Crusade against Bolshevism

davewolf · Post by **davewolf** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:06 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn
Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think?

IMO it's obvious we all like role-playing (What would I have done in General X's position?) and what-if's. For that reasons there's a big need of historical accuracy.
On the other hand i.e. WIR isn't just a simulation but a game too. And both (human) opponents should be able (technically) to win. So one has to find a compromise and everybody will find his own.

Dave

moonfog · Post by **moonfog** » Sat Mar 23, 2002 10:27 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

I think you and the others are right. In WIR the He177 shouldn't show up until Feb '43 to represent the more numerous A5 version. About 3/4 of the He177s produced were the A5 variant. Even this doesn't get us really close to reality, because a large number of those A5 models on the eastern front were fitted with 50mm and 75mm guns and used as tank busters, not level bombers.

The He-177 not showing up before February 1943 would not be a unhistorical change, so far we agree. This change would IMO be a big improvement concerning realism compared with the actual specs of the He-177. The eastern front Griffins were largely used as tank busters not as level bomber, I agree with you. But I think that's another problem. WiR does allow the player to control the tactical use of weapon systems only in a limited manner. Otherwise f.ex. the Ju-88 should also be able to be set on CAP against allied bombers(?).
Probably the He-177 could be set in the tank buster category like the Hs-129, I don't know.

The He177 is a good example of WIR's limitation in aircraft characteristics, since in WIR this is a great bomber whereas in reality it was a horrible failure, and was hated by its crews. Many of its crews called it a "flying coffin". If we had a valid historical alternative, I would actually vote to remove the He177 in place of another aircraft. So are there any bomber type planes in the Luftwaffe, where more than a thousand of them were produced somewhere between '41 to early '44, that aren't represented in WIR?

Perhaps the Ju-188 which Possum has added to his alternative obwir (additional to the He-177). I can think of no other alternative.

One thing I found while looking for info is the following story. Its one of those "would you believe this" stories, and I figure many of you may like to hear this. Have you ever heard of air-to-air combat between bombers?

http://yarchive.net/mil/bomber_duel.html

Imagine how the poor guys in the bomber's rear must have felt during these manoeuvers. Everybody happy who didn't have breakfast:)

Ray

davewolf · Post by **davewolf** » Sun Mar 24, 2002 3:31 am

Originally posted by moonfog
Perhaps the Ju-188 which Possum has added to his alternative obwir (additional to the He-177). I can think of no other alternative.

If we're talking about adding the Ju-188 I'd agree. But in order to replace the He-177 there's no alternative IMO. And removing the He-177 without providing a serious alternative (no minimum modificated Ju-88) doesn't sound good. Changing the the He-177's unit type to tank destroyer (as mentioned) might be better.

Dave

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 2:56 am

Originally posted by davewolf

If we're talking about adding the Ju-188 I'd agree. But in order to replace the He-177 there's no alternative IMO. And removing the He-177 without providing a serious alternative (no minimal modificated Ju-88) doesn't sound good. Changing the the He-177's unit type to tank destroyer (as mentioned) might be better.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html

According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR

davewolf · Post by **davewolf** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:22 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html

According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR

As a part of the 'B-bomber' program, determined to replace the obsolete Ju-88 and He-111, the Ju-288 was developed. But due to technical problems (the Jumo 222 engine, same one as the He-177 had...) it never came to service. The Ju-188 was the substitute for the Ju-288. It was first delivered in the second quarter of 1943. Technical data: max. speed 325 mph (Ju-88:280mph), max. bomb load 3000kg (1500kg), four guns (three); so no big modifications.
The Ju-188 came to service as bomber, night fighter, long range reco. So did the Ju-88!

moonfog · Post by **moonfog** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 4:39 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/7404/ju188_388.html

According to this, most Ju-188 planes were built as recconaisance aircraft. I don't think enough were built as bombers to include it in WIR

I have to agree with Dave and you that the Ju-188 isn't a real alternative to the He-177. It was a proposal from my side without doing further research on the specifications of the Ju-188. Sorry...

The Ju-188 option gone, I think Dave is right that there is no other german bomber which could replace the He-177 in the game. Changing the He's unit type to tank destroyer would represent the role the He-177 was mainly used in reality. But that doesn't change the fact that the aircraft was originally designed as heavy level bomber, does it? IMO a germanside WiR-player should still get the chance to build a longrange heavy bomber to conduct strategic bombing raids f.ex. on the caucasian oil fields if he likes to do so. The 1943 strategic situation in a WiR game can differ very much from the historical one and I think that the option for a strategic bomber should remain open.

Ray

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 5:51 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

Its an interesting proposition, I suppose it would depend on how much realism is lost in a given example. There is a point at which I would no longer be interested in a game if it sacrifices a substantial amount of accuracy in favor of a balanced contest. It depends on what you get out of the game, what makes it so compelling to you. For me, it is at least the appearance of a historical simulation that is important, not whether the game is balanced or not. To me, balance can always be achieved through the formulation of a set of victory conditions that can make the game interesting to play even if its clear one side can not "win" in the conventional sense. Either way, its an interesting question, what do the rest of you think?

Gee, Ed, I start to worry about myself. I've read your answer several times and still cant find anything I could argue about !!!
Seriously, to go a bit further - if I play germans and soviet player didnt win up to may 1945 I consider this my victory. Just an example how we can balance the game. Historically IMHO germans had no a single chance to win, even with Leningrad and Moscow taken in 1941.
BTW I didnt say BALANCE I said playability. And as you said for everybody something else makes game playable. I think majority of players will prevail. But fortunatelly we can always have alternative scenarios for the rest

This statement could be the start of a long discussion.

Could be, but I am pretty sure we will find something more important soon

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:31 am

Originally posted by czerpak

Gee, Ed, I start to worry about myself. I've read your answer several times and still cant find anything I could argue about !!!

I'm just getting mellower in my old age. My assertions and retorts are not as sharp as they once were.

Historically IMHO germans had no a single chance to win, even with Leningrad and Moscow taken in 1941.

Must respectfully disagree here. Leningrad and Moscow were major industrial centers along with weapons factories, oil and resources and population. Losing these will seriously hurt Soviet industry. The Soviet player can only move ~9 factories, so all those HI, and tank/plane factories in those 2 cities would be permanently lost. If lost in '41, it would mean a weak USSR in '42 which would almost lead to certain Axis victory.

BTW I didnt say BALANCE I said playability.

Balance is part of playability, isn't it?

Possum · Post by **Possum** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 4:44 am

Hello all
The Ju-188 in my custom OBWIR is really meant to represent a whole variety of improved marks Ju-88's. I settled on calling it Ju-188 as that seemed to be a historical name, and was distinct from Ju-88A. Alternatively I could have been called Ju-88S, Ju-88A8, or Ju-388. Ju-88A8 would be the most appropriate, but I thought this would be too easy to confuse with the already existing Ju-88A.

czerpak · Post by **czerpak** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 2:06 pm

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn

I'm just getting mellower in my old age. My assertions and retorts are not as sharp as they once were.

Must respectfully disagree here. Leningrad and Moscow were major industrial centers along with weapons factories, oil and resources and population. Losing these will seriously hurt Soviet industry. The Soviet player can only move ~9 factories, so all those HI, and tank/plane factories in those 2 cities would be permanently lost. If lost in '41, it would mean a weak USSR in '42 which would almost lead to certain Axis victory.

You mean historically ? They didnt have artificial limitations about number of factories moved to east. It would hurt them seriuosly, I agree, but probably wouldnt break them as a nation. Soviet ability to recover was amazing.

Balance is part of playability, isn't it?

It is, but you took it out of context.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 1:20 pm

Originally posted by czerpak

You mean historically ? They didnt have artificial limitations about number of factories moved to east.

We don't know that do we? I can't find anything on the movement of factories to the Urals that gives an indication they could have moved even more. Now, it looks like just a game limitation, i.e. the number of slots in an "HQ" box, but perhaps there was another reason for Gary to put that restriction in? In Advanced Third Reich, there are industrial centers in Soviet cities that can be moved east, except for the centers in Leningrad and Moscow which can't be moved. I wonder why they made that exception? Maybe there was a limit. I read some revisionist article that claimed the Soviets were planning for a industrialized Urals area even before the war, and had prepared a power grid for the incoming factories. I don't believe everything those revisionist articles claim, but the point about having a ready-to-go electrical power grid for these factories actually sounds logical. It could be that the Soviets moved as many factories as they could until the capacity in the Urals power grid was reached. Maybe that's the limit?

but probably wouldnt break them as a nation. Soviet ability to recover was amazing.

I agree, it probably wouldn't break them as far as fighting spirit and morale goes. With Napoleon, they simply let him have Moscow, and just waited for the winter to decimate his army to the point where he had no choice but to retreat without any surrender from the Russians. In WWII, things are different. There are only so many factories in Soviet control, and if they lose too many of them they will be unable to fight a war of industrial attrition, which is exactly what they did.

If anyone knows of any info about the USSR's ability to move factories east, and what their capacity in the Urals was, I'd like to know about it.