I've been sick recently (heart problem). But I am back and will have another E47 update within the next 7 days
We really appreciate your dedication and everything but really....take care of yourself. We need you around a
bit more. And don't work when it's not fun. That will just burn you out.
His is going to be the most world-wide anticipated obituary in the history of the world, that I will tell you. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
You COULD press the space bar and toggle the units invisible. That might speed up things.
His is going to be the most world-wide anticipated obituary in the history of the world, that I will tell you. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dear VHauser
I really appreciate your work but I think that you underestimate number of trucks in for eksampel in Soviet infantry division. Just 30 trucks for whole division seems too few.
Best regards
Dear VHauser
I really appreciate your work but I think that you underestimate number of trucks in for eksampel in Soviet infantry division. Just 30 trucks for whole division seems too few.
Best regards
Kamerad
the 30 trucks (in game system terms) are more than sufficient to keep most of the division motorised. Notice, that supply, logistic, maintenance trucks or assets don't really make a difference, except in losses.
You can check this one out in toying around with the various tutorials I especially created for newbies (and veteran players!).
My heart meds seem to be working and I can't stay away from E47. So, onward!
Steel Armor.
In 1939 the USA produced 75,000,000 tons of steel, and 20,000 tons of steel armor. The 1941 battleship Bismark used 19,000 tons of steel armor to build--equivalent to almost all 1939 USA steel armor production. The 1941 Bismark consumed the equivalent of more than 600 1941 Pz-IV tanks' worth of steel armor. In other words, the 1941 Bismark consumed more than 3 1941 panzer divisions' worth of steel armor (and remember that a single biplane Fairey Swordfish torpedo that jammed the Bismark's rudder and sealed its fate). The Germans planned even larger battleships...
Big Battleships are Inefficient. Even if nations could afford big battleships (e.g., Montana, H-42, Lion, etc.), they were all obsolete by 1944. Why? Because they were too slow to keep up with the aircraft carriers. The USN Iowa class were the only battleships fast enough to keep up with the carriers. And even the Iowas were only useful as massive antiaircraft platforms when escorting carriers. And the USN could build lots of Cleveland and Atlanta class cruisers, which were much more efficient antiaircraft platforms, for each Iowa battleship. Also, it was more cost effective to modernize and upgrade existing slow/old battleships for use as shore bombardment instead of building new ones.
So, even if I include some big German battleships (as tributes to Hitler's vanity), there will be a cost in panzer divisions that will be paid. As for the Allies, there were plans for 6 Iowas (instead of the 4 built) and 4 Alaskas (instead of the 2 built), which won't strain Allied production much by E47. As for the 6 British Vanguard class (smaller, faster Lions) only 1 was built and I haven't figured out what to do about the other 5.
Naval Stacking. I'm thinking about a house rule to limit naval stacking to 1 task force per hex. If capital ships maintain 1km spacing, then there is a very finite number of ships that can safely operate together in a 25km hex.
Soviet Air Force.
The Soviets raised 18 air armies. Each air army had ~4 air divisions and each air division had ~4 air regiments. Each air regiment had ~40 planes, so each air division had ~160 planes, which means that each air army has ~640 planes (4 x 160 = 640). Of the 18 air armies, 5 were on permanent strategic defense so don't need to be counted. And one of the remaining 13 air armies has 4 "specialist" divisions (2 naval patrol, 1 heavy bomber, and 1 intruder). Of the remaining 12 air armies, I'm still working out the proportions, but it looks like 1-2 fighter divisions, 1-2 bomber divisions, and 1-2 attack divisions per air army, in some combination totaling 4 divisions per air army. To keep things simple, I'll probably go with 2 fighter, 1 bomber, and 1 attack divisions per air army.
Edit: Another possibility is since there are 48 divisions in the remaining 12 air armies, then 48/3 = 16 divisions of each type (fighter, bomber, attack). But that would weaken the fighters so that fewer bomber/attack units will reach the target and losses will be higher. Still leaning towards the 2F,1B,1A template...
Hey there.
Should Russian cities named after Soviet leaders, e.g., Gorky, Voroshilovgrad, Ordzhonikidze, Stalinogorsk convert to their "pre-Soviet" names (i.e., Nizhnij Novgorod, Luhansk, Vladikavkaz and Bobriki) after they are captured by the Germans?
Regards, Nikolai.
Hey there.
Should Russian cities named after Soviet leaders, e.g., Gorky, Voroshilovgrad, Ordzhonikidze, Stalinogorsk convert to their "pre-Soviet" names (i.e., Nizhnij Novgorod, Luhansk, Vladikavkaz and Bobriki) after they are captured by the Germans?
Regards, Nikolai.
Yes and no. If you believe that the Germans will keep all those cities in E47, then yes. If you believe that the Soviets will re-capture those cities in E47, then no. Probably simpler to keep the Soviet names since it is more likely that the Soviets will re-capture those cities.
Soviet Air Force, part 2.
Further research indicates that the Soviets were operating ~15,000 combat aircraft in their 18 air armies. This means 5 air divisions per air army instead of 4. Also, ground attack aircraft were as plentiful as fighters. So, the new template is 2F,1B,2A divisions per air army.
USAF.
Even after removing strategic air units (~20,000 aircraft), and not counting the US Navy, the USAF was operating ~16,000 aircraft for E47. This results in ~100 air units, of which ~50 fighters, ~25 bombers, ~25 ground attack. In addition, a variety of USA equipped nations (France, Brazil, Portugal, etc.) will add air units to this total.
Commonwealth AF.
Even after removing strategic air units (~8,000 aircraft), and not counting the Royal Navy, the Commonwealth was operating ~10,000 aircraft for E47. This results in ~60 air units, of which ~30 fighters, ~15 bombers, ~15 ground attack. In addition, a variety of British equipped nations (Iran, Iraq, etc.) will add air units to this total.
Air Reorganizations.
As the Allies wear down the Axis, fighters can be re-trained/re-equipped as ground attack. This can be tied to occupation events.
German V-weapons.
Some time pressure must be introduced to motivate the Allied player to eliminate the German V-weapons. Still thinking about this.
Generic/Hypothetical Units.
E47 requires generic and hypothetical units. This is perhaps the main reason I like E47 so much. I've believed for 15 years that Norm Koger got the ratings wrong for many (most?) "historical" units. E47 gives me the freedom to rate the majority of units in the scenario because the Axis don't have ANY "historical" post-WW2 units. EVERYTHING is hypothetical when it comes to the post-WW2 Axis units. And I have to rate all the Allied post-WW2 units based on the benchmarks I have to create for the Axis units. This makes me happy to be freed from any and all "historical" restrictions and restraints. This is a major reason why I think that E47 is the best of all TOAW scenarios.
Air Ratings.
I will be finished with all E47 air ratings by this weekend.
Axis Tank Names.
Lion(H), Sabertooth(H), Mammut(H), Wolf(M), Leopard(M), and Jaguar(M). Ocelot, Serval, Caracal, Cougar are some additional possible names. I have no clue about Italian tank names yet. Also, the Axis will have new TD units that have no names yet, possibly putting "Jagd" in front of the new tank names.
Turreted AFVs vs. non-Turreted AFVs.
Turreted AFVs are better (more effective) than non-turreted AFVs. This is a fact. The reason that some nations built non-turreted AFVs was because they only cost 75%-80% as much as turreted AFVs. Also, rating turreted vs. non-turreted AFVs is very problematic (and a problem I haven't solved yet). Is Germany wealthy enough by E47 to be able to afford to get rid of non-turreted AFVs? Still thinking about this.
Considering the Germans were producing the Kanonenjagdpanzer in the 1960s, it would seem likely they would assault guns & panzer jaegers in the 40's.
Agreed. Right now it's looking like 200+ infantry divisions, 30+ panzer divisions, and 40+ panzergrenadier divisions for the Germans in E47. Pretty much have to build non-turreted AFVs to equip all those divisions. Same with the Soviets, and even the Italians (since they have such a weak industrial capacity). Looks like only the USA/British are wealthy enough to build turreted AFVs across the board.
Resolving Turreted vs. non-Turreted AFVs.
I'll reduce the TOE of the unit by 25% and increase replacements by 25% to compensate. For example, if the TOE of a unit has 48 JagdPanthers, then I'll reduce that TOE by 25% to 36 and raise the replacement rate of JagdPanthers to 125% to compensate. That way I don't have to mess with the .eqp ratings of the JagdPanthers themselves.
EDIT: This isn't correct. Reducing JagdPanthers (for example) TOE by 25% might increase casualties on those remaining JagdPanthers. So I might have to fiddle with the percentages a bit. Maybe reduce TOE by 20% and raise replacements to 125%, or maybe reduce TOE by 25% (which I currently prefer) and raise replacements to 133%. Still thinking about this.
High-Altitude AAA.
All high-altitude AAA artillery will be removed and SAM missiles will be used from the start of the game to compensate. This greatly simplifies and streamlines the game (I don't have to perform hundreds of unit withdrawal/reorganization events). This won't have any significant effect on the game since the AAA ratings of the missiles won't be unbalanced compared with the AAA artillery they are replacing (I'll simply adjust the quantities of missiles to compensate).
Air Units.
I've finished rating air units and updating the .eqp file. But I've only just started the process of working on the air OOBs.
Naval Operations.
Submarine Equivalents. This is how to pay for naval units in E47. Since TOAW doesn't model submarine operations, I can pay for naval units using submarines instead of panzers. Both the Allies and the Germans built hundreds of submarines. Allied submarines are around twice as big as Germans, each Allied submarine is about as big as a destroyer. However, the Germans built more submarines and the Allies have to leave some in the Pacific to blockade Japan, so the net effect is about the same. This is how the Germans can afford some big battleships (H-41 Class is the most reasonable).
Capital Ships. It takes about 5 years to build and train a big capital ship. This is inefficient in E47 terms. Also, there is a big difference between a British Warspite (30,000t built in 1916) and a German H-41 (70,000t built in 1945). I'm working on something I call a "battleship slice" or a "carrier slice" to rate big capital ships as well as handle incremental replacements for them. This might take me weeks or even months to figure out, but I'm working on it.
EDIT: Here is my current thinking: Generic destroyer-sized replacement "slices" for light, medium, heavy, and carrier units distributed something like ~6, ~4, ~2, and ~4, per month (for the USA, others scaled down from there). A USN carrier task force might look something like ~48 light, ~36 medium, ~24 carrier slices. A bombardment task force might look something like ~36 light, ~36 medium, ~36 heavy slices.
EDIT2: Here is the historical USN strength in 1945: 23BB, 28CV, 71CVE, 72CA, 377DD, 232sub, 361DE, 833misc (I'm guessing things like rocket ships, PT boats, etc). Those frigates and subs will be folded into the replacements and I'll leave the misc alone (but adjust replacements for them accordingly). Here is the British RN in 1945: 15BB, 55 carriers, 67 cruisers, 308DD, 162 subs.
Been a long weekend. I've finished the Allied air and naval OOBs. I'll start on the Axis air and naval OOBs tomorrow and hopefully finish by the end of the week.
Soviet Minor Allies.
I've decide not to delete the Soviet minor allies (Romania, Poland, etc.). Instead I will tie their release to occupy events (as the Soviets close in on their 1941 borders).
I'm almost finished with the Axis air and naval OOBs. Probably by Saturday.
Major Change in Development Philosophy?
After spending the past several days with the Axis OOBs, I've started to consider a big paradigm shift regarding the Allied OOBs. Currently, the Allied ground forces are composed of "combined arms" units. This works for the P.O. Axis since the P.O. doesn't have a brain capable of combined arms decisions, so the P.O. Axis units are more efficient as combined arms units. But not for the human Allies. In addition, equipment upgrades/reorganizations are more problematic for human Allied units (the P.O. Axis doesn't care) in the rapidly changing technological environment of E47. So, I'm seriously thinking about breaking Allied ground units into homogenous "building block" units that the Allied player can mix and match as needed. Thus, Allied ground forces would be separated into "armor" and "artillery" and "infantry" components and the Corps (or Army for the Soviets) would contain all necessary components for self sufficiency. For example, a USA infantry division would consist almost entirely of infantry plus transport (plus small stuff like HMGs and 81mm mortars which would be considered organic to the infantry). The artillery and tanks would be stripped out and made into corps assets to be parcelled out as the human player sees fit. This gives the Allied player improved operational flexibility and makes the job of dealing with equipment reorganizations/upgrades easier for me to manage (it will minimize the number of unit withdrawal events I have to deal with). I haven't definitely decided to do this, but currently I am very favorably disposed to this idea.
Flak Towers.
Working with the naval OOBs has given me the idea to apply the same principle to select ground forces. Germany historically build flak towers in Berlin, Vienna, Hamburg, Frankfurt, and Stuttgart. They were extremely tough (4 meters thick hardened reinforced concrete probably capable of withstanding a near miss by a Hiroshima nuke). I've decided to add some more to include the Ruhr. On a more limited level this same principle could be applied to more modest fortifications. Still thinking about that.
Forts in General.
I've decided to make forts using the heavy artillery symbol instead of the fortress/coastal artillery symbol. This gives all forts a movement of 1 instead of a movement of 0. The reason for doing this is to allow them to go back into defending/entrenched/fortified status after they fire (units with a movement of 0 cannot do this). Thus, the Gibralter fort can now fire on turn A and go back into defend/entrenched/fortified status on Turn B and later. I realize that flak towers moving around the map is silly, so it is my job to ensure that through the proper use of objectives and orders that that doesn't happen. I think I can make it work.
