I need some perspective on building my mod.

[Blashy]

I am making a mod that gives Allied production their due. Obviously it does change the victory conditions, if UK, USA and USSR are all in the war, Germany can not win and the default campaign has it that they will all enter.

The victory conditions are obviously different and more along the lines of reality.

The game ends August 31st 1945.

The Allies must conquer Germany and Italy for a major victory or just Germany for a Minor.

The Axis must hold on to Germany and Italy for a major victory or just Germany for a minor.

The editor's current limits do not permit me to do certain changes that would be preferable (at least for me).

So here are a few ideas I'm toying with:

Only lower unit cost for the Allies to represent their higher production.

Increase oil and mines to 50 and 40mpps, add a couple of mines in usa, one in Canada and one UK. Still the editor limits me to 50 maximum, if not I would raise it some more. I know I could add more on the map but I would prefer not adding anything to the map if possible.

Or simply start their industry % higher? USA 200%, UK 100% and USSR 100% with IT tech at 20% instead of 10%. Something along those lines.

Another option would have been to use IT.

Example: I would have boosted USA by increments of 100% so at maximum they would make 720mpps.

Before you think this seems excessive consider USA's GDP at its lowest was 800 in 1938 while Axis total (including Japan) was 685.

By the end of 1941 all 3 major Ally had produced more tanks and AFs "individually" than Germany and the numbers only get worse.

Anyways, if you beleive Germany really had a chance to win the war "AFTER"... I write it again "AFTER" it was facing UK and USSR (not even counting USA, except for lend lease... capitalism after all) then don't bother, you obviously come from another dimension.

As for anyone else, which way would you find is best? A mix of all of them maybe?

[Guest Mike]

The victory conditions are much more sensible - I've long argued that the game should end in a defeat for the Axis - but that "victory" in the game sense should be determined by how long they can hold out.

One of the things that could be done it to give the Brits production and industrial tech to start with - they were virtually on a war footing before the war actually started, and as discussions have noted in other threads they were actually out-producing Germany in 1940 in some key areas, esp a/c.

[Blashy]

Whatever I do, I will NOT touch the hard build limits. I fine those are just fine.

BUT, USA and USSR should be able to have corps, armies, tanks, afs, hqs and paratroopers on the board at some point (Fall 1943?) and simply reinforce and repurchased destroyed units pretty easily while Germany strugles do to both.

[imported_Rannug]

One thing to concider is the better quality of German elite units vs Sovjet elite units. I would put a cap on Sovjet Corps and Armies IW and AT to L-2. They will have the numbers and the MPP but will suffer on an one to one level. Even during the last months of the war, the few good German units that was left could upset the Russians localy.

[Blashy]

Hi Rannug,

Those are all issues I dealt with in a prior mod and it will be seen in the futur.

But I am trying to do a mod with as little changes as possible.

Basically I would like to keep the default campaign and simply give Allies their due in production.

That is what keeps the default campaign 50-50 chance of defeat both ways (although right now it still favors the Axis). If the Allies had their proper production the game would have a more historical flow and not a gameplay flow.

But fear not a much more extensive historical mod will show up with little tweaks as you've mentioned with IW.

[arado234]

germany could still have won against just russia and britian.Remember britian was also fighting japan.With no usa like you said japan would have run rampant through the whole south pacific & threatend britians overseas empire.Germany also way outclassed russia in fighting ability.Russia lost over 800 tanks just taking berlin.You are right though that until germany went to total war production in 1943 the british did out produce them in some key areas.Even though in 1944 when we thought(accuracy in bombing was not all that good)we were bombing germany back to the stone age germanys output of weapons increased.

[Night]

Why not add some German volunteer SS troops into the scripting after countries falls. Historicly many occupied nations had men who volunteered to join the SS and enough to form a few divisons. The main idea being to help keep balance while increasing the Allies historic advantage in production to its rightful place.

[Blashy]

Well arado that is your belief, but USA would have kept the lend lease (profitable) going and UK and USSR would have kept outproducing Germany, Russia doing it alone. They might have lost more men, but they kept advancing because Germany could not afford to loose men... but Russia sure could and they purposely used it as a tactic, pretty "cold" tactic but it worked.

Remember that before USA joined, Russia was already beating Germany by itself.

Japan was limited, it could not even defeat China. It was severely outstreched, conquering India... 700 Million Indias... never gonna happen.

Canada outproduced it in many areas and Australia was probably not far behind.

I'm just looking for ways to make production of the Allies realistic. All other stuff would go into another mod.

Right now reducing price of the units seems to be working surprisingsly well.

[Guest Mike]

Britain wasn't fighting Japan until December 1941 - over a year after the Battle of Britain - there was no possibility of ermany invading the UK by then.

As for the effect of bombing - imagine wehat German production would have been WITHOUT IT!!

blashy I'd hardly say that Russia was beating Germany in December of 1941!! It had survived the initial onslaught, but victory was still years off and far from certain - the Germans still made significant gains in 1942.

[Blashy]

No, did I say Dec 41? If I did, I meant by the end of dec 42 it was a foregone conclusion that Russia was defeating Germany.

Oops, I was supposed to write "outproducing" Germany not beating... my bad.

[TaoJah]

The obvious problem of giing historical MPPs is that the Axis can never, ever win the war when you implement them and that's no fun, is it ?

So here are a few things that you can do to offset this...

1) Raise the ratings of German HQ's.

2) Raise the moral of German troops.

3) Raise the German Advanced Infantry research to 5 while leaving the rest's at 3.

That way you can safely raise the Allied MPPs and still keep the game balanced.

Raising the value of oil excessively will result in a Axis focus on south Russia, wich IMHO is very gamey. Ask any American in south Iraq : you can not just rebuild a oil field in one year. We're three years after the capture of the oil fields in Iraq and they're at about a quarter of their production then they were before (well production and distributing). It's very easy to disturb oil capacity : long pipelines are impossible to defend against partisans.

IMHO relying on oil fields for MPP will result in very gamey situations.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

The obvious problem of giing historical MPPs is that the Axis can never, ever win the war when you implement them and that's no fun, is it ?

It's plenty of fun for those of us who appreciate the challenge.

All you fair-weather wargamers can just go play another mod, or hte Allies!

[hellraiser]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

The obvious problem of giing historical MPPs is that the Axis can never, ever win the war when you implement them and that's no fun, is it ?

Well, if you reach the 'MPP counting' stage too soon, Germany has already lost the war.

Like in reality, it is the axis' strategy that wins or loses not necessarily only the MPPs. It is the Allies' best interest to drag Germany in an attrition war, a war that Germany can never hope to win.

@Blashy - interesting ideeas you got for your mod.

I am curious if you can implement the allied production boost to begin with a certain year - say 1943. Historically, until spring-summer of '43, the germans were more or less able to pick the spots where to fight i.e. they kept the initiative. This happened while being outproduced for 2 full years already, so there were not only the mpps that mattered. Several big strategical and even tactical bad decisions plagued the german thrust into Russia which, IMHO, had a far bigger impact than MPPs could ever had.

IMO, the game should give the Axis the chance to change what in RL was done wrongly. Should I leave an entire army group encircled at Stalingrad just because Adolf did it ? Or, should I attack against the most powerful defence the Universe had ever seen (Kursk, 1943) despite being informed about the strength of the defence? Just because it happened historically? Why shouldn't I transport more troops to Africa and deprive the UK of the valuable middle east ressources and possibly open Caucasus up for a strike? Only because Adolf failed to see the importance of this move?

No, IMO, I would like to be able to change something. For example you could divide the game into something like: 'Axis years: 39-42 or possibly the beggining of 43) and 'Allied years'.

If the game reaches the 'Allied years' stage, any Axis player should know that he cannot obtain a major victory and prepare the defence to deny the Allied player the victory. IRL, it was possible for Germany at this stage to defend and try to obtain an acceptable peace but the prerequisite was to give up a lot of land and organize the proper defence of the important spots.

So, Allied production should receive a huge boost after winter 42 or spring 43 - perhaps this can be simulated by placing many units in the queue.

It keeps the game interesting: failing to achieve a major victory in the 'Axis years' the Axis player now has to prove skilled in the defence and at least try to obtain a stalemate.

I think these ideeas simulate pretty well the huge economical edge the Allied powers had during the war. Their problem was not the cash early on, but the lack of experience on how to put that cash to good use. Their troops were numerous but weak and poorly trained, their military doctrines outdated. OTOH, by 1943, they grew up a lot. Not only their economy was fully in war-mode but their troops were better and doctrines had evolved. (think that the Red Army learned a lot from their german aggressors and applied the blitzkrieg principles as well as the deep battle concepts, extremely effective).

Maybe it is better than simply reduce the unit costs and/or bump ressources' values. It makes for quite a historical game - Axis years with german superiority in doctrine, morale and training and Allied years with evenly matched doctrines but with a huge war production and manpower edge.

[imported_Rannug]

I agree a lot with Hellraiser. The full effect of the bigger industrial output of the Allies should not come into play to early. Cheeper units is not good since it allows Russia to mobilise to many units before Barbarossa. Lower the Industrial modifier for Ussr and USA to 60% at the start of the game but incrase the IT Increment for the USA to 30% and to 20% for the Ussr.

I would also limit the Russian and Italian investment in non econonimical tech to max 1 chit.

Other nations will have a max of 2 chits in non economical tech.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

[QB] The obvious problem of giing historical MPPs is that the Axis can never, ever win the war when you implement them and that's no fun, is it ?

[QB]

Well, that's WW2 once Germany faced all 3 majors.

The default campaign is not a representation of WW2, it is a game... you could basically call it Strategic Chess .

In WW2 Germany's only chance of achieving some form of victory against these impossible odds was having a better defense and managing a peace or armistice, which if they had done a better defense was a possibility, eventually even the winning side gets sick of loosing bodies.

As Axis your goal is to stave off the invasion and that equates to victory.

[Blashy]

My first choice was simply toying with Industrial Technology.

I was going to have USA go up in increments of 80%, that's 400% extra when at maximum. That would be 900 mpps at L5 Tech.

USSR I was going to try around 30%, which means 225% at maximum, currently it is 125%.

UK's industry would start at 100%.

What I like about this is that it varies each game, some games they might reach it fast others they might not.

BTW, I have max chits of 1 for all techs, so progression is more linear, interesting and it makes intelligence tech appealing.

Right now the editor's limit do not give me the ability to do this, the IT increments only go up t a maximum of 25%.

I'm testing with reduced unit costs.

I have USSR at half, USA 75% less and UK at 25% less. So far I'm very surprised at the results. For one Tech and Diplomacy are the same price as Axis.

You can't do much until you have good techs, some games it might be faster than historical and some games it might be slower but so far so good.

It is now end of summer of 1942 in my latest test and Axis units still have double the units of Russia, by the end of 1942 it should be equal. USA has not done anything with troops, even at 75% reduction my MPPs have all gone into technology.

Overall I am quite surprised at the results.

Sure I could have built alot of units by not investing in tech but the Axis will simply cut through the troops like butter.

Hellraiser, the goal of Axis is exactly what you stated, PREVENT from making all those tactical blunders and in doing so you should manage to "win" .

[TaoJah]

The game now is "Axis win in 43 or they lose", with very few exceptions.

With quadrupling the US purchase power, you might as well make a "I win" button for the Allied that you can press the first turn in 1944, saves us all alot of time

[Blashy]

That's the whole point, the game now is Axis CAN win.

That was a simple IMPOSSIBILITY versus UK, USA and USSR.

You don't understand that my mod will be historical. Yes as Axis you will NEVER defeat the Allies, you can "win" by holding on to the end date of Aug 31st 1945. And it CAN be done.

You can have ALL the purchasing power in the world but the countries have hard build limits. You'll never see 15 soviet tanks on the board, maximum is the same as the default campaign... 6. That is a representation of what they could muster at any one time and the default campaign's limits are pretty good. But MPPs of allies have been "gimped" so they are never able to muster all their units. This is what makes the game 50-50. I am fixing that to make the Allies have their historical production.

USA ALONE had a higher GDP than ALL of the Axis (including Japan) combined. In the game now USA's production is less than half of Axis Germany while in reality it was four times that. As I said... "gimped" so the game can be 50-50 which is Hubert's vision, more gameplay than historical.

If you do not like the idea you can't defeat the other side, then a realistic WW2 game is not for you. But don't think for a second Germany had a chance of defeating UK, USSR and USA which the default campaigns has it that all 3 eventually join.

NOTE: IMHO the game still slightly favors Axis, not quite 50-50 yet. As I put it, if you put Terif vs. Terif I'll put my money on Axis Terif everytime.

[Kuniworth]

The whole idea of axis strategy was to defeat one opponent at the time. Therefore the numbers wont count in the short run. Question that is relevant is how the eastern front look? Can Germany win that campaign in your scenario or is it very hard? It all boils down to the russian campaign.

[TaoJah]

I do not agree that Germany could not have "won" the WWII. You are right that they can not win against all three powers at once, that's true in real and in game. But it should be possible to have a strategy where the Axis take out Britain, then take out Russia and "win".

With a US that can send units from turn one to Europe (because they are so cheap) that's never gonne happen : Germany will have to fight Russia, the US AND the UK (with the new move-to-Ottawa-rule you can not knock the UK out of the war anymore) from the second they join.

That's plain a-historical. The US didn't have a war indutry at the fall of 1939, they didn't even join the war before they were attacked !

Oh, well.. No need to get excited over it, just my two cents.

[Blashy]

Well I am currently testing it and you are not, so I think I get a better perspective. And I've not made up my mind if it works or not. And as I've said, I'm looking at every option in hand. If IT gets changed in the editor, I will have my solution... here's hoping! Hubert ???

USA did not join the war until attacked, but it had already produced 80% of tanks, planes, etc... to what Germany produced in 1939 and 1941. By the end of 1942 USA had outproduced Germany in ONE year 4 times in tanks, planes and pretty much everything else.

The way the game is setup is all 3 majors will join, Germany can't win.

As for taking out UK, that was an impossibility if the UK command had half a brain, the UK navy was superior, could easily blockade and they also had air advantage AND Germany had no amphibious technology, remember it took a disaster like Dunkirk for the Allies to learn and over one year of planning.

The UK military would have had to be total idiots for a "successfull" landing of troops on UK soil, let alone an actual invasion. That is how it is IN game, you have all the tools in hand to prevent a Sealion, if the Axis player is successfull, the Allied player needs to play the AI instead .

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

The whole idea of axis strategy was to defeat one opponent at the time. Therefore the numbers wont count in the short run. Question that is relevant is how the eastern front look? Can Germany win that campaign in your scenario or is it very hard? It all boils down to the russian campaign.

Exactly. All I'm trying to do is give each side their "due" in production.

Right now, all 3 Allies are severely under represented to make the game 50-50.

Defeating Russia when UK and USA are in and sending in all those supplies, I don't think it would have been possible, the soviets were outproducing Germany SEVERLY and had TONS more manpower to throw at them and bleed Germany to death while USSR bled as well but had 10 times more blood, hehe.

Although I do think Germany could have done much better and bled the Allies so much that peace could have been accepted by the Allies.

[Guest Mike]

There's a new book out on the German economy - apparently the 1st single-volume study in English ever published (there are plenty in German).

The title is "Countin the Cost", by Adam Tooze, pub Penguin, 799 pages, UKL30.

The author's contention is that Hitler's main enemy was the USA, and that his conquests in Europe weer all designed to enable Germany to shrug off US economic domination that had existed since WW1.

To this view the confrontation with the USSR was solely to enable Germany to sieze the assets of Eastern Europe to fuel the forthcoming war with America.

Hence the "Uralbomber" of 1936 became the Amerikabomber of 1939 - before America was in the war.

Waht went wrong was that the rump of the USSR left by mid 1942 didn't obligingly surrender like a "Western democracy" would have done had it lost as much.

[Blashy]

I doubt even a Western democracy would have surrendered when it had lost 10-15% of its population but still had 90+ million to fight and was now outproducing the enemy 4 times to 1 in pretty much ANY area.

But indeed, Germany was after the Caucausus and this is what I find is missing from the current campaign. The Caucausus are not "attractive". If the oil fields produced at 50mpps, that whole area could be worth 100mpps per turn for Germany, very attractive.

[Retributar]

"Stalin's Organist!", i concur with your assessment!. I advocated that very same scenario,...a while back...

Quote!...by Stalins's Organist:

To this view the confrontation with the USSR was solely to enable Germany to sieze the assets of Eastern Europe to fuel the forthcoming war with America.

Hence the "Uralbomber" of 1936 became the Amerikabomber of 1939 - before America was in the war.

...and then was derided and scorned for it!.

Even up till this point in time, my total experience in understanding WW2 [What-ever-that-truly is] tell's me that i am more right than wrong!.