why Morris does not surrender?

After action reports for Commander Europe at War.

Moderators: rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Cybvep » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:22 pm

I don't think Russia should suffer a morale loss if they lose Moscow. Russians aren't like other people. For them a city is just a city and they would fight even harder if they lost important cities like Leningrad and Moscow. Stalin was prepared to evacuate from Moscow to Kuybyshev and the Russian people still had the morale up.
Kuybyshev became a temporary capital in October IIRC. Noboby claims that Russia should surrender after losing Moscow, though. Morale drop is a different issue.

Russian losses in the first months of war took a terrible toll on their morale. Their resistance was still fierce, but before the winter counteroffensive they were mostly losing. The NKVD wasn't there just for show. Also, keep in mind that thousands of people collaborated with the Germans, so the country was effectively divided.

leridano
Captain - Bf 110D
Captain - Bf 110D
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

Re: Number of submarines

Post by leridano » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:35 pm

eisenkopf wrote:
On another side note: The Regina Marina had 100 subs in 1940. This would be 5-6 flotillas (alwas comparing to the 3 initial German ones).
A naval unit in CEAW-GS represents 50 vessels of 1000 tons displacement. So 2 battleships/carriers would go for a battleship/carrier unit, 20 destroyers (2.500 tons of displacement) would go for a destroyer unit and so on. In WW2 submarines used to have less than 1000 tons of displacement so 100 subs will surely go for only 2 subs units. This is only a game so you can build 6-7 italian submarines if you want to but building such a huge italian submarine fleet is not realistic at all since this would be pretty much more than the italians had in the real war.


    ferokapo
    Senior Corporal - Destroyer
    Senior Corporal - Destroyer
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:09 am

    Re: Number of submarines

    Post by ferokapo » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:23 pm

    leridano wrote:
    eisenkopf wrote:
    On another side note: The Regina Marina had 100 subs in 1940. This would be 5-6 flotillas (alwas comparing to the 3 initial German ones).
    A naval unit in CEAW-GS represents 50 vessels of 1000 tons displacement. So 2 battleships/carriers would go for a battleship/carrier unit, 20 destroyers (2.500 tons of displacement) would go for a destroyer unit and so on. In WW2 submarines used to have less than 1000 tons of displacement so 100 subs will surely go for only 2 subs units. This is only a game so you can build 6-7 italian submarines if you want to but building such a huge italian submarine fleet is not realistic at all since this would be pretty much more than the italians had in the real war.

      Hm, did not know that that is the ratio of CEAW-GS. But then, the Germans should have only one flotilla at the start of the game, and Italy two. In 1942, Germany should have only 4 flotillas...
      Not that I am advocating these low numbers, but I would like to point out by this that the game violates historical accuracy on many occasions. I have no problem with that, because I prefer (re-)playability over historical accuracy. I don't think it is possible to have a game that is fun and yet historical accurate, because we all have the hindsight that allows us to avoid the biggest strategic mistakes made in the war. In order to impose historical accuracy in the game, we then need to introduce many restrictions on gameplay, which stifles ingenuity and leads to players exploiting the game engine and rules instead of devising intriguing strategies.
      To answer Stauffenbers's suggestion, I would not decrease oil consumption of subs. The problem is that the Allied player can disregard naval tech, building only as many DDs as necessary to escort troops. There are enough convoys that will get through, the PPs needed to produce units to guard all of them don't seem to pay off. I would reduce the cost to build a flotilla to 50 PPs, and remove (or raise) the limit on maximum numbers per unit type.

      Cybvep
      Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
      Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
      Posts: 1259
      Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

      Post by Cybvep » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:49 pm

      I don't think it is possible to have a game that is fun and yet historical accurate, because we all have the hindsight that allows us to avoid the biggest strategic mistakes made in the war.
      That's because most historical and semi-historical games focus on OOBs, combat mechanics etc. while totally disregarding the way the decision-making process works in-game and the issue of hindsight. I hope that one day there will be a game which will represent this correctly.

      leridano
      Captain - Bf 110D
      Captain - Bf 110D
      Posts: 860
      Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:51 pm

      Re: Number of submarines

      Post by leridano » Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:53 pm

      eisenkopf wrote: Hm, did not know that that is the ratio of CEAW-GS. But then, the Germans should have only one flotilla at the start of the game, and Italy two. In 1942, Germany should have only 4 flotillas...
      You are right there since the germans had only about 60 subs available in 1939. But by 1942 the Battle of the Atlantic was at its highest level so the germans deployed lots of U-boats. May be you are a little bit short with 4 german flotillas for 1942 since by this year the type VII german submarine was being produced by hundreds. I would bet for the equivalent of 7-8 submarine Uboat flotillas for 1942 and an increased number (10-11?) for 1943. Let´s think that the germans produced about 1150 submarines during the war. 780 of those were sunk so we have 370 german still active at the surrender of Germany. This would represent 7 flotillas by the end of the war. I have seen few games (if any) with the germans having such a submarine fleet by the end of the game.


        Rasputitsa
        Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
        Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
        Posts: 125
        Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:58 am

        Post by Rasputitsa » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:01 pm

        Cybvep wrote:
        I don't think it is possible to have a game that is fun and yet historical accurate, because we all have the hindsight that allows us to avoid the biggest strategic mistakes made in the war.
        That's because most historical and semi-historical games focus on OOBs, combat mechanics etc. while totally disregarding the way the decision-making process works in-game and the issue of hindsight. I hope that one day there will be a game which will represent this correctly.
        +1,

        War is about people as well as material, huge changes are brought about by decisions such as, stopping the panzers before Dunkirk, Hitler declaring war on the US and OOBs don't help if your supreme commander is ordering forces not to react to 'provocation' prior to Barbarossa. This game allows for a wide range of decisions, which is great when so many games get lost in detail and rigid 'historical' outcomes.

        It's not all hindsight, as at the time these decisions were being made, there were people advising different actions. The game allows you to work through alternative strategies, which were being proposed at the time, without the benefit of hindsight.

        The effects of the Russian winter were not a surprise, in the race into Russia, from ordinary soldiers up to army commanders and higher the letters and diaries commented on how Napoleons Campaign in 1812 had ended. They knew what was coming and could have prepared better if thr decision had been made to stop the offensive in good time and prepare for a two year campaign. Conditions would still have been bad and it may not have made any difference to the final outcome, but it's fun to try reasonable alternatives, rather than be forced to play the same failed strategies, again and again. :D

        Kragdob
        2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
        2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
        Posts: 678
        Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
        Location: Poland

        Post by Kragdob » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:46 pm

        Stauffenberg wrote:We could reduce the sub cost from 60 PP's to 50 PP's. Would that help? Fighter cost could decrease from 100 PP's to 90 PP's. and strategic bomber cost could increase from 95 PP's to 100 PP's.

        That would give air costs like:
        Fighter: 90
        Strategic bomber: 100
        Tactical bomber: 110
        Submarine: 50
        Destroyer: 60

        The increased strategic bomber cost would offset the decreased fighter cost for the Allies. The reduced fighter cost also means the repair cost will be a bit less.
        Does reducing price of SUB by ~15% will change anything if from 1940 Germans strive for PPs in order to launch Barbarossa and subsequent campaigns? It doesn't change the decisions if you go or not into SUB campaign since to go for the Atlantic Axis must build much more then 1 or 2 SUBs. Same with fighters - by 1941 UK has enough so Germans avoid any air units in France at all and reduciton by 10% does not change huge PP costs much.

        Maybe, if transport (convoys, units) are not escorted (no friendly BB/DD/CV in adjacent hex), losses from SUBs should by multiplied by factor x to the point that single SUB can inflict like 30-40 looses? Without escort an uboot could freely shoot untill it runs out of torpedos or even take a transport ship with their surface gun - 1 turn is 20 days...
        Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

        Cybvep
        Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
        Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
        Posts: 1259
        Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

        Post by Cybvep » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:55 pm

        Maybe, if transport (convoys, units) are not escorted (no friendly BB/DD/CV in adjacent hex), losses from SUBs should by multiplied by factor x to the point that single SUB can inflict like 30-40 looses?
        This is actually being discussed in the beta testers' forum.

        Post Reply

        Return to “Commander Europe at War : AAR's”