Supermax-Moriss restart (Game stopped)

[PionUrpo]

Do we really see Allied long range invasions of France when Britain is still Axis? We've already added a rule where the transports lose efficiency while at sea. I suggest we try to check what happens with that before we make other conclusion.

The only change I think we could consider is the rule that Mulberry can only be used if London is still Allied controlled. Mulberries give supply level 2 instead of supply level 1 in an invasion area supported by a surface ship. The reason is that a Mulberry would not have been posssible to transport across the Atlantic.

Mulberries become available in 1944. Should we make that change?

I think the recent rule changes w/ transports will have impact on France/Britain landing choice. As long as enough Axis reserves remain to contest landing, the France option will be more risky than Britain. I agree w/ Borger that we should 1st see some attempts of this before making another change.

About the Mulberries. In 'normal' situation (ie. Britain remains in Allied hands) perhaps their use could be restricted to NW France, Belgium, Holland? I don't think they would've been easily moved far from the Channel area.

[PionUrpo]

However, we want an interesting game, don't we? So maybe we should think about a boost in (oil) revenue for the Axis when conquering the Middle East. Though a-historical, it would make for a more interesting game.

Historically, Iraqi and Persian oil fields were major sources of oil. Not THAT big as today, but still very important, so I don't see anything ahistorical with it. The Axis had big oil problems IRL, so capturing the Middle East would definitely help them.

Sorry, but you are wrong on that one. Iraqi and Persian oil fields were not major sources of oil. Most of Western Allied oil came from North America, and Russian oil from the Caucasus. You can check the figures easily on Wikipedia when searching for oil output in WW2. And even if they were major sources of oil, the Axis had no chance to get that crude (!) oil to refineries. Which would have to be built, too, btw. So it's historical that the Axis does not gain much from conquering the Middle East. But since it does not hurt the Allies much to lose it, there is little incentive to go there. Which is historical, but less fun. But this is now clearly off-topic. We can discuss this in one of the many threads on the Middle East strategy.

Yep, all the drilling/refining facilities would've been torched before Germans would get to them. (barring some foul ups of course) Repairing/Building new infra would've taken months if not years. Moving the oil from Mid East or Caucasus would've been nigh impossible without existing pipelines to refineries in Germany/Romania (even if they had free capacity which I'm not so sure) No oil tankers from Gulf would be available for Axis either. Trucks are needed for supplies to the front so it's either supplies now or fuel later. Not to mention trucking oil around is extremely inefficient.

Bottom line, conquering Caucasus/Mid-East wouldn't have solved Axis oil issues. Likely effect would've been burning as much or even more oil to get there than could've been extracted before those fields would be lost again. It might've crippled USSR though until US Lend Lease would shift to more oil deliveries.

And my apologies as well to supermax for supreme thread hijack.


ON TOPIC:

Latest invasion seems doomed, kudos on that one. The Russian tank/mech force need some reducing though or they'll still make quite a hazzle come winter. But meh, making yearly landings to France... that's just playing to Axis hands since WAllies will always be too weak

Only thing to worry being oil, you've probably skipped the techs adding to oil consumption, right? Some SS inf korps for added firepower without more oil usage would probably be good too. (I didn't see any but maybe I missed 'em)

[leridano]

Mulberries reduced range sounds like an interesting change. Allies still could invade directly northern Germany but keeping in mind that the landed units would only have 1 supply point.

[Cybvep]

Sorry, but you are wrong on that one. Iraqi and Persian oil fields were not major sources of oil. Most of Western Allied oil came from North America, and Russian oil from the Caucasus.

Bottom line, conquering Caucasus/Mid-East wouldn't have solved Axis oil issues. Likely effect would've been burning as much or even more oil to get there than could've been extracted before those fields would be lost again. It might've crippled USSR though until US Lend Lease would shift to more oil deliveries.

I know that most of oil came from North Africa. In fact, most of WORLD's oil came from NA in 1930s and 1940s. However, besides NA, there were several places on Earth where oil was extracted in large quantities. Indochina, Caucasus, Venezuela, Mexico, Romania, Iraq and Persia.

I use Statistical Yearbook of the League of Nations as a source when it comes to mineral and industrial production - http://digital.library.northwestern.edu ... 0276ah.pdf

Crude Petroleum 1938 in metric tons (000's omitted):

164 153 United States
10 359 Iran
4272 Iraq
7 398 Netherlands Indies
28 071 Venezuela
6 603 Romania
28 859 whole USSR

For comparison - 552 (!!!) Germany

Everything pales in comparison to American oil extraction, but the Americans never had any oil problems. USSR had enough fuel for their giant forces during WWII, too, and their output was much, much lower. More oil was extracted in Iran alone than in Indochina or Romania and oil from both these countries had much strategic influence. The Japanese functioned pretty much on Indonesian oil until their merchant marine was decimated in 1944. Germany never reached Iraq, Persia or Baku and while it had oil problems, it was still conducting armoured offensives (even with heavy armour) and u-boot raids in 1943 or even 1944 (Battle of the Bulge) on their small stockpiles.

Also, the extraction of oil can be increased if necessary. For example, looking at this table - http://ww2total.com/WW2/History/Product ... erials.htm - you can see that both German crude and synthetic oil production increased almost two times in the 1939-1941 period. In fact, their domestic production in 1941 was greater than their imports in 1939 and in 1943 their production was greater than ever! German stockpiles of all kinds of petroleum were greater in 1943 than in 1941 with a similar rate of consumption. All this WITHOUT capturing vital oil fields in Iraq, Persia or Baku. Note the difference between the Soviet oil production in 1941 (when they really needed it) and 1943-44, too (33 vs 18).

The game doesn't include refineries for either side and logistics is abstracted (the Americans don't have to transport supplies and fuel by convoys, so the Allies have some advantages, too), so I think that we should exclude these aspects from the equation.

[Diplomaticus]

I understand the points made above re: the difficulties of actually making use of oil in the Middle East--refineries, shipping it back to Germany, etc.--but even though that's historically accurate, I would hate to see us get rid of those cute little oil wells in Iraq, Persia, etc. They add a dynamism to the game, and, after all, the Germans did, in fact, go aggressively after those wells. They even seized Maikop for a while. They weren't stupid--they must have thought they could get the use out of those wells. Were they wrong?

[Cybvep]

Keep in mind that the logisticial system in the game is abstract and simplistic. Do you have convoys going to Malta? No. Do you have to care about transfer of factories to Siberia? Nope. Can the Axis deprive the Allied troops of supplies in the UK/France/Italy/Balkans/wherever by sinking convoys? No. Can you cut the Murman or Trans-Siberian railways? You cannot. Therefore, it's only fair to omit such things in case of the Axis. You either represent problems faced by both sides or you ignore them.

You cannot even capture/destroy the Allied fuel stockpiles when playing the Axis...

They add a dynamism to the game, and, after all, the Germans did, in fact, go aggressively after those wells. They even seized Maikop for a while. They weren't stupid--they must have thought they could get the use out of those wells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskomm ... n_Campaign

The problem was that ~80% of the Soviet oil was produced in Baku. Maykop and Grozny combined accounted for ~10% and the oil fields were blown up by the Russians, which decreased the production even further.

[PionUrpo]

Last thread hijack from me, I promise.

I understand the points made above re: the difficulties of actually making use of oil in the Middle East--refineries, shipping it back to Germany, etc.--but even though that's historically accurate, I would hate to see us get rid of those cute little oil wells in Iraq, Persia, etc. They add a dynamism to the game, and, after all, the Germans did, in fact, go aggressively after those wells. They even seized Maikop for a while. They weren't stupid--they must have thought they could get the use out of those wells. Were they wrong?

Nah... not stupid per se, since there were few good options for the Germans at that point, but totally oblivious to the facts on the ground (as so usual with the Nazis ) Their supply system was already stretched near limit and pushing it to Baku would've almost certainly broken it unless they cripple Red Army before that. It's a long way + there's the certain small mountain range to pass. As already said, they had no reliable plan for extracting and actually getting the captured oil to use in time. And of course the nutjobs in charge still pretty much expected untermenschen to comply with their wishes and offer minimal resistance.

If they actually won the war (say e.g somehow cripple USSR and then stalemate peace in west, however unlikely) Baku would've been immensely useful as another source besides Romania. So as a overall strategic/political objective it was sound but not a war winner in itself since it cannot be utilized in meaninful timeframe. I guess that's hard to simulate ingame.

Gamewise (w/ roughly equal players), the idea is to reflect the German advances during '39-'42 and then start the (preferably) slow retreat to Berlin; not the German capture of e.g Iraq and then sweeping mechanized offensives until Allies are too weak to do anything. The victory for Axis player doesn't depend on keeping Moscow or Paris or whatnot. It's to keep Berlin/Hamburg to the end. Iraq can be captured but whether or not it will help the Axis player enough to delay fall of Berlin after May '45 is debatable.

I don't think Mid East is completely bust as a viable option for Axis player but it does require certain preconditions. Usually that would be Allied player losing alot during early phase and/or playing carelesly. Of course, just my opinion, and obviously not the only right answer.

[Cybvep]

So as a overall strategic/political objective it was sound but not a war winner in itself since it cannot be utilized in meaninful timeframe. I guess that's hard to simulate ingame.

Yeah, you might be right. However, there has to be some motivation for the player to follow the historical route.

Gamewise (w/ roughly equal players), the idea is to reflect the German advances during '39-'42 and then start the (preferably) slow retreat to Berlin; not the German capture of e.g Iraq and then sweeping mechanized offensives until Allies are too weak to do anything. The victory for Axis player doesn't depend on keeping Moscow or Paris or whatnot. It's to keep Berlin/Hamburg to the end. Iraq can be captured but whether or not it will help the Axis player enough to delay fall of Berlin after May '45 is debatable.

Yes, but if the usual result is that there is no African Campaign on the Axis part, then it's obvious that sth needs to be changed. Again, the game is rather simple and abstract and game rules and statistics have to be made with that in mind.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

But if you ignore 'Morris' just because he plays better does not make sense for me. If he only uses the environment that game provide I'm fine with stretching it (abandon UK if it is worth it). On the other side is if he does not want to share the real exploits it is very ugly and cheating should mean ban.

What do you think we've been doing for the last 4 months or so since GS v2.00 was released? I can tell you we've made numerous changes to the game partly because of exploits made by Morris. The first problem was his Axis armor blob. Then he invented the Axis mech blob and the British garrison blob. I have lost count of all the tweaks we've made because of him. Some time ago we discovered his max/min of tech research and we tried to fix that as well. So we haven't been ignoring Morris and his play style. I feel we haven't done anything else, but fixing issues discovered in games he has played.

My point is that regardless of how much we will try he will conjure up more exploits to throw at his opponents. That's a fact and at one time we should simply stop chasing him. We simply can't catch him regardless of how much we try.

Right now I feel we're about to make tweaks that will go against the main idea with Grand Strategy and complicate the game too much. People speak about changing here and there to make this and that more realistic. We can try all we want, but we will end up with a solution somebody can point the finger against.

I think that the changes we should address now should be directed at fixing game balance issues and just that. If we start adding new functionality because we can and feel it's more realistic then we might end up chasing our tail again and never get GS v2.1 to the public.

I think one "problem" here is that people who haven't been part of the beta team have ideas (most of them rather good) about how to improve the game. If it had been 6-12 months ago then we could have incorporated such changes. Then we were testing for balance, but we hope we're a bit past that time now. So introducing radical changes might disrupt the game balance and make us have to test all over again.

[Cybvep]

Why not make the version public? Give us an open beta and you will get tons of feedback.

[Diplomaticus]

[

What do you think we've been doing for the last 4 months or so since GS v2.00 was released? I can tell you
I think one "problem" here is that people who haven't been part of the beta team have ideas (most of them rather good) about how to improve the game. If it had been 6-12 months ago then we could have incorporated such changes. Then we were testing for balance, but we hope we're a bit past that time now. So introducing radical changes might disrupt the game balance and make us have to test all over again.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Borger, you and the rest of the gang on the design team are my heroes. You deserve kudos upon kudos for all the work you've done and are continuing to do on this game. I'm playing GS 2.0, without all the latest tweaks, and I think it's magnificent. I hope all the talk about fixing this and fixing that isn't giving the impression that your work is undervalued or underestimated.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Borger, you and the rest of the gang on the design team are my heroes. You deserve kudos upon kudos for all the work you've done and are continuing to do on this game. I'm playing GS 2.0, without all the latest tweaks, and I think it's magnificent. I hope all the talk about fixing this and fixing that isn't giving the impression that your work is undervalued or underestimated.

Thanks for that and no it doesn't. We've voting on possible changes in the beta forum and if enough people vote yes to a change then it's implemented. So all beta testers have a voice.

So the best way to influence GS v2.0 is to become a beta tester and join the beta discussions. There are discussions going on there that the public don't see. There are different opinions on some suggestions while on others we almost get an unanimous vote. Yesterday we had several votes and I'm actually sitting now coding them because it seemed most who posted agreed upon trying out the changes we voted on.

[zechi]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split several postings and continue the discussion elsewhere?

[Kragdob]

What do you think we've been doing for the last 4 months or so since GS v2.00 was released? I can tell you we've made numerous changes to the game partly because of exploits made by Morris. The first problem was his Axis armor blob. Then he invented the Axis mech blob and the British garrison blob. I have lost count of all the tweaks we've made because of him. Some time ago we discovered his max/min of tech research and we tried to fix that as well. So we haven't been ignoring Morris and his play style. I feel we haven't done anything else, but fixing issues discovered in games he has played.

Well 80% of the rules/code is always pointing at 20% of Players/unusual behaviour so I think it is what you do now. From this point he is good at showing where game misses something (you can behave like you couldn't in history). I can even understand that he does not want to share his ideas - they let him win (so far) so as a player I would be reluctant too. As a beta tester this is more question of the mission and if Morris does not behave like beta tester maybe he shouldn't be one?

My point is that regardless of how much we will try he will conjure up more exploits to throw at his opponents. That's a fact and at one time we should simply stop chasing him. We simply can't catch him regardless of how much we try.

I think that this AAR is the case when you can see that you actually almost caught him. The only 'blob' he is able to do right now without being punished quickly is 'amphibious blob' and 'Egypt blob' but from what you can see it does not lead to immediate collapse of the Axis (at least not against an elite Player - does Morris plays against weak opponents?) and in long term make him loose the game. Isn't this correct?

Right now I feel we're about to make tweaks that will go against the main idea with Grand Strategy and complicate the game too much. People speak about changing here and there to make this and that more realistic. We can try all we want, but we will end up with a solution somebody can point the finger against.

The game will never be perfect and there will be points where you stop and say "ok this is not working realistically but we do not want to complicate anymore". If you are game designer you need to accept that

I think that the changes we should address now should be directed at fixing game balance issues and just that. If we start adding new functionality because we can and feel it's more realistic then we might end up chasing our tail again and never get GS v2.1 to the public.

I think one "problem" here is that people who haven't been part of the beta team have ideas (most of them rather good) about how to improve the game. If it had been 6-12 months ago then we could have incorporated such changes. Then we were testing for balance, but we hope we're a bit past that time now. So introducing radical changes might disrupt the game balance and make us have to test all over again.

I agree completely! Note that fixes to balance are targeted only for very little % of unusual games, so game work very well even now. I wouldn't expect (speaking for myself) that things that I propose are to be in GS 2.10. I'm rather adding ideas to be considered after current changes are verified to be working/not working.

[Cybvep]

There is only one acceptable outcome IMO - Axis victory. By "victory" I mean the Allies not conquering Berlin and Hamburg, of course. Let's face it - Moriss is playing against an elite player who executed his strategy almost perfectly. He has 160+ income and solid MP situation, he managed to destroy countless Soviet units, obliterated the Allies during their first amphibious landing and should be able to defeat their second invasion, too. Supermax is even making progress in Africa.

If Moriss somehow wins this, then he will prove that he is truly unbeatable. Several experienced players noted that he is not even that good when it comes to tactics and operational manoeuvres, so try to think what would happen if he was. He must know some sort of min-maxing strategy which the devs didn't consider. When the game is concluded, IMO supermax should send the saves to the devs for analysis.

[Diplomaticus]

If Moriss somehow wins this, then he will prove that he is truly unbeatable. Several experienced players noted that he is not even that good when it comes to tactics and operational manoeuvres, so try to think what would happen if he was. He must know some sort of min-maxing strategy which the devs didn't consider. When the game is concluded, IMO supermax should send the saves to the devs for analysis.

I'm with you, brother. I completely fail to understand how Moriss is even still in the fight, given the superior play of Max and the countless howlers of Moriss. If Moriss wins this--heck, if he even comes close to winning this, then something truly is rotten in the state of Denmark. (Or as we used to say as kids, "There's something dirty in Denmark!")

[supermax]

Another good turn for the Axis. An incredible tally of destruction. Once more, Moriss should bounce back!!!

[supermax]

If Moriss somehow wins this, then he will prove that he is truly unbeatable. Several experienced players noted that he is not even that good when it comes to tactics and operational manoeuvres, so try to think what would happen if he was. He must know some sort of min-maxing strategy which the devs didn't consider. When the game is concluded, IMO supermax should send the saves to the devs for analysis.

I'm with you, brother. I completely fail to understand how Moriss is even still in the fight, given the superior play of Max and the countless howlers of Moriss. If Moriss wins this--heck, if he even comes close to winning this, then something truly is rotten in the state of Denmark. (Or as we used to say as kids, "There's something dirty in Denmark!")

Guys, relax. We are only in 1942. My manpower is still at 73%. Oil over 170. Transitionning to INF army as we speak. Will use ground to retreat and save time / ressources for 43 winter. Africa offensive going well, should be able to grand some oil before the winter in Iraq. Comes summer 1943, we should be in a very solid position, especially since our research will be even better. We'll have enough forces to defeat an allied landing again, heck we'll be even stronger.

Russian losses are at 9.8 millions. He should go under the manpower threshold in 1943 at the latest. Hes got maybee 3 tanks on the map maximum...

But i agree with you guys. I fail to understand why he is still afloat!!!

[Diplomaticus]

Max,

Do my eyes deceive me, or is the city of Rostov vacant? I see a paratrooper there in Sevastapol. Hmmm....

[supermax]

Max,

Do my eyes deceive me, or is the city of Rostov vacant? I see a paratrooper there in Sevastapol. Hmmm....

i know i saw it.

Appart from pissing off Moriss however, it would ont achieve much for now. But its an option i might take in the future... I intend to retreat but i will keep a strong force in the Crimea...