Storm Over Europe / game balance and unexploited potential

[Peter Palchinsky]

The main point that has to be stressed, is a need to delay the unprovoked Soviet war entry until the mid 1942. That could give some more of a free hand to the Axis, but on the other hand would need to be offset by a possibility of a war declaration by Stalin against the neutral countries and maybe earlier US entry, as the German focus on the Med and the Atlantic sphere would probably seriously get on the nerves of Uncle Sam.

I like where this is going. In addition to increasing US mobilization, a 1942 USSR mobilization should have more Soviet units than in the current 1941 scenario and additional techs that automatically trigger in 1942 to put pressure on Germany to attack sooner rather than later. Has anyone noticed a difference between the units that the USSR starts with if Germany attacks first versus Soviet DoW. I hope there's a difference. I would assume Stalin would have called in his Siberian units before declaring war, but that doesn't seem to happen, and I don't think Soviet units are in optimal attack positions and at full strength either.

[Glabro]

Why not just make a Fall Gelb DE with Manstein's (initially Guderian's) plan presented to the Axis player, then he can decide whether to take the chance or not. Success in the DE would guarantee a fall of France like in history, but failure could lead to a harder road, while opting not to take a risk would be in between these extremes.

[Ivanov]

I like where this is going. In addition to increasing US mobilization, a 1942 USSR mobilization should have more Soviet units than in the current 1941 scenario and additional techs that automatically trigger in 1942 to put pressure on Germany to attack sooner rather than later. Has anyone noticed a difference between the units that the USSR starts with if Germany attacks first versus Soviet DoW. I hope there's a difference. I would assume Stalin would have called in his Siberian units before declaring war, but that doesn't seem to happen, and I don't think Soviet units are in optimal attack positions and at full strength either.

In the curenrt patch the Siberians are transfered to Europe automatically the latest in May of 1942. The units appear, because by then Stalin knows that there is no real threat from the Japanese. That would be fine for me if the Siberians went to the West around this time. Automatic tech upgrades? I'm not sure. If USSR stays unmolested for longer, it means more possible MMPs to spent on the research without for example the necessity of rebuilding units damaged by the combat. Of course the Soviet mobilization should rise accordingly, increasing the production but not leading to the Soviet DOW too early.

[Ivanov]

Why not just make a Fall Gelb DE with Manstein's (initially Guderian's) plan presented to the Axis player, then he can decide whether to take the chance or not. Success in the DE would guarantee a fall of France like in history, but failure could lead to a harder road, while opting not to take a risk would be in between these extremes.

Another interesting idea "outside the box", however I'm struggling to imagine how it should be implemented practically. From the other hand, I'm not sure if Fall Gelb should be left to a chance like for example the Zimmerman Telegram DE. It was a big gamble but it could be also explained in terms of crude materialism of a military art:

"Manstein's touchstone was the classic Napoleonic equation: achieve success by concentrating a greater weight of the force than the enemy at a single point. (...) Since Germany had no overall superiority, local superiority could be only achieved through the greatest possible concentration and by the greatest possible suprise. It was the exquisite realization of these classic principles of operational doctrine,not superior equipment or morale, that explains the success of theBlitzkrieg.The crucial diversion was created by Army Group B with its attack into Holland and northern Belgium. This part of the operation involved only 29 German divisions. But it attracted the attention of no fewer than 57 Allied divisions, amongst them the cream of the French and British armies. To the south, along the whole exposed length of the Rhine valley, the Germans deployed only 19 second-rate units, whilst the French kept 36 divisions entombed in the massive concrete defences of the Maginot Line. On the flanks, therefore, the Germans stretched the odds against themselves, to nearly 2:1. In the Ardennes, this enabled them to concentrate no less than 45 crack divisions, against a Franco-Belgian defensive screen of only 18 second-rate units. Though they were inferior across the entire length of the line, consistent planning allowed the Germans at the point of attack to achieve a ratio in their favour of almost 3:1. In this sense, the German victory does not overturn the principle that numbers are decisive. It simply confirms the point that,in an evenly balanced situation, the material superiority necessary to achieving a decisive breakthrough can only be attained by maximum concentration of force. Furthermore, since the enemy cannot be assumed to be passive, this advantage can only be be sustained by strategic deception and maximum speed of manoeuvre. (...)

The victory of May 1940 is not a mysterious event explicable only in terms of the uncanny elan of the German army and the unwillingness of the French to fight. The odds facing Germany were not good. But they were not so bad that they could not be overcome by superior planning and manoeuvre".

Adam Tooze "The Wages Of Destruction"

[SeaMonkey]

If you really want to get "outside the box", there is no problem with a better French defense, make it more dependent on a greater UK committment, not just the BEF. In fact this could have happened without that committment, if only the Allies hadn't rushed into Belgium with their very best troops at the moment of the neutrality violation. Think..... if France and Britain would have kept a mobile reserve and not reacted so quickly, with seemingly a paranoia to reach the defensive line of the Demer.

OK .... so now we have stalemate. Want to go further outside that historical box? There were meetings, admittedly after France fell, but none the less, high level diplomatic talks between Germany and USSR of an alliance. Remember the totalitarian governments of the time, the majors, Japan, USSR, Germany and Italy.

Sure we have to get rid of certain biases, Hitler would need to be extinguished as almost did occur and probably would have, had a western stalemate developed. There is so much more, especially on a global scale that could have been different, just read "Cry Havoc", you'll get ideas.

[SeaMonkey]

Sorry, just to be accurate, it was Gamelin's Dyle-Breda plan that rushed the Allies best formations into Belgium to supposedly meet the main German thrust.

"Best laid plans":rolleyes:

[Peter Palchinsky]

In the current patch the Siberians are transfered to Europe automatically the latest in May of 1942. The units appear, because by then Stalin knows that there is no real threat from the Japanese. That would be fine for me if the Siberians went to the West around this time. Automatic tech upgrades? I'm not sure. If USSR stays unmolested for longer, it means more possible MMPs to spent on the research without for example the necessity of rebuilding units damaged by the combat. Of course the Soviet mobilization should rise accordingly, increasing the production but not leading to the Soviet DOW too early.

May 42 lines up well if Soviet DoW is also pushed to summer 42 instead of 1941as it is now. That would give the Soviets a significant punch. Currently, if the German player is too busy to launch Barbarrosa, a Soviet DoW doesn't see much agressive action, but it should. There should be a greater sense of risk for the German player than merely operating in holding units along the border and never seeing a serious threat to Warsaw or Bucharest.

[wlape3]

Russian ingenuity and manpower combined with German tactics and execution would have been a nightmare for the Allies.

[Ivanov]

It’s hard for me to imagine a counter strike of Franco/British “mobile reserves” against the German panzer spearhead, given the Byzantine command structure and WWI tactical doctrine of the Allied armies. The French army of 1940 wasn’t the same as for example the Red Army from the time of Battle of Kursk.

I don’t think that the Soviet – German alliance could continue it’s existence long time after the fall of France. Apart from the ideological madness of Hitler, he also believed that in order to be able to compete with Britain and USA, it was essential to create a German Grossraum ( economic zone stretching from the Atlantic to the Uralus ) at the expense of Soviet Union. Stalin actually made some advances towards Germany after the fall of France regarding further division of the spheres of influence in Romania, Turkey and Finland. Those conditions were unacceptable for Hitler and convinced him that the war with Soviet Union was inevitable.

[Glabro]

But the first requirement was the elimination of Hitler.

[Ivanov]

But the first requirement was the elimination of Hitler.

That sounds really good

[Ludi1867]

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.

[Ivanov]

Hi Ludi Thanks for your post. It brings us smoothly to the main subject of this thread, that is the balance or rather imbalance of the SOE campaign.

I like the idea of an American DE concerning expansion of the industrial production in case USSR suffers some dramatic setbacks, that may lead to German victory in Russia. Anyway, it seems that USSR is too easy prey for Wehrmach, as the Reich industrial base is to too big and that there are too few Soviet units at the beginning of Barbarossa. These, are once again, the main areas that probably would need some further tweaking.

[DavidFields]

My guess is that the industrial strength of Germany, and the relative weakness of the US, was a design choice aimed at novice players. Generally, two novices playing a simulation like this, the harder time is going to be had by the attacker. Coming at it with little knowledge, it would be easy for the player running Germany to flail around and be very inefficient. The pressure is less intense for the Allies early in the game.

But as the expertise of the players rises, the advantage tilts back toward the attacker--as the best strategies become clearer. Invasion dates become earlier. The tempo of the attacks and conquests becomes faster--which then accentuates further advances with the increasingly earlier acquisition of resources.

One solution to this is to have something like Avalon Hill had for some of its games: a Basic Version, a Tournament Version, and I think there may have even been sometimes something like an Expert Version--with Order of Battle (and even some rules changes). For game-play sake, and not for realism, the objective was to achieve, with players of equal levels, essentially a 50/50 chance of winning either side, with both novice and expert players.

[Ivanov]

My guess is that the industrial strength of Germany, and the relative weakness of the US, was a design choice aimed at novice players. Generally, two novices playing a simulation like this, the harder time is going to be had by the attacker. Coming at it with little knowledge, it would be easy for the player running Germany to flail around and be very inefficient. The pressure is less intense for the Allies early in the game.

Good point, that was probably the idea and the current balance is a result of a assumption, that the Axis as the attacker, will always have more difficult task to acomplish than the Allies. Right now however, playing the Allies requires more experience and leaves much less space for an error, that playing the Axis with their lavish MMP's output.

Based on a historical data, this is how an accurate comparison of the idustrial capacity between the Allies and the Axis would look like:

YEAR 1941

Axis: Germany 412 MMP, Italy 144 MMP, Japan 196 MMP = 752 MMP

Allies: Britain 344 MMP, USSR 359 MMP, USA 1094MMP = 1797 MMP

YEAR 1944

Axis: Germany 437 MMP, Italy 137 MMP, Japan 189 MMP = 763 MMP

Allies: Britain 346 MMP, USSR 495 MMP, USA 1499 MMP = 2340 MMP

So as we see, the industrial superiority of the Allies was at any stage of the conflict absolutely crushing. If Barbarossa accomplished it's goals, then by 1944 the German production would be higher and the Soviet lower than historicaly at this time, but even if Germany managed to absorb all the Soviet production ( that was impossible in a real life but it is accteptable for the purpose of the game ), then the industrial output of the US, would be still higher than the German one.

The bottom line is - the scenario does not need to be so much historically accurate, but some changes in the balance have to be made if we want to make it simply more playable.

[Glabro]

How was that divided between the PTO and ETO, Ivanov?

We can just reduce that amount (and maybe a big more) for the ETO production values. One thing though is that research would be common for both ETO and PTO, so there either needs to be some commonality in the MPPs or better, simply pre-set research chits in the appropriate areas (more than now)?

[Ivanov]

How was that divided between the PTO and ETO, Ivanov?

We can just reduce that amount (and maybe a big more) for the ETO production values. One thing though is that research would be common for both ETO and PTO, so there either needs to be some commonality in the MPPs or better, simply pre-set research chits in the appropriate areas (more than now)?

I don't have a reliabe data regarding this, but for example Wikipedia says something about 15% of the Allied resources dovoted to the Pacific Theatre Of War. Anyway, there is no need for the scenario to be so much accurate - it just needs to be well balanced. If the US industrial production could reach 600-700MMP's that would be fine.

[Ivanov]

Just out of curiosity I checked the MMP amounts earned by the belligerents and unit cost in the SC2 Blitzkrieg – the game that initiated my whole adventure with the SC2 system.

Basically the proportions of MMP amounts earned by the Axis and Allies are similar to the SOE campaign ( I checked the initial amounts earned at the beginning of the Barbarossa campaign ). The main difference is in the proportion of the MMPs gathered, and the unit cost. For example Germany earns about 350MMPs at the beginning of the Barbarossa scenario. The cost of a tank group ( heavy tanks tech 2 and motorisation tech 1 ) is about 320. Based on that, Germany can potentially purchase one tank group per turn, as opposite to the two tank groups that can be purchased each turn before Barbarossa starts in the SOE campaign. It’s seems to me, that the model of the relation between MMPs’ earned and the unit cost, was more successful in the earlier SC2 Blitzkrieg campaigns. Replacing and building new units was harder and the whole game more realistic in this aspect.

It also seems that in the SC2 Blitzkrieg campaigns the German industrial production does not increase so dramatically thanks to the conquest, so in general the game balance was better than in SOE ( despite too small US MMP output ).

[Sharkman]

The US industry does seem to need some adjustment, no matter how I do it I cannot seem to get the kind of air and ground forces together that I need for an invasion in 1944, and conduct some kind of strategic bombing campaign at the same time, but that should be possible.

[Ivanov]

The US industry does seem to need some adjustment, no matter how I do it I cannot seem to get the kind of air and ground forces together that I need for an invasion in 1944, and conduct some kind of strategic bombing campaign at the same time, but that should be possible.

Absolutely correct. The solution to that could be either increase of the US industrial base, or more free units.

[Peter Palchinsky]

I hope Bill can find the time to weed through this entire thread and capture the salient points...I honestly don't know how he keeps up with everything. Anyway, another improvement area for SOE is defensive air support. Artillery units already do this, and I think 'flying artillery' should too. Tac air units need a toggle to allow them to attack enemy ground units that attack friendly units during the enemy turn, or to remain silent. A problem may be providing escorts for this new mission, but maybe not.

PP

[Ivanov]

I hope Bill can find the time to weed through this entire thread and capture the salient points...I honestly don't know how he keeps up with everything. Anyway, another improvement area for SOE is defensive air support. Artillery units already do this, and I think 'flying artillery' should too. Tac air units need a toggle to allow them to attack enemy ground units that attack friendly units during the enemy turn, or to remain silent. A problem may be providing escorts for this new mission, but maybe not.

PP

Definitely a cool idea that is worth further exploring. However I'm not sure if this option would be used too often. The TAC units are usually used by the side that is "on the move" and has overall superiority, so the players would rather use the air units to support the attack instead defence. But it would be surely an nice option to have.

From the other hand, I would propose another mode for the attack aircraft units, that would be called interdiction. The TAC set to it, would affect the supply and readiness value of the enemy units in some radius from the selcted tile, without directly affecting the strength of the enemy troops. That would be a good representation of the attack air force, that was sent to some area for a free hunting in order disrupt the movement in the enemy's rear ( the best known case of such a successful use of the tactical air force was the fighting in Normandy ).

[Peter Palchinsky]

Defensive air support would be useful in North Africa campaign since both sides usually have TAC available and ground units are hard pressed to stay alive very long.

Interdiction sounds very good too. Seems like it could be a mission during the friendly turn and/or have it take effect during the enemy's turn within a certain radius of friendly TAC unit's base.

Given that turns represent weeks, it seems like air units are missing crucial historical mission sets, like interdiction and DAS. These combat multipliers are currently missing for the defenders. Right now attackers wipe out defending ground units without accounting for these historical factors. Artillery units have helped alleviate this imbalance, but they are very limited in number and reach. Air units need to be improved to fill the gap.

[Hubert Cater]

Just wanted to quickly say thanks again to everyone and I think we've got a pretty good idea on our end on the changes to make that should address most if not all of the issues presented here.

Overall this was fantastic feedback and definitely made our jobs that much easier

[Ivanov]

Just wanted to quickly say thanks again to everyone and I think we've got a pretty good idea on our end on the changes to make that should address most if not all of the issues presented here.

Overall this was fantastic feedback and definitely made our jobs that much easier

Brilliant stuff Hubert