SC2 scripts based on reality?

[Sombra]

SC2 is very well balanced..WAW I don´t know right now. Still, some measures to reach this balnce leave a bitter flavour in my mouth. These are the automatic scripts which for are hard to justify based "on the real" war.

These are for example:

- Siberian transfer beginning of 1941 => even before Japan was tied down in the war all troops are ordered to fight in Europe? Shouldnt there be at least the possibility if such a move had been made that Japan would have said..ok lets conquer the indefensive Rusians?

- Switching Capital in case of London gets conquered... Ok perhaps a chance for an exil government in Egypt I could live with and a certain %chance that troops dont surrender . But that suddenly Egyypt is able to support the whole english army... Food , oil, payment, etc. Where does the industrial base come from and why didnt they build it up befoere England fails. Besides why does Germany gain not "plunder bonus" when taking London....

- Home defense army poping up in the US. Kind of "Retrun of the KING" style of ghost army showing suddenly up... (Ok its hard to imagine that amphibious transport cross the Atlantik anyway....

[Liam]

Well, Sombra. You're right on one point, the Siberians would've never abandoned the Far East if Axis Japan would've possibly threatened them. However they had their hands tied with China and the VAST Pacific-IndoChina-etc... SO it is unlikely that the Japanese would've posed much threat the Russians. Especially since Japan had already invaded the Far East and failed miserably in the 30s.

Also it's hard to imagine that the British Empire could've moved it's seat of Government as the Economic Powerhouse of England could've never been moved, though really Moscow-Leningrad-Stalingrad are one of the few suitable Governments for the USSR too... Also the Industrial-Rail Centers of that Nation. All the movement of Capitols happens more or less due to the fact that there is no feesible alternative to balance out the game. England is too easy to take, and it would've not surrendered "ever!" Not under the Axis Tyranny by 1940! Despite how people feel toward the English abandoning the French, they had no alternative. Only Italy and France are shortchanged in the Major Power surrender, they really don't have an alternative to jump to.

The US How Guard? Well, a nation that could've conscripted a Million men a few weeks, should get some bonuses. Plus as big as Continental Europe alone! Just having the USA surrender is completely gay, there is no way that it would've ever surrendered, it didn't in 1812 when the Brits burnt it's whitehouse, only after every territory was taken. Look at the Civil War... Bitter Bloody People

[Sombra]

Liam with the US I can live. England is not so defenseless anymore... Well the new habour makes it simpler .. Still, not wanting to surrender or not having the capability to fight on: Industrial basis to fight on and supply your troops in the field....? As I said transports should not be able to hide in the ports .. The royal navy should be able to prevent any invasion if forwarned by bombers etc. Fighters are not so great at taking out ships anymore so the axis would be hard pressed to take on the brits on the sea. Give england perhaps and enginerr early on so they can start to fortify the beaches.

2. Siberians if the Rusians left the east undefende before Japan is tied down with the US (and even with indochina etc. they took on the SU!) I think a Siberian transfer would be a last resort so early (with the possibility of a backlash) Only after Pearl Habour I think the east was really secure for the UDSSR

3. Yes the US surely would have conscripted many men but would it be not more helpful to reduce the range of amphib convoys further and let the US declare war on the Axis if it spots transports 9-15 tiles out on see with transports (3-4 turns before the...ample time to prepare defenses and sent the ships out to sink the enemy?.

Reducing the range of transoports would make long range sea invasions harder. and more relalistic.

I think the scripts defend bad playing from the consequences. If you dont plan the defense of England... Well than you should pay the consequences ..but please no artificial scripts...

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

I think some of the scripts are just existant to make the game more balanced.. and they get names which let them sound historically... that`s all.

In fact the UK is too easy too take, but the game balance counters this with higher readiness.

It`s the old battle between being historically and being balanced and "fun to play"..

One example: you write that the range of transports should be reduced... but would it take german amphib invasions take 3 month to cross the Atlantic? Most probably not... maximum is 1-2 weeks, which is one turn maximum. So in fact the transport range is even to low at the moment.. but with drastically increased shipping ranges the game would very difficult to play.

Basically you are right with what you say, but it`s just very difficult to put it into the game and keep it balanced. But honestly I think we get closer with every patch..

[Liam]

Sombra, true, the amphibious range is unbelievable. There was massive Amphibious Operations in WW2, but they were expensive and failure was not an option! Germany never invaded the UK because what you stated, without Air Supremacy they feared being destroyed in the air and in makeshift craft. Which they were counting on, tons of Gliders carrying commandos to capture ports and Airfields to ferry thousands of Axis troops in a Norway like Operation. It was very very possible for the Axis to have mowed down the British. However, if the RN and Royal Air force were in gear for it, I'm not sure what sort of price! England was as well prepared with their own home guard, that wouldn't have stood a chance vs the Elite German Army. It's just no one knows the outcome because it's impossible to speculate. For game balance terms England can defend itself but must sacrifice to do it.

English Industry could in no way be replaced by Egyptian Industry, which was nonexistant. I think that Hundreds of thousands of British would have still fought on, and still would've had Oil for their Navy! Which could've been supplied from their vast Empire. England would've been a Partisan Nightmare as well... Requiring 200-400 thousand Germans, with casualties the Russian Threat... all very pricey for a little Island.

As for the Japanese, they never managed to defeat China, they really didn't have much of an interest in the Far East because it wasn't Rich. The Dutch East Indies, the British & French Colonies in the East were much more lucrative a deal. They needed Rubber, Oil, etc... Their best bet was Non Aggression with USSR... Though you're right they should be forced to wait till after Pearl until they get their Siberians. With the Fall of France and Netherlands, there was no reason to bother with the Russians. I think on the the whole the Japanese were so divided in their military ideology, their best man didn't want a war with the USA.

As for the USA, Invading it would've been extremely painful. I cannot reiterate the the Spirit of Americans. Most of them have guns, and in those days, all of them... Large Rural Populations, very Patriotic. Any regions seized would've been a Yugoslavian Situation indeed. And the Supply Issues and sending a Fleet that far in the early 40s would've been impossible! It would've required more technology and a powerhouse, beyond WW2 Germany or Japan.

Of course the homeguard just like the Egyptian Capitol swap for the UK is just a balance measure. Can you imagine Stalingrad in St. Louis... It would take months for the Axis to consolidate portions of the Eastern USA let alone the whole!

[pzgndr]

A few comments here.

- Siberian transfer ... all troops are ordered to fight in Europe?

Not all. Far east garrisons remained in place. The specific quantity and timing of Russian reinforcements is debatable, but for play balance something like this is needed. Russians did mobilize and deploy sufficient reserves and reinforcements to stop the German drive on Moscow.

- Switching Capital in case of London gets conquered... Where does the industrial base come from and why didnt they build it up befoere England fails.

Where? The Commonwealth: Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, etc. It's unlikely the entire Commonwealth would have rolled up and surrendered if London was occupied.

- Home defense army poping up in the US. (Ok its hard to imagine that amphibious transport cross the Atlantik anyway....

Yes, is IS hard to imagine why a US home defense script would be triggered anyway...

[Sombra]

ITs simply that these scripts take out some fun for me. If I can leave UK undefended because its even an advantgae to lose it (US and UDSSR join much earlier) etc. simply bad play is rewarded. + I can use my troopsm uch more aggressive as in reall life becaue I dont have to worry as the Brtitains did in the 2nd world ar.

Reducing amphib operations..not a real problem is first you have ship your troops to England and build up point cant simply travel over the ocean. It would make the traditional and real landing area England an france much more attractive. The advantage of this would be simply to leave more options open how a game plays out and not artificially limit the options of the players.

[SeaMonkey]

I haven't had a chance to test the UK defensive possibilities yet, but I see no reason to doubt Sombra's conclusion, he is after all an SC veteran, not to mention Terif's corroboration.

I have always had some apprehension about the UK move to Egypt and always felt the move to Canada would be a more accurate simulation of the WW2 event in the case of a successful Seelowe.

I know we've had this debate before and I understand the necessities for balanced gameplay. There is also the case with India in proximity(water route) of Egypt(as well as other ME assets) that a decent stand could be made there (Egypt) by the reorganized Commonwealth forces.

It should however be an if/then situation and readily hang in the balance for both contestants to conquer the ME and Africa, as it was IRL.

It should be up to the investment and players' gameskill to dictate the successful endeavor.

Pzgndr has made the case for the Siberians.

USA homeguard is a nonissue as it is only activated on a gamey landing by Axis forces which would not have happened in any kind of force necessary for capitulation in the SC timeframe.

[arado234]

pzgndr you mention the commonwealth coming to the aid of England.In 1940 those countries didnt have much to offer.Look how close rommel came to taking africa WITH England in the war.One of the main things that stopped rommel was the help ultra gave the Brits in knowing when convoys were coming across to africa and what ships to attack in the convoys.If the brits had no way to attack these convoys(everthing would be defending england)goodbye africa.

I think that should England fall her supply in africa should be effected for good(untill england is liberated) and the morale of the armed forces for a given period of time.Remember most of britains supply to africa would have to come from Canada.Its well over 5000 miles to africa from the east coast of Canada.Plus Canadas industry was in no way capable of producing enough weapons to fight a major conflict that early in the war..

[SeaMonkey]

You've instigated a thought A234. Supply! That is the key, always has been for the NA campaign.

Until USA is activated to 100% and fully committed to providing its Merchant Marine force to enhance Egyptian supply it should remain low say at 50% efficiency.

When USA reaches entry level the supply should go to 60% giving the Allies' HQs 10 supply, but not so high that Axis strategic bombing and interdiction could not reduce it.

Similarly if the Axis reduce Malta by occupation then their supply efficiency should also increase to 60% allowing for 10 HQ supply in Libya.

[Sombra]

Not only scripts but wahts up with the UDSSR already having invested 675 MP in R&D beginning of Fall Weiß? One thing for sure the UDSSR want the tecfhnological superor force in the whole world.

[Sombra]

If its again for balancing reasons...Aehmm for me it gives the game again an no historic touch. 675 MP is huge I need usally the better half of 1940 for germany to max out research

[foko]

I feel a beginning HQ in britain is missing. (e.g. a 7er HQ at 5)

Without HQ its very hard to defend Britian. But when GB wants to buy a HQ it can afford nothing else.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ foko: same opinion here. There is one big weakness in SC2 and Waw: for the Axis it is too easy too win. The usual result should be an Allies decisive victory.

I would vote for an english HQ coming out of the production chain somewhere in mid 1940.

As well I don`t understand that the german Air Force has 3 AF, 1 Tac Bomber and 1 Bomber in 1940 while the RAF has just 1 AF and 1 Bomber in England... they should be more on equal levels. I would put an additional fighter in the production queue arriving in August or September 1940.. this reflects that the RAF might win the Battle of Britain which is impossible under the current circumstances... at the moment the Allied player can pull the Coastal AF back to Scotland or it gets whiped out by the 3 experienced german AFs (if the Axis player doesn`t use them somewhere else).. not really historical.

I know that this makes the Allies more powerful, but check your history books: they won.

History books show as well that the french has around 6000 war planes in May 1940, but just used 25% of them to fight the Luftwaffe (the rest was scattered of the whole country)... plain stupid.

[arado234]

Sounds to me like you are getting away from play balance.If it gets to historically accurate the allies will win everytime.Just think how powerfull the aliies would be with fully historically accurate ind.and prod.figures.

What if we added ultra or the fact that when germany attacked russia there was a real good chance that a vast part of russia would have joined the germans and then this game has no point.

One more thing:Remember before this game even starts the brits know for sure that america and russia will join their side.They had no such knowledge historically(especially about russia.).This is a huge atvantage because the allies from the very first turn can plan an overall strategy.So by having some things in this game not historically accurate(in favor of germany)perhaps offsets the allied atvantage.

[arado234]

Hyazinth where did you get the figures for the french airforce?From what ive read they had at the begining no more than 500 frontline planes and at the time of the german attack they had about 1000(alot of these werenot combat ready because of various reasons)

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Arado: Source is german Wikipedia.. if your german is good, check the article about the frnch campaign.

Basically you are right with what you say about game balance... and I think Hubert`s way who prefers balance to historical facts is right. But sometimes I would wish more realistic situations.. i.e. a superior Royal Navy.

[ebitt]

History books show as well that the french has around 6000 war planes in May 1940

I'd be a little careful using Wikipedia as my source. At the Riom Trial in 1942, General Vuillemin (Commander of the French Air Force) submitted documents showing the French Air Force consisted of 1,220 modern aircraft (700 fighters, 140 bombers and 380 scout planes). Colonel Lesquen backs up these numbers in his study published in Revue de Défense Nationale (January 1952).

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

Here comes the link:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westfeldzug#Die_Arm.C3.A9e_de_l.27Air

[arado234]

Hyazinth i went to the english version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_

France#Allies

and it lists the french airforce at 1562 frontline machines with another 2000 coming out of the factories with only 29%of those in working order.Britain sent about 680 machines.Alot of these were obsolete.The allies were way outclassed in the air.

[Liam]

Even if the French had a lot of Aircraft they obviously weren't used to effectiveness. The Luftwaffe would've dominated the French. A very experienced Fighter Force with a great Fighter, the 109. Close range, anyways... I doubt the French had a Champion to this and I doubt they had preparedness. Given a couple of years, who knows! I cannot understand why the French were caught so much with their pants down, much like Italy with the coming of WW2. Even the British made some preparations as far as the Air force. Democracies were hit a lot harder by the Depression than the more repressive nations.

Fighters don't win wars. The Germans had A LOT of understanding on how to combine Air-Armies to maximized effect, I doubt the French possessed this aspect. Blitzkrieg relies on the use of it.

You have to remove yourself from the #s game and ask yourself, how many experienced pilots are flying. How many of them are fueled and ready for combat. In the Strategic Abstract what the French had may represent what it given to the "T"

[Edwin P.]

Excellent point Liam.

Quality sometimes counts more than Quantity. And if you don't have enough pilots planes sitting on the ground will not do you any good. It took time for the allies; including GB, to build up their air force. One reason why they (GB) prevailed in the Battle for Britain was that the Axis divided their fleets by sending air units to other fronts.

[arado234]

The French lost because they tried to use ww1 tactics.

Germany also lost the Battle of Britain because they tried to use a tactical airforce to fight a strategic battle.Plus having Goering at the top didnt help.

[Liam]

I think we all know the Quality vs Quantity argument. There are places and situations where quantity will reign supreme, like a Russian Winter or Massive Tundra... A land war in Asia i.e. Japan vs China WW2 The Axis had an excellent Jump on WW2 but we all know they were being outclassed as the war went on not by superior #s alone, but by superior foes.

Think of the Tiny little French Border with Belgium, the Limited Space between Paris and all the Germans pouring into a tiny little opening in the Ardenne and then breaking out in all directions with a new style of warfare. British had a Wall of Ocean to get across

Battle of Britian was a different war. British nearly lost, it is by blunders that the Axis lost, it was not predestined in any way the British could have won that. Though I'm sure they could've made it pricey for the Axis either way. British lost what nearly 1000 AC for well over 2Xs that #... I would have Fired Goering

[ November 06, 2007, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]