"HISTORICITY MOD version 1.1" updated with new changes and for use with SC 1.05

[dgaad]

Go Here to get it : Game Stuff Web Site - Historicity Mod v1.1

"HISTORICITY MOD for Strategic Command"

Game Version : 1.05

Historicity Mod Version : 1.1

The Historicity Mod is designed to give better play balance to PBEM games, and provide more accurate historical changes to the campaign and thus, more interesting and challenging play for AI and PBEM games.

The general idea is to add those changes which materially help the allies, but which also give the Germans some positive benefits and changes that reflect the orientation of the German army in 1939. On the whole, however, this mod will make it easier for the Allies. German strategy which focusses on "Blitzkreig" style operations will benefit from this mod. German strategy which significantly deviates from the historical orientation of the German army in this period would probably not do as well as such strategies would in the unmodded campaign.

I felt that to make a number of changes only to help the allies might balance the game, but make people less willing to play Germany. In addition, the changes for Germany do I believe reflect a more accurate starting stance for the German army at this stage of the war.

Send comments to : dgaad@legionhq.net

Website : http://legionhq.net/GameStuff/

UNITED STATES :

+2 research points when US enters the war (from +1 in the original). The US had excellent research capacity that was easily turned to wartime functions, the most notable being the Manhattan Project.

5% neutrality setting (original : 0%). US tends to enter too late.

+450 MPPs to initial US production (original : 0), to represent the immediate gearing up of the US for war. (Note : its kind of like the US looting itself, just as it did historically when enormous amounts of consumer goods were immediately scrapped for military production -- like the seizure of the entire stock of rubber tires, new or used, in country by the government a few weeks after the war began). (Second Note : I highly recommend that the US player DISBAND some of the initial starting Armies in the US. In the first place, these armies did not actually exist. In the second place, disbanding of these units adds an enormous number of MPPs to the US pool which could be used to build up research rather rapidly, and thus make future builds both more effective and cheaper).

US initial Industrial Production tech level set to 2 (original : 1). Gives US same industrial production tech level as the Soviet Union.

ITALY :

Neutrality setting to 55% (from 65%). Italy tends to enter before the Germans even attack France. Mussolini intentionally waited to the very last second, thinking the war was just about over anyway.

FRANCE :

Algerian Corps given +1 experience. These troops were highly competent and highly valued. The Germans suffered a high proportion of casualties in battle against them in early June, 1940 -- after it already appeared to everyone that France was going to lose.

All Maginot units given an entrenchment value of 3.

France given Heavy Tanks-2. Relative to Germany, French armor was better armored and better armed, though slightly slower. The difference was a doctrine of dispersal as opposed to the German doctrine of mass.

DCR Tank Group added with a strength of 2, located south of Paris. It must be built up before its of much use, but it does reflect the enormous number of good tanks the French had, some of which were grouped into tank units instead of dispersed along the front. The French had approximately 3 division equivalents of independent tank demi-brigades which had as many tanks as the core elements of a Panzer Division. With Heavy Tanks-2, it will be very difficult to build this unit up because of the cost to do so and the low French economy, but even at low power it should give more of a challenge to the French campaign.

French "Alpes" unit added to mountain hexes bordering Italy; corps, strength 7, entrenched 2.

French Fleet in the Atlantic moved to Bordeaux.

The French do not get an MPP "war mobilization" bonus as the British, USSR and US do.

POLAND :

Army Pomorze changed to start strength 8. Polish mobilization was not completed at war's start.

Southernmost Polish corps given an entrenchment value of 2. The Katowice and Krakow areas were heavily fortified.

Polish units in the "Danzig Corridor" moved to reflect more accurate Polish deployments. The Poles for political reasons had to adopt a "frontier defense" strategy which included defending the Corridor, since the control of the Corridor was the alleged reason for the conflict in the first place. The option of defense in depth, which was considered by the Polish command, was rejected for this political reason. The Poles did not expect to be able to hold the Corridor indefinately, however no one expected the effects of a Blitzkrieg operation -- total collapse of Polish resistance in a matter of weeks. (Note : these deployments will make it easier for the Germans to get to Warsaw in one fell swoop, which is what in fact happened; advanced German units reached the outskirts of Warsaw on September 6th).

GERMANY :

Luftflotte I and IV given +1 experience. This represents the extensive experience the Luftwaffe had already gotton in Spain.

German 9th, 12th and 23rd Corps, Germany's western frontier, are given either +3 and +2 entrenchment values. Also the 23 corps is relocated closer to the Rhine and gets river benefit. These corps, and the German 9th Corps in Essen also have their strength changed to either 8 or 9, to represent the fact that divisions along the Western frontier were not fully mobilized at war's start. They were division cadres, largely, in the process of mobilization.

German Rundstedt HQ is given initial experience of 1 (original : 0 ) to represent the traditions of the Prussian General staff, which resulted in a large body of competent and experienced officers in the German army. Also, the theories of Guderian and others gave the German Wehrmacht a confidence in novel operations that other armies lacked at the time. The Bock unit was not modified, because Guderian's changes were opposed by more than half the General Staff !

German panzer groups set to experience 1 (original : 0) to reflect the novel organizing concepts of Panzer Warfare, which gave the Wehrmacht a concentration of panzer units and a solid doctrine on use of them in battle, a doctrine which had been taught and practised extensively since 1934, and to some extent used in real battle in Spain.

All German Armies (but not Corps) are set to experience 1. Essentially the reason for this is that there is little question that German infantry units were generally much more effective than equal numbers of any other nation's infantry, at least in 1939-40 and beyond. As these Armies take casualties and get reinforced, particularly after an invasion of Russia, for example, this will be of less effect.

Germany gets Jet Engines-1. Luftflottes I and IV are increased to strength 11, Luftflotte II is decreased in starting strength to 5. The German air forces were not fully mobilized at the start of the Polish Campaign.

Germany gets Heavy Tanks-1. Represents the Blitzkrieg doctrine which had been in development since 1934. Also, in September 1939 the Germans were quite close to large scale deployment of Pz III and IV tanks. Strength of at start panzer units increased to 11.

Germany does not get a "war mobilization" bonus. Germany had been mobilizing for war to the limit of their domestic resources as determined by Hitler for several years, which is the reason they start with a superior force in the first place.

Germany starts with Advanced Subs-2 to represent the 25 year development of sub doctrine which began in WW1 and carried through largely without interruption to WW2. Sub Fleets in Atlantic set to strength 12, and moved more to the northwest. Sub fleet in Baltic set to strength 7.

Start location of one German Cruiser unit changed to historical deployment near Danzig.

BRITAIN :

Western Desert Force Tank Group added in Egypt with an initial strength of 2, making it essentially useless. However, it can be built up rapidly and saves the British the trouble of having to build one and run the Med gauntlet.

Wavell HQ added to Egypt with a strength of 4.

British 8th Army added to Egypt with a strength of 3.

British "BEF" Army added to Manchester with a strength of 3, experience 1. The BEF was deployed in October 1939. There is no way to do this in the game unless this is done. Experience rating reflects extraordinary quality of this core of British troops, which will be dissipated by reinforcement (British mobilization drafts).

Britain gets 80 MPPs extra at start to represent Commonwealth and Polish war mobilization.

Britain gets Jet Engines-1 (but the strength of the British airfleet is not changed).

All British Naval Surface units in the game are Experience-1 at start (this does NOT include carriers).

British get an additional Cruiser Unit located in the south Atlantic with a start strength of 6. This represents the Lend Lease destroyers given to Britain in 1940. It will take some time to move this unit up to Britain where it can be reinforced to full strength (representing the need to incorporate these destroyers into the Royal Navy). In sum, this unit should be ready for operations by mid-1940. It does NOT get the experience bonus that other RN surface units get because the destroyers sent to Britain were old WW1 tubs.

USSR :

USSR gets 120 MPPs for "war mobilization" (and the halting of materials shipments to Germany under the Non-Aggression pact).

USSR gets Heavy Tanks-2. While on a pure technology level, in game terms, the USSR should probably get Heavy Tanks-3, the reality was that Soviet armor organization and tactics left much to be desired in 1939-1941. When the Germans attacked in 1941, the Soviets had realized that their armor doctrine and tactics were unwieldy, and were in the process of changing over -- unfortunately the Germans struck at the moment these changes were about to take place so they could not be implemented until the Germans were checked later in 1941.

RECOMMENDED PLAY SETTINGS

ALL GAMES

Fog of War OFF / ON (I'm undecided on this one).

Soviet Partisans ON

Scorched Earth ON

Free French Units ON

Yugoslavian Partisans ON

War in Siberia OFF

All country war entries set to RANDOM

AI Games

As Allies :

+50% Intermediate

+1 Computer Experience.

As Germans :

+50% Intermediate

=== end ===

[daamion]

Here's an idea for a future change to the mod:

Take one of Italy's inital armies and split it into two corps, placing them each adjacent to Rome (let's just say they are at the capital on training exercises...). The Allies can still launch a pre-emptive strike on Italy if they want to, taking some of the ungarrisoned cities, but the capital should no longer fall in one turn...

[dgaad]

Originally posted by daamion:

Here's an idea for a future change to the mod:

Take one of Italy's inital armies and split it into two corps, placing them each adjacent to Rome (let's just say they are at the capital on training exercises...). The Allies can still launch a pre-emptive strike on Italy if they want to, taking some of the ungarrisoned cities, but the capital should no longer fall in one turn...

Unfortunately the campaign editor does not permit this kind of change. On a side note, no matter how well edited a campaign may be, there will always be someone willing to engage in gamey tactics.

[ October 24, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[ham]

Hmm. Couldn't you fix Finland too in your 'patch' ?

[dgaad]

Originally posted by ham:

Hmm. Couldn't you fix Finland too in your 'patch' ?

Its not a patch, its a mod. We are limited by the capabilities of the Campaign editor. The editor does not allow any change to map objects (such as, for example, creating a "Mannerheim Line"). Only nations that are "active" at the start of the scenario can have changes made to starting forces and locations.

[KoopaTroopa]

Olisi sinun nyt tuo pitänyt tietää ham

This mod sounds great! I download it now and come again here after playing...

[dgaad]

Originally posted by KoopaTroopa:

Olisi sinun nyt tuo pitänyt tietää ham

This mod sounds great! I download it now and come again here after playing...

I don't understand the first part. But, thanks. Hvar huomentaa.

[pzgndr]

Dgaad, some thoughts and comments.

US. I'd keep industrial tech at L1 and provide room to grow. The extra research chit will help do that. +450 MPPs and disbanding armies is too much. Maybe +180-360 MPPs for 1-2 turns of preparing for war.

Italy. No goodies from Santa here? If Britain gets all of the proposed additional units, Italy could maybe get at least +90 MPPs for 1 turn of war preparations.

France. Algerian corps experience and Alpes unit may be too much. Recommend L1 heavy tanks for DCR. Despite better armament these tanks had no radios and the doctrine was inferior to Germany's. Moving some of the French fleet to Bordeaux should help the U-boats some during the opening moves.

Germany. I'm wary of giving units experience at start. Maybe the Luftflottes, but not the panzers and armies. I'd rather see Germany start with 1 research chit for tank development instead of L1 heavy tanks. PzIIIs may have been close to ready, but they weren't deployed yet. L2 subs looks good.

Britain. Again wary of giving experience; let units earn it. +80 MPPs plus all the "freebie" units added is probably too much. And perhaps start with 1 research chit, if Germany does also.

USSR. L1 heavy tanks are fine. Let research determine when L2 tanks do get implemented. Maybe increase research to 3 chits instead of adding +120 MPPs.

Like I said, these are just my thoughts. Some of the experience stuff looks good for historical flavor, but opens up a can of worms trying to make it fair and equitable for every unit on the board. Germany and Britain starting with L1 jets is good, since their planes were generally better than everyone else's at start. The other tweaks look interesting and I'll have to play it some when I get the chance this weekend.

[JerseyJohn]

Great ideas, it all sounds very good.

As mentioned in dggad's "6.2 years" area, I tried a scenario with Wavel in Egypt and the computer tried transporting him out of the Med' -- his canoes were sunk off Italy as the computer fleet felt he'd complete the journey without any protection. But Wavel in Egypt makes for a better game when playing as the allies; otherwise they're stuck doing nothing in the Middle East for too long.

Anyhow, I'm off to download your creation and will give it a try first as Allies, then as Axis. Sounds like everything is very well thought out and the changes justified, looking forward to trying it.

Southern France was bothering me as well; in reality some of the border was fortified but it didn't need to be as it's already a great naturaly barrier against Italy. True to form the Italian thrust was stopped dead, though in this case it should have been even against better troops and leadership.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Dgaad, some thoughts and comments.

US. I'd keep industrial tech at L1 and provide room to grow. The extra research chit will help do that. +450 MPPs and disbanding armies is too much. Maybe +180-360 MPPs for 1-2 turns of preparing for war.

I chose 450 MPPS as approximately one half the looting value of the US. If you read about the homefront in early 1942, one could see that this is a fairly conservative value. But, I will think about it.

Italy. No goodies from Santa here? If Britain gets all of the proposed additional units, Italy could maybe get at least +90 MPPs for 1 turn of war preparations.

Not a bad idea with respect to Italy. However, as I've said, Mussolini did not expect to be fighting a real war in 1940, he jumped in when he thought it was about to end, so he could horn in on the "peace settlement". However, I will give it some thought. Even a leader as stupid as Mussolini would mobilize some economic reserves in this situation.

France. Algerian corps experience and Alpes unit may be too much. Recommend L1 heavy tanks for DCR. Despite better armament these tanks had no radios and the doctrine was inferior to Germany's. Moving some of the French fleet to Bordeaux should help the U-boats some during the opening moves.

Yes, I am aware of some of the gamey tactics that the French can use. As to the tech ratings and the DCR unit, gameplay feedback and suggestions are always appreciated and I will consider it.

Germany. I'm wary of giving units experience at start. Maybe the Luftflottes, but not the panzers and armies. I'd rather see Germany start with 1 research chit for tank development instead of L1 heavy tanks. PzIIIs may have been close to ready, but they weren't deployed yet. L2 subs looks good.

Okay, with respect to research chits, if you give a research chit to a nation, they can use them anywhere. The balance problem in the game has to do with the Germans researching jet engine and lr aircraft, so I don't think this is a good idea.

I generally share your reservations about giving away free experience. However, the historical performance of German infantry was so far and away above any other nation in the early period of the war, it is a strategic consideration imho. Most of this experience will be lost the first time the Germans are checked in a campaign (presumeably, Russia).

Britain. Again wary of giving experience; let units earn it. +80 MPPs plus all the "freebie" units added is probably too much. And perhaps start with 1 research chit, if Germany does also.

I think the idea of Britain getting one research chit is worthwhile, after all they had been essentially preparing for war since March 1939, and they certainly did have a crypto advantage by war outbreak.

The freebie units are largely useless until they can be built up, which usually won't happen until mid-1940, by which time France should be gone. The experience of BEF is almost totally dissipated if the UK player reinforces the unit to full strength.

The war mob bonus is a balancing issue imho. I'd like some more pbem play feedback on these and other issues.

USSR. L1 heavy tanks are fine. Let research determine when L2 tanks do get implemented. Maybe increase research to 3 chits instead of adding +120 MPPs.

Food for thought. I'm leery of giving the Russians too much "unearned" research off at the start because the historical record up to June 22, 1941 simply doesn't justify it. Stalin and the USSR were caught flat footed and totally unprepared for the attack, and had given numerous orders to agencies and the Red army to completely ignore the obvious signals that Germany was preparing to attack. They weren't gearing up any kind of research program above normal or one which reaches a strategic consideration at this game scale, imho (Stalinsts please don't try to "correct" my opinion here, I'm well aware of the countervailingn opinion of the historical record).

Like I said, these are just my thoughts. Some of the experience stuff looks good for historical flavor, but opens up a can of worms trying to make it fair and equitable for every unit on the board. Germany and Britain starting with L1 jets is good, since their planes were generally better than everyone else's at start. The other tweaks look interesting and I'll have to play it some when I get the chance this weekend.

Thanks much.

[ArmenianBoy]

Your changes will make for a much tuffer conquest of France and the HQ in NA is a big boost for Britain. I know the editor does not allow for you to place an Italian HQ in NA, but they really should have one there. That is why, I'd leave the Britain HQ out. Otherwise, some nice ideas.

[Martinov]

Hi Dgaad. My comments on your mod take the form of listing the alterations I have made to suit my own taste (mods on mods!). Don't take these comments as criticism by any means, just a different philosophical approach to achieving same goals. Hope you find some of the changes to be of sufficient interest to warrant incorporation. Interesting I see Bill has suggested similar changes esp regarding research instead of cash while I was typing.

Rather than give nations "mobilisation" cash, I have converted the cash you provided into research scientists and given each nation a minimum of 1 scientist.

Each nation therefore at least has a minimum of research going. So initial research points are: GER 1,IT 1,UK 1,FRA 1,USSR 3,USA 3,

I deleted US industrial research 2, just didn't see any real justification. You apparently did it to match the USSR, but their units were certainly cheaper in terms of teeth/tail. Similarly I dropped french heavy tank technology to 1 instead of 2.

I start Portugal, Iraq and Ireland as Allied conquered minors. At least that way I don't have to watch the Allies invade these each game. Of course, Iraq contributed to Commonwealth production anyway, so no big deal, the loss of Portugal production to an Axis invasion easily represents the blow to atlantic convoys that the Axis would inflict from bases there, and Ireland, well, no rationale really.

To encourage strategic bombing i added a second british strategic bomber and a also a second british fighter unit "Fighter command".

Obviously these changes strengthen the Commonwealth, but this is offset by other changes...

ALL commonwealth air and land units start at str 5 to represent slower-than-continent mobilisation (including malta etc). This gives the

Commonwealth lots to do.

Canada starts "at war", to avoid that annoying message at the start (it should read "The Commonwealth enters the war" anyway). This also gave me the opportunity to delete the Canadian armies. It was tempting to replace XII Corps in Egypt with a canadian "ANZAC/Commonwealth" corps.

I find partial units of str 2, 3, 4,8 etc unpleasing to the eye at the start of the game, and not really justified in terms of realism...after all who can really say if the Pormorze Corps should be 7,8 or 9...its just not that kind of game...so I rounded units up to 5 (eg fr tank) for partially formed and 10 otherwise for ease of play.

I entrenched the Maginot units to the maximum level (8). Entrenchment doesnt make much difference anyway, and it gives the French a definite disincentive to launch an ahistorical offensive.

I raised ALL german units to experience level 1 (as you had mostly done) to reflect their superior doctrines across the board.

further thoughts-

I think you should consider halving the amount of naval units, as some scen makers have done, to avoid "congestion" in the atlantic. In particular I think the Commonwealth start with too many carriers. Deleting the one in UK would give german subs much greater survivibility (or making both carriers 5's). Oh yeah I deleted the lend lease ship you added, and was tempted to do the same to the frog, just to many ships already.

It would be nice if the remaining polish armies were split into corps, two better represent their cordon defense deployment.

If the advantage has tipped too far to the allies-

It would be reasonable to give the german air & armour a second pip of experience (one for doctrine, the second for the practical experience they had). (I disagree with Bill on this one, I think experience dilutes very quickly in this game anyway).

Alternatively, I agree with the guy who argues you have strengthened the French a fair bit. Its tempting to delete the FR Corps in Paris, or reduce all rear area (or all full stop) French land & air to 5 factors to start.

[ October 25, 2002, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Martinov ]

[dgaad]

I have received your comments by email as well.

I like many of the suggestions here.

Let me make a few comments.

1. I'd like the "Historicity Mod" to be a centralized general SC community agreement that, all things being equal, this is the mod they prefer to use for balanced play. Everyone can of course create their own mod, but it would be good if the SC community had at least one Mod that everyone generally agreed was balanced, if not even interesting and more historical. You may disagree with some of the decisions in the Historicity mod, but as long as the community as a whole feels its a good and historically representative mod, on balance, then we all have common ground for PBEM games.

2. War Mobilization Bonuses. These are not going to drop. I understand the idea of dropping them in favor of giving more research, etc., but I want players to have some flexibility at start and MPPs are the basic flexible currency. If you drop the WMB in favor of an additional research point, remember that those points can be "recalled" for 125 points apiece anyway. Half a dozen of one, six of the other. In this case, I'd like to give the player the raw material to make the decision, rather than force a decision on him / her.

2. Too much risk of a "decisive" naval engagement if you reduce the naval units on the map. There was little risk of this type of thing. I understand the concern with clutter, etc., but in the case of naval units I think we can live with it.

As to Martinov's other ideas, some of them will be incorporated directly into the next version of Historicity. In particular, adding Canada at start and Iraq at start for the CW. Some of the other changes I will make will also incorporate the suggestions of Bill and Armenian Boy.

Anyway, lets keep the juices flowing, this is good schtuff.

[pzgndr]

I'd like the "Historicity Mod" to be a centralized general SC community agreement that, all things being equal, this is the mod they prefer to use for balanced play.

Excellent idea. As playtest feedback and other suggestions roll in, this mod is as good a place as any to put it all together and keep it updated. It's difficult to argue one way or another about some of these ideas without actually playing several games and pondering the overall results.

Your point about at-start MPPs versus additional research chits is well taken. Let players decide what to do; that's fine. I'm also going to remain open-minded about at-start experience. As pointed out, this initial advantage doesn't last forever but does represent some significant unit and nationality differences.

"Historicity" raises an eyebrow. Harking back to the old Avalon Hill days with "Tournament" scenarios and rules, maybe that term or something similar should be used. :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

It's hard to believe German infantry shouldn't start out with some experience bonus after six years of Hitler Youth activities. From '39 on each new crop of cannon fodder must have contained tens of thousands of teen-agers who had learned advanced infantry skills in childhood!

I lean toward that being a factor at least for the first few years. Later in the war there were mixed results, much of which had to do with their being rushed into service.

Toward the end, when Hitler Youth meant thirteen year olds being formed into fighting units and sent directly to the fronts, their value became suspect. Some melted away while others were the most suicidal of fanatics. There's more than one account of seasoned veterans disarming their young reinforcements before surrendering!

The system seems sound, a sort of warrior's prep-school! If Germany had avoided the catastrophic losses outside Moscow and at Stalingrad and Kursk, if the replacement system had remained reasonably in tact throughout the war, there would have been a steady flow each year of Hitler Youth allumni with six or more years infantry training while their British and American counterparts had yet to enter bootcamp.

Also, Hitler Youth academies scattered throughout Germany prepared officers. By sixteen these boys would have routinely mastered advanced subjects such as artillery spotting and field communications.

I can't think of any non-German equivalent and believe it has to be taken into consideration.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

It's hard to believe German infantry shouldn't start out with some experience bonus after six years of Hitler Youth activities.

I tend to agree here. The performance of German infantry in terms of casualty ratio during the years 1939-1942 was a definite grade above all other infantry-based units. There were a number of reasons for this, some doctrine based, some cultural, some based on the Nazi educational and social orientation. William Shirer (an American in France in 1940) made a number of observations on the differences, and he noted the stark contrast between "Hollow-chested" British troops, who had spent the prewar years in dusty coal towns getting little exercise, with the robust Germans, who had spent most of their youth in vigorous outdoor activities sponsored by the Nazi state.

I think that keeping the experience bonus limited to the Army units keeps the game balanced, and reflects not only these various phenomenae, but also the traditions of the German junior officer corps which encouraged initiative. The corps units would represent the less trained parts of the Wehrmacht, who had only recently been built up or mobilized earlier in 1939, while the Armies represent the core of the old divisions (1-35).

[I/O Error]

Interestingly enough, the advantage of German infantry was MUCH more apparent in 1940 than it was in 1939. The officer corps was really quite displeased with their experiences in Poland, and so the line infantry got a SERIOUS kick in the ass after that campaign. (Of course there's no way to model that exactly, so the added experience for German infantry makes complete sense)

[RicKhan]

JerseyJohn said,

Also, Hitler Youth academies scattered throughout Germany prepared officers. By sixteen these boys would have routinely mastered advanced subjects such as artillery spotting and field communications.

I can't think of any non-German equivalent and believe it has to be taken into consideration.

I have one, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.

Example, Land Navigation, is one of many merit badges that can be earned and a skill worth knowing in any military.

[Lou Wigman]

I don't agree which much of what EB says but he is right to the extent that the role of the USSR is hugely understated in SC. Most of the fighting and most of the dying (by both sides) occurred on the Eastern front. Yet in its current form the Germans have a very easy time indeed in Russia suffering very few casualties. It is Russia that needs to be beefed up. There seems to be no easy way to do this however. At present the Eastern front is already just a battle of attrition. What is really needed here is a weak Soviet player at the start to allow the Germans to gain some territory but which becomes increasingly strong as the game progresses. Since the MMPS allotted can't be changed during the game this represents an almost insurmountable problem. The Siberian reinforcements are a partial solution but not really a satisfactory one.

My apologies for a somewhat negative post.

[Norse]

Originally posted by RicKhan:

I can't think of any non-German equivalent and believe it has to be taken into consideration.

I have one, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Lou Wigman:

I don't agree which much of what EB says but he is right to the extent that the role of the USSR is hugely understated in SC. Most of the fighting and most of the dying (by both sides) occurred on the Eastern front. Yet in its current form the Germans have a very easy time indeed in Russia suffering very few casualties. It is Russia that needs to be beefed up. There seems to be no easy way to do this however. At present the Eastern front is already just a battle of attrition. What is really needed here is a weak Soviet player at the start to allow the Germans to gain some territory but which becomes increasingly strong as the game progresses. Since the MMPS allotted can't be changed during the game this represents an almost insurmountable problem. The Siberian reinforcements are a partial solution but not really a satisfactory one.

My apologies for a somewhat negative post.

No one on this board ever said that the contribution of the Soviet Union to the victory of all the Allied powers was not the decisive fact of the war in *europe*. EB's focus was well beyond that, however.

In Game terms, I don't feel that the Soviet Union needs to be beefed up so much as the Germans need to be "beefed down".

The major problem with game balance derives from Germany simply getting way too many MPPs from looting. This immediate economic infusion is what allows the Germans to have 5-10 airfleets in mid-1941, a level of combat power in the game which is in no way related to the ratio of relative combat effectiveness between the Wehrmacht and the Red Army.

All told, in the year between September, 1939 and September 1940 the Germans get looting MPPs which exceed an entire year's worth of "natural" German production. This is *in addition* to the extra MPPs they get from takeover of conquered nation's factories and resources.

I said this a long time ago : Looting as it is implemented in this game is a BAD concept. The various surrenders of nations to Germany in 1939-1941 did NOT vastly increase the economic power of Germany as it does in SC. The economic benefits to Germany from the surrender of these countries was, in the context of German economy, very modest and spread out over time. This is not to say the Germans weren't rapacious and brutal in their economic exploitation and outright thefts, they were. But this type of economic activity really doesn't add much to a nation's warmaking power.

IMHO the entire Looting concept needs revision, if not scrapping altogether.

The way that factory and resource hexes produce for the MPP pool of a conqueror is just about the level of economic benefits Germany received, at the scale of this game that's about all that's appropriate.

Side note : it would be nice if the Campaign editor had ways to edit countries that were neutral, make countries neutral that are currently active, and ALSO if we could edit the "formula" for looting. If I could edit it, I would take it down to 1 or 2 turns worth of production of the conquered country as an immediate benefit, at best.

[ October 25, 2002, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: dgaad ]

[JerseyJohn]

RicKhan -- Bless the boyscouts, they're a great organization but I sincerely hope they never, NEVER, have anything more in common with the Hitler Youth than being an organization of boys.

The Hitler Youth didn't go camping, they went on maneuvers. They didn't learn outdoor skills, they learned about weapons, tactics, blind discipline and becoming exemplery soldiers and fanatical nazis.

Those who entered the fight at seventeen or older --as late as '44 there was an elite SS panzer unit made up of draft age Hitler Youth that fought the Americans at Normandy-- were ideal soldiers, starting out the equal of normal battle veterans and they often fought with insane fanaticism. They fought against many former boysouts who said as much, some of whom thought they were the nazi version till they ran up against them in battle.

In my posting I was speaking about the organization's value as a training ground for future soldiers. I am not in any way praising it or saying there was anything admirable about it -- there wasn't. For one thing the indoctrination of racial hatred in people of any age is repugnant to me, especially when it is applied to children and adolescents.

They were an entire generation manipulated and brainwashed into robot-like obedience. For the boys involved it wasn't a matter of choice, everything from hero worship to the most extreme peer pressure was applied to first make them join, then to turn them into Germany's future nazis and soldiers.

Along the way the usual games and recreations were added, heavy on athletics, especially boxing and wrestling, to make it all the more appealing to kids in an economically wrecked country living in dismal conditions. A land shocked by defeat with a deflated self-image, a culture turned upside down that desperately wanted both heros and scapegoats.

From the start of the Nazi regime all of Germany's youth were targeted for this procedure. The first groups were actually operating a few years before the Nazis took over. By 1933 the entire system was laid out and operating almost exactly as it would for the rest of the Third Reich's mercifully brief existence.

Girls had similar organizations but were spared combat training.

Hitler deliberately projected himself as a big brother type. The man who had been there and done it for his country [as he would have had it, his race] and expected everyone else to do the same. His weaknesses and shortcomings and certianly any hint of his insanity was kept hidden from the public. What was projected instead was a commoner in a land of aristocrats who had risen to the top, a physically unimpressive type who was a twice decorated war hero. A man who wouldn't tolerate weaknesses like smoking and drinking or being a playboy. German boys were told HE was what they should hope to turn into while German girls were told led to worship him as the ultimate man.

I sure hope there isn't any of that in the boyscouts! The very thought of all this seems idiotic to us now, but must have made perfect sense seventy years ago in Germany.

Anyway, the only thing I wanted to get into was the organization's ability to train future soldiers.

The boys were taught regimentation, not simply marching loosly in step, but the sort of regimentation tought in armies; blind obedience, trusting your life to those around you -- boys who let their comrades down weren't given fatherly talks, they were beaten senseless by the other boys in their unit.

It's an entirely different mentality from scouting. There was no doubt in any of their minds about what they were being prepared for; eternal war and soldiering, a vision of someday retiring with honorable wounds and medals to a farm in the Germanized East, manned by Slavic slaves -- pretty much what the Romans promised their legionaires, if they survived twenty or so years of service, only with them it was Romania.

Along the way they were also encouraged to follow their talents, to join musical groups and compete on teams, to have fun and achieve their personal goals in whatever they excelled in -- but always with the thought that they didn't count as individuals, only as part of a nation.

The goal wasn't membership, it was ownership!

And it was achieved.

Even at the end of the war, when there was no pretense of waiting till the boys reached anything like military age and thirteen year olds were sent to the most hideous slaughters in uniforms three sizes too large with helmets that came down to their eyes, when their lives were simply thrown away wantonly, it was always noted by all adversaries, Western and Russian, that their irrational fanatacism made them the most dangerous troops to fight against.

During the last year of the war, when sensible German war veterans were trying at all costs not to win, but to remain alive, Hitler Youth fighting with them had a life expectancy of one month. They hadn't lived long enough to possess "common sense." They still believed all the lies, especially that their own iron will had to triumph regardless of circumstances.

Men who had survived years of battle and realized it was all hopeless worried more about being shot from behind by armed twelve year olds who thought they were defeatist than being killed by Soviet shock troops who genuinely hated them.

A bunch of boy scouts all right!

I'm sure the boyscouts and many other organizations teach skills that have military applications -- outdoor surviving is a military skill -- but they aren't taught those things because it will make them better soldiers. I hope they aren't being taught blind obedience or philosphies like 'The strong prevail and the weak perish.'

I don't know any scout masters who teach the subtleties of land mines or offer a detailed study of firearms. Do scout masters whisper sweat nothings day after day like, 'To die for the master race is the greatest glory any man can achieve.' I sure hope not.

To compare Hitler Youth to the Boyscouts, 4-H, Junior Achievement or any other youth group -- except those unfortunates currently being trained by terrorist movements --is as totally wrong as saying "Most Germans who joined the nazi party did it the way Americans become Democrats or Republicans (George Patton)."

If there's a Boy Scout organization anywhere on earth that has any of the Hitler Youth's doctrine or curriculum in it's program I'd be concerned.

I'd be VERY concerned!

[ October 26, 2002, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

They were an entire generation manipulated and brainwashed into robot-like obedience. For the boys involved it wasn't a matter of choice, everything from hero worship to the most extreme peer pressure was applied to first make them join, then to turn them into Germany's future nazis and soldiers.

Quite interesting analysis of Germany's apparent and collective "personality traits."

The first sentence in the above statement sounds very much like some of the commentary provided by the "Beat" writers of the late '40s and 1950s. I could just as easily imagine Kerouac or Ginsberg saying exactly that about the truly normalized and dutiful Americans of the time.

Empirical Sociology is fairly easy to do, especially for a past time (as opposed to "instant analyses" of the present) but individual traits which somehow are supposed to "add up" to a whole nation's psyche are not so easy.

Given that Germany was in a terrible economic crisis during most of the years 1920 to 1939 (... early on, a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks required just to purchase a loaf of bread), there weren't many places for young men to go, so to allow an outlet for youthful exuberance.

As we suspect, every group of every time and place needed some outlet, or cathartic purge for the "baser emotions." In ancient Greece they had the Dionysus cult; now we have football and such watered down role-reversal rites as Halloween.

In any event Jung's "Shadow side" is ever just below the "normal" surface... of EACH of us. Freud wrote a book entitled Civilization and Its Discontents wherein he worried that we were sacrificing instinctual and innate impulses at the altar of conventional, normalized life. Hence, the many so-called "neuroses."

Your assessment could just as easily apply to any of many "imperialistic" nations of this era, with each government utilizing a unique appeal to the natural chauvanism, or In-group thinking -- Us versus Them, of its Folk. It could apply to Israel's military service for ALL able-bodied citizens, now.

Studies have shown that -- BY FAR -- the greatest cohesive factor in war-time is the peer pressure. Not only fighting for one's own survival, but for the fox-hole buddy.

Also, Zambrano in his famous "prisoners and guards" Stanford Univ study discovered to what extent ANY (... in this case, normal American college students, circa late 60s) individual would go if merely TOLD by an authority figure to exercise strict, even abusive tactics against an... OTHER.

Other experiments indicate that everyday, whistle-the-day-away Americans WOULD apply electrical shocks to another citizen if TOLD to do so by an "authority" in a white lab coat. They would apply this shock penalty EVEN IF the other was screaming, crying, and begging for relief.

Much has been made of the "good German" syndrome, supposing somehow that it is ONLY Germans who would mindlessly follow authoritarian commands.

Well, sorry, but ANYBODY -- anywhere, at any time is susceptible to this kind of manipulation.

That being said, I would also remind all that behavior modification (aka: brainwashing) is NOT a permanent state of mind.

"Extinction" always happens, wherein the learned behavior gradually and eventually dies out. Not to mention the greatly under-rated power of "free will," or even instinctual/intuitive responses. However, Psychology is leery of admitting ANY such autonomous impetus, for fear of being less of a "hard science."

To sum up, I would suggest that Germany's exuberant youth weren't really all that different from yesterday's, or today's youth in any given country. The symbols and icons and majesterial trappings may differ, but the essential nature of each human has not changed. We are ALL liable to be seduced by nationalistic, or in-group appeals.

I lived in and among Germany's post-war citizens for almost 4 years. They did not strike me as significantly different than the Americans I was familiar with. One needs be careful of applying the broad brush, even allowing for specific "historical" assertions.

[KoopaTroopa]

Originally posted by dgaad:

I don't understand the first part. But, thanks. Hvar huomentaa.[/QB]

First part meaned somethinmg like "You should know that ham".

The mod was pretty good. Making the things more like in WW2 is good. Points 8½ of 10.

BTW, good morning is in finnish "hyvää huomenta" if you meaned that.

[Russ Bensing]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

It's hard to believe German infantry shouldn't start out with some experience bonus after six years of Hitler Youth activities.

That might be true, but I'd be very wary of giving anything experience in this game, because you're gong to wind up with superunits in pretty short order.

I think this mod's quite interesting, but I don't think it addresses the real problem with the game. I've played more PBEM games than I care to admit, and I read the boards regularly about the accounts of other players. I've yet to see anything, in my own games or in anyone else's, which remotely approximates what happened on the Eastern Front. Every single game winds up with the German player wiping Mother Russia with the Soviets butt. There's never any semblance of a real Soviet counteroffensive, unless the Allies make enough inroads on the Western Front to force the German player to divert major resources there.

There are a number of reasons for that: lack of a winter effect, too strong air power, insufficient modeling of Soviet resources, to name a few. But one of the biggies, and most overlooked, is the way experience works in this game. First is the way it's acquired, which I've mentioned before: units gain twice as much experience on the offensive as they do on the defensive, and offensive units gain the half-point for a "victory," while defensive units gain nothing. The result is that halfway through Barbarossa, most of the German units are at 2 or 3 points experience, and the Russian units are at 0.

Which brings up the second problem: the combat formulas. I don't know how many people have run them through a spreadsheet, but I have, and it's pretty eye-opening. The bottom line is that experience plays a far greater role than strength in determining combat outcome; essentially, all other things being equal, an attacking unit with 5 strength and 1 experience will outperform an attacking unit with 10 strength and 0 experience. And the real problem is that, once a unit gains a couple of experience points, it will rarely suffer losses, especially against Russian corps, the most common opponent. This means that the experience isn't dissipated through reinforcement, because, at least on the Russian front, they don't have to be reinforced. That's a large part of the reason why the Eastern Front plays out the way it does.

So it's nice about the Hitler Youth, but the way the game works now, giving anybody experience seriously unbalances the game.