Ludi1867

There are two things to keep in mind when considering carrier warfare in SC. First, this is a simplified game system that uses turn based, 'I go, then you go' methodology. Second, this is a game. The reason I mention the first is that there ARE more realistic games on the market. War in the Pacific(WitP) employs a simultaneous move mechanic that is much more suited to carrier warfare. But WitP is MUCH more complex, and choosing to play that game results in a very different set of decisions. I mention that this is a game because there are many calls on the game designer's to make this game more 'realistic', whatever that means to each individual. This is extremely difficult to achieve at the best of times, and inevitably involves tradeoffs and compromises. The naval game in SC is hardly all that realistic – I have commented a number of times on shortcomings that I perceive in the naval game system. However, for its level of complexity, SC is FAR AND AWAY the best strategic naval wargame available. Yes, I really did defend the naval game system in SC here! So, to return to carriers, Abukede has already provided excellent advice in how to employ carriers effectively in SC. They really can be devastatingly effective when employed as he recommends. Whether SC completely captures the reality of WW II naval carrier combat is a little bit moot. The discussions here have not been, to be honest, all that great when the history is discussed. For example, there were at least two different occasions when carriers came under the guns of warships during the actual war, although the two events were extremely different. The first, where HMS GLORIOUS fell to guns of SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU in June 1940, provided an epic example of ineptitude in naval air warfare. The second, at Leyte Gulf in October 1944, saw USS GAMBIER BAY sink, (ST LO also sank, but a kamikaze attack should get most of the credit for that) but most of Taffy 3 escaped when Admiral Kurita turned away. The entire battle has been analyzed many times, but overall there are so many anomalies (Halsey 'taking the bait', Kurita's withdrawal when close to inflicting even more serious damage on the small carriers, etc, etc) that it is hard to decide what coulda, shoulda, woulda happened. There is a way to deal with the variability of naval warfare, which is to make naval results extremely variable. Apparently this is the approach taken in Brute Force, where I have seen really remarkable variations in results. Personally, I am not that enthusiastic about this approach, although arguably it is more 'realistic'. Most scenarios in SC have reasonably predictable results, although there are variations in results according to probability. (The impact of weather in the form of rough seas and precipitation is also very significant). If you like a lot of variability, you can play Brute Force or adjust the editor settings (not sure how that is done myself, but apparently it CAN be done). If you can suspend your disbelief and use the tactics advocated by Abukede, then vanilla SC can work quite well. If you cannot suspend your disbelief, then you should consider investing the time and money needed for WitP. In short, there are options out there, but overall the naval warfare system in SC works reasonably well – for the nature of the game.

Hi Hubert Thanks for the quick reply - I have bypassed the replay and then I could play the turn. However, on the next turn I was forced to bypass the replay again when the game crashed again...so there have been CTD on two consecutive turns UNLESS the replay is bypassed. So, for me at least, the game has not returned to normal, and I have not been able to view replays on subsequent turns. I will be glad when you get the patch out!

Hi I have not heard of any other games reporting a problem with Gold as yet, but I just experienced a CTD in a PBEM game (And it occurred in the same place twice, putting an end to this game for now). The error message displayed is "Failed(animate_replay_list):Segmentation violation". I have a saved game available, if that would help.

This comment will take the thread away from diplomacy (a discussion I find rather interesting), but I don't think that the material deserves a new thread, as it is right in line with trying to 'improve' Storm Over Europe. My concern is regarding Decision Event 101. DE 101 - UK: Destroyers For Bases? - Event fires: On the 13th August 1940 when London is in Allied hands and the USA is at least 10% aligned with the Allies but not fully mobilized. - Cost of accepting: 450 MPPs at 50 MPPs a turn for 9 turns. - Yes: The UK receives a strength 6 DD (Niagara) at Scapa Flow on the 13th August 1940, a strength 6 DD (St. Clair) at Rosyth on the 1st December 1940. Canada receives a strength 8 DD (Annapolis) at St. John’s on the 1st March 1941, and a strength 6 DD (Columbia) at Halifax on the 1st June 1941. - No: Nothing. There are some problems with the current Decision Event 101. First, the cost. Why so much? The historical event was actually sort of 'free' for the British – the only 'cost' was a bunch of bases in overseas territories plus the cost of repairing and upgrading these rather old destroyers (that cost was not insubstantial, though, as there was a lot of work required). The distribution and number of destroyers received is also far from historical. In the actual war the RN received 43, the RCN 7. So why do both the UK and Canada each get two Destroyers? Worst of all, however, is that despite paying a LOT of MPPs now, the Allied player does NOT get full strength, upgraded destroyers, but has to spend time and MPP to repair and upgrade these ships. Assuming ASW tech level 1, the actual cost of the four destroyers is 140 more MPPs for repairs to bring them to full strength, and about 120 MPPs to upgrade four destroyers one level of ASW (it costs double for Canadian destroyers to upgrade). This brings the total cost to 710 for the four destroyers with level 1 ASW, which is still cheaper than new, but hardly a great bargain. I started looking into this particular DE because it really seems that the UK (as well as the US) get shortchanged in Storm over Europe. When this DE fires, the UK is hardly rolling in MPP (the UK always seems to struggle hard for MPP in my experience). While the UK is paying out a lot of MPP for these broken down old destroyers (and, frankly, not getting very many of them, especially the UK), the Germans get a number of 'free' U-boats, which just show up. I can 'guess' that the designer's intent is to promote a better Battle of the Atlantic. If so, I am not impressed with the decision. The UK is badly understrength in many ways anyway, and adding further penalties hardly seems reasonable. The result is perhaps more activity in the Atlantic, but there is also a bias against the UK as a result of the dearth of MPP that the UK now has in any other theatre, whether it is to conduct a better (and bigger) bombing campaign, or build up the very weak forces available to the UK in the desert. What should be done? Well, I think there are two choices. The DE can either be made much less expensive, and the ships are delivered in their current state, or the cost can still be substantial (but hopefully not a full 450 MPP) but the ships that arrive are full strength and fully upgraded. What would be a reasonable cost for the first option? Perhaps 100 MPP, and 200 for the second. I think the second would be better, personally, although perhaps a touch less 'historical' (although the current DE is not historical anyway).

Hi Vespa, etc I have previously suggested something along these lines in the SOE improvement thread, for much the same reason that Vespa has provided – long range amphib operations did take place during the war, and long range amphibious operations are prohibitively difficult in SC using current methods. I think Vespa is starting to make reasonable suggestions, but there is some work to be done to address the issue of how this problem could be addressed reasonably simply, and within the SC framework. I don’t think that simply converting any transport to amphibious mode in any coastal square is necessarily an appropriate mechanism. First, this does not address the concern that this makes transports too flexible. Second, it is not clear if there would be any delay (is there a one turn delay or can the amphib immediately assault? I would suggest there are a couple of options that can be proposed, and then the SC game designers and others can weigh in on feasibility of any new options within SC mechanics. Option 1 – High Speed Amphibious Capability Unit. Propose that a NEW class of transport be introduced into SC that has the characteristics of both a transport at sea and an amphibious unit. A player would need to decide when embarking a land unit whether to pay additional MPP to use a high speed amphibious unit, or to pay the ‘normal’ transport cost for embarking a land unit into a transport. The advantage of a high speed amphibious unit is that it would proceed at normal transport speed until in a coastal square adjacent to where it intended to assault. At that point it can make a one time decision (you have to move as an amphibious unit from that point on) to convert to normal amphibious assault mode. If the unit ended its transport movement in the coastal square it can move up to one square using amphibious movement to assault in the same turn. The supply penalty of using this mode (as opposed to embarking in a normal amphibious mode from ashore) is that it will assault at supply level 8 (and supply level will start to drop at one per turn until the unit either assaults or goes back ashore in a friendly square). Option 2 – No change to existing rules, but a ‘normal’ transport unit can pay half the normal amphibious embarkation cost to convert to amphibious assault mode when within two squares of a friendly port and in calm water (does not necessarily have to be coastal). The value of this option is that it does not require the introduction of a new unit. The disadvantage is that it requires a friendly port somewhere close to the destination. Normal supply rules would apply – transports would not normally use supply while at sea (unless attacked), but amphibious assault units lose supply at one point a turn once embarked. Neither option is perfect, but both options are far superior to the current conventions in SC, which severely restrict the use of amphibious operations. I am also sure there are other possibilities!

My thoughts on SC WW 1/SOE have evolved over a few PBEM games, but in general I am very impressed with the initial post by Ivanov. I would amplify his comments on the too large German industrial base, as well as the too small US industrial capacity. This game seems, in simple terms, just a little too stacked in favour of the Axis. In a current PBEM game I have just reached the fall of 1944. Russia just surrendered, and German production – EACH turn – is about 1300 MPP. Before Russia surrendered it was 'only' a little over 1100 MPP. (This is with Industrial Tech level 4 - level 5 is creeping up at what appears to be the minimal possible advances per turn). Now, this varies as a result of the wondrously variable Russian partisans (more on that later), but those approx numbers are correct – and simply too large. There is no real reduction as the German Empire expands, and that is simply far too ahistorical – the historical record is hardly unanimous, but overall there is a general consensus that the Nazi empire was not particularly efficiently run (with perhaps the exception of Denmark), and that efficiency seemed to suffer markedly as expansion continued. There should be curbs to the ever increasing German industrial base more effective than presently exist in the game – right now conquest is the clear answer to every German desire. The US appears to be capped at a maximum of 520 MPP. This is rather silly when compared to what the German base can be increased to. It is also the maximum (barring conquests) possible no matter what happens. And it takes a while to get to that maximum, so the US is slow to get involved in the war, period. Usually, by the time the US is in a position to do anything useful, the game is already decided. (And the Allies can win, if Russia is very well handled and the Germans aren't. But the US is more or less a spectator no matter who wins). US industrial capacity needs to be increased generally, and perhaps a DE added in the event of marked Axis successes – perhaps a DE if the Middle East falls (Cairo surrenders), and another if Moscow/Leningrad OR Stalingrad surrenders. The DE would be simple – does the US choose to assign greater priority to Europe in the event of obvious Axis success. The amount increased can be perhaps 20% (any proportion should be linked to the hopefully increased US industrial base). Rationale? The US had a two ocean war, and could vary the resources it assigned to either major conflict. Historically the US adopted a 'Europe First' policy, although this was often more for PR purposes than reality (the actual resources devoted to each war varied, but overall the Pacific actually did pretty well, especially as a result of USN lobbying.) In short, there WAS flexibility for adding more resources to the European conflict, and obvious Axis success may well have triggered an increased US effort in Europe. It most certainly is not a possibility now, which makes the US pretty much a spectator most of the time. One of the reasons (beyond the lack of means) that the US is often only able to spectate is that the mechanics in SC for amphibious invasion are simple, but prohibitively difficult for the US. Has anyone EVER successfully mirrored the Torch time line with US units in this game engine? I do not see how it is possible, period. Now, the simplicity of current amphibious rules is elegant, but they make it TOO difficult to mount a long distance amphibious operation. And make no mistake, the Allies conducted quite a number of long range amphibious operations. The fixation tends to be on Overlord, which was suitably short ranged. However, Torch used units that traveled straight from the US to Africa – no short distance at all. So what to do? I have thought about this quite a bit, and there MAY be a simple and relatively elegant solution – allow transports to change to amphibious mode when within two squares of a friendly controlled port and in calm waters. This is hardly an ideal solution, but it does potentially 'work'. The cost to adopt amphibious mode should be a little less than for a land unit to make the switch (the ships are already 'paid' for to a certain extent by the cost of transports). No more labouriously landing a transport in Gibraltar, waiting for the next turn, embarking that unit in an amphib, perhaps repeating....as turns and (in some cases, such as over the winter) months go by. Anyway, I REALLY think the amphib aspect of SC needs to be re-worked so that long distance Allied operations are at least possible. Overall the naval war in SC makes it challenging for the Allies to attain maritime supremacy, and then curbs the ability of the allies to do much with what sea control they do have. My final comments are on partisans, which have been discussed before. My main chagrin is with the Soviet partisans. Before Russia surrenders there are two types (as there are after Russia surrenders, although the context changes). There are physically appearing partisans – not really too many, and almost randomly sprinkled over the map – and randomly effective partisans, almost always in cities (I don't think there are any that do not appear in a city, but I have not thoroughly checked the map). Physical partisans can be garrisoned against. That seems reasonable enough, although the most effective way to deal with them is to have them appear, kill them with a dive bomber and then try to make sure the area where they may appear remains under Soviet control (in which case they do not appear – until Russia surrenders). The real problem, and this has been mentioned before, is the random partisan attacks in cities. There is NO WAY to counter these random attacks, which can dramatically impact German supply deep in Russia. Consequently supply often becomes not a matter of strategic planning but a matter of random chance – which is kinda silly. Enough of these randomly appearing partisans should be changed to real partisans so that the German player can actually choose to either garrison an area or not. The current state of affairs is just silly. The silliness gets rather blatant when Russia surrenders. Now each and every real partisan spawn point has to be garrisoned – and some of these locations are in really odd places. If a German player is fortunate enough to defeat Russia there is no real capacity problem with garrisoning all these spawn locations – but it is TEDIOUS. Yes, indeed, tedious almost beyond belief. When Russia surrenders the whole issue should transition to a mandated number of garrisons – go below that number and the possibility of partisans appearing anywhere should start to increase, the probability varying with the degree to which the garrison requirement is fulfilled. And a popup should point this out. This last partisan point is pretty picayune, but the supply impact, and its random nature, is not. At least that aspect should be addressed. Overall SOE has enormous potential. But right now it is an imbalanced scenario, with some real problems.

Hi Hubert I should have mentioned that - I am playing 1.03.1, which I believe is the most up to date version. Perhaps it has been fixed for the next patch? As indicated, this is a minor thing, but it is certainly interesting when you put an Italian BB alongside this little Polish DD and nothing happens!

In a current SOE PBEM game my Italian fleet has been unable to attack the Free Polish DD ORP Blyskawica. It is July 1943, the Italians are definitely at war with the British (and sank a British transport carrying Canadians the same turn it could not attack the Free Polish DD). It is not possible to declare war on the Poles, as they have surrendered (And, yes, I did check the Declare War map!). I can only think that this is a minor bug. (I didn't see this previously reported - if it was, I missed it!)

Hi All Quite a lot of things since I last posted. First, Bill, I do appreciate the feedback, even though some is perhaps disappointing! I can well understand that the current victory condition assessment is complex, and that means that it is not likely to be adjusted directly. That said, I don't know if you have directly addressed the idea of the DE event that X suggested – is that too complex as well? I think that might be a really fascinating way to provide for very close games. I also do not want anyone to get the idea that Cpl Steiner ever suggested that this was not a close game. He was quite careful to note that the game was very, very close. It is also clear to me that he won! I suppose that a scoring system would help indicate that a game was close. As to game ending, there does appear to be some flexibility now. For example, in the game I am discussing, Russia was forced to zero NM at the end of the CP turn – but did not surrender. This gave the Entente player one more turn to inflict damage on CP units...not a lot of damage, as it turned out, as Russia was in pretty dire straits. But Russia did not surrender until the END of the Entente player's turn. In other words, reaching zero NM does not appear to always trigger surrender. If Germany had had one more turn to move, the result in our game could have been that both France and Germany would have reached zero NM. So I am guessing that reaching zero NM is a necessary but not sufficient reason for victory (or defeat, as appropriate) to be declared – there is a secondary calculation as to whether the war continues for one or more turns? I appreciate very much the further explanation of the results of the blockade and dip calculations. In my view 1-2% may well be too low for the blockade...perhaps it should be 1-2% for every 90 NM points of blockade in place? So 75 NM points of blockade (three flags occupied in the North Sea blockade line) would not trigger any US reaction, 4 flags in that line would trigger 1-2%, all 8 would trigger 2-4%, and if every flag (a total of 290) is occupied then there would be a 3-6% chance of the US becoming irritated and lowering its prep for war against the CP...or raising its prep for war against the Entente. A similar calculation for each U-boat raiding (1-2% for each and every U-boat raiding a convoy line) would act to increase the chance of the US joining the Entente. If that would be possible I think it would better reflect the actual history of the war, where the blockade was a definite irritant to the US but submarines were very much THE irritant. I also think the idea of a Holland favouring the CP perhaps offsetting some of the impact of the blockade might be worth looking at. Along that vein, the capture of Romania and the addition of Ukraine's resources both helped to ease the impact of the blockade – do they have any impact on German NM? If not, there again may be partial ways to address the blockade impact. I think I mentioned the blockade was enormously complex! Shark's ideas of allowing spending of MPP on NM are interesting, although I am not quite sure how to best address. The other possibility of allowing for economic aid to be sent – or not – to Allies is also very interesting. This proved an enormously important – and contentious at times – aspect during the war. There are currently a few DE's where this is specifically addressed (Germany sending MPPs to the Turks, for example) but overall it is not really as big a part of the game as it was of the war. Perhaps yet something further to consider?! I am not sure what to say about the Verdun comments. It is currently quite challenging to occupy Verdun...I emptied it two or three times in the game with Cpl Steiner before finally occupying it, and the amount of blood spilled in the vicinity was all too historical. Anyway, I am finding this whole thread fascinating, and I really do think that the underlying reason that there is so much to discuss should be kept in mind – this scenario really is remarkably balanced for such a complex historical event, and that means there are a lot of nuances that can be examined at great length. In other words this is a GREAT scenario!

Interesting comments, X, Shark and Peter. I am surprised I didn't think of the DE event that X suggests, but that might be an elegant way to allow for a stalemate conclusion to the game. I guess I have to elaborate a little to address Peter's comments. I think Peter is right to suggest that the blockade was probably the nail in Germany's NM coffin. However, Peter is wrong – quite wrong – about the USA. And that means I have to discuss that elephant just outside the room, the US and its prep for war. The US did NOT enter the war I discussed in my original post. Germany only used one U-boat to attack shipping (until Cpl Steiner quite decisively killed it), and most certainly did not adopt unrestricted warfare. The blockade appears to have been aggressively adopted at the outset of the war. I would agree that I was probably mistaken not to attack the blockade more aggressively earlier (the German fleet was en route an attack on the blockade when the game so abruptly ended). However, my efforts to keep from irritating the US appear to have been somewhat successful. On the other hand, the aggressive blockade only appears to have irritated the US ONCE, which is not very often. I suspect that this may have been because the Entente began lobbying the US diplomatically early in the war, but I cannot confirm this (Cpl Steiner and I have not done a complete dissection of the war, so I am making hypothesis regarding his dip moves). However, as evidence for the dip efforts I would provide occasional dip hits promoting US prep for war by the Entente. Early in the war I made Holland my main dip objective for the CP, and Holland was still neutral, aligned toward Germany when the war ended. In 1918 I shifted 5 German dip chits from Holland to the US. This was extremely expensive – 1000 MPP for Germany, as well as sacrificing the 250 MPP already spent on Holland. But I judged that keeping the US neutral was critical at this point in the game. Ultimately,US prep for war seemed to stop advancing at 67%. There were NO decreases in US prep for war, but having the US not enter was very important as well. I would argue that the US NOT entering was quite reasonable given the extreme measures Germany and the CP took to avoid provoking the US. Indeed, the very aggressive stance of the Entente through the blockade should arguably have had MORE impact in reducing US prep for war, or even tilting the US toward Germany. (I did not send the Zimmerman telegram either. The only time I have seen it successfully used – ironically by Cpl Steiner in a losing cause! - it did have a dramatic impact on US prep for war. But its chance of success is pretty low, and I am not usually that lucky). The blockade is an enormously complex subject. It is interesting to read accounts of the blockade effort, and realize how much it affected the US. Indeed, if Germany had not used submarines to attack merchant shipping, especially unrestricted attacks but even just commerce attacks in general, as submarines lacked the capacity to conduct true cruiser warfare, it is difficult to see how the US could have become as aggressive toward the CP as it did historically. Since basically ALL games start to become alternative history after about three or four turns (in my view, anyway), it does seem that getting the blockade right for alternative history is important. At present it appears that the blockade and German action choices have been tuned so that the US has a chance of remaining neutral. However, I would suggest that perhaps more tuning is needed. I would suggest that each and every submarine attack on shipping routes have the same chance of upsetting the US as the blockade does. If the CP elects to adopt unrestricted submarine warfare, each and every CP attack should have an immediate impact raising US prep for war (ie regular submarine attacks only have a chance to affect relations with the US, but unrestricted attacks automatically cause diplomatic damage.). I would also suggest that this should be calculated INDEPENDENTLY of diplomatic efforts - that is, the probability of naval activities, either Entente or CP, causing US prep for war to move up or down should be calculated before diplomatic efforts are calculated. I am not sure if this is even possible – I have never been that good at programming – but I really think that the two activities are so different that they should be calculated separately. After discussing the US, I think Peter's other ideas really relate to different scenarios. There is certainly a case to be made for the points he is making, but they so dramatically change the 'Call to Arms' scenario that they deserve to be addressed on their own in separate scenarios. Anyway, just to reiterate, I am NOT trying to say I should have won the war I had with Cpl Steiner – I am just saying that a war that endures as long as ours did should at least have the possibility of a negotiated peace outcome. This is different than the historical end to the war, but in an alternate universe where Germany forgoes unrestricted submarine warfare, etc, it does not seem all that unreasonable. I think the DE suggested by X might be the most elegant way to introduce the possibility.

Call to Arms Victory Conditions – the need for 'Stalemate' In an earlier post I commented that I had found this scenario pretty balanced. I just completed an epic PBEM game with Cpl Steiner. I ended up 'losing' this game, but I think the actual results of the game strongly suggest the need for a 'stalemate' conclusion in some situations. A bit of background first. Most games of this scenario that I have played end sometime in the summer of 1917, and it is generally pretty clear who the eventual winner would be in any case. In other words, the losing side is generally retreating while the winner is advancing. This game continued well into 1918, ending suddenly in July. The end came with Russia surrendered, French National Morale at 04% and Germany just touching zero NM as it advanced into France...the game ended the turn after Germany captured Verdun, in fact. It would seem reasonable to argue that if the game had continued that the Central Powers would have triumphed, as only German NM was low. A quick overview of the stats indicates that German surrender happened not when Germany was retreating, but when the Entente was desperately holding on. When the game ended, there were 64 German land units, a German navy almost as large as the RN (and arguably in better shape), and a much larger and more advanced German air force. France was clinging to life with 12 land units (most of the front line was held by British units, with Italian units starting to arrive to fill gaps). There were 32 British land units, a number of which were in the Middle East...and Turkish morale was the highest in the game at 98. AH morale was still above 50, at 56. Italian morale was also pretty good, at 62, although the AH was starting to break out onto the Italian plain. (Both Italian Heavy Artillery batteries had gone to France). Now, there is no doubt that German NM reached zero first, ahead of the French (have I mentioned how skilful and devious Cpl Steiner is? Darn good player). However, in a situation where one Entente major power has surrendered and a second (France) is in single digits, AND Germany was advancing (Nancy was in a good position to fall when the game ended, and Belfort might have fallen that turn, or the turn after that at latest, and Verdun was captured the turn before Germany surrendered) it seems incongruous that Germany would suddenly surrender. German losses had been high – 89 of the 108 Central Power land units lost were German. But Entente losses were very high as well. Russia had lost 85 land units (and all of its navy) before surrendering. Altogether there were 172 Entente land units destroyed to only 108 for the Central Powers. At sea 27 Entente ships sank to 20 for the Central Powers, and in the air there had been 5 Entente units destroyed to only 1 for the Central Powers. Now, I am not saying I should have won this game (although it really could have gone either way with existing rules, with French morale as low as it was). BUT I would argue that having a nation automatically surrender when it reaches zero is, perhaps, a little too arbitrary. I would suggest that a 'stalemate' victory condition should be established for this scenario. Arguably, it IS a balanced scenario, and a stalemate should be possible...especially when the nation that reaches zero NM is ADVANCING. Reviewing the actual history, Germany only agreed to an armistice when her armies were in clear retreat and her allies were collapsing. No allies were anywhere close to collapsing in this game, and that should be part of the criteria. I would suggest the following: A nation that reaches zero NM when no part of its original home starting territory is occupied, and where the morale of its Allies is >50, and it's opponents has had one major power surrender and a second major power has NM in single digits would result in a negotiated peace or stalemate. I think that the designers of this game have indeed achieved a very balanced result, but this is not reflected in the victory conditions, which can have awkward and incongruous results if a game is, in fact, very close.

Hi All Some really interesting comments in this thread! Overall, I would say that the Call to Arms scenario is pretty balanced. An awful lot depends on what someone does. For the most part, I play PBEM (haven't played the AI since the original game came out, without patches) so my comments versus AI are all rather old – so I won't make any. The Turks will do well or badly depending on how much the Entente player does – or does NOT do – to thwart them. If the British send ANZAC reinforcements to the western front instead of Egypt right away, the game will play out quite differently. If the Russians are aggressive they can make life a little challenging for Turks in the Caucasus, IF the Turks are distracted in Palestine, etc. Without distractions the Turks can handle the Russians most of the time. In short, while some fine tuning of terrain to allow more maneuver might help, the game really depends a lot on the players. Which really says to me that the scenario is pretty darned balanced – an impressive achievement overall. The one thing not mentioned in this thread that I might suggest improving is how comparatively painless it is to attack ports now. The naval game in SC WW I remains a little weak, but now that submarines are a little better (I think the penalty to submarines that move before attacking has really helped play balance), the next problem is port defence, which is generally not all that good. It can take time to inflict damage on a ship in a port, but there is not all that much a player defending a port can do in many situations, and this allows players to unrealistically continue to apply pressure and (sometimes) do significant damage to ships within ports. To me this is highly unrealistic, and I think there is actually a way to fix this that is fairly straightforward and consistent with overall SC design – allow ports to upgraded, up to level 5, increasing the damage that a port will do to an attacker and reducing the damage done to any ship inside that port with every level of upgrade. Now, I do not think that there needs to be any research for this – the technology to protect ports existed before the outbreak of war. Instead, I would suggest a cost for each level of perhaps 10-25 MPP. This would represent the cost of installing large guns, mines, etc that are intrinsic to port defence of the period. Players then have the strategic decision of investing in port defence or more ships, or more armies, etc. If you review the history of the war, there are not many examples of successful attacks by ships against ports. Ships were used to bombard cities and coasts with roughly the same level of success that is found in the game now, but ports were generally NOT attacked – because it was generally too difficult. Right now that is NOT the case in the game, and it can make the AH ports in the Adriatic, for example, much too easy to attack.

Playing this new scenario has been both fascinating and frustrating. The larger map allows much more room to maneuver, but also causes a host of challenges. One of the challenges that has started to become increasingly evident is the challenge of simply getting US ground and naval forces to Europe – it seems to take a LONG time. Exacerbating this problem is the comparatively low US industrial production level. The US is hardly, in this scenario, the industrial powerhouse of the Allies that it was in the real WW II. So I fired up SC Global Conflict and had a look at the size of the map there. By my measurement (I did this pretty quick, so it might be off by a square or two), there are 34 squares that a transport or naval unit must pass through on a direct route from Norfolk Virginia to Bristol UK (the great circle distance is approximately 3100 nautical miles). If you then go to the SC WW I Storm over Europe map, the distance in squares is now 137 (the real distance remains about 3100 NM). OK, so the number of squares has increased by approximately a factor of four (4x34=136). Therefore the speed of naval units and transports should probably be about quadrupled, right? No, not really. The speed of a destroyer in SCGC is 10 squares per turn, while in SC WW I it is more, but only by a factor of 1.5 (15 squares per turn). Transports do better – in SC GC transports travel 12 squares per turn, while in SC WW I SoE that increases to 24. This is double, but hardly the quadruple needed to keep the already very wide Atlantic in SCGC down to about the same proportions. The designers HAVE made it a little easier to get from the US to the European side of the Atlantic in SC WW I SoE – there are naval loops now. These do make things a little faster than plodding across the Atlantic – it only takes four turns for a naval unit to go across using these loops. Four turns?? Really? If a convoy traveled at 10 knots – a very common, even low speed for troop convoys during the war, and these type of convoys are the ones modeled by transport units in SC - it would take just under 13 days to travel from Norfolk to Bristol. That is perhaps two turns (in the summer) in SC WW I. Even in SC GC it only took four turns total to get across the Atlantic, albeit without the luxury of loops. Now it takes one turn to get to the loop, plus four, so a minimum of five turns. If you don't take a loop, it will still take a transport (without an escort, which cannot keep up) six turns to plod across (6x24=144, which is more than enough, but 5x24 is only 120, which is not enough). So WITHOUT loops, naval units and transports are quite a bit slower in SC WWI SoE. Even with loops transports remain slower in SC WWI SoE, and both games are significantly slower than real life. This additional penalty (which is what it amounts to in the game) is added to the low production level of the US. Now an Allied player not only has to labouriously produce a unit, but then has to painfully (and expensively) push it across the very, very wide Atlantic. This makes it much harder for the Allies to mount a credible second front, or that much easier for the Axis player to try to win. There are somewhat arbitrary penalties placed on the Axis in this game too (the random partisans in Russia that garrisons cannot prevent is an excellent example), but overall there seems to have been more new penalties placed on the Allies. Especially in the naval and production sides, which make it much harder for the western Allies to operate historically. Why has this happened? I can only speculate, but I think a combination of reasons are responsible. Hubert has suggested that the AI struggles with higher speeds in the naval game. Well, that is possibly true, but the solution really penalizes the Allied player. In addition, it is clear that trying to 'create' a Battle of the Atlantic in the SC game engine is challenging, and the modifications to SC WW I SoE seem more suitable for promoting a Battle of the Atlantic. But overall the result is unfortunate. The Atlantic is much too large now (in terms of the time penalty exacted on the Allies) and there are too many events that are dubious at best (Iceland and the Azores 'automatically' becoming Axis when Denmark and Portugal are conquered) that the overall impact is to skew history quite significantly in favour of the Axis. Perhaps this is needed to keep the scenario 'balanced' in game terms. But it is rather distorting, to say the least, in terms of both reality and history.

Hi Ivanov I would like to offer a contrary argument to your perspective. I am quite content that the V weapon program is now not an option in SC Storm over Europe. My reasons are as follows: a. The new research system is very effective for evolutionary designs, but much less satisfactory for revolutionary systems. Most weapon systems are evolutionary in nature, and it is reasonable to have new designs arrive within a reasonably predictable time line, which is exactly what the new system provides. However, a handful of weapons are quite revolutionary. What are revolutionary weapons? Very unusual weapons that required rather unique design decisions. The V weapons probably qualify as unique, although the V-1 is perhaps arguable. The V-2 was quite unique, and there was never any Allied design at all like it. But even for the Germans, the reasons for their success revolved more around a rather ingenious design team (led by von Braun) and heavy political patronage resulting in the assignment of massive amounts of labour, including a rather sick amount of slave labour. The SC design is NOT, in my view, capable of reflecting the unique aspects of the V-2, and having it in earlier designs may, perhaps have been 'fun', but it was pretty weird. b. If 'revolutionary' designs are going to be allowed, then there should be Allied revolutionary weapons possibilities provided so as to balance the game. Were their Allied 'revolutionary' weapons? Absolutely. The most revolutionary one ended up being developed just a little bit late (historically) for Europe, although that was the main theatre it was intended for. However, the nuclear devices used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki likely had an important impact on the end of the Pacific war. (I am NOT going to get into the argument of how much of an impact, as that is a very complex issue). Could the atomic weapons have been available for Europe? Well, arguably, if the war had extended just a little bit, they might well have been used there first. If the Germans are going to be allowed V-2s, then it would only be 'fair' to allow the US to develop a nuclear option. I think, at the end of the day, the most important factors in the game are to try and provide as much historical flavour as reasonable while still allowing a somewhat 'balanced' game. Arguably (and certainly so far in my experience) the game designers have made quite a few concessions to ensure that the Axis have a chance for victory. (So far, I would argue that the Axis have too great a chance for victory, as US industrial levels seem to have been seriously reduced). Avoiding revolutionary weapon options altogether seems preferable to trying to include only the Axis option, as was done in previous SC designs.

Hi Sharkman, Quite a list you have there! I see enough differences between the first five and the last two that I will deal with them separately. I have to say I am ambivalent about your first five suggestions. On the positive side, I think you could probably argue in favour of these changes from a narrowly historical perspective. On the negative side, I consider that the game system already has a mechanism in place that more or less addresses the most important concerns associated with these five suggestions. What mechanism is that? Well, I would argue that ALL of the things you are discussing are fairly expensive in resource terms. That is, if a player wants to create more 'Bismarcks' etc he 'only' has to add resources. HOWEVER, and this is very important from a game perspective, resources spent on the naval war are not available for panzers or aircraft in Russia...and this can be very important in the game. Finally, the more 'historical' you make the game, the less opportunity there is for a player to adopt alternate historical paths. So I guess I am narrowly against adopting the first five items on your list, although I can see an argument in favour of them. I am much more intrigued by your 6th suggestion, although I would alter the suggestion a bit. In my view one of the great omissions from the SC system are the light carriers that were used in the Battle of the Atlantic. Arguably the RN invented these (HMS AUDACITY was the first, a converted captured German merchantman) but the USN proved the most important adopters and innovators with this class. In game terms, I really think that a CVE Hunter Killer unit is needed. This would be different from conventional carriers, having NO Naval Warfare rating. I would propose that HUKs would have the following properties: ASW ; Advanced Aircraft; and LR Aircraft (Conventional carriers have these properties: Naval Warfare ; Advanced Aircraft; and LR Aircraft). Consequently HUKs would not be very effective in surface warfare, but would be much more effective in ASW. I am not sure strikes should be reduced to one or not, but if only one strike is allowed then HUKS should be given the ability to attack an adjacent U-boat in stormy weather (HUKs were a combination of CVEs and DDEs – and operated effectively in some pretty poor weather). OK, a historical digression to explain why (ie, those only interested in SC as a game can skip this para). The USN had perhaps one of the most remarkable performances in the Battle of the Atlantic. When the US first entered the war the USN performed pretty badly. Everything from ships to doctrine to organization was, in a word, bad for the first six months or so. However, after another twelve months the USN was killing U-boats left and right. There were a LOT more ships, doctrine had improved significantly and the USN adoption of Tenth Fleet in May 1943 addressed the vast majority of the organizational problems the USN had had in ASW. An incredible turnaround, in short. A key part of the change was the arrival of MULTIPLE Hunter Killer groups in the summer of 1943. These groups were build around one escort carrier, with usually four Destroyer Escorts around it. The USN had built these warships VERY quickly, and made some pragmatic and aggressive design decisions that the more conservative RN could not bring itself to do (the USN accepted a significantly higher level of risk with the design of these 'Woolworth' carriers than the RN would, and modifying CVEs to RN standards meant that most RN CVEs were many months behind the USN). This remarkable unit is not to be found in SC, and that is a real shame. They proved a very important part of the 'solution' to the Battle of the Atlantic, and inflicted devastating losses on the U-boat fleet when it withdrew from the northern convoy routes after unacceptable losses in May 1943 to the supposedly 'safer' central Atlantic that the USN patrolled. OK, now on to your last item. I think naval leaders could be a really interesting addition to SC. However, I do not see naval leadership as only an RN monopoly. The Kriegsmarine had at least one superb leader in Doenitz, who proved capable of inspiring his sailors to keep going to sea in the face of truly staggering losses. Doenitz may have had questionable political ideas – it is not an accident that he was chosen to succeed Hitler – but his ability as a leader was impressive. However, the whole concept of a naval leader strikes me as challenging to implement in the SC game system. Nonetheless, it does sound highly intriguing. The thought of Cunningham leading the Med fleet against the lackluster Italian Admirals is simply fascinating.

I have been following this thread with great interest, and have certainly learned a bit about how silent mode works. Overall I think the point that has to be remembered is that SC is (very much by design!) a game and NOT a simulation. The designers have worked hard to try and roughly recreate some of the decisions that were faced by wartime leaders, but there is certainly no effort to precisely model how things worked during the war. Instead every effort is made to recreate the overall atmosphere. Submarine warfare, especially against commerce, is an excellent example of this. The convoy lines placed on the game map are very rough and crude approximations of the actual convoy routes used in the wars. In reality, however, shipping and convoy routes could vary quite significantly from those displayed on the map. Moreover, there were no convoys in the Atlantic in World War one until about April 1917 – and U-boats had real difficulty finding ships in the middle of the Atlantic (most ships were sunk within 200 miles of the UK, with a much smaller number sunk close to North America by the few U-boats that were dispatched overseas in the Great War.) Yet in SC WW I U-boats simply have to place themselves adjacent to a shipping route ANYWHERE in the Atlantic and they will inflict significant MPP losses. Historically accurate? Hardly. Does it work from a game perspective? Well, actually, it more or less does. OK, things were different in WW II because the Allies instituted convoys almost immediately the war started, right? Wrong. While the Allies did start convoys pretty quickly, the convoys, and the routes they followed, changed substantially as the war progressed. Even composition changed, as at various points in the early part of the war merchant ships capable of speeds of 15 knots were allowed to proceed independently – and often did. But the biggest changes were that most early convoys were not at all like the convoys most of us have seen in history books or movies. Early convoys had few ASW escorts, and often dispersed when only part way across the Atlantic, or reformed only as they approached within a few hundred miles of the UK. Why? Because the biggest threat perceived by the RN at the outset of the war was surface warships, not submarines. And early on this estimate was probably not all that wrong, as there really were not that many U-boats available to the Kriegsmarine when the war started. Depending on your source the German Navy had only 56 or 57 U-boats when the war started, and only about 1/3 of those were ocean going – most were the Type II that could make it out into the North Sea, but that was about it. For most of the first year or two the Germans were challenged to keep 8 U-boats on patrol at any one time. The 'wolfpacks' that Doenitz dreamed of (and had written about during the interwar years) were not possible yet, and early German wolfpack efforts were both tentative and not always that successful. However, a massive building program designed to deliver hundreds of ocean going U-boats began to bear fruit in late 1941 and by late 1942 the Germans had more than the magic number – 300 U-boats – that Doenitz considered essential to a successful anti-shipping campaign. Ironically, U-boat successes were comparatively low in late 1941 (Allied codebreaking worked very well in the second half of 1941), and there were very few attacks on convoys in the first half of 1942 – yet the first half of 1942 was one of the more successful periods for U-boats, as the USN, in an act that remains hard to understand today, failed to mandate convoys for merchant ships for months after becoming involved in the war. It is only in the second half of 1942 and the first part of 1943 that the Battle of the Atlantic actually corresponds roughly to what is the norm throughout SC. Does that matter to the game? Not really! But you have to keep this in mind when reading comments from the game designer. For example, when Hubert Cater says “From memory I believe the Germans start with Level-1 subs to reflect their efforts in this area prior to the break out of hostilities and they begin with Level-1 Naval Warfare to reflect the slight edge the Germans had in gunnery at the beginning of the war, i.e. the advantages of their gun laying radar and gunnery techniques which included firing usually up to 3 salvos at once including the calculated salvo and an under and over slightly adjusted set of salvos to compensate for any miscalculation.” he is not wrong if you consider the overall effect of his design decisions on the game, but his historical assessments can be questioned (if you want to – his assessments are accurate as far as they go, but leave out the lack of numbers of U-boats early in the war.) Hubert's comments on the German surface fleet are quite interesting, and make a valid point. The RN did have significant difficulty when fighting the surface ships of the Kriegsmarine, and did not really gain a significant advantage until the spring of 1944. But the details of that development are probably better researched as history – the game ALLOWS a player to research naval warfare tech, but in the overall scheme of things most British players are hard pressed to match the historical achievement of the RN. Those interested in the fascinating development of radar controlled gunnery in the RN in the English Channel are encouraged to read the chapter by Michael Whitby (Senior Naval Historian in the Canadian Department of National Defence) in 'Fighting at Sea' http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/1896941567?ie=UTF8&tag=bairmari-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1638&creative=6742&creativeASIN=1896941567 . That chapter provides not only a detailed history of the tactical and technical factors that allowed the RN to, finally, prevail in battles with surface ships of the Kriegsmarine, but also provides excellent insight into how professional and competent the Kriegsmarine surface fleet was, resulting in a number of remarkable successes by that force in the first years of the war. Finally, to get back to the game itself, I wanted to ask a question of Bill101, who commented earlier as follows: Bill101 “xwormwood's comments to form a pack of Destroyers to go sub hunting is very wise advice, because even if they don't immediately sink an enemy sub on attacking it, every attack they launch will reduce the sub's supply value. The lower this goes, the slower the sub will move and the lower its effectiveness in both commerce raiding and in attacking your surface fleet. So even unsuccessful attacks will help to send that submarine back to port....” My question is: does EVERY attack lower a sub's supply, or just those attacks that do not result in the submarine diving? The difference is, to me, important. I have had occasions where a number of attacks in a row have resulted in the submarine diving, and in that case the supply level of the submarine has NOT gone done (and I just did a quick trial in SC WW I 1.02 and had the same result). Now, I can see the supply level not being affected some time, but it seems like EVERY time the submarine dives then supply does not go down. I find the failure of the submarine's supply level to decrease, at least some of the time, problematic. So, does a submarine's supply level go down every time it is attacked? Or only on those occasions when it does not dive? If it is the latter, I strongly argue that a submarine's supply level should decrease after an attack even if it dives, at LEAST 50% of the time.

Hi Hubert Thanks for the response - never thought to check scripts for this, as it doesn't really seem logical to me to link these loops with the loss of Suez or Cairo or whatever...naval ships would be more affected by the loss of South Africa, which is kind of hard to represent in this scenario, than by the loss of Suez when it comes to traveling around the Cape of Good Hope. I should add that there is a sort of bizarre work around in the game, as you can use the loop from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, and then take the loop from the Persian Gulf to the North Atlantic. I suppose that probably ends too when Basra is captured, although that again does not make much sense. I guess I should not be totally surprised, as naval units continue to be penalized with really, really slow movement rates in Storm over Europe. It is quite interesting to see the welcome addition of forced marches to the SC game engine, which provides a useful way to move land units more rapidly, yet then be forced to labouriously spend several turns moving a transport from the east coast of the US (or from Canada) to the UK - the movement rate is FAR slower than historical movement rates for normal troop convoys which moved at a rate of at least 10 knots, and FAR, FAR slower than the movement for large ships such as the Queen Mary which traveled at closer to 20 knots, resulting in a crossing of much less than a week. Using historical rates of movement the MOST it should take is two turns to cross the Atlantic...and that is about half the time it takes now.

Not sure if this problem is unique to me or has been already reported/dealt with (had a look but could not see it), but I have encountered a definite problem trying to send naval units from the Red Sea to the North Atlantic. So far I have had a carrier (Ark Royal) and a destroyer (Mohawk) sit on all three arrows for several turns in the Red Sea with absolutely nothing happening. I don't see this as an earth-shattering problem – the only reason I even tried this is because I really, really screwed up my Allied Middle East defence – but it still seems to be a problem. I do have a saved turn if needed. And, finally this is against the AI (just fooling around a bit, trying to learn the game – overall the Axis AI seems pretty poor in Russia, but it is still capable of pulling the odd surprise...hence my issues in the Middle East!)

This thread started with a question that is incorrect, so far as I can tell, and has veered far off course already. In version 1.02 of the game the UK in the first campaign scenario does NOT start out at war. The UK is at 98%, and will immediately join the Entente if Belgium is invaded. However, if Belgium is not invaded then the UK may or may not immediately join the Entente – although if it does not join immediately it is clear that the UK will join very, very soon. So, the first point made by Ev, that “England is already at war”, is certainly not the case for the first campaign scenario. Now the whole issue of whether 98% is a reasonable assessment of the UK position is certainly open to prolonged debate. There were many cross currents in British politics at the end of July and early August 1914, and it is not at all clear that the UK would have immediately gone to war with Germany if Belgium had not been invaded. Even with the invasion of Belgium two Cabinet ministers in the UK resigned rather than vote in favour of war. The cynical may scoff, but Cabinet resignations on matters of principle are actually rather uncommon, and do indicate that there was significant resistance to the UK entering the war. In the longer term, the UK had never NOT gone to war to support a balance of power (or to oppose a potential hegemon) in Europe for several centuries, so it seems quite reasonable that a UK declaration of war would follow upon a German advance into western Europe, even one that avoided Belgium. How immediate the UK declaration of war would have been can be argued endlessly, but it would likely have come fairly quickly. The fact that Germany invaded France in response to events in the Balkans is arguably not rational at all, and has much more to do with German assessments before the war than anything else. The most rational response to a threat in the east from Russia might well have been an advance into Russia, and this is indeed one of the more practical ways to do well as the Central Powers in this game. However, the real Germany (which was arguably more of a Prussian dominated Empire than a nation state as the term is understood today) was so concerned about a two front war – and Russia and France being Allies presented this threat to Germany as a real and pressing factor – that the General Staff developed a single solution to a major war: a massive assault on France. The activation of this solution, even without an invasion of Belgium, would likely have brought the UK into the war (which is essentially Ev's comment). Yet, the entire war is impossible to contemplate without a German invasion of the west in some form – the fact that the game actually allows such a course of action by players is arguably more controversial than the fact that the UK starts at 98% preparation for war. It is also a rather pointless 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' type of argument – game designers have to make SOME assumptions when starting out, or there is never going to be a game at all. Overall the underlying assumptions in this game seem reasonable enough. As for the last point – there was no Germany when the treaty with Belgium was signed in 1834 - this is a classic example of a perfectly true but useless piece of history. The German Empire that fought in the Great War was established in 1871, clearly well after 1834, and therefore not in existence when the original treaty was signed. However, the new German Reich was essentially dominated by Prussia, which had most definitely been in existence in 1834, and therefore the 'gibberish' point made by Harry33 is rather, well, pointless.

Hi Hubert Thanks for the feedback - I hope that there will be some further improvements in the naval war. I am quite aware that there have been substantial changes since the original SC first came out - and I hope that improvements continue, as the evolution of the game engine in SC has been one of the most positive hallmarks of this series.

I have read about the forced march feature with interest. Bill 101 has explained how it works, and Hubert has clarified where it works, but I still do not understand 'what' I have to do to make it happen. Is it in SC WW I version 1.01? So far I cannot figure out how to do it...I would appreciate someone explaining 'what' I have to do. (I finally figured out how to do recon flights after reading this AAR - I didn't say I was a very smart player! - but forced marches still have me confused). I should also add that I am finding the AAR quite interesting - it is always fascinating to see how differently players approach the game (and different players all seem to approach it differently).

I'm in my 50's, but only started playing war games in the 70s, so I am clearly much younger than dgold07!

The new swap movement option in SC WW I is an excellent addition to that game. If there is ever a patch done to SC Global, swap REALLY needs to be added. The map size in Global means that a number of situations arise where swap would be VERY useful. An example that comes readily to mind is the fighting that occurs around Alamein in north Africa - British units (and Axis too) get so congested in that area that movement gets really bizarre at times, and the absence of a swap capability can result in some rather strange moves. So add the swap option to Global!

Hi Jestre After reading your post, I bought and read G.J. Meyer's book. It is a very good read, and I am glad you suggested it. After finishing Meyer, I now think that which book I would recommend as the best single volume history would depend on the reader - Meyer is very good at explaining the background and is especially good with characters (I suspect his training as a journalist helps his writing). However, for readers that have a good background on the Great War, I really do think Strachan is a better source, as although he does not provide as much background - his book is almost cryptic in places - it is a wonderfully comprehensive (within the constraints of a single volume) source.

Hi Colin and Bossy The idea of an 'off map strategic area for the shipping war' is not unreasonable. It has certainly been around for a long time – the original Third Reich used something along those lines for the Battle of the Atlantic way back in the 70s (when I was writing finals Iron Ranger!) – and I have suggested something along the similar lines in the past. However, I have seen little (actually no) appetite amongst the SC game design team to introduce such an off map system. That is the main reason I have suggested some rather minor adjustments WITHIN the current SC design to try and address some of the more egregious systemic problems that currently exist. So, while I am not really against your idea, I just do not think it has much of a chance, and I am trying to focus on what might be achievable with my suggestions.