Reflections on 2.0 with next version in mind

Diplomaticus · Post by **Diplomaticus** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:39 am

Folks,

Below are some reflections on game balance based on my most recent games of GS 2.0. I'm not on the beta team, so please forgive me if I write the obvious and/or what's already been discussed and done.

1) Airpower is too much. By summer 1943 my UK air labs are at approaching the maximums. My tactical bombers have been able to annihilate fairly tech advanced panzer groups in a way that I think must be historically inaccurate. With 2 bombing sorties I was able to reduce a solid panzer unit (10 steps, 'white' effectiveness, '12' level tech) to a shambles (down to 2-3 steps, 'red' effectiveness). When able to hit a panzer unit 2 consecutive turns, it was easily possible to completely eliminate the unit with nothing but air power. Surely that was never possible in the real war?

I know that the new version is supposed to make air tech come more slowly, but I think perhaps the sheer destructive power of the tacs should be reviewed. Do any of our 'historians' know just what tactical bombing was able to accomplish unassisted by any land forces? I'm sure they could disrupt units (reduce effectiveness) and cause some casualties, but in CEAW it's not at all uncommon for Tacs to vaporize units.

2) Are the Siberian shock armies too over the top? Once again I defer to the folks here who really know their history, but it's hard for me to believe that these Red Army shock armies were so overwhelmingly superior to their German equivalents. As most of you know, the Shock armies are incredibly effective and can surpass even the SS elite units. They're so powerful, in fact, that it's difficult to defend against them under any but the most favorable conditions. It seems to me that they give the Russians a bit of a free ride.

3) USSR vs. Germany techs. For obvious reasons, the German player has got to invest heavily in labs, and pretty well across the board. He may be able to get away with slighting one slot--maybe Naval if not doing much with subs--but that's about it. By contrast, the Soviet player can and usually does specialize in a few areas. Add that to the tech bonuses granted at start, and we find that it's a usual thing for the USSR to surpass Germany in infantry tech as early as 1941. Now, it's understood that the Germans will have the edge in air and usually in armor as well, but again I wonder how historically accurate this tech advantage for Red Army infantry was. My understanding was that it was sheer numbers, not in their superior training, equipment, elite status, etc., that the Soviets excelled.

Maybe it should be the other way around. The Soviet tanks were superior early in the war (although their armor doctrine certainly wasn't!). Should we take away from the Russians' infantry tech but add a bit to armor? And how about later in the war? The Germans developed the Panther as an answer to the T-34, and then later the Tiger tanks came online. Did the Soviets ever develop equal or better tanks than those?

zechi · Post by **zechi** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 8:18 am

Why are you posting this in the AAR section.

My comments:

1.) TACs are powerful, but I do not think that they are too powerful. Under the right conditions (fair weather, plains, no FTR interception, big tech advantage) they can inflict heavy damage on ARM, but this is true for most units. If you get lucky with the air techs you can even destroy an ARM in only one turn with tech and some good results. As the defender you have several option to counter this, so I do not think that this is such a problem.

2.) I don't think the Siberian shock units are over the top. They are even necessary to get a winter offensive rolling.

3.) I don't think this is true. Even if the Soviet player investes heavily in INF labs, his forces will be at best about equal (I expect the Axis player to invest in INF-Tech of course). The German units will normally also be better as they will have better organisation until late in the war. Soviets usually overcome German defenses not because of tech advantages, but because they have enough units to attack the Axis and Soviet losses do not really matter. Of course techs for INF will help to overcome Axis resistance.

metolius · Post by **metolius** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:07 am

This thread could be moved to the general discussion, perhaps.

I think Diplomaticus is on target, as usual.

1) I agree. Airpower seems to get a little too amazing a little too early. I do think that by the end of the war, armor was getting hammered by tactical airpower -- look at the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge.

2) I agree. They are crazy strong.

3) I agree. And I think tanks have been kind of gutted as a unit. The oil cost is huge, the PP cost is high, and the Russians always have strong anti-tank. And since armor has penalties for city fighting, you can't even dig it in for hard-core defense.

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:18 am

1) TAC unit cost more then armour, afterall. They are quite good until tanks get high surv and AA upgrades. In endgame maxed tech TAC have usually 1:4 - 1:3 result when attacking maxed tech tank (not in TAC favour). Attacking other ground units is also painful once they get late AA techs (from artillery and tank destroyers branches).
2)Shock army units were rather common armies with sound names. They were neither syberia, nor mechanized (only infantry divisions and brigades inside) nor guard. But in game they are needed as few of battle able soviet units in early years. Wihtout them its totally no way to kill german units!
3) Current balance of techs and PPs is fine. In game you can't win by "sheer numbers" as unit in a frontline can be attacked only from 2 hexes, no matter 2 or 20 units you have at hand, so if soviet units will be weaker it will be totally impossible to fight. You already need best possible armour/guard troops and air attacks to destroy common german corps until late 1943 probably.

Diplomaticus · Post by **Diplomaticus** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:23 pm

zechi wrote:Why are you posting this in the AAR section.

That was an "oops."

Thanks also for your remarks.

rkr1958 · Post by **rkr1958** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:36 pm

Diplomaticus wrote:
zechi wrote:Why are you posting this in the AAR section.
That was an "oops."

No problem ... thread moved.

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:02 pm

regardingair power.. in a contested area.. where both airforces are present... land units should in the context of this games abstraction only reduce effectivness..
In a total air control the ome damage seems approprite.. but guys we are tlking huge units..armies and crorps.. its like we armedthe planes with tactical nukes!!!
totally agree..
One area is sea units vs air and a2sea.. this should have lots of damage to each..
Again its a game...
regarding shock troops.. i think this is about game balance...
my opinions only ..and
goodluck

Plaid · Post by **Plaid** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:43 pm

freeboy wrote: regardingair power.. in a contested area.. where both airforces are present... land units should in the context of this games abstraction only reduce effectivness..
In a total air control the ome damage seems approprite.. but guys we are tlking huge units..armies and crorps.. its like we armedthe planes with tactical nukes!!!
totally agree..

I remember not so long ago we had someone saying very opposite that 2 air attacks per unit is to little and "unrealistic" and numerous bombers should destroy entire units with no problem

PionUrpo · Post by **PionUrpo** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:08 pm

Plaid wrote: I remember not so long ago we had someone saying very opposite that 2 air attacks per unit is to little and "unrealistic" and numerous bombers should destroy entire units with no problem

Yeah, I remember that one too, was going to post exact same thing here

Points out nicely how different things people expect from a game.

gerones · Post by **gerones** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 9:19 pm

I agree with Plaid´s points about horrible odds that the tacs get in late game attacking armour units once these ones get higher air defense tech levels.

On the other hand, an air unit represent 260 aircrafts. Then, two attacking air units represent more than 500 aircrafts which IMO is a considerable firepower able to cause enough damage to enemy units.

afk_nero · Post by **afk_nero** » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:43 pm

You must take into account the game mechanics and timescale.

Sustained air attacks over a 20 day period in open terrain with 500+ aircraft is enough to seriously hurt a Armour Corps (anything from 200-400 Tanks).

The corps would need to have been reformed and losses in vehicles replaced.

Diplomaticus · Post by **Diplomaticus** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 1:11 pm

afk_nero wrote:You must take into account the game mechanics and timescale.

Sustained air attacks over a 20 day period in open terrain with 500+ aircraft is enough to seriously hurt a Armour Corps (anything from 200-400 Tanks).

The corps would need to have been reformed and losses in vehicles replaced.

Thanks for your response. What you say makes sense. I was wondering whether there were any specific historical precedents--examples of, say, massed Stukas or tactical bombers flown from England just basically erasing entire German ground corps or armored units? Just curious.

afk_nero · Post by **afk_nero** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 4:37 pm

Well depends who you believe,

The air crews claimed hundreds of kills and this is repeated by popular historians such as max hastings - others claim that the facts dont support the proposed kill ratio.

Go to this site for some more info on the subject of armour versus air in WW2
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters4.html

No matter what the case is - Air caused serious command and control issues for the Wermacht on the western front and this reduced the fighting effectiveness of the troops. People dont need to be killed for a corps to become ineffective - command and control as well as logistics can be fatal for a unit and would require for this to be pulled and reformed.

The current game engine rewards players who use armour and invest in air defence research as late war air should suffer worse outcomes versus german armour, but still be able to cause damage.

StevenCarleton · Post by **StevenCarleton** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:32 pm

1) There are accounts even in 40 and 41 of tac inflicting enormous damage on armoured units in good weather in clear terrain. The Stukas were especially effective. During the Battle of Kiev in 41, a panzer regiment was caught without aircover and virtually wiped out. By 44, the western allies had 4 inch rockets which, while less accurate than cannon fire, could obliterate the heaviest german armor. By the time of D-Day the allies also were using napalm, which burns at thousand of degrees and could cook the inside of a tank. I agree that it should very rare to totally wipe out a ARM/MECH unit and kill all its troops, but if you destroy all the armoured vehicles and heavy guns, you don't have much of a unit left.

A case could be made for increasing the damage suffered by TACs attacking ground units. The most effective attacks were made by diving aircraft or with low level strikes, which would obviously make it easier for AA batteries. The 9th tactical airforce in 44-45 suffered pretty heavy losses in its single engine (P-47) ground attack squadrons, which were often used as tank busters.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:40 pm

Look at the info about Hans Ulrich Rudel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Ulrich_Rudel

Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions claiming a total of 2,000 targets destroyed; including 800 vehicles, 519 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, a destroyer, two cruisers, one Soviet battleship, 70 landing craft, 4 armored trains, several bridges and nine aircraft which he shot down.

So he alone destroyed more than 500 tanks and alot of other units. Some air units were tank busters and did very heavy damage against armor.

In 1944 the Allied tactical bombers don't inflict a lot of damage against the German king tigers. If the Germans put effort into armor then they can have armor 10 or even higher in 1944. At the same time the Flak value is high so the bombers take heavy losses.

StevenCarleton · Post by **StevenCarleton** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:40 pm

2) The Shock armies from Siberia were pretty effective in 41. They had been sent to the far east to guard against Japanese attacks from Manchuria and were regarded as the best in the Red Army. I don't believe their commanding officers were purged in the late thirties. However after the winter fighting of 41-42, I don't recall the German historians making a big deal about Shock troops. They seemed to be trained and equiped for offensive fighting, and you do see these units present in most of the big Soviet offensives in 43-45. To beef up a rifle division for attack, the Soviets would often assign some of the hundreds of independent tank battalions or artillery regiments they had, and I think this is part of the reason these units had "Shock" status.

StevenCarleton · Post by **StevenCarleton** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:54 pm

3) After the huge losses of 41 (over 4 million men) the Soviets didn't have enough time to train the troops that they desperately needed to stop the Germans. Over the course of the war their INF quality varied quite a bit. by 44-45 there were well trained and equipped units with alot of experience that were comparable to the best troops in the west. But on average the quality was poor. Manstein remarks in his memoirs that even in 43-44 he wan't very impressed with their troops. By the middle of 42 the Stalin finally realized the even the Soviet Union could not afford the "human wave" attacks. So the Red Army began to rely on more on firepower (guns, armour, aircraft) to defeat the Nazis. Its important to note that the Soviet Union INF units were composed from troops from all over the SU, and many didn't speak Russian. Stalin demanded this so he could send Red Army units to crush a rebellion anywhere in the country. Also, when the Red Army liberated an area, it was common to "press-gang" all available manpower from age 15 on up, directly into the fighting units.

StevenCarleton · Post by **StevenCarleton** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 7:00 pm

Rudel and Hartmann could have formed a 2 man Air Force!

afk_nero · Post by **afk_nero** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:27 pm

I like the current air rules however I disagree with the effectivness of air versus armour.

Air power undoubtbly was a huge factor - but in killing tanks this was not as described above. Aircrews on both sides exagerated the killing statistics - so I take these with a pinch of salt.

I encourage everyone to read the book Normandy 1944 by Niklas Zetterling who gives accurate OOB's for the German Western Front forces.

During the German counterattack at Mortain (7th to 10th August) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed to have destroyed 140 and 112 tanks, respectively
It turns out that only 177 German tanks and assault guns participated in the attack, which is 75 less tanks than claimed as destroyed! Of these 177 tanks, 46 were lost and only 9 were lost to aircraft attack

Air was crucial but Tank busters where not as effective as is thought.

StevenCarleton · Post by **StevenCarleton** » Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:58 pm

Yes, but after the war the USAF did a complete study of its tactical and strategic bombing campaigns. They actually went out and counted the destroyed targets and correlated this with the sorties flown and tactics used. I read the study in hard cover at an Air Force library, but I believe its on the web now and has been mentioned in other posts on this forum. As has been stated elsewhere, you can neutralize ARM/MECH units by destroying their soft vehicles and command and control units. So yes, the effectiveness of airpower was exaggerated during the war, but the German Army survivors have themselves admitted that allied tactical airpower was absolutely decisive. Perhaps the biggest effect was that after Normandy, the Germans had limit their attacks to night or bad weather. During daylight when there was flying weather, the Germans would have to break off their attacks and hide their armour.