Realistic WWII Scenario

RogerCooper

@schulz We should think about the reasons while historically the United States pursued a 2 ocean strategy.

The Japanese had attacked the US, making a military response necessary.
In December 1941, the US had the world's largest navy, but a relatively small & untrained army
As long as proper bases exist, large bodies of water can be crossed quickly. Freighters cross the Pacific in 3 weeks. It can be much harder to cross land, especially if the transportation system is weak or damaged.
The limiting factor in offensives by sea tends to be the enemy, rather than distance. It wasn't until 1944 the US had build up an army capable of taking on the Wehrmacht.
The difficulty of conducting large-scale amphibious invasions encouraged the US to make major investments in air power.

In game terms I would suggest

Naval units getting big boosts from naval bases
A starting setup with the Americans at near parity to the Japanese in the Pacific (and substantial forces in the Atlantic).
Fast transports, but limited in how many can be built each turn.
Penalties for amphibious landings for land units in combat, so air power is the key to victory.
Bombable logistics centers with factories, giving movement bonuses on land.

andrewthree

@rogercooper I think political factors drove the intense US interest in the Pacific. What I mean by that is that it was attitudes among the American people at large, rather than strictly military or strategic factors.

By the 1930s there was considerable disillusionment in the US about our involvement in WW1 in Europe since it did not seem to have made the world "safe for democracy". We should have listened to George Washington and stayed out of foreign entanglements. Of course some disagreed and said we should help the UK. But for every American who wanted to help UK there was an American who felt, especially after the fall of France, that German domination of Europe was a fact that we might as well get used to.

We had felt a kind of paternalistic sympathy for China since the 1800s when we patted ourselves on the back that we were not like the diabolical European empires who were trying to colonize China. Historically Americans have tended to focus on things which make us different from, and we believe, superior to, Europe from which we escaped to create a new and better society. When Japan began attacking China in the 1920s and 30s our focus turned to Japan. We strongly confronted Japanese expansionism with the relocation of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor and with the oil embargo in 1941 which instantly eliminated 80% of Japan's oil imports upon which it totally relied.

So in Europe we wanted to have as little to do with it as possible and anything FDR tried to do in that area was very controversial. But in the Pacific we had great interest in everything that was going on and were quick to take strong actions to counter Japanese expansionism. Japan struck first, as FDR hoped, and then Germany declared war. My personal theory is that Hitler wanted to, by reinforcing the Tripartite Pact, encourage Japan to fight harder and longer and not make peace very soon, thus diverting US attention to the Pacific. But Churchill convinced FDR to put Germany first, for all the sound strategic reasons that every TripleA player knows, and everyone including Hitler underestimated the potential of the American war machine.

But for the political reasons noted above we still made a major effort in the Pacific.

In game terms I think there needs to be a political approach to diverting at least some US effort to the Pacific. Probably the best way to do this is with national objectives. I have been toying with using a negative NO - negative PUs on US if US forces move into the eastern Atlantic or into Europe. This would delay the Americans from going to Europe or perhaps, for the more enterprising Allied player, prompt them to adopt an entirely Pacific strategy. Historically this was a possiblity, at least intially, if Hitler had not declared war.

Schulz

@rogercooper

I think the issue is double sided. For example why would Japan try to extend its defensive zone towards the Middle Pacific rather than rushing India or defeating China which are closer and more valuable targets. When Japan ignores Pacific, there is no reason to advance in here as US too because of the same issue. Even longer distances than Atlantic with less valuable targets compared to Northwestern Europe.
While faster naval units would be great in the Oceans but it would make extremely hard for Germany and Italy to protect their coastlines. For example even with only 4 movement, An Allies transport in Gibraltar can threaten everything from South France to Athens.
Instead of Amphibios penalty (which would make harder things to calculate), I could make transports more expensive or having cheaper devensive units.
To make fighting on the Pacific Islands worth, I think these islands should definitely boost all units stats especially defensively (more realistic than overvaluing).

BWT when I try to grab territories with "Polygon Grabber" it gives memory issue due to excessive size, it becomes like 22000 pixel wide if turns into a World Map.

andrewthree

@schulz unlike US, Japanese army was large and well trained. But the great majority of the 50 or so divisions were in China making slow progress against the Chinese. The army was extremely stingy about releasing forces for operations anywhere else. Triplea usually depicts the Japanese flooding Asia with troops and understates the degree to which China tied down the Japanese. And by 1941 the Japanese army wanted nothing to do with Russia.

Japan was not in a position to win on its own, it was effectively contained and was tying down Allied forces. Similar to what Italy/Africa Korps did on a smaller scale in the Med. So it is possible to have a realistic game that focuses on Europe. The decisive theaters in the War were western ussr and the Atlantic. If Germany could overcome Russia and delay the Anglo American counter offensive, the war would enter a phase where the Axis would have a reasonable chance to win.

Schulz

@andrewthree Actually it is possible to prevent Japan stemrolling all China without making China unrealistically strong. Just giving China very cheap devensive units would solve the issue. The problem is impossibility of properly representing the Pacific front.

Schulz

I am still not sure if it is better to extend the map towards Arctic.

In this case there will be 4 Axis nations (Germany, Italy, Romania and Finland). I definitely feel the necessarity to add Romania.

But how to represent Finnish political situation? Should their movement be restricted to certain areas like China in v3?

4.th allies nation could be either France or Canada.

Cernel

@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:

In this case there will be 4 Axis nations (Germany, Italy, Romania and Finland). I definitely feel the necessarity to add Romania.

What kind of Roumania? I very much dislike the so-called Romania which is actually a conglomerate of Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria, like in "New Wold Order". If Roumania is (only) Roumania, then I guess you should have at least Hungary too, but Bulgaria is maybe even more sensible to have as its own nation, since it was a special case of a Tripartite country which was not at war with the Soviet Union (and should have Chinese-like movement limitations of its forces).

Cernel

@schulz Also remember than, back then, Romania was called either Roumania or Rumania unless you were writing in ancient Latin. I believe this is a very common misspelling amongst TripleA games, but I'm not entirely sure Romania was not an English spelling in use at the time.

Schulz

@cernel I am planning to add "Rumania" which will control Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia and anything that they annexed in the war. Here are the reasons why Rumania is not part of Germany or there will be no separate Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.

To make it more multi friendly.
Germany would unhistorically easily dominate Black sea if Rumania is part of Germany.
Two ally nations fighting on the same front is more interesting rather than two country fighting on a giant frontline.
Bulgaria could have declared war on the Soviets.
If Rumania was part of Germany, then Germany unhistorically could use all Rumanian resources for other fronts.
Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania would be too weak as separate nations and they would slow down games.

Cernel

@schulz Hungary and Rumania are like the very least countries which can be represented as a single power unless they are both part of Germany: Hungarians and Rumanians hated each other so much I doubt it would be even realistic for any one of them to stay or move through the territory of the other one! Besides, such a weird power should be at least called something like "Rumania-Hungary-Bulgaria", instead of just "Rumania".

Schulz

@cernel Germany was the one who is responsible of Romanian territorial loses during WWII. If Rumanians can fight alongside with the Germans, sure they could fight alongside with Hungarians. I see no reason why wouldn't they exist as a single country. Ideally I would prefer having Finland as 3.rd Axis but its political situation is harder to represent.

Schulz

Is is possible for a nation playing two times in a round? For example;

If Germany can play twice in a round, it would be very interesting assymetical advantage to counter Allies income advantage.

Cernel

@schulz I don't like the idea. Regardless, the step name must be different every time: change the "Germany" part in the name to something else in every second instance.

Schulz

@cernel Axis needs some assymetric advantages to offet Allies income advantage.

andrewthree

@schulz I have tried to create some kind of double movement for Germany and US but have not been able to get the details of it to my satisfaction. You can have two combat movement and combat phases. But strange things happen with ground movement and air units can attack twice which may not be desirable. You can also have something like "German Air", a player that just controls air units and goes before Germany and punches holes for armor to exploit. But how do you give it more income, or transfer air units between players? And I guess you could just let the Germans move twice per turn but then they are also collecting income twice.

Schulz

@andrewthree I was thinking alternative solutions to reflect reality and giving Axis the higest chance to win.

We could assume that Germany is going total war economy after December 1941, Finland attacks Murmansk railways and Leningrad, Bulgaria declares war on the Soviets, Japan wins battle of Midway hence draws more US resources into Pacific I don't think they would make the game more unrealistic since they are all plausible things. Even if I can totally reflect the reality of spring 1942, I still have no obligation to execute -let's say- Fall Blau just because it happened in reality. I think it should also cover "what could have been happened?"

To give Germany more initiative on the Eastern front, probably I would make German fighters way cheaper than the Soviet ones to reflect German air supremacy until late 1942.

@Cernel actually downgrading real naval movements is a realistic aspect to offset the lack of railroads.

RogerCooper

@andrewthree Using air power to punch holes is not realistic. Air power weakens the defender, rather than destroying the defender. Given the scale of the game, it makes more sense of air superiority giving advantage, as in the AA1914 game.

Schulz

Any suggestion to rename any of the Soviet cities?

Cernel

@schulz said in Realistic WWII Scenario:

Any suggestion to rename any of the Soviet cities?

I see several things which I believe are wrong.

However, I especially keep seeing a thing that I've already pointed out, yet it is still there.

I assume that the territory called Rzhev is representing the Rzhev - Vyazma salient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Büffel#/media/File:Rschew_Operation_Bueffelbewegung.jpg

As I've already said, latitude-wise, Rzhev is well north of Moscow and Vyazma is about as much south of Moscow as Rzhev is north of it. Thence, the Rzhev territory should be about perfectly vertically aligned with the Moscow territory.

Instead, again, you are having the Moscow territory consistently on a latitude northwards of Rzhev.

This misplacement of the salient is not a trivial matter.

For example, here it is the shortest air path from Berlin to Moscow and also the shortest paths by going through Rzhev and Vyazma respectively:

As you can see, the shortest path from Berlin to Moscow passes between Rzhev and Vyazma: if you want to go from Berlin to Moscow without moving through the Rzhev - Vyazma salient you are making your path so much longer that, on a map of this scope, it would be substantially like moving through one more zone.

Instead, in your drawing, going from Berlin to Moscow through Rzhev - Vyazma (which ought to be THE shortest path) is not even one of the shortest paths!

Starting from the named territories, one of the shortest paths from Berlin to Moscow is currently Bialystok - Baranovichi - Pskov - Demyansk - Kalinin - Moscow.

This is that path for real:

How on earth can this thing be one of the shortest paths from Berlin to Moscow and even shorter than every path going through Rzhev or Vyazma?

The shortest path from Berlin to Moscow is actually 1,610 km, while this tortuous path of yours is a total of 2,022 km and, in your drawing, is even 1 move faster than any path going through the Rzhev - Vyazma salient! Since you got a path which is over 400 km longer than the shortest one in a map where the average territory appears to be about 200 km wide and in which the real world shortest one is one territory longer than the shortest one in the map (actually being over 400 km longer for real), you are off by a total of 3 zones (or about 600 km) on your shortest path compared to what the shortest path should be!

Schulz

@cernel Good catch, I haven't pay attention to this weird and shortest route between Berlin and Moscow. But I am unable to redraw these territories properly because every new drawing disrupts the others. I am more interested in keeping disances realistic as much as possible rather than scaling Rzhev more correctly. Actually merging Rzhev and Demyansk seems solves the issue.