Unjustifiable Tech Levels?

[aspqrz02]

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

[doomtrader]

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.

[aspqrz02]

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) ...

[:D][:D]

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

[gwgardner]

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

[aspqrz02]

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

[Razz1]

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.

[aspqrz02]

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.

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.

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

[Cad908]

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.

[Razz1]

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.

[aspqrz02]

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 [X(]

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

[Razz1]

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.

[aspqrz02]

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 [:D]

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 [X(], 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 [8|]

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

Phil

[Razz1]

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.

[aspqrz02]

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

[macroeconomics]

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.

[aspqrz02]

"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

[warspite1]

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....

[LiquidSky]

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]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky

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?

[aspqrz02]

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