REVIEW OF STRATEGIC COMMAND: WORLD AT WAR
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 6:50 am
Sorry, but this game has descended into total farce. It is impossible to understand how anyone with even the slightest familiarity of WW2 could come up with a simulation that is so completely stupid.
LAND
There is simply no appreciation of the vast disparities in the real combat power of units. The combat values of units in the game are set out in a set of tables in the Edit Combat Target Data field. I freely admit that I do not understand this approach. It looks to me that the values in these tables are the same for each type of units across all countries, so why is it so complicated? The important point is that units of different countries were not equal at all!
In addition, every type of unit, except garrisons, gets 10 steps. The main effect of that is that, regardless of small differences in firepower per level, they all have similar resilience. This is absurd. If a Corps is attacked by an Army and loses strength at the same or a greater rate than the Army, it will lose very quickly. But not in this game, where HQs, AA, engineer and artillery units (regt-sized) can inflict losses on armoured corps.
My research into the real strength and effectiveness of forces in WW2 tells me that the reality was very different. Some examples.
1. The invasion of Poland. In the game, Polish units typically have strength levels of 4-6 against 10 for most German units. One could be forgiven for thinking that this implies that the Polish units were about 40-60% as strong as German units. But this is utter rubbish. In reality, EACH of the 5 attacking German armies was significantly stronger that all 13 main Polish major formations (9 of which were called armies) put together!
2. The invasion of France. In the game the French units have 8 levels of strength, implying that they’re about 80% as strong as the German units. The truth is very different, because in terms of overall HE firepower the Germans actually had more than a 10 to 1 advantage. Most of the 8 attacking German armies were about equal to or stronger than all the 9 French armies combined. The 6th Army on its own had more than twice the combat strength of the entire French Army.
Again, this was achieved primarily through a vast gulf in qualitative factors such as doctrine, training, leadership, and communications. The French campaign is perhaps the ultimate evidence that raw numbers are irrelevant when comparing force strengths. Its QUALITY that counts. With the French High Command determined to re-run WW1, and the Germans having spent the previous 6 months absorbing the lessons of the Polish campaign, there could only be one swift outcome. But in the game, my campaign began in April and was still going in October.
3. The invasion of Russia. I have not yet completed a comparison of German and Soviet forces for Barbarossa, but suspect the result will be similar to both Poland and France as the Russians were similar in terms of quality. I commend to the designers the excellent scholarship of D M Glanz and J M House, When Titans Clashed, in particular pp 77-82 and Tables C and D on pages 369-371. And I urge them to simulate what Glanz and House are telling us, that the USSR was able to lose more than 4 million men and 229 divisions in 1941 and still come back in sufficient force (more than 57 new armies by December 1941 alone) to prevail in the end. But you can only do that if the cost of Russian units is geared to its economy.
Disparities in the real combat strength of units continued to grow throughout the war. By late 1944 the USSR and USA in particular fielded hugely powerful armies and (for the US) endless ammunition. These formations were not just 20% or 30% stronger than their predecessors. More like 3 or even 4 times as strong. None of these realities are reflected in this game.
For some reason the designers have capped German R&D into infantry, armoured and aerial warfare to Level 1. Yet these were the precise areas where they dominated most.
The designers display a commendable if not irritating determination to include small units that are completely inappropriate at a global scale. Polish cavalry brigades are dotted around the map, when in reality they were part of the various Polish “armies”. And there are other sundry regiment-sized units which simply have no place in such a simulation. The Afrika Korps is a good example. At this scale, the DAK should be 1 unit (a pz corps) but it comprises no less than an HQ unit, a pz corps, an infantry corps (representing the 90th Light Division), a reconnaissance unit, and an artillery unit (whose guns could easily be accommodated within the confines of most suburban schools. At this scale the only bde-div size unit should be garrisons and perhaps engineers.
Another completely fictional aspect of the game is the ability to keep moving forces across the globe with utter disregard for any of the realities of logistics. In one game 3 of my Pz XXX brought about the collapse of China by invading over the Himalayas through Nepal after subduing India and taking Urumqi. What about the 000s of trucks that are required to supply corps-size units over even moderate distances (anything more than say 300km).
China. In the game Chinese units are just as strong as Japanese. But in reality, a single triangular Japanese infantry division outgunned Chiang’s best army of 8 divisions (organised and trained by German advisers) by about 2.7 to 1. Other Chinese forces were barely trained and had almost no effective fighting strength. Not forgetting that the Chinese fought with incredible bravery for 8 long years, in reality, Japan’s efforts were dogged significantly by the size of China, its forbidding terrain, and Japan’s own supply system (sic). For some strange reason the Chinese get effective AA and artillery, although there were so few guns available that Chiang horded them for his best units.
Note. All my strength ratios reflect the impact of qualitative factors.
SEA
Water is a wonderful thing. So fluid. Weather’s pretty interesting too, but not in this game. Naval units can surround hostiles and batter them to death the same as if on land. Well sorry, but war at sea just doesn’t work that way. To engage an enemy at sea you must first see (and ID) him. The prospects for this depend crucially on the vagaries of the weather and their effects on visibility.
In this game, naval units have pathetic range. Most can go 16 hexes per turn. That’s about 1,200km in 14 days. That’s 85km each day! That means they’re averaging about 1.8 knots. I know ships rarely sail in straight lines, but that’s ridiculous. However, they can stay at sea for the entire war.
I really don’t know what more to say about this aspect. Here’s a few quick suggestions.
- Design a detection probability system based on weather/sea state patterns and hours of sunlight.
o Each new naval unit that enters a hex with a hostile in it should have to search for contact.
- Introduce the concept of radar to account for its advantages in poor weather
- Why can any naval unit go into, and get repaired in, any port on the globe when most were little more than jetties with no repair facilities?
- Reflect the really huge differences in firepower between large and small ship classes.
- Reflect the vulnerability of ships to torpedoes and air attack.
- Reflect what actually happened in terms of ASW capability
o Early on DDs had very poor ASW capability
o So the Allies built 000s of cheap new ASW ships (frigates, escorts and corvettes) to escort convoys which freed up DDs to escort combat TFs.
- Reflect the huge differences in different countries’ units
o Eg, the Russian Gangut class BBs had less firepower than a British cruiser.
But to be honest, you can’t simulate naval warfare sensibly without a system based on Task Force HQs which can command large numbers of ships, and where you can transfer ships as needs change.
AIR
Air units are clearly intended to represent significant numbers of aircraft. But they can attack only once per turn, and the results are generally pretty forgettable. This criticism goes for all units. At this scale large forces should be able to fight many times in the course of 2 weeks.
Fighters can escort bombers and engage in combat in the target hex at ridiculous ranges. Remember, a Bf-109 could get from the Pas de Calais area to London and fight for 20 minutes before it had to leave. In the game that’s 3 hexes. Yet from the start fighters have a strike range of 5 and an escort range of 7. How does that work? But wait! They can also intercept at a range of 5 hexes. Rubbish. The ability to conduct timely intercept depends largely on early warning of the likely target of attack. Even with the system the British had in 1940 fighters might be able to intercept out to 2 hexes at most. Without it, you’re defending your own hex. Medium bombers have a strike range of 6. So how did the Germans bomb Belfast in 1940?
ECONOMY
A fundamental failure is the absence of any system to address the costs of maintaining armies in the field once they’ve been built. That cost is met mostly by taxing citizens or borrowing. The amount of tax revenue you can gather (and the amount you can pay your mighty armies) depends mainly on your level of GDP per capita. Moreover, people are generally inclined to accept higher taxes if the war is going well. So you need to link the taxation system to national sentiment or morale.
I would prefer a pay per turn approach to building new units, rather than paying the total at the start. I would also like to see a simple economic dashboard that allows players to track their revenue-expenditure situation. In the game “money” comes from resources, but in reality they are quite different. Resources produce goods and equipment, while money keeps the system going.
MAP
Sorry, but this map is all over the place. The scale values wildly between places like Europe and some more out of the way localities like Australia. For example, the scale between London and Moscow (2,520km) is about 58.6km per hex. But the scale of Australia is 112km per hex. And its not just annoying, massive, out-of-the-way places. Spain is also a problem. The UK gets special treatment at about 51.5km per hex but Japan gets only about 93km per hex. The scale for Italy looks like about 72km per hex. So its not really what you’d call an even playing field.
CONCLUSION
Sadly, these are only the main points. Space precludes a more detailed effort. For example, I haven’t mentioned the litany of errors in orders of battle.
LAND
There is simply no appreciation of the vast disparities in the real combat power of units. The combat values of units in the game are set out in a set of tables in the Edit Combat Target Data field. I freely admit that I do not understand this approach. It looks to me that the values in these tables are the same for each type of units across all countries, so why is it so complicated? The important point is that units of different countries were not equal at all!
In addition, every type of unit, except garrisons, gets 10 steps. The main effect of that is that, regardless of small differences in firepower per level, they all have similar resilience. This is absurd. If a Corps is attacked by an Army and loses strength at the same or a greater rate than the Army, it will lose very quickly. But not in this game, where HQs, AA, engineer and artillery units (regt-sized) can inflict losses on armoured corps.
My research into the real strength and effectiveness of forces in WW2 tells me that the reality was very different. Some examples.
1. The invasion of Poland. In the game, Polish units typically have strength levels of 4-6 against 10 for most German units. One could be forgiven for thinking that this implies that the Polish units were about 40-60% as strong as German units. But this is utter rubbish. In reality, EACH of the 5 attacking German armies was significantly stronger that all 13 main Polish major formations (9 of which were called armies) put together!
2. The invasion of France. In the game the French units have 8 levels of strength, implying that they’re about 80% as strong as the German units. The truth is very different, because in terms of overall HE firepower the Germans actually had more than a 10 to 1 advantage. Most of the 8 attacking German armies were about equal to or stronger than all the 9 French armies combined. The 6th Army on its own had more than twice the combat strength of the entire French Army.
Again, this was achieved primarily through a vast gulf in qualitative factors such as doctrine, training, leadership, and communications. The French campaign is perhaps the ultimate evidence that raw numbers are irrelevant when comparing force strengths. Its QUALITY that counts. With the French High Command determined to re-run WW1, and the Germans having spent the previous 6 months absorbing the lessons of the Polish campaign, there could only be one swift outcome. But in the game, my campaign began in April and was still going in October.
3. The invasion of Russia. I have not yet completed a comparison of German and Soviet forces for Barbarossa, but suspect the result will be similar to both Poland and France as the Russians were similar in terms of quality. I commend to the designers the excellent scholarship of D M Glanz and J M House, When Titans Clashed, in particular pp 77-82 and Tables C and D on pages 369-371. And I urge them to simulate what Glanz and House are telling us, that the USSR was able to lose more than 4 million men and 229 divisions in 1941 and still come back in sufficient force (more than 57 new armies by December 1941 alone) to prevail in the end. But you can only do that if the cost of Russian units is geared to its economy.
Disparities in the real combat strength of units continued to grow throughout the war. By late 1944 the USSR and USA in particular fielded hugely powerful armies and (for the US) endless ammunition. These formations were not just 20% or 30% stronger than their predecessors. More like 3 or even 4 times as strong. None of these realities are reflected in this game.
For some reason the designers have capped German R&D into infantry, armoured and aerial warfare to Level 1. Yet these were the precise areas where they dominated most.
The designers display a commendable if not irritating determination to include small units that are completely inappropriate at a global scale. Polish cavalry brigades are dotted around the map, when in reality they were part of the various Polish “armies”. And there are other sundry regiment-sized units which simply have no place in such a simulation. The Afrika Korps is a good example. At this scale, the DAK should be 1 unit (a pz corps) but it comprises no less than an HQ unit, a pz corps, an infantry corps (representing the 90th Light Division), a reconnaissance unit, and an artillery unit (whose guns could easily be accommodated within the confines of most suburban schools. At this scale the only bde-div size unit should be garrisons and perhaps engineers.
Another completely fictional aspect of the game is the ability to keep moving forces across the globe with utter disregard for any of the realities of logistics. In one game 3 of my Pz XXX brought about the collapse of China by invading over the Himalayas through Nepal after subduing India and taking Urumqi. What about the 000s of trucks that are required to supply corps-size units over even moderate distances (anything more than say 300km).
China. In the game Chinese units are just as strong as Japanese. But in reality, a single triangular Japanese infantry division outgunned Chiang’s best army of 8 divisions (organised and trained by German advisers) by about 2.7 to 1. Other Chinese forces were barely trained and had almost no effective fighting strength. Not forgetting that the Chinese fought with incredible bravery for 8 long years, in reality, Japan’s efforts were dogged significantly by the size of China, its forbidding terrain, and Japan’s own supply system (sic). For some strange reason the Chinese get effective AA and artillery, although there were so few guns available that Chiang horded them for his best units.
Note. All my strength ratios reflect the impact of qualitative factors.
SEA
Water is a wonderful thing. So fluid. Weather’s pretty interesting too, but not in this game. Naval units can surround hostiles and batter them to death the same as if on land. Well sorry, but war at sea just doesn’t work that way. To engage an enemy at sea you must first see (and ID) him. The prospects for this depend crucially on the vagaries of the weather and their effects on visibility.
In this game, naval units have pathetic range. Most can go 16 hexes per turn. That’s about 1,200km in 14 days. That’s 85km each day! That means they’re averaging about 1.8 knots. I know ships rarely sail in straight lines, but that’s ridiculous. However, they can stay at sea for the entire war.
I really don’t know what more to say about this aspect. Here’s a few quick suggestions.
- Design a detection probability system based on weather/sea state patterns and hours of sunlight.
o Each new naval unit that enters a hex with a hostile in it should have to search for contact.
- Introduce the concept of radar to account for its advantages in poor weather
- Why can any naval unit go into, and get repaired in, any port on the globe when most were little more than jetties with no repair facilities?
- Reflect the really huge differences in firepower between large and small ship classes.
- Reflect the vulnerability of ships to torpedoes and air attack.
- Reflect what actually happened in terms of ASW capability
o Early on DDs had very poor ASW capability
o So the Allies built 000s of cheap new ASW ships (frigates, escorts and corvettes) to escort convoys which freed up DDs to escort combat TFs.
- Reflect the huge differences in different countries’ units
o Eg, the Russian Gangut class BBs had less firepower than a British cruiser.
But to be honest, you can’t simulate naval warfare sensibly without a system based on Task Force HQs which can command large numbers of ships, and where you can transfer ships as needs change.
AIR
Air units are clearly intended to represent significant numbers of aircraft. But they can attack only once per turn, and the results are generally pretty forgettable. This criticism goes for all units. At this scale large forces should be able to fight many times in the course of 2 weeks.
Fighters can escort bombers and engage in combat in the target hex at ridiculous ranges. Remember, a Bf-109 could get from the Pas de Calais area to London and fight for 20 minutes before it had to leave. In the game that’s 3 hexes. Yet from the start fighters have a strike range of 5 and an escort range of 7. How does that work? But wait! They can also intercept at a range of 5 hexes. Rubbish. The ability to conduct timely intercept depends largely on early warning of the likely target of attack. Even with the system the British had in 1940 fighters might be able to intercept out to 2 hexes at most. Without it, you’re defending your own hex. Medium bombers have a strike range of 6. So how did the Germans bomb Belfast in 1940?
ECONOMY
A fundamental failure is the absence of any system to address the costs of maintaining armies in the field once they’ve been built. That cost is met mostly by taxing citizens or borrowing. The amount of tax revenue you can gather (and the amount you can pay your mighty armies) depends mainly on your level of GDP per capita. Moreover, people are generally inclined to accept higher taxes if the war is going well. So you need to link the taxation system to national sentiment or morale.
I would prefer a pay per turn approach to building new units, rather than paying the total at the start. I would also like to see a simple economic dashboard that allows players to track their revenue-expenditure situation. In the game “money” comes from resources, but in reality they are quite different. Resources produce goods and equipment, while money keeps the system going.
MAP
Sorry, but this map is all over the place. The scale values wildly between places like Europe and some more out of the way localities like Australia. For example, the scale between London and Moscow (2,520km) is about 58.6km per hex. But the scale of Australia is 112km per hex. And its not just annoying, massive, out-of-the-way places. Spain is also a problem. The UK gets special treatment at about 51.5km per hex but Japan gets only about 93km per hex. The scale for Italy looks like about 72km per hex. So its not really what you’d call an even playing field.
CONCLUSION
Sadly, these are only the main points. Space precludes a more detailed effort. For example, I haven’t mentioned the litany of errors in orders of battle.
