Matrix Games Forums

Well, WW2 showed, that it's not enough to have competent engineers and officers to win a war.

Regards

I've been doing game documentation for the last few days (and have the same planned for tomorrow).

As promised in my first message, I plan to post a picture about once per week - c. Wed/Thurs this week

ORIGINAL: wosung

Well, WW2 showed, that it's not enough to have competent engineers and officers to win a war.

Regards

You also have to have leaders who are not totally insane... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole

ORIGINAL: Charlie Lewis

Interestingly enough, both the Navy and the Air command dismissed any concerns about submarine warfare, figuring that WWI had shown that the submarine was not an effective threat. The Navy had no intention to automatically restart convoys in the event of war, and the air service hadn't put any effort into developing patrol aircraft.

I'm going to copy a post I put up on the WWII- Eoad to Victory site:

As ya'll know, I've repeatedly made the arguement that the Nazis consistantly lead the Allies/Comintern powers in technology. A little light reading has reminded me of some of the reasons why I hold that opinion. (I've been re-reading Len Deighton's Blood, Tears and Folly, which I highly recommend for its revisionist British look at the war.)
Deighton makes a number of salient points concerning British cultural shortcomings

Mmm well you certainly did upset our english contributor. You speak of cultural shortcomings. Obviously you forget the nazzz germany overall destruction of all that was cultural at that time. Replacing that with falsified legends of a dark and absolutely stupid and so called aryan origin. The complete destruction of the jewish heritage in germany to obtain their gold to build an army of terror.

Technologically, the RAF had an edge on the Luftwaffe with their radars and the Spitfire proved to be an efficient fighter against the Meschersmidt, being more manoveurable, if not as fast and armed. The Spitfire really had the edge in air to air combats because of his maveuvrability well for a good time being.

I do not say the Axe had not the edge on many things, their armor were better, the functionality of their army superior especially in the first years of the war. That's because unless their neighbors they rebuilt an army from scratch and so they were not blocked with old military doctrinaes (the french Napoleonic Grande Armee as a similar story). But with the time the allies and the Rus, did learn and were able to be very effective in their own way.

On the naval side, once again, in gunnery the Warspite was the battleship who has the record of the longest hit on an italian battleship. And the european Axis did not see the supremacy of the carriers over the battleship coming. Japan, Commonwealth, USA did see it, and Great-Britain was the first power to construct airplane carriers. Again for the naval, no Axis power was using the radar/sonar until maybe late in the war, unlike the allies. This had catastrophic results for Italy in the second Matapan battle and for Japan in the Pacific, especially in a phase of the Leyte battle engaging U.S. against japan battleships (Suriyago strait).

I also think the british/U.S. intelligence was far more superior. They did crack the germans and nippons code quickly in the war. The german intelligence/generalship was very efficient the first years, but it did a lose his edge by 1942/43, leading to disasters in Stalingrad, Koursk, and in all Russia by 1944. The germans commanders were really badly informed on the russian forces they had against them by 1943/44, even in 1942, they never saw the double pincer maneuver coming around Stalingrad.

For the U.S. their industrial economy was built in a very efficient way. You cannot say it's because they had more industries alone, they were able to build ships in a more efficient and quick way. A good example is the Liberty Ships and the speed at which they could build a carrier, compared to their nippons counterpart.

Here's the weather across the Russian front on the first impulse (note the snowflakes on the Russian side of the front line). It's die rolls like that that make you want to kick the cat. I am soooooooooo glad that this is just a test game.

Here are some of the effects of that weather:

• The supply range from a unit, or from a secondary supply source, in a hex in snow is only 3 hexes. The supply range from a unit, or from a secondary supply source, in a hex in rain, storm or blizzard is only 2 hexes.
• Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombardment factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow.
• Double the terrain cost (see terrain effects chart) of all hexes in rain, storm or blizzard.
• Reduce the odds in a land attack (see 11.16.5) against a hex in rain by 1 (e.g. 12:1 becomes 11:1, and 3:2 becomes 1:1). Reduce the odds in a land attack against a hex in storm or snow by 2 (e.g. 11-1 becomes 9-1 and 3:1 becomes 3:2). Reduce the odds in a land attack against a hex in blizzard by 3.

Thank you for the great screenshot, poor german.

Can the weather display be toggled off/on?

ORIGINAL: micheljq

Thank you for the great screenshot, poor german.

Can the weather display be toggled off/on?

Yes, it can.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

Here's the weather across the Russian front on the first impulse (note the snowflakes on the Russian side of the front line). It's die rolls like that that make you want to kick the cat. I am soooooooooo glad that this is just a test game.

Here are some of the effects of that weather:

• The supply range from a unit, or from a secondary supply source, in a hex in snow is only 3 hexes. The supply range from a unit, or from a secondary supply source, in a hex in rain, storm or blizzard is only 2 hexes.
• Halve the naval, tactical and strategic bombardment factors of aircraft (including carrier planes) in a sea area, or attacking a hex, in rain or snow.
• Double the terrain cost (see terrain effects chart) of all hexes in rain, storm or blizzard.
• Reduce the odds in a land attack (see 11.16.5) against a hex in rain by 1 (e.g. 12:1 becomes 11:1, and 3:2 becomes 1:1). Reduce the odds in a land attack against a hex in storm or snow by 2 (e.g. 11-1 becomes 9-1 and 3:1 becomes 3:2). Reduce the odds in a land attack against a hex in blizzard by 3.

The sparse scattered white overlay indicates Snow. The heavy slanted black overlay indicates Storm. Beside Fine (no overlay) the other two weather possibilities are Rain (sparse scattered black overlay) and Blizzard (heavy slanted white overlay).

At sea only two overlays are used: Heavy Seas (shown here with a lightning bolt) - displayed when the weather at sea is Storm or Blizzard, and Rough Seas (not shown) - displayed when the weather is Rain or Snow. I decided to use only two overlays for all-sea hexes since the effects of Rain/Snow (and Storm/Blizzard) are the same for all-sea hexes.

Len Deighton's non-fiction WW2 stuff is good, very readable and interesting.

But if you want to read about German ineptitude and British brilliance in all regards, technical, intelligence, political, the works, read his book, Fighter. [:D]

Albert Speers autobiography is a good read too regarding German abilities - his book struck me as pretty humble in places. He wasn't a fan of sending out Panthers early at least...

In general the Allies harnessed their scientific potential far better than the Axis. There were fields where the Germans especially were ahead (such as liquid-fuelled rockets, aerodynamics and for a long time, gun technology) but they had a dreadful record of getting advanced developments into production in useful numbers after 1941.

The Allies were better at code-breaking, radar, high frequency direction finding, proximity fuses, gyro gun-sights, speciality and very large bombs and plenty of other areas. The Gloster Meteor basically beat the Me 262 into service (depending on how one defines that and although slower it had engines that were likely to keep turning under combat conditions).

The Japanese were hardly in the scientific race and the Italians specialised in a few things but made little difference. It certainly helped that Dr R.V. Jones was in the right place at the right time for the British (his book Most Secret War is brilliant) and that there was so much Hitleresque meddling in the German effort that tended to favour the inefficient and gigantic.

The early war German equipment was almost always of excellent quality but required skilled craftsmanship and was difficult to mass produce. They entered the war with almost all new weaponry while the Allies were still replacing older gear. This has to be taken into account in technology comparisons.

Cheers, Neilster

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

But if you want to read about German ineptitude and British brilliance in all regards, technical, intelligence, political, the works, read his book, Fighter. [:D]

Warspite1

For example?

Great stuff, thank you Greyshaft.

Regarding this other "discussion" in this thread: can you people take up space somewhere else, thank you?

Norden

Yeah, you're only allowed to go miles off topic at the WitP forum.

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I was just setting up the CW in Lebensraum and I was thinking that the Osprey carrier fighter must get the award for the most useless air unit in the game. There are four Osprey fighters in the setup and, as with all WiF counters, there are minor variations in the combat factors between counters. Here is the worst one:

Air to Air: 0
Air to Sea : None
Tactical Bombing : None
Strategic Bombing : None
Range : 3

I guess if they are all that stand between your carrier and a couple of waves of Ju-87D Stuka divebombers (air to air factor of three) then they might hold the enemy off long enough for you to abandon ship in an orderly fashion, but don't count on it. It's actually quite sad for the CW that these fighters are still in the setup pool in mid-1941, but for this game I think I'll scrap them immediately.

In the WiF system Air-to-Air combat is a relative strength so a factor of zero doesn't mean that the unit is unarmed, merely that it fights less effectively than an aircraft with a strength of one (Arado Ar-68) or two (defensive fire from a Dornier Do-17M) or three (Gloster Gladiator) ... or thirteen (Me262 A-1c) or fourteen (Gotha Go229B).

Greyshaft, the game looks great and well worth the wait, however

The Hawker Osprey, with only 30 in service in training duties hardly rates 4 counters.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Osprey.htm

The Hawker Osprey was a 2 seat biplane fighter. It was a naval reconaissance-fighter development of the Hart biplane bomber.

It went into service in the Fleet Air Arm at the same time as the Nimrod, in 1931. Both types were represented in the mixed flight of new aircraft carried in HMS Eagle for demonstration at the British Empire trade Exhibition, Buenos Aires, in March 1931. 112 were built.

By the start of the Second Woprld War only 30 surviving Osprey still served withthe Fleet Air Arm. All were used as trainers with 755, 758, 759 and 780 squadrons, except for K5750 which served at the Experimental Station Porton from 7 February 1942 in Chemical Warfare Trials.

The last Osprey to serve with the Fleet Air Arm was K5757 which was paid off on 27 April 1944.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I was just setting up the CW in Lebensraum and I was thinking that the Osprey carrier fighter must get the award for the most useless air unit in the game. There are four Osprey fighters in the setup and, as with all WiF counters, there are minor variations in the combat factors between counters. Here is the worst one:

Air to Air: 0
Air to Sea : None
Tactical Bombing : None
Strategic Bombing : None
Range : 3

I guess if they are all that stand between your carrier and a couple of waves of Ju-87D Stuka divebombers (air to air factor of three) then they might hold the enemy off long enough for you to abandon ship in an orderly fashion, but don't count on it. It's actually quite sad for the CW that these fighters are still in the setup pool in mid-1941, but for this game I think I'll scrap them immediately.

In the WiF system Air-to-Air combat is a relative strength so a factor of zero doesn't mean that the unit is unarmed, merely that it fights less effectively than an aircraft with a strength of one (Arado Ar-68) or two (defensive fire from a Dornier Do-17M) or three (Gloster Gladiator) ... or thirteen (Me262 A-1c) or fourteen (Gotha Go229B).

Greyshaft, the game looks great and well worth the wait, however

The Hawker Osprey, with only 30 in service in training duties hardly rates 4 counters.

From http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Osprey.htm

The Hawker Osprey was a 2 seat biplane fighter. It was a naval reconaissance-fighter development of the Hart biplane bomber.

It went into service in the Fleet Air Arm at the same time as the Nimrod, in 1931. Both types were represented in the mixed flight of new aircraft carried in HMS Eagle for demonstration at the British Empire trade Exhibition, Buenos Aires, in March 1931. 112 were built.

By the start of the Second Woprld War only 30 surviving Osprey still served withthe Fleet Air Arm. All were used as trainers with 755, 758, 759 and 780 squadrons, except for K5750 which served at the Experimental Station Porton from 7 February 1942 in Chemical Warfare Trials.

The last Osprey to serve with the Fleet Air Arm was K5757 which was paid off on 27 April 1944.

The CW player has the option of scrapping these 4 units at the start of the war (because they are such an old design) - or he can leave them in the force pool and maybe draw them randomly when he builds carrier air units (or draw them as units to be placed on the map at setup). The choice is up to the player. Historically it appears the British decided to not build (or stop building) this type of aircraft.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The CW player has the option of scrapping these 4 units at the start of the war (because they are such an old design) - or he can leave them in the force pool and maybe draw them randomly when he builds carrier air units (or draw them as units to be placed on the map at setup). The choice is up to the player. Historically it appears the British decided to not build (or stop building) this type of aircraft.

And scrapping them is exactly what I did do.. as any sane Lebensraum player would do... unless they decided that they wanted to try a carrier campaign that built carriers and carrier planes at the expense of everything else.

That's the beauty of MWiF... you can choose an ahistorical strategy that doesn't make sense to anyone except yourself and follow it through to its logical conclusion... what would happen if I didn't scrap the Ospresys?

No, they clearly were out of service at Sept 39.

Now if they were Skua's or Roc's your argument would carry water.

The point of the MWiF scrapping system is that in 1941 Ospreys were available and they could fly (barely) and fight (poorly).
It is up to the MWiF CW player to determine whether they should be used to equip an operational squadron on a RN carrier.

My decision is an emphatic No!!! ... but you are free to chose a different answer.

You'll just have to overwhelm the chatter with more screenshots, Mr. Greyshaft...pretty please?

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The CW player has the option of scrapping these 4 units at the start of the war (because they are such an old design) - or he can leave them in the force pool and maybe draw them randomly when he builds carrier air units (or draw them as units to be placed on the map at setup). The choice is up to the player. Historically it appears the British decided to not build (or stop building) this type of aircraft.

And scrapping them is exactly what I did do.. as any sane Lebensraum player would do... unless they decided that they wanted to try a carrier campaign that built carriers and carrier planes at the expense of everything else.

That's the beauty of MWiF... you can choose an ahistorical strategy that doesn't make sense to anyone except yourself and follow it through to its logical conclusion... what would happen if I didn't scrap the Ospresys?

If playing with pilots, keep any zero-costing CVPs. You don't have to put them any closer to the map then the reserve pool and they come in handy for manipulating/maintaining aircraft gearing limits.