatus were alive and well, dozens of NKVD divisions behind the frontline were the efficient remedy for the fall of the morale of citizens and soldiers of the Soviet Union. By the way, I think that there should be some event decision for the Soviet Union in 1942 regarding "Not a Step Back" directive of Stalin, that would affect the combat performance of the Red Army.

The Tiger tank shouldn't in my opinion, win the prize for the best tank of WWII. The most famous and most feared ( also due to the German wartime propaganda ) - maybe. The incredible kill ratio achieved by Tiger crews, was also due to the fact that from 1943 onwards, German army was waging mostly a defensive warfare, so equiped with formidable 88mm cannon and protected by the thick armour, Tigers were often operating form ambushes against more numerous, but much lighter and not as well armed hordes of T-34's or Shermans. Due to the extremelly difficult tactical and strategic situation that Wehrmacht and Waffen SS had to face during the last years of the war, Panzer VI´s proved to be most of all an excellent defensive weapon. For offensive actions, it simply lacked mobility and speed. I agree with EV that Panther tank was much more diverse, modern and it can be seen as the actual predecessor of modern main battle tanks. We cannot forget here that Panther developement was inspired by nimble and versatile T 34, which suprised Wehrmacht so much in 1941, during the first months of Operation Barbarossa. I see that the it got really quiet here since the new patch has been released...

First Tigers went prematurely into action in late 1942 near Leningrad, however it was only an experimental use under preassure from Hitler, and there were never more than few ready for action tanks in a company size unit. They really debuted in 1943 and Tiger II in mid 1944. Me 262 was ready for operational use in combat units in 1944 aswell. The latest versions on Panter tank were introduced in the second half of the same year, so the weapon systems developement during II World War certailny didn't end in 1942.

Comrade Ivanov won't be an easy prey :mad: So is the game with Al already finished?