Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

ETO - before the scenario

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Scenarios and Mods >> ETO - before the scenario Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
ETO - before the scenario - 10/12/2009 7:00:36 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
We're ready to begin play here in Sweden. I have made some changes to the 1939-scenario, christening it to ETO. Some of the more important changes is listed below. I will post this scenario later on for those interested in trying it, and like to give a hint of what have been done to it. Remember that the changes is all done with the pretext that it is going to be played PBEM, but it will work as a solo game just as well as the parent scenario.

Feel free to read and comment:



1. Earlier changes retracted due to the inclusion of further cities in Scandinavia.

2. Earlier changes retracted due to the inclusion of further cities in Scandinavia.

3. Earlier changes retracted due to the inclusion of further cities in Scandinavia.

4. LWD-effect has been raised to 40 and the time when each country raise it’s level have been re-worked. Now, for most of the war, German units are the undisputed kings of the battlefield and only Germany will ever reach level 5. UK and USA will both reach level 4. Between the Polish campaign and the attack on France, the German army will however see a major reorganization, manifistating itself in two steps of raised LWD. An attack on France prior to May 1940, will thus have to be made with a much less competent German army (this is a game balancing measure, to make a haphazard early German attack less likely to succeed).

5. The general likelyhood of retreats have been raised.

6. The former combat modifications for attacking from different hexsides have been reversed. It is now slightly less efficient to attack from several directions. The exceptions is 2-1 and 6-1 (defender encircled) that is more effective. The reason for this change is not to be found in comparisons with reality, but to avoid certain game problems inherent in the system itself.

7. Moved part of German economy outside of Germany proper. Thus certain hexes in Norway/Sweden (iron ore), Finland (nickel), Yugoslavia (rail-transit country for most Balkan and Turkish imports) and Romania (crude oil and refined fuel) are German ”territory” from the start. Germany needs to make sure her opponents doesn’t get these areas, lest she will lose some of her resources.

8. Moved part of British economy outside of UK. Thus certain hexes in Palestine, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran hold British resources. This is supposed to symbolise UK’s oil reserves in the Middel East. UK need to protect these areas lest she will lose some of her resources.

9. Lowered German, British and Soviet initial war economy. These countries need to be very restrictive with spending PP’s the first year of the war. This is especially true for Germany, which already have a large army with a large upkeep to pay.

10. Losses to attacker is generally more severe now, so a superior attacker should not expect to walk over anything weak in his path. There’s always some losses regardless of odds.

11. Attacks at 2-1 and 3-1 is more favourable than before. It is now possible for an economically strong, but operationally weak nation to wear an opponent down by limited attacks all along the front.

12. Winter move and combat penalties raised even a bit further.

13. The cost of buying units, upgrading and replenishing have been raised with approximately 50 %.

14. Paratroopers have a very low AP-allocation at low LWD-levels (Land Warfare Doctrine).

15. Changed the orientation of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Spain to Comintern and fixed their political strength to 50. It is now prohibited to do any action with these countries except declaring war on them. The reason is (A) now both the Allies and the Axis can declare war on these countries, and (B) to emphasize that the chance of any Scandinavian country joining the war by itself borders on the ludicrous, and (C) Franco was firmly determined to stay out of the war. Germany can declare war at any time at the Axis player’s desire. Allied players can only declare war if they have at least 50 DPs.

There is one side effect of having Scandinavia Comintern. When any of the above mentioned countries goes to war, they will fall under the leadership of the USSR player. Once this happens, the countries.csv should be altered to instead make them either Allied or Axis partners. If not, the play sequence in PBEM-games will be more complicated with more mails sent for each turn.

16. The cost for coup d’etats have been lessened considerably. As a house rule, only Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Iraq and Persia should ever be subjected to a coup d’etat. The object of this paragraph is to re-create the uproar of the Balkan and Middle East politics in the early stage of the war. As part of the same house rule, no diplomatic activity should be allowed at all, once all major countries are at war.

17. The orientation of Romania has been changed to pro-Allied and Yugoslavia to pro-Axis to better reflect the pre-war situation. This is especially bothering for Germany with her economy (oil supplies) thus threatened by an early entry of Romania on the Allied side. Hopefully, this change, in addition to 16. above, will make for a rather tense political situation.

18. To add a little spice to the political part of the game, and with the termination of DP activity after total war (#16), the allotment of DPs has been slightly raised for the fractional leaders.

19. Slovakia is no longer a playable nation. All Slovakian units are gone and the Slovakian territory belongs to Germany.

20. The initial German PP-level has been raised to some extent. The Axis player should be very careful husbanding this pool. Initially he will have a negative production.

21. Have added a vast number of impassable hexes, foremost in North Africa, but also in certain mountain passes. The reason for the North African area inhibitions is to better portray the difficulty of fighting inland from the Via Balbia coast road. A number of desert lanes have been created to the south. The player should see this area as laying closer to the coast than the scale of the game suggests. Instead of just a vast open space, these lanes will add a number of interesting choices, made even more exciting by the existence of supply problems, movement penalties and aerial reconnaisance.

22. Each country have a number of units with tech levels in advance of the present setting. These are to be seen as the core of the peace-time armies and serve basically as a mean to give the players more choices.

23. Due to inability to create a workable solution for the North African supply problems, an Italian DAK contingent will now replace the German one. No German units are allowed in North Africa, save air units.

24. Iraq is now neutral at start.

25. Have added a number of new cities in Sweden and Norway to enable operations in Scandinavia. The earlier changes for motorized movement have therefore been reversed.

26. Trade between Germany and Italy now possible by using a ”convoy” between Chemnitz and Milan. SMP have to be used.

27a. Oslo can now be reached from the Baltic Sea rather than from the North Sea. Despite this being a bit unrealistic, it will enable the Germans a chance to invade Norway as they did historically. Have added Trondheim as a port that can be accessed from the North Sea and Norwegian Sea. The expectation is that there now can be a land campaign between Germany and UK, with Oslo and Trondheim as principal bases. Of course, the Axis player can always try to take Trondheim and Narvik as Germany did historically, but then he has to pass the North Sea and Norwegian Sea.

27b. A prerequisite for 27a above, is that the city of Aarhus is owned by Germany. This is to simulate the fear of German air power that would keep the Western Allies from intervening in the Skagerack. No German unit actually have to be in Aarhus; it will suffice that the hex is owned by Germany. Historically, Denmark and Norwegen was attacked in a different way. I have included this variant, however, to potrait the fact that Germany probably wouldn’t have had the power to protect a German-Norwegian supply line without the possesion of Denmark.

28. UK now have a number of BEF-units at start. These have tech levels higher than the present setting and symbolize the core of the proffesional British army. Once lost, these units can be re-created only when UK reach these tech levels. The UK player should therefore guard them jealously.

29. Changed Edinburgh to normal city and added Scapa Flow. It is now possible to access the Norwegian Sea from Scapa Flow.

30. Made Batumi and Samsun into ports. It is now possible for the Russians to fully supply or reinforce Sevastopol by sea, even if the Axis has cut its land communication. They may even continue basing naval units if Sevastopol is lost. Hopefully, this change may lead to some action in the Black Sea.





If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, do refer to the paragraphs.


< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/28/2009 4:25:34 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 7:32:56 AM   
Anraz

 

Posts: 786
Joined: 7/25/2008
Status: offline
Sounds very promising :)

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 2
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 4:53:15 PM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 3441
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: offline
How did you accomplish 7 & 8? Actual German or British territory in those other countries?

(in reply to Anraz)
Post #: 3
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 6:20:06 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
I will send you the scenario to have a look at. Examine the countries concerned and you will see German and British hexes in the middle of them. Also note that Slovakia is gone.

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 4
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 10:20:40 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6374
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
I'm skeptical about the LWD changes. By 1945 the bloom had gone off the rose for the Germans, and their tactical proficiency wasn't what it had been in earlier years. This mod locks them into a relative superiority of doctrine circa 1942-3, and the western allies imo should be able to improve to 5 by war's end, and the Sovs to 4.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 5
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 10:34:05 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Some additional changes:

15. Changed the orientation of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Spain to Comintern and raised their political strength to 300 to make them all but impossible to affect. The reason is (A) now both the Allies and the Axis can declare war on these countries, and (B) to emphasize that the chance of any Scandinavian country joining the war by itself borders on the ludicrous, and (C) Franco was firmly determined to stay out of the war.

There is one side effect to this. When any of the above mentioned countries goes to war, they will fall under the leadership of the USSR player. Once this happens, the countries.csv should be altered to instead make them either Allied or Axis partners. If not, the play sequence in PBEM-games will be more complicated with more mails sent for each turn.

16. The cost for coup d’etats have been lessened considerably. As a house rule, only Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, Iraq and Persia should ever be subjected to a coup d’etat. The object of this paragraph is to re-create the uproar of the Balkan and Middle East politics in the early stage of the war. As part of the same house rule, no diplomatic activity should be allowed at all, once all major countries are at war.

17. The orientation of Romania has been changed to pro-Allied and Yugoslavia to pro-Axis to better reflect the pre-war situation. This is especially bothering for Germany with her economy (oil supplies) thus threatened by an early entry of Romania on the Allied side. Hopefully, this change, in addition to 16. above, will make for a rather tense political situation.

18. To add a little spice to the political part of the game, and with the termination of DP activity after total war (#16), the allotment of DPs has been slightly raised for the fractional leaders.

 
I Have updated the initial list above.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 6
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 11:18:34 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I'm skeptical about the LWD changes. By 1945 the bloom had gone off the rose for the Germans, and their tactical proficiency wasn't what it had been in earlier years. This mod locks them into a relative superiority of doctrine circa 1942-3, and the western allies imo should be able to improve to 5 by war's end, and the Sovs to 4.


It's a trial, I know, and might very well turn into error.

Some months ago, we played a game of RtV to the very end; by this I mean that we played until Germany was defeated. It was not against any AI, but against live opponents. I suppose that in most games one play up to a point where Germany either wins by crushing the USSR, or where there is plenty of evidence that the German player have no chance to win the war at all. Playing through all the months up to the actual defeat, isn't always that funny. Therefore, most of the time, the game stops early. However, we played on.

The problem, as we saw it in the mentioned game, was that once the tide had turned, the Germans were suddenly the underdog. With the PPs falling sharply due to Allied bombing and other causes, paying for units or replacements with high tech-level wasn't possible. In other words, suddenly the Germans had turned into Russians, and the Russians into Germans. Soon the Soviet troops were beginning to blitz their way westwards, and the Germans could do nothing but try to block their way here and there. Counter-attacks were out of the question, since the mounting losses would only had precipitated the rot.

This took all heart out of the game. Not only did it feel totally wrong - if the Germans had massed some good troops at certain points they would still have stopped the Russians cold locally - but the game itself turned rather uninspired. There was no need for the Russian player to make any strategic choices or locate weak spots in the enemy lines, he just attacked whatever was at his front, gradually watching the enemy lines fall back, crumbling.

In 1944 the Germans lacked everything: equipment, manpower, fuel, weapons. But they never lost their superiority of battlefield philosophy. They maintaned a lead up to the very end of the war. The Allies gained on them; not by copying their way of fighting, but by finding ways to neutralize it. The Russians could use their huge manpower and industrial resources to ignore it. I will not dwell on this subject, but my test with the LWD rests on the hope that by altering it in this way, it will better portray the actual differences between the combatants in the later stages of the war and simultaniously make the game more enjoyable for those that venture to play it to the finish, like we did and like we're planning to do once more.

Whether it will work or not, we shall have to see ...



< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/12/2009 11:20:25 PM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 7
RE: ETO - 10/12/2009 11:39:52 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 535
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Nashville, Tennessee
Status: offline
I'd always been under the impression that the German WE kept rising as they started losing.

I don't believe this is currently represented in the game.

A possible avenue to explore?

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 8
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 5:29:50 AM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6374
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
My recollection of 1944 is that it was a disaster for the Germans pretty much everywhere, heh. So much for their battlefield philosophy. Didn't really work out too good for them in Normandy, Belorussia, Iassy-Kishinev, etc. Whatever edge they still had in casualty counts (and, yes, I acknowledge Dupuy's work in this regard) simply didn't translate at the operational level. It depends on how you choose to interpret what Land Warfare Doctrine means in this game, and my own view is that it's not primarily tactical, or not purely so, and more reflects operational skill. And at the operational level they were being outgeneraled by 1944. Not just because of allied and Soviet numbers, but also enormous intelligence failures on the part of the Germans. They consistently picked the wrong places to fight and didn't allocate reserves in the right spots. This was true both in the East and West.

Anyways I'll try the mod when you're ready to post it.

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 9
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 6:05:34 AM   
axisandallies


Posts: 329
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My recollection of 1944 is that it was a disaster for the Germans pretty much everywhere, heh. So much for their battlefield philosophy. Didn't really work out too good for them in Normandy, Belorussia, Iassy-Kishinev, etc. Whatever edge they still had in casualty counts (and, yes, I acknowledge Dupuy's work in this regard) simply didn't translate at the operational level. It depends on how you choose to interpret what Land Warfare Doctrine means in this game, and my own view is that it's not primarily tactical, or not purely so, and more reflects operational skill. And at the operational level they were being outgeneraled by 1944. Not just because of allied and Soviet numbers, but also enormous intelligence failures on the part of the Germans. They consistently picked the wrong places to fight and didn't allocate reserves in the right spots. This was true both in the East and West.

Anyways I'll try the mod when you're ready to post it.

I don't think they where being outgeneraled, out gunned yes. In Normandy Allies had 100% air cover. Intelligence, was the key for the Allies as well. The biggest factor however was the Top Leadership, Hitler. Had Hitler listened to His Generals the war might have been a stalemate, or the bomb would have ended things.

_____________________________

Stupid rebellion, anyhow....D. Vader

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 10
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 6:58:55 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My recollection of 1944 is that it was a disaster for the Germans pretty much everywhere, heh. So much for their battlefield philosophy. Didn't really work out too good for them in Normandy, Belorussia, Iassy-Kishinev, etc. Whatever edge they still had in casualty counts (and, yes, I acknowledge Dupuy's work in this regard) simply didn't translate at the operational level. It depends on how you choose to interpret what Land Warfare Doctrine means in this game, and my own view is that it's not primarily tactical, or not purely so, and more reflects operational skill. And at the operational level they were being outgeneraled by 1944. Not just because of allied and Soviet numbers, but also enormous intelligence failures on the part of the Germans. They consistently picked the wrong places to fight and didn't allocate reserves in the right spots. This was true both in the East and West.

Anyways I'll try the mod when you're ready to post it.


You're probably right about that if we were to make an average count at this scale, the sharp difference between combat edge and "general fatigue" would have been hidden by the scale and stacking. But since the game is an abstraction of reality, I for one rather like to lift the tactical aspects to the operational level. Thus I prefer to see a mix of newly built cheap 1-level German units, shoulder to shoulder with high-level veterans, even if it wouldn't have looked like this in reality. The German battlefield philosophy, the ability to place the combat decisions at a very low level, is very difficult to understand and explain. The Allies studied it thoroughly after the war, but never fully grasped it, so how could we do that, just playing a game. Suffice to say that the Germans had it, and that no other nation surpassed them in this field.

What is LWD? Yes, what is it? In reality there was a vast amount of factors making up the different forces' combat ability. Training, general education, weapons (amount and quality), level of research, fuel availability, manpower resources, industrial capacity, intelligence aspects, physical fitness of soldiers, leader qualities, battlefield doctrine; if we think hard we can come up with a lot more. In ToW there's only two factors that we can use: tech-level and LWD (generals discounted). Everything bogs down to these two factors. I suppose I see it as things and people. We have to use these two factors to make a time-balance for each force; to make it specific for each period. Then we have to balance all forces against each other to make up the entire war. Not easy! I would like to see a German army that is even and good at the beginning, remaining even and getting better as the game progresses into it's middle stage, and then that the German forces gradually disintigrate into low quality, panic-mobilized units mixed with battle-hardened veteran troops. Exactly how this army will look, however, derives from decisions ultimately placed at the Axis player's disposal.


< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/13/2009 7:01:14 AM >

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 11
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 7:16:04 AM   
axisandallies


Posts: 329
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

My recollection of 1944 is that it was a disaster for the Germans pretty much everywhere, heh. So much for their battlefield philosophy. Didn't really work out too good for them in Normandy, Belorussia, Iassy-Kishinev, etc. Whatever edge they still had in casualty counts (and, yes, I acknowledge Dupuy's work in this regard) simply didn't translate at the operational level. It depends on how you choose to interpret what Land Warfare Doctrine means in this game, and my own view is that it's not primarily tactical, or not purely so, and more reflects operational skill. And at the operational level they were being outgeneraled by 1944. Not just because of allied and Soviet numbers, but also enormous intelligence failures on the part of the Germans. They consistently picked the wrong places to fight and didn't allocate reserves in the right spots. This was true both in the East and West.

Anyways I'll try the mod when you're ready to post it.


You're probably right about that if we were to make an average count at this scale, the sharp difference between combat edge and "general fatigue" would have been hidden by the scale and stacking. But since the game is an abstraction of reality, I for one rather like to lift the tactical aspects to the operational level. Thus I prefer to see a mix of newly built cheap 1-level German units, shoulder to shoulder with high-level veterans, even if it wouldn't have looked like this in reality. The German battlefield philosophy, the ability to place the combat decisions at a very low level, is very difficult to understand and explain. The Allies studied it thoroughly after the war, but never fully grasped it, so how could we do that, just playing a game. Suffice to say that the Germans had it, and that no other nation surpassed them in this field.

What is LWD? Yes, what is it? In reality there was a vast amount of factors making up the different forces' combat ability. Training, general education, weapons (amount and quality), level of research, fuel availability, manpower resources, industrial capacity, intelligence aspects, physical fitness of soldiers, leader qualities, battlefield doctrine; if we think hard we can come up with a lot more. In ToW there's only two factors that we can use: tech-level and LWD (generals discounted). Everything bogs down to these two factors. I suppose I see it as things and people. We have to use these two factors to make a time-balance for each force; to make it specific for each period. Then we have to balance all forces against each other to make up the entire war. Not easy! I would like to see a German army that is even and good at the beginning, remaining even and getting better as the game progresses into it's middle stage, and then that the German forces gradually disintigrate into low quality, panic-mobilized units mixed with battle-hardened veteran troops. Exactly how this army will look, however, derives from decisions ultimately placed at the Axis player's disposal.


What the Germans had to replace it's troops was called the Wehrkreise system. After the war the USA did study it, and revised it, and it is called the (Army) National Guard. Let's say that the State of Ohio had 10 divisions, then Ohio would train and replace only units for the Ohio divisions. The Wehrkreise was remarkable, no other country in ww2 had a system like that and it kept the German army going up to march 1945.


_____________________________

Stupid rebellion, anyhow....D. Vader

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 12
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 7:48:22 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

I'd always been under the impression that the German WE kept rising as they started losing.

I don't believe this is currently represented in the game.

A possible avenue to explore?


Yes, it did, but it could be dangerous to experiment to much with rising economies. It could lead to a situation where the ability to field units will outpace the ability to inflict losses, taking into the account the number of hexes in the major frontline (USSR/Central Europe) and the combat system in itself. I have played through the 1939-scenario from start up to May 1941 without actual combat, just watching the economies grow. I still have to make my final decision about how to tweak the production.

(in reply to willgamer)
Post #: 13
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 12:34:12 PM   
Michael the Pole


Posts: 680
Joined: 10/30/2004
From: Houston, Texas
Status: offline
Uxbridge, this is all extremely interesting. I must confrss that when I read that you had made Spain part of the comintern I thought that you had finally secummed to the aquavit.

But as I continued to read, and began to think that this was a brilliant idea. I agree completely with your political analysis, espescially regarding Yugoslavia, Romania and the Scandanavian countries. I wonder if you considered doing the same with Denmark? Also, the Baltic countries were the most rabidly anti-Russian regimes imaginable, and should be dealt with in some way, as well.

I also like your idea of including the foreign hexes to change the economic model, but I wonder about the long term economic situation.

We must have a detailed AAR on this project Uxbridge!

_____________________________

"One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

Mike

A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 14
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 1:36:54 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Well, I might just have succumbed to something, being not liquer, at least it's very intoxicating. It's probably just the odd dose of ToW, wouldn't you think.

Denmark is firmly in the bag!

I don't think there's any problem with the German and British economy being re-located abroad. In reality those areas was under German rule for most of the war; if lost, it should affect Germany quite a bit, especially if this occurs early. If the countries in question remain neutral or if the come in on the Axis' side, there's no difference between ETO and the the normal scenario. ETO gives the British and Russians possibilities to use indirect strategies to affect the German economy, however, and the Axis player will probably sweat a little at the thought of an early Russian invasion of Finland (taking Petsamo and threatening the Swedish iron) or the British starting operation Wilfred. And don't forget the Italian incentive to reach the Middle East oil fields. Much funnier game! Maybe the Rumanian oil is the worst part when Germany is concerned. The entire Balkan campaign rested heavily upon Hitler's fear of the British basing bombers in Greece, being able to reach the Romanian oil fields.

I think AAR is out of the question, I fear. Could never find the time for that.


(in reply to Michael the Pole)
Post #: 15
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 2:02:26 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6374
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

I don't think they where being outgeneraled, out gunned yes. In Normandy Allies had 100% air cover. Intelligence, was the key for the Allies as well. The biggest factor however was the Top Leadership, Hitler. Had Hitler listened to His Generals the war might have been a stalemate, or the bomb would have ended things.


I'm going to stick to my interpretation: they were outgeneraled.

The German command setup in Normandy was absurd for starters. Command authority was divided between Rommel and Rundstedt so that neither had the opportunity to put into place their operational appreciation, instead, a bad compromise between the two visions was in effect. So the Germans neither defended the beaches quite enough in strength, nor did they quite pull back into the depths of France to pull off a mobile defense. And, of course, the mobile reserves themselves were ultimately in control of Hitler.

Neither Rommel nor Rundstedt expected the main landing in Normandy. (Hitler, oddly enough, did have some inkling this might be the case.) Both kept waiting for the "real" landing to occure elsewhere. Here, one must give great credit to the Allied deception efforts, which kept many German divisions tied down in place.

Nor is it clear, even in retrospect, which of the two had the better case. The Germans lacked the strength to be strong everywhere on the beaches. If Normandy was made too strong, chances are good the allies would have detected it and simply landed somewhere else. At the same time, neither where the prospects for mobile warfare against the Western allies in the interior of France very promising given the overall level of mobility possessed by the allies and their air supremacy.

The Germans may have been able to kill 1.2 allied soldiers for every one they lost at the tactical level. (As famously demonstrated by Dupuy.) But that kind of tactical profiency didn't much matter at the operational level, and at that level they were losing entire armies and army groups and occupied countries. Auftragstaktic only got you so far.

Similar arguments can be made here with respect to the Soviets (especially their mastery of maskirovka) but this is enough for demonstration purposes.

(in reply to axisandallies)
Post #: 16
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 4:05:25 PM   
willgamer


Posts: 535
Joined: 6/2/2002
From: Nashville, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge


quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer

I'd always been under the impression that the German WE kept rising as they started losing.

I don't believe this is currently represented in the game.

A possible avenue to explore?


Yes, it did, but it could be dangerous to experiment to much with rising economies. It could lead to a situation where the ability to field units will outpace the ability to inflict losses, taking into the account the number of hexes in the major frontline (USSR/Central Europe) and the combat system in itself. I have played through the 1939-scenario from start up to May 1941 without actual combat, just watching the economies grow. I still have to make my final decision about how to tweak the production.


Upon reflection, I guess I was thinking of events that would raise WE when a country was otherwise losing PPs on the battlefield.

This could be complicated, like an algorithm to track loss of PP generation, or simple, like a WE boost when a country's native home is invaded for the first time...

_____________________________

Rex Lex or Lex Rex?

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 17
RE: ETO - 10/13/2009 8:19:23 PM   
axisandallies


Posts: 329
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx


quote:

ORIGINAL: axisandallies

I don't think they where being outgeneraled, out gunned yes. In Normandy Allies had 100% air cover. Intelligence, was the key for the Allies as well. The biggest factor however was the Top Leadership, Hitler. Had Hitler listened to His Generals the war might have been a stalemate, or the bomb would have ended things.


I'm going to stick to my interpretation: they were outgeneraled.

The German command setup in Normandy was absurd for starters. Command authority was divided between Rommel and Rundstedt so that neither had the opportunity to put into place their operational appreciation, instead, a bad compromise between the two visions was in effect. So the Germans neither defended the beaches quite enough in strength, nor did they quite pull back into the depths of France to pull off a mobile defense. And, of course, the mobile reserves themselves were ultimately in control of Hitler.

Neither Rommel nor Rundstedt expected the main landing in Normandy. (Hitler, oddly enough, did have some inkling this might be the case.) Both kept waiting for the "real" landing to occure elsewhere. Here, one must give great credit to the Allied deception efforts, which kept many German divisions tied down in place.

Nor is it clear, even in retrospect, which of the two had the better case. The Germans lacked the strength to be strong everywhere on the beaches. If Normandy was made too strong, chances are good the allies would have detected it and simply landed somewhere else. At the same time, neither where the prospects for mobile warfare against the Western allies in the interior of France very promising given the overall level of mobility possessed by the allies and their air supremacy.

The Germans may have been able to kill 1.2 allied soldiers for every one they lost at the tactical level. (As famously demonstrated by Dupuy.) But that kind of tactical profiency didn't much matter at the operational level, and at that level they were losing entire armies and army groups and occupied countries. Auftragstaktic only got you so far.

Similar arguments can be made here with respect to the Soviets (especially their mastery of maskirovka) but this is enough for demonstration purposes.

With very limited resources, I doubt any allied commander could have done the same, so to me being outgeneraled vrs having unlimited resources to wage war could make an average commander a good one. The amount of damage dealt by the Germans in 1944 to May 1945 to the Allies is truley a remarkable achievement.


_____________________________

Stupid rebellion, anyhow....D. Vader

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 18
RE: ETO - 10/15/2009 10:53:50 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Just to let you know. I have now added in-game possibility to transfer PPs between Germany and Italy.

(in reply to axisandallies)
Post #: 19
RE: ETO - 10/16/2009 2:37:46 AM   
balto

 

Posts: 711
Joined: 3/4/2006
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I think #7 and #8 would be great if the loss of those areas really, really, really hurt the UK and Germany and this would be very realistic. Maybe throw in a devastating reduction if Gibraltar is lost.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 20
RE: ETO - 10/16/2009 11:14:31 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
Have updated list of changes in the first post!

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 21
RE: ETO - 10/17/2009 8:35:46 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

29. Changed Edinburgh to normal city and added Scapa Flow. It is now possible to access the Norwegian Sea from Scapa Flow.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 22
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 2:25:04 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
27b.  A prerequisite for 27a (a German sea landing near Oslo), is that the city of Aarhus is owned by Germany. This is to simulate the fear of German air power that would keep the Western Allies from intervening in the Skagerack. No German unit actually have to be in Aarhus; it will suffice that the hex is owned by Germany. Historically, Denmark and Norwegen was attacked in a different way. I have included this variant, however, to potrait the fact that Germany probably wouldn’t have had the power to protect a German-Norwegian supply line without the possesion of Denmark.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 23
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 5:27:34 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline

30. Made Batumi and Samsun into ports. It is now possible for the Russians to fully supply or reinforce Sevastopol by sea, even if the Axis has cut its land communication. They may even continue basing naval units if Sevastopol is lost. Hopefully, this change may lead to some action in the Black Sea.

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 24
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 6:55:26 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 664
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge


23. Due to inability to create a workable solution for the North African supply problems, an Italian DAK contingent will now replace the German one. No German units are allowed in North Africa, save air units.



An italian Afrika corps? When Rommel arrived in N. Africa, he did take commmand of the italian and german forces. Hard to imagine an italian Afrika corps. Hard to imagine that no german armored divisions will ever be there and they they are replaced by an italian corps. And the armor of the germans are of better quality than the italians.

_____________________________

Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 25
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 7:28:37 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
No, no, I wasn't clear enough on this point. The Italian DAK is the German one, only it will look Italian and be played by the Italian player in the Italian player turn. It will lack some of the fighting qualities inherent in the German units fighting on mainland Europe. There's no way to simulate the supply problems in NA, therefore we're going for this compromise.

The good thing about this is that the odd problems with Italian units not able to multi-hex attack or move together with Germans is gone.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 26
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 7:56:07 PM   
Mike Parker

 

Posts: 583
Joined: 12/30/2008
From: Houston TX
Status: offline
Uxbridge,

Are you going to have the event put a German Armour in Europe or an Italian Armour in N Africa depending upon the event choice, or is it going to always create an Italian DAK?

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 27
RE: ETO - 10/20/2009 8:23:17 PM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
I don't know how to do events, really. So the DAK is present from the start and locked until the original unit was beginning to get transfered to NA. When this happens the Italians (Axis) will have 3 really strong units among their more basic ones.

(in reply to Mike Parker)
Post #: 28
RE: ETO - 10/23/2009 6:41:52 AM   
Uxbridge


Posts: 837
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Uppsala, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: balto

I think #7 and #8 would be great if the loss of those areas really, really, really hurt the UK and Germany and this would be very realistic. Maybe throw in a devastating reduction if Gibraltar is lost.


Sorry for not answering this post before. Forgot!

Germany start with 168 PP in resources and cities. Of these 45 resources (27 %) is located abroad (Scandinavia - 14; Romania - 22; Balkan [Yugoslavia] - 5; Finland - 4).

UK start with 121 PP in resources and cities. Of these 27 resources (21 %) is located abroad (Haifa - 4; Kirkuk [Iraq] - 8; Kuwait] - 7; Az Zubani [Iraq] - 2; Yadavaran [Iran] - 5).

I might redress the British balance between different places slightly, keeping the total. In reality the sources of crude oil and the refineris wasn't located exactly as this, but i used already present locations.

< Message edited by Uxbridge -- 10/23/2009 6:44:15 AM >

(in reply to balto)
Post #: 29
RE: ETO - 10/23/2009 1:03:23 PM   
coxville


Posts: 87
Joined: 4/12/2009
From: Birmingham UK
Status: offline
Can I say how much I am looking forward to this being available. partly because it sounds great anyway but mainly because I used to play Advanced Tactics and what made that so special was that each Mod that came out inspired others to make their own. The final Mods were so far ahead of the original scenarios that the latter felt quite shallow when you went back to play them. Don't get me wrong people will always say well I want that change but not the other one. great, that is what motivates them to find out how to Mod and then the variety of scenarios available grows. Any idea when us mere mortals will get a chance to see it?

Chris

(in reply to Uxbridge)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> WW2: Time of Wrath >> Scenarios and Mods >> ETO - before the scenario Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.227