Total War Production

[ev]

At the start of WWII some countries (like England) geared for total war as soon as the hostilities commenced. However, not all countries reacted the same way.

Prior to the German invasion, Russia engaged in several "limmited conflicts" without gearing its industry for total war. These "limmited conflicts" included the wars with Finland and Japan, and the invasions of the Baltic States, part of Rumania (Besarabia) and part of Poland.

In SC1, Russia gears for total war as soon as it enters war with Germany, whether Germany attacks Russia, or whether Russia "joins" the allies of its own accord. I believe it is unlikely that Russia would have geared its economy for Total War Production if Russia had joined the allies of its own accord. Of course, if subsequent to joining the allies the Russians would have suffered a major military reversal, that event could have triggered Total War Production. But, a Russian aggressor that does not suffer any military reversal is unlikely to gear its economy into Total War Production.

Many years ago I played a game in which the Russian economy geared for total war only after the Germans occupied at least three major Russian cities. Only then did the Russian economy acchieve Total War Production. This allowed the Germans a realistic strategic choice as to whether to launch a full fledge invasion of Russia, or simply provide an active defense of a hostile border with Russia. In SC1 there is no such choice. Russia gears for all out war, and the Germans better take over all of Russia, or die.

Total War could be triggered as soon as the Germans take over one, two, or three Russian Cities. Playtesting would be the best way to tell the correct count. Which country commenced hostilites could also be a factor affecting the trigger point for Total War Production. If the Germans commenced hostilities, Total War could be triggered upon the Germans taking the first Russian city, but if the Russians started hostilities ("joined" the allies) then Total War could be triggered upon the Germans occupying two or three Russian cities.

The whole point of this total vs limited war idea is to allow the Germans the choice not to invade Russia as a viable WWII strategy.

So much for Russia...

Another country that did not gear its economy for Total War Production from the outset was Germany. Remarkably, almost half the war would go by before Germany gear up for Total War Production. The problem is finding a triggering mechanism for this event. Some ideas come to mind: the bombing of German cities, the losses of Stalingrad, the reversals at El Alamein.

The Nazi leaders moved the German Economy into Total War when they tasted several simultaneous defeats in several fronts. In the early years they were confident, and, they wanted all the Germans to think everything was peachy. But in 1942-43 things changed. For the first time they grew worried, they tasted fear.

...but, how can we represent this in SC? The most remarkable fact about the losses the German faced the winter of 42-43 is that these losses exceeded the capacity of the German economy to replace them. mhm... So loss levels that exceed the existing MPP production could be the trigger mechanism...

I propose that the German economy enters Total War Production when the losses accumulated during three consecutive turns exceed the production accumulated during those three turns. Of course, the number three is kind of arbitrary and playtest could prove that two or four or some other number works better. But consider the following points:

Bombardment of cities would have a triple impact: they cause losses and they also reduce the industrial capacity for the current and subsequent turns. ...so they have a impact than regular combat losses. And, that is good. Bombing a city brings the war home. The experience of WWII shows that, although bombing destroyed specific infrastructure, it had a galvanizing effect on the rest of the country. If you are going to fight a bombing camping, you better make sure you blast the hell out of all those production centers. A luke warm bombing campaign should backfire, as it galvanizes the population into Total War Production.

The initial assault for any campaign is costly. So the test should not be based on a single turn results. Instead, the test for Total War should look upon the result of several turns so as to balance out the losses incurred in achieving any breakthrough with the exploits that follow up.

Conquering a country results in a production bonus (loot). This increases production for the period and reduces the chance of entering Total War Production. Again, that is good. Conquering the Netherlands, or, France, or some other country should reduce the possibility of entering Total War on that turn.

If Germany gets a bloody nose in France it is possible it may enter Total War in 1940. Yes, it sounds wrong to reward incompetence. But, this is probably realistic. If Germany had failed to conquer France, you probably would have had some major war effort taking place in Germany. However, I would balance that with some major loss in Diplomatic Chips... The loss in diplomatic chips should be large enough to keep Italy, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria from joining the Germans, which in turn would represent a major production loss for the Germans. Add to that the production loss from failing to conquer France, and, it is unlikely that incompetence in France would result in a plus for the Germans.

In fact, the act of triggering Total War Production could cause a further Diplomatic loss. Once the conditions for Total War are reached, the system should provide the German player the option as to whether to enter Total War Production at the loss of diplomatic chips, or, waive it. So a German player that suffered heavy losses in France may chose to "hide" his losses from the public and "save face" so as not to lose the Diplomatic Chips it needs to get Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria into the Axis. Of course future reversals in Russia or elswhere could again trigger Total War and the Germans may be then inclined to accept the diplomatic loss.

I would also have Germany enter Total War Production if any German city fell to the allies. But note I mean real German cities, not French or Polish cites taken over by the Germans.

Finally, I would have Germany enter Total War Production if Russian armies came adjacent to a German City. (Again, I mean the cities that are part of Germany when the game starts). The Germans were scared of the Russians...

One way to draw a distinction between Total War Production and Limmited War Prodcution could be to leave all cites at 10, as in SC1 but subject the total production of the country to some factor. Say that the total production of Russia and Germany is reduced by 50% during limited war.

Another way SC2 could represent a Limmited War Economy is to have some cities remain at production level 5 until Total War is triggered. I would have some cities at 10 to provide adequate supply to the combat units. These cities could be either "Capital Cities" or "Major Industrial Cities" or any others Hubert deems pertinent.

The first alternative is probably muh easier to code, and more elegant since it does not affect combat supply.

The concept of reduced production prior to Total War also allows the Allies to manage the production of US and Russia prior to their joining the war. During peace time they could have a minimal peace time production. Say 20% of Total War Production. During this period, the Allied player could manage this limited resources, conducting some research and some minor war production.

Upon entering the war, the US increases production steadily (10% each turn) until it hits 100% Total War Produciton (say by the 8th turn after entering the war). Meanwhile, upon entering the war, Russia hits limited War Production at 50% level. But Russia would remains at Limmited War Production until hitting the right conditions for Total War Production.

Some randomizing could be added so that things are not 100% certain. I leave that up to Hubert.

I am looking for a game where a player weights the options of active limited war versus a war of total anihilation. This is after all a grand strategy game, and, that is the kind of judgement that has to made in grand strategy.

[Retributar]

Sounds great 'ev'...we all have good ideas...and your's is definetly a good one...unfortunately...i dont think SC2 is designed to handle most of our ideas...but, hey if they can be incorporated...then so much the better!.

That doesn't mean we should stop fielding new ideas...the more the better. I just wished i knew what the limitations of the game are so that i could tailor my suggetions accordingly.

However...if not now...then maybey in SC3.

Hey!...whynot make a new 'SC' game-successor each year!. Eventually...many of the complex ideas submitted in these posts could be incorporated into a super-strategic-combat-simulation!.

[ May 18, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Night]

Very nice idea, and I think it could work if we could find good triggers like you were saying, also it would be more realistic since as you pointed out most countries took a lot of time to gear for war.

if you gave countries like the U.S. and Russia 20% production before entering the war it would accuratly simulate pre-war build up without making them super-powers before entering. It would also allow for pre-war strategy and force structure for these countries so you can get a specific custom force on it's way to being built before war is declared. Of course you should have to do this with Italy also to make it fair, even though they have fewer turns out of the war then the rest.

[Roosevelt45]

I dunno.

It certainly would increase realism but I think the game would lose its simplicity that way.of course you can always have this as an option or simulate it with the editor.

[With Clusters]

Great idea, if it can be incorporated into SC2 (considering hoped for release date, playtesting, and what not). If so (or for SC3), the modeling for neutral countries could be improved also, with certain events triggering a 'production increase'. Say, if some country does such and such, a neutral potential adversary increases its production (for example, for each minor 'non-historical' neutral country the Axis invades, US production increases by 5-10%), making it a more dangerous adversary when war is finally declared. Again, good idea, but maybe a bit difficult to implement at this stage in the game's developement? Maybe not?

[pzgndr]

I am looking for a game where a player weights the options of active limited war versus a war of total anihilation. This is after all a grand strategy game, and, that is the kind of judgement that has to made in grand strategy.

From what's available in the editor, it appears that we WILL be able to have some combination of historical events, random events, plus research choices that can progressively ramp up a country's war economy. Desert Dave and I are slowly trying to digest some of the latest features. All I can say at this point is, "Wow!" :cool:

[ev]

Thanks you all for your interest on my suggestions.

Finding the right trigger points will take a lot of playtesting, and, playtesting is time consuming. Perhaps, Hubert can incorporate into the code the concept of reduced production during Peace Time and Limmited War, and, some how allow for the players to later develop the specific trigger points with the editor. But how? Some ideas:

Easy Part #1: Set Peace Production and Limited War Production at x% and y% of Total Production. x and y to be set by the editor. And, for each country, allow the editor to set whether a country starts the game at Pease, Limited War, or Total War.

Easy Part #2: For each country, allow the editor to set the speed at which it mobilizes. Say that the US moblizes at 10% increments once it changes from peace economy to either Limited War or Total War. But say that the Russians mobilize a lot faster since they are in much greater danger due to their proximity to Germany.

Just need to get the easy part first. Now, the hard stuff:

Hard Part #3: Allow the editor to enable or disable "Limited War" for each separate major power. (In the more historical scenarios "Limited War" should be dissabled for England and the U.S. since they geared for "Total War" since the begining of the War. But the editor need not limit those options. Say Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. may had followed a different war path. That could be an interesting scenario for someone to consider at some point...)

Hard Part #4: If the "Limited War" option is selected for a given country, the editor must ask three questions to the user:

1. Number of cities that must be lost before triggering Total War?

2. Number of turns where production fails to meet losses before triggering Total War?

3. Number of enemy units adjacent to friendly cities before triggering Total War?

If the user choses to place a 0 on either condition that condition becomes inoperative. But, the choser may not put a 0 in all three conditions. Any way, once the conditions set by the user are met, that country starts to mobilze for Total War at the rate indicated in Part 2.

Best Part #5: ...so you put all this in the editor. Dissable all of this options in the scenarios you will ship to us in 2004. And, forget about playtesting for now. No time for that. Just make sure, I get SC2 for Xmas.

In spring 05, you develop new scenarios, and sell me a great expansion set next summer. You may throw in a scenario for the war between Japan and China 1930's to 1945 - just to get things rolling for SC3.

Meanwhile I buy Virtual PC for my new Mac, just in case you miss to include a Mac version. :cool: I am sure this is going to be the greatest game of the year.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

AND THERE IT IS!!!

The first mention of 'SC3'

However...if not now...then maybey in SC3.

[With Clusters]

Don't pin that on me! :eek:

I've seen it mentioned several times before.

I think...

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by pzgndr:

Desert Dave and I are slowly trying to digest some of the latest features.

Pzgndr is already digesting, fine.

I haven't yet gotten the fork to my mouth. And we are eating alphabet soup! :eek:

Actually, there are going to be many nice surprises in terms of how you can "model" the entire Economic War.

Hubert has been doing his deep calculations, so be prepared for... astonishment # 109!

[Slapaho]

from a historical point of view, germany didn't start a total war production process until after the appointment of albert speer in february 1942. even then it was far from perfect, but a lot better than upto that point. maybe this would be a good trigger?

to model countries economic and production capabilities i think is too complex, when you consider germany had not only racial and cultural constraints but also, due to the perception of the 1st world war being lost due to the collapse of the 'home front', hitler tried to create the perception in germany everything was great. this meant soldiers had more leave, rations were kept artificially high in germany, women were not co-opted into industry (the use of poor quality, badly fed and very ill treated slave labour used instead) and more importantly men themselves were used in industry as opposed to military service.

on a similar theme, i believe a better way to model industrial factors is to limit the amount of 're-inforcements' that can be generated in a month, dependent upon the nation. for example, fighter production in the UK out-stripped the number of available pilots. america, in 1944 could replaced each tank lost in a month with 10, whereas germany could replace every 10 tanks lost with 1 (not accurate, just an illustration). similar restrictions could be used for creating military formations, as opposed to the 're-inforcing' of an existing unit, which is nicely modelled with the loss of experience. to generate even a corps in 1944 for germany was almost impossible, they did this by reducing divisional sizes down from 9-15 thousand men to around 1 thousand men and reducing the number of batallions from 6 to 4. this in effect on paper made them look strong, but in real terms they had very weak armies.

i think the question is, is the game a model based upon the starting point of 1939, with a clean canvas in terms of ideology and political effects, other than the simple triggers like USA and USSR never allying with the germans, axis and allied minors, etc, or a game that historically models the 2nd world war to the point that it is impossible for germany to win. somewhere in the middle is nice

[Roosevelt45]

Desert Dave and I are slowly trying to digest some of the latest features. All I can say at this point is, "Wow!"

that's all?

come on, just give us a hint.

[pzgndr]

from a historical point of view, germany didn't start a total war production process until after the appointment of albert speer in february 1942

The question is, do we really want to MAKE this a game event or just let players research industrial technology and let advances happen as they may?

[ May 21, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: pzgndr ]

[Edwin P.]

That's interesting, perhaps there will be a script template for news popups on certain dates or events (ie Belgium Surrenders) to add some historical flavor to the game.

ie Dec 7,1941 - Japanese attack Pearl Harbor - just an announcement of what occurred in a pop-up box, perhaps with a picture (a US GOV public domain jpg image) of the attack in progress.

ie Surrender of Holland Trigger - 25% that this pop-up event happens: Queen WILHELMINA escapes to London, with a picture of the Queen.

Once the royal family had left Holland, Princess Juliana and her young daughters would end up in Canada where they would remain for the duration of the War. But Wilhelmina chose to stay in London and there she found the supreme purpose for her life: giving hope and comfort to the vanquished people of Holland. In radio broadcasts which she began almost immediately upon her arrival in London, Wilhelmina spoke weekly to the Dutch people, inspiring them to take heart and to take fight against those who would enslave their country. Wilhelmina's speeches galvanized the Dutch people and by time peace finally did come, and she could return to Holland, she came back not as an admired figure but as a revered one.

Like Winston Churchill, Queen Wilhelmina broadcast messages to the Dutch people over Radio Orange. As always, the Queen pulled no punches, calling Adolf Hitler "the archenemy of mankind." Her late night broadcasts were eagerly awaited by her people who had to hide in order to illegally listen to them under penalty of death.

During the more than four years of German occupation, the Queen was a symbol of hope for the Dutch people. They wore lockets with a picture of Wilhelmina, and in their gardens, defiant "orange" flowers began to appear. Men and women, of which more than 240,000 were murdered, risked being executed for thousands of acts of resistance against the Germans. German rule called for the all food to go to the German army first. The Dutch people starved, many executed for doing nothing more than eating an egg from their own henhouse.

During the war, the Queen was almost killed by a German bomb that took the life of several of her guards and severly damaged her country home near South Mimms, England.

When Hitler was defeated, Queen Wilhelmina was the inspiration for rebuilding a devastated country. Outraged that the German High Command had occupied her Loo Palace, she intended to burn it to the ground rather than live in a place the hated Nazis had used to cruelly rule over her people. Common sense prevailed and the palace was spared her wrath.

Immediately though, Queen Wilhelmina began riding a bicycle around the devastated countryside to motivate the people, oftentimes walking through mud up to her ankles to talk to displaced people in need of help. Greeted by cheering crowds who poured out their affection for their symbol of national identity, Queen Wilhelmina employed her keen business eye, using her bicycle trips to also check on government reconstruction projects. The country suffered as a result of destroyed infrastructure and although she remained enormously wealthy, the Queen never turned on the heat or electricity in her Palace so long as her own people were doing without.

[ May 19, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Slapaho

You got it. I think its safe to say that SC was...

(a) game ... model based upon the starting point of 1939, with a clean canvas in terms of ideology and political effects, other than the simple triggers like USA and USSR never allying with the germans, axis and allied minors, etc,

SC2 is definitely not this...

... a game that historically models the 2nd world war

At the moment, SC2 is basically SC with more features and a little bit of chrome.

Hence the dilemma Mr H is faced with. Does he listen to the "vocal minority", with its various factions asking for realisim, playability, other games have it, etc requests? Or does he stick to his master design, in hopes that he can find enough of a "silent majority", to make SC2 a hit?

Time will tell.

[ev]

This is a very interesting article on the Home Front:

http://www.onwar.com/articles/f0302.htm

[fischkopf]

Thanks for interesting article, ev.

[Night]

Whatever is done I am almost positive SC2 will be better then SC1. Esp. if post release changes/patchs are put out like in SC1.

[bloodstar]

Perhaps Total war for germany shouldn't happen until 6 months after all major allied parties have joined the conflict. You find a way to keep the US out of the war? well, no total war production for you.

As for the US and USSR. They both should have increases in their production. In fact, would it be viable to have a yearly modifer that modifies how much production a hex gives. (that can be edited of course.)

So for the us, the value could be 1.5 for our purposes we'll consider it to only modify production in the home county. (don't get extra goodies from controlled hexes or minor allies) so the US starts at... say 150. The next year, it's 150*1.5 = 225 etc (perhaps 1.5 would be too high, but that's the point, you can modify the increase per year. so by 1944 the US warmachine was in full swing and able to match the Germans, even if germany had conqured the USSR and a ton of minor allies.

perhaps it would be a little to complex to declare what territories were home production or not. but in that case simply make it a static bonus. where the US gets a plus 50 or plus 100 production every January 1st. Same thing for USSR or any country that you want to edit and set up like that. the second way is a little more artificial but is simpler to implement. the first way represents getting more out of a resource. but may be difficult to implement.

As far as total war production goes... you could have germany having a mild increase in production each year as well... to represent their increased production...

just food for thought.

Thanks, and sorry about combining several different ideas into the same post. Wasn't really in the mood to seperate them out today Mea Culpa!

Mark

[ev]

A few more thoughts on Total War:

SC1 modeled Economic Mobilization through the tech research engine. In SC1 the player invested MPP's now for greater production later in the game. The SC1 model was elegant and straight forward. And given that there was only one coin in SC1, it was pretty good.

SC2 will have Diplomatic Chips. I do not know how sophisticated this Diplomacy Engine will be, but this opens the door for new possibilities. Mobilizing the economy for war was a political and diplomatic endeavor. It was not really about research and development but about politics. And it definitely had diplomatic consequences. For example:

Roosvelt could not mobilize the economy for war until Japan attacked the U.S.

If Hitler had started full mobilization of the economy in 1937, making speeches to the German people about the comming war with Russia, Stalin may very well have attacked Germany instead of purging his officer corps.

Likewise, Stalin could not start full mobilization of the economy while neutral, and even if he had, that would have sounded all sorts of alerts through Germany.

Again, I am not sure how the "Diplomacy Engine" will work in SC2, but perhaps it would be best to model the mobilization of the economy as part of the "Diplomacy Engine" rather than as part of the research engine. - Just some room for though for Hubert & Co.

[Edwin P.]

EV, excellent concept.

Here's another:

USSR Mobilizes for War while Neutral = US War Readiness Decreases and Turkish Axis Alliance Increases (as Turkey feared Communist desire for access to the Mediterrean) and Spanish Axis Alliance Increases (As Franco feared Communists)

Germany Mobilizes while USSR is Neutral = USSR can mobilize for war without affecting USA readiness or Turkish/Spanish Axis Alliance %

[ev]

Yes, Edwin P., you get the yeast of it.

I am no fan of facism, but I think history often underestimates Hitler's cunning. The guy was not stupid. On the contrary he was a very calculating person. And, very good at politics... that's why he was able to get in a possition from which he could cause so much harm to other people.

Back to my point, I believe Hitler decided not to mobilized Germany for war before 1942 because he thought the political and diplomatic cost of doing so outweighted the military benefits that would result from doing so. After the invassion of Russia, after the US entered the war, after Barbarosa failed, after losses in the eastern front started to mount, after allied bombing campaign stepped up, and so forth, the equation changed...

In hindsight, Hitler should have started mobilization earlier. But the decission of mobilizing the economy for total war was not about investing some MPP's away from panzer units and into new factories. Rather it was about stepping up the propaganda campaign and the preasure at home, at the expense of some real political and diplomatic costs.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Back to my point, I believe Hitler decided not to mobilized Germany for war before 1942 because he thought the political and diplomatic cost of doing so outweighted the military benefits that would result from doing so.

Exactly correct. And your point about people underestimating Hitler is correct as well. He doesn't get enough credit (for obvious reasons) for some of his decisions.

[Red Fleet]

I really like the idea of slowly rising production rates. Especially for the Allies.

The US did not mobilize before entering the war, because the population just did not want to enter the war (that of course changed after the attack on Pearl Harbor and Roosevelts campaigning). So the production rate could gradually rise turn by turn. Full war mobilization should not be reached at least eight to ten months after entering the war.

I always thought that the US production in SC1 was too low anyways (in comparison to the real events, not in gameplay terms).

And for the Soviet Union Soviet Union there might be an industrial evacuation event. Bringing industries to the Urals region helped the SU greatly later in the war. May be the SU could decide whether to produce early in the war and risk to loose the industrial production sites to the advancing Wehrmacht or evacuate factories and suffer from a temporal production loss. (6 months or so)

As for Germany. Production rates could climb after the begin of Operation Barabarossa. The war against the SU brought unequaled losses to the Wehrmacht, so it automatically sought ways to rationalize and increase production.

All these changes would not hinder gameplay and would add realism..