Ivanov

That is correct that the Allies in 1940 had numerical superiority over the Germans in number of men and almost every type of weapon except for the aircraft. From the other hand, Wehrmach managed to score a stunning victory due to the better tactical flexibility and a new doctrine. Those two factors gave Germans the edge in 1940 but it is not possible to represent them in the game like SC2. So in my oppinion, the game creators decided to reflect the French weakness by giving the Axis player a numerical superiority. I see it as a lesser evil, in order to facilitate a result simmilar to the historical in this campaign ( campaign that didn't turn out to be neither decissive nor the most important for the Second World War ). I agree that potentially France had a formidable armed forces and if it was supported by a better doctrine, it could be much tougher opponent, at least equal to Wehrmacht. That wasn't the case though in 1940 and with an inadecuate doctrine and lack of strong will to fight, France was doomed to fall quickly. A strong French army in SC2 is maybe an option for some hypothetical scenario like "Calm Before Storm" which starts before 1939. In this case I would even allow for strenghtening Poland, as the military of that country had big plans to expand and many new types of weapons on the way.

But I have to agree that the Spanish military capacity has to be increased. There has to be at least one HQ in Madrid. I'm sure this has been overlooked in the scenario.

I agree that the campaign is a bit boring until Barbarossa starts, especially for the Allied player. The thing is that historically neither France nor Poland proved to be much of a problem for the Wehrmacht. Poland not suprisingly ( given the fact that the country was exposed to the attack from three directions, numerical and technological superiority of Germans ), France maybe a little more suprisingly to the contemporaries. The thing is, that during the the Second World War ( unlike WWI ) the main axis of conflict wasn't Germany vs it's continental neighbours, but Germany vs the "flanking powers" ( Britain, USSR and USA ). If France was stronger in the game, than obtaining a quick, historical victory by Germans would be impossible and the war in the West would potentially turned out to be something like WWI. version 2.0 and the real essence of the conflict would be lost in the game. Even right now, if Germany attacks at the beginning of May 40, it is hard to defeat France in 1.5 months, because most of the Allied players will place all of their units around Paris in hope to delay the surrender. France falls due to the NM drop, and there is an interesting "what if option" when the Axis player does not create Vichy. In that case France keeps on fighting, with it's capital being moved to Algiers. I would probably never go for that alternative as Axis, because the capture of the African capital doesn't seem to be so easy, given the Allied naval superiority in the Med and the fact that the prolonged French campaign delays the start date of Barbarossa. Anyway, I wouldn't complaint about the weakness of France. If the scenario is supposed to be acurate and realistic, then the historical conditions representiong the campaign of 1940 are correct. In that case even sending BEF to the continent may be an option because with the naval and carrier support, the Brit units can quite well keep the panzers at bay. In my game as Allies, two British corps were defending Cherbourg until December of 1940 and resulting land-air-sea battle was very costly to the Germans. Each turn that delays the end of the Battle of France is a time bought for the USSR. If something has to be done in the game about the balance, it is the strenght of the two great "flanking powers" that is USSR ( more units ) and USA ( more MMP's and free units ).

That's an really interesting idea, however usually Entente is quite overstretched, so opening a new front that would require few corps and a HQ support may be difficult. I think it may be an option when CP player focuses on Russia, so the French and Brits have more of a free hand in the West.

Nice one! I'm going to check it out. Thanks

Hi Bill, I have garrisoned every captured big city of USSR plus I had few corps in certain locations just in case partisan units popped up, so I could chase them through the Soviet wasteland:) Are there any particular locations that are partisan trigger points and need to be garrisoned?

But you are talking about the actual partisan units? Only two of those appeared in the game. So does it mean that garrisons prevent insurgent units from appearing? If it comes to Kiev, only the supply /MMP value of the city was affected. The nearest combat was taking place around Sevastopol. Does it ring any bell? Thanks.

Another issue regarding the SOE campaign. I thought that garrisoning a city will protect it from the partisan attacks but it seems that’s not the case. For example I placed an Italian corps in Kiev but the city’s supply/MMP values were affected by the attacks almost every 2-3 turns. During WWII, the Soviet partisans were mostly operating in rural, remote areas so they could easily escape a confrontation with any significant German forces. Attack on properly garrisoned cities was never an option, so the guerrillas were striking only where the occupiers were weak or weren’t present at all. Even the Warsaw Uprising took place only because the leaders of Polish Home Army mistakenly thought that Germans were evacuating the city and that Red Army was on the outskirts of Polish capital. Those calculations turned out to be mistaken and what followed was one of the fiercest urban battles of the whole war, but the only possible result was a massacre and total destruction of the city. My point is, that garrisons should protect the cities from partisan attacks. Anyway the Germans don’t have sufficient troops to place a unit in every occupied town, so the insurgents can strike in some remote areas. Right now, is there any benefit from garrisoning the locations at all?

Yes, splitting research between Britain, US and USSR swings the balance further in favour of the Axis. Due to that, I think it is essential to make the starting US tech levels same as the British. That's a very good news Hubert I hope this thread will help in some way to improve the SOE campaign for the upcoming patch.

For some time now I wanted to make comments regarding the Storm Over Europe campaign and now, after playing both Allies and Axis, I have quite clear idea about the scenario. I realize that my timing may be bad, because the WWI Tournament kicks off today, but anyway... First of all, I would like to say that I enjoyed playing the campaign a lot. A mobile warfare is quite refreshing after mud and dust of World War One trenches I also like the big map a lot. There are many historically important smaller locations marked on it ( especially in Africa and Soviet Union ) and that spices up the game significantly. In general SOE is a highly addictive campaign, however in my opinion needs some balancing in order to make it more realistic and enjoyable. These are the following areas that need some tweaking in my oppinion: -Too big German industrial capacity ( ahistorical in the game ) -Number of Soviet units at the beginning of Barbarossa -Too small US industrial capacity and military potential -Anti-tank units The first and the most important issue that I would look at, is the German industrial capacity. Following the more less “standard” path, that is Poland, Western Europe and then either Balkans, Spain or Middle East, at the beginning of the Barbarossa, Germany collects roughly 600MMP per turn. Later that number increases, along with the industrial tech upgrades and capture of the new resources by Wehrmacht. I have an impression that the industrial output of the Axis and the Allies was modelled, so the combined sum of the MMPs’ of the belligerents was equal. For example when Wehrmacht starts Operation Barbarossa, Germany and Italy produce about 600 and 100 MMP’s respectively and on the Allied side - Soviet Union about 450 and Britain 250 MMP’s. At the end of 1941 US joins the Allies with about 250 MMP’s but by then German production increases due to the capture of the Soviet resources. That kind of modelling seems to be incorrect historically, as even in 1939, the combined industrial capacity of the future Allies ( France, Britain, USSR and USA ), even before US war mobilization, was three times bigger than the combined production of Germany, Italy and Japan. This proportion was maintained through the war due to the fall of France and the Alfred Speer “armaments miracle” during the last years of war. History apart, the current modelling of the industrial production in the SOE campaign, gives too big advantage to the Axis. We have to keep in mind that Germany starts the game with three tank groups and a big air force. As the game progresses, this force expands, gather experience and is being upgraded. In the mean time, the Allies have to build their tank and air assets from the scratch. What are the practical implications of this? In my game, where I played as Axis, in the mid of 1942 I managed to purchase all nine tank groups ( available when playing without the soft build limit ) and all attack aircraft units. I could even afford such a extravagancies as Nebelwerfer unit for each of the three Army Groups in the East, motorization tech two upgrade for every German land unit, two strategic bomber units and an aircraft carrier. At that stage the war was practically won by the Axis. Soviet Union after the capture of Leningrad, Moscow and the Ukrainian industry, wasn’t posing a serious threat by the end of 1943. A potential Allied invasion wasn’t a problem either, because Wehrmacht had sufficient reserves of experienced units in order to contain it. Basically the problem I see, is having the game won by the Axis in 1942 due to their economical power and technological superiority - the two aspects that historically were the Achilles Heel of Germany & C.O. Historicaly, the only solution to overcome those weaknesses, was a military victory over the Soviet Union, thanks to the superior military doctrine and efficiency of the German armed forces. An economic warfare, especially against the Western Allies was never an option as long as the titanic struggle in the East was still raging. Just to give an example how overstretched the Third Reich war economy was is worth reminding, that in 1943 the spending on the Reich Flak defence system alone, was consuming about 30% of the whole German military budget and even higher percentage of the ammunition expenditure. So even if the Allied air force would limited itself to flying over occupied Europe without dropping even a single bomb, it would require Germany to spend 30% of it’s military budget on the Flak defence ( this amount does not include spending on the very expensive fighter force ). Back to the game and ending the long paraphrase this is what I think should be fixed: 1. German industrial capacity. As mentioned above, German industrial production is too big and results in obtaining quantitative and qualitative superiority over the Allies too quickly. Historically, Germans were not able to fully mobilize the resources of the conquered territories. The most developed countries that fell to the Third Reich – France and Holland, under the occupation, reached barely 50% of their pre war industrial output. In the Eastern Europe things looked even worst. The best thing to do, would be limiting the MMP value of the conquered resources to 50% of their initial value instead of current 80%. The captured Soviet cities, shouldn’t give any extra MMP’s to the invaders all together. I am aware, that this change may be impossible to implement due to the supply issues, so other solution would be to increase of the unit cost, especially tank and air units. If Germans make about 600MMP’s before the start of Barbarossa, it means that they can purchase, roughly two panzer groups with the early tech upgrades, per turn. It’s not only a theoretical possibility. In my game I attacked Soviet Union with 5 panzer armies and one year after the invasion, the Ost Heer fielded seven tank units. On 22nd of June 1941, Wehrmach attacked Russia with four panzer groups equipped mostly with obsolete tanks. In fact only 20% of German army was motorised ( panzer and motorised divisions ), so in order to represent the historical conditions in the game, the initial cost of a tank unit should be about 50% higher and the cost of motorisation upgrade should be really high – maybe 100MMP’s. Accordingly, the cost of air units should be increased by about 50%. That refers to all of the belligerents, however Russian units should be relatively cheaper. Also it would be interesting to see motorisation upgrades considerably less costly to the Western Allies. Another thing is that Germany starts with level one of production technology tech and in my opinion, level zero would be more appropriate. The main problem I see, is that Reich starts the game with armed forces equipped with tanks and attack aircraft, while the Allies have to build that type of units from zero and also invest in the tech upgrades because otherwise they will be left behind on the technological battlefield. As a result of that, the Axis player has a always a huge numerical and qualitative superiority over the Allies. Also because the Axis helds initial strategic initiative, it is nearly impossible to break the momentum of their attack. I would also limit the number of free German airborne units from two to one. Two parachute divisions, with a support of few attack Stuka units, allow Germans to capture London, which is gamey and unrealistic. Let’s not forget how costly the battle of Crete in 1941 was the attackers. Parachuting two airborne divisions in the heart of London, just doesn’t seem to be right. 2. Soviet numerical inferiority at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. I like the way Soviet military build up is represented in the game ( the mechanized corps close to the borders and Siberian Reinforcements ), however also here I would implement some improvements. The predominant feature of the Soviet Armed forces during the Second World War, was it’s quantitative superiority over the enemy and an ability to deploy huge number of newly mobilized reserve units. In Storm Over Europe, USSR starts with very few units and with a low initial industrial production. If German player honours Ribbentrop- Molotov pact, then the Soviet MMP’s output is lagging basically untill the moment when Barbarossa is eventually unleashed. As a result Allied player has two possible options – build fewer units and invest in the tech research or build more units ignoring the tech research due to the low MMP pool. Neglecting research is not an option really, because it requires time to get a breakthrough and the Soviet player wouldn’t be able to catch up with the Axis on this field later on. Due to that, Allied players won’t have sufficient units to cover the whole area of the Western Soviet Union. That was never the case in the reality. Red Army had sufficient number of the troops to deploy them all along the borders from the Baltic to the Black Sea and huge reserves of men and equipment that allowed Stalin to throw new formations against the invading armies. If it comes to the quality of the military hardware ( which is represented by tech research the SC system ), the most modern Soviet weapon systems were as good as their German counterparts or even better. In Storm Over Europe, when the attack finally materializes somewhere in 1941, the Axis enjoy a considerable numerical superiority, especially if we add the armies of German satellites on the flanks. The only option for Soviet player in this case is to withdraw beyond the Dneper line, dig in and wait through the first winter until the reinforcements arrive. That allows the Wehrmacht to capture the whole Western Soviet Union without any significant fight and makes the resulting warfare in the East quite bizarre and ahistorical. It also makes the whole DE about honouring Ribbentrop- Molotov pact pointless for the Axis. If Red Army has not enough strength to defend the Western part of the country and will probably abandon it anyway without the fight, then there is no point in not honouring the pact, because it only increases the Soviet mobilization. What I would suggest, is to change the DE about honouring the pact and make it one the most important decisions of the war. For example if Germans honour the pact, then the Russian mobilization stays low, but upon the start of Barbarossa, some free units ( apart from the mechanized corps ) are deployed in some certain location ( for example in Minsk, Brest-Litovsk, Odessa, Baltics ). In case of refusing the pact by Germans those units are don’t deploy but the Soviet mobilization should increase more significantly – let’s say up to 50%. In this way, the Soviets would have more MMP to build new units and to invest in the research. After Germans win the initial frontier battles, Soviet player can be presented with a DE about the industry relocation, but it should be more costly – for example it would require 400-500MMP divided into some number of turns. So the most critical period for the Russians would be a third or maybe fourth month after the invasion, when the frontier armies were annihilated and the industrial production is low due to the costly relocation. That would somewhat resemble more history, when the Soviet war production was seriously interrupted and didn’t really recover well into 1942. The Red Army units that took part in the winter 1941/42 counteroffensive ( including the famous Siberian Units ) were actually lacking significant tank and artillery support. Luckily, Wehrmach was facing the similar or even worst problems by then. 3. US industrial and military weakness This issue has been already addressed on the forum so I will just summarize what has been said. With the initial output of about 270MMP and limited number of units, USA can’t really influence the outcome of the war. When the Allies are finally ready to make a serious attempt to invade the continent ( earliest date is second half of 1943 ), the war is practically won by the Axis. If Germans have the whole 1941 and 1942 to unleash their whole military and industrial potential against Soviet Union, then by 1943 the campaign in the East is practically over and troops can be transferred to Western Europe in order to repel the pending invasion. If the Axis manage their potential well, then most likely their armies will be probably more numerous and on the higher tech levels than the Allied opponents. This point was actually confirmed by the famous AAR between Catacol Highlander and Abukede. When the Russian were seriously beaten ( but still not completely ), the Allies couldn’t influence the outcome of the war with their small and obsolete armed forces. I like the way British potential is reflected in the game, with a lot of decision events, but generally Albion is overstretched and in the long term needs the support of the Big Brother from the other side of the Atlantic. The US potential in SOE, places the country basically on the same level as overstretched UK. First of all, at the beginning of the scenario Uncle Sam has to invest a lot in tech and can’t build much new units. I think USA should start the game with the same tech levels as Britain. It should be tech level one for the following tech: advanced aircraft, long range aircraft, bombers, infantry weapons, industry. That seems right as in early 1940’s USA was not only the biggest industrial power of the world, but consequently the most advanced technologically nation of all the great powers. I would also see necessary to provide more free US units like another HQ, tank group, and paratroops. Most importantly the American industrial production should grow steadily to reach the peak around 1944 with some 550-600MMP’s. That would allow the Allies to confront the Axis even if Soviet Union is pushed into the corner in the last mountain redoubt of the Uralus. How the MMP balance would look like in this case? This is an estimate but seems quite likely if Third Reich manages to conquer most of the USSR: The Axis: Germany 1000MMP + Italy 150MMP = 1150MMP The Allies: USA 600MMP + Britain 300 MMP + USRR 250MMP = 1150MMP Anybody remembers the Case Neptune scenario from Patton Drives East expansion? It was a really cool “what if” option. It would be nice to allow Storm Over Europe to evolve into something similar if the Axis do really good in the East. In the current version of SOE, if Germans manage to cripple decisively USSR by the end of 1943, it simply means game over, which is a pity because the campaign has a great potential and shouldn’t be decided so quickly. Obviously everything depends on the players skill and I’m sure that in many games the Allies have won and will win. I myself, forced the Axis to surrender at the beginning of 1942;) It’s just the question of correct balancing of the campaign and making it more complete ( the mentioned “Case Neptune” variant ). Right now I have an impression that the scenario lacks not only some correct balancing but does not fully exploit the potential of many possible “what if’s”. Comrade Ivanov Ps. It is probably a subject for another post, but I will put it here, just so you don’t see too much of Ivanov on the forum:) I think something has to be done about the antitank weapons. I don’t find them completely useless as someone stated before. I just use them as a cannon fodder. Because they are relatively cheap, I usually place them on the front of the attacking units, so in case of the counterattack I lose the antitank unit, instead of the precious tanks for example. Antitank artillery ( or in case of Germans special elite Panzerjager formations ) was second only to mines if it comes to the number of destroyed or disabled tanks. If that kind of units, are represented in the game of the SC2 scale, then their tank-killing capacity needs to be improved. The easiest way would be to simply increase the tank attack and tank defence parameters of the PAK s. In exchange I would make them also more expensive. Another option would be if the AT units could increase the antitank values of the adjacent infantry units or could even fire like artillery when the neighbouring unit is attacked. Something similar was done in one of the Latin General equipment files of Panzer General 2. Basically Panzer General is a good example how the AT weapons can be modelled.

The decision event about the industry relocation happened at the beginning of 1942 and the mine was captured at the end of August. After finishing the turn, a message appeared that the industry was disrupted due to the relocation.

Hi Bill! Thank's for your feedback Well, the Germans finally commenced the offensive in the South. They captured one mine and after the turn finished, there was a message that the production in the Ukraine was disrupted due to the relocation. So I guess the script you mentioned, fired now and was triggered by the capture of the mine. I'm not sure how the disruption works. Will there be a temporary loss of some production points and then the Ukraininan mines will recover their original values? Anyway they will be captured by Wehrmacht by then, so it's a theoritical question only.

This is what manual says about garrisoning of the Eastern frontier: After conquering Poland, the Axis will need to maintain garrisons in both Konigsberg and Warsaw to discourage Stalin from strengthening his relations with the Allies. In addition to their units in Warsaw and Konigsberg, from January 1941 the Axis will need to deploy two more units in the east. - If Germany honored the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, then these will need to be stationed in the vicinity of Tilsit and Siedlice. - If Germany didn’t honor the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact then these will need to be stationed in the vicinity of Tilsit and Wilno. In addition to the above, if Germany annexes Lithuania then one unit will have to be stationed at Siauliai and another at Siedlice. Failure to do so will lead to the USSR increasing its leaning towards the Allies. So there are extra garrison units required from the beginning of 1941. I usually place those extra units straight after fall of Poland, so there is no risk that I will forget to place them later on:) If you have done that and you didn't invade England, then I don't understand why Soviets joined in early in your game and maybe Lords Of War may need to have look into that.

From the beginning of 1941, the Soviet mobilization will increase regardles of what you do. I've noticed also, that the more units you have near to the border, the Soviet war preparation will grow faster. So the best thing to do, is to concentrate you forces West of Vistula and then move them next to the initial objectives, just before the attack. From my experience, a slow build up close to the Soviet border, will certainy piss off Uncle Joe.

Bill, any comment on the above?

Did you invade Britain or get some signinficant gains in Africa? I think UK invasion has a lot to do with the Soviet activation. When you capture London, Soviet industrial production jumps to 200MMP from 80MMP, so that's the main reason why I don't attack Britain before Barbarossa

It seems to me impossible to beat the Entente in this scenario, but if you are thinking about the tournament - don't worry. There will be mirror matches, so the chances will be equal.

In my current game, the Wehrmach hasn't advanced beyond the Dneper line in the Ukraine and choose to go for the Northern option instead. None of the Ukrainian coal mines was captured, however the Soviets got the DE about industry relocation. In other words, the industry in the Donets Basin continues the current production and in the mean time a new industrial region is being created in the Uralus ( with no MMP penalty for the Soviets ). I think it's the simmilar problem to the French industry relocation in Call Of Arms, which happenes even if Germans don't capture the Loos mine. If the event is called "relocation", then the new industrial region should be created only in exchange for the current production. In that case the choice would be more difficult for the Soviets. For example if Gemans don't attack beyond the Dneper in 1941, Soviets should get the event anyway and take a risk to interrupt the current production if they say "yes" to the relocation. But in case of accepting the Ukrainian mines should stop the production ( because they would be relocated ). Historicaly the mines and factories were relocated before the invaders could captured them, because otherwise there would be nothing to relocate Another variant would be, if the Germans didn't go for the mines, Soviets get the event and Ukraininan mines continue the production and a new industry in the Uralus is created for some significant MMP penalty ( from the top of my head it could be for example 400MMP divided in 8 turns ). That would represent the increased Soviet war mobilization and could even improve the balance of the whole campaingn. Currently the game gives not much of a choice to the Axis player. If the Ukrainian industry continues production after it was been supposedly relocated, then the "Southern Option" is the only correct strategy and going for Moscow and Leningrad first, does not make much sense to the Germans.

Well charts are one thing, but I'm not sure if the interpretation is correct. For example when you have chints invested by more than one country, only one reports diplomatic success eventually and from my experience is always the country that has invested most, so I feel that you are better off investing a lot of chints with one country only.

Hm, but in this case if both sides invest the same amount of chints in one country, there would be no progress altogether, which would be quite frustrating. Also - if two allied countries invest chint each in a neutral country, does it mean that there is 10% chance of succes per turn or each country has 5% chance? I've always achieved diplomatic success investing a lot chints with one country, for example Germany 3 chints. When I had one chint, invested by Germany, A-H and Turkey ( in this case in Bulgaria ), I could never succeed, so I asumed that there was 5% chance for each country, which is less favorable than having 15% of a chance by a single country. I've noticed aswell, that the more you invest with one country, then the diplomatic success when achieved is higher, for example the neutral swings more than 10% towards the investing side. Is this correct?

That's what I've assumed aswell, so I'm realy interested what is the correct answer. By the way, I think that the diplomatic chints shouldn't negate each other. That would rob the diplomacy of all the dinamism and it would make it too predictable.

Yep, let's wait for the confirmation from the Lords Of War:eek:

Kommandant - interesting ideas regarding the change of the current diplomacy mechanics. However I'm not sure, if I'd like to see the increase of the cost of diplomatic chints. Most of the time players are very tight with cash, so if we make the chints too expensive, none would be able to invest in the diplomacy. I have one doubt how the current system works. Do the chints invested by the opposite sides completely negate each other? In another words: if both hostile powers A and B invest one diplomatic chint in the neutral C, does it mean that none of them have any chance of the diplomatic succes, or maybe they both have 5% chance, depending on their luck? Another example would be: A invests 2 chints and B only one. Does it mean that A has 5% chance per turn and B has no chance at all, or A has 10% chance and B 5% depending on their luck? Can anyone shed some light on it? Thanks

Great song Kommandant...

Yes, it was especially cheerful this year;) Poland didn't get her independence, but simply regained it after 123 years, thanks to the fact that all three occupying powers - Germany, Russia and Austro-Hungary - colapsed after the war. But yes, 11th of November 1918 was a beggining of a new era and new conflicts. Russian Civil War, Polish-Soviet War - great potential subjects for a new SC2 campaign;)