1939 Storm over Europe - AAR

[Hubert Cater]

This was just a design decision to try and keep (roughly) the same OOBs from previous versions of the SC European Theater campaigns but this time on a larger map.

There were a few reasons for this such as helping to speed up the design, but one important consideration was game play or turn length time... which often comes up in other threads as a primary concern.

That being said, an all corps map is possible and hopefully a modder will have the chance to put one together

[AttilaTheHungry]

So these garrison troops are best used for major cities and lines of supply along rail networks? Anything else?

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

When playing the Axis, you need almost all of your garrison troops to suppress russian partisans.

[Catacol Highlander]

A question for Catacol:

Noticed some of the tanks were not brought to max tech level. Was this due to lack of time/mpps or is there some strategy behind this?

You must have seen an Italian Tank I think, because all my German Panzer Divisions were at max tech within 2 or 3 turns of me getting tech 5, sometime in 1942 as I remember.

[Catacol Highlander]

So these garrison troops are best used for major cities and lines of supply along rail networks? Anything else?

Nope - they are absolutely no good in combat so supply guarantee only. Marc kept using them to garrison towns, but almost always I was able to destroy them in a single attack so I wouldnt even bother to use them this way.

... and any port you actually want to hold needs a corps. A garrison will get blown away.

[SeaMonkey]

Isn't this kind of an over complication? Think about it, SC1 days, partisans came up randomly, not much you could do with them, that intangible of warfare. Later, players figured out how to "game" the feature.

Now, you know where they are and can choose to manage them or not using a special unit that has been created with MPPs or you lose supply/MPPs. Why not just have a DE that asks whether you want to allocate MPPs to "partisan management" or not?

Come on, IRL, you really think you can manage partisans that well, the way the game represents them. I like the old random way, make it so it's completely unpredictable. How about we back off a little on "feature creep", simplify a bit, let the unknown factors prevail to recreate that feeling of historical war chaos?

[Bill101]

The choice is available for us too, because most partisan locations will only affect supply rather than trigger actual Partisan units.

I don't even attempt to police all the supply-only ones, it's not necessary except to ensure that your main supply lines remain open.

[SeaMonkey]

You know Bill, you have done a magnificant job with SC, thanks.

[Catacol Highlander]

Isn't this kind of an over complication? Think about it, SC1 days, partisans came up randomly, not much you could do with them, that intangible of warfare. Later, players figured out how to "game" the feature.

Now, you know where they are and can choose to manage them or not using a special unit that has been created with MPPs or you lose supply/MPPs. Why not just have a DE that asks whether you want to allocate MPPs to "partisan management" or not?

Come on, IRL, you really think you can manage partisans that well, the way the game represents them. I like the old random way, make it so it's completely unpredictable. How about we back off a little on "feature creep", simplify a bit, let the unknown factors prevail to recreate that feeling of historical war chaos?

Nope - leave it as it is. There are not enough garrison units on the axis side to police all the partisans, so the player has to prioritise where he uses them, or if he is so short of troops whether he dare use them to garrison a port. This is all about playability and choice - I would hate to see some random factor brought in that could totally derail an axis advance due to shortage of supply that a player could do nothing about. That would end the fun very quickly.

[SeaMonkey]

I'll respect your opinion CH, but come on, "player could do nothing about", what do you think HQs are for? Optimally placed and used with the knowledge of partisan likelihoods, a player would never be overstretched in supply but one turn.

Tell me I'm wrong?

[abukede]

Seamonkey,

I think it all comes down to priority as to where you are operating and where you need supply. Supply is a real problem in Russia. The deeper you go the more headache.

[Catacol Highlander]

I'll respect your opinion CH, but come on, "player could do nothing about", what do you think HQs are for? Optimally placed and used with the knowledge of partisan likelihoods, a player would never be overstretched in supply but one turn.

Tell me I'm wrong?

Abukede is right. It's not about local supply with HQs - it is about operational strategic movement which, if disabled through random partisan attacks, would make German strategy very difficult. Currently the partisan problem is one that can be addressed - but to be honest there are so many partisan squares that it cannot be FULLY addressed. That forces a player choice, and makes it more of a strategic challenge. An example would be in the southern sector where either Kiev or Odessa form the key hinge of the supply network, linking on to other centres further forward. The Russian player might try to hit these with bombers or naval attacks, and the German player needs to keep at least one of these functioning, and that makes it part of a strategic challenge. However a random partisan hit that struck both at the same time would render German operational movement in the southern sector impossible, and if it was a heavy hit it may do so for more than one turn. That is a game breaker for me - we already have a random element with tech advance which is about as much fortune as I think the game should present: add another random element and it could become frustrating.

[SeaMonkey]

You know guys, on second thought, y'all may be right. I'd forgotten that this pertains to the new larger map, which I haven't played yet. So the distances between supply sources may very well preclude the use of HQs to project supplies to combat troops in as an effective measure that I'm used to on the global map.

Guess I didn't think this one through, eventually I'll need to get SC WW1 and play around with the new features, just haven't had enough time with Global and PC taking up my gametime.

[abukede]

SeaMonkey... it's time to graduate to WWI. I believe you will be very pleased.

[SeaMonkey]

Eventually I'll get to the WW2 version, but I don't do WW1! No carrier task forces, no fast moving mechanized/armored thrusts with ground support aircraft, no naval air, no large scale amphibious operations. In short, WW1 is three dimensional, I prefer the four dimensions of WW2 and needless to say, WW1 was a World War in name only, that's why they had to fight WW2.

[Catacol Highlander]

abukede is right - you must get ww1. The ww2 scenario for it is awesome.

[Glabro]

Yes, having the "big" units be corps and the smaller ones divisions might indeed work best if one wants a closer simulation, it would be pretty epic as well. It's probably quite a bit of work to mod, so I'll see about it - but would be best if someone who actually knows the editor does it.

[abukede]

SeaMonkey... the WWI campaign is not what you think it is. Against another player it is extremely challenging. On the East Front there is a lot of manuvere especially if you break out. The WWII add on campaign is simply a joy to play.

[patrat618]

Eventually I'll get to the WW2 version, but I don't do WW1! No carrier task forces, no fast moving mechanized/armored thrusts with ground support aircraft, no naval air, no large scale amphibious operations. In short, WW1 is three dimensional, I prefer the four dimensions of WW2 and needless to say, WW1 was a World War in name only, that's why they had to fight WW2.

well the ww1 game does have seaplane carriers and ground support aircraft.

heck you can use zepplins for ground support if you really want to.

also on the east front cav can run riot if it breaks through.

[Glabro]

Well, studying the editor I at least have some grasp of what there is to be done to "downscale" the SoE campaign to all corps: besides changing the actual units on the map at the start (and researching to find out which units served under what corps in Poland, if for nothing else than for the sake of naming), I'd have to edit all the unit entry scripts.

Of course, corps would have to be the "standard" combat unit with the stats of army-sized units to bring things into line with the strength of Panzerkorps.

This would probably de-emphasize tanks, which based on the AAR might not be a bad thing.

But would there then be none of the old "korps"-sized units? Would one have to change the old Korps-sized units into divisions instead (by multiplying them). Then, do we need to add more HQs because the current ones aren't enough to cover all the new units...

I assume one can't change the name of units either, so then "corps" would be armies and corps would be divisions.

So in that light sacrificing the "small but fast" unit type might be required.

This is a lot to think about, maybe it warrants a separate thread.

[Cantona66]

Hmm, in my mod, 1938 Calm before the storm, i have corps and divisions and tried to be as acurate as possible for most of the countries OoB (UK, US, USSR and Commonwealth is not so acurate).

[Glabro]

That is interesting, however, the official campaign with decision events etc. is hard to give up on. I'll have to take a look.

In my mind, ground recon is essential to have. Therefore, the old corps-style units should signify light reconnaissance units with 5 AP and spotting 3, and capable of taking and controlling undefended locations, but even less able to hold positions compared to garrisons. These are needed so that the actual corps units don't have to perform "menial" tasks like scouting and taking of undefended villages.

[ev]

...Therefore, the old corps-style units should signify light reconnaissance units with 5 AP and spotting 3, and capable of taking and controlling undefended locations, but even less able to hold positions compared to garrisons. These are needed so that the actual corps units don't have to perform "menial" tasks like scouting and taking of undefended villages.

I agree with the 5 AP +/- but not with the 3 spotting. Allow me to explain:

I agree smaller units should have a lower combat strength. Smaller units should die faster... By smaller units I mean garrisons and dettachments. Subject to play testing, I would give garrisons a combat strength of 3, and, I would give a dettachments combat strength of 5.

I would give the same spotting range to all infantry units, except, maybe Special Forces, which could get a bit higher spotting range. (Note I mean infantry... Not talking about tanks, artillery, etc.)

Finally, I would have motorization increase spotting range. Say each increase in mot tech level increases spotting range by half of a tile. This would represent how soldiers on jeeps, halftacks or even motorcycles could patrol a larger area. Also how radios mounted in vehicles could have a longer range than portable radios (at the time of wwii) (a longer radio range allow for a longer patrol range).

[GetSome]

does any think that the French and BEF forces are too small in 1940?

Reading history it would have you believe that there was an equal amount of planes, tanks and men?

[Ivanov]

does any think that the French and BEF forces are too small in 1940?

Reading history it would have you believe that there was an equal amount of planes, tanks and men?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103309