Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Unjustifiable Tech Levels?

 
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] >> Time of Fury >> Unjustifiable Tech Levels? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/3/2012 10:02:33 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Still can't get the Editor to actually do anything ... but I have used it to examine various game values.

Starting Tech levels are a real concern.

Germany: At Start
Artillery (1), Tanks (1), Aircraft (2), Subs (3), Navy (3), Nukes (0)
Germany: Investment
Artillery (1), Tanks (2), Aircraft (1), Subs (1), Navy (0), Nukes (0)
Germany: Research
Artillery (20), Tanks (55), Aircraft (10), Subs (15), Navy (0), Nukes (0)

USSR: At Start
All (1) except Nukes (0)
No Investment, No Research

UK: At Start
Artillery (2), Tanks (1), Aircraft (2), Subs (1), Navy (2), Nukes (0)
No Investment, No Research

France: At Start
Artillery (2), Tanks (1), Aircraft (2), Subs (1), Navy (2), Nukes (0)
No Investment, No Research

Italy: At Start
Artillery (1), Tanks (1), Aircraft (2), Subs (1), Navy (2), Nukes (0)
No Investment, No Research

USA: At Start
Artillery (1), Tanks (1), Aircraft (1), Subs (1), Navy (2), Nukes (0)
No Investment, No Research.

Some of the above is arguable. Some is completely ridiculous, and probably explains why the Germans do so well that they can seriously contemplate Sealion, amongst other things.

Historically, the German U-Boats available at the beginning of WW2 were about as good as UK Subs, probably about the same as French ones, and inferior to US Subs on a technical and operational level.

To rate them as a (3) and rate UK (1) and US (1) is simply unjustifiable in real world terms.

I would suggest that German Subs (2), UK/French (2) and US (3) would be somewhat better, but probably German (1), UK/French (1) and US (2) would be more realistic ... with the Germans having some Investment and Research, but so would the UK and US, dunno about the French.

Likewise, the Kriegsmarine was not some uber-navy, to rate it (3) and then rate the RN (2), French (2) and US (2) is unjustifiable.

More realistically? Germans (2), French (2), US (2) with Investment & Research well on way to 3, and RN (2), with Investment and Research ditto the US. It wouldn't be beyond the pale to rate the RN and US both as (3), for that matter, but no way is the German Navy better than them ... its barely their equal.

Artillery: Hmm. I am not aware of any particular advantage that would make the UK/French (2) and the Germans/US (1) ... the Italians, arguably, should probably also be a (2) as their Artillery was their most competently handled and professional arm even if the weapons weren't always the best.

Still, Germans should be (2) as should the US.

Tanks: Yes, in 1939 German Tanks were mostly crap Panzer Is/IIs ... but Panzer IIIs were online and the Czech 35s and 38s were much better than the German Is/IIs.

So I'd rate German tanks (2), not (1).

And, come on, to rate Russian tanks (1), considering that the T-34 had entered service in 1937 and the KV-series were entering service in 1939 ... both far better (except in reliability, which is a whole can of worms we really probably don't want to get into) than any other tank in the world at the time ... and yet to rate Russia (1)!!!

Russia should be at least a (2) if the Germans are a (1), and a (3) if the Germans are a (2) ... or, if that's too much for you, they should be a (2) with lots of Investment & Research so they become a (3) about late 41.

The issue with Investment and Research is a serious one. The Germans were not the only country in the world to be on the cusp of developing new technologies that would qualify as "TL +1" in 1939 ... and I doubt anyone would agree with this. Some suggestions made above as to where other countries should get some, probably a lot.

Just some issues that I feel are interesting, anyway.

Phil

< Message edited by aspqrz -- 1/3/2012 10:03:56 PM >

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au
Post #: 1
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/3/2012 10:29:24 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5237
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		I was waiting for such thread. We could talk about this for a long long time
First of all, artillery tech is used for infantry units, it's just named like that.

Most of those values were adjusted for the gameplay reasons, we have implemented them to get the best balance and gaming experience. You can not be completely happy with them and I'm not saying we should keep them at this levels forever, but I'm pretty sure, we don't want to experiment with that at the moment.

Also please take a look at the actual levels for on-map land and air units (for navies the level is general value), and you will see those are pretty different, especially for Germany. Most of their units are on level 2 actually.

I would love to hear other's thoughts about the technology investments and implementations, especially that we have the possibility for different pricing every country.

This thread for sure is worth to be discussed, but IMHO it is to early to implement any changes with the first patch.

_____________________________

All the latest news about Wastelands Games.

Facebook

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 2
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 12:52:41 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		As long as you're aware of the issue, and its under consideration for change, that's probably OK at this stage ... and, as you say, it can be discussed ... undoubtedly to death (or, maybe, to the death) ...



Artillery TLs are even more inexplicable, then, if they really represent "Infantry" ... historically, as you know, the reason for German success in the early war was its superior Infantry ...

Now, we could argue whether this is represented by entirely by Doctrine or not, but, even so, the weapons used by all sides were basically modified WW1 models in 1939 ... or developments of WW1 prototypes ... there's really nothing that justifies the French and British getting (2) and the Germans (1).

Oh, and another thing, the intercept range for Air Units (Fighters) is way too high, if I read the file values correctly ... Base Value of 20 (@ 20 miles per hex, that's 400 miles) with a TL modifier of 0.75 for TL (2) ... or 15 hexes, or 300 miles.

Now, on the face of it, with ranges for typical German and British Fighters being around 600 miles, you'd think that'd be OK ... except, based on my understanding of actual operational usage, a combat radius of 1/3 of an aircraft's range is considered normal even today ... 1/3 out, 1/3 back, 1/3 in combat ...

You can't represent this by a TL increase on an unchanging base value. You need to change the base value, I expect.

In any case, the range for Air Interception for TL (2) Fighters should be on the order of 10 hexes, not 15 (assuming I have read the data files correct) ... this would explain why the Luftwaffe units based in western Germany at start are shooting down RAF fighters still based in the UK at start.

I suspect the range for TacAir is also wrong from that point of view, but, as you have previously noted, since (for the Germans) it includes everything from Fighter-Bombers through Stukas to He-111 Medium Bombers, its hard to tell.

Strategic Bomber attack ranges seem OK, as the data I am aware of is hugely confusing. We have had extensive arguments about this aspect of WW2 weaponry on soc.history.what-if over the years and the only thing we have really been able to decide is that the data available is so contradictory and confusing that we really cannot be certain about anything but the range with maximum fuel, which is worse than useless for attack ranges.

I also expect that you have *way* underestimated the professionalism of the RN in re Detection values ... if German U-Boats have a detection value of 750, triple the base 250 for subs, and, really, are nothing special in 1939, then the Detection values of RN units should be much increased from the 500 for CVs and 250 for CA/CLs at the very least ... I'd expect that, in order for the RN to perform as it did historically, the CV's should be closer to 1000, maybe 1500 (if U-Boats are 750, anyway) and Cruisers probably the same as the U-Boats.

You're certainly not going to get historical RN performance based on the values plugged in at the moment.

YMMV of course!

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 3
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 1:27:53 AM   
gwgardner

 

Posts: 2940
Joined: 4/7/2006
Status: online 		War doctrine level kind of serves a multiplier on these tech levels, so has to considered when doing adjustments.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 4
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 1:32:46 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

War doctrine level kind of serves a multiplier on these tech levels, so has to considered when doing adjustments.


Ah. I was under the impression it was only Land Warfare Doctrine.

That's certainly how it is described in the Editor Database and, as far as I can tell from looking at the data files, it seems to only impact land combat, not air or naval, but I freely admit I may well have missed the bleeding obvious



Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to gwgardner)
Post #: 5
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 3:45:41 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2499
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		For game play the air range seems to be correct as the fighters could do combat over the current areas of Great Britain.

For detection; that's it. It is used to see what is in the sea zone and also the ability to engage in combat.

For the number you propose, you would always see what is in the sea zone and have a high probability of combat.

That was not the case. The seas are very large. You may know the enemy is there but not exactly and not the composition.

The whole thing about WW2 naval warfare was trying to find the enemy. Even when you found the enemy it was easy to loose them before you could engage.

Right now there isn't a problem with CV's engaging the enemy if they are detected. A simple recon with an carrier almost always detects the enemy fleet unless it is intercepted.

For ships without CV's, it's much harder to detect a fleet. Those numbers you suggest would mean you can always see the enemy especially the submarines.
With detection high enough you can see what is in the next sea zone.

So we have talked about spotting through detection. Now for combat... Right now there is a good chance for combat with the current detection levels. If you increase it for the CA's and CV's you will make combat a guarantee very time you enter a sea zone. That's not what Naval warfare is about.

Detection is high for submarines so they can engage transports. The reason why submarines do not always enter into combat is due to their high detection level is their special ability.

That ability is Raider mode and evade.




(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 6
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 4:48:31 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
For game play the air range seems to be correct as the fighters could do combat over the current areas of Great Britain.


Yes, but not from within Germany's 1939 borders. Look at where the Luftwaffe squadrons were based for the Battle of Britain. Along the Channel Coast of France largely. Even then, they had only 15 minutes of flight time over SE England.

As it is, from GT #1, we have the Luftwaffe in western Germany clawing down RAF fighters in SE UK in large numbers (10% of strength or more per week) which simply never happened. And couldn't have, because the Luftwaffe didn't have the range to do it ... and neither did the RAF.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
For detection; that's it. It is used to see what is in the sea zone and also the ability to engage in combat.

For the number you propose, you would always see what is in the sea zone and have a high probability of combat.

That was not the case. The seas are very large. You may know the enemy is there but not exactly and not the composition.

The whole thing about WW2 naval warfare was trying to find the enemy. Even when you found the enemy it was easy to loose them before you could engage.


Well, there's no way 1939 German U-Boats were three times more effective at detection than Cruisers, and 50% more effective than CVs. If anything, with lower conning tower and no radar, they'd be less effective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz
Right now there isn't a problem with CV's engaging the enemy if they are detected. A simple recon with an carrier almost always detects the enemy fleet unless it is intercepted.

For ships without CV's, it's much harder to detect a fleet. Those numbers you suggest would mean you can always see the enemy especially the submarines.

With detection high enough you can see what is in the next sea zone.

So we have talked about spotting through detection. Now for combat... Right now there is a good chance for combat with the current detection levels. If you increase it for the CA's and CV's you will make combat a guarantee very time you enter a sea zone. That's not what Naval warfare is about.

Detection is high for submarines so they can engage transports. The reason why submarines do not always enter into combat is due to their high detection level is their special ability.

That ability is Raider mode and evade.


However, German Subs early in the war were not that good at detecting things and, since you cannot escort convoys, which is what the Allies historically did to cut down on their losses, and since, with the detection values as they exist for surface vessels, its virtually impossible to detect submarines of any sort, you can't, effectively, defend against German subs.

As for making surface combat more likely. Hmm. The one and only time I have seen combat between a German Surface Group and an Allied Surface Group (with Carriers) was in the English Channel, *after* I modded CV Detection to 750.

I have *never* seen a single surface action other than that.

And as for trying to blockade the German surface fleet in Kiel ... it is impossible. I have tried putting the entire UK and French Sub Fleet there, backed up by the Home Fleet and most of the French Navy ... and German Surface vessels just waltz through as if they weren't there at all.

Another thing, how on earth to TacAir units do anti-naval strikes ... it's been mentioned here that they can, but there's nothing in the manual about it and no way I can see of attacking a sea area, or even a ship if it is detected and within range ... maybe I am missing something?

Phil


_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 7
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 5:16:30 AM   
Cad908

 

Posts: 1017
Joined: 10/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

And as for trying to blockade the German surface fleet in Kiel ... it is impossible. I have tried putting the entire UK and French Sub Fleet there, backed up by the Home Fleet and most of the French Navy ... and German Surface vessels just waltz through as if they weren't there at all.

Another thing, how on earth to TacAir units do anti-naval strikes ... it's been mentioned here that they can, but there's nothing in the manual about it and no way I can see of attacking a sea area, or even a ship if it is detected and within range ... maybe I am missing something?

Phil


There is no naval interception. As you point out, fleets can move through any sea area, up to their range. The presence of an enemy fleet or massive TAC air groups does nothing. You can only wait until they stop, hopefully find them, and attack.

TAC air attacks. The enemy fleet must be detected, then just click on your TAC air, then click on the enemy fleet on the map. The air unit must be five hexes (I think) from a hex in the sea zone to strike an enemy fleet. You can also recon a sea zone, which is a good use for fighters. Save your TAC air for the strikes.

I agree that much of the naval aspect of the game is weak. Lets see what they can do with patches.





(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 8
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 5:29:59 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2499
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
For Kiel, ships have no zones of control. Hence no blocking.

Click on Bomber. Sea area will be darker blue when you can attack.

If you can not attack, you are not close enough to the sea zone. I wonder if it is included that in the strategy manual. Try 5 hexes or less from a sea zone.

Naval combat is on autoresolve by default.

You need to turn that off.

I see naval combats all the time. Especially with carriers.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 9
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 5:59:44 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Yep. Have autoresolve off. Still only one naval combat in probably 6-8 games that went through to at least Turn #25 (Grand Campaign).

Since the naval system doesn't seem to work in any way realistically as it is, giving the German Navy TL (3) vs the RN and French Navies at TL (2) seems, well, to be adding insult to injury.

The only combat I have ever seen, apart from Sub attacks, was on GT #1 of a Grand Campaign with RN TL (2), Kriegsmarine TL (2), and RN CV Detection (750) ... in the English Channel for ghu's sake.

Yes. I know. The Germans managed a Channel Dash once.

Once.

Not every week of the war

Maybe my luck has been off, maybe the RN made universally low detection rolls, but, personally, I suspect that there is something really skewiff with the naval detection and combat module ...

YMMV of course

Phil

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 10
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 6:18:49 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2499
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		We have combat all the time in the games I play.

Are you British?

Once you are at war with Italy the Med will be a hot bed.

For Germany you have to hunt the subs. Depending upon how the AI is reacting the ship could be in a big fleet.

See if you can find it.

At the start sea battle is slow, but picks up.

There is a technique to find ships. Clue.. Think about what you can use and use it wisely. You have the force aspqrz.... The darkside can not hide.

Remember, Germany only challenged the RN a few times, otherwise it was submarine warfare.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 11
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/4/2012 7:35:09 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Yes. I play the Allies ... Poland, Low Countries, France, UK, USA ... couldn't you tell from my querying the Uber Kriegsmarine and Uber-U-Boats and the like

Actually, all the games I have played so far have been test games to see how the run up to Fall Gelb works ... so I've tended to stop around April 1940, before Italian entry.

The other games I've played have been the 1944 Goetterdaemerung scenario, likewise only for 10-20 turns for testing purposes.

So I haven't had a chance to Taranto the Italians, no

The problem with the naval rules as they stand you can't protect the convoys, as far as I can see, because you can't attatch any escorts to them, and you can't find the U-Boats even if you send strong CV-included Task Forces out to where the Convoys were attacked the last turn in the reports ...

I've only had a few intercepts of Subs, mostly, it seems, they merely disappear and autofind my convoys the next turn or, if I'm really lucky , they'll torpedo one of my ships and damage it.

And, as others have noted, a lot of the raider groups seem to be German Surface groups that have slipped past the blockade of Kiel and, I guess, probably waltzed through the Channel on a bright sunny day, klaxons blaring and bunting all over, while the RN and UK forces in general look in every direction but the one they're at

But actually represent the Battle of the Atlantic? Not even close.

Phil

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 12
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 5:50:26 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2499
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		The German tech level for Germany Navy should drop to 2.

You don't remember the Bismark or operations in Norway?

How do you think the German fleet did that?

They sailed through Kiel. Once through there, they can dock at any port.


(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 13
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 5:56:53 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, but they didn't do it in the face of the entire Home Fleet and pretty much all the RN and French Subs and French surface vessels in the Atlantic sitting off Kiel, did they?

And look at what happened to the Kriegsmarine in Norway, yes, let's ... ultimately ...

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 14
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 9:45:17 AM   
macroeconomics

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline 		The starting tech levels for the ground forces seem to work pretty well IMO. Yes, it may look odd for Germany to have infantry tech lower than France's. But that ignores all the tech 2 infantry German starts the game with. The game appears to be geared to encourage the German player to follow a more or less historical path. It does this by waving a big red flag in front of the German player in the form of his lower than expected tech levels which need massive funding to fix. But the game then rewards the German player with big PP windfalls if he follows a more or less historical path. Finally the game provides a short term bandage for the German's low starting tech levels by bumping up the actual tech levels for a core group of his starting forces. Overall, it might seem a bit clunky, but I can understand why it's designed the way it is.

As far as naval tech goes however, I too feel that if Germany had tech 2 in both subs and navy, it would make for a better game. Simply from a tech standpoint, ship for ship the Germans did have better, newer ships than the British at the start of the war. But it didn't really translate into better results in actuality, so a 2/2 rating seems reasonable.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 15
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 12:44:36 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		"It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition. The navy always supports the army. The evacuation continues"

Admiral AB Cunningham, Evacuation of Crete, 1941

Says it all, I believe.

The RN has always taken the attitude that ships are there to be taken into harm's way ... come what may ... to be used, in other words.

The reason why the Germans and Italians both performed so piss poorly in WW2, and why the Germans did by themselves in WW1, is not because they lacked good ships ... but because they were too scared to use their shiny new toys and possibly lose them to no good effect.

On that basis alone, the RN should be +1 over the Germans or, at the very least, 2/2 for both Subs and Surface vessels.

YMMV

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to macroeconomics)
Post #: 16
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 1:40:31 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 10777
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		Absolutely correct.

1. Newer does not necessarily mean better. Yes, the poor men of the RN had much antiquated equipment to work with (thanks to going almost bankrupt fighting WWI) but the ships of the Kriegsmarine had many downsides - dodgy diesel engines in some ships that were difficult to maintain - poor range for their heavy cruisers - unstable destroyers thanks to fitting to big a gun - dud torpedoes in their u-boats.

2. The Regia Marina's performance in particular was v. Poor. Imagine swapping Cunningham with Campioni. The results would have been very different....



_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 17
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 7:12:36 PM   
LiquidSky


Posts: 830
Joined: 6/24/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz

"It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition. The navy always supports the army. The evacuation continues"

Admiral AB Cunningham, Evacuation of Crete, 1941

Says it all, I believe.




How long did it take the americans to build their tradition?

_____________________________

To the right General Patton, to the left the British Army, to the rear our own artillery, and besides all that its raining. And the only good thing to say about the weather: it keeps our air corps from blowing us all to Hell because its too lousy to fly.

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 18
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 8:34:23 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 10777
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky


quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
"It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition. The navy always supports the army. The evacuation continues"

Admiral AB Cunningham, Evacuation of Crete, 1941
Says it all, I believe.



How long did it take the americans to build their tradition?
Warspite1

What does that mean in the context of the previous comment and Cunningham's famous quote?

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/5/2012 8:35:09 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.




(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 19
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/5/2012 11:51:01 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
How long did it take the americans to build their tradition?


Inherited it from the RN.

As did the RAN, RNZN, RCN, RInN and RSAN.

Certainly, you can see it in the Revolutionary Wars and the War of 1812 ... but, like I said, its a long time making.

Note: The German Army in 1914-18 and 1939-45 had an excellent reputation ... and it caused more casualties per soldier lost than, IIRC, any of their opponents did against them (certainly did on the Russian front, right up to the end) ... and lost both wars. Tradition isn't always to the benefit of the "good guys" ...

Though there have been cogent cases made recently that the reason the Germans and Japanese lost WW2 was at least as much because they lost whatever moral compass they may have had and fought with such brutality that they gave their opponents no real option but to fight on.

YMMV

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to LiquidSky)
Post #: 20
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 1:00:03 AM   
rogo727


Posts: 925
Joined: 7/12/2011
From: Iowa
Status: offline 		Inherited from the RN...are we talking about ships or traditions? To say America based her naval traditions solely from the RN is laughable at best.
quote:

ORIGINAL: aspqrz


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
How long did it take the americans to build their tradition?


Inherited it from the RN.


YMMV

Phil



< Message edited by rogo727 -- 1/6/2012 1:06:39 AM >

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 21
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 2:57:25 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2499
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline 		Everyone is forgetting that the war doctrine level is one higher for Great Britain.


(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 22
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 6:00:27 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

Inherited from the RN...are we talking about ships or traditions? To say America based her naval traditions solely from the RN is laughable at best.


Hmm.

UK colonists in UK colonies rebelling against the UK.

Where did you think they got their traditions from, the Imperial Chinese Navy?

Seriously, while, I expect, they may have gained some technical knowhow for their first Frigates, the ones that did so well in the War of 1812, from their contacts with the French, let's face it, they certainly didn't get their "tradition of victory" as the RN would have put it, from the French ... since the French navy was always inferior in the way it was handled compared to the RN.

For much the same reason as the German fleet was in WW1/WW2 ... scared of scratching the paint on their shiny new toys, coupled with piss poor training, piss poor morale, politically appointed officers ... or officer scared of the "tree of liberty" (Madame Guillotine) if they failed ...

This is the sort of tradition the USN inherited. And, while it isn't as old as the RN, it's done rather well in the last 222 years or so since the end of the Revolutionary wars.

YMMV of course.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to rogo727)
Post #: 23
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 6:04:01 AM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Which War Doctrine Level? There's only one shown in the Editor, and that's for Land Warfare (at least, that's what it calls it, and it would make no sense at all for it apply to Land, Air and Naval simultaneously ... does it?) ... and Germany is one higher than the Allies ... is there a Naval Doctrine Level shown somewhere?

Where?

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Razz)
Post #: 24
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 8:08:31 AM   
battlevonwar

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 12/22/2011
Status: offline 		Definitely a good thread, technologies should be discussed. I am glad someone opened this up. As far as I know of the early years and tank/aircraft/gun technology.

Tanks:

UK superior, with the A-series(medium Tank) the Matilda(heavy superior to the Germans. At the outbreak of WW2.The French Somua/Char1B, far superior to that of the Panzer I/II...Panzer III being a decent medium tank, but not much better than the stolen Czech medium tanks. Weaker Armor.

So here I would rate it like this:
French Level 2
Germany Level 1
UK level 2 possibly

Fact was the way they were used, not the tanks themselves, so the tactics for the Germans could argue would put them above the other two in use of the armor. Do we figure in tactics into technology? If I were to, I'd either have to give the German Panzers a Blitzkrieg Bonus through 1942, until the West & Russians learned how to fight and use Armor spearheads or keep the German Tank Tech ahead.

As for the USSR: T-34... great for the steppes, wide tracks, slopped armor, a great weapon. A great many built.

The Mark IV by the time Barbarossa hits isn't a marked improvement. Again Germany lags behind USSR, but the tactics again. The Stugs(tank destroyers are also a factor) they may not be literally tanks but they are part of armored formations. As are ATGs. As for how each side holds up in this category. That fluctuates throughout the war and the tactics used with each. Though they're as much about armor as anything.

I'd place the USSR: at Tank level 2 as well, USA I won't comment on.


P.S. now someone comment on the fighters involved at the outbreak. French D.520, British Hurricanes, German 109s, Italian G.50s, American Early P-Series Planes, and Red Wings mixed 4 various fighters. P39, Mig3 to start with.



< Message edited by battlevonwar -- 1/6/2012 8:24:50 AM >

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 25
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 11:58:24 AM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1470
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
So here I would rate it like this:
French Level 2
Germany Level 1
UK level 2 possibly


You have to place the Level at the figure for the majority of the vehicles available, T34, Matilda, etc., good as they may have been, were only small fractions of the overall tank force, early in the war, and not representative of a nation's overall capability.

There are other factors in tank performance other than gun, armour and speed, the Matilda had no HE capability and therefore could not suppress anti-tank guns, until it got with M/G range. Most Soviet tanks had no radios and had to rely on flag signals for control, the commanders of early French and Russian tanks were overloaded as they had to operate guns as well.

Guderian is foremost in tank warfare, but he was initially a radio specialist, it was in the control of tanks that he excelled.

In 1940 the French were mainly relying on dispatch riders to pass orders from HQ (Supreme HQ at Vincennes had no radio installed), it sometimes took the rider two days to find the unit the message was meant for, much too late to match the German advance.

The French used fuel tankers to carry fuel out to the units, they could only refuel a few vehicles at a time, making refuelling a long process, (Char B only had a short range). The fuel tankers were easily identifiable and very vulnerable to attack. A tank without fuel is 30 tons of scrap iron. The Germans used the 'jerry' can, any vehicle could become a refueller and, when the cans reached the units, each crew could take their share of jerry cans and refuel simultaneously, it was also easier to carry spare cans to extend range.

Initially, the British used commercially produced cans which were of thin metal and prone to leak, captured jerry cans were highly prized and later in the war the Allies had huge stockpiles of their own fuel containers.

All of these items affected the effectiveness of each nation's tank units, perhaps more than the vehicles themselves. Whether these factors are covered by tech level, or doctrine, I am not able to say, but it's more than which tanks had most armour, or biggest gun.

< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 1/6/2012 1:42:39 PM >

_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 26
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 12:27:20 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		Indeed.

But the Panzer 35t ands 38t were probably almost as good as the Matilda, Somua and R-35s ... and Panzer IIIs and IVs were coming online by 1939, and they were as good as the Matildas and French tanks, especially when upgunned ... though the T-34's were superior in concept.

Of course, you do know that the early model T-34's fielded in 1940 had guns whose barrels were bored, shall we say, somewhat askew on an unreliably reliable basis, and had considerable accuracy problems initially.

And, of course, you also know that the T-34 typically went into combat with a spare gearbox strapped to the back deck ... because the average MTBF for the gearbox was around 10 hours of driving time, so crudely made were the running parts of the engine and transmission.

In fact, Brand New T-34's are know to have had a MTBF of no more than 35 hours, all up, before something major took them down. They were, very much, throwaway vehicles ... it's fortunate the Russians were able to produce as many of them as they did because something like 80% were destroyed in combat or as a result of combat throughout the war.

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 27
Capturing Tech Levels - 1/6/2012 12:30:26 PM   
aspqrz

 

Posts: 597
Joined: 7/20/2004
Status: offline 		All sides did it ... used captured weapons ... but the Germans did it a lot ... and this would probably be representable by allowing a nation to take a boost either directly to their TL or to the investment/time they have in by conquering a nation with a higher TL in that area ... or you could script events to allow them to purchase a limited number of higher TL units, like the Germans starting with TL (2) Infantry even though they only have Artillery (1).

Or are there such scripted events already?

Phil

_____________________________

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 28
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 12:36:00 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5237
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline 		IIRC in 1941, the T-34 crew was trained for couple of hours before sent to the front line

_____________________________

All the latest news about Wastelands Games.

Facebook

(in reply to aspqrz)
Post #: 29
RE: Unjustifiable Tech Levels? - 1/6/2012 1:00:10 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1470
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
P.S. now someone comment on the fighters involved at the outbreak. French D.520, British Hurricanes, German 109s, Italian G.50s, American Early P-Series Planes, and Red Wings mixed 4 various fighters. P39, Mig3 to start with.


As with the previous post, this is a strategic game and it's not so much the attributes of each nation's individual aircraft, but the effectiveness of each nation's air units and operating system.

This has come up in another thread, but however good the Spitfire, Hurricane, D.520, or Bf109E may have been, their respective performance owed more to the way that they were operated.

In 1940 RAF Fighter Command was still using the 3 aircraft 'Vic' close formation, which meant that most of the pilots were intent on maintaining their position in formation and only the formation leaders were fully able to look-out for the enemy. The Luftwaffe fighters was using the looser 'finger 4' formation, allowing all of the pilots to look-out, rather than watching each other.

The UK air defence system (not just the availability of radar, but the comms net, the ground observers, the control organisation, etc.), restored the balance, but only in UK airspace. The RAF fighters may not have been able to look-out so well, initially, but the control system was telling them where the enemy was and putting them in advantageous positions, where possible.

The US had 300 P-40 fighters sitting on airfields in the Hawaiian Islands and, through radar, saw the attacking formations approaching, but had no system evolved to react. So again, it's not so much the individual aircraft, but the way they are used.

But on the issue of individual aircraft, the important factors may not be the obvious ones of guns and speed. There is always a lot of debate on whether the Spitfire, or Bf109 could turn the tightest in a dogfight.

The Spitfire wing was designed with a twist down the span to the wing-tip. Known as 'washout', the wing presents a greater angle to the airflow at the wing root, than it does at the wing-tip. This means that, as the wing comes close to stalling, as can happen in a high speed turn, the stall starts at the wing-root first, causing buffeting and vibration, this warns the pilot to ease the turn, before something worse happens. In other high performance aircraft of the time, the stall started at the wing-tip, causing a vicious stall into a spin, with little, or no warning.

This all means that Spitfire pilots (many very young and inexperienced) had the confidence to throw their aircraft into tight turns, knowing the Spitfire would warn them if they went too tight. Pilots of other aircraft had to treat them with greater respect and were often not able to use the full capabilities of the aircraft.

This explains why some German pilots were able to amass huge scores in the Bf 109, as once they had fully mastered the aircraft it could be supreme, whereas an average Spitfire pilot could dance away from an average Bf109 pilot, who did not have full confidence in his aircraft.

This is only to show how deep the discussion could go, but in a strategic game, I don't know how much these factors should impact into tech levels, effectiveness and doctrine. l



_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to battlevonwar)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Unjustifiable Tech Levels? 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

0.625