ev

What is this "quick logic"? Would this affect AI performance?

In a separate thread we read the wonderfull AAR played by Catacol and Abukede. In that AAR Catacol mentioned he was sometimes short of units. I have did some research on German Panzer formations. As of the start of Barbarosa, these were Germany's panzer formations: Panzergruppe 1 included three Panzer Corps (XXXVIII, III, XIV). These corps were designeted Armeekorps. However XXXVIII, III each had two panzer divisions plus a motorized infantry division. Meanwhile, XIV had a Panzer Dvision plus the SS Leibstadarte and the SS Wiking. Panzergruppe 2 included three Panzer Corps (XXIV, XLVI, XLVII) Panzergruppe 3 included two Panzer Corps (LVII, XXXIX) These corps were designated Armeekorps, but each had two panzer divisions plus at least one motorized infantry division while one of them had two motorized infantry divisions. Panzergruppe 4 included three Panzer Corps (LVI, XXXXVI, VIII) All in all, Barbarosa incldued eleven panzer corps. Plus there was the Afrika Corps under Rommel. Another motorized infantry divison was held in reserve, while two more Panzer Divisions were scheduled to join the Eastern Front later in the campaign. These three divisions amounted to yet another panzer corps. This would bring the total number of Panzer Corps to 13 panzer corps on active service as early as 1941. More panzer corps and SS panzer corps would be formed in later years. Some have argued Germany should be limited on the number of Panzer Corps it should have. During Barbarosa, all these Corps were fighting full blast, and they never ran out of fuel. They covered huge amounts of territory and saw furious action none stop for months. And, again during 1942 and early 1943 they did not have fuel shortages. Yet, Germany did not run out of fuel. Fuel shortages were in great measure the result of lossing the airwar against England/US. (The bombing of refineries, chemical plants, etc.) In fact, Germany was running short of men long before it ran out of fuel. As early as 1942, the Wermacht faced shortages of men. At the time, all its Panzer formations were operating with adequate fuel supplies. I would suggest that an appropriate WWII model would provide Germany with a goo supply of Panzer and Air formations while keeping down the number of infantry formations... so as to model their lack of human resources.

A question for Catacol: Noticed some of the tanks were not brought to max tech level. Was this due to lack of time/mpps or is there some strategy behind this?

I agree with the first point, but have some doubts about the second. With regards to the first point, I think better HQs is the way to represent better tactics. With regards to the second point, Italian low morale may have been due to poor leadership and poor equipment. Low rate HQs may a better way to represent poor leadership, while low tech may be the best way to represent poor equipment.

I like the idea of an iOS version. I own an iPad, and I would buy SC for the iOS if it ever was available. However, I would like it to be as close as posible to the full SC. If it is too simplified, then, I would just stick to the pc version I currently have.

Force march rocks! I love this new feature. Hubert keeps improving this game engine, and, it is becoming truly awesome.

Great game and great AAR! Thank you guys!

I am a long standing fan of SC. In the past, Hubert has adopted some of my recommendations - THANKS FOR LISTENING HUBERT. I have one more recomendation. I hope HUBERT looks into this one too. Since the begining of the SC series I have had mixed feelings about how best to represent air-to-ground combat. Reading this AAR, I have the feeling TAC air is still an unresolve issue. These are my thoughts and my two cents: When I read WWII historical accounts I get the feeling airpower was a big issue when troops were caught out in the open. Advancing troops were a great target for tactical airpower. However, tactical airpower were not quite as effective against entreched units, and, particularly, against entrenched infantry. When you read these accounts you noticed TAC was used for two things: (a) To attack enemy formations on the move (like the German Panzer formations try to reach the Normandy Beaches, or the German spearhead in the Battle of the Buldge; or ( to suppress enemy fire while trying to advance (like Guderian's crossing of the Seine in 1940). Hence, the question: How can we make TAC in SC best represent this historical accounts we hear? FIRST: Note I am talking about TAC's, not Bombers; Dive bombers, not carpet bombing; Stukas, not B-17's. (a) Since TAC's were most effective against units caught out in the open, I thought it would be best to eliminate the "de-entrenchment" value of TAC's. In that way, TAC's would remain effective against units caught out in the open, but become somewhat less effective against entrenched units. ( But, since TAC's were good suppressors of enemy fire, I would keep or even increase the effect TAC has on Morale/Readiness. In fact, I think TAC's main effect should be to reduce Morale/Readiness, while having a smaller attack value. TAC's main contribution is that it forced the opposing side to take cover, so that they would not be killed out in the open. It forced units to march at night, to take the long route to avoid open spaces, etc. Thus, the effect TAC's had on readiness was much higher than the actual losses caused. TAC's combined with ground attack was so important because TAC would suppress defensive fire, allowing your ground troops to be much more effective in thei attack, while taking lower losses. A fleet of TAC's should have a very hard time destroying an entrenched ground unit that is sitting accross the channel, unconfronted by ground troops. The true value of TAC's should be in lowering the morale/readiness of a defender so that the attacking ground units are more successful.

I was not arguing it should. I was only asking whether it had become a factor in the game.

Thanks Catacol, Do you have guerillas/partisans in Spain? France? How is the occupation in these countries going? How did you manage with the guerillas in the eastern front?

By now, both sides in the AAR have incurred a fair amount of losses. Have you guys (the players) noticed any effect on National Morale? Do you feel/predict/fear National Morale, or lack there of, could become a factor in the game?

They also had one more thing: poor leadership. The attack on Belgium could be stopped. Mobilization could take plce without actually ttackin Belgium. Of course, that meant sacrificing the benefit of surprise. It also meant that the plan to outflank the French would not work. But, supposedly Germany entered the war to defend Austria. There is, in fact, anecdotal evidence that the Kaiser did not want a war with England. And Germany had obtained the territories it wanted from France after the Franco Prussian war. Germany had no need, nor justification to be the aggressor in the western front. Germany could have acted could have acted in a manner consistant with the reason that brought her into the war: To defend its ally from Russian aggression. Gemany failure to do so would haunt them back during the armistice negotitions. More important, an entire generation of German soldiers bled to death fightin for what? If Gvermany would have succided in reaching Paris, what were they expecting the French to give them? In the east, Germany could easily grab huge sections of Poland and Lithuania. And, the Russians did not considered this Russian soil. So, there was much more room in the east for a political settlement. And, by staying defensive in the west, Germany defused any reasoms for the Brits, or the US to enter the war. And, even if they entered the war, it made it politically feasable to negotiate a peace, since Germany could then claim: we only entered the war to defend our ally; we never attacked France; France was the aggressor.

Hyazinth, I see your point, and it is quite solid. Aside from narrowing the French front to +/- 10 tiles, the other benefit of leaving Belgium neutral is to delay England's entry into the war, which, in turn delays their blokade of German shipping. How do you deal with the blockade?

I've only played as CP. I missinterpreted the game manual. The game manual says: "The UK is poised to enter the war, both Italy and the USA are neutral but they will almost certainly join the Entente..." I understood this to mean UK was not neutral, and, must inevitably enter the war... in the few games I started, England always entered the war. I guess that was because I always attacked Belgium. And, of course, I always attacked Belgium because I thought the UK entry into the war was inevitable since it was "poised to enter the war." Anyway, thanks for clarifying the issue. In my next game, I will try not invading Belgium, and going all out against Russia.

Agreed. Exactly my point. If the Germans stayed put on their side of the frontier, and did not attack either Belgium or France, and, if the Germans did not attack Denmark or any other country, and, if the Germans did not make too much progress in the eastern front... i.e. did not threaten to change the balance of power, then the Brits would have stayed in the sidelines. I guess, what I am trying to say is that England's entry into the war should be conditional to events, not a predetermined event. England should be very close to entering the war, so close it could happen any moment, but, not a sure thing...

Amiens in the second turn! I will give it a try. Abbeville does not help me to achieve what I want. Amiens is good if your goal is to achieve a defensive line along the Somme River. Reading your strategy guide, this seems to be your objective. You are looking for a strong defensive possition in the West, so you can shift a good chunk of your force to the eastern front. I really like your strategy. Your thought is absolutely right, France is a tough nut, and quite risky. So, don't burn yourself in France, set up a good defensive perimeter and operate as many forces as possible into Russia. However, if that is your strategy, I would ask you one question: why invade Belgium at all? The easiest front to defend is the narrow stretch of land between Switzerland and Belgium. --- Remember Thermopylae. If you do not invade Belgium, you can defend the Franco-German border with 10 armies and 2 HQ's. You can operate all the reminder of your forces to the eastern front, on the second turn! Now, that would be something! On the other hand, there is another way to go about the whole thing: go all out against France. Turn their flank, force them to strech their line so much they cannot possible defend every entry point. The only way to do this is to push beyond the Somme before the Allies can set a defense. If a player wants to follow this plan, then Abbeville comes short on two counts. First, it is on the wrong side of the river. If you want to keep pushing forward, you want to reach the far side of the Somme before the French units entrench. Second, the Abbeville rail lines runs through Dunkirk, which is defended and will take more time to clear. If you want to push far inland, you must open a supply line a.s.a.p. Napoleon had a remarkable history of having to fight against multiple oponents and getting away with it. Somewhere, long time ago, I read that Napoleon would advise to tackle your strongest enemy first, and then turn around to face the rest. Who is your biggest threat here? Come to think about it, maybe you are right... France seems quite strong, but, it need not as big a threat if you can set up a strong defensive possition. Have you tried leaving Belgium neutral?

I am not an authority on this subject, but I thought I share with you some history stuff I read... and put some thoughts on the table regarding possible tweaking on this game. When WWI started, Germany and Austria had a mutual defend pact. Under this treaty, each party was bound to defend each other against an agressor. Likewise, France and Russia had a mutual defense pact, binding each other to a common defense. Apparently, Russia also had a treaty, or at least had declared publicly, it would intervene in the defense of Serbia if Serbia was attacked. England had similar treatises. However, England had made it clear it would only enter the war if the other person was the aggrieved party. If, say France attacked Germany, England would not come in to help France. But England had yet another treaty, which bound England to defend Belgium if Belgium was invaded by either Germany or France, or anyone else. So, in 1914, a Serbian nationalist killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, son of the Emperor of Austria. The Austrian government made some very tough demands on the Serbian government. The Serbian government could or would not meet all the demands, and Austria declared war. Russia declared war on Austria to defend Serbia. Germany declared war on Russia to defend Austria. And, France declared war on Germany to defend Russia. England did not declare war in this initial stage. Germany had neither attacked nor declared war against France. So England was not bound to defend France by the terms of their treaty. But then, and this is the big BUT ...then Germany attacked Belgium. And England had a defense treaty with Belgium. This trigerred England's entry into the war. So, back to Hubert's great game. The game starts before Germany invades Belgium. Belgium is still neutral, but England is already at war. This is a-historical... And it closes the posibility of players exploring a big if: What if Germany had not invaded Belgium. What if Germany had left a defensive force in Alcase-Loraine, and transfered all their troops to the eastern front. And, the even bigger if: If Germany had not invaded Belgium, what would have triggered England's entry into the war? My guess is that, any attack into French territory, or any attack against any neutral country (Holland, Denmark, etc.) would have trigerred England's entry into the war. Also, anything that threatened the balance of power in a substantial manner: Italy or Turkey siding with the Central Powers, Germany occupying a substantial number of Russian cities, and the like. Any thoughts?

I am still getting acquainted with this game. I would appreciate some advise. It strikes me that the German player needs to cross in force the Somme River (?) somewhere near Amiens during the first three turns of the Campaign. However, I am having the most difficult time achieving this (against the AI). Can this be done? Is this the right path?

During WWII, the Allies called upon partisans in France to flare up their activities at critical points. Of course, they could do that because they had been arming and establishing liasons for many months and years. It would be cool if a Player could invest a given amount of MPPs per turn to set up a connection with partisans in a given teritorry (e.g. France, Ukraine, Belorusia, Norway, Spain, etc.) Once you achieved this connection, you could call upon the partisans to step up resistance for a few turns at a point of choosing (i.e. before a mayor landing or offense)... I guess we are talking SC3 now... but just thought I dropped this... and see how you guys reacted to the idea.

Franco, the Spanish dictator during WWII was a Fascist ally of Hitler and Musolini. In fact, German forces fought in support of Franco's troops during the Spanish Civil War. My guess is that, if Hitler should have invaded Spain it would have created an awkward political situation for him and his Nazi party. I tried to come up with a list: 1(a) First, it should lower Germany's National Morale. German soldiers fought and died in support of Franco. Now they would be asked to fight against the very same army and regime they formerly supported. 1( Germany would be attacking an ally and fellow fascist regime. This should be hard to sell at home. Again, a hit to National Morale. 2. If Itally, Hungary and Rumania are still neutral, they would take special note of Hitler's attack against Franco. Their regimes were betting on their common fascist ideologies plus their anti-soviet stand as basis for common ground with Hitler's Germany. An attack against Franco's Spain would undermine Germany's relations with these countries. 3. If Itally, Hungary and Rumanio have joined the Axis, their National Morale should suffer when Germany invades a fellow Fascist regime.

Germany was holding much more than just the Ukraine. For startes he had Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, all of Poland, the Baltic States and Belorusia, and I think Germany also had Denmark and Norway, plus the Ukraine, Rostov, and soon after he also got the Caucasuss region with oilfields). 900MPP for such a huge region seems reasonable. The Ukraine was actually a huge and very reach country in natural resources. It also was very reach in agricultural resources which were a most if Germany was going to avoid the food problems that lead to defeat in WWI. I would like to play the game a bit before making my own call on this matter, but judging from the AAR, I am not so sure...

How is the Home Front doing? How many MPPs is each nation getting? What industrial tech have you each reached? (...if you can tell without giving up too much info.) What's happening in Africa? Did the allies already kicked the Italians out of North Africa? If the Allies controls Moroco, but the Axis controls Gibraltar, can allied supplies, ships and/or submarines get accross the strait? What about the Axis..., can they get through?

I was waiting for SoE to be ready before purchasing SCWW1. So, I just bought it...

What are unit costs like? Abukede and Catacol has shown us production figures. But to properly understand them we need to know how much it cost to produce the different units. What is the cost of a tank unit? an infantry army? an infantry corps? a garrison?

...sort of, but not exactly. Just as Ivanov said above, production of the Tiger tank started in Aug 1942 at a rate of only 25 tanks per month. Crews had to be trainned... Hitler insisted and a very few tanks were rushed to the Leningrad area in September before they were ready. You can work out the math: 25 machines produced in august. How much time did they have to train tne crews? And to fix up the inevitable problems with the very first few machines out of th assembly line? Me 262 prototypes were flight tested in 42. These were not combat ready machines. And apparently German engineers had quite a bit of work to do before they could get a combat ready version. It took them 2 more years before the first Me262 entered operations in 1944. One more thing: we are some times tempted to think of the Tiger Tank as a very avanced tank. It was an impressive machine. But the Panther V was more advanced. The Panther cost half as much, was much faster, had much better range, had almost as good frontal armor, its gun could rotate faster, and could penetrate armor just as well, reload times may have been faster, and had better cross country capabilties. Its only substantial weakness was lower side armor. It entered service in 1943. The Tiger was a very heavy tank. It can be misleading to compare medium and heavy tanks. A heavy tank sacrifices speed, range, endurance (wear and tear) and manufacturing costs in favor of armor and fire power. Using the same technology you can develop a medium and a heavy tank. The medium tank would be faster and have better range while the heavy tank would have better armor and firepower. The role of the heavy tank was different as well. When reading the wrttings of Guderian and other German officers of wwii you notice they envisioned that the role of the heavy tank was to punch a whole through the enemy anti tank guns. Meanwhile, the role of the medium tank was to exploit the breakthrough and fend off counter-attacking armor. In keeping with this idea, the Tiger could be slower, but needed better side armor an a gun with better high explosive capabilities (i.e. better against soft targets). Meanwhile, the Panther was faster and was a superb tank killer.