Proposals for 3.4(b)

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
The problem is not really the numbers, but the difference between assigned equipment and replacements.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Mark Stevens said:
I'd like to see what effect, if any, making the only Axis supply point Tripoli (+ Benghazi following the capture of Malta) has on the Axis ability to swamp the Middle East with troops before trying Shane's suggestion of limiting the number of German units that can serve there. Surely their operating at the lowest level of supply (unless Malta falls) must have an effect?
Not really, Mark. They'll be shipped over in perfect health, but I'm telling you, about 2 turns or so after the start of war in Africa, *all* the units are at 33/0, Allied and Axis alike. As James is fond of stating, "I consider 33/0 to be the normal state of affairs for my troops". I concur. To be honest, I of course never complain about having 40 or 50 for a supply level, but it is meaningless to me overall. I never ask what is the supply level; rather 'IS there supply?' If the answer is yes, we're good to go. A level of 1 is sufficient in my mind to see me take all of Africa as the Axis, every single game.

I'd be happy to playtest this with you, Mark. No complete EA game, we can simply battle Africa, and I can show you what I mean. You make a test version, move the supply point, and we'll decide together what the Brits can afford to send to Africa, and what must remain at home to provide a reasonable defence of the island. Then I'll show you what a horde of 33/0 germans can do to anything the Brits can possible throw in front of them. I hate to say it, but I am completely convinced this theatre will never be balanced without some restriction of this sort. This wouldn't take long at all - I imagine that we could complete the tests in a handful of hours, all things considered. (Relative time; it might take a few days or longer to do it, depending on schedules...)

This is just like the bridge bombing thing I showed you - the proof is in the pudding. There's nothing like experiencing it first hand. What do you say?
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
I should clarify this.

If both players are of the mind that supply is somehow important (it is in real life, it isn't in TOAW - units can move and attack indefinitely on 0 supply), then it will have an effect, as both players will be trying to rest, etc. But the problem comes in when certain players realize that this is a game, and 0 supply really means nothing, as your troops can survive and fight with no food or ammo or fuel. And when this realiztion kicks in, they treat it like the game abstraction that it is, and forget about it.

Players get hooked on the concept of supply, and they play the game the way it *should* work, not the way it *does* work. They really need to get past this point, and see that game for what it really is, not the way they envision it should be.

Your idea of moving the supply point looks good on paper, and certainly would have a large effect in reality; but this is not reality, it is TOAW.

As I mentioned above, I believe I can demonstrate this to you quite quickly and clearly, if you're game.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Karri said:
Actually, the problem is that a single attack can burn anything between 100 to 300 squads. Even attacking partisans can take 50-100 squads. If you go for full scale offensive, you will lose several thousand per turn. For example my recent game as Axis, my enemy made a fortified line out of HQ units, border regiments and militia units. I have been quite careful attacking them, and still I lose more troops than what I receive as replacements. And those are just trash units against half of my army.
Keep in mind that a decent amount of those 'losses' are finding their way back into your replacement pool.
 

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
Regarding Africa, I tried attacking the british(who were fortified in two hexes near El Alamein) with italians but ended up losing a bunch of units and loads of equipment. I then brought up air forces, again no progress at all, isntead just loads of losses. I then brough in two Axis Infantry Korps, again just loads of losses and no progress. As a final measure I brought in a panzer korps. It lost a good number of tanks but made no progress.

All this time, the british were suffering minimal losses...The forces they had there were quite small(I'd say about 300 squads of different kind), except for one thing they had 1000 jeeps there. I can't figure any othe reasons why my forces are doing so badly. Majority of these jeeps are in the supply column....


I find this a bit ridicilous....
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Mantis said:
Not really, Mark. They'll be shipped over in perfect health, but I'm telling you, about 2 turns or so after the start of war in Africa, *all* the units are at 33/0, Allied and Axis alike. As James is fond of stating, "I consider 33/0 to be the normal state of affairs for my troops"...
Actually, to pick a nit here, I say 33/1 should be considered the normal state of a unit. You can't get to 0%.

But, like Mantis says, whether there is any supply is always more important, by several orders of magnitude, than how much supply there is. Undoubtedly, higher supply is helpful, but against numbers, and the ability - especially with positive shock values - to wear down a defender over the course of several rounds, it is not crucial. Aggressive players, willing to sacrifice a few men, can readily level the playing field between two sides that start with significantly divergent supply levels.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Mantis said:
Keep in mind that a decent amount of those 'losses' are finding their way back into your replacement pool.
Assuming the unit is supplied, approximately 1/3 of your ground units disabled results go back into the on hand pool. Still, Karri's point is generally true. Often, a single corps, making a single attack, burns out an entire turn's worth of HRS, even accounting for equipment going back into the on hand column. Multiply this over the course of several turns for an offensive, and a few dozen units, and you can see that losses at this level versus the replacement rate are skewed.

Maybe some experimentation with adjusting the attrition divider is in order?
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
JAMiAM said:
Actually, to pick a nit here, I say 33/1 should be considered the normal state of a unit. You can't get to 0%.
Oops! My bad, I meant 33/1... :laugh: (Leave it to Jam to catch me up on this! :D)

JAMiAM said:
But, like Mantis says, whether there is any supply is always more important, by several orders of magnitude, than how much supply there is. Undoubtedly, higher supply is helpful, but against numbers, and the ability - especially with positive shock values - to wear down a defender over the course of several rounds, it is not crucial. Aggressive players, willing to sacrifice a few men, can readily level the playing field between two sides that start with significantly divergent supply levels.
This is what I'm hoping to demonstrate to Mark, if he's willing.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Karri said:
Regarding Africa, I tried attacking the british(who were fortified in two hexes near El Alamein) with italians but ended up losing a bunch of units and loads of equipment. I then brought up air forces, again no progress at all, isntead just loads of losses. I then brough in two Axis Infantry Korps, again just loads of losses and no progress. As a final measure I brought in a panzer korps. It lost a good number of tanks but made no progress.

All this time, the british were suffering minimal losses...The forces they had there were quite small(I'd say about 300 squads of different kind), except for one thing they had 1000 jeeps there. I can't figure any othe reasons why my forces are doing so badly. Majority of these jeeps are in the supply column....


I find this a bit ridicilous....
If you were attacking any of the US/UK armored divisions, then I can see why. Those units are pure armored targets, and take no losses from any high level bombers, or artillery fire, during the course of battle. Even when you attack them with Pz Korps, you end up taking significantly more losses, because all of the soft targets in your unit soak up losses, often causing your unit to break off the attack before your armored assets can engage long enough to cause the numbers of casualties necessary to force it to fail its morale checks and retreat.

These units really need to be made into more "balanced" units.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
JAMiAM said:
These units really need to be made into more "balanced" units.
Well, that depends.

I've seen these units come in as early as '39, but I've also seen them come in around the end of '42. That's a pretty big range. Also, although I do agree they can be overpowered when they appear early, balance that against the (previously?) overpowered pre-war builds on the German side, or the additional armor received by the Axis as early as '40 when they take the oil fields...

Lessening the effect is fine, if other over-balancing factors on the other side of the fence are dealt with as well.
 

Lou

Event Engineer
Joined
Sep 6, 2002
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
Location
Rockford, Il
Country
llUnited States
I cannot seem to remember (old man's handicap) where I got the zip file for the supply graphic change, so I include the whole thing. It probably of some use if you want slightly different supply level graphics.

It is also probably a good tool to examine the map on turn one of a self-study game for both sides to identify the highest supplied attack/defense routes.

The effect of a bridge bombing campaign can also be examined.

Time consuming, probably worth the effort, even with the old graphics.
 

Menschenfresser

The Amazing Rando
Joined
Oct 9, 2002
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
2
Location
Hell's Kitchen
Wrote a long response to this but an error killed my post....

Short and sweet....

Mantis poked his head in the righht direction IMO suggesting an honor rule. I think more honor rules need to be developed for this scenario. Perhaps, sort of a ten commandments, bare bones, standard set of rules. Nothing too drastic or anything that would cause the scenario to always go in one direction. Suggestions:

-Limit on Africa as Shane suggests
-Some sort of garrison rule for the Axis (if the Germans control the entire map by the time they invade Russia, more of their army will be spread out over the map; thus less for Barbarossa)

All honor rules completely optional of course.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Mensch said:
Mantis poked his head in the righht direction IMO suggesting an honor rule.
I think this houserule is 110% necessary to balance the African theatre.

I'm at a point in a game with Mike where France has just surrendered, and Africa is likely next. I'm playing as the Allies, and I've suggested trying the limit on Axis units in Africa. Mike did a very capable invasion of France, so I have no fears that I'm outclassing my opponent (first player to *ever* deny me the DeGaulle formation) - this should provide a solid playtest result if he's willing to give it a try.

Totally optional of course - we're already 'in play', so there's no problem if he'd prefer to forego the test. I'll let everyone know what develops if we decide to give it a try.

Mark? Did you want to take me up on my offer?
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
No, if both you and JAMiAM are of the same mind on this I'm not silly enough to waste both our time in trying and failing to prove you wrong. (I remember my bridge bombing lesson too well! And the 'Can't the Axis rush the USSR early if it goes into Finland in strength?' lesson.)

How about in both Briefings:

"In order to simulate the critical problem of Axis supply in the area, ONLY those German units belonging to the Panzer Army Africa formation (coloured ...[some suitably deserty look]...) may be shipped by sea to North Africa and the Middle East. Initially this will only be Rommel's Deutsche Afrika Korps armoured unit, available when Italy is mobilised, but further units of this formation will become available as the Axis capture the Mediterranean islands of Crete, Malta, Gibraltar, Cyprus and the key port of Alexandria. They will reconstitute in Tripoli.

If the Axis player chooses, these units may be used in Continental Europe.

This restriction does NOT apply to any German units which are able to enter the area by land, i.e. only via Gibraltar or through Turkey.

Italian, Spanish, Vichy French, Persian, Iraqi Revolt, and Axis Turkish and Arab units are not subject to this restriction."

I'd prefer this approach to a House Rule.

I'd suggest something like:

Italian mobilisation - one armoured corps and the HQ (representing the original Afrika Korps)
Crete - one infantry division (motorised/mechanised?)
Cyprus - one infantry division (motorised/mechanised?)
Gibraltar - one infantry corps (motorised/mechanised?)
Malta - one armoured corps
Alexandria - one motorised/mechanised corps

But I'm very willing to listen to alternatives.

I'd need to remove similarly sized units from the German reinforcement schedule.

To be consistent, ban the regular Luftwaffe from operating from airfields in the area and create a 'Desert' Luftwaffe Air Corps with units appearing on a similar basis?

Or would this lead to the British, with nothing else to do after the Fall of France, similarly swamping the area with troops and wiping out the Axis forces there in pretty short order?

As ever, looking forward to comments and criticism :p
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Add?

Only German units belonging to this formation may be used for sea assaults in the Mediterranean.

(i.e. This wouldn't preclude the historical airborne assault on Crete.)
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
And:

'However, once they are captured, German units may be moved to the islands by normal sea transport in order to garrison them.'
 

shadow

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona, USA
Country
llUnited States
Will there be similar restrictions on the number of Italian units in Africa?

Since sea invasions will be required much more than they are now, will there be any additional "sea assault" type units added?
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Mark, I like all of it!

Mike has agreed to give it a shot, so I'll point him to this page, and we'll let you know how it goes. We'll have to fake it, of course, but I think it's a good start. I believe the balance will be substantially improved by this change. (The Allies might actually hold the canal once in a while, lol).

I also agree with making the rule written in stone, instead of a houserule. Good call.
 

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
Some more replacement calculations for the axis, this time aircaft:
(type -- assigned/total replacements plus pool)
Monoplane Fighter(early) -- 24/0
Biplane fighter(late) -- 86/700
Amio 143 -- 50/0
Morane-Saulnier 406 -- 99/28
Potez 63 -- 196/350
Bloch 152 -- 50/0
Le0 451 -- 40/0
FD. 520 -- 180/350
Ju-86 -- 200/350
Me-109E/F -- 2043/13 320
Me-109(late) -- 78/18 090
He-112 -- 12/0
Ju-87(early) -- 702/1848
Ju-87(late) -- 0/3038
Do-17 -- 10/0
He-111 -- 714/6650
Ju-88(early) -- 252/9600
Ju-88(late) -- 0/4360
Me-110 -- 428/3500
Me-110G -- 36/2170
Do-217 -- 216/1400
Do-217 J/N -- 28/84
FW-190(early) -- 78/4510
FW-190(late) -- 78/8195
Hs-129 -- 0/888
Me-410 -- 0/1216
Ar-234 -- 0/288
Ju-88G -- 0/568
Me-163 -- 132/180
Me-262 -- 120/1368
He-162 -- 280/244
Ba-65 -- 28/0
CR-32 -- 138/1750
SM. 81 -- 84/4200
BR. 20 -- 140/1400
SM. 79 -- 288/2100
Ba 88 -- 28/0
Z. 1007bis -- 60/2800
CR-42 Falco -- 407/2100
G. 50 Freccia -- 162/1440
M. C. Saetta -- 88/2800
M. C. Folgore -- 0/2420
Re. 2001 -- 0/2000
SM. 84 -- 48/1452
P. 108 -- 0/0
G. 55 Centauro -- 32/996
M. C. 205 Veltro -- 0/924
Re. 2005 Sagittario -- 48/1168
SM. 79 III -- 24/1260
Z.1018 -- 0/1056
A5M -- 96/200
B5N -- 72/350
D3A -- 0/450
A6M Reisen(late)-- 0/0
Fokker D XXIII --98/350
PZL P.7/11 --362/350
PZL P.24 -- 98/0
PZL P.23 -- 150/350
PZL P.37 -- 51/0
IAR 80 --125/1750
I-16 -- 0/7616(SOVIET AIRCRAFT)
TB-3 -- 0/26
SB-2 -- 0/26
Tu-2 -- 0/24
Bulldog -- 10/0
Blenheim -- 84/350
Gladiator -- 120/350
Hurricane -- 46/25
Beaufort -- 6/0
SBD Dauntless -- 12/5
A-17 -- 90/50
P-35 -- 110/50
Haw 75 / Mohawk II -- 40/68


That's a total of 134 828 planes. Dunno if that's too high or low. Anyways, it seems like there's a lot of planes that could and should be scratched in terms of gameplay. However, unlike in infantry most of the aicraft comes through the replacement pool. I'd like to know why you went with this route instead of the one used with infantry?
 
Last edited:
Top