SC:WiE realistic?

[DemonCore]

ParadogsGamer is running a new axis campaign on Youtube channel. He uses the 635H mod. His campaign shows nicely the problems I have with SC. I don't find his campaign to be very realistic at all. Not criticizing his gameplay, nor necessarily the mod. My main objections regard unit speed and effectiveness in some cases.

PG started Sea Lion in July '41 and Barbarossa in June '42. A year into Sea Lion he still didn't control Scotland or Northern Ireland, all though the British Army was nothing more than a garrison in Belfast. He is doing his level best to encircle and attack at every opportunity on the eastern front, but it's 1943 and he is still two hexes from Smolensk, more than a year after launching Barbarossa. He is decidedly ahead in technology levels. There is no Blitzkrieg whatsoever in his campaign.

Also, the subs and surface ships move all of about 2-300 km in two weeks. That seems unrealistic. It takes forever to cycle my subs in the North Atlantic, with 8 subs I cannot interdict all convoy lanes at the same time, because they move at crawl speed, lest I want to risk them getting detected and deleted when the AI moves half their fleet in the adjacent hexes, killing my sub with BBs and CCs. In reality a sub would be on station within about 5 days in the North Atlantic, if they travelled from Brittany. Also, compared to BBs or cruisers, subs are extremely weak. I guess a sub unit in the game isn't meant to represent an actual single sub, i.e. U-47, but a flotilla like, say, the 1st U-Bootsflottille. In that case the sub units are way underpowered and evaporate too quickly when in contact with the enemy, and they should move faster and be more effective against convoys and surface ships except DDs. BBs have wrecked my level 3 subs, despite being poorly equipped in reality to ever do so.

Other points of contention: How hard it is to knock down the Malta garrison, even when I have naval and air superiority in the Mediterranean, that it takes easily half a year or more to move a unit from Central Europe to the eastern front without operating it. In reality divisions were redeployed from the SU to Italy and vice versa in matter of weeks, not months.

Am I missing something?

[nnason]

Demon,
There are specific strategies that work for the axis that help in all of your cases above.
1. Subs need to be equal or above the Allies tech level. And they should not be alone. And they can't get out of supply once out of supply they are toast. Also need to move around staying in one spot they will get spotted. There are other helpful strategies you learn with play.
2. One of the reasons the Germans lost in WWII was they tried to do to much in three different fronts in Barbarossa and do Afrika. Same is true in SCIII. Axis can do 2 not 4 and trying to do 5 if you count Sealion is well not going to work. I usually do 2 fronts with a third weakly and a 4th hardly at all. Real progress is made in 41 and the USSR can't catch up. 42/43 are mostly a grind with Axis winning. In 44/45 lots of encirclements.
3. In basic game Malta takes a boatload of air and sea to kill and takes three to 4 clear weather turns. IN Fall Weiss much harder.

Hope this helps.

[DemonCore]

I appreciate the reply. I understand there are specific in-game strategies to avoid some of the problems I described. However, I think units move too slowly, specifically on land when unopposed or when transferring to/from areas of operation through friendly territory. It shouldn't take months to move a corps from Italy to the Crimea. It shouldn't take months for a corps to conquer the hexes of Scotland from Glasgow without organized military opposition and while attached to a headquarter, i.e. while well supplied. It shouldn't take a month or more for a submarine flotilla to become operational in the Atlantic.

The naval combat is particularly puzzling. BB type units behave like SAGs (i.e. can handily attack and damage submarines), yet submarines are of a strength and endurance of a single sub, and even worse when we look at speed. Are they supposed to be individual subs? Then I would need a lot more and they should be cheaper to build. Or should they represent flotillas? Then I shouldn't lose 80% of one when running into one DD unit that calls for other units in 39 or 40.

I don't see how there is a cap to the number of 'fronts', it doesn't say anything about such a cap in the manual, nor did I say that Paradogsgamer did Sea Lion and Barbarossa at the same time (which, counting Africa as well, would bring that number only up to 3 anyway). He didn't. He destroyed the British Army between Liverpool and Glasgow and only then moved his troops to the east. He left a corps in Glasgow to conquer the largely undefended remainder of the British isles, which took him almost as much time as the first part of Sea Lion (landing and mopping up the British forces). He launched Barbarossa well after the fighting in the British isles was over, yet within the year that followed he barely managed to cover half of the distance to Moscow. Historically German troops stood 40 Km from Moscow 3 Months after the launch of Barbarossa. He has been on the offensive without interruption since he started in the east and in the beginning was three levels of technology ahead and then 2, yet his progress distance wise is only 50% in 400% of the time compared to history. I find this discrepancy a bit large. The pockets the German army created in the summer of 41 did not take months to dissolve. The battle would a take week or maybe two and then pocketed troops surrendered. Letsplayers on Youtube and myself usually spend easily 4-5 turns (2-6 months in in-game time) closing a pocket of 5-10 corps. The dynamic of early war blitzkrieg tactics isn't modeled convincingly in my opinion.

Another problem I noticed is that the AI is often very passive. It's basically just eating meticulously through a gazillion red army corps that sit still for the most part. They hardly counter attack and when they do, they usually do so across a river and from one hex only. I usually attack units that are exposed on two, preferably three sides. I don't remember the AI doing that ever. I wish the AI would react to the threat of encirclements by attacking the pincers or withdrawing or a combination. The passive AI problem applies to North Africa as well.

I think most of these problems could be fixed by adjusting the effects of supply or lack thereof and the presence or absence of enemy troops. More credible movement speeds/costs and a clearer understanding of what exactly different types of units represent would also help. As a programmer myself I know it's hard to create a 'smart' AI in any game, so I don't expect PBEM like opposition, but hopefully some improvements can be made in future updates. Bringing some of the aggression and dedication of the naval AI to the land might be a starting point.

[KorutZelva]

If you click on a sea unit twice, you get cruise speed. Cost a supply unit but you cover a lot of ground. Can only do it if supply is 5 or higher.

[Taxman66]

I have yet to see a Youtube Lets Play of this game by someone who is completely aware of all the mechanics. Paradog is better than the others I've seen, but is included.

I'm not aware of all the changes the mod he is using makes, but in the base game land units (except HQ) are allowed a 'Force March' move which gives them extended movement at the cost of some Morale and Readiness. That allows for the non combat East to West and then back East movement the German army needs to do. Naval units are allowed a 'Naval Cruise' function which drastically increases their movement, but doesn't provide search information. Useful for Transports/Long Range Amphibs if you know the path is safe.

Note the mod he is using drastically changes the naval game.
In either case (base or mod) the ships are mostly abstracts as they do not represent 1:1 real ships. The naval system in this game is the most abstracted/unrealistic of all the systems. So take that as you may.

You are taking nnason's comments about 'fronts' too literally. Basically he is just trying to say that you have to make choices as Germany and can't do everything all at once.
As for your complaints about his progress, all I can say is that he has played less than optimally.

As for 1942 Barbarossa, if you pass on attacking Russia in the Spring/Summer of 1941, you are asking for a much, much stronger Russia. In his Lets Play he let Russia declare war on Germany. In the base game that would deprive Germany of the ability to go after numerous high value units when they are very vulnerable. I presume but am not 100% sure that is also true for the Mod. In both cases it allows the Soviets to build up additional forces and continue improving Tech and defenses when the weather turns good in 1942. This is not like many other WW2 games, the Soviets will almost certainly declare war sometime in the fall to winter of 1941 unless the Axis makes a huge $$$ diplo investment against Russia which will only delay them (and even then the Allies can partially counter it as well).

[sPzAbt653]

I have yet to see a Youtube Lets Play of this game by someone who is completely aware of all the mechanics.

I was interested in watching the ParaDogs series, but have to agree that he is not an optimal player. I don't think it is fair to criticize any player, especially one that takes the time to produce helpful videos while not faulting a mod or the game for any perceived difficulties. I have watched the first eleven videos but lost interest as I was frustrated with the game play. Hopefully this guy doesn't see my comments here because I respect what he is doing [and has been doing since the beginning of SC3] and don't in any way mean to hurt his confidence. But if he does see this, please sir read about 'prepared attacks' in the manual, and never let your Luftwaffe sit idle turn after turn [there is so much the LW can do early in the game when it has superiority].

To DemonCore: 653H started out as a mod to provide Historical OOB's only, however as I was playing it I had some of the same concerns that you have voiced here plus a few others. Therefore I started making changes that involved more than the OOB's. At some point I decided that the 653H version was no longer valid to me, so I renamed its successor as 653N, and then put together a straight-up historical oob mod named 653Hi. Hopefully all of this isn't too confusing. However, the original 653H was caught in the midst of the DLC release timing and the developers felt that it had merit, so it is a part of SC3.
SC3 is not meant to be a strictly historical recreation of WWII. You can see in this forum that there are comments by others that echo some of what you have said plus more. It probably never will be an Historical Recreation, it is more of a Strategic Game along the lines of Avalon Hill's Third Reich, which is great as far as I am concerned.

I really like SC3 and all of the great work that Hubert and Bill have put into it. It is even so much better due to the ability to mod it and the support that the developers give to such modding. There are other games out there that provide [or attempt to provide] historical accuracy, but for those of us that do not need all of the complexity that those games involve, I am very thankful for SC3.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I really like SC3 and all of the great work that Hubert and Bill have put into it. It is even so much better due to the ability to mod it and the support that the developers give to such modding. There are other games out there that provide [or attempt to provide] historical accuracy, but for those of us that do not need all of the complexity that those games involve, I am very thankful for SC3.

SC3 is plenty complex enough for me, I don't want WITE-levels of complexity for a grand strategy game

[Leadwieght]

I have to agree with OG. I find SC3 has just about the right level of complexity for me. I really don't went a "click-fest." where it takes you half an hour just to set things up for one minor operation. But "de gustibus non disputendum est."

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

If you click on a sea unit twice, you get cruise speed. Cost a supply unit but you cover a lot of ground. Can only do it if supply is 5 or higher.

Yes, I'm aware, but apart from a few tons of diesel it didn't actually cost much in terms of industrial resources to move subs to their AO within a few days.

[KorutZelva]

ORIGINAL: DemonCore

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

If you click on a sea unit twice, you get cruise speed. Cost a supply unit but you cover a lot of ground. Can only do it if supply is 5 or higher.

Yes, I'm aware, but apart from a few tons of diesel it didn't actually cost much in terms of industrial resources to move subs to their AO within a few days.

Industrial resource? Cruise speed doesn't cost Mpp. The unit supply is just a factor regarding fighting readiness (and restrict movement if it falls too low).

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

I have yet to see a Youtube Lets Play of this game by someone who is completely aware of all the mechanics. Paradog is better than the others I've seen, but is included.

True, but who is completely aware of all mechanics and creates watchable content? I didn't cite PG because of his competence, but because everybody can go and look at what I am talking about. Besides, I think he has about 80% of the mechanics down, so his LP is still relevant to the overall discussion.

I'm not aware of all the changes the mod he is using makes, but in the base game land units (except HQ) are allowed a 'Force March' move which gives them extended movement at the cost of some Morale and Readiness. That allows for the non combat East to West and then back East movement the German army needs to do. Naval units are allowed a 'Naval Cruise' function which drastically increases their movement, but doesn't provide search information. Useful for Transports/Long Range Amphibs if you know the path is safe.

Even with forced march I think the movements are a bit too slow.

You are taking nnason's comments about 'fronts' too literally. Basically he is just trying to say that you have to make choices as Germany and can't do everything all at once.

I understand that, and so does PG. Like I said, he wasn't doing Barbarossa and Sea Lion at the same time.

As for your complaints about his progress, all I can say is that he has played less than optimally.

Agreed, but 50% of the distance in 400% of the time while being on the offensive all the time and 2-3 tech levels ahead? That would mean he played at about an eighth of the historical efficiency. I find it hard to believe that this is all due to his lack of understanding of the game mechanics. I feel that some of the game mechanics make it impossible to advance faster. Namely the clearing of encirclements is a lot more time consuming than it was in history. That doesn't mean, in my opinion, that the game has to run along historical rails and not allow for strategic and deviating decisions on the part of the player. In the game clearing a pocket means slaughtering every last man of the troops in the pocket. In reality Soviet (and later many German) commanders would eventually order a cease fire and surrender. For instance conquering the Kurland with Riga alone takes about a year at near-optimal play. That contrasts starkly with historical Blitzkrieg advances.

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva
Industrial resource? Cruise speed doesn't cost Mpp. The unit supply is just a factor regarding fighting readiness (and restrict movement if it falls too low).

You are right. I mixed it up with operating a land unit. The main point remains though. Type VII boats, the smaller of the two important German submarine types had enough fuel to cross the Atlantic several times at cruise speed (about 8 knots) and were not impeded at spotting convoys or attacking by doing so, other than being in the area where there was actually something to spot or attack. The whole notion of hunting vs silent seems questionable, all though I understand what might have been the idea behind it. However, I feel this mechanic can't work with the two-week turns. A submarine patrol would last roughly around 30-40 days, which would be 1-6 turns in-game depending on the season, but a boat would not be in the same state, say, silent running, for the whole duration of two weeks.

Is the likelihood of being spotted when cruising affected one way or another in the game? It didn't feel so to me, but I might be mistaken.

[ivanov]

Regarding the speed - I've managed to advance on all the fronts and reach Moscow and Leningrad by the beginning of October 1941, which also doesn't seem too realistic either.





As to other points regarding the realism. If you're looking for a hard core realistic simulation, it's just not that game. How could it be without the stacking and unit attachment? Having said this, SC strikes a perfect balance between the realism and complexity, making it one of the most playable, grand strategy games ever. From my experience WitE is manageable up to army group level. Beyond that it's just extremely tedious.

[ivanov]

Ps. What do you mean saying that encirclements are not possible? [;)]

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
To DemonCore: 653H started out as a mod to provide Historical OOB's only, however as I was playing it I had some of the same concerns that you have voiced here plus a few others. Therefore I started making changes that involved more than the OOB's. At some point I decided that the 653H version was no longer valid to me, so I renamed its successor as 653N, and then put together a straight-up historical oob mod named 653Hi. Hopefully all of this isn't too confusing. However, the original 653H was caught in the midst of the DLC release timing and the developers felt that it had merit, so it is a part of SC3.
SC3 is not meant to be a strictly historical recreation of WWII. You can see in this forum that there are comments by others that echo some of what you have said plus more. It probably never will be an Historical Recreation, it is more of a Strategic Game along the lines of Avalon Hill's Third Reich, which is great as far as I am concerned.

Thank you for the background information on these mods and the work you put into them. I appreciate modders and their work as much as any other player of complex and interesting games. I hope my post isn't read as a criticism of you or even the developers of SC3. I merely meant to point out some of the game play situations that could be improved to make the game a bit more realistic.

I really like SC3 and all of the great work that Hubert and Bill have put into it. It is even so much better due to the ability to mod it and the support that the developers give to such modding. There are other games out there that provide [or attempt to provide] historical accuracy, but for those of us that do not need all of the complexity that those games involve, I am very thankful for SC3.

I want to join you in this appreciation. I particularly agree with your point on the close interaction of the developers with the community and the built-in modding facility. Further I agree that simplicity does have its merits and it is obvious that some short cuts have to be taken. Hopefully some of the criticism of the game play can be taken into account for future developments without sacrificing any of the many benefits of the game as is.

[Icier]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I really like SC3 and all of the great work that Hubert and Bill have put into it. It is even so much better due to the ability to mod it and the support that the developers give to such modding. There are other games out there that provide [or attempt to provide] historical accuracy, but for those of us that do not need all of the complexity that those games involve, I am very thankful for SC3.

I have to agree...I find that if I am getting bored, I like to do "what ifs"....a very interesting one is having France declare war on Italy & invading it. Anyway there
is enough variety with the menues to create all sort of suitations.

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: ivanov
Ps. What do you mean saying that encirclements are not possible? [;)]

That's not what I said.

The pockets the German army created in the summer of 41 did not take months to dissolve. The battle would a take week or maybe two and then pocketed troops surrendered. Letsplayers on Youtube and myself usually spend easily 4-5 turns (2-6 months in in-game time) closing a pocket of 5-10 corps.

I might have been unclear by using the expression 'closing the pocket'. I meant that they take a lot more time to dissolve than they did in reality.

[DemonCore]

ORIGINAL: ivanov

Regarding the speed - I've managed to advance on all the fronts and reach Moscow and Leningrad by the beginning of October 1941, which also doesn't seem too realistic either.

Oh I agree it is possible, all though not very prudent. Like in reality. However I am fairly certain you left large amounts of troops unattacked behind you? The German troops in the outskirts of Moscow didn't have army groups in their backs to threaten them.

As to other points regarding the realism. If you're looking for a hard core realistic simulation, it's just not that game. How could it be without the stacking and unit attachment? Having said this, SC strikes a perfect balance between the realism and complexity, making it one of the most playable, grand strategy games ever. From my experience WitE is manageable up to army group level. Beyond that it's just extremely tedious.

I generally agree with you. I am not familiar with WitE, I saw another post up top mentioning it as well. I will have to look at it.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: DemonCore

Oh I agree it is possible, all though not very prudent. Like in reality. However I am fairly certain you left large amounts of troops unattacked behind you? The German troops in the outskirts of Moscow didn't have army groups in their backs to threaten them.

Not really, there were only some cut off Soviet units in Estonia and one army in Polotsk. But since they were cut off from the supply sources, I was cutting them to pieces with my second echelon corps.

ORIGINAL: DemonCore

I might have been unclear by using the expression 'closing the pocket'. I meant that they take a lot more time to dissolve than they did in reality.

You can destroy the pocket in one turn if you employ your armour. The tank units have two strikes, so they make quick work of the weakened enemies cut off from the supply. I preferred to cordon off the pocket with my second echelon and move the panzers east as fast as possible.

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting discussion and the only point I wanted to add some thoughts to were naval unit distances per turn. We could certainly have more realistic naval unit distances per turn, however, in game terms I suspect once this was in place most would find it a bit less than desirable. Reason being is that it would likely have a negative effect on the cat and mouse aspect/strategy of the naval game if naval units could essentially warp into combat from all over the map as soon as an enemy naval unit is discovered.

This is the reason I believe one of the mods actually lowered the movement distances from the defaults since in this release naval units can now move much further than in the past (in an attempt to bridge the divide on this issue) and with the ability to use Naval Cruise, even more so.

Hope this helps,
Hubert