AOD v real Axis Strategies

[mcaryf1]

I have been thinking about the real Axis Strategies with which they tried to win the war and what impact they would have in AOD. Sadly the answer is that even if they were implemented successfully they would not contribute much to a win in AOD.

Versus the UK and US the Axis strategy was "The Tonnage War". By sinking MS and Tankers faster than the Allies could replace them they would prevent the US from deploying its strength in Europe whilst they brought the UK and its Empire to their knees through shortages of critical materials. The AOD convoy system recognises the losses of goods in transit but not the long term impact of capacity loss.

Versus the USSR in 1941 the Axis initially attempted to destroy the Soviet field armies but belatedly switched to an all out attempt to take Moscow which they thought/hoped would promote a collapse of the Soviet government. This was a huge risk as it exposed the German armies to the ravages of winter much more than would have been the case if they had switched to a more defensive posture. We shall never know whether Hitler's belated gamble to take Moscow might have succeeded in toppling Stalin but we know for sure in playing AOD that the only result will be a smooth transfer of the administration to Sverdlovsk and a miserly 25 MPP booty with the sure and certain knowledge that Winter havoc will be wrought on Axis forces regardless of the outcome at Moscow.

Having failed to take Moscow in 1941 the Axis strategy in 1942 was to go for the Soviet oilfields as being another way to knock the USSR out of the war as well as easing the oil shortage in Axis countries. The grand plan was to conquer the Soviet Union up to what they called the AA Line running from Archangel to Astrkhan. In AOD the Soviet oilfields are represented by one field at Maikop and another at Baku. In fact the Soviet oil field at Maikop provided about 1/3 of the output compared to the field at Grozny which in turn provided about 1/3 of the fields at Baku. The total Soviet output from all 3 fields would have been approximately 4 times that of the Romanian fields at Ploesti. As it is in AOD the loss of two oilfields giving a reduction of 60 MPP per turn is distressing but not game changing. Even if there were four fields the loss of 120 MPP would be a hard blow but not quite catastrophic because the impact of oil shortages on many military aspects is not well modelled in Strategic Command.

I have written this post partly because I am keen that SC3 does recognise what might have been war winning strategies and provides appropriate rewards for players who successfully execute them although of course the Allies too should have opportunities to counter them.

The second reason is because I am currently working on modifications for AOD scenarios that will address some of these issues and I am interested in comments on my possible approach.

First I am providing an option for players to include The Tonnage War. I have not found any very good way to account for results between turns so I cannot accumulate Tonnage War losses between turns or even within turns and present a summary bill. Thus during each turn the Allied player might be presented with 3 or 4 bills by way of Decision Events to pay for MS and Tankers assumed sunk in the different oceans of the world. A key feature of Doenitz's strategy was that it did not matter where ships were sunk as it was the total capacity he was reducing. In my implementation if the Axis (or Allies in Japanese waters) has more than a certain number of raiders the other player gets both financial and supply penalties. There is also a sanction of strength point and morale losses if the player fails to accept the DE cost. If anybody has a better idea as to how to represent the Tonnage War with a real opportunity for the Axis (or Allies v Japan) to win via it I would be interested to hear of it.

With respect to taking Moscow I would like to make that a more significant benefit for the Axis but I do not want to cause the fight with the USSR to effectively finish then. I am currently considering whether to make the Axis Winter losses dependent on whether Moscow has fallen or not. Thus if it has fallen before the losses would be triggered then the trigger fails. The logic is that the Soviets would be so disrupted and disheartened by the fall of Moscow that the Axis has enough time and energy to counter the effects of Winter. This approach recognises the gamble the Axis really made and rewards or punishes the player depending on their success or failure in pulling it off.

With respect to the oilfields, first I am including 2 extra fields to match reality and these are what the USSR gets to pay for its contribution to Tonnage War losses if the Allies perform at average levels. However, I would also like to create an additional impact on the general supply net for the USSR if the fields are all lost. I am currently testing the impact of creating a separate country to represent several of the Republics in the USSR. In particular the Ukraine and all those in the Southern Caucuses such as modern day Chechnya and Azerbaijan which encompass Grozny and Baku. I then allocate those HQ's to this new country which were actually Marshalls or Generals born in these areas e.g. Voroshilov who came from The Ukraine. I then have the USSR start with 8 x HQ on the map or in production of which 4 are from the new country. The effect of this will be that these HQs and their supply nets will disappear if the Axis captures Baku which is the capital.

This way of disrupting Soviet supply is not ideal because it also disrupts the general working of HQs since the new country ones cannot enhance normal Soviet units although they do contribute to the supply net. I would be interested to know of any other suggestions for increasing the impact of oil shortages in the current game.

Having oil as a discrete resource is one of the things I am looking forward to in SC3 but I am hoping to at least improve the current situation before then.

Regards

[Bill101]

Hi Mike

Good post, and here are a few off the cuff suggestions for things that are possible with the engine.

The disruption caused by the loss of the oilfields could be to implement Supply scripts affecting all Soviet Industrial Centers, Capitals, and Primary Supply Centers when they fall.

Not so much a long term effect but at least to cause some temporary disruption.

The penalties for having Moscow fall could be increased with the use of a National Morale bonus to Germany, a penalty to the USSR, coupled perhaps with a Strength script to reduce Soviet morale temporarily. Again, Supply scripts like in the above could be used too to reduce Soviet supply overall temporarily to reflect the disruption caused by the fall of Moscow.

For the tonnage war, this is a bit harder but scripts could be used for the presence of naval units to trigger National Morale losses for the target nation, e.g. the UK.

Bill

[Bill101]

I have been thinking about the real Axis Strategies with which they tried to win the war and what impact they would have in AOD. Sadly the answer is that even if they were implemented successfully they would not contribute much to a win in AOD.

Versus the UK and US the Axis strategy was "The Tonnage War". By sinking MS and Tankers faster than the Allies could replace them they would prevent the US from deploying its strength in Europe whilst they brought the UK and its Empire to their knees through shortages of critical materials. The AOD convoy system recognises the losses of goods in transit but not the long term impact of capacity loss.

Versus the USSR in 1941 the Axis initially attempted to destroy the Soviet field armies but belatedly switched to an all out attempt to take Moscow which they thought/hoped would promote a collapse of the Soviet government. This was a huge risk as it exposed the German armies to the ravages of winter much more than would have been the case if they had switched to a more defensive posture. We shall never know whether Hitler's belated gamble to take Moscow might have succeeded in toppling Stalin but we know for sure in playing AOD that the only result will be a smooth transfer of the administration to Sverdlovsk and a miserly 25 MPP booty with the sure and certain knowledge that Winter havoc will be wrought on Axis forces regardless of the outcome at Moscow.

Having failed to take Moscow in 1941 the Axis strategy in 1942 was to go for the Soviet oilfields as being another way to knock the USSR out of the war as well as easing the oil shortage in Axis countries. The grand plan was to conquer the Soviet Union up to what they called the AA Line running from Archangel to Astrkhan. In AOD the Soviet oilfields are represented by one field at Maikop and another at Baku. In fact the Soviet oil field at Maikop provided about 1/3 of the output compared to the field at Grozny which in turn provided about 1/3 of the fields at Baku. The total Soviet output from all 3 fields would have been approximately 4 times that of the Romanian fields at Ploesti. As it is in AOD the loss of two oilfields giving a reduction of 60 MPP per turn is distressing but not game changing. Even if there were four fields the loss of 120 MPP would be a hard blow but not quite catastrophic because the impact of oil shortages on many military aspects is not well modelled in Strategic Command.

I have written this post partly because I am keen that SC3 does recognise what might have been war winning strategies and provides appropriate rewards for players who successfully execute them although of course the Allies too should have opportunities to counter them.

The second reason is because I am currently working on modifications for AOD scenarios that will address some of these issues and I am interested in comments on my possible approach.

First I am providing an option for players to include The Tonnage War. I have not found any very good way to account for results between turns so I cannot accumulate Tonnage War losses between turns or even within turns and present a summary bill. Thus during each turn the Allied player might be presented with 3 or 4 bills by way of Decision Events to pay for MS and Tankers assumed sunk in the different oceans of the world. A key feature of Doenitz's strategy was that it did not matter where ships were sunk as it was the total capacity he was reducing. In my implementation if the Axis (or Allies in Japanese waters) has more than a certain number of raiders the other player gets both financial and supply penalties. There is also a sanction of strength point and morale losses if the player fails to accept the DE cost. If anybody has a better idea as to how to represent the Tonnage War with a real opportunity for the Axis (or Allies v Japan) to win via it I would be interested to hear of it.

With respect to taking Moscow I would like to make that a more significant benefit for the Axis but I do not want to cause the fight with the USSR to effectively finish then. I am currently considering whether to make the Axis Winter losses dependent on whether Moscow has fallen or not. Thus if it has fallen before the losses would be triggered then the trigger fails. The logic is that the Soviets would be so disrupted and disheartened by the fall of Moscow that the Axis has enough time and energy to counter the effects of Winter. This approach recognises the gamble the Axis really made and rewards or punishes the player depending on their success or failure in pulling it off.

With respect to the oilfields, first I am including 2 extra fields to match reality and these are what the USSR gets to pay for its contribution to Tonnage War losses if the Allies perform at average levels. However, I would also like to create an additional impact on the general supply net for the USSR if the fields are all lost. I am currently testing the impact of creating a separate country to represent several of the Republics in the USSR. In particular the Ukraine and all those in the Southern Caucuses such as modern day Chechnya and Azerbaijan which encompass Grozny and Baku. I then allocate those HQ's to this new country which were actually Marshalls or Generals born in these areas e.g. Voroshilov who came from The Ukraine. I then have the USSR start with 8 x HQ on the map or in production of which 4 are from the new country. The effect of this will be that these HQs and their supply nets will disappear if the Axis captures Baku which is the capital.

This way of disrupting Soviet supply is not ideal because it also disrupts the general working of HQs since the new country ones cannot enhance normal Soviet units although they do contribute to the supply net. I would be interested to know of any other suggestions for increasing the impact of oil shortages in the current game.

Having oil as a discrete resource is one of the things I am looking forward to in SC3 but I am hoping to at least improve the current situation before then.

Regards

Hi Mike

Good post, and here are a few off the cuff suggestions for things that are possible with the engine.

The disruption caused by the loss of the oilfields could be to implement Supply scripts affecting all Soviet Industrial Centers, Capitals, and Primary Supply Centers when they fall.

Not so much a long term effect but at least to cause some temporary disruption.

The penalties for having Moscow fall could be increased with the use of a National Morale bonus to Germany, a penalty to the USSR, coupled perhaps with a Strength script to reduce Soviet morale temporarily. Again, Supply scripts like in the above could be used too to reduce Soviet supply overall temporarily to reflect the disruption caused by the fall of Moscow.

For the tonnage war, this is a bit harder but scripts could be used for the presence of naval units to trigger National Morale losses for the target nation, e.g. the UK.

Bill

[mcaryf1]

Hi Bill

Thank you for your reply. For The Tonnage War I am using the presence of more than a certain number of raiders to cause morale and supply hits in countries such as the UK, USSR, China, Italy and Japan. What I would really like to do is to recognise a cumulative effect particularly in 2 key areas the N Atlantic for the UK and the S China Sea for Japan. Ideally I would like there to be a counter in the system somewhere that continues between turns and which I could increment each time the Axis or Allies raiders had major successes in the tonnage war and decrement each time the raiders had a poor turn. Then I would use this counter to increase or decrease the severity of the supply etc hits. This would effectively model the increasing impact of shipping losses but also recognise that if there was a quiet month the relevant side would have increased its effective pool of merchant shipping. I am playing around with having some triggers based on changing the nationality of tiles of territory in the bottom RHS of the map but it is fairly cumbersome to create a sensible number of them covering both the UK and Japan.

The availability of more data about the current game situation for use by the scenario designer will no doubt be an important part of the SC3 requirement's list. For example if oil is to play a significant part then it might be necessary for a scenario designer to create options or penalties based on the extent to which one side or another is deploying oil intensive assets such as naval or aircraft or tank units. I have done some very small scale things such as allowing the Italians to have an extra BB unit if the Axis captures the Iraqi oilfield. This is historically reasonable as the Italians did have a BB that they did not bother to complete/repair as they knew they would not have enough oil to deploy it. However, I have not yet worked out a way to stop a country using specifically oil intensive assets if they lose their access to oil apart from the sledgehammer approach of deleting HQ's I outlined in my initial post.

By the way one positive impact of making the Southern Caucuses a separate USSR minor country is that I can allow it to be cooperative. The AI has a previously distressing habit of sending UK and other Allied units into that territory from the Middle East theatre where they were fairly useless since they had no supply. At least this way those units can be useful. It is not in any case entirely accurate to say that the USSR never allowed other Allies to operate from their territory. For the period August to October 1941 the air defence of Murmansk was provided by RAF fighter units and ground crew shipped in the first Arctic convoy. They made over 300 sorties against Axis units operating out of Finland and Norway before the personnel returned to the UK leaving their planes and equipment to be operated by the Soviets.

Regards