Soft Factor Tech, should there be one?

[Shaka of Carthage]

That question has come up again, so I'd like to explain why I think the answer is no. (Hmmm... after I finished this, I think I may have already written this once before. O well)

Soft Factor in my opinion represents the Artillery and Infantry combat factors of a division and non-divisional units. While it is a Infantry weapon, the larger mortars (81mm and up) are considered as Artillery combat factors.

Summary

Artillery Advances

</font>

• Growth of standard artillery pieces.</font>
• Fire Direction Control</font>
• Proximity fuse</font>

I don't see a way to justify five (5) tech level advances, even after you include the US advances.

Mortars and Rockets were a replacement and/or a supplement for normal artillery. But not a tech advance in itself.

Everything else is in the technique of its use, not a technology advance.

The direct fire effect of the Artillery is compensated for by the loss of the Infantry combat power.

Detail

Eve of WWII

Artillery could be used two ways ... Direct fire and Indirect fire.

Direct fire is based on the Mark One Eyeball. You can see them, so you point your weapon at them. Of course, they can see you, and you in effect are basically engaged in Infantry level combat now (which means bad things for the Artillery guys). This is the method by which anti-tank weapons (37mm thru 88mm) and the "infantry guns" (ie artillery pieces) were used.

Indirect fire is basically the Artillery shooting based on a map. Requires Forward Observers (FO's) who are up there with the Infantry and in contact (by radio or telephone) with one (1) group of artillery tubes (be it a battery, artillery battalion or artillery brigade). Problems with this is that you are now dealing with the technical aspects of artillery, in that you need to use trigonometry along with your map (hope its accurate!), not to mention the weather, etc to get the rounds on target. So if you had the chance, you would register the guns before hand. Even so, because of the differences in guns, shells, chemicals, etc you could still be off by hundreds of meters. And you are still only talking to that one group of guns.

Counter-battery fire was when artillery tried to silence the enemy artillery. Since artillery guns were almost always several miles behind your infantry, the only weapon that could reach them was enemy artillery or aircraft. So you either sent commandos, aircraft or used the "flash and sound" method to find the enemy artillery. Flash and sound is when you see the enemy artillery flash at night, count the seconds before the boom, then calculate the distance. Then you fired whatever you had into that area.

Standard artillery pieces were the 75/76mm weapon and the 100/105mm weapon.

Fuses

Standard fuses were contact fuses, so when it hit something, it exploded. Delay fuses were also available (hit something then exploded fraction of seconds later), but were mainly for the naval and fortification/bunker busting. Timed fuses (which exploded after a certain amount of time went by) were used mainly for anti-aircraft. You kinda hoped when it went off, enemy aircraft would be there.

During WWII

Standard artillery pieces started to grow, with 75/76mm being replaced by the 100/105mm and the 150/155mm being the new heavy standard. Remember, these artillery pieces were being towed by horse teams.

Russians, because of the problems they had, started to develop and use mortars in place of field artillery (easier to make and train people to use).

Also explains there development of rockets (ie necessity being the mother of invention), since mortars were terrible at counter-battery fire. Soviet rocket artillery was the ideal weapon for this, since you could put alot of rockets into a area in a short amount of time, and not worry about sustained rate of fire.

"Infantry Guns" started to disappear, since 81mm mortars could take the place of the 75/76mm pieces and the 120mm mortars the place of the 100/105mm tubes.

US Advances

By the eve of WWII, the US artillery had developed a Fire Direction Control system. Basically your FO's sent information to the FDC, which using computers, calculated the differences for the various guns it had under its control. These guns could be in widely different locations. This is why in the typical four (4) battalions of artillery assigned to a division, you faced two (2) battalions of artillery at one time. But against an American division, you faced all four (4) battalions, plus whatever else happened to be in range at the time. And rounds could be corrected as soon as they landed. But there were drawbacks. You needed lots of telephones, radios and computers. You also needed lots of artillery ammo supply. If you didn't have the logistical tail, then the ability to fire those artillery tubes meant nothing. This also leads to fuse development, in an effort to make the ammo more effective.

Time fuses were designed to allow for exploding in the air, but they were difficult to use. Eventual solution was the radar fuse (ie proximity fuse). It was expensive, required electronics and was bulky (only fit in 127mm or larger shells). But this now turned the 5" naval pieces into excellent anti-artillery weapons. The US Army could only use them in the 155mm weapons.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Screw the question or answer, terrific post full of interesting information.

[ April 08, 2003, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Comrade Trapp]

JerseyJohn, you up for a game tonight? (sorry for going off topic)

[JerseyJohn]

Comrade

Thanks for the offer, have to be up at 7 a. m., was just checking things out before turning in.

[ April 08, 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

Shaka, how about "rate of firing" and time for in-battery deployment (mobility). Would/could artillery doctrine be an additional research step?

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaMonkey

Shaka, how about "rate of firing" and time for in-battery deployment (mobility). Would/could artillery doctrine be an additional research step?

By rate of fire, I assume you mean the number of rounds that could be fired within a certain time frame. That was more of a logistical constraint than anything else.

In-battery deployment... You had horse drawn, towed and self-propelled. Rate of movement for each is different, but the biggest effect was the different types of terrain they could operate on.

British and the US could setup quickly, since all they had to do was setup equipment, connect communication links and lay up some ammo. Even if they were SP, still took min of 30 minutes, since most of the time was spent triangulating your position.

Germans and Soviets took more time, around an hour, not so much because of the transport method, but because they had to lay down telephone wires (just like WWI) and more importantly perform survey's (guy holding a pole and another guy looking at him thru that thing on the tripod) to establish firing points (the method they used since the maps were not gridded like the US/British).

Here is a link that has a brief overview of Artillery, with a brief touch upon national doctrine. Well worth the read (about 15 minutes).

WWII Artillery Overview

Your comment about the doctrine and setup time got me to thinking about the ability to perform on-call fire and how it would relate to moving and attacking. In a few days, I'll have something to say about that.

[ April 09, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Shaka, totally agree with your review.

German armor did have roughly 5 upgrades,1) PZKW I,II; 2) PZKW III,IV; 3) PZKW III, IV upgrade of guns and armor; 4) PZKW V,VI; 5) fifth but very small upgrade in numbers PZKW VIB KING TIGER.

German infantry had about three upgrades, becoming more mobil and higher amout of automatic weapons, plua better anti-tank weapons.

Russian armor had about six upgrades, and three upgrades in infantry (same as german model).

British armor had about five upgrades, but ended up equal with the US in power which had four upgrades. Both British and American upgrades in tanks equaled only the third level of German Armor however. So in efect Western Allies had 3 armored upgrades. Does this make sense?

US infantry should start off at level 2, and upgrade to level 3 around 1944. British should go thru three phases.

Airpower seems okay except naval, ships however?

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Shaka, totally agree with your review.

German armor did have roughly 5 upgrades,1) PZKW I,II; 2) PZKW III,IV; 3) PZKW III, IV upgrade of guns and armor; 4) PZKW V,VI; 5) fifth but very small upgrade in numbers PZKW VIB KING TIGER.

This is where I wouldn't get too wrapped in the realism aspect, and attempt to duplicate the "exact" advances that each country had. For a couple of reasons. First, advances can entail more than technological change; it can involve changes that are doctrinal or even experiential. (And "experience" in this game would not necessarily reflect those. Experienced soldiers do things better than non-experienced soldiers. But they also learn techniques in combat that can then be passed off to soldiers who don't have any experience.)

Second, and perhaps more important, limiting advances to those that were actually done "strait-jackets" the game too much for my tastes. Why should I, as the German player, have five tank advances just because the Germans did? What if the Germans had decided to stop with the Panther and devote the resources that went into developing and producing the King Tiger to other things? What if the US Army, instead of believing that light tanks performing the role of light cavalry was the way to go, correctly discerned that heavier tanks were better, and had produced the M-26 Pershing in late 1943 instead of 1945?

The tech levels are abstractions, but they work. They can work better; I'd like to see the effect of certain techs, like rockets/artillery and tanks and anti-aircraft, increased, and I'd like to see strategic warfare improved. If all that's done, then players will really face some significant decisions in their choice of which techs to pursue.

[SeaWolf_48]

Good point Arby.

Here comes the but, Italy, could they have ever become level 5 anything? The Romanians fought well at Sevestopol, but lousy at Stalingrad, but they can't progress or decrease. Italy is way to strong in SC, historical they stunk, heart not in it!

I'm confused, should infantry not progress in your opinion, or not! This atricle started of with the question of no soft level increasement. Or is it the trying to be realistic that you object too. It's just a question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Jersey John and myself are for the most realistic wargame that can be produced (excuse me John if I drop your name). What standard do you use then. Every country produces the same infantry, tanks, and ships. Like a chess game, every Rook or Knight the same, all pons equal. Or a national flavor to each billigerent.

[SeaWolf_48]

Arby

Just found your article on accurate vs. realism, it answered my question above.

My Italy question is still on the table. How can a Italian level five Tank be accurate?

I like the word HISTORIC. Could this have happened in history. Could Germany have developed the A-Bomb. The answer is no. They were using the wrong direction to find a solution, they didn't trust the jew Einstien and his Zionist Physics, maybe with 10 more years they would have stumbled across the answer, but Nazi Germany didn't have that much time. Could they have had an all jet Air Force, yes, they developed the right science and mechanics to produce several models of jet, fortunately HItler hindered the program.

You have very good articles on this forum, and I enjoy your influence it has with this band of brothers.

[ April 10, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

My Italy question is still on the table. How can a Italian level five Tank be accurate?

I don't think it can be. I agree with you that Italy is substantially overrated in the game. I'm playing a game now where Italy is getting more MPP's a turn than the US. That's completely whack.

Could Germany have developed the A-Bomb.

Sort of off the subject. I remember seeing a thread about the A-bomb a while back, whether that should be one of the techs. I'd definitely vote no on that, for a couple of reasons. First, it wasn't used in the European theatre, and I'm very doubtful that it would have been. Secondly, one of the problems with a historical game is that the people playing it know how history came out, which affects the game. We all know how significant the A-bomb was, and thus a player is going to do his best to develop one. Back then, though, there was no particular reason to believe that it was going to amount to anything much. There's a big difference between going to somebody in 1940 and saying, "Hey, if we spend a lot of time and effort on this, we will be able to develop a single bomb that can destroy an entire city," and saying, "Hey, if we spend a lot of time and effort on this, we might be able to come up with some sort of superweapon, but we're really not sure what it will do."

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Feel free to drop my name whenever you want to, I feel honored and also we have virtually the same views.

Italians and Romanians.

True, the Italians heart wasn't in the war. For one thing Mussolini had them on a war footing throughout the late 1930s between Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War, in which they contributed numerous volunteers (I knew one personally and have a humorous little story about his experiences there) as well as large quantities of weapons, especially small arms and artillery, that were sorely needed in the regular Italian Army.

The Italians and Romanians shared the same basic flaws regarding equipment and at Stalingrad the Romanians were crushed by it's consequences. Neither army had decent anti-tank weapons. Large numbers of Soviet T-34s rolled right through the Romanian lines along the frozen Don River, crushing the defenders who were easily taken prisoner by the Soviet foot soldiers who followed.

Agreed that the Italians are overated in the game but I think the (hopefully expanded) scenario editor should maintain the option of making them more formidable. In Italy's defense, as late as the early summer of 1939 Hitler assured Count Ciano that no major war would develop on his account till late 1941. Italy's war planes were set accordingly. This is why Italy was caught so woefully unprepared in the Autumn of 1939. Which is not to say they'd have been magically transformed with two more year's preparation, but they would certainly have been more battle worthy than they were historically.

[ April 11, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Possible Temporary Solution:

Optiions in the Scenario Editor.

I believe it was Shaka who coined the idea of national units in SC being distinguished by having different colors instead of different characteristics, and he's totally correct.

One way I've found of adjusting for this has been to open the basic 1939 Scenario and making the following adjustments to reflect the differences in abilities of major nations at the start of the war:

UK Gun Laying Radar L=2, Sonar L=2, Anti-Aircraft Radar L=2, Long Range Aircraft L=1, Bombers L=1, Jets L=1 +3 Unassigned Research Credits.

Germany Jets L=2, Advanced Subs L=2, Rockets L=2, Anti-Aircraft Radar L=1, Heavy Tanks L=1, Anti-Tank Guns L=1, Gun Laying Radar L=1 +3 Unassigned Research Credits.

France Same as game +1 Unassigned Research Credit.

Italy Long Range Aircraft L=1 +1 Unassigned Research Credit + 250 MPPs*

USA Sonar L=2, Bomber L=2, Long Range Aircraft L=2, Gunlaying Radar +2, Jet L=1, Heavy Tanks L=1, Anti-Tank Guns L=1 +4 Unassigned Research Credits

USSR Same as game except Heavy Tanks L=2 and 750 MPPs*

*The MPPs for Italy and USSR to offset their initial unpreparedness for invasion arrived courtesy of Bill Macon .

By incorporating these changes, I've found (1) Britain has by far the best as well as the strongest Navy, two Gun Laying Radar levels up from the Italians and French, who did not develop radar. Historically the British preferred engaging the Italians in nighttime actions where Italian ships had to fire virtually blind.

Being one Level up on the Germans also helps maintain the status quo, though Germany also possessed gunnery radar and it was actually better than that used by the British, at least till they were able to study the sets recovered from the only partially scuttled Graf Spee (which I suspect was the real reason for Langsdorf's suicide).

The USA is advanced to roughly it's 1941 research levels. It gets an extra research chit because it devoted the most attention to weapons development -- though the Brits were also extremely active, especially in the unorthodox areas.

Italy did have long range aircraft and should, along with France, have some weapons development program, even if minimal at start.

Germany had by far the most dominant air force at the start of the War, which is why they get L=2 Jets; they should be two levels above the Polish Air Force. I don't think there's any doubt they had the best ground troops and tactical doctrine at the start of the war, L=1 in both categories is perfectly justified, otherwise there's no distinction in Sept 39 between the German and Polish Armies!

UK has improved aircraft though a step behind the German's (the Battle of Britain was mostly a radar and hometurf advantage), the most highly developed radar and the strongest navy.

I'm still working on these ideas, most of which are derived from the earlier Mods developed by dgaad, Martinov and Bill Macon.

Naturally, an improvement within the game itself would be preferable. I'm sure we'll see it, if not sooner then later.

[ April 11, 2003, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Arby

Okay, Italy is too strong, we both agree, I feel that it's not Historic, and you feel that it's not accurate or realistic? You stated earilier that the game is accurate except for Germany being to strong MPP wise, and now Italy is to strong militarily.

Realism is important in a Strategy game, atleast too me! Or else just make it a chess game, like Axis and Allies.

Got any good lawyer jokes?

[KDG]

I'm beginning to think I'd like to see multiple techs for every unit.

Ground units:

Tech 1: Increase soft attack

Tech 2: Increase soft defense

Tech 3: Increase air defense

Tech 4: Increase tank defense

Tech 5: Increase overall strength

Tank units:

Tech 6: Increase soft attacks

Tech 7: Increase tank attacks

Tech 8: Increase air defense

Tech 9: Increase soft defense

Tech 10: Increase overall strength

Jets:

Tech 11: Increase soft attacks

Tech 12: Increase tank attacks

Tech 13: Increase air attacks

Tech 14: Increase air defense

Tech 15: Increase overall strength

Same for the other units also.(I might include two increases for ships and subs to make investment in them worthwhile, maybe an attack and defense improvement).

Then I might make investment cost 100 MPP's, but only have a 5% chance for improvement each turn.

The increase could be 1/2 point to 1 point for each increase(maybe even make this random). Total techs available to invest in might be 20-25. I assume some of you war buffs could come up with nice little names that would describe each of the above techs.

I believe this would increase overall strategy, as well as bring in a bit more randomness.

Ex.

One side is investing in air defense when they find out that tanks are doing all the attacking. You quickly get some research into tank defense, but was it in time. Or your jets aren't doing any damage, so you change strategy and bump up you infantry attack, just in time to take key locations.

I'd like to see the occasional game(10% of the time maybe) where even when you played it perfectly, some random factors(like tech) kept you from winning.

[arby]

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Okay, Italy is too strong, we both agree, I feel that it's not Historic, and you feel that it's not accurate or realistic? You stated earilier that the game is accurate except for Germany being to strong MPP wise, and now Italy is to strong militarily.

What I said was that the game did not correctly model the shift in strategic initiative from the Axis to the Allies that occurred during the war; the Axis retain the initiative throughout. Part of that is because the Italians are overrated. I think that's not accurate.

Realism is important in a Strategy game, atleast too me! Or else just make it a chess game, like Axis and Allies.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting that it's of no concern. As I've said, ground combat isn't realistic: it doesn't correctly reflect the role of armor, and it's not bloody enough. Both of those lead to other problems, like the overimportance of air and the economic imbalance: Germany winds up getting to reinforce units that it would otherwise have to replace, at much greater cost. And that winds up affecting the accuracy of the entire game.

On the other hand, there are people who claim that oil should be a much more significant factor in the game: that you should only be able to build so many armor or air units per oil resource, or even that each hex should have a particular resource (steel, grain, superglue, whatever) that should go into determining what you can produce. That would certainly be more realistic, but I don't think it would have a major effect on the accuracy of the game. (In fact, as HOI demonstrates, it could actually have a negative effect.) The importance of oil is demonstrated in the game, although abstractly, by virtue of the fact that oil is the most productive resource. I think that's about as far as you need to go.

Got any good lawyer jokes?

Two:

1. It was so cold today that lawyers were walking around with their hands in their own pockets.

2. Q. What's brown and black and looks good on a lawyer?

A. A doberman.

[SeaWolf_48]

Arby

I appreciate your patience's with me and I agree with your deductions. SC needs some work in it's warfare aspects. My biggest gripe is that units don't retreat when attack, but just stand and die (they would make Hilter proud). Hopefully the Game God's will fix these discrepancies before SC2.

Two lawyers were on a desert island and every day look for help from the horrizon. One day one of the lawyers climbed a palm tree and saw a beautiful naked lady in the surf. They both ran down to the water to save her. When they pulled her out of the water one lawyer says to the other "should we screw her" the other lawyer says "out of what".

[Shaka of Carthage]

SeaMonkey

Would/could artillery doctrine be an additional research step?

Summary

US/UK method could bring more artillery to bear when on the move than anyone else. There should be something to reflect that advantage. I think it should be in the US/UK Corp/Army being the only one with the ability to move and fight.

Detail

Doctrine differences are very little when it comes to a prepared offense or prepared defense. Division, Corp and Army level artillery units had enough time to pre-plot artillery missions. Effect was no different then what occurred in WWI.

On-Call Artillery

Once the situation became mobile, now have big differences in doctrine. Artillery was either in direct support of a unit or in general support (had to ask permission for its use, which added 3 minutes for each higher formation). Typically took about 10 to 12 minutes for first round to arrive, with 3 to 5 minutes between each spotting round. Massed fire (ie artillery units within range) was possible but difficult since everyones maps were not calibrated.

Intially everyone used artillery to destroy point targets. Would correct there rounds before firing for effect.

British changed doctrine in '42. Adopted gridded map system which allowed first round to arrive in 2 to 3 minutes, but it wasn't as accurate. So they didn't bother with correcting rounds and instead went for suppression, not destruction. When artillery landed, it all landed at one time. Wasted more rounds than the above, so the British relied on thier FO's to select priority targets. Could mass fire from different artillery units easily since everyone had the same map.

US took the British system one step further. Kept the speed of the British, while restoring the accuracy. Artillery could now either destroy or suppress a target. Could also perform mass fire and have all the rounds land at the same time (called Time on Target). And any platoon sized unit could call in artillery support, without having a Forward Observer.

Russia, after the losses in '41, took anyone who was smart enough to act as a FO and put them in Artillery Divisions (or sent them to build airplanes). Used mortars and assault guns in place of artillery in the infantry divisions. You in effect had short range, inaccurate "artillery" support. Within the scale of SC though, we can't represent this.

[JerseyJohn]

Too bad we can't have a regular SeaMonkey -- SeaWolfe series hosted by, say, "Baghdad Bob" with a segment dedicated to lawyer jokes and Baghdad Bob doing military analysis.

Sorry for going so far off topic but I really enjoyed those postings, especially those in the other Topic (counter techs too strong?), which is where I thought I was posting this entry. :confused: Yes, feeling a bit disoriented at the moment.

Baghdad Bob, courtesy of Gunslinger3 posting @ General Forum

[ April 12, 2003, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

KDG

I like your tech advancement idea, it might help balance things out.

Shaka

I think this is another issue that gets back to the reds vs grays, as you discussed elsewhere.

Beyong basic field pieces, all the major nations seemed to have their own approach to artillery and artillery use. I think Germany and the USSR had many common tactics while the United States and England tended to go in their own directions.

Of the four, the US fire control method was probably the most advanced idea, as described earlier in this Topic, though, as was stated, it required a great deal of calculating and sighting ability to be properly executed.

The Germans and especially the Soviets employed multiple rocket lauchers profusely and I think the German specialty would have to be considered heavy assault guns working closely with infantry assault units.

The UK seems to have maintained more traditional techniques, relying upon massive blanket bombardments such as the one laid down at El Alemain.

So, with essentially four different approaches I think it would be hard to specify universal techniques appearing on each of five levels.

One thing I would like to see is a clear differentiation between rockets and artillery. MRL should be considered artillery and not rockets in the V-weapon sense.

[ April 12, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaWolf_48]

Too bad we can't have a regular SeaMonkey -- SeaWolfe series hosted by, say, "Baghdad Bob" with a segment dedicated to lawyer jokes and Baghdad Bob doing military analysis.

Rarely do I laugh out loud, but that's funny

But remember we arm two armchair warriors, armed with stacks of academic military braincell missiles, one trying to drive a preverbial PZKW VIB thru a American A/T Battalion, the other defending his cyber homeland with an 88mm ambush.

Alas, There are now winners in cyber war!

[JerseyJohn]

That's the great thing about being a Cyber General, it's even safer than being an Armchair General as there's no risk of having a live opponent who turns violent!

Alas, I've heard rumors that poor Baghdad Bob is no longer on, shall we say, active duty.

RIP.

He was on the verge of creating an entirely new field, Military Analytical Entertainment.

If there's enough left to warrent a tombstone I'd inscribe it with his prophetic masterpiece, "Now we have them trapped at the Airport and must decide what to do with them."

[ April 15, 2003, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]