Historical Clangers

[Ludi1867]

Historical ‘Clangers’ In SC2 WaW.

SC2 is a wargame, and the emphasis has – probably correctly – been placed on the game aspects. It only roughly approximates history, and certain systems – R&D, diplomacy – are deliberately designed to allow some notable variations from the actual path of history. That said, the overall intent does seem to be to not deviate too spectacularly from history. By and large the approach does succeed. However, there are at least a few aspects which might be questioned as diverging rather far from the actual events of the war. Here are two examples I have noted. I am sure there are others. (And I am excluding aspects which are clearly ‘best compromises’, such as the convoy attack model built into the game. This is a compromise because actually finding a convoy was a major challenge for the wolfpacks, and convoys – when threatened – rarely followed the routes depicted on the game map. The routes shown are those the convoys followed when no opposition was expected or when very heavily escorted. When threats were known convoy diversions were usually ordered, and in 1941 – as an example - are estimated to have saved 1.5 million tons of shipping from being sunk. But I cannot think of a better way of doing the shipping war, so I cannot really criticize the system in place at present.)

1. Strategic rocketry – WaW has generously enhanced the impact of positive R&D results for strategic rockets. I can only guess that this was done to make the choice of rocket R&D more profitable in game terms. It has succeeded there, as now level 2 rockets can bombard London from the continent. This means that rockets can be employed for strategic bombardment very early in the game (early 1941 is certainly possible) with a little luck and the appropriate investment.

This change highlights the problems with strategic rocketry as modeled in SC overall. The two greatest weaknesses are the potentially dramatic tactical impact of these strategic weapons, and the relatively low cost of actually using rockets. The problems are also somewhat inter-related.

Low cost, first. The reason that rockets, as depicted, are low cost is that there really is seldom any damage to the launcher by its own action. Yet in the war each launch, whether successful or not, eliminated 90% or more of the system – these were one way weapons. In game terms there is a very important side effect to these low losses – strategic rockets gain experience relatively quickly.

This experience means that, even with their poor naval and land unit attack rating, they can often successfully inflict a significant amount of tactical damage. Yet I defy anyone to name one naval ship hit by a V-2 in the war (well, any strategic rocket aside from a kamikaze guided one.)

Can these issues be addressed in the SC2 model without making rockets worthless? I think that is a possibility. The tactical effectiveness of these weapons should be reduced to “0”. Perhaps retain a “1” level of attack AT RANGE ONE ONLY. But these weapons were spectacularly inaccurate – they really had a very hard time hitting a major city the size of London. Any tactical impacts were sheer chance.

The cost and experience issue might be addressed by having a 50% chance of a one strength point loss and a 25% chance of a 2 strength point loss every time they are used – in other words, any use has a 75% chance of depleting the weapon system. Seems reasonable in that 90% of the system (or more) is lost with every launch. This would then cost the user, and rebuilding the unit would limit the experience build up. And, frankly, experience is misleading for these units. A key aspect of the actual effective use of these weapons was learning how accurate the attacks were. This depended not on the unit itself but on German intelligence. In reality German intelligence was pretty poor in the latter part of the war, which actually REDUCED the effectiveness of the weapon as time went on (British intelligence ran a deception op to suggest that most weapons hit in NW London, suggesting that the rockets were travelling too far. So the aim point was shifted SE…and fewer rockets hit London). So it would be more sensible (but probably impractical in game terms) to link experience with intelligence level.

2. Western European ports under Axis control NOT being reduced to zero when captured.

A major challenge the Allies faced when they managed to capture major ports in France and Belgium, was that German demolition and mining efforts reduced some of these ports to uselessness for various lengths of time, up to many weeks. This did not happen in every case – Marseilles and Toulon were captured essentially intact, vindicating the US insistence on ANVIL – but it proved a major problem for the Allies in the fall of 1944. Yet in SC2, western Allied players always get a relatively intact port (unless they have damaged it themselves, and it usually is a strength 5 port).

In game terms this makes it much easier for the western Allies to land than happened in the war. A possible fix might be to make damage to the port probabilistic. As a possible rule of thumb, 50% of the time the port is captured intact, 25% of the time it goes to zero, and 25% of the time it is reduced to 3. This would certainly complicate Allied landing planning, but this is precisely why the Germans did this. In fact, this was one of Hitler’s better ideas – and he pushed the concept of starving any Allied landing by destrying or denying ports to the Allies very hard. Hitler may have had his problems, but not all his ideas were unsound.

[Lars]

For #1

Fritz X and Hs293

Not strictly a ground based missile system per se, but you can see where they were headed.

Like #2. Germans should get some scorched earth too.

[Baron]

The Roma was sunk by a German airlaunched "missle" - actually it was a guided aircraft full of explosives. You are correct though I don't believe any major warship( CL and above) was sunk using jet powered anything.

[Baron]

Nice link Lars -

I thought the bombs used were converted Junkers-88 nice to learn something new. I really like the idea of ports sometimes being damaged also.

[Colin I]

To add, some of the historical pop-ups are also inappropriate. Meetings of Allied High Command in Casablanca and Yalta have been announced by an Allied AI when Axis forces hold thewse locations! Bit of a gift for the Axis to have Churchill drop in for tea and a chat

[Ludi1867]

Lars

[Ludi1867]

Lars

Your link is to strictly tactical weapons. Fine, that is where they were hoping to go with strategic weapons, but it was many years after the Second World War before anything like this precision in terminal homing was possible. My comments are strictly concerning STRATEGIC rockets. Your link is appropriate to upgrading tactical bombers and strategic bombers for naval warfare in terms of SC2WaW. In terms of Strategic Rockets in SC2WaW it is fantasy. The only effective long range terminal homing system developed for a one way weapon in WW II was the kamikaze, and that was not a reasonable choice in the ETO.

The number one problem that any strategically launched rocket had in WW II was terminal homing. Tactical weapons could overcome this with line of sight technology. However, these primitive terminal homing systems could be directly countered - and shortly after introduction they often were. The historical facts that I am referring to are clear in the literature. The terminal guidance of V-2s, which the manual makes clear in SC2 WaW is the weapon associated with German strategic rockets, was very poor. That is the reason that British deception ops could succeed. V-1s were also highly susceptible to countermeasures, which became increasingly effective as the bombardment of the UK with those weapons continued. So strategic rockets really only refers to V-2s, not HX-283, Fritx's or V-1s.

In short, Lars, your comment on my first comment is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[Lars]

Not at all.

The reason it took many years to get precision guided weapons is because the world took a 20 year stroll down the A-bomb lane. They simply weren't needed for the war that was expected to be fought, so no need for development.

Now, back to your strategic rockets. Put the nascent TV system from the Hs development into either the V-1 or V-2, and suddenly, you're looking at a very different kettle of fish.

TV being line of sight, I imagine you would have to patch through a high flying bomber transmitter somewhere, but it's surely not out of the realm of the possible.

[Hubert Cater]

Ludi1867,

Thanks for the feedback.

For #1 this was essentially the attempt with WaW where we wanted to (for the most part) remove the tactical attractiveness of Rockets and make it more or less a strategic weapon. In order to achieve this only the Strategic Attack value, i.e. the combat value that improves against resources, is improved with all other values remaining the same. Additionally the previous system where rockets lose accuracy over increasing distance (from its base range) is still in effect. So an attack at range 1 will have full effect but decrease by 10% for each additional tile beyond that.

For #2 not a bad idea actually and something to think about for sure.

Hubert

[Marty Ward]

I've just 'discovered' how to use rockets from reading this forum. They can become a powerful force against units. Perhaps they should have 0 strength against units so they are used in a strategic role as intended.

[Ludi1867]

Hubert

Thank you for your reply. I still consider strategic weapons far too powerful in a tactical role, and would still recommend a strength of zero at anything beyond range 1, but I understand your intent (I just disagree in this case!).

Lars

Your comments indicate a substantial lack of knowledge of the history of this technology – or that you have been overindulging in beer – so I am not sure it is worth the effort to continue to point out your fallacies, but I can assure you that you are mostly wrong on all your points in your latest post.

The development of nuclear weapons small enough to be ballistically delivered did reduce the degree of accuracy required, but a requirement for accuracy far greater than was possible with V-2s remained. Nuclear weapons have a substantial blast radius, and can produce fallout causing signficant damage over a large area, but the requirement to place the weapon within a fairly small CEP remained – and proved a very challenging technical requirement to overcome.

Your TV idea is actually not practical in any sense. First, the line of sight problem is far more difficult than you suggest – you need more than a highflying bomber, you need transmitters, receivers and controls that can be influenced remotely. None of this was practical in the V-2 design. Indeed, no current ballistic missile uses this technology today. If you actually think your way through the problem, you might start to understand why. Long range telemetric control of what were essentially cruise missiles was developed in the 50s, and this (very, very roughly – I am being generous here) corresponds to your airy suggestion that the HX-293 guidance approach could be easily adapted to strategic weapons. But cruise missiles are a very different weapon than a ballistic missile, and are far more susceptible to counter-measures. The main attraction of cruise missiles using guidance similar to HX-293 is that they travel at speeds and have control systems amenable to adjustment by remote control. (Try using a joystick to control a missile going 15,000 mph on terminal descent!)

In short, saying it should “not have been out of the realm of the possible” may sound good, but you really should do some research before making assertions that are both physically next to impossible, and completely impossible to conceive in historical context.

I will not post further replies to you unless you actually ground your comments on reasonable historical references and refrain from flights of fancy.

[SeaMonkey]

Uhhh, maybe we need to examine some intangibles here???/ After all, that's my middle name. What were these rocket weapons known as, "Terror weapons", think about what that means.

Don't necessarily need accuracy to be disruptive, workers scurrying to bomb shelters at a hint of a V-1 siren/buzz coming in. V-2s hitting without warning, maybe a sonic boom.

Who's responsible for strategic output...could it be "people"... what happens to unsecure feeling people???

What happened when a couple of airlines were sent into the WTC, want to tell me what the economic impact of that event was?

Its still to be decided...think about it.

[Scook]

It is hard to balance these, SC2 games can be dominated much more than WaW, mainly because Germany gets 5 instead of 3. One of my current favorite tactics, and using them in the correct sense it to bombard Kharkov, Rostov, and Voroshilov down to 0, thus giving my Germans the complete Donetz basin with very little fight. One thing I do find interesting in both SC2 and WaW is rockets rip up tanks as compared to armies at a damage level of 2:1. I suppose it might as there are quite a few soft targets in a mech unit, but I think there is something in there that is not quite right.

[Baron]

Having been on the receiving end of the modern V-2's aka Scuds I can attest to the fact that they can be disruptive and do cause terror. Maybe more like anger but in any case they do cause a loss of readiness.

In my case there were air raid warnings about every three hours all night long. Get up, put on MOPP gear, get to bunker, do head count, and sit in bunker for an hour or so until all clear sounds. Go back to tent undress, sleep for a couple of hours.....air raid siren, start process all over again. After a few days you do suffer some effects:

1) Ignore the warning and take mass casualties when one falls on the warehouse you are staying

2) Lack of sleep takes its toll and it doesn't take long for people to start having accidents or making mistakes

I was so happy the day we left Jubail and headed for the open desert - no more air raid sirens and some good night’s sleep. By the way the sound of Patriots launching is awesome! Nobody is going to sleep through that either.

Now having ranted on about that - we were in a city and cities make good targets for such weapons. When we moved into the desert we no longer had to worry about scuds because the Iraqis had no idea where to shoot them at. But for attacking units in cities I think the effects are pretty on the mark. A unit in the field though is another matter. I'm not sure if that could be modeled with this engine or not.

[Ludi1867]

SeaMonkey

I am not sure what your concern is here – my main concern is the tactical impact of these weapons. I agree completely that this weapon could be – and was - a significant terror weapon. Why that should allow them to sink naval ships and (as Scook notes) chew up tank units, etc, is what I fail to understand.

I am a little concerned that the lower R&D costs facilitate a very early use of these weapons in the game, but that is not a really big issue. In reality there was very little chance that the Germans could have been able to launch any V-2 attacks before 1943 at the earliest, assuming the same very high priority assigned to this project (remarkably high in terms of resources and available engineering talent). There was no significant Allied interference before the Peenemunde raid of August 1943, which did slow deployment. But the real problem was technical, and what von Braun and his team achieved was little short of incredible. It is honestly difficult to see how they could have accelerated the rate of innovation they did achieve. Yet in WaW it is now reasonably feasible to bombard London fairly early in the war. And the chance of the ranges now possible in SC2WaW being achieved usefully in the actual war was slight, so I think that the current bombardment affects of strategic rockets are perhaps a little high with respect to range. But, again, the main thrust of my concern is the tactical impact of these rockets, which is simply not supportable by the historical record. That these weapons could seriously damage cities in a strategic sense is NOT something I am disputing, as the biggest impact was not their warhead but the intangibles you correctly identify.

[SeaMonkey]

OK Ludi, I get it, fair enough, no doubt you have a credible foundation. To tell you the truth, I have yet to model the features rockets possess in WaW(I'm always pressed in other arenas) but as far as SC2 is concerned I agree with you and others wholeheartedly, they are tactically overpowered. In SC2 I always envisioned them as actually representing the artillery role.

Now if they approach that level in WaW then I am in agreement, perhaps some adjustments are necessary. But they should have some ability to operationally cause some battlefield disruptions in the primary combat maneuvering elements. As always the SC genre strives to represent the "what if" concepts that we in hindsight have a greater level of clarity to define. To allow them to be totally restricted to the historical confines IMO is presumptuous. I mean think about the actual impact in game terms, Germany gets 3, Italy 1 and the three allies one each. You put that many resources into Germany's(the only viable contigent) development of the weapon you are really out on the limb if those research chits don't culminate in advancements.

There are always byproducts from the targeted aspirations and I don't think Lars is out of line expressing possible applications of those technical innovations. But perhaps I'm wrong...damn it..imagine that.

Since Terif is the recipient of much more WaW play than I hope to and I'm sure most agree we'll ever approach, I'll submit to his opinion on this discussion.....presently!

[Lars]

Originally posted by Ludi1867:

I will not post further replies to you unless you actually ground your comments on reasonable historical references and refrain from flights of fancy.

LOL

Ok, far be it from me to argue with someone with 13 posts.

Ah, here it is. V-2 was not given highest priority till July 7, 1943.

web page

Hitler stated that 'I have only had to excuse myself to two men in my life - and one of them was von Brauchtisch, who always championed the importance of your work, and the other is you. If we had this weapon in 1939, Britain would have conceded, and there would have been no war.

Enjoy your crow.

[ January 19, 2008, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Lars ]

[Lars]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

There are always byproducts from the targeted aspirations and I don't think Lars is out of line expressing possible applications of those technical innovations. But perhaps I'm wrong...damn it..imagine that.

Nah, you're not.

The Germans finally came up with a radio guidance system that improved accuracy, athough only effective at at shorter ranges. Used on 1/4 of the V-2's.

Allies never did detect it as it only need to broadcast a signal for about a minute.

[Ludi1867]

Lars

Since you have done a little research, I guess you deserve an answer. I will hold off on the crow for now, though, as your reference is, at best, misleading. Your quote from Hitler (what source, btw?) is interesting, but political leaders are seldom the best authorities on technical issues. The best description that might be applied to this quotation comes from Michael J. Neufeld’s The Rocket and the Reich (1996, Harvard U Press), page 139: “The Fuhrer’s comments were an interesting mixture of perceptiveness and absurdity.” (He is actually referring to Hitler’s comments 21 August, 1941, but they apply equally to your quote, and its just a great line.) The reason that your quote is perceptive is that if Hitler had really had large numbers of working V-2s in 1939 then things may have been completely different. The reason his comment is absurd is because there was simply no way that there could have been working V-2s in 1939. (Well, short of having Harry Turtledove write an alternative history….)

A second point that you confuse with your post is that the high priority decision in July 1943 that you are referring to is the decision for high priority for mass production. There is a very good reason that Hitler had not given this priority before this – he did not know if the weapon would actually work. Developmental priority for the A-4/V-2 had always been extremely high (actually, determining priorities in Nazi Germany is very complex due to the way in which Hitler deliberately kept decisions like this to himself – an important Allied strength was a rational system for deciding priorities). The first successful launch of an A-4 prototype did not happen until 3 October 1942, after a couple of spectacular failures. And this initial success was far from complete proof of success, as a number of failures happened subsequently. So Hitler’s reluctance is really not unreasonable, and his musing that if had had V-2s in 1939 is just political hyperbole, divorced from reality.

So an interesting effort, but you have done little to undermine my main argument that SC2WaW makes strategic rocket development easier and faster than the historical record supports. I would not say that the design decision to do this is wrong – in game terms. But it’s certainly a clear deviation from the historical record.

The guidance issue is a little more complex, but I still cannot understand why you support the use of strategic rockets in a tactical role. The radio guidance you discuss was only from the launch site, and allowed better control of the point that rocket burn ended. This did allow somewhat improved accuracy, but overall the V-2 was wildly inaccurate. I do not have figures that compare those that had radio control of end burn with gyro controlled end burn, but the overall accuracy figure for the campaign (p 220 Neufeld) was an AVERAGE error of 20 kilometers.

To me the addition of artillery units, which better represent tactical rocket systems such as Katyushas, etc, would mean that there is even less of a game design rationale for tactical effects by strategic rockets. The ONLY effect from these weapons that makes sense is strategic bombardment.

[jon_j_rambo]

Ludi, or should we say Von Ludwig? You know your Buntas. Welcome to the party. Sounds like you want to pound some English ass with rockets. Get with it kid.

[arado234]

Ludi remember in this game we are in charge not Hitler.Id like to think that in itself should represnt a more rational way of doing things(let the people who know do their job without interference).

You seem to know alot about this, so what do you think a level 5 v2 should represent?

Rambo your just not liking the fact that your invincable rocket strategy could be in trouble in W.a.W.(ha ha).You will have to come up with another way of having your buddies the Buntas bring forced peace to the sc2 world.

[SeaMonkey]

Got'im pegged A234.

[Ludi1867]

A234

The actual production model of the A-4 had a nominal range of 270 Km/156 miles. Some experimental versions were tested out to 385 km / 239 miles in late 1944. (Neufeld, pp 281-282). Those figures mean that the V-2 results that were provided in SC2 Vanilla were broadly accurate, as level 5 strategic rockets could reach out 5 squares, or 250 miles.

SC2 WaW almost doubles these figures, which is only mildly defensible from a game design perspective. The WaW effort to curtail effectiveness at long range is not very effective because in most cases, by the time a competent player reaches higher effectiveness levels, he will have ensured that his strategic rocket unit is highly experienced. The usual result in practise is that the game penalties for long range shots are more or less offset by the experience bonus. And rockets gain experience comparitively easily, as they can operate in all weather, and should be difficult to attack if the owning player uses AA units and other features of WaW effectively. The overall result is that strategic rockets in WaW can be substantially more effective than the historical record supports, and are definitely much cheaper to research and build. In game terms this makes for more variety, but it’s difficult to argue that the game results in WaW are anywhere close to history in this particular area.

I take your point about most players hoping they can produce more rational results than Hitler. However, there are also limits to what one can actually hope to achieve. Looking back it is perhaps too easy to underestimate the remarkable achievement of von Braun and his team. The introduction of the first ballistic missile required a wide variety of important leaps, and was by no means a sure thing. The fuel, metallurgy and engine design considerations were extraordinarily complex, and control problems almost ended the project a number of times. Technological progress is actually rarely the linear progression that those managing resources would like. Breakthroughs – and the V-2 should be seen as a breakthrough, and served as the basis of both the US and USSR’s post war rocket programs – are generally impossible to schedule. So there is a limit to what rationality alone can achieve. That said I ALWAYS organize my R&D as rationally as possible, as I know this is only a game!

[SeaMonkey]

Well I guess that's the final word Ludi...kind of hard to argue with the facts you have so eloquently presented.

So let's move to SC game terms. Are we in agreement that Germany is the only nation that has a true viable strategy using Rockets?

If so, they are completely lost as a category for production and research to the other political entities. What to do?

Maybe this discussion should move to the design thread.

[Minty]

Ludi, what are you concerned about anyway? In WaW the rockets have been newtered. IF the germans pile a huge amount of R&D in them they get two thinsg 1) Rockets that are quite good at blwoing up strategic targest but no use against tanks, ships etc 2) Russians marching in berlin in 44 cos they couldn't afford to build bigger tanks or guns.