WW2 Europe scenario - Atom Bomb needed?

[techumseh]

According to the British, the Americans were "overpaid, over sexed, and over here". According to the Americans, the British were "underpaid, under sexed, and under Eisenhower".

So they were pretty integrated.

[GhostOfDisco]

Originally posted by curtsibling
I'd like to make the tech race logical, and find a nice balance between researching the
cooler units that make an impact, and not having Arado-234 jets zooming around in 1941.

One way to prevent exploits is to have no trade unit...It keeps the research stable and
also stops the AI building loads of useless frieghts when the Panzers are at the gates! (that ryhmes!)

I hope to reach a happy medium, with various (evolving) tech names that reflect the proper feel.

No advanced stuff, but if the player manages to research (for instance) a Me-262 in 1941, then it
will be hideously expensive, and might even be weaker than expected, or short ranged, reflecting
the unreliable nature of jet-tech in 1941. But as time wears on (and new files are loaded) the
jets might get cheaper and more effective, as the problems are ironed out!

Just an idea at this stage...!

I know what you mean. One of the joys of playing a WWII scenario (besides getting the Anglo-Americans farther east than they did historically, and thus keeping that much more of Europe safe from Soviet oppression! ), is giving the allies better tanks than Shermans by the time the Nazis counter with their Panthers and Tigers.

Reading your post again, I really like that idea. Especially with the additional number of unit slots ToT has, and the confinement of the scenario to the European [and North African?] theater of operations...

As for the nuke, I'd say don't use up another unit slot on it unless you absolutely have to/want to...

[Blue Lion]

This is a very interesting debate. So it wasn´t spoken directly, I hope this scenario is for ToT (as it is based on Dictator), what is very good in my eyes.

Is there still a list about the units included in this scenario -and if yes, what units are included?

What is the starting date for that scenario?

[techumseh]

I think there is often too much emphasis on specific weapons and equipment in determining unit strengths in strategic level scenarios. It's a lot more than a specific tank which determines the overall power of an armored unit at brigade, division or corps level. How the unit is organized, the balance between tanks, infantry, artillery and support units within the unit, leadership, training, replacements and logistical support all factor into the overall effectiveness of a unit.

Early German panzer divisions were superior to their French counterparts, despite the inferiority of their Pz I & II tanks, because of better organization, training and tactics. Italian infantry divisions were lavishly equiped with heavy weapons, yet performed poorly against their British opponents in the desert due to poor training and morale. And from 1944 on, British and American armored divisions were equal to German Panzer divisions, despite being equiped with inferior tanks.

Effective armored units usually contained more infantry than tanks, plus mobile artillery, engineers, flak and so on. The standard German Panzer division contained one battalion or regiment of tanks, two regiments of motorized infantry and a regiment of self-propelled or motorized artillery, plus supporting units. It's combat power did not depend predominately on the type of tank in service, although that was a factor.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by AGRICOLA
Doesn't the term 'Western Allies' imply Britain & U.S. or do you intend that they be separate civs? I have some concerns about the practicality of 2 civs in view of the way units of the two nations were intermingled throughout the ETO.

With multiple rules files, you could make uniquely U.S. units unbuilable before Pearl Harbor.

Yup!

The US and UK are combined, on a Euro map this is the best way to handle it.

And before mid-1942 (the scen starts in June 1941) there is only Commonwealth units on the allied side.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by techumseh
I think there is often too much emphasis on specific weapons and equipment in determining unit strengths in strategic level scenarios. It's a lot more than a specific tank which determines the overall power of an armored unit at brigade, division or corps level. How the unit is organized, the balance between tanks, infantry, artillery and support units within the unit, leadership, training, replacements and logistical support all factor into the overall effectiveness of a unit.

Early German panzer divisions were superior to their French counterparts, despite the inferiority of their Pz I & II tanks, because of better organization, training and tactics. Italian infantry divisions were lavishly equiped with heavy weapons, yet performed poorly against their British opponents in the desert due to poor training and morale. And from 1944 on, British and American armored divisions were equal to German Panzer divisions, despite being equiped with inferior tanks.

Effective armored units usually contained more infantry than tanks, plus mobile artillery, engineers, flak and so on. The standard German Panzer division contained one battalion or regiment of tanks, two regiments of motorized infantry and a regiment of self-propelled or motorized artillery, plus supporting units. It's combat power did not depend predominately on the type of tank in service, although that was a factor.

Extremely valid point and food for thought!


This time I will avoid merely making the presence of an SS unit or big tank a key to easy victories.

There is much more emphasis on artillery and assault guns this time, give the many different unit slots that
become available as the files change, etc. I also will make tanks vulnerable to infantry, as they were in WW2.

This thread is helping my thought process for this scenario!

PS
It will be a ToT Dictator epic, but with many improvements.

[Case]

Originally posted by techumseh


Congratulations, my liege! How did you do that? Are you active on other forums?

Not any more. 90-something percent of my posts on this site since February 2000 have been on this board.

I was actually an emperor before the accidental deletion of a large chunk of this board's old posts a few years ago and it's taken me since then to make up for the 600-odd posts which weren't restored to my post count. So I've gotten to celebrate my promotion twice (and in RL I've just been promoted as well - yay!)

[Case]

Originally posted by techumseh
I think there is often too much emphasis on specific weapons and equipment in determining unit strengths in strategic level scenarios. It's a lot more than a specific tank which determines the overall power of an armored unit at brigade, division or corps level. How the unit is organized, the balance between tanks, infantry, artillery and support units within the unit, leadership, training, replacements and logistical support all factor into the overall effectiveness of a unit.

I agree. The trashing the Sherman-equipped US 4th Armored Division and French 2nd Armored Division handed out to several Panther-equipped German Panzer brigades in late 1944 is a good example of that point. While the Germans had better tanks, the Panzer brigades lacked supporting weapons and were poorly trained and didn't have a hope of success against these good Allied units.

Whatever the problems of their main tank, the US's armored divisions performed supurbly in Europe in 1944-45 and the problems the British armoured divisions faced were due more to war-weariness (7th Armoured) and poor leadership (Guards Armoured) than their equipment (the 11th Armoured had the same equipment and was always one of the best units in the Allied armies).

[McMonkey]

In Fortress Europe I have avoided having different types of tanks. Instead I have gone for three categories of Armour. Medium and Heavy as well as an extra heavy one for the Axis. To represent the different vehicle types I have altered the units gif as the war goes on. However, I have still got separate Artillery, Infantry and AA units.
I realise this is still not a completely satisfactory solution.

Its a tricky one. If you really wanted to go for accuracy you/we should divide units into their historical types:
Infantry Division
Armoured Division
Mountain Division
Panzer-grenadier Division
etc...

Then you could vary them according to their historical attributes. British Infantry units were generally fully motorized, even in 1939/40 while German Infantry divisions mostly relied on horse drawn artillery.

You could make all combat units engineers to represent the Divisions organic engineering units. Divisions that had adequate organic AA cover could be given the 'x2 vs Air' flag and so on.

On the plus side this would allow the representation of specific units and may more accurately represent the strategic battle.

On the minus side it would mean less variety of unit types and less opportunity to use Fairline's superb Mobile Artillery and SP Flak graphics

Of course if you broke the units down to Brigade, Regiment or even Battalion size you could vary them much more. For example, in Fortress Europe the allies will probably need (for example) 50+ ground units to successfully pull off D-Day. The historical landings initially involved about nine infantry and airborne divisions with others following on. In this case Regimental or Brigade size units may be more appropriate.

Also it was rare for an entire Division to be destroyed in one go. Normally it was Battalions that were chewed up.
If this is the case then Battalion size units would make most sense and separate artillery and AA units would work.

Another interesting factor that makes standard unit types difficult is the use of combined arms units, such as the German Kampfgruppe and US Combat Commands, which varied according to the mission or what units were available.

I know this is a bit rambling but I was typing as the thoughts appeared in my head

This is an interesting debate!

[curtsibling]

The more aspects added to the mix the better!
It is all beneficial to scen development!

The multi-file system is most useful too, as it can increase the
effectiveness of Allied/Soviet units with time, and make hell
for the Axis forces, and that means player challenge!

Alternately, the secret weapons can become more effective
with time, and be a real pain in the bum for the Allied army!

[fairline]

Originally posted by Case

Whatever the problems of their main tank, the US's armored divisions performed supurbly in Europe in 1944-45 and the problems the British armoured divisions faced were due more to war-weariness (7th Armoured) and poor leadership (Guards Armoured) than their equipment (the 11th Armoured had the same equipment and was always one of the best units in the Allied armies).

Agreed that 11th Armoured performed best of the three, and it's generally conceded that there was a feeling amongst the 7th Armoured N. Africa veterans that they'd more than done their bit before Normandy, but I'd argue that Guard's Armoured's failures in Op Market Garden were more to do with the near impossible mission of driving up a single causeway in the face of concerted defence by a couple of SS Pz Divs than poor leadership.

It's also difficult to compare the relative performance of the Canadian, British and Polish Armoured Divisions in Normandy with their counterparts in the US and French Divs. The British and Canadians faced the bulk of the available German armour around Caen, and sucked in virtually all that remained after Op Goodwood, leaving the US units a fairly free hand to excecute a left hook without serious opposition.

Congrats on your promotion btw Case

[techumseh]

The strength of air units probably depends more heavily on the latest equipment than armor, but not entirely, I think. Keeping the planes flying was very important, since most of the aircraft in a unit would end up being grounded after a period of action, without proper ground support. Proper bases were key, as well as supply and training. It was impossible to sustain operations for long from temporary forward bases.

[McMonkey]

Originally posted by fairline
I'd argue that Guard's Armoured's failures in Op Market Garden were more to do with the near impossible mission of driving up a single causeway in the face of concerted defence by a couple of SS Pz Divs than poor leadership.

I know this is drifting off subject but it is something that has been puzzling me recently and as two of Apolytons OMG experts have just posted...

I have always got the impression that there was a lack of air support for the latter stages of the OMG campaign. I may be wrong but in the films I have seen and books I have read it just seems lacking.

I thought that by this point in the war the Allied air-forces had virtual air dominance.

If OMG was a chance to end the war in 1944 then I would have thought that every available Allied aircraft would have been concentrated on this effort.

Was this due to poor flying conditions, lack of radio communication with the Paras or Luftwaffe interference?
Was the Elst/Arnhem area just too far out of range for effective allied air support? Was there a lack of airfields to support large numbers of Allied aircraft in the area?

Maybe I have just got the wrong impression and there was plenty of air support and it is not emphasised and it strikes me as strange!

[techumseh]

Allied airforces did not have the air supremacy in 1944 that is generally assumed. They did have over Normandy, because the bulk of the German fighters were held back defending the Reich from Allied bombers (where they were inflicting serious lossed on both British and American bombers).

Allied fighters were used in the first days of Market-Garden to escort transports and provide ground support. After that, they returned to escorting bombers over Germany, leaving the Luftwaffe with local superiority over the northern part of the battlefield, which was in range of airbases in Germany.

[fairline]

sh1tty weather IIRC

EDIT: crosspost. See above for the expert!