Shaka of Carthage

It wasn't just Hitler who had this belief. The majority of the military leadership believed it as well. I think we all realize that in any large organization like a government or military, you will have dissenting opinions. We only have to look at the invasion of Iraq to get an example. There were quite a few people who predicted disaster because there were not enough "boots" on the ground. It would be more appropriate to say that the ME-262 didn't meet the requirements for combat on the Eastern Front, which was the only thing day in and day out that the Luftwaffe was asked to come up with a solution for. Thats why Hitler ordered it to be developed into a fighter-bomber. First, lets not forget human nature. You've just lost the war, your nation is in shambles and you thank god that you were captured by the Americans, not the Russians. The Americans are interviewing you about the war and the reasons why... guess whats going happen? It wasn't my fault, I was only doing what I was told. If they had listened to me, it wouldn't have turned this way. If you read the interviews, you'll see what I mean... especially when it comes to thier description of the Russian soldier. Second, even if the Strategic Bombing had been delayed, I don't belive it would have made a difference. The Eastern Front had bleed German manpower. Who cares if there were more weapons? There were not enough warm bodies. There was nothing to stop Russia, which was the only concern in Berlin at the time.

O my. You have drawn a false conclusion. Germany as a nation, never had enough oil production to meet its needs. Thats one of the reasons it pursued atomic research, not so much to find an atomic weapon, but as an alternative fuel source. Same reason it pursued synthetic oil production (from coal). A major component of the pre-Barborossa trade with Russia was for oil. There are numerous other examples of Germanies need for oil. As a result, only a small fraction of the German military was motorized. I won't cite the numbers, but if you compare oil production and consumption before and after the loss of the Romanian oil fields, you can see what effect the loss had and why certain actions were taken to reduce the consumption of oil. Supporting additional aircraft and armored fighting vehicles requires more than just producing them. The Luftwaffe had a problem in that it couldn't produce enough trained pilots to man the aircraft it did have. We'll leave aside the fact that the training hours for pilots was reduced significantly. There are alot more factors involved as to why the Luftwaffe never grew beyond a certain size, but the two major reasons are lack of oil (for training pilots) and trained pilots. Short answer... because prior to '43, there were other pressing demands beyond military requirements. And a majority of the German High Command agreed that with the assets they had, they could defeat Russia. Even with the snafu down in North Africa, the Balkans and the conflicting objectives between Hitler and military, they still almost pulled it off. And then we wouldn't be having this discussion about the German oil shortage.

I'm not sure what the point is behind these two posts.

Before you guys get too much further down this path of ratios and what the effects are, a few things should be clarified. You are trying to calculate combat power. And that is affected by training, leadership, doctrine, etc (the soft factors) as well as the hard factors (equipment). In other words, if there was such a thing as a Italian infantry division armed with exactly the same equipment as an German infantry division, they would not have the same combat power. The attackers and defenders combat power compared to each other are the ratios you are thinking about... 3:1, 2:1. That way you avoid falling into the trap of thinking that if you have three times as many units as the defender, that you have a 3:1 combat ratio. You don't.

I agree with Exel.

Once again, we seem to have misconceptions because we have different understandings of what specific words mean. Historically accurate doesn't mean the game system will constrict you to only recreating what happened in real life. If so, most of us would be quickly bored, as the Axis have no hope of winning in any recreation of WWII. The fun factor in any game, is the replayability. And that comes from allowing us to make decisions that our historical counterparts didn't, along with the introduction of random factor(s), like technology research. But where most of us wargamers have a problem, is when a game loses touch with the era its representing, and moves beyond the realm of whats possible. So while the Rumanians (who wanted to show they were a power to be reckoned with) should be able to go anywhere... there should be some sort of penalty or restriction in working with the Hungarians, as they had just fought a brief "conflict", not to mention that they hated each other. The understanding of those diplomatic issues, the interaction between various weapon systems, etc... is one of the reasons you produce a game in the WWII era, with those various nations. Otherwise, call them Greys and Reds, and realize the game is RISK on steroids.

So the answer that has been provided is simple... Limit the "motorization" tech to a maximum number. This one is solved... so whats next?

We're both on the same page in terms of what the effect should be, so no need in repeating it. Here is the gist of your latest post... Problem with above, is you are assuming the SC movement rates are correct. They are not. The movement rates for Corps and Armies in SC, already assume they are motorized. What it should be is this... Infantry Army (horse-drawn transport) ... AP of 2 Armor Group (already motorized/mechanized) ... AP of 5 I wont' bother you the detail, but I will point out that in some of my older postings I should why the above is the correct ratio. Now, if we assume we have a tech advance that motorizes our horse transports, we can increase the Infantry movement rate to three (3). And thats all we should care about and modify. The different types of motorized or armored vehicles would not have an effect on the strategical level that the game represents. Wheter or not a Corp moves faster than an Army group AND that difference in speed should be represented at our strategical level is a different argument. But assuming we say yes, it should be faster... starting it off with a base value of 3, with a motorization increase to 4, would still leave it slightly slower than Armored Groups 5. If the Tiles require the movement rates to increase, then the AP values will change, but the relative ratio between them should not. Which leads us back to the "motorization" tech. If the R&D system is forced to give us a five (5) level tech chain, then that one point increase should only be given out at roughly around tech level four. The mechanics of how its done would be based on the R&D system. If, for whatever reason, you have the situation you describe... then the design is faulty and we would be better off just turning off the "motorization" tech advance and setting the values for the Germans, Russians, etc at the horse drawn rates while the British and Americans would get a higher rate (since they were motorized).

SeaMonkey Yes.

One of the things that was "broken" in SC, and was never fixed, was how a Armored unit fought a Infantry unit. Armored units had thier Hard factors increased by the Heavy Tank tech. Infantry units had thier Soft factors increased by the Anti-Tank tech. Armored units never had thier Soft factors increased. I forget what factors that were used where, since I don't have access to my home computer... but it came down to the fact that the Infantry units always got stronger as they got Anti-Tank, while even with Heavy Tank tech increases, the Armor units fighting Infantry, still fought them as if they where at tech level 0. That was the problem. So you can fix it by changing the combat formula, or by changing what factors are used in combat, or by changing the values in the combat factors. It really doesn't matter which method you take, as long as the Heavy Tank tech increases the combat ability of a Armored unit, while the Anti-Tank tech increases the combat ability of a Infantry unit only when it faces a Armor unit. Since the soft factors are representative of the artillery that the Infantry units have, the last thing you want to do, is have some sort of tech that changes the soft factors. The only nation that should be different than everyone else, is the US. US artillery re-wrote the book on how artillery should be employed and pioneered time on target as a method of targeting. No other nation could match them. But there are other ways this can be handled in SC2, without messing around with a tech advance for Soft factors.

Ever hear of "can't see the forest for the trees"? There is alot of detail that is being quoted to support the reason why there should be this tech added or that tech modified. While each detail by itself is correct, the overall conclusions that are being drawn are incorrect. As a game designer, one of the first things you have to decide on are the time and scale relationships. SC/SC2 represent that with a Corp sized unit and a 50 mile hex. Then comes the movement rates of your units. One of the hardest things to do, is to understand that as your scale gets higher, the more you have to abstract what that movement rate is representing. The importance of the range for ground vehicles isn't that important, as the relative movement rates betweens your various formations. All of us oldtimers who have played many, many boardgames, know what I'm talking about. Which leads me back to the Armored Recon Tech as a tech that would increase the AP of a armored unit. Recon vehicles would have no effect on the overall strategical movement of a Armored Corp. Why? Because long before they could take advantage of that "faster" or "longer" range, the armored fighting vehicles would have broken down. Whats true in todays armored vehicles was even more true back in WWII... that the more you drove them, the more they broke down, and the faster they would break down if you didn't perform daily mainteance on them. That attrition rate, more than anything else, determined the speed at which any large formation of Armored vehicles could advance.

While its true that you as the player, are free to make decisions that may not have been made historically, you have got to put some limits on how far away from realism you want to go. Abandoning your nation so your troops can fight on under some other nation, is just about as far away from reality as you can get. Its gamey, not realism. Polish troops didn't leave Poland until after it surrendered, and those that did get away, mainly made thier escape as individuals, not a organized military formation (ie no artillery, no heavy weapons, etc). Some went to France, some with to Russia. Those units had to be reequipped to be employed as military formations again. While they may have been employed at battalion or brigade level, they didn't get much larger than that, to ease command and control in the Army they were in. When France fell, the same scene was repeated with former soldiers fleeing to UK, colonial areas, etc. In game terms, whats "realistic" would be the Free French option turned off, since its pure fantasy to have Corp or Army sized French units being "Free French" as soon as France falls.

Lets take a different approach, since we are all arguing about Air the same way we have done time and time again. Why were Air units in WWII not used in massed attacks against a specific target to destroy them? Remember, we are talking about using Air units to destroy multiple divisions. Btw, if I remember this correctly, the carpet bombing example used above is misleading... as that was conducted by strategic bombers, not tactical bombers.

Since I've been playing SC the past year or so with Air limits, I have some experience with this. Not to mention all of the people I talked into playing it this way. I think the statement is somewhat misleading, because even with limited air units, all you have to do is concentrate them to achieve the overwhealming effect Air units in SC have. Whats somewhat more promising, is the statement that the combat tables are being modified slightly to reduce the effect Air attacks had. Whats not promising, is the statement that Air units will still have the ability to kill off a unit. So it seems it will be up to the playtesters to offer judgements on how the above changes work, and based on those judgements, offer any possible suggestions on a change, if any. Interesting.

Hmmm... thats not what I want. Then again, it could simply be how we define operational. To me, operational means the basic units are divisions. A version of that type of game is what the computerized World in Flames is suppossed to be. Thats not what I'm looking for in SC or SC2.

I'll point this out, just to be consistent. The discussion regarding Air units and there effects is something that has been going on since SC was released. Alot of the old timers on here, won't respond to some of this, as responding to the same question over and over gets to be boring after awhile. ev, while those are good points that you have listed about Aircraft in WWII, those are not the critical points that are necessary to make a decision about the effects of a unit in a game with the scale of SC2. So lets summarize the game problems with the Air units in SC. </font> Initial range</font>Ability to eliminate a unit</font>No limit to its numbers</font> The first and third issues can be addressed by the editor, so its more or less solved. That leaves us with the second issue... the ability to eliminate a unit. While no one will argue that an aircraft can't eliminate an armored vehicle, or a truck or even infantry... no one should believe that by adding more aircraft, you can get the same results on a larger scale. Even our contemporary example(s) in the Persian Gulf Wars (I and II), with equipment that is generations beyond what anyone in WWII dreamed off, showed that alone, aircraft cannot eliminate a Corp or Army sized unit. So the combat model in SC, that allows a Air unit to kill the enemy unit has something wrong with it. I personnaly think it can be solved by having the Air only effect the readiness of the target, but others have made suggestions along the line of reducing or removing the ability to eliminate a units last SP. Either way, something has to be done, either in the combat model or the application of the combat factors (ie thru the editor) to fix it. That still leaves work to be done on fixing the problems with Anti-Air Radar as a technology, but fixing this won't matter if the above isn't addressed.

He's talking about SC.

Its micromanagement at a scale that SC doesn't cover to be concerned with purchasing winter equipment for units. Having to purchase equipment isn't neeeded. Whats needed, is a "event" in SC2 that would have a negative effect on units in a specific weather zone. To allow for 20/20 hindsight, the probablity of the event occuring should not be 100%. Then, all German units within Russia, during thier first winter, could take a reduction in readiness, strength points, whatever the designer feels is appropriate.

SeaMonkey Yes, we should have the stats on the Tac Bombers as well. The range of the Recon models would be interesting as well.

Thank you SeaMonkey... that is exactly what I wanted. My home computer is either on strike or needs a rest (ie it doesn't work right now), so I couldn't look up the aircraft types. So now we have enough information to compile the ranges and start looking at how the various fighter and strike aircraft would be together. I probably won't be doing any of this until Tuesday of next week, but I wouldn't object to someone else doing the work either. And yes, while the SC aircrafts are "generic", it doesn't hurt to see what the historical values are, so we can have generic values that are realistic for the appropriate time frames.

I don't remember exactly myself, but you are correct about the "turretless" tank... either the Swiss or Sweden had it. There was a big debate back then, about if it should even be called a tank, since it was really more of a tank destroyer (ie a self-propelled anti-tank weapon). The last sentence is really the gist of why you feel there should be Tank "Armies". If you think in terms of units lining up frontage to frontage, then smashing into each other... then yes, your Tank "Corp" won't defeat a Infantry "Army". But I'm sure you realize thats not the way it worked (unless it was early Russians). It really comes down to a design decision on how Mr H wants to represent the Tank Groups ability to concentrate its firepower against a selected portion of the defenders line. And thats assuming we don't make the distinction between "classical" blitzkrieg and the "modified" blitzkrieg which came about because of the infantries anti-tank weapons.

Since you are taking requests SeaMonkey... FW190 Spitfire Yak Stuka and whatever the frontline Italian aircraft where. I think I'm missing the Russian frontline aircraft and a few Allied types. But I don't remember what they where off the top of my head. I'll check my info when I get home.

I agree that Tank Groups have problems in SC. But I don't think the way to fix them in SC2, is by making a Tank "Army". The existing unit of four (4) divisions is almost ideal as a representation of an Armored Group. There are other ways to address the problems with the Tank Groups. one possible solution being in the post SeaMonkey submitted. The existing combat model does present a problem in that the defender doesn't cause the attacker enough casualties. Especially when the attacker benefits from high experience levels. This was something that was brought up many months ago. Buts its a very subtle problem, as the "problem" doesn't exist outside of extreme conditions. German Rocket Launchers, Strategic Bombers and in some respects, even U-boats, all have the same problem. These are strategical weapons that SC does a poor job of representing and even worse, compounds the problem by letting them be involved in the tactical combat. Night is exactly correct about the Heavy Rail. Its too small on our scale. I would support a "fighter" unit, if that meant the existing Air unit was split into two units ... a "fighter" unit and "tactical bomber" unit. If this is what it takes to "fix" the Air unit problem, so be it. But this is a major design change. Smaller formations move further distances (hence faster), because they take less time to get the front and rear of the formation moving. Its a "slinky" effect. SC problem is that the Corps and Armies are motorized already, so reducing the AP's on them will fix it. Garrison unit concept is intriguing, since it would represent the type of unit that in reality exists in Gibralter, Malta, etc. But I don't see how it would work, without some major changes to the existing combat factors. Any talk of Tank Destroyers means we have to be very careful about what we mean, as a Tank Destroyer in the American army is not the same thing as a Tank Destroyer in the German army. However, I do believe that its not something we have to concern ourselves with, as the differences between a Tank and a Tank Destroyer is lost at our scale... being abstracted in the concept of a "armored fighting vehicle" and "heavy tank" tech research. [ May 27, 2004, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Ok, then I will restate my opinion. The method of entrenchment SC uses (which we assume will be the same in SC2) perfectly represents what static troops would do in WWII. The Engineer unit of SC2 will provide us with what was missing in SC... the ability to create permanenent fortifications. The only thing missing, is what Blashy pointed out, his only fault being he didn't consider surprise, which Edwin P did. So instead of having a neutral nation once its DoW'd on start off at full entrenchment, tie it to the level of readiness (which represents mobilization in some ways). Easy, simple and realistic.

Divide the ranges by a third to get the combat radius. Assume 50 mile "tile". Bf 109E/G models(1937-1942) range 3/4 "tiles". Hawker Hurricane Mk1/MkIIc (1937-1940) 4/6 "tiles" Curtiss Warhawk IA P-40E (1939-1942) 6 "tiles" Lockheed Lightening P-38G/L (1941-1943) 9/15 "tiles" North American Mustang P-51B/C-D (1942-1944) 15/14 "tiles" Interesting isn't it? Sure would seem to validate the people who for many months have asked that the initial range of Air units be reduced significantly. Not to mention those who have asked that when Tech Level 4 of Jets is reached, the Air unit range be reduced as well. [ May 26, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]