Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Lebensraum - an After Action Report

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Lebensraum - an After Action Report Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 6:11:47 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
The following points are relevant to this AAR.

  • I'll be playing the Lebensraum scenario (basically Global War starting from 22nd June 1941) with all optional rules.

  • I plan to post about once per week... this AAR is a by-product of the testing, not the other way around.

  • There is no AI used in this campaign and therefore it will not be strategically intelligent (make of that what you will). There will be ungarrisoned beaches which are ignored by the enemy and undefended convoys happily co-existing with idling wolf packs of submarines. This is because I am not playing this campaign to win for either side but rather to test out the game mechanics. Consequently I will not respond to comments like "Why don't you invade in the south where he's weak?" but I'm happy to respond to questions like "Can you show us how to do an amphibious invasion?"

  • I'll try to show the use of the various Forms as I go rather than concentrating on the strategic situation. So if you're looking to buy MWiF on 27th July 2009 then this AAR will give you a little head start on the learning curve.

  • I won't discuss the progress of the game or comment on requests for enhancements. Those discussions should be posted in the appropriate sticky threads at the top of the MWiF Forum.


AAR
The USA Atlantic fleet is setting up on the West Coast. The crew of the USS Ranger are hearing a lecture about the history of their ship.
All air, naval and land units (including HQ Leaders) have similar commentaries




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

/Greyshaft
Post #: 1
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 7:42:41 AM   
Missouri Rebel

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
Ummm. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the East Coast?   

_____________________________

We must act... against the Sioux, even to the extermination of men, WOMEN and CHILDREN.The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers.- w.t. SHErMAN

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 2
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 8:01:10 AM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
You might think so but remember that I'm from Australia and everything is reversed south of the equator

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Missouri Rebel)
Post #: 3
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 11:43:21 AM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline
Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 4
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 2:30:29 PM   
jjax


Posts: 289
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline
I look forward to reading more!

_____________________________

--JJAX


(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 5
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 5:58:21 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

Yes.

There are a few that cannot be renamed because of their special capabilities (e.g., Stilwell). Also, renaming units would have to be done for each new game, since determining which units are to be setup (and where) requires many units to not have their names changed. For example, all the capital ships are referenced by name for which ones set up where (and the same for HQ units).

A more elaborate system could be developed, but that falls into my category of WIF design kit - not part of MWIF product 1.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 6
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 6:35:18 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

Thanks Greyshaft, I will look closely at it.

Is possible rename the counters?

Yes.

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 7
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 8:18:18 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 8
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 8:56:58 PM   
Sewerlobster


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/7/2007
From: Reading, Pa. USA
Status: offline
Combat Air Patrol
I prefer to believe this is the worst one.
A private venture intended to compete with the Sopwith Snipe, the Osprey was of wooden construction with fabric skinning and was powered by a 230hp Bentley B.R.2 nine-cylinder rotary engine. Armament comprised two fixed and synchronised 7.7mm Vickers machine guns and one semi-free Lewis gun of similar calibre on the rear spanwise member of the middle-wing centre section. The Osprey was flown for the first time in February 1918, but performance proved to be inferior to that of the Snipe, and construction of second and third prototypes was abandoned.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SewerStarFish -- 2/13/2009 1:03:34 AM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 9
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 9:08:39 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

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).

Happily, you can scrap old units, and you'd be either unlucky or unskilled if you ended up with such Ospreys on your flying decks.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 2/12/2009 9:10:56 PM >

(in reply to Greyshaft)
Post #: 10
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 9:08:53 PM   
Greyshaft


Posts: 2252
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
Hawker Osprey



See the history of the Osprey at this link





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

/Greyshaft

(in reply to Sewerlobster)
Post #: 11
RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/12/2009 9:23:47 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

  • I plan to post about once per week... this AAR is a by-product of the testing, not the other way around.



  • Hi Greyshaft, i really like when you post screenshots like that, thank you. It familiarizes me already with the game.

    (in reply to Greyshaft)
    Post #: 12
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/13/2009 1:19:59 AM   
    Greyshaft


    Posts: 2252
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Sydney, Australia
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

    Combat Air Patrol
    I prefer to believe this is the worst one.
    A private venture intended to compete with the Sopwith Snipe, the Osprey was of wooden construction with fabric skinning and was powered by a 230hp Bentley B.R.2 nine-cylinder rotary engine. Armament comprised two fixed and synchronised 7.7mm Vickers machine guns and one semi-free Lewis gun of similar calibre on the rear spanwise member of the middle-wing centre section. The Osprey was flown for the first time in February 1918, but performance proved to be inferior to that of the Snipe, and construction of second and third prototypes was abandoned.




    You're showing a picture of the Austin A.F.T.3 Osprey which was flown for the first and last times in 1918 and never entered service with the CW. The MWiF setup refers to the Hawker Osprey which was in service with the Fleet Air Arm from 1931 to 1944.

    Same name... different aircraft.

    _____________________________

    /Greyshaft

    (in reply to Sewerlobster)
    Post #: 13
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/13/2009 1:56:26 AM   
    brian brian

     

    Posts: 3191
    Joined: 11/16/2005
    Status: offline
    coooool. I predict an epic future for this thread!

    (in reply to Greyshaft)
    Post #: 14
    D'oh... I thought YOU were guarding Tobruk - 2/13/2009 12:05:41 PM   
    Greyshaft


    Posts: 2252
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Sydney, Australia
    Status: offline
    Should be an interesting war in the Med because the CW neglected to set up any units in Tobruk. My excuse was that I was more interested in deploying the fort hexside counters around El Alamein and trying to crash the system by moving the fort hexsides after initial deployment (it didn't crash).  In a normal game I'd ask for a Mulligan and it would be a pretty dastardly opponent who refused to let me correct my oversight but in a computer game I'm stuck with my setup.


    _____________________________

    /Greyshaft

    (in reply to brian brian)
    Post #: 15
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/13/2009 2:57:34 PM   
    meisterchow


    Posts: 284
    Joined: 12/12/2007
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

    Hawker Osprey


    See the history of the Osprey at this link



    The history of the Fleet Air Arm is rather odd. In the early 20's (IIRC) all air services were combined under one command. The joint command was more interested in developing land-based fighters and to a lesser extent bombers than anything else.

    The Navy, itself, wasn't all that concerned about having a frontline fighter, as in their mind, carrier-based fighters were there mostly to shoot down or drive off enemy spotter aircraft. Given that they would often be operating well within range of land-based air, the British navy placed more reliance on their armored flight decks and extensive AA batteries than on carrier aviation. While those armored decks did serve them well, they soon found out that there isn't enough AA in the world to stop a determined attacker. Because they were so far behind the curve on developing quality naval fighters, the British relied heavily on American imports.

    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.

    _____________________________

    'Fear God and dread nought'
    Coat of Arms Motto of Baron Fisher, of Kilverstone

    (in reply to Greyshaft)
    Post #: 16
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/14/2009 12:21:16 AM   
    macgregor


    Posts: 990
    Joined: 2/10/2004
    Status: offline
    Thanks for posting this thread Greyshaft. I'll be keeping an eye on this. Please post pictures!

    (in reply to meisterchow)
    Post #: 17
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/14/2009 2:26:46 AM   
    Michael the Pole


    Posts: 680
    Joined: 10/30/2004
    From: Houston, Texas
    Status: offline

    quote:

    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 involving education (less than 1% of British males attended university prior to WWII,) government ineptitude (the stories concerning armor piercing shells that broke up on impact, bombs that consistantly failed to explode, and explosives that were known to be less than 50% as effective than German explosives to name just a few, make the U. S. Navy's problems with its Mark XIV torpedo seem like cute, cuddly confusion!), Union ludditeism and general bloodymindedness (on discovering a gang of British yard workers playing cards in the Captains day cabin during a refit of his corvette after a long, particularly nasty Atlantic patrol, a Royal Navy officer was ordered "not to make a scene for fear of causing a strike!") and the simply amazing ineptitude of British upper level commanders of every branch of service. But the most telling indicator of German economic and technical superiority concerns machine tools -- the equipment needed to produce intricate and advanced weapon components such as aircraft radar or proximity fuses. Quite simply, in 1939 when Germany was the worlds largest exporter of machine tools, the UK had to import the tubes (valves) for its radar sets and aircraft instruments such as altimeters because they simply couldnt be produced in the home islands. Ever wonder why the British consistantly mounted Swedish anti-aircraft guns on their ships -- there's a reason!

    Deighton tells a great story about the Technical Committee holding a meeting in the summer of 1941 which was to determine if the Germans were using Radar. This was a full year after a German radar set had been captured and identified by the British radar boffins.

    The Royal Air Force, which had been firmly in the control of the strategic bomber types almost since the end of WWI, managed to think that they were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a force of less than 50 Handley Page Hampdens and Vickers Wellington two engine bombers which had a practical service ceiling of 10,000 feet.

    _____________________________

    "One scoundrel is a disgrace, two is a law-firm, and three or more is a Congress." B. Franklin

    Mike

    A tribute to my heroes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fRU2tlE5m8

    (in reply to meisterchow)
    Post #: 18
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/14/2009 6:41:07 AM   
    Greyshaft


    Posts: 2252
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Sydney, Australia
    Status: offline
    "Mein Fuhrer... I have Good News and Bad News"
    "   Ach, I love these jokes. Go ahead Hermann, tell me the Good News."
    "Joke?  Uh... ze Good News is that the British left Tobruk ungarissoned and ve have occupied it without a fight."
    "   And they left all their beer behind and our troops got drunk and burned it down?"
    "No. Really truly mein Fuhrer, we have taken Tobruk. "
    "   You are not joking?"
    "No mein Fuhrer."
    "   Wonderbar! Then who cares about the Bad News?"
    "Our troops in Russia care, Mein Fuhrer. It seems that the weather for the first turn of our invasion of Russia is snow across the entire front line."
    "   The entire front line?"
    "Apart from the storms near Memel and Odessa"
    "   Uh... that's not good, is it Hermann?"
    "No mein Fuhrer."

    _____________________________

    /Greyshaft

    (in reply to Michael the Pole)
    Post #: 19
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/14/2009 8:11:49 AM   
    warspite1


    Posts: 41353
    Joined: 2/2/2008
    From: England
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


    quote:

    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 involving education (less than 1% of British males attended university prior to WWII,) government ineptitude (the stories concerning armor piercing shells that broke up on impact, bombs that consistantly failed to explode, and explosives that were known to be less than 50% as effective than German explosives to name just a few, make the U. S. Navy's problems with its Mark XIV torpedo seem like cute, cuddly confusion!), Union ludditeism and general bloodymindedness (on discovering a gang of British yard workers playing cards in the Captains day cabin during a refit of his corvette after a long, particularly nasty Atlantic patrol, a Royal Navy officer was ordered "not to make a scene for fear of causing a strike!") and the simply amazing ineptitude of British upper level commanders of every branch of service. But the most telling indicator of German economic and technical superiority concerns machine tools -- the equipment needed to produce intricate and advanced weapon components such as aircraft radar or proximity fuses. Quite simply, in 1939 when Germany was the worlds largest exporter of machine tools, the UK had to import the tubes (valves) for its radar sets and aircraft instruments such as altimeters because they simply couldnt be produced in the home islands. Ever wonder why the British consistantly mounted Swedish anti-aircraft guns on their ships -- there's a reason!

    Deighton tells a great story about the Technical Committee holding a meeting in the summer of 1941 which was to determine if the Germans were using Radar. This was a full year after a German radar set had been captured and identified by the British radar boffins.

    The Royal Air Force, which had been firmly in the control of the strategic bomber types almost since the end of WWI, managed to think that they were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a force of less than 50 Handley Page Hampdens and Vickers Wellington two engine bombers which had a practical service ceiling of 10,000 feet.

    Warspite1

    And your point is? There`s nothing new in what Deighton says. To go back a step, I have no idea how they did it, but one of the great mysteries in life is how the German (and indeed Japanese) nations achieved what they did in terms of industrial success. They achieved this remarkable turn around in relatively short time from unification (in the case of the Germans) and the decision to open the country once more after years of self-imposed exile (in the case of Japan). If you want to know more then read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers – a brilliant BALANCED book.

    However, why do people feel the need to print so mocking, self regarding articles as the one you posted? Why pick on the British – and to a lesser extent the Americans – whose crime was defeating Hitler in a war they never asked for. Try reading Max Hastings Armageddon which tries to put into focus, why the Allies took so long to win the war.

    As far as individual points are concerned, The Royal Air Force thinking was no different to most countries – the bomber will always get through – well they were wrong. But the service chiefs coped with the little they had given the depression of the twenties and cash strapped thirties. But as you say, the Germans were light years ahead of the bumbling, useless British…….Spitfire? Rubbish aircraft.

    Deighton tells the story of the Technical Committee and radar? I suspect there is a whole lot more to that story but why let facts get in the way of a good story. Albert Speer tells the story of Hermann Goering, whose reaction to being told that a long range Allied fighter had crashed in Germany simply replied – No it hasn`t – and that ended that conversation.

    As for the last two points, firstly, yes there were problems with the unions, and shocking as it sounds, there were a huge number of days lost to industrial action during the war. During my naval write-ups I have come across a number of ships whose completion was delayed due to strike action. Is Britain the exception then? The Commander of the Pacific Fleet found a similar problem in Australia, we know France was crippled by industrial action and general unrest. I have never read of instances in the US but would be surprised if there were none there. Why no such stories in Germany or Japan (or Russia)? Maybe something to do with the fact that any such action would be met with a bullet or a visit to one of their camps…..

    German technical superiority. Have you ANY idea how many ships the Germans did NOT sink at the start of the war due to faulty torpedoes? Or has that point been ignored as it does not fit the argument? “The British were prepared to mount a strategic bombing campaign with 50 Hampdens and Wellingtons” What? How could they be so stupid? You will be telling me next that they tried to invade Russia with MkI and MkII tanks still making up a large part of their armoured forces? Or that they would try and break their opponents vulnerable sea lanes with a handful of ocean going submarines….Oh no, that was the Germans.

    Were the Germans generally better at building/manufacturing high quality steel, optical instruments etc etc? Yes. Were the British in industrial decline? Yes - they had been for sixty years before that.

    But I repeat; the point is? Would you have preferred that in 1939 we simply said, right we can`t compete with the Germans – our planes, tanks, ships etc are all rubbish, we as a nation of individuals are all useless, we made strategic and operational mistakes with convoys and types of aircraft and, well just about everything else - so we will give this war a miss.




    (in reply to Michael the Pole)
    Post #: 20
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/14/2009 3:51:43 PM   
    wosung

     

    Posts: 692
    Joined: 7/18/2005
    Status: offline
    Well, WW2 showed, that it's not enough to have competent engineers and officers to win a war.

    Regards

    (in reply to warspite1)
    Post #: 21
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 10:29:13 AM   
    Greyshaft


    Posts: 2252
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Sydney, Australia
    Status: offline
    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


    _____________________________

    /Greyshaft

    (in reply to wosung)
    Post #: 22
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 2:13:38 PM   
    oscar72se

     

    Posts: 100
    Joined: 8/28/2006
    From: Gothenburg Sweden
    Status: offline

    quote:

    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...

    (in reply to wosung)
    Post #: 23
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 4:52:38 PM   
    micheljq


    Posts: 791
    Joined: 3/31/2008
    From: Quebec
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Michael the Pole


    quote:

    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.

    < Message edited by micheljq -- 2/16/2009 5:58:51 PM >

    (in reply to Michael the Pole)
    Post #: 24
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 6:29:50 PM   
    Greyshaft


    Posts: 2252
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Sydney, Australia
    Status: offline
    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.







    Attachment (1)

    < Message edited by Greyshaft -- 2/16/2009 6:30:20 PM >


    _____________________________

    /Greyshaft

    (in reply to micheljq)
    Post #: 25
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 6:34:33 PM   
    micheljq


    Posts: 791
    Joined: 3/31/2008
    From: Quebec
    Status: offline
    Thank you for the great screenshot, poor german.

    Can the weather display be toggled off/on?

    (in reply to Greyshaft)
    Post #: 26
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 6:37:09 PM   
    Froonp


    Posts: 7995
    Joined: 10/21/2003
    From: Marseilles, France
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: micheljq

    Thank you for the great screenshot, poor german.

    Can the weather display be toggled off/on?

    Yes, it can.

    (in reply to micheljq)
    Post #: 27
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/16/2009 7:46:25 PM   
    Shannon V. OKeets

     

    Posts: 22095
    Joined: 5/19/2005
    From: Honolulu, Hawaii
    Status: offline

    quote:

    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.

    _____________________________

    Steve

    Perfection is an elusive goal.

    (in reply to Greyshaft)
    Post #: 28
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/17/2009 12:15:40 AM   
    EUBanana


    Posts: 4552
    Joined: 9/30/2003
    From: Little England
    Status: offline
    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.

    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 reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
    Post #: 29
    RE: Lebensraum - an After Action Report - 2/17/2009 12:18:29 PM   
    Neilster


    Posts: 2890
    Joined: 10/27/2003
    From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Status: offline
    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

    (in reply to EUBanana)
    Post #: 30
    Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Lebensraum - an After Action Report Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.860