SC Economic Analysis

[Shaka of Carthage]

Germany .... continued

The "what-if" factor in SC, allows for neutral nations to be plundered and conquered that were not invaded in real life. The penality, is in the readiness effect it has on the Major nations. Here are the nations that are left, the potential economic bonus you would receive (if you were Axis), and their military.

Nation.........+econ.........units

Switz............0...........2 armies

Sweden..........35...........Air, 2 armies, 1 Corp

Ireland.........10...........1 Corp

Portugal........10...........1 Corp

Spain...........48...........2 armies, 3 Corps

Greece..........24...........2 armies, 1 Corp

Persia..........30...........1 Corp

Turkey..........40...........1 army, 5 Corps

Baltic States...24...........1 Corp

Finland.........15...........1 army, 3 Corps

From each of these nations, you would recieve plunder. I'll leave it to someone else to list the plunder numbers, but you wouldn't be too far off if you assumed that the average plunder was 250 MPP's.

Let assume the Axis player takes the logical ones. Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Spain and Greece. That adds 117 MPP and gives me 1250 plunder. Not too bad. Assuming I lost no units. So now my German economy is around 486 MPP's. I've got about three (3) more research chits and another air and corp. Was it worth it? Most people would seek the answer relative to the US entering the war. As I have tried to point out earlier, the US is a minor player, the real key is the effect it has on Russia. You need four (4) turns of this extra production to make up for each turn Russia enters earlier than normal. You do get the benefits of the extra research, assuming that is where you put the MPP plunder. If you heavily invest in a specific tech, you may see some quick advances... or you may not. Either way, once you get those advances, eventually (usually sooner than you would like), your opponent is closing the tech gap.

So is it worth it? I contend that it is a personal decision each of you have to make. Does it swing the balance in favor of the Axis? It helps, but it does not make it a forgone conclusion.

So let me go out on a limb and make a conclusion. The key to SC is the defeat of Russia. If it happens quick enough (once you invade, which you want to happen as late as possible if you are Axis), the Axis will win. However, this only applies if you are playing a human of equal or greater skill. The AI cannot make the necessary responses to what its opponent is doing. The game when played against the AI is totally different, mainly because of the higher experience levels. That is why when you first start playing against humans, very little of your AI expeirence helps. The other reason being that old statement about "amateurs study strategy while professionals study logistics". Supply is the second key to SC.

That concludes this SC Economic Analysis. I do have one more post regarding strategic materials, but I will post that later.

Thanks,

Barry

[pzgndr]

Now I am going get into trouble. In SC, the Allies are stronger than the Axis, even with the increased Italian economy. In fact, the earlier the US and USSR enter the war, the greater the advantage to the Allies.

No, you won't get into trouble here. I agree the Allies have an economic edge in SC, but it is fragile compared to 3R. If Germany pushes hard enough into Russia to tip the economic balance, which includes the virtual Lend Lease MPPs from the US, then it's very difficult for the Allies to recover. In 3R, even after a bad 1942 where the last BRP is spent, a whole new influx of cash comes rolling in during the 1943 YSS and the expected turn flip-flop changes the initiative in the game.

SC does not simulate this well. I've referred to this before as the "critical point" in the game and fighting to get there is always the most interesting aspect. In 3R for the Axis, it's like climbing an economic hill and fighting back and forth on the hilltop. In SC, it's more like a sharp mountain peak. Just get over the top and it's all downhill to eventual victory from there. Some "smoothing" of the economic model and higher growth factors for the US and USSR would help.

Barry, this is good stuff. Thank you sir.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Bill Macon

Thank you. Makes you appreciate that 3R is truly an "economic simulation of WWII, with everything else built around that", as most of the reviewers used to say.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Minotaur, Arby, and a couple of others I promised this to.

=================================================

Bumping this cause I have not figured out how to "link" it in my posts.

Find the nation you are interested in, and read the summary. Then you can look at the earlier posts that have the MPP comparisons.

[Jollyguy]

Shaka;

Your analysis of where Axis mpps peak needs to be recalculated. I've never done the math exactly, but I believe Axis mpps can actually top out in the 900 to 1000 range.

What I think you overlooked is that resource hexes move up to 8 and 10 value when connected to certain other countries. Your correct in stating that Sweden starts at 35 mpps, but it then doubles to 70 (or thereabouts) if connected to Norway and Denmark. Norway would also increase if so connected. All minors when connected to proper adjoining countries move from 5, to 8 and 10 values.

So your calculation of 486 mpps for Germany would need to be moved-up, on average to around 600. It could get to the 800 range, depending on how the minors are split up between Germany and Italy. I've had games where I got the Germans up to about 750 mpps, the Italians 200.

[Minotaur]

Very intersting and good work Shaka...

To resume, all help USSR receives from UK & USA is there right when she starts the war... No convoys needed ...

That explains some things we see in SC...

- The feeling that UK & USA don't have the amount of MPPs they should have...

- That it is almost impossible to see Axis around Stalingrad in 1942... The time USSR need to receive & put in place the help from others is not needed...

- Why there is not convoys/Uboats in the first place...

To keep the game simple, that's a valid idea... Only one thing bother me... UK could use the MPPs she gives to USSR... Especially as long as USSR is not at war!...

It's not relevant to USA, since it enters the war after USSR... Unless you choose to put USSR neutral...

I think the 'Keep MPPs or give-via-Convoys' should be there in SC2... If we want a "what-if" game, each countries (axis included) should have the choice of how-much, when and to-who she can give its MPPs...

- Direct in the bank for simplicity...

- Via Convoys... Implementing the use of a more realist Convoy/Escort/U-Boot mechanic in SC2...

[ March 09, 2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jollyguy

You're correct. I did not include "bonus" you get when certain nations are connected.

For Sweden, that takes the Norway/Sweden total from 70 to 112. Increase of 42.

Don't remember if I did this one or not, but Axis minors or Yugo will increase Albania by 10.

I plan to "publish" this as an HTML article. Once I do that, I will correct those numbers. Nice catch.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Minotaur

You're right, UK needs the help of the additional MPPs. This is where giving the Allies Iraq starts to look very attractive. The same with giving Ireland to the Allies.

This weakness of the UK and the apperance of an understrength US is where the whole idea of a "bid" system for Ladder play came into being.

Unless of course I am playing the Allies, I always seem to blow it and lose Iraq to the Axis.

[ March 09, 2003, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[arby]

Barry,

Excellent and very methodical analysis. I disagree with your conclusion, though, that the increased economic production of the Soviets counterbalances the weakened condition of the US and UK, and so in effect balances the overall production.

I think if you look at the numbers and the results of your games (human v. human; I agree that SP really is irrelevant), you'll find that about a year into Barbarossa, the German player is alone getting almost as many, if not more, MPP's than all the Allies combined, if you factor in IT. The bigger problem is that it only gets worse from there. Because of problems with the combat model and the economic system (it will cost the Russians more to field an infantry unit at this juncture than it will cost the Germans), the Soviets are never able to mount an effective counterattack to take back territory, and the Western Allies don't have enough MPP's to manage much of a punch, either. The Germans have the ability to put an HQ and a couple of airfleets back in the Western Theatre to take the sting out of the Allied airfleets there; a couple of turns of air battles should do it, because the Allies don't have enough MPP's to replace their losses quickly and the Germans do. Then the German takes his time getting the Caucasus, and that's all she wrote.

There are only two successful Allied strategies in this game. The first is the Terif/Rambo strategy, which is to delay or defeat the conquest of France. While they are to be complimented on figuring out how to "beat" the game, their strategy is not within the realm of historical possibility; had the French Defense Minister proposed in 1940 that the French fleet and air force be disbanded, he would have been taken out a shot as a traitor. (Two things I'd like to see in SC2: no more than a 5% gain for disbanding units -- in actuality, all you would have gotten is the savings in whatever it cost to run them for the remaining turns -- and a 50 point reduction in US war entry for invasion of any neutrals by the Western Allies.)

The only other successful strategy for the Allies is to hope that the German player is incompetent enough or unlucky enough that he doesn't do a very good job in Russia, and that the Soviets can hold out until the Western Allies can mount a successful invasion of France.

Third Reich operated on a very simplistic basis, but it had it exactly right: the Germans are ascendant at the beginning, but the Allies slowly build up steam until that "double turn" where the Allied BRP's exceed the Germans, and from that point on they're on the offensive. That needs to be captured here.

[arby]

Originally posted by Minotaur:

To resume, all help USSR receives from UK & USA is there right when she starts the war... No convoys needed ...

I think the 'Keep MPPs or give-via-Convoys' should be there in SC2... If we want a "what-if" game, each countries (axis included) should have the choice of how-much, when and to-who she can give its MPPs...

I'm not so sure. One thing to keep in mind is that the US didn't exactly sacrifice in order to provide aid to the UK and SU. For example, we gave the Russkies something like 200,000 trucks. What do you think's going to happen if Detroit stops producing cars and starts producing trucks? We gave 200,000 of the damn things, and still had more than enough to equip our own divisions with them. An American division had something like 10,000 trucks, while the Germans largely relied on horse-drawn wagons for supply. (That's one of the reasons I'd suggested having UK and US armies and tank groups have 1 more movement point than other countries.)

So I'm not so sure there should be a reduction in US MPP's for lend-lease.

[JerseyJohn]

Great Forum and great threads.

[Shaka of Carthage]

arby

You are correct in that the "what if" factor of the Industrial Technology skews historical results. But don't forget the other thing... oil. That was the limiting factor on the Axis economy. Never was enough of it for them to go 100% with everything. Had to pick and choose, or hold back the total production of certain items.

3R abstracts this in the methods you describe. SC doesn't. Hence, you'll end up with a Germany of at least four (4) times her initial production and an Italy of at least three (3) times her "natural" MPP production.

The economic model is not what we normally expect, but it can be justified. The combat model is a minor problem, if one at all. The unlimited units, funded by the supercharged economies, is where we lose any resemblance to Germans, Russians and Americans, and become Greys, Reds and Greens. And the Greys will win or lose for exactly the reasons you describe.

[arby]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

The economic model is not what we normally expect, but it can be justified. The combat model is a minor problem, if one at all. The unlimited units, funded by the supercharged economies, is where we lose any resemblance to Germans, Russians and Americans, and become Greys, Reds and Greens. And the Greys will win or lose for exactly the reasons you describe.

Several points. First of all, how can the economic model be justified if, as just about every acknowledges, it's completely out of whack? Second, I think there are problems with the combat model. The lack of a retreat option and the fact that air units are the only ones that can be brought en masse against a particular target leads to the umpteen airfleets strategy. Finally, people keep talking about the "unlimited units problem" when what they really mean is the "unlimited German units problem." Think about it. Do you ever hear of anybody complaining that the Americans or British, or even the Russians, have too many units? Even the Russians are hard-pressed; they can build a lot of corps (although it seems it's never enough), but building armies, let alone tank groups or air fleets, sufficient to mount a counterattack is out of the question.

A thought just occurred to me as a way to address the economic imbalance and to bring more realism to the game. Others have pointed that Germany had a severe oil problem during the war, which is true; it limited what Germany could do. But the other nations didn't have that problem.

So why change the game to reflect something which only affected one nation? (Well, Italy too.) There's a way out of that. Many people still seem wedded to the idea that all nations have to be treated equally: a German infantry unit should cost no more and no less than a British infantry unit, and perform in exactly the same fashion. There's no reason it has to be that way, and moreover, there's no reason it should be that way. (Even supposedly much more sophisticated games fall into this trap. In HOI, for example, a Sherman has the same performance as a Panther, which is ludicrous beyond belief.)

So what do you do? Change the costs for German planes and tanks. Increase them by about 50 each. The additional cost would reflect the fact that the Germans had a harder time supporting such units than the other powers did.

[pzgndr]

Third Reich operated on a very simplistic basis, but it had it exactly right: the Germans are ascendant at the beginning, but the Allies slowly build up steam until that "double turn" where the Allied BRP's exceed the Germans, and from that point on they're on the offensive. That needs to be captured here.

Arby, agreed 100%. As simple as 3R and SC is, with their abstract and generic BRPs and MPPs, this overall economic effect is critical. It's much more important to simulate the "building up steam" effect for the Allies than imposing too many limitations on the Axis through resource management. Some adjustments to resource values, national IT growth rates, and optional force pool limits could do this just fine for SC and make it "exactly right" also.

[Shaka of Carthage]

arby

how can the economic model be justified if, as just about every acknowledges, it's completely out of whack?

Lack of understanding does not mean that the economic model is completely out of whack. Its like the complaints about weather. A unique approach was used to handle various issues. Once we understand the method, then the arguments we have are really all about how many MPPs the nations are getting.

Second, I think there are problems with the combat model. The lack of a retreat option and the fact that air units are the only ones that can be brought en masse against a particular target leads to the umpteen airfleets strategy.

You've raised some good points about the existing combat model. But this is not the cause of the too many units problem.

people keep talking about the "unlimited units problem" when what they really mean is the "unlimited German units problem." Think about it. Do you ever hear of anybody complaining that the Americans or British, or even the Russians, have too many units?

Yep. But only when they are on the receiving end of it. Everyone has the potential to have too many air units. US, Italy and UK can raise more units than the economic design should allow. Germany and France can raise more units than realistic. Russia, usually just ends up with the wrong mix.

And as far as making the costs different for each nation, you are correct. That is one of the ways of making the Greys into Germans.

[ March 10, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[pzgndr]

Just bumping this old topic up since Shaka has recently introduced a variation. I liked the side-by-side comparisons with comparable games. Of course it begs the question: which numbers are correct? Since A3R and WiF have been played extensively over the years, those two games probably provide the best benchmarks for economic analysis. Whether we keep a single economic unit (MPP) for SC2 or change to multiple resources (including oil and manpower) is something Hubert needs to decide, but we should be able to agree on a few fundamentals:

1. Determine a relative historic worth of the various major and minor countries, initially in 1939 and over the course of the war. Then assign resources to match. This should be easy with A3R and WiF available for comparison.

2. We know the historic OOBs. Buildup with the available resources should be possible (ie, Fall Weiss to Fall Gelb to Barbarossa, etc.) In lieu of plunder (which is not realistic), more at-start MPP's could be provided and/or low-strength cadre units provided in the setups.

3. Economic growth was not as simple as a standard industrial technology research advance. 3R had different growth rates for each country, which could be reproduced in SC with different IT growth rates. COS had different industrial base multipliers for each country, but these seemed to apply to all resources. I would argue that only home production resources should grow; all occupied resources wshould be limited. Some combination of historic multipliers for home resources plus variable IT advances could produce an economic system that's both realistic and variable (for replayability.)

4. Economic tranfers between countries (Lend Lease, Murmansk Convoys, etc.) should be accounted for, either explicitly with new rules or abstractly as we currently have. My concern for any new economic transfer rules is how well the AI could be programmed and whether it would perform intelligently - consider the problems if it doesn't. Aid from Germany to Italy and from the USA to UK and USSR would be necessary, but why not assume this is occurring and simply abstract the process? Subs entering Murmansk Convoy lanes could reduce USSR MPP's rather than UK's for normal convoy lanes.

5. USSR industry transfer to the Urals could be triggered by some event like Minsk and Kiev being captured, and additional MPP's added to its production. This would help Russia survive.

6. Reduced aid to USSR once they are on the offensive could be triggered by some event like recapture of Smolensk and Kharkov. Reduced aid could then show up as an increase in USA, and additional MPP's added to its production. Combined with a higher IT growth rate, this would help grow the American economy.

7. There's still the problem with out-of-control force pools. Multiple resources could be effective at limiting certain unit types like air and armor. Another possibility is user-defined force pool limits that have been proposed. Again the issue boils down to having either a complex system where everything is modeled explicitly, or a simpler system that abstracts things in a reasonable manner. Hubert's call.

8. Unit costs should show some increase over time as tech levels increase. Those jets and heavy tanks are expensive to build, operate and maintain. Per-factor purchase and reinforcement costs should increase, not just the additional purchase cost for additional factors.

There's a lot to consider here - an awful lot. Even after thinking about Shaka's original postings a couple months ago, I'm still not prepared to lay out some detailed perfect plan for a new economic model. I do believe a few relatively minor adjustments to the current game could produce a reasonably accurate economic simulation of WWII without resorting to the complexity of HOI. I hope so anyways. Let's keep this game fun to play.

[Shaka of Carthage]

One of the things I have promised to do, but am late on, is to produce this as a HTML and have it available on SCHQ.

[Liam]

Shaka notice when you set the difficulty settings for single player you get less plunder. It assumes that things all work out in the wash with a human player in the Allied driver seat. I don't think that Hubert had this in mind when things were originally thought out. Though I find that people re-think their strategy when they know the amount of plunder I can recieve per nation. Plus almost every Ally invades Ireland now. Any other nation possible that the Axis cannot by the time of US entry. They get some nice booty too Remeber historically the Axis stripped each Nation's bank all of their Gold and pretty the whole nation of all it's things of value. Something Democracy's generally wouldn't do???

usual strategy: why it's impossible to change the system as is:

I notice that it's almost impossible for the Axis to delay a D-Day beyond '42 and invade Russia against a skilled Allied player. So it's really up to the Allies to do their check and balances and stay out of the frey and build up on tech, #s and invade... Also retreat and counter well in Russia...

If you took away what precious little bit the Axis get it would be a one way landslide...

[ May 14, 2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Economic growth was not as simple as a standard industrial technology research advance.

Sure wasn't, which is why I have long advocated breaking this category into two, or possibly 3 or even 4 separate research areas. And no, this would NOT cause undue complexity... how long would it actually take to peruse the options?

After all, you are essentially subsuming the ENTIRE Industrial apparatus, with its many myriad intersections, into only ONE catch-all category, yes?

First, IT would merely be those airy-scary theoretical advances, attained in think-tank type Laboratories... this should be less costly than any others, since, as we know, ScienCultists are a dime a dozen.

More importantly, we might assign the most extreme MPP cost (... RE: another idea that has been floated... different MPP costs for EACH research category, a really great idea whose time has arrived... maybe, let us pray) to the area of...

INFRASTRUCTURE, that is, applied Science, or "hard" improvements such as train tracks and factory stacks and mysteriously pale structures stuck willy-nilly on some oddly shimmering hill.

The 3rd area could be LABOR. Training the work-force, and/or coercing reluctant Nihilists and Existentialists to agree that mindless manual repetition is indeed food, nay! and indeed!... a salving NECTAR for the Soul.

"3R had different growth rates for each country, which could be reproduced in SC with different IT growth rates."

BINGO! This would go a long, long way toward solving the apparent inequities in the various Nations' economic potential.

If you wanted to be really elaborate, you could even have a 4th researchable area... EFFICIENCY, which would improve (... given that manual endeavors gradually degenerate... IE, Industry deteriorates over time if fresh and dedicated approaches are not ideally applied... the interface of human with Machine is NEVER static or predictable) with each success. This would be different than airy-scary theory, since it would entail actual management of resources.

I would argue that only home production resources should grow; all occupied resources should be limited."

Very much agreed! This is the principal way that Germany in particular soars to an unrealistically high level of MPPs.

The "underground resistance" in each conquered country would not merely be composed of active partisans, but RELUCTANT participants in everything from ball-bearing factories to greeting card companies. (... Ve haff annihilated wee kleine Country, in the name of greater prosperity spheres, vish yee were here!)

... could produce an economic system that's both realistic and variable (for replayability.)

Ah yea, that last part, IMHO, is the MOST important... if you can use SPECIAL EVENTS to alter the schematics of ANY of our above Economic Model suggestions, then you are achieving a measure of... UNPREDICTABILITY,

... which would perforce perfectly mimic the usual state of affairs when playing most other humans... the awe-full Gestalt is NEVER easily deciphered, at ANY particular moment in a "normal" Human apprehension, and so... it shouldn't be thus & so in a war-game, neither. :cool: