Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar
In one of my many strategic games we all discussed realism vs fun. Sea Lion, primarily was a focal point... They agreed in the end it was likely impossible .. of course the house rule of no Sea Lion often lead to some nasty abuse of sending 99% of the British Forces to Egypt! [:-]

Perhaps for those who design a mod where Sealion is impossible you might add a caveat that if the Allied player reduces the UK forces below a certain threshhold there will be a rapid increase in Social Upset. After all, the man-in-the-street thought there was a good chance that Jerry was coming and wanted the reassurance of a strong local force to protect himself.

Well there are two main points about this whole Sea Lion talk:

1) One major problem in games like ToF and others like it is the very simplistic way economy and industry is represented - with simple "PP"'s. In reality of course a major constraint in when choosing what to "produce" is industrial production capacity of any type of product or in this case "weapon". i.e. for example there are simply not hundreds of ship building yards in Germany lying there in waiting for you to decide to build a humongous Kriegsmarine. Meaning even if you have several hundred PP's "stored" (whatever that means in realistic terms) then this simply could not be converted hey presto in hundreds of ships being built if one choose to do so. Likewise for Tanks or Planes. The capacities of the "types of industries" would have to be simulated to get a real feel for that this means. It would mean you would have "spending maximums" for the different types of weapons you can be building. Like for example you spend at most x amounts of PP's on buildings ships, y on building Tanks, z on building Planes etc... Increasing these ,while possible, should be difficult, costly and take a long time according to what type you are increasing. Unfortunately we don't have this in ToF ..... (yet???? [:)])

2) On the other hand everyone has a bit of a tunnel vision here. I am very opposed to any House rules not allowing Sea Lion out flat. Where is it written in stone that Sea Lion can only happen in 1940? Why can't it happen in 1941? With over a year's preparation a somewhat half-way decent Sea Lion could very well be possible. It would all depend on such factors as to what else happens. Can Germany pacify USSR long enough to do this? Can a several front, year long PP-drain of a Combination U-boat War, Battle of Britain, Africa possible weaken Britain enough to enable this? If Germany concentrates everything on this and doesn't overexert itself in other adventures, then indeed it could have the power to make a scenario like this become possible. Think out of the box here guys. So yes Sea Lion 1940 3 weeks after defeating France is not realistic. But there are many other different approaches and ways to do things. A House Rule not allowing ANY type of Sea Lion would make any strategic thinking like this totally impossible. In particular and more important all threats in this direction as well. Creating a threat and making the enemy have to react just to the possibility of doing something is sometimes by far stronger and more powerful than actually executing the threat itself.
IN REALITY this happened as well - The English people in 1940 did not remain super-cool and say "OH it's impossible for the Nazi's to stage an invasion - they do not have the means to do so - don't worry; let's send all our Military Assets to Africa"..........even though it might have been true, a lot of resources where expended just because of the THREAT it MIGHT happen. A house rule like this would result in other house rules for Britain to "spend PP's on a psycologically-only happenning Sea Lion"....????? That becomes really strange, really quick.

Romdanzer

Actually, its not the fact that something like Sealion can or cannot occur with hindsight, but the fact that the UK acted like it was possible. I would like to avoid situations where an empty UK can keep the Germans from invading it, while the whole British army is in Egypt, with the entire navy in the Med.

If while you play the game you think that the Germans can invade you after France, then you will (as the British) do something about it.

I remember playing the british in my favourite fantasy wwii game (world in flames). After Vichy was installed, I moved my 4 corps of British to Brest for evac to Britan. Instead of pursuing me, the German player assumed I was leaving and sent his whole army streaming east for the setup for Barbarossa. Instead, I just sat there...he asked me why I wasnt leaving and I said why? The nearest German army was two turns movement away....I am waiting for the US to arrive in two years. Needless to say, he had to turn an army around and by the time it got close, I just packed up and left.

If you put the Threat of something in the game, then your opponent will have to counter it. If you dont put it in because 'historically' it was impossible, or improbable, then with the power of hindsight, new impossiblities arise on the other side. (like not garrisoning England).

Its the balancing act of what to leave in england that makes for a good game.

Very good point. Sealion is really improbable but must be defended against and should very difficult but could work if the island were almost completely undefended. Where ToF breaks down is its way to easy. Set at Hard vrs Easy (Human vrs AI) Sealion is automatic success, just plain EASY. I have also successfully succeded (well I think I am going to succeed) twice against human opponents. The RN should be able to interdict supplies and intercept transports (port to port is possible without any possibility of interception) Once on shore the Germans are just about unstoppable and can easily reinforce and supply.

England doesn't get enough $$ invasion effectiveness way too high too easy to keep supplies open (RN home fleet set to raiders should shut down the channel but would be getting bombed...

Sealion 1st game well underway...

WTB production delay for amphibious points. These things shouldn't be dialed up on demand. This is part of the reason Sealion is so easy. The German doesn't really have to plan for it, he can cash in immediately once France falls. That's a little too easy and convenient. Put those on a 10 turn delay and then we'll talk.

The other problem here, of course, is that the RN seems incapable of interdicting sea transport across the Channel. Only the RAF can hit things.

I pointed that out almost a year ago.

Should be like SOP.

Transports and Amphibious boats 3/3 and allow a player to attack those units.

In SOP you can attack and target those units.

Since they are 3/3 you can not always sink them but have a good chance.

If you can kill 1 or 2 units out of 5 then that helps allot before the first fleet of 5 lands.

In SOP the AI attacks in 2 or 3 waves. You can not kill them all but it helps allot to delay the onslaught. If you get lucky you can hold to part of Indonesia.

Patch 1.01 helps, but we could use the SOP method of Naval combat vs transports and amphibious units.

Hi guys. Haven't been here in a while.

A couple thoughts I'd like to share.

In my experience with game design, many issues boil down to one thing: Historical Accuracy vs. Game Balance.

Through I-can't-tell-you-how-many play tests, it becomes very apparent that in many instances historical accuracy has to be sacrificed or the game simply won't work. It's always walking a tightrope - you try to fudge reality as little as possible to give you what you need to keep the game design itself functional. (And then adding another paragraph to the designers notes to try and explain yourself). The problem is that the more detailed and complex the game itself, the more departures from reality you are opening yourself to. It's like parallel universes; each time you take a left, you create a new universe where things are now different. And the more flexibility the players have, the more of these potentials a designer has to deal with. It sounds very simple, but if you've ever had to tackle a pretty big game, the task is much more difficult that it seems, and can be incredibly daunting (if not impossible).

That being said, when I see odd things (like mega-panzers, USA fleets at entry that have two dozen CVs, etc), I shake my head a bit, and keep on going. IMO, I'd much rather take a bit of the historical accuracy with a grain of salt (and hope for patch tweaks), than play one of those locked-in games where you really have no strategic options whatsoever, and simply go from this battle to this like a good little Kraut.

In a game that features production, if the Germans can 'depart from the script' to any appreciable degree, well then my brothers, things are going to get weird.

Second point - I'd like to share how we overcame the Seelowe difficulties that I see being replicated here. Our philosophy was that we were going to bend reality and make Seelowe possible. Not likely, but under the right circumstances, do-able. The issue became that if the Germans even managed to get ashore (very difficult in the game I was working on), then the UK has had it. They simply did not have the production or units available to do anything but roll over after a brief skirmish. You can't just go and give them a ton of PPs to spend turn after turn - what's the rationale, where did they pull that out from?

Home guard? Sure, but very ineffective, and limited numbers available. The Germans will overcome them quite quickly, and then you are in the same boat. That's a band-aid that only buys you a turn or three.

We found (with that particular game design), that we had to increase the US entry variable. If the Axis land any units on the UK, it started the snowball effect that would (eventually) see the Americans enter WWII. This was also easier to rationalize in the designer notes. With England herself no longer able to resist the Nazis, it was apparent to all that soon there would be no one left to fight the Axis. Even the most anti-war citizen would agree that something more had to be done... With great reluctance, the US started the first plodding steps that would see them join in. Emergency convoys with supplies and materiel. Long term Lend Lease increases approved, and a pre-war industrial increase to supply it. More aggressive escorting of convoys, and a 'guarantee' of specified sea lanes to the UK. (Provoke an incident, increasing war entry more quickly, etc). We even had a version of the UK Home Guard. By the time the US enters, the first series of hastily formed and trained units were green as hell, understrength, and ready to be sent over to the UK as a stop-gap before any 'real' units could be equipped, trained and transported.

It bought us the time we needed, the PPs and the units. A very close thing, but gave us enough to let the Allies fight back. That might (or might not) be an answer here. I hope it is, but my point is more about the way of examining the issue, and coming up with a solution that does its best to pay homage to Historical Accuracy AND Game Balance.

My $1.02!

Good to be back!

- Shane

A quick follow up after reading over my post.

We also had Russia able to drop a DoW on the Germans if Seelowe went on too long. If it became apparent the Germans were tied up in the UK after a certain time (stale-mated), the Russians would take advantage of the fact and do what Stalin had hoped to do - declare war himself when he was 'ready'.

It forces the German to make a choice. Keep going for the UK and try to take it out, knowing the Reds are building up for you, or go on the defensive in England and prepare for Russia yourself.

Regards,

Shane