ev

...one more thought. Research in engine technology made for better fighters... but did not do much to improve tactical air bombing. Tactical air bombing remained pretty much unchanged through the war. My inclination would be to leave unchanged the air to land attack capabilities of airplanes as engine tech increases.

Hi Blashy. It seems most of us agree air power was too powerfull in SC1. I have been thinking quite a bit about it. I have some ideas. During WWII: 1. airpower was more effective against tanks than against infantry. 2. airpower was more effective against units on the move (not entrenched) than against entrenched units. 3. airpower was much more effective against units on the front ...when directed by ground spotters. 4. weather... SC can simulte each of these. With regards to #1, Infantry should have a higher air defense while tanks should have a lower air defense. Smart players should keep their tanks behind the lines, safe from enemy air attacks, until they are ready to use them. When they move their tanks to the front, they should either make sure they have local air cover, or really bad weather. I have the feeling #2 was already incorporated into the SC combat engine. In any event, airdefense could be raised by entrenchment. Regarding #3, a combat multiplier could increase air attack when there is a friendly ground unit adjacent to the enemy unit receiving the air attack. This combat multiplier could vary with the readiness of the "ground controlling unit". A "ground controlling unit" in top readiness (either because it is elite or because it is attached to a top HQ or for what ever other reason) should provide better target info. I am not sure how Hubert will play the weather in SC2, so I dare not make suggestions here. But remember Germans got away with their Ardennes counteroffensive in 1944 because they waited for bad weather to ground the Allied Air Fleet. Airpower was too good to be true in SC1 because it was always good without regard to the factors that made airpower effective or ineffective in combat. I may be missing some of those factors; I would appreciate all of your thoughts.

Thanks for your comments Liam. I am very optimistic Hubert is paying attention to our comments. In the past, he included more than a couple of our recommendations in his patches. And from what I gather, SC2 is already incorporating some or our earlier comments from the SC1 forums. Most of us agree air power was too powerfull in SC1. I have been thinking quite a bit about it. I have some ideas. During WWII: 1 airpower was more effective against tanks than against infantry. 2 airpower was more effective against units on the move (not entrenched) than against entrenched units. 3 airpower was much more effective against units on the front ...when directed by ground spotters. SC can simulte each of these. With regards to #1, either Air fleet could have higher attack strength against tanks, or tanks could have lower air defense. I have the feeling #2 was already incorporated into the SC combat engine. In any event, airdefense could be raised by entrenchment. Regarding #3, a combat multiplier could increase air attack when there is a friendly ground unit adjacent to the enemy unit receiving the air attack. This combat multiplier could vary with the readiness of the "ground controlling unit". A "ground controlling unit" in top readiness (either because it is elite or because it is attached to a top HQ or for what ever other reason) should provide better target info.

Liam, Did some research. Check this AFV, the German SdKfz 251: http://www.sproe.com/h/halftrack-german.html This was an infantry transport which could mount either of several weapons: a machine gun, a mortar, a 37 mm or 75 mm cannon, a flamethrower... There were other models... though I think the SdKfz 251 was the best. Now this is what I mean by mech infantry. It was the German equivalent of the modern U.S. Bradley or Striker AFV's. Go back to 1943 and say you have a company of infantry mounted in SdKfz 251's including an assortment of weapons. And, say you are told to assault a light infantry possition in the Russian steppe. You would be superbly armed for the job. Moreover, your vehicles aside from being less expensive than a tank would travel faster, farther (with less gas), and break down less often than a tank. ...and, given the right conditions... well the right conditions were everywhere. Most of the line, whether in Russia or in France was manned by lightly armed infantry. This was a great weapon against the bulk of the armies opposing the Germans in 1943-44. The German Panzer Force was a mixture of big tanks which dealt with the most critical situations and light armored vehicles like the SdKfz 251, or the Puma, that handled the brunt of the work. WWII literature often refers to the Mark IV as the workhorse of the German Panzer Force. If we were to focus solely on the German tanks, this image would be correct. However, if we take a wider look, we will see that Armed Halftracks such as the SdKfz 251 were the true workhorse of the German Panzer Force.

What about making decoy armies? There are a couple of great examples in WWII: The allies built a decoy army in eastern UK and had Patton show himself around to fool the Germans into thinking the invasion would be at Calais. Rommel made two similar bluffs. First, after landing the first armored batalion, he had his troops loop around some Libyian town several times so that spies would think a whole division had landed already. Second, in a dash through the desert he had some trucks disguised as tanks and made them lift a lot of dust while the real tanks attacked elsewhere. It would be nice to be able to use engineers to either make fake "dummy" armies or to camouflage to forts to decrease the chance of them being detected.

Hi Liam, I appreciate your comments, and I am not disagreeing with you. Battlefront has some great tactical games in the Combat Mission Series. Time ago I purchased the first one (Beyond Overlord) and played it several times. Unfortunately, it won't run in my new Mac. Nevermind... I digress. Those Combat Mission games show you how much difference a little armor can do... if the other side lacks adequate anti armor capabilities. In 1941 and 1942, the Russians had better tanks than the Germans. The T34 was better than the Mark IV. The Germans prevailed for several reasons. One of them is that they used their armor a lot better. Another was that there was a lot of frontline out there where the Russians could not field either tanks or antitanks. So the panzers divisions always found a place where they could break through the Russian Infantry lines. But most often those gaps were not found by the tanks. The initial push was made by infantry mounted on armed halftracks or supported by light armored tracks. The tanks acted as support weapons sent to reinforce the most promising push, among several probes realized accross the front. When the Germans converted their halftracks into Armored Fighting Vehicles, they expanded the capabilities of their Panzer Corps. These infantry bearing AFV's and their infantry could engage in multiple light armored probes to test the Russian Infantry lines for places where the Russians had less antitank capabilities. The bulk of the attack force including the heavier tanks were then commited to the most promising spots, assuring maximum gain with minimum losses. Of course, this technique could not be used in the battle of Kursk. At Kursk, the Russians had been forwarned and had brought sufficient anti tank weapons to cover the whole front. Besides, the lines of advance and the schedule of advance was set from above allowing little flexibility to the German commanders on site to change the axis of advance in search for a better approach. ...again, I digress. The panzer formations were initially conceived as "mailed fists" that would break through enemy lines like a spear through canvas. This was very much the image presented by the press, and adopted by many not so good generals. But the best armor commanders of WWII played to a different tune. Some examples: Patton in Sicily: when faced with stiff resistance heading north along the eastern cost of Sicily, he used his greater speed to loop around the whole island and fall on the enemy from behind. Black in Karkov: when his corps was faced with Russian tanks, quickly made an antitank and infantry screen in front of the Russian tanks, while the bulk of his panzer corp loop around the enemy. Guderian in Somelnsk: it was a battle of twist and turns. Rommel in France (the Ghost Division) and later in North Afrika: ...well Rommel was so good at looping around the enemy that he used to do it with infantry in WWII earning multiple decorations for pulling off pretty amazing stuff. It should be no surprise that he would dance around the French and the Brits when he had panzer troops under his command. Back to Motorize vs. Mech Infantry. Pzgndr pointed out that in SC2 we are only talking about Motorization. He is right. Your comments follow this line of thought. Motorization means providing more and better transport to the troops so they can get there faster. For some of us, the term mechanization suggest other things, particularly the development of better armored recon and infantry transport unts, which allow for a new kind of fighting based on multiple probes throught the front. This type of equipment, not only adds strategic speed to the unit, but also enhances the tactical capabilities and the fire power of those units. However, as far as SC2 is concerned, I am perfectly happy to assume that all AFV's would have been attached to the tank groups, and that the motorization of Infantry Armies really means only motorization. This is simple, makes for a friendlier game, and is historically accurate since all major powers concentrated their AFV's in their armored groups. The one exception was Russia prior to 1941. During Barbarosa, they paid dearly for this mistake, realized it, and changed the practice asap. Having said all that, I would suggest Hubert & Co. to consider a new type of technology for tank units. Air Fleets are affected by two techs: engine and range. Infantry Units are affected by two techs: weapons and motorization. Likewise, tank units could be affected by two techs: heavy tanks and support vehicles. Better support vehicles would add AP's (speed) to the tank groups, much the same way that range and motorization do for planes and infantry. SC2 is going to be a great game! ...kind of wish I could see some of my ideas in it, but regardless, it is going to be great.

What if the Russians take over Rumania or Turkey. Do we get "free" fighters too? Do they joing the Allies or the Axis? After all, the Russies are Allies. The Finns sided with the Germans because they perceived Germany as Russia's enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they say. And, the Axis are the ones fighting the Commies, and, furthermore, these are pro Axis countries, with pro-Axis officers and enlisted men in their armies? Furthermore, say the US invades Spain, there would be Spanish people very unhappy with anyone invading their country. Where do they turn to? Do they volunteer to servce with the Russians, the Germans, or the Italians? Finally, o.k. we have the volunteers. But there is a cost to arm those volunteers.,, They may bring their guns, but, probably not their artillery, nor anything else. And, besides, the ammo used by their guns may not be compatible with that used by the Major Power they seek to join. So you need to rearm them, much the same way the US rearmed the Free French Units during WWII. I am not against the idea of "Free" units. But, if we are going to make a fair representation of "Free" units we need to consider many aspects...

Some Halftracks carried 50mm machinge guns, others carried small cannons similar to a grande launcher, still others carried mortars. Most of the armies fighting in WWII were made of infantry. Any armor support was a significant advantage even if it was solely a halftrack with a 50mm gun on top. In the absence of tanks and antitank guns capable of knocking these halftracks, they created very favorable circumstances for the units they supported. Of course, once the enemy had any sort of antitank gun, things turned against the halftracks and they had to abandon the battle ground. Keep in mind that, particulaly in Russia, but pretty much anywhere in WWII there were always soft spots in the line where there were not sufficient antitank guns. Besides, antitank guns were particularly vulnerable to artillery. So the halftrack was much more than just a truck with off road capability.

I don't feel comfortable with the idea of absolute force pool limits. I would feel more comfortable with a limit on the number of new units you can create in the course of a year. An absolute force pool limit leads to some odd situations: For example, you can loose an army in Stalingrad, and, assuming you have enough MPP's to buy uniforms and guns, the loss in manpower does not matter. But a limit on the number of new units that can be created in a year would mean that a unit lost is lost for good. As a matter of fact, my prefered scheme would be somewhat more elaborated: I would place limits on the total number of combat "points" that can be purchased in the course of a year. Purchase of both reinforcements and new units would count against these yearly limits. As per this scheme replacement of ground losses would cut against your force pool limits as much as buying new units. Thus a German player replacing lots of ground losses in the eastern front would be constrained from creating new units to send to France. But, the German player could chose not to replace those losses in the eastern front and use the limited manpower in new units to fight in France. The limits I propose would be yearly limits to represent new youngsters comming of age every year. In the event a player does not use force pool in a given year, I would suggest 80% of the unused force pool carry forward into the following year. For example, say Germany had a force pool of 300 ground combat points for 1940 but used only 200. So 100 ground combat points for 1940 remained unused. The German player would carry forward into 1941 80 of those 100 points. Then in 1941, the German Player would have 300+80=380 ground points in its force pool limit. Under my scheme, Russia and the U.S. would continue to build their force pools while Germany, France and England fight it out in 1939 and 1940. As a result, Germany and England would be more likely to run out of manpower earlier than Russia and the U.S. - which is historically correct. I don't have a strong opinion on wheather there should be separate pools for air, naval and land. If there is going to be one single point, I would somehow want to reflect the fact that land units require a lot more manpower than either air or sea units. So, if we are to have a single force pool, purchase of land units and replacement should have a larger impact on the force pool (higher cost) than purchase of air or naval units or replacements. One important thing to note is that the force pool would not increase as a country conquers cities or whole countries. As Germany expands, it takes over cities and countries that produce more MPP's but my force pool remains the same. The additional MPP's may allow Germany to buy better equipment, but not to buy a larger number of replacements or units. I feel very strongly that the force pool limit should take into account replacements. After 1942, Germany had a serious problem replacing its losses in the Eastern Front. The main problem faced by the German High Command was not that they could not make more units. I believe in 1943 the Luftwaffe fielded something like 12 or 15 divisions made of excess recruits. The main problem Germany had was in repalcing losses in the frontline units. And the main reason for that problem was that each time Hitler's acolytes fielded a new SS or Luftwaffe field division, they took away precious manpower the Wermacht needed to replace losses.

...sorry for the typo above guys. 1,000 divided by 30 is 33. 1,000 divided by 25 is 40. The Russian Front would measure 30 to forty tiles if tiles were 25-30 miles each. In SC1 the tiles were 50 miles, so the Russian Front was only 20 tiles wide. Substract the Prippet Marshes and the marshes north of the Black Sea and you could cover the front with 40 Infantry Armies... which I did manage to do when playing either Germans or Russians; and, Tank Groups could not effectively punch through... which I think is Blashy's concern.

...I don't mean Zhukov would have been less good of a general. But, inadequate Command, Contol, and Communication organization and equipment would represent a handicap for any commander. So, if Zhukov and Rommel were to face each other, though both were excellent commanders, German's superior C3 would allow Rommel' troops to do things Zhukov's troops could not do. Unless, of course, Russians invested in upgrading their C3 and caught with the Germans. In SC1 the HQ's were associated with two combat multipliers: supply and leadership. For SC2, I propose associating the HQ's with three combat multipliers: supply, leadership, and C3 tech. I really hope Hubert can accomodate my request.

Hi Blashy. I have the feeling that part of the "clutterness" we preceived in SC1 resulted from two things: First: The Tank Groups were too small. The Tank Group was conceived as a Tank Corps (3-4 Divisons). But, your opponent could make a front of Infantry Armies (8-10 Divisions). The game needed an Army size tank unit to pit against Infantry Armies... The German's had to form Panzer Groups of 2-3 Panzer Corps each when they attacked Russia. Panzer Armies with double or triple the strength (and cost) of the Panzer Groups in SC1 would have made for a much more fluid game. Second: the 50 mile per tile scale... made the front's too narrow (particularly France). I suspect Hubert had very good reasons for chosing the 50 miles per tile scale. I have no inside info. But, please check what I wrote here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=34;t=000234;p=1#000014 On the other hand, the editor will allow us to make a smaller scale game. I would really like to have a 25-30 mile per tile game, with only corps (Infantry, Tank, Cavalry and Artillery Corps) ...oh yes, the Russians had Cavalry and Artillery Corps. Cavalry Corps were effectively used in the winter. Meanwhile, the Artillery Corps was the Russian solution to avoid spreading valuable artillery along a 1,000+ mile front. Using the SC2 editor we could modify the Rockets into Artillery Corps, and, we could modify the Infantry Army into a Cavalry Corps. The Panzer Groups would be rescaled as Panzer Corps. The Infantry Corps would remain as is... making the necesary adjustment for scale. The Russian Front will be 1,000 miles or 400-333 tiles from north to south (depending on whether you chose 25 or 30 miles per tile). I don't think any player, certainly no German Player) will manage to build 400-333 Infantry Corps. So I have the feeling we would have a lot of room to maneuver. Of course, drawing the map would take a lot of time. Hope the editor is user friendly. Any way, after I have played SC2 on both sides more than a few times, if Hubert does not publish a 25-30 mile per tile variation, I may give it a shot...

During the war, Germany had Panzer Grenadier or Light Panzer Divisions. Generally speaking a Panzer Grenadier Division had 2 Panzer Grenadier regiments. Each regiment had 2 motorized infantry batallions and one mechanized batallion mounted on halftracks. In addition there was a recon batallion mounted on motorcyles until 1941, but later mounted on armored cars. These panzer grenedier divisions generally did not have tanks, but sometimes had either "PanzerJagger" or Self Propelled Gun companies. Panzer Grenadier and/or Light Panzer Divisions usually fought alongside Panzer Divisions. A typical Panzer Corps would have a mix of Panzer and Panzer Grenadier Divisions.

Another option that achieves the same effect is to have all Russians HQ units start at Rating 4. This rating increases by 1 for every battle they are in until the HQ reaches its maximum rating. Thus a Russian HQ may enter the game with a 4 Rating and increase its Rating to a 6 or 7 as it gains more experience. </font>

Guderian commanded a Panzer Group similar to Patton's Army. Even if we do not consider Guderian's role in developing the Panzer forces, nor his later posts in the German High Command... I don't see how we could include Patton but not Guderian.

...very interesting idea. I like it. Of course the production value of countryside tiles should have be small (probably less than 1 per tile, else we may get some really whacky results... Elaborating further, not all tiles should have the same value. Somehow we would have to represent the fact that a lot of the Russian landscape was undeveloped and had no infrastructure serving it. One elegant way of doing so would be to reduce the MPP value of each tile as you move farther away from the nearset city. Because Russian cities are spread farthest appart, this would mean Russia would have a higher percentage of "unproductive" land than Western Europe.

Jost an idea: Perhapps Major Powers should be able to transfer technology to Minor Powers. In this instance, say German's transfer anti-tank (Infantry Weapons) tech to the Finns...

Hi SeaMonkey. I like very much support creating 3 types of air units as per your suggestions. I am not sure about the generic Air HQ. I would like to hear how you guys would work it out, but here are some of my thoughts: 1. Some air units are dispatched to far away places such as North Africa or the Eastern Froont. Those units have to be supplied from HQ's in those far away places. ...for those units in far away places it does not make sense to attach them to a central Air HQ in Berlin or London. 2. Some air units will be enganged in local ground support. It seems to me it makes more sense to attach those units to local ground HQ's. 3. I guess the Air HQ makes more sense for the "Strategic Air Campaign". Somehow, some units would be removed from the "tactical HQ's" and attached to a centra "Strategic HQ". I see the point, but how would you go about implementing it in the game?

I have some thoughts regarding winter in general ...not so much regarding The Winter War. Winter equipment was curcial in Europe, vital in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. And winter equipment implied some real expenditures. One million coats are a lot of coats even if they are only coats. I would suggest the following model for management of "Winter Equipment". There should be an MPP cost related to Winter Equipment. It should be a small cost, say 1MPP per Infantry Core and Air Fleet, 2 MPP's for Infantry Armies and Tank Groups. This is cost should be a once a year cost incurred some time in the fall or early winter. Once a unit is duly equipped for winter (winterized?) say in November, the unit remains "winterized through that winter. So the cost mentioned above is spent once every year. A player may have the option to winterize some or all of his units. Units with winter equipment should show winter camouflage in their icons. Some check box in the information window for each unit should also show whether the unit has winter equipment. In order for a player to distribute winter equipment to a unit, the unit most have a minimum supply level of say 7. Remember, Germany's failure to provide winter equipment in 41-42 was due mainly to distrbution problems. During the winter, the distribution problem grew worse since it became increasingly harder to supply the units in the front. ...as a mater of fact, winter in Russia should reduce the supply range of HQ's. A player may chose to spend MPP's winterizing units in Russia but not units in North Africa. A player may click each individual unit and decide one by one whether it wants to winterize that unit (if it is really short on MPP's it may chose to attend some firts and leave others for a later turn. However, clicking each individual unit may be cumbersome. As a short cut, a Winter Screen may allow a player to winterize all units of a given kind in a given country. For example, the German Player could winterize all air units in France, and all Infantry Armies in Russia, but nothing else. Of course, units that don't meet the minimum supply levels would be skipped. If supply is restored in a later turn, then the player could winterize those remaining units in a subsequent turn. Units without adequate winter equipment should suffer lower combat readiness and movement capability (AP's). The penalties should be even greater in Russia and Finland. In the coldest areas, perhaps there should be some random risk of actual loss from cold for units without proper winter equipment even if the unit is not attacked. Units without adequate winter equipment but occupying a city tile should have some partial relief from the winter handicap to account for the shelter provided by the city. Perhapps HQ's could also be "winterized". Winter should reduce the supply range of HQ's. In Europe Winter may reduce supply range by one tile or AP, while in Russia and Finland the reduction should be steeper (say a reduction of 2 tiles or AP's). But winterized HQ's would suffer a lower supply range reduction (say no reduction in Central Europe but 1 tile reduction in Russia and Finland). Back to Finland. Finish troops should always be winterized at no cost to Finland or Germany. This would be a one single exception to the rule above. Russian troops should not be allowed to winterize prior to 1941 so that if Russia attacks Finland they would have to face an enemy that is much better prepared for winter war. Comments?

This goes to show how hard it is to learn from the mistakes of others. In 1942-43 the Germnas were knocking down Allied Bombers that outstriped their fighter escorts. Yet they built a Bomber that would face the very same problem...

...got you. Thanks for the clarification. Nevertheless, I am very glad the time scale will be flexible. There are a couple of ideas for scenarios I already want to try.

Wow, this is truly great. First, thansk for answering my question Hubert. Second, thanks for making time scale flexible. ...third, this is great, I really would like to have synchronous turns. By the way, do you realize synchronous turns make motorization much more valuable. Speed becomes more important since your plan may unravel if the other player gets there first. When you have alternating turns, you do not have to worry about the other guy getting there first and screwing up your line of defense. In synchronous turns, the first one there takes everything.

Will the editor be able to change the time scale so that we may fit more turns in a year? The time scale is related to summer and winter weather... Say you want make a game that focuses more on Central Europe but have tiles represent 25 miles and the time scale half of the original scenario. Can you do that?

Thanks for your imput Desert Dave: I did not know we could buy old tech units in SC2. That is great! The Russian Front is so vast, and new tech units are so expensive... There are sometimes in which you cannot afford those high tech weapons. If we can buy old tech tanks, then we definitely do not need the tank destroyers, can buy lower tech tanks to do the job... On the other hand, any chance the "infantry weapons" research would imporve on both tanks and infantry? Tank Groups included all those infantry and artillery men together with the tanks. And, in case the default scenario does not provide so, could we change that with the editor?