High Wire Balancing Act

[Kuniworth]

Off to work. So short answer

Jersey>>>>

The point that Germany easily could have done this and won that if not Hitler did X is as I stated a one sided argument. It takes no concern to what if the other side had not made any mistakes.

For instance you say that without Hitler the Soviets would have been pushed back to the Urals. This is a comparison that is an interesting what if, but what if the russians had not made their mistakes would this have been possible? Personally I'm sure a red army preserving their forces and fighting the patriotic war would have stopped them before that. Thanks to the great effort of the people.

I have a very hard time to understand that all was due to Hitler or this or that. In war mistakes are done on both sides, that is the nature of war and the conclusion that because of only mistakes Germany failed is a problem.

Why? Because then you have to give the edge to Germany as you do with your 55-45 to compensate for Hitler and create what ifs.

Lets turn on it and say that if it were not due to Churchill and Stalin this ww2 would have been finished in no time. Therefor I suggest the allies to have a 55-45 advantage. It would be as problematic as the thing you and Edwin states.

[ January 05, 2006, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

June 22, 1941. Operation Barbarossa. The German army rolls across most of European Russia and, again through Hitlers's meddling, is stopped just short of destroying the Red Army. The war here could easily have ended in a German victory had it not been for Hitler's inspired handling of Leningrad-Moscow-Kiev 1941; Stalingrad 1942 and Kursk 1943.

This is just a typic example of what I mean. I could type the reverse;

"the war could have ended easily in an allied victory had it not been for Stalin's inspired handling of Leningrad-Moscow-Kiev 1941, Kharkov 1942 and Kharkov again in 1943.

[Kuniworth]

This is why I want a model that focus on material and production capabilities. In the long run this will be decisive. So I hope SC2 will simulate a Germany that is fighting time, they need to knock out Russia(sea lion in 1940 is as JJ stated unrealistic) in one big blow or cripple that nation. If they succeed they could try to hold on festung Europa to secure a decisive victory. If not they are doomed already in 1942-43 which is historical. How bad they will lose is another thing but clearly by then they will be struggling.

[Kuniworth]

Look we can continue this debate all day long. But I think it's very clear that 1. THe allies sustained material superiority 2. Germany had to compensate this by better tactics etc.

Therefor they were more dependent on not making big misstakes as resources were smaller eg how much errors your nation can sustain and still win. So I think it's only fair that this is simulated.

[Edwin P.]

I agree. This became especially evident after the USA entered the war and long range bombers began arriving from the USA.

Based on my reading of the forum, SC2 better reflects this. USA production is increased and can can exceed 200% of its starting production. The USA can also decide how much lend lease support the UK receives.

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni -- and I'm glad to see it's Kuniworth again instead of K-Mart or whatever ...

The thing is this. Coming out of the gate, Germany had a huge advantage. Britain and France were not a match for her and neither was the USSR of 1939-40-41.

I said I'm sure Barbarossa, without Hitler's meddling, would have driven the Soviets back to the Urals. Would that have finished them? Maybe not. It's entirely possible they'd have continued the war; Germany could certainly not have pushed much farther east unless it wanted to reenact a larger version of Napoleon's fiasco (instead of Moscow, the fatal ground would have been the steppes beyond the mountains).

Should the Soviet Army have been capable of holding the Germans at the border? Certainly, provided Stalin hadn't destroyed most of his own officer corps. So, that's a what-if.

Could the USSR have DoW'd Germany on it's own and driven through Poland and into Germany? No. It would have been a fiasco. Logistically the Soviet army couldn't have pulled it off and, as I've said repeatedly, serious Soviet defeats in an unpopular war would have done much to erode or possibly destroy Stalin's hold on the country. He seems to have realized that himself and, other than the kind of theoretical plans all military staffs conduct, there were no serious thoughts along these lines by the Soviet high command.

So, in my humble opinion, what existed in Europe after the fall of France, was a situation where Hitler could have fortified his eastern line in Poland and (literally) cemented in place a peaceful relationship with Stalin. If he had followed Kaiser Wilhelm's lead of 1900 he might even have gotten Stalin interested in seeking spoils in Asia, such as forcing his way into India and the Indian Ocean. That would have meant the USSR in the Axis with Germany free to deal with the UK at it's leisure and gain control, if not outright conquest of the Middle East, and it's oil resources.

That, historically, France was doomed is not in doubt. It wasn't the command mistakes that doomed her, it was the fact that she was fielding a World War One army while Germany was fielding one that was perfect for the war they were actually fighting.

The same holds true for the Red Army and Air Force.

At the outset of Barbarossa the USSR had the largest air force in the world, but it was mainly a collection of biplanes and other obsolete aircraft that were quickly destroyed by the Luftwaffe. It had little resemblance, at least in Europe (the best planes faced the Japanese) to the really fine Soviet Air Force that would emerge by 1943 and afterwards. That the later, and effective, air arm came into being so quickly is due entirely to the invasion. It was born of necessity, had it not been those aircraft would have replaced the older models slowly, a not particularly high priority.

The Red Army itself had some great equipment, such as the T-34 and various KV model tanks, heavy artillery and multiple rocket launchers (incorrectly designated as tech Rockets 1 in SC). But they were scattered throughout the Red Army, exactly as the French had done with their own fine tanks in 1940. The infantry, also like the French counterpart, was structured and equipped on the World War One model. The reason they were torn apart in Barbarossa is they had no way of moving out of pockets, not because the Russian soldier was in any way inferrior to his counterpart of other nations.

Add to this the Officer Purge of the late 1930s, and you've got all of the elements for the ensueing disasster even without Stalin's last minute refusal to put his army on alert.

Regarding the game question:

First, I think we need to define victory conditions much better.

Second, I think the Russo-German situation has a lot of posibilities that are never explored.

Third, I think the original SC Fall Weiss scenario in SC, basically did a credible job with the historical situation, except for the short USSR fuse, which I think is nonsensical and only there for gameplay purposes. Something like that, minus the quirks so aptly discovered by Rambo, Teriff, Zappsweden and yourself, would be a great competitive scenario in the new version.

For the rest, I'm relying on the game editor. I think most of the things I'm talking about would need it's new capabilities before they'd make any sense in a game setting.

Beginners Luck

-- Appreciated.

[Kuniworth]

Maybe it is easier to get the question to Dave's answer if you look upon what Germany should be able to do and then balance it accordingly.

I say this is what Germany should be able to do with it's resources;

1. Conquer Poland in short time while holding off to serious allied offensives in the west.

2. Take Scandinavia

3. Defeat France

4. NOT BE ABLE TO launch sea lion in 1940 against a UK that did not lose to much in France. It will take time to build up an amphibious fleet against UK.

5. Annex minors

6. Fight a desert war with chance of winning it, but will demand substansial forces, more than Rommel had. It was not Montgomery that stopped Rommel at El Alamein(Auchinleck could have done it too) but numerical superiority. So it will take axis troops to win this. Troops that will be have to be drawn from Barbarossa.

7. To fight USSR and stand a fair chance Germany will need the timeperiod from 1940-1941 to expand it's army(as historically happened). Oterwise Barbarossa will be to weak. The same if forces will be on other fronts for example the desert war.

8. Barbarossa; axis need to strike a fatal or near deadly blow in 1941. Enough to either win or weaken the enemy that much so the winter counter attack will be weak and a 1942 offensive is possible. This means a failed 1941 campaign or if possible a 1942 campaign is what Germany has to play with. After this they are doomed.

That is about it. Conclusion; I want Germany to make a strategic choice in 1940 after the fall of France. 3 options;

A. Barbarossa

B. Sea lion

C. The Med

That is what they will have resources to do. Not as in SC1 and fight all the fights.

[Kuniworth]

JerseyJohn;

As you know I take a strong interest in the eastern front and unfortunately this was a weak point in SC as the bear more resemble a teddybear of strength.

We have been agreed upon earlier that Germany in 1941 was a mortal danger to Stalin. That is true and you just have to read the correspondance from Stalin to Churchill to realise that this is the case. We agree that Germany could win, this would probably have had to be done by destroying the red army as Barbarossa originally tried to do eg force the red army's destruction while defending vital points such as Moscow.

But this threat was mainly due to experience, training, tactical and operational advantages and not material advantages. In other words the german advantage is a race against time - to defeat the russians before the opponent learn how to fight the modern war. If you read the eyewitness stories and so on you'll see that the germans is having a tough time from day one. It never was a cakewalk and finally the attrition eradicated the german advantage.

Take for example the battle of Brody in the starting days of Barbarossa. 1st Pz army was so badly mauled that it's operational value seriously diminished in the initial stages. It did succeed in destroying Kirponos forces but to high price, just as it was done historically.

A vital factor to the success of Barbarossa in the first months were the same as USSR had later; local superiority. Germans were numerial superior in army group center and could move fast while in the south with much more equal odds advance was much slower. So not even the superior german training were enough to have cakewalk.

[Kuniworth]

One more note;

yes a soviet pre-emptive attack on axis would have had serious logistic problems. It would have been hard for the red army to in a surprise attack that way against a german war machine with supply depots near by and on a location with good infrastructure.

[Kuniworth]

This balance issue brings many thoughts to my head. One is about the axis minors. Don't make them too strong, lets keep it historical.

Take Finland for instance. They lacked tanks and artillery and it very much is due to russian weaknessess instead of finish strength that they held out for 4 months in 1939-1940.

So instead of overstrengthen the finns make russians forces less effective in 1939 instead.

[Gavrok]

Believe Kuniworth and self were on the same wavelength here . Both acknowledge German superiority in a qualitative manner at war commencement and had the initiative to dictate action ie Barbarossa/ Sealion/ Med....with Balkans diluting any of the above......but not all 3 successfully.

German capabilities for their resources were phenomanal to 43 but they did suffer large losses in France, early Russia and even Poland which are hard to reflect. Luftwaffe never regained its strength again after battle of britain as training resources diverted else where and german economic mistakes re not gearing up for Total War had bigger impact than any misguided campaign decisions that we always debate.

Germany should therefore have a huge shot and initiative from their early operational/ tactical experience to deal a damaging blow before material numbers and allies tech advantage (yes allies were more advanced tech wise by late war) take effect. As mentioned previously it is an edge...not a blank cheque that the Germans have at the start.

Sorry Beginner luch and JJ when I mentioned not wanting the 50/50 chance. I mean that there should be a 50/50 chance for each side to win but bulk of the German wins should be by holding onto much of their gains through 45.....not by totally wiping out Russians/ Brits which should be JUST possible if all decisions have been aimed that way. I would love to win a memorable but rare game by knocking out one of these 2 and if i failed I would like the pleasure of seeing how much of my ill begotten gain I could hold onto. A huge but not decisive blow in these theatres early on would help my Axis success.

It is a game and I want to see the effect of my 'what ifs' but without all my 'better' decisions guaranteeing something I believe to be totally unfeasible....unless I play a stormer of course.

Good to see all the focus on game balance and the discussions being heated only re the What Ifs.

Bye

G

[beginner's luck]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

In other words the german advantage is a race against time - to defeat the russians before the opponent learn how to fight the modern war.

Thats the point Kuniworth. This is a GAME. The "opponent" already knows how to fight the modern war. So it needs to be balanced to both sides have a reasonably chance of winning.The way germany wins is by total world domination.The way Allies win is by holding out long enough to get tech advantage and the USA force in War.So the Game needs to make it so both are possible every game,because it is a GAME.

To set the game up from the begining that the only way for a player being Germany to win is for them to player someone that is new to the game(which most people would rather play people their own level or greater) or play weak AI(which again noone wants) would be a great shame as a follow up to SC1.

Hey ,I love America too but I dont want to play a game that they win ever time unless I play my 8 yr old son. Remember Dave said this was for the "full" campaign. Sure for indiviual senarios, let Germany be against unsurmountable odds to play a historical battle. But for the full one ,let both sides have a fair chance to win.

I think Retributar stated correctly that people play GAMES and choice the side that lost so they can see if they can find mistakes made and see if they can come up with a better solution. I dont think anyone likes to play a GAME that it is predetermined one would win every time.

Would people have played SC1 and been so passionate about it for all these years if every game played was won by Allies.I dont think so.

I know some people really like playing Allies and think they should win no matter what ,but come on.Whats the fun of that. I'm sure even you Kuniworth would get bored playing SC2 if Allies won EVERY game.

[ January 06, 2006, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: beginner's luck ]

[Kuniworth]

BL>>>>>

As I said it will be possible to create damage enough to soviet union, egypt or invading UK to win the game. But NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Thats the key point, Germany should not be strong enough to do all this and still win. In SC1 a player could conquer egypt, the med, all of the map, attack russia and then go for sea lion which is so tragic.

Thing is Germany got some strategic decisions to do as time is against them.

You talk about the opponent already "know" how to fight a modern war. This I mean must be adjusted and simulated by giving the germans a tech edge which will give them an edge until allies production begin to take it's toll and Russia later close the tech/tactical/operational whatever edge.

I agree with Gavrok, and like the "high water mark-model". The fun with it is that sooner or later the tide will turn and it will be up for axis to keep their gains and see for how long they can. Maybe the game end with them holding on Poland and half of France which can give them victory in the end? Germany got like 1941 to hit a deadly blow after taht the russians will sooner or later outproduce them and gain superiority.

What like to have is this flow of fortune of war. And even though you defend you know that the roles will be reversed.

Example;

FRANCE

axis - the sooner victory more time later

allies - the more delay the weaker axis will be 1941

BARBY

axis - Must hit a devestating punch

allies - Russia must survive to counter later

HIGHWATER MARK

axis - allies outproducing us, try to hold on to gains until 1946

allies - all in to Berlin.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by beginner's luck:

I think that victory conditions should not be aimed at "global dominition" or Terif cookie cutter all over again. I never wanna go back to the time when axis conquered the whole map at will and then unleashed all what it had on Russia while the allied player prayed for tech. Tech which often did not come and game over.

Thats why you get a more historical flow if the balance is dependent on PRODUCTION instead of LUCK WITH TECH.

But you don't really understands me. Germany is strong enough to do 1 thing in 1941 not all at the same time. If they go after the Soviet union they can win, but then North africa will be historical with a weak Rommel and sea lion is out if the players are equally good.

A good example is the 1942 SC scenario. Most often Germany withdraws from Africa and goes for Russia as they are not strong enough for both places.

[Gavrok]

2 issuess here

1) Do we want the game balanced so both sides have 50/50 chance of winning the GAME. Think most people are in agreement here although definition of victory may be a little more elusive....

(I would be equally happy with an axis victory that involved non-conquered enemies but lots of resources still being held...auction before the game anyone?)

..everyone wants to explore the 'What If I made the better decision here!'

2) What chance did Axis really have. There's a whole industry dedicated to this and we all have different perspectives here. I belive that despite their disgusting leader the Axis done well considering their resources and the allies made as many mistakes as the axis. Others believe that an intelligent leader would have given them a feasible shot.....my counter there is that an intelligent leader who would have made the correct strategic decisions during the war would not have made the worst strategic choice of starting one in the first place (look at size of Axis nations and resources compared to Allies!)

G

[Sombra]

Well, at least I want a mostly historical game.

With other words try to rank the combat units regarding their fighting values as well as you can.

Put in as many real historical restrictions as you can (Please no more cookie cutter na dall neutral nations sit on the sideline)

On the other hands I don´t want default disadvantages as Edwin suggested:

Manstein leadership disminished because the Axis wasn´t historical able to supply their units in Rusia in 1944....

I think such disadvantages should develop throughout the game. Interup supply lines, bomb cities to dust etc. with other words if the Allies are not able to mount succesful operations in the game I don´t see any reason why suddenly the axis gets disadvantages from nowhere. On the other hand put in strong handicaps for supplying units in winter put heavier penalties for supply if you are far of your home cities etc.

The fun of such a game derives for me mainly for playing out what would have been possible from a realistical point of view.

[Desert Dave]

This is really cool, SC Cats!

Absolutely fantastic responses, which WILL, not any doubt, be VERY helpful.

Not surprised, nix nix, I have been around many forums over the years, and what I have always said (... LOL, yep Kuni, a'times NOT so clearly as, perhaps, it might be? ) yet holds true:

THIS forum KNOWS things.

About WW-2 GS ETO gaming.

ALL these replies are quite informed, and even after playing just about every WW-2 GS game ever made, board or pixel, over 40 + years, I have learned a new thing or two.

How about some more of you guys who are into league play expressing your preferences?

AND, any lurkers out there, NOW is the time to jump in and say, once anyway! what you'd like to see in the way of game balance.

Sure, it goes without saying that Hubert will make final decisions, but ALL these extremely well-informed comments will surely make a difference. :cool:

[Kuniworth]

Desert Dave you seem kinda gay?

gay=happy

Where is Immer?

[hellraiser]

hmmm...what a debate ...

I strongly second Sir Jersey (who, btw is one of the few here having a strong war literature covering his point of views...not like so many who just google it around) - also Kuni has some point regarding his 'passion' - eastern front.

What should I add?

Basically we have 2 classic point of views here: the grognard's one and the casual player's one.

The best a company trying to sell such a product is to try to make it ok for both of them - easier said than done.

My take on this issue is: make the game 39 default campaign winnable by both sides (say 50/50 would be ok here) - casual gamers will be happy, little frustration encountered.

For the other part of the community (the one who will be actively involved in what we call here 'competitive' playing) the editor seems to have powerful capabilities to tweak and balance the game to suit competitive hardcore gaming.

As we remember form the past SC1 experience, the standard 39 scenario provided the casual gamer a fair gaming experience but proved no more than a joke for the elder gods, right? Thus the bidding system/house rules appeared and evolved bringing some sort of balance for the league games and top dogs fights.

From my gaming experience, no developer managed to provide a 'fair' game play for the hardcore players so far. The developers who managed to incorporate a powerful tool such an full of features editor, managed to prolong the life of their product more than initially expected. Because they constantly get an invaluable help from the community's imagination - one of their best assets, after all, right?

2. Regarding the historical debate in this thread - for me it's quite simple: Germany was NEVER prepared for an attrition war - check their resources, their military doctrine - all was set up for a quick war, maximum efficiency one.

But they failed...so what they feared the most, was brought to life...the attrition war. Now a different story was beggining ... in an attrition war, the economic potential of the combatants play a major role. They couldn't outproduce Russia in the end not to mention the US ... so they lost

[hellraiser]

One more thing for those who seem to underestimate the german fighting capability and tend to be blinded by allied huge economical power and armies:

Take for example the defensive war waged by Germany past 1943.

Everytime the allied(whether western or eastern) encountered german troops led by commanders which had the decision power FULLY delegated to them, the casualties among allied troops were very high to heinous compared to situation when the german commanders were forced to obey absurd orders emanating from Adolf himself.

Eisenhower in his famous book from 1948, Crusade in Europe, mentioned this - he felt so comfortable when he sensed Hitler's direct involvement in the troops' command

I don't want to imagine how the world would look today if Manstein, for example, had been the one calling the shots and not Adolf

[Lars]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

2. Been more persuasive in convincing Franco to join the Axis. Without Gibraltar allied supply lines in the Med would have been fatally lengthened and Malta along with Egypt would have quickly fallen, in addition to stopping SOE aid to resistance forces in Yugoslavia and Greece. Thus freeing up more resources for the Western Front.

Er, Mr. Picky would point out that you wouldn't need to take Gibraltar to cut the Allied supply line. A couple of E-boat bases and an air fleet in Spain will do the trick rather nicely.

The value of Gibraltar lies in the British being able to deny access to anybody else.

But your point about getting Spain on the German side is still valid.

[Lars]

Perhaps, and I hesitate to suggest this, as it only gives Hubert one more thing to do, the best solution would be TWO different '39 scenarios.

In one, the player gets to make all the fun decisions, like tech, builds, diplomacy, etc. In other words, you get to play a sane Hitler.

In the other, all is scripted. Make the best of it, cuz you're stuck being Jodl.

There, problem solved.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

You are all forgetting one thing: Logistics, Logistics,

Logistics. It is a fantasy that Germany could have

made it to the friggin' Urals by the end of 1941,

Hitler or no Hitler. A goodly percentage of their

tanks were laid up for repair by the end of August,

vainly waiting for parts. And same thing when the

Russians launched their counterattack in December.

Once the Germans blew off their supply depots,

their offensives tended to grind to a halt.

I'm not sure if SC2 includes a cost, direct/indirect

or hidden/overt, for logistics. I've argued in the

past that it should. I know in SC1 logistics

were pretty much free, unless you consider repair

costs to be part of the equation (and you could).

I know you could then say, "Well without Hitler

his successor would undoubtedly pay more attention

to supply matters," but I think there are funda-

mental constraints at work here, invading a vast

country like Russia, which even a logistical

genius could not overcome.

[Lars]

Really? How did the Mongols and Vikings ever manage?

[rleete]

Probably by not having transport that used gasoline, among other things.

(Sheesh, living up to your sig, Lars?)