Mass Air Groups

[PvtBenjamin]

I think the changes presented in the new Beta are a great stride in improving the realism of the game.

[Elessar2]

[Delurking, old time player, the current tech system is essentially mine]

There had been talk back on Battlefront about implementing Oil as a resource and thus as a crucial component of logistics. I am well aware of Hubert's design philosophy--I love to read AARs about Grigsby's WITP, but the micromanagement there always dissuades me from playing the thing.

But at this point something needs to be implemented to reflect logistics at some level: right now it only takes the form of city and HQ supply levels, and that's it. The game assumes that, if said supply level is at a certain level, that the supplies will flow freely at said point, and without limit.

That ain't right. Campaign after campaign in the real war had their outcomes hinge on how much supply could be stored & expended at a certain combat theatre, be it the Eastern Front, the Pacific, North Africa, or what have you.

I simply don't know how to implement something like that without overriding Hubert's philosophy. At its simplest, you have a pool of oil points, replenished each turn, then used each turn by each action your troops take. First issue is running out of oil halfway through and not being able to do much with your remaining units. Second would be setting the AI up to not hose itself in a similar manner. Making it even more complex from there (each front or region with its own oil pools say) would make it even more of a micromanagement hades. But having 5,000 planes being able to base in North Africa, given the thin/weak supply chains there for both sides, simply was a total fantasy.

[jlopez]

Rather than oil as a resource I would have an abstract Supply Point (SP). Each country produces a limited number of SPs every turn base on its economy but players can then choose to expend MPPs on buying units, research or extra SPs. SPs can be stockpiled. Each action by a unit expends SPs until there are none left, any remaining units that have not been activated stay where they are. The current supply rules remain in place so unit effectiveness is affected by not having a good supply line.

It is a fairly simple mechanism that forces players to prioritize their efforts. Stockpiles of SPs built up over time can be expended rapidly on an all-out offensive (Barbarossa) but will eventually run out, forcing players to focus on more limited campaigns.

It also makes players more careful about cruising their ships around for no particular reason. The Italian navy in particular was crippled by its limited stocks of fuel.

[Ktonos]

This in it's own is much more important in than massed air groups; The implementation of the importance of oil to the war effort.

Historically it was what made the southern front a priority for the Axis both in 1941 and 1942, so for the whole period they had the initiative. In game most players will first try to secure Moscow and Leningrad before they move to the Caucasus as there is no true urgency to prioritize the southern front over Moscow.

Fall Weiβ has a cool mechanic that is within the game's spirit. If I am not mistaken (never played it - saw the mechanic in an AAR), if the Axis does not secure oilfields before certain dates gets hammered in MPPs. You could have something along these lines. Historically the Royal Navy denied any overseas oil imports (mostly from Venezuela). Maybe add an overseas "oil" trade route which the Allies must raid. So should the Kriegsmarine ever take control of the seas this could be one more "oil" source to prevent economic breakdown.

[Sugar]

I agree the supply mechanism not to be the most refined, but nevertheless supply already has a huge impact especially in Russia and NA. That's the reason why it's necessary to occupy Malta.

Amassing aircraft may not be the most elegant way; it's simply necessary to do, otherwise you won't be able to crack a fortified line like El Alamein. Tanks are not so easyly available, there`s a misrelation between them and tac. bombers imho. I would gladly trade 2-3 tac. for the same amount of tanks.

The reason why massdeployments are necessary are the reduced attack values of combat units: if a tank or tac. bomber is doing 2 points of damage to a target under best circumstances, you'll need 5 attacks to destroy 1 unit (after another 2-3 for deentrenchement); and probably won't be able to occupy the hex, not to speak of surviving the counterattack. El Alamein is a neck 3 hexes of depth, if fortified and with arty and AA in the second line, it would be impossible to overcome without massing units. Same counts in case of Leningrad.

Another aspect is the historical supply situation: after operation Torch the Axis was able to send 2 additional tank div. to Tunesia, after suffering heavy losses of transports because of Ultra/Malta. They even reached Baku and nearly Grozny, and all the way back to the Ukraine. That wouldn't be possible without ruthless requisitions of course, and in NA Vichy was supporting them with wheat, vine and several thousands of trucks. They were also able to use captured equipment; at some point the DAK comsisted of 80% allied vehicles.

[sPzAbt653]

Hello Elessar. I don't know what Hubert's design philosophy is, but it seems it does not include Oil or Manpower. I played Commander:Europe at War for two-three months a couple years ago, and didn't find the Oil and Manpower to cause me to micromanage, and after a few games it was second nature. I'd like it if O&M were added to SC3.

I don't know how to implement logistics either, haven't given it any thought for this game. I certainly haven't played everything that has ever been out there, but my go-to example for logistics is the V4V system [computer game from the early 90's]. Why these newer top of the line games like CEaW, TOAW or SC3 don't have anything at all to represent logistics escapes me.

[xwormwood]

Manpower is a tricky thing to ask for. After all the Germans used slave labor etc. to free more manpower to fight. Introducing the one might leed to the necessity to introduce the other ("historically the Axis was able to do this and that, but my manpower is way too limited to do that on my own).

[nnason]

Regarding Supply.
SC is a strategic game which for me means big picture decisions and not lots of micromanagement (Like OAoW or WIF.)

[PvtBenjamin]

I played Commanders for quite a while and felt it was totally consumed by oil. Building limits simulate oil capacity in SC3. I guess you could increase/decrease building limits based on oil and other resources. Seems marginal. I don't see manpower fitting into this game.

[sPzAbt653]

I played Commanders for quite a while and felt it was totally consumed by oil.

That's amazing, I mean how different players see things differently. I played my first two full games and never even noticed that Oil was a factor !

But I'm not trying to convince anyone here or on other posts about the Strategic importance of Oil and Manpower. These are aspects that are required, otherwise the game is lacking on a Strategic Level. SC3 is checkers without it, chess with it. I'm pretty sure I never saw a even a discussion about it at the CEaW board, nor any complaints of micromanagement.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I played Commanders for quite a while and felt it was totally consumed by oil.

That's amazing, I mean how different players see things differently. I played my first two full games and never even noticed that Oil was a factor !

But I'm not trying to convince anyone here or on other posts about the Strategic importance of Oil and Manpower. These are aspects that are required, otherwise the game is lacking on a Strategic Level. SC3 is checkers without it, chess with it. I'm pretty sure I never saw a even a discussion about it at the CEaW board, nor any complaints of micromanagement.

If I recall you actually think an amphibious attack (sealion) on Britain in 1940 was possible which almost every reputable historian agrees was at best a bluff. I never mentioned micromanagement in Commanders and enjoyed it but oil was by far the prevailing decision. To not acknowledge that it at least had a major impact is well..

[sPzAbt653]

Manpower is a tricky thing to ask for.

I won't pretend to know how to design such a feature, but I guess it would reflect a percentage [100% representing a wartime draft, minus casualties that are replaced equaling something less than 100%]. The percentage would increase due to slave labor, if a nation employs such a thing.

If I recall you actually think an amphibious attack (sealion) on Britain in 1940 was possible which almost every reputable historian agrees was at best a bluff.

Hey, let's not start that debate [:)] But if I said 1940 that was a mistake, because I would have meant 1941. 'Reputable historian' is also a debatable term, and the only 'reputable' wargame that was done recreating SeaLion after the war was reviewed by outside parties and determined to be biased against the Germans. If I remember correctly, only some beaches were represented, meaning that the Allies only had to defend specific areas.

But if I have read other comments correctly, there is no intention by the developers to incorporate either Oil or Manpower into SC3, so its a dead discussion. Although I haven't seen any official comment on the matter myself.

[Ktonos]

Sea Lion was an improbability in hindsight. In truth the British were terrified that the Germans would invade. And the most terrifying scenario was that they would make a night airborne assault to capture a small port. and quickly within the same night transfer enough men to hold it so no actual seaborne invasion would be needed. At the time, of course, they didn't have a complete picture for the German naval capabilities - and that the Germans had no actual transport fleet, but its obvious they feared that they might have such capabilities. And if they feared something like that it can only mean that the Germans could have had if they invested in that early on.

So in game if the German player does not invest in amphibious tech and at the same time England has anti air lvl 2, fighters level 2 and enough boots on the island, Sea Lion is most probably a guaranteed failure as it was in real life. But if the Allies have in Britain 2 corps, 2 fighters, no A/A, half their North fleet & the BEF in the Mediterranean while the Germans have prepared for Sea Lion from day 1, it is another story.

[crispy131313]

While Sealion may have been considered improbable due to the lack of transport etc. in mid 1940, the early investment in amphibious warfare (in SC) represents the earliest possible preparation for this event. Did Germany actually make investment for Sealion in Sep 1939? (I'm honestly not sure).

If the game started in 1938 and the planning for the invasion began earlier would it be considered more probable? Unfortunately we can not have any effect on the rearmament of Germany in the current game, but maybe in future expansions there can be some flexibility in rearmament leading up to Sep 1939 and the overall war aims of Germany could be altered (i.e. shift naval capacity from Tirpitz or U-boats to amphibious transport).

[Ktonos]

No, Germany actually halted all investment in amphibious capabilities in Sep 1939. There were other priorities. The main opponent was France. They didn't expect they would defeat France in a few months and in that eventualities in their minds the war would be over and Britain would request a truce, thus no need for an amphibious invasion of the islands.

But players play most WW2 in hindsight. While they are in the process of invading Poland they already know that they will defeat France and will have to deal with the Sea Lion question.

And in any case there is not one strategic/operational wargame that I have encountered, tabletop or pc game, that denies the axis player the opportunity for a sea lion.

[PvtBenjamin]

ORIGINAL: PvtBenjamin

I think what people object to is the ease of Sealion attack for the Axis in SC when it was in fact not possible. Even Hitlers Generals thought it was absurd.

1) The British WON the Battle of Britain. This wasn't a fluke. The Brits had a very advanced air defense system with radar. They had an equal amount of fighters at the beginning and were producing fighters at a much faster rate than the Germans. Maybe most importantly Dowding was a genius. The Germans air had very limited range and the Brits had the huge advantage of being close to their bases. SC gives the Axis complete air superiority in the Battle of Britain which is very unrealistic.

2) In SC Sealion the Axis fills the channel with subs and controls the seas because of its large air/sub advantage. In reality Axis subs avoided the channel because the channel was shallow and was heavily mined. The RN was significantly superior to the Axis Navy in 1940, especially after Norway. There should be a penalty of 1 pt per turn for subs in the channel, like high seas

3) As I previously mentioned the Axis would have used barges to transport troops. The barges moved at 2/3 knots which would have taken 24-30 hrs to get the troops cross the channel. Even if the Axis wiped out the RAF & RN (which would have never happened) the attack would have been problematic.

[/quote]





I now don't have a problem with Sealion being part of the game, its actually not that hard to defend against. There should be a change in the ability to not take London & cutoff supply. I guess if the Germans started preparing in 1936 they might have pulled it off but in 1940 NFW.

[Ktonos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD8eic4uLUw

The guy is German youtuber, WW2 analyser.

Go to 07:30. Almost 40% of German bombers were deployed to the mediterranean and N.A. during 1942.

[sPzAbt653]

I don't understand this - what does 'not take London & cutoff supply' mean ?

[PvtBenjamin]

Its never happened to me but its my understanding that its a popular "trick" for Axis to take all of GB but just surround London (w/o taking it). This will prevent the re-localisation of GB capital, prevents deploying new units and also locks the convoy routes. Its something that should probably change, its an AI => PBEM thing.

The PBEM game is quite different you should try it.

[Hairog]

You can make Oil a significant goal in this game. I've done it in WWIII1946 Mod. You reduce all the MPPs from all resources but oil and in my case, mines. Then you boost the MMPs being produced in the mines and oil fields and the modifier significantly.

The Oil fields in WWIII1946 contained in the USSR are producing 240 MPPs out of 680 total MPPs per turn. Add another 90 from Romania and you have 330 out of 680.

This kind of focuses the game on those oil fields. Also the great thing about the game design is that you can bomb the crap out of them and reduce their productions as was historically done.

Manpower can be simulated by limiting the number of units a country can build.