Proposals for 3.4(b)

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
I still think the infantry replacements are way too low. I mean, it's quite silly that on average units that have seen combat there are more artillery pieces or tanks or whatever than there are heavy rifle squads or rifle squads.

And another note, why do the "Industry" units only give 999 of each squad type unit? It's only enough for one Corps, whereas there's enough tanks for several corps.

For example the Essen industry gives:
999 Heavy Rifle AT squads
600 Panthers
999 Heavy Rifle squads
999 Rifle squads
300 Tigers
500 PzKfw IVE's
999 88mm AT guns
100 Tiger II's
500 Hummel SP gun's
100 T-34/85s
500 Wespe SP guns

Let's compare this to early axis tank units(stats taken from XXXXVII PZ corps):
Enough Heavy rifle squads to fill the ranks twice
Enough Heavy rifle AT squads to fill the ranks twice
Enough Panthers to fill the ranks 4 times
Enough PzKfw IVE's to fill the ranks 5 times
Enough Hummel's to fill the ranks 28 times!
Enough Wespe's to fill the ranks 14 times!

At least double, my suggestion is at least quadruple, the amount of infantry squads that these "Industry units" give out.
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
Does anyone actually find the "Heavy Industry" units useful in the game, I appreciate what they were put there for, but without aerial recon I have yet to spot one to conduct a strategic bombing campaign.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
There is one by the coast of Denmark, at Hamburg. You can bombard that one with the RN. Until later in the game, your air can't really touch these units, so the RN is your only hope. There is just the right amount of movement to cruise over there from the UK, let them have it on ignore losses, and then return. (If you have ~full movement).

I go do this anytime I am having a slow turn, or know there won't be combat 'til the very end of the turn. (Don't risk leaving your navy out there... *BAD* spot to hit an EoT!) I make a game of it. Each time I bombard, I check to see if I took out any heavy equipment. On the odd rare occasion, you'll snipe a few of the armor units. (But not often, which is why it's so nice when you nail a few! ;) )
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
I know about the Hamburg one, but I thought that the original purpose of these units was to give the Allies the option to conduct a Strategic bombing campaign with Bomber Command and the 8th AF, but with the current recon rules this just cannot happen.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Wolf,

I reopened 6 turns of EA vs. Pierre (Viri), and found an Industry unit available in 5 of them...



Perhaps you've just been unlucky?
 

Wolf

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Country
ll
Fair enough, must be that the Raver collective is just very good at camouflage ;) I've yet to see one :confused:
 

Karri

Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
Malta
Country
llMalta
Mantis said:
Don't risk leaving your navy out there... *BAD* spot to hit an EoT!
In my current game I must have sink hundreds of ships, and yet my opponent just keep sending navy after navy to the range of my bombers(or to block those amphib assault routes as he would say :)). no matter how many I sink, it seems to have no effect whatsoever. Mostly because the Axis navy is such a crappy collection of units, that it canno't exploit the situation in any way.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Wolf said:
Fair enough, must be that the Raver collective is just very good at camouflage ;) I've yet to see one :confused:
Ah, well now I see your problem!

The Collective is everywhere. He knows ahead of time which areas you will see, and he simply moves them during his turn. You should have just mentioned that you were playing Raver in the first place...

:laugh:
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Shane - plan is to recolour what's currently the Axis Mediterranean Air Force and apply the same restrictions as to the recoloured land units, i.e. only those air units can be based in North Arfica and the Middle East.

More airfields in Europe? I'll chuck in a few more. As SH says, single-seater fighters could certainly operate from almost any flat, firm field provided the necessary logistics could be supplied.

Forget those splendid black and white British propaganda films, the Allies' strategic air campaign didn't really get going until 1943, and even then the Luftwaffe put up a good fight into 1944. Until then the RAF was losing brave, highly-trained young men and sorely needed equipment to make craters in German farmland.

Karri's point about the composition of the Industry Units is fair enough, but the infantry replacements come mainly through the Replacement Schedule. They are meant to represent heavy industrial areas, hence all the tanks and etc. It's a pity that high level bombers don't seem to do much damage to this equipment, even when employed en masse, but I think the engine does the calculations as though a Wellington was trying to drop a bomb onto a Tiger tank. Any suggestions for improving the strategic air campaign very welcome (except those beginning 'If we had another twenty Events you could set up some off board...'). The other consideration is that the flak and other anti-aircraft units aren't very good in their supposed role, so we have to be careful not to tilt the balance so that the Allies can level a German city every week.

Has anyone got to 1943-4 and tried massive heavy bomber strikes on Industry units?

Flat being redecorated so it's off to a hotel for a few days, do carry on without me.
 

JAMiAM

TOAW III Project Manager
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
2,780
Reaction score
1
Location
Standing in the way
Mark Stevens said:
Any suggestions for improving the strategic air campaign very welcome (except those beginning 'If we had another twenty Events you could set up some off board...').
The only way to make any dent in the hard (i.e., armored) targets mixed with the industry units is to attack them with with a combination of both High Altitude Bombers and Low Altitude Bombers/Fighter Bombers. The former group is to reduce the reduce the entrenchment level of the defenders, and the latter group would be the ones which can actually hit the defending armored targets in the combat. Of course, it may seem a bit strange to be Strategic Bombing with P-38's, Mosquitos, Typhoons, P-51's, and P-47's, but that is what is necessary to achieve results. Consider it a necessary abstraction.

For those trying this, keep an eye on your actual equipment ranges so that you're not assigning a unit to an attack where a significant portion of its equipment is of zero effectiveness.
 

Mantis

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
6,239
Reaction score
3
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
Country
llCanada
Mark, just curious - what's the delay for the Russians getting the extra equipment to compensate for the Axis prewar builds? It's been several turns, and nothing!
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Arrrggghhh! It's meant to be immediate and wprked in the test I ran recently. I'll try it again. (You know it only applies to the land units, not the carrier groups?) I'll get back to you.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
Definitely works in the scenario I've posted in the sticky, no delays.

All I can suggest is that you're running one of the test versions we exchanged when I was still havering over whether or not to introduce it...? There was some opposition to the idea and I may have put in some of the agreed changes while we discussed the Soviet 1930s build up further.

That's why I've introduced this sticky at the top: for the actual, final, real, finished, tested versions.
 

Morgoth Bauglir

Recruit
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Schilde
Country
llBelgium
Just a general note. Belgian GHQ should be in Antwerp not in Brussels. Upon entering an armed conflict in Europe, the Belgian GHQ would be (and was indeed on May 10th 1940) relocated to a fortress (Breendonk, later a dreaded German "Transit Camp") near Anwterp. Just as in previous wars, Antwerp was "The National Redoubt".

Another small matter, why are the Italian garrisons in Somaliland and Eritrea active and not fortified?
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
The scenario has all of the Belgian armed forces surrendering when the capital, Brussels, falls. While their may well have been an intention to form a National Redoubt around Antwerp Belgium, shocked by the speed of the blitzkrieg, capitulated in around two game turns following the German invasion. Unless massively reinforced by the French or British, this is probably what you'll see in a normal game.

For convenience the Italian garrisons in the Horn are part of the Italian East Africa formation, so they mobilise when it does. They've very weak and only move one hex a turn, so any attempt to use them as mobile troops won't work. They're best left entrenched and set to Ignore Losses in their starting towns.
 

Morgoth Bauglir

Recruit
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Schilde
Country
llBelgium
Brussels as strategic point

Sorry to have to come back on this one. GHQ did relocate to Antwerp in 1940. There was no "shock" when Brussels fell, the city was never defended. It was never fortified and declared an open city in both World Wars. Our warplan in case of war with Germany called for a gradual retreat to Antwerp. Brussels was supposed to fall, according to our plans. It were the British and French who insisted we change our plans (and messed up our planned retreat). That's one of the reasons we had to surrender after 18 days. All our logistics were screwed up. We redeployed and evacuated Antwerp at the specific request of the Allied GHQ because our forces were needed to cover the Northern flank of BEF and 7 French Army (which was retreating from its positions north of Antwerp).

Our warplan clearly stated that, since it was impossible to defend the National Territory, forces had to resist only long enough for the mobilisation to be completed, upon which the entire army would retreat to the National Redoubt. As we thought the Netherlands would remain neutral once more, we'd have a perfectly safe port in Antwerp (and an Allied bridgehead) to hold out untill Allied reserves had arrived in force to counterattack and liberate the country. The Dutch warplan was made along similar lines, though they intended to defend a larger piece of territory; "Fortress Holland".

Apart from the historical reason to chance this detail in the game, the Allied player has a chance to reinforce Antwerp and try to hold it (which is possible as it is a supply point), just like Amsterdam.

I got a third remark as well, its about the Bomb ...
 

Morgoth Bauglir

Recruit
Joined
Oct 17, 2004
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Location
Schilde
Country
llBelgium
The Bomb ...

I was thinking you could include a chance of Germany aquiring the A-Bomb as well, possibly even sooner than the Allies. Germany had access to high-quality uranium in Czechia (though not as good as the ore the Allies used which came from Belgian Congo). They had the brainpower and they had the equiment. All they lacked was a long-range delivery system (though prototypes existed) and political backing.

It is a myth that the R&D concerning nuclear weapons was beyond the economic capacities of the Third Reich. It's true the entire Manhattan Engineering District costed $ 2,000,000,000; but it should also be taken in account that the US programme called for an initial production of 200 bombs. The cost of these 200 bombs is included in those two milliards, not only "Little Boy" and "Fat Man".

Furthermore, the US programme did research into a lot of additional fields as well (including the H-Bomb). They also tried various means of refining uranium ore, and they build both uranium and plutonium bombs. The secrecy involved and the unwillingness to trust their Allies resulted in a lot of work being duplicated and re-done.

The MED was a typical military programme, and on average the military pay 25 times as much for an item as a private citizen does (this is no joke, alas).

Taking all this into account, it is possible for the Germans to have created a nuclear device. Maybe it's worth a small "what if?"? You still have slot 500 left in the event engine ...

The same goes for chemical weapons. Churchill clearly stated that Britain would use chemical weapons, on its own soil in first instance, in case of an Axis invasion. And Goebbels often asked Hitler to release chemical weapons against the Russians when they crossed into Germany itself. The TOAW engine doesn't allow use on specific fronts, but on the other hand it would be foolish to think the use of chemical weapons could be "cotained" to a single front. The situation would swiftly escalate.

Did you people know Britain ordered 40,000 Antrax bombs in the US? They were actually build and the idea was to drop them in a single night on Germany. The War Office had calculated that Germany would suffer 2,000,000 fatalities due to this attack. Fortunately for the Germans, they were defeated before all 40,000 bombs were finished. With such an attitude on Allied side (not to mention the fire-bombing of industrial-economic targets which resulted in a lot of "bonus damaged" - now called collateral damage for PR reasons), the use of chemicals is not hard to imagine.
 

Arthur Currie

Recruit
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Location
Canada
Country
llCanada
Probably the most important reason for the failure of Germany to develope "The Bomb" was Heisenburg himself. Until the very end, he held incorrect views on the method of producing the all important nuclear chain reaction and so directed German research in the wrong direction.
One may easily propose, as a game option that he realized his error and moved managed to produced a bomb or two or more.
 

Mark Stevens

Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Joined
Aug 6, 2002
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
5
Location
London (United Kingd
Country
ll
The scenario's designed on a 'no free lunches' basis, i.e. any ahistorical move by one side that would give it an advantage triggers the possibility of another event that gives a balancing advantage to the other side, e.g. Germany agrees to Franco's demands in North Africa to get Spain into the war = Vichy French rejoin the Allies; Germany builds up its military even more than it did in the 1930s = USSR does the same; France extends the Maginot Line to the coast in the 1930s = Germany is in a stronger position to coerce the Poles into an alliance against the USSR, etc.

If - and it's a biggie - Germany diverts manpower and scarce resources to atomic research (and delivery), what does it lose - jets? New tank models? Radar, so represent that by weakening the Luftwaffe? Allies find out and speed up their own research or, more likely, go all out for the facilities with every bomber and sabotage team in sight?

You see my point? It's the same reason that we can't include a lot of interesting but speculative strategic options in the scenario - e.g. what if Germany had made far more effort in the submarine war - everyone would agree that, all other things being equal, the UK would have been far weaker BUT would that have stimulated more Allied effort in the anti-submarine war? And where would Germany have got the extra resources and very highly trained and motivated men to crew them? Strip the Luftwaffe or the armoured forces of their junior officers and NCOs?

I fear that the 'German Bomb' falls into this category. Try 'Hearts of Iron'!
 
Top