Shaka of Carthage

March 31, 1940 US 1%, Russia 49% French Army leaves the Paris theater (PTO). Can only suspect it has fled to England. XI and VII Corps encircle the PTO, to stop any further evacuations. PTO has a Army in Paris, Corps north of Paris and three (3)Corps South, Southeast and Southwest of Paris. RAF launches interdiction attacks against Rundstedt HQ. XXI Corps (Fr) attacks the XXVI Corps (Ge) outside of Cologne. French repulsed with moderate losses (2 str). No German losses. VI Corp (Ge) probes the Cologne defenses, inflicting slight losses (1str) on the XXI Corps (Fr). Italian declares war on France and takes Marseilles with its II Corps. 1st Army (Itl) advances towards Paris. Royal Navy continues its training exercises against the Dublin Corps. AG East has been stood down. Some elements have been sent to reinforce AG West. With the entry of Italy against France, relations with the Spanish have cooled. Japan has enetered some diplomatic agreements, but refuses to join the Axis. The Fuhrer announces that General "Hard Luck" Kuniworth, has been reassigned to a position as a military advisor to the Italian military. In protest, some of the OKH general staff officers have offerred resignations. The Fuhrer has accepted them. OKL has announced that Fuhrer has authorized the Luft to create a Fallschirmjager Corp (ie paratroopers) in addition to some Luftflotte Field Corps. The SS has been given sole authority to recruit German residents of other nations, to form a Waffen SS Corps. It appears the OKH is taking the blame for the poor performance in Poland.

March 3rd, 1940 Italy 88%, US 1%, Russia 49% AG East finally overruns the defenders of Warsaw. VIII Corp, led by Gen. "Hard Luck" Kuniworth enters Warsaw finishing off the defenders who were the remains of the Polish Air Force pilots and ground crews. Krakow Corp (str10) is left as the only viable unit. Poland surrenders. AG West penetrates the defensive lines outside of Paris, with elements of XVI Panzers reporting they can see the Effiel Tower. Last of the Maginot line defenses are destroyed. XXVI Corps stood up south of Essen. German units outside of Cologne lick thier wounds. Dublin Corp engaged in ground combat with the XXX Corp (UK). UK unit now at str6. Fuhrer is relieved that Poland has finally fallen. Russian units move into eastern Poland, as Poland is carved up between the two. AG East has been called to Berlin, OKH and OKL prepare for the coming political fallout.

Jan 7, 1940 ... Italy 88%, US 1%, Russia 41% Poland reinforces its three units near Warsaw. Modlin Corp (str7) north of Warsaw, Warsaw Corp (str8) and Krakow (str10). Pilots and ground crews of the remaining Polish Air taking up rifles. Army Group East assaults again, Modlin down to 2, Warsaw down to 1. OKH blames Luft I for not clearing Modlin so 8th Army could strike Warsaw. OKL blames VIII Corp, under General "hard luck" Kuniworth, for not being able to clear the last resistance in Warsaw. Luft acting as infantry and elements of AG East capture the last of the Pomorze Army near Berlin. AG West momentum is stopped. Losses on both sides, but no additional advance. New French Corp south of Paris. AG West request reinforcements. XXX Corp stood up south of Essen. VII and VI Corps sufferred heavly losses assaulting Cologne. Fuhrer watches while the Russians annex the Baltic States, per the agreement. Political damage from AG Easts failure to have captured Warsaw by now is a hard pill for the Fuhrer to swallow. Irish still holding out against the British.

Nov 26, 1939 ... Italy 88%, US 1%, Russia 40% OKH has relieved the VI Corp commander of his command. The defense of Cologne was his responsiblity. AG West continues its drive to Paris, overunning another French Army as well as most of the Maginot line. Paris is defended by a French Army and a line of three (3) corps. There is also a French corp south of the mine and a French Army in the southern most Maginot position. VII Corp has moved into a blocking position opposite the XXI Corp (French) that is oppressing Cologne. Unspeakable acts are being committed by the French, according to civilians in Cologne. It seems there is no longer honor in modern war. The 18th Army is stood up outside Eassen. Refuges from Cologne add to the confusion in the German rear, forcing the 18th Army and VII Corp to the wrong locations. AG East breaks the Lodz Army and Poznan Corp. Warsaw and Modlin Corp get probing attacks. In what could prove to be a fatal career ender, Bock orders II Corp to eliminate the Pomorze Army (str 1) that threatining Berlin. They fail to do so. Flak units, clerks and cooks are given rifles and ordered to hold Berlin. The Fuhrer is rumored to have fled Berlin. The Fuhrer is not pleased. OKH has been ordered to explain what has gone wrong in AG East. OKH blames the Luft I, OKL blames the performance of AG East, specifically the Corp commanded by General Kuniworth. Gen Kuniworth, explains its just a matter of luck, something he can't control.

Oct '29, 1939 ... Italy 83%, US 1%, Russia 40% OKM has lost contact with U-29 and U-30. At least six (6) different surface groups as well as the two (2) carrier groups used in Ireland were pulled into the battle against the submarines. The Irish are impressed. Danish Corp reinforced to str 5. Naval Gunfire and Luft I finally take effect. VII Corp takes the Danish surrender in Copenhagen. Polish defensive line reinforces itself to str 7. Army Group East assaults it again. Lodz Army (str 2), Modlin Corp (str 7) still resist. Poznan Corp is shattered. XIX Panzers flow thru the gap and reach Warsaw. XVI Panzers of AG West are attacked by two (2) French Armies. The German counter-attack, conducted by XVI Panzer, 14th Army and Luft IV break one of the French Armies and battle the RAF. XI and XII Corps exploit the breech, meeting a French Corp outside of Paris and almost encircling the 2nd French Army in Ardennes. XXIII Corp moves into the Low Country forest as part of the encirclement. Luft III stood up in Brussels. While distressed by the U-boat losses, the Fuhrer is pleased by the news from Daneland and France. Negotiations with Spain and Italy are doing fine, but there will be problems down the road, as they both want the same things. Japan is proving difficult.

Oct 1st, 1939... Italy 78% US 1% Russia 40% VII Corp amphib assaults the Danish Corp. Its a diaster, as the German infantry are unloaded in water thats too deep and end up drowning. The Luft air and Naval gunfire support are ineffective. Danish Corp still at str 4. OKM and OKL both blame each other for the lack of coordination. Army Group East (Bock) assaults the defensive line outside of Warsaw. Pomorze Army (str1) is bypassed per doctrine. Poznan Corp (str4), Lodz Army (str1) and Modlin Corp (str2) all suffer losses. German losses are minimal. Krakow Corp is ignored. Warsaw Corp continues to dig in. Polish Air (str6) unit is licking its wounds after facing the Luftflotte I. Army Group West (Rundstedt) begins operations against the Low Countries. Dutch Corp is bypassed. 14th Army and XVI Panzers, with support from Luft IV and II, assault Brussels. Even with support from the RAF and the French 1e de l'Air, its over quickly. The XI Corp occupies Brussels against minimal opposition, completing the collapse of the Low Countries. XII Corp advances as well, to protect the flanks of AG West, while greeting the new French Corp occupying the Maginot position. XIII Corp moves to Cologne, attaching itself to AG West, while VI Corp is stood up south of Cologne. OKM reports that U-30 has made contact with Royal Oak BB. Fuhrer is pleased at the swift conquest of the Low Countries. Even more so, after the first of the war loot makes its way to Berlin. While surprised that the British and its Canadian lacky decided to fight over Poland, even more surprising was the fact that the British got confused between the Germans and the Irish. None of the General Staffs can come up with any effective way to help the Irish, but a plan was approved to create German Special Forces.

Hueristic I used the '41 Barbarossa OOB to obtain the German limit. That already takes into consideration the conquest and minors that have joined the Axis. France, Low Countries, Denmark, Norway and Swedish "volunteers" are already in the German military, or have freed up German manpower for the military. Balkan minors have thier own units. If Spain was to join the Axis, its manpower would be in Spanish units. The "volunteers" are already in the German military. Same with Sweden. You could make a case that if they were "conquered", you may obtain manpower that way. Then again, maybe not, since you have garrison requirements. That would be an interesting idea for someone to justify. If you had a optional rule for "Russian Liberation", than that would give Germany more manpower. I would agree that would increase the unit limit. Same if you disbanded Naval and/or Air units, it would free up manpower for Army units. But thats way beyond any House Rule. I covered the actual numbers for each ground and naval unit in an older thread on Manpower.

September 3rd, 1939 The Polish insults can no longer be tolerated. Operation Fall Weiss has been given a go, under the command of General Bock. Its off to a slow start. 3rd, 4th and 8th Armies, supported by the II Corp have all launched attacks on the Polish Pomorze Army, yet they are still resisting (str 1). The other Army and Corp in the south have launched attacks that are slightly more successful. XIX Panzer Corp has has to cross Poland to reach Konigsberg, from which it launched its assault on the Polish Modlin Corp. OKH is not pleased. General Rundstedt has been given command of Army Group West. 14th Army, XII Corp and XVI Panzer have been transferred to his command and moved onto the Low Countries border. XII Corp has probed the Maginot Line. VII Corp has been given a independent command and has boarded ships for Denmark. Luft I and Luft II have both conducted airstrikes on the Danes, followed by Naval Bombardments. OKM has ordered the submarine packs U-29 and U-30 to ignore the merchant ships and to conduct operations against British capital ships. The Fuhrer has sent inquiries off to Spain, Italy and Japan. The "secret" agreement with Russia has been finalized as well. The French and British will complain and posture, but won't do anything.

I usually don't do AAR's, but I will try since this is a PBEM game using the Air and Ground Limit House Rules. I figured some of you may be interested in the different game play.

Thats a nice theory, but it didn't work that way in reality. Germany by '42, had exhausted its manpower pool and had to go other places to get manpower. Thats one of the reasons the SS was able to recruit "foreign" Germans. They had "exclusive" rights to it. Other nationalities were recruited by the German Army, but they were not all treated the same. Alot of the foreigners went into "static" divisions, which were not really part of the regular Army. SC doesn't have a unit to reflect those. Allowances have been made for the foreign manpower already as part of the thirty-five (35) German units. Allowances have also been made for the Luft field divisions and the Paratrooper divisions, that were not part of the Army. British Commonwealth troops are already part of the eleven (11) British units. 3 Canadian, 10 Australian, 1 New Zealand, 3 South African and 10 Indian divisions are part of those units. And of the 35 British divisions, three (3) include those with "colonial" personnel. There were many political reasons, not to mention the Japanese, that prevented the British from utilizing anymore Commonwealth troops in the MTO or ETO. In some respects, it should be less, since some of the CW troops wouldn't serve outside of Africa. In some ways, the British numbers are too high, since I gave them eleven (11) units, and those 11 could be all Army units. They should only be allowed four (4) Armies and seven (7) Corps (some of these never being allowed full strength), but I am trying to keep it simple.

Logan Hartke Production numbers by themselves don't give you information. They just provide you with data. You cannot use Aircraft production to determine the amount of combat aircraft being used on the battlefield. Same with your military manpower numbers. Peak US military manpower was over 12 million. But that was in 1945. Of the 12.1 million, 8.2 were in the Army, 3.4 were in the Navy and .5 were in the Marines. I can provide you with that breakdown from 1940 thru 1945 if you like. US combat divisions went from eight (8) in 1939 to a peak of ninety-five (95) in 1943. There were 90 Army divisions in '43, since the Marines didn't get there 6th division until '44. In Dec '44, there were 43 Army divisions in the ETO, 7 in the MTO and 21 in the PTO. There were 16 more "in transit", (1 on way to ETO front, 4 in England, 11 in US or on the way to ETO). In other words, the US only had 50 combat divisions in ETO/MTO. Then you have the non-divisional units, which from a combat power perspective, just about doubled that 50 division number. Germany, on the other hand, in 1941 had about 192 full strength divisions. 131 for Russia, 38 in France/LC, 13 in Norway/Finland, 1 in Denmark, 7 in Balkans and 2 in Africa. By 1944, Germany had almost 300 divisions, but for SC to properly reflect that, you would have to limit the strength points max to seven (7), with most units being around three (3) or four (4). You also didn't take into consideration combat power. SC has generic units. So how many Italian divisions go into a Corp? The answer would be six (6). How many British divisions? That would be four (4). Germans also had four (4). So on and so on. Thats part of what I did to get the numbers I have above. My ratios work out just fine. There are certain issues that I have yet to resolve, and those I'd be willing to expand on if you are interested. As most people get bored with that level of technical detail, I don't bother detailing those questions out anymore.

That points out one of the strengths of SC. The R&D system. Its one of the few places where you have to make certain decisions, but are unsure of the results. I love it when people complain about how they get no tech advances, yet the enemy does. I emphatize, especially when you have invested alot of chits and you find out the enemy only put in one chit. And the agony of having to reclaim the chits because you don't have enough units to stop the invasion. AI has come along way, but it will never be the equal of playing against a human. As a learning tool, its great. But at a certain point, you will be able to beat the AI. To make it more challenging, you have to play a "losing" side, to see if you can win. SC does that by the varying experience increases. Problem is, this hurts your playing against a human. I think SC has the right approach, where the AI gives you a competent game, but to go to the next level, you have to play a human. The variable setups make for a much more challenging H vs H game. Right now, the only way to do that, is for there to be a third person "game master". The Allied player would have to send a list of the units "purchased" and thier setups. Same with the Axis. This would allow France & Poland to have a different deployment. Since you can't do that with Russia, Italy and the US, you could get your variation there by random assignment of MPPs, variable number of R&D chits and even the occasional random assignment of neutrals to a specific side. Take the information, create a new scenario, then send it to the Axis player, who would then proceed as normal. I've flirted with the idea of doing this, but we will have to see.

I'm a fan of threesomes. Does that count?

Oak The Axis and the Allies "sides" don't have integrated economies. They are individual nations each with thier own problems and reasoning for the different units they raise. Historically, I don't care how many nations Germany conquers and plunders. It could be making 900 MPPs a turn. Germany can't go beyond a certain maximum number of air units (or armor). It just wasn't possible. Playability, you end up with what you have now. Germany does all the conquering, because its more "effective" to invest in Jets and Long Range for Germany and build German air. How many of you build Italian air units? Germany having four and Italy having two, forces you to plan. If Vichy France goes to Germany, where does Italy get its MPPs from? Balkans? And do you invest in Italian Jets/Long Range so you can be competitive against the UK/US air? Or do you take the chance and use them someplace else. Those are the kind of decisions we should be making at the strategical level. Same with the limits on ground units. Taking Sweden and Spain is something you have to think about. Are the extra MPPs worth the garrison units its gonna cost you? Instead of dealing with the Partisans by dropping Corps on the partisan "hexes", maybe its better to keep a mobile unit around to deal with them. Strategic choices and decisions, that if you choose wrong, could cost you. Hence, when you say "Having each country build a couple of air and invest in tech makes no sense." I have to disagree. Makes perfect sense to me. Panzer39 I agree that certain types of units should have limits. Mainly we are talking Armor units. German max should be eight (8), Italy one (1), British zero (0), France one (1), US eight (8), Russia five (5). But one step at a time. As far as the limits being on Axis or Allies, I tried to address that above.

jon_j_rambo Effectivness of air units. Lets take the Gulf War, 1991 as an example. Six (6) weeks of air strikes in open terrain. Iraqi's had to use passive defenses ("entrenchment", camouflaging, etc), no different than our WWII counterparts. At the end of the six (6) weeks, some Iraq units had been reduced to less than 50% of deployed strength. The initial 500,000 to 600,000 men had been reduced to 325,000 to 350,000 men. 20 to 30% of the tanks, APCs and artillery had been destroyed and roughly one-third of all the tanks, APCs and artillery was inoperable. Even more important, the logisitcal network for the Iraqi units had been shut down. The majority of the air strikes were conducted by dumb bombs with a small percentage (I think less than 25%) were Precision Guided Munitions. I think we call all agree, that the Coalition air units were quite a bit more effective than anything in WWII. But notice the effects. No units (Corps or Armies) were destroyed. Instead, you have a reduction in the combat power and a lack of supply. That can be represented in SC by a reduction in effectivness (my choice) or a reduction in strength points but no elimination. The main point though, is that even in ideal conditions with much more effective weapons, you don't have air units "killing" ground units. Didn't the US win with Air? ... Generally speaking no. But air superiority and strategic bombing did improve the combat effectivness of Allied units. various examples listed ... In reference to the ground combat effects, it reduced the enemy effectivness, but by itself never was decisive. Even in the Pacific, the air strips were there to provide air cover for the naval support ships. Even when they were able to bomb enemy islands, air by itself was not decisive (nor was the naval gunfire support). Marines and Army units still had to assault the islands. You'd be suprised how many people survive artillery and aerial bombardments.

I'd be curious in the results myself. I know you can move from PBEM to TCP or vice versa. But I would think moving from PBEM to AI would be a problem since PBEM has a password step. Not sure if you could get by that the first time. Post the results on what happens.

Monday it is. Let me know if we are talking PBEM or TCP. And if TCP, what hours you are free.

JerseyJohn Agree about the Scenario Editor concept. At this point, I'd just be happy with a Unit Editor. I've mentioned this in the past, but it doesn't hurt to repeat ones' self. If Mr H gave the permission, I'm sure there is enough grey matter in this forum for a "user created" Unit and/or Scenario Editor. This alone would give us the ability to be creative and play test the concepts we constantly debate.

I would be willing to play anyone either thru e-mail or TCP (we have to arrange the time) using this Houserule. No bids are necessary and you can pick your side. I think you'll find SC is a totally different game using the above. I'd like to replace the carriers with battleships (see below), but we can discuss that. House Rule Limit on Air and Ground units Nation ....... Air ........ Ground Germany....... 4 .......... 35 Italy......... 2 .......... 8 British....... 2 .......... 11 (12 if no Free Fr) French........ 2 .......... 14 US............ 2 .......... 16 Russia........ 3 .......... 41 This doesn't include strategic bombers or Russian Siberian reinforcements. Something should also be done about the carriers and experience bars, but thats better handled by the initial scenario setup (I would recommend Bill Macons). PS... The problem with the air also extends to the carriers. They cause damage way out of proportion to the amount of aircraft they carry. So here is my solution, until SC does something about it. Replace Carriers in SC with Battleships. In its place, I think the British should get the number of Strategic Bombers that its assigned in the Bill Macon campagin. [ August 05, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Its not the experience gain that is the problem. Its the ability of air to kill a unit. Limit the number of air units in a game and strategy will become more important. Limit the number of ground units and strategy will be decisive.

Kuniworth Try playing with a limit on the number of air units. I think you'll see that your problems will almost disappear. Then try it with a limit on the ground units. Those two changes will give you as close a game as possible to historical.

Narayan Sengupta You have to realize that you will never make everyone happy. Someone will always complain. Designers for years have debated among themselves about the choices they have to make when it comes to playability vs realism. There is no magic answer.

Narayan Sengupta (continued) The critical issue for a historical campaign is the ability to replace losses and add new units. The easy method, is the one most operational wargames take. They follow the historical timeline on when new units arrived to the battlefield. The other method is the manpower method. This gives you greater flexibility, in that you can leave it up to the player to use the manpower as they see fit. And since you've done most of the work anyway for the OOB research, you have the manpower numbers already. You also shouldn't forget that as you replace losses, you are consuming that limited manpower pool you have. Most wargames stay away from the manpower method because while its realistic, its open to major interpetations and its alot of work. What you end up with, are "unit limits" and/or "reuseable units". Hence, the French would be allowed something like fourteen (14) or so units. They couldn't build anymore than that max, but whatever they lost, they would be able to rebuild (assuming they have the economic units to do so). This also allows you to limit the French to one (1) Armor unit and two (2) Air units. This gives you the ability to show the economic, manpower and doctrine limits that restricted the various nations in the choices of units they built. This is why SC is a great game when you want to play the Greys against the Reds. But when you want Germans against Russians, it falls short. One last point. A "balanced" historical campaign is a contradiction in terms. Take French '40 campaign as an example. No one, even newbie players, will recreate the same mistakes that the French made when they fought the Germans. So you have to do something to make it playable. Thats one of the reasons the French in SC don't start with a HQ. Those are the types of challenges you have ahead of you.

Narayan Sengupta Here are the issues you have to address when you start going the "historical" route. You need a Order of Battle and you need an understanding of the to&e of the different units. Take France '40. There are quite a few places that list the OOB, but alot of it is in French. But assume you do find a source you will use. Then you have the issue of the different division types. The French have Infantry, Fortress, Cavalry, Motorized and two types of Armor (DCM and DCR). Those divisions are mixed in various combinations to give you the various Corps and Armies. That brings up the next set of problems. You need to determine the combat power. Usually that means you assign a combat power rating to each different division type, then add those various numbers together to give you the different combat power of the higher level formations (ie Corps and Armies). In real life, you'll find that Corps are not equal, unlike the way they are represented in SC. You also have to do something about the combat power that is represented by the non-divisional units that are attached to the Corps and Armies. Once you have that done for one nation, you now have your next problem. When you start comparing different nations, you realize they are not the same. A Russian infantry division is not the same as a German infantry division. And the to&e of the units are not the same depending on the year. This is also where you have to determine how to handle the different nationality types using the generic units of SC. All of the above is a detailed way of saying the same thing Bill Macon warned you about in reference to using Russian manpower numbers to determine the OOB for SC units. The last thing you have to do, is determine the service support tail of the different nations. These are the people who support the manpower in the Corps and Armies. Again, there is no one ratio that everyone uses. Once you work all those things out, you can have a historical OOB. This is also why the "experts" have different ways of representing the same OOB, even if they use the same reference sources. Depends on how you interpet and choose to represent certain information. I'll give you an example of my French '40 OOB. 3e Armee.......str 5.......maginot 4e Armee.......str 2.......maginot 5e Armee.......str 5.......maginot 8e Armee.......str 8.......mine 2e Armee.......str 8.......Ardennes forest 9e Armee.......str 5.......25,14 hex 1re Armee......str 8.......24,14 hex 7e Armee.......str 7.......24,13 hex GC1 (Armor)....str 1.......Paris (1er Groupement Cuirasse, consist of 2e and 3e DCR) Alpes Armee....str 9.......Alps (2 Alpini Corps) Gamelin HQ.....str 5.......next to Paris CEFS Corp......str 7.......England (French Expeditionary Force to Scandinavia) XIX Corp.......str 10......Algeria CSTT Corp......str 7.......Tunisia GFML Corp......str 2.......Middle East BEF Army.......str 6.......Coast (I and II Corp) BEF Corp.......str 6.......Coast (III Corp) 1e de l'Air.....str 10 2e de l'Air.....str 6 Note 1re should be a one (1) experience bar unit. Alpes Armee should be a one (1) experience bar unit. BEF units should be two (2) experience bar units. Now that you have the "historical" units, what next?

Logan Hartke Take a chill pill. All it meant was that your example doesn't prove that some combat should result is no losses. The point about US production has been covered many times here. Not relevant to the discussion about the combat results. Manpower issue as well. I totally agree about the ability to produce units not being realisitc. Greys and Reds have no limits on the units, unlike the Germans and Russians who did. I will agree that its produces a unrealistic Eastern Front. Thats why when I play SC, I almost always have to play with options on the air and ground units. Just so we are clear in future discussions, manpower losses would be the Infantry. Armor losses would be more in equipment, not manpower, but SC doesn't really make that distinction. The random factor of +/- 1 works fine. The problem as KDG (and others) pointed out is that when you get a 3bar exper unit going against a 0bar exper unit, that 3bar unit doesn't receive losses. Per Mr H's example, there is a possiblity of it receiving a 1str point loss. I'm reluctant to say I don't believe it, because I understand the issue with standard deviation. Lets just say that in all the games I've played, I don't remember any 3 or 4 bar unit taking losses in ground combat against a 0 bar unit. And I've created a scenario that produces those results and have played it against humans quite a bit. As I stated earlier, one of the main issues with the Eastern front fighting, was that it attritted away "experienced" German manpower. That doesn't happen in SC.