Having failed offensives as viable tactics.

RogerCooper

@general_zod Germany did not have a "high tech" military. The army that invaded the Soviet Union had more horses than trucks. The quality of equipment was roughly similar. What the Germans had was an integrated operational doctrine and surprise. And the Soviets had purged their officer corps.

The unsuccessful Soviet offensives were unsuccessful. They diverted some German resources but the Soviets would have been in better shape had they kept the resources on defense.

A good resource on the question is "Why The Allies Won" by Richard Overy.

Schulz

Also the difference is they couldn't estimate whatever their offensives would be successfull or not whereas in here a calculator just say how things could go.

General_Zod

@rogercooper You are correct, the German Wehrmacht did utitlize large amounts of horses. As they should have, its simply pragmatic. I wasn't suggesting that because Germanys military was high tech by comparison to the rest of the worlds military. That they will have a armored vehicle for every soldier and also providing a tow to thousands of artillery pieces.

I was trying to make a point. The Germans were technically advanced and their industry was certainly producing advanced weapons by comparison to other world powers at that time.

SilverBullet

@general_zod also, germany had like 2 dozen different trucks, so parts was a big problem.

RogerCooper

@general_zod German weapons were not more advanced. Every power had its strengths & weaknesses but there was no German weapon system that was clearly superior. In fact, the Russian KV1 was a generally superior to PzKW IV.

Schulz

The reasons of German successes in the first year of Barbarossa were combinations of superior German command, having more experienced army, outnumbering the Soviets in initial phases, surprise factor, Soviet military blunders and German total air superiority rather than technologic advantages.

General_Zod

@rogercooper I suppose the that the term "high tech" can be very subjective and even be loaded depending on the context. So let agree to disagree based on that alone.

But in my opinion Germany was more advanced in many fields. But definitely not all fields, of course. I think aircraft, rockets, submarines and tanks were considered very sophisticated technological edges, early and throughout, but production was an issue for varying reasons.

General_Zod

@schulz Definitely valid factors.

General_Zod

A thinktank thread to discuss what type of factors are considered key to developing new mechanics (viable with current TripleA limitations) for a small scale ww2 map specifically, would be cool.

Varying opinions seem necessary to develop fresh proposals and concepts.

RogerCooper

@general_zod said in Having failed offensives as viable tactics.:

@rogercooper I suppose the that the term "high tech" can be very subjective and even be loaded depending on the context. So let agree to disagree based on that alone.

But in my opinion Germany was more advanced in many fields. But definitely not all fields, of course. I think aircraft, rockets, submarines and tanks were considered very sophisticated technological edges, early and throughout, but production was an issue for varying reasons.

Submarines were the only place were the Germans had a real technical edge. Their aircraft and tanks were not superior to those of the Allies. Rockets without nuclear weapons were not very effective. The B-29 carried 9 x the payload of the V-2 and was reusable.

Schulz

I could renew the question;

How to make losing a battle less bad? How to make worth to conduct attacks with less than 50% success?

TheDog

@schulz
It probably been mentioned before, but just conduct 1 round of combat.

For a human player its a viable tactic to cause attrition, while you are collecting your forces for an assault.

Schulz

@thedog It would be hard for me to get into 1 round of combat after always being played with unlimited round of combat.

TheDog

@schulz
I have my games set at 3 rounds of combat, sometimes its a inconclusive and is a draw, personally I think this is reasonable and could be viewed as "realistic".

Try it and see what you think, it can add another dimension to game play.

Schulz

@thedog Yes, I could even do with 1 rounds combat maybe just need to accustomeed to it.

butterw

I use 3 rounds for land, 2 rounds for sea battles, and 1 round for air battles, much better than unlimited rounds.

One thing I would like to see is ability to retreat Air units after 1 round of air battle. It's currently impossible to get rid of opposing aircraft, if it is protected by ground forces.
another option I would like to have, is semi-random casualty selection (you don't get to choose your casualties).

TheDog

@schulz
Personally I think WW1, could/should be 1 to 3 rounds of combat, it did not have many decisive battles as they tended to be ones of attrition.

However 1 round might not give an enjoyable game, so your choice.

ebbe

@butterw about: semi-random casualty selection (you don't get to choose your casualties).

yes I agree fully to that: I tried to fix that in my Oil& Snow project with a workaround by giving some units an AA-roll before battle witch specific high valuable targets only ....
works fine, also psychologically..

Schulz

I really dislike having air units almost undestroyable if frontline isn't small enough because nations become are totally hopeless to eliminate enemy air units.

Placing aaGun to every frontline is useless, random casualty section would be great to eliminate this issue.

ebbe

@schulz this is on top of the actual battle...
so an attacking fighter can be shot down before even getting in striking range of an enemy battleship and pull the trigger....
so it makes air-units bit more vulnerable when going after
big sea prey like cruisers and battleships