Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics - Am I Wrong?

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] >> WarPlan >> Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics - Am I Wrong?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics - A... - 12/7/2021 9:46:34 PM

BlackLancer

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/28/2020
Status: offline

Full disclosure: this is my first ever full Warplan playthrough. I'm playing a PBEM game against a friend, but after what happened I don't think I'd ever play again. I was drawn to Warplan looking for a more in-depth Strategic Command. (I am a life-long WiF player, but was drawn to an elegant PBEM system). I was drawn to what appeared to be more realistic victory conditions and a better naval/supply system. - After what was possible in this game, I'm convinced the supply/invasion system is utterly a-historical/unrealistic so much to the point that the game is not worth playing.

In an in-progress game against my opponent, the axis invaded Syria and over the course of two months managed to transport and supply a gigantic army to Syria, running through the Royal Navy and heavy air cover in the process. -Invading Vichy Syria with no reaction from the rest of Vichy is a little absurd in and of itself (but that's not the main topic of my critique here).

You would think that this would be a gigantic strategic error. If the real German army transported a huge army to Syria through a Royal Navy blockade, half of them would likely be sunk in transport. Even those who made it ashore would find impossible to supply themselves. (Not to mention the political fall-out from Vichy France).

Not only this, but then the Axis player proceeded to continue to invade Egypt/Syria with suicide squads to disrupt lines. Maybe the initial invasion gained the benefit of surprise... However, these subsequent suicide squads have no hope of ever being in supply, but are just there to be annoying. Some of these invasions happened directly beside 3CV's and multiple battleships, not to mention being beside a full-sized corp. - This is utterly ridiculous. The allies have complete naval superiority having one a battle early damaging multiple Italian BB'sships who then retreated and have not been around since the first turns of the invasion.

(Aside: it is rather silly that you need to be within 5-hexes of a port to blockade it when a huge army is being supplied. This mechanic might work for ports like Malta / Cyprus, but when a huge army is present, supplies are going to be coming from all over. There is no reason why British CV's would only be able to interdict supply underneath an axis air umbrella)... when we are talking about supplying armies on this scale, the system seems to break down.

To add insult to injury... the combination of stacking mechanics, map mechanics, and embarkation mechanics mean that nearly the entire English army will get trapped in Egypt. In the real world, a broken Commonwealth Army likely could have retreated to Southern Egypt and beyond if needed (further stretching the Axis supply lines). But there are no ports that far south and the map arbitrarily ends.

I'm certain I have committed many tactical blunders that have allowed this to happen. That's not really the point... I'm sure with better play this could be dealt with better. However, for a game that aims to have some semblance of realism... Could we ever imagine a realistic real-world scenario where the German army could have the transport/convoy/logistics capacity to supply something approaching the size of Army Group South in Syria in September-December 1940 without naval superiority? How would Germany teleport its entire merchant marine from the Atlantic/Baltic for use in the Med? Surely most of these ships cannot be transported by rail. But Warplan because these are not real units allows them to be teleported.

Anyway, that's my rant... I'm obviously a noob, but I'm curious to see what other folks out there have to say. Do folks not care about the realism? Did I miss something obvious?

Attachment (1)

Post #: 1

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/7/2021 10:46:51 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

What's the date and what's happening in Russia?

I had and still have high hopes for this game but stopped playing it temporarily when I saw lots of issues/new features that required rule changes being introduced (which requires a thorough re-read of the manual...), and lots of bugs being reported in the forum. Most of these have been addressed and/or are in the process of being addressed, thanks to Alvaro's dedication and several excellent players who have been helping to test things (you know who you are, thanks!).

C

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to BlackLancer)

Post #: 2

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/7/2021 10:53:59 PM

akashamon

Posts: 5
Joined: 5/23/2020
Status: offline

Hi, I am Blacklancer's opponent. My troops in Syria are suffering a little bit as they are unable to repair but that said they are still so powerful. I have been able to take Port Said and will now easily transport fresh units to that port. It would seem I can now take Egypt get Iraq to align with axis and force Russia into a two front war after I invade Persia. Then once I take Baku Turkey will align with me... well it would seem the game is over because of my "all in" on Egypt approach. I don't think this is super outrageous, but I am also not very educated on history or details of war logistics of the time. I know the allies (uk/Russia) did worry about this exact scenario which is why the UK invaded Syria in 1941.

I think one area that might be looked at is the cost of landing ships I think it needs to cost more. The other is how many transport ships Germany starts with. I was constantly out of them from moving so many troops around but I still moved a lot of troops. So maybe having Germany start with less transports as well.

Otherwise I think the point about fleets needs to be addressed. I wonder if there might be a ZOC function that helps fleets control shorelines so silly AMP landings don't happen or are used cheaply like how I did. It felt odd being able to move my transports with air/land units which the path was literally through CV/BB fleets the uk had within 5 hexes of the two ports in Syria I used. I was not overly sure what would happen and it felt like I should not be able to but then when the game permitted me to bring in one unit... I changed my entire strategy. Units that had been resting near Warsaw all railed to Greece or other ports and started to move into Syria over a 3-4 turns I had moved massive amounts of forces from the Russian border to Syria. That does seem a bit out of touch even for my limited understanding of ww2 logistics.

Overall I like the game design and how logistics/supply mechanics are managed with the landing ships for example or the rail line capacity being a separate and limited value. This in my opinion really reduces all the extra clicking and fidgeting with managing transport ships as separate units. Or budgeting money as a form of rail movement (I think strategic command does that). But I can see how if the allies took a port in France their supply is immediately increased from the port allowing them to push hard like how I did with a port in Syria. Similarly an unguarded (or weak division only) port in UK might be a gateway for an unrealistic sea lion by Germany.

Looking forward to hearing other opinions and thoughts on this.

(in reply to BlackLancer)

Post #: 3

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/7/2021 10:56:12 PM

akashamon

Posts: 5
Joined: 5/23/2020
Status: offline

I think it was January 41. The invasion of Syria was the first week of November in 1940. Russia is not at war and there are sparse troops setting up to defend against Russia now as a 41 invasion is not planned now becuase I can literally destroy UK at this point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

What's the date and what's happening in Russia?

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 4

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/7/2021 11:04:25 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

This happened to me...once.
Then no more.

It is easy to prevent and that is what you should be doing.

NOW is it realistic...not really. But then again the Germans could invade the US if the wanted. That is not realistic but you can do it. Odds are you would lose but then again you may not.
The units in Syria are not likely receiving any reinforcements but they get basic supply which I have have always had an issue with. Not sure that will change.
The Germans are likely not recovering their efficiency either...so as they wear down they will not get better.

What I could imagine more likely is that once this occurred Turkey was providing supplies to the Axis.
NOW that does not occur in the game without a bit more work on the Axis part but it makes sense.

This game is not meant to be 100% real...but close.
Are their issues...sure...
Are their problems...yup...
BUT many you can prevent so this does not happen.

I had this exact scenario occur...

Lost all of Africa and the Middle East. Lost 75% of Russia...then the US showed up...
Took Tripoli and invaded Italy...and they surrendered.
Next thing you know Germany had to evacuate Africa because southern Germany was being invaded...and the game was over.

Keep in mind..you play to learn.
You fix this you will enjoy the game more.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 5

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/7/2021 11:16:31 PM

BlackLancer

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/28/2020
Status: offline

Adding a bit of context. Screen shot is from Jan 3, 1941

-France fell in line with the historical context
-Germany amassed on the Yugoslavian Border and DoW'ed them in late summer 1940
-Germany then continued on to Greece where they overran the Greeks in early fall 1940.

In the meantime, the British reinforce Egypt anticipating a potential push. Standard stuff until this point...

And then boom: Mid-November Germany and Italy land in Syria. As the allied player there was really no way to see this coming. You cannot see the axis investing in naval landing units. A large army being in Greece seemed natural... and being a new player, I just was not expecting the axis to have landing capacity as if they they the allies on D-Day 1944. - just bonkers that they can move any army of that size across the entire Eastern Mediterranean ocean in a couple of weeks.

In addition, its not like the transports/amph units are real units that you can see amassing. They can literally teleport to wherever you need them.

---
All that said, I don't necessarily even disagree that the game is lost. Barbarossa 1941 will likely be weaker if it happens. I'm probably too new to call it. I'm just frankly shocked that this is even possible.
1. The supply system does not seem punishing enough
2. The invasion system a little silly. I think the game needs to implement notional units for invasions, perhaps?
3. The naval system needs to handle interdiction better. Perhaps this game needs to move to a sea-zone system more like WiF?

(in reply to akashamon)

Post #: 6

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/8/2021 1:04:27 AM

canuckgamer

Posts: 737
Joined: 6/23/2004
Status: offline

My friend and I are in to our second PBEM and I am the Allies again. We both learned a lot from our first game. I agree with Stjeand that the Allies can easily prevent a successful Axis invasion of Syria. I had two infantry corps stationed on the border of Syria so that as soon as Vichy France was declared I DOW'd Syria and occupied Tripoli and Beirut. I also had an air unit in Cypress for air support and to intercept any invasion attempts. Unless the Axis can take a port in Syria they are toast. Even if they do take the two ports in Syria and Haifa they can only fully supply 160 strength points. Looking at your screenshot the aircraft along require 190 supply so a very large majority of his forces would only have basic supply which means no recover of effectiveness or rebuilding of losses.

I also moved about 60% of the Royal navy to the Med early including 3 CVs and the subs. One sub sitting adjacent to each of the Syrian ports would blockade any supply getting through if they fall and if the Italian fleet tries to intervene it could suffer heavy losses at the hands of the Royal Navy and aircraft that you have on Cypress. In our second game, the Axis have not even attempted to invade Syria.

In both our games, the Axis have not invaded Yugoslavia or Greece. The thinking being that the amount of resources gained does not justify the additional coastline that the Axis have to defend later in the game. I would have also thought that it would have a negative impact on the timing of Barbarossa. We are now in to January 41. We both like this game a lot more than the SC series and convinced two other friends to pick up the WPE/WPP bundle. We are not as experienced as some players on this forum but those are my thoughts after completing one pbem and now in to our second.

(in reply to BlackLancer)

Post #: 7

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/8/2021 4:27:13 AM

Flaviusx

Posts: 7750
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline

It's not realistic, but it will only work once and can be easily prevented. The Allied player has to invade Syria immediately after France surrenders and before the Axis can act here. In one turn Syria can be knocked out and the ports occupied. Small corps on each of these ports will be difficult to dislodge, especially if backed by air and naval elements. The key here is to preempt the Axis in Syria. Many newbie Allied players have this Syria trick played on them once and it never happens again because it is nearly impossible to pull off if the Allies preempt the Axis.

_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to canuckgamer)

Post #: 8

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/8/2021 3:54:18 PM

MorningDew

Posts: 1170
Joined: 9/20/2006
From: Greenville, SC
Status: offline

For a WarPlan 2, I'd love to see identified invasion hexes - those that could be realistically invaded in WWII by these size forces. Might not totally eliminate others, but there might be a severe penalty for invading a non-invasion hex.

_____________________________

(in reply to Flaviusx)

Post #: 9

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/8/2021 4:18:19 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

That would require me to have a map of such hexes. Which I don't even know where to find that. It is something I was thinking of. Like invading the White Cliffs of Dover should be heavily penalized.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to MorningDew)

Post #: 10

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/8/2021 4:43:50 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

It's not extremely unrealistic, but it is unrealistic (which a game should be to a certain extent).

This is mostly a showcase of not using the British fleet correctly, along with some other mistakes.

Despite all that, this is great news for Russia and strategically not a bad situation for the Allies.

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 11

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 6:13:16 AM

BlackLancer

Posts: 3
Joined: 5/28/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint

It's not extremely unrealistic, but it is unrealistic (which a game should be to a certain extent).

Not to be facetious, but I will quibble on it not being "extremely" unrealistic. MAYBE if this was the Atlantic Ocean the German's could have leveraged their navy to transport something approaching the size of Army Group South to Southern England over the course of a about a month assuming they had naval or at least air superiority. Even that feels unrealistic, but perhaps plausible?.... The English channel is rather short and multiple back-and-forth trips could happen under an air-umbrella.

BUT transporting something likely over 200,000 men, around 1,000 tanks, 500+ aircraft and all the supplies and ammunition they require for combat effectiveness from a newly occupied Greece all the way to Syria likely could not have been accomplished in peace-time conditions let alone under wartime conditions! - Especially because the German fleet is stationed in the Baltic Ocean! The German's could barely supply all their troops over-land in Russia. Syria is equally far-east, but also much further south and over a hostile ocean! This happening under wartime conditions where there is at-worst air parity and utter naval inferiority? Sorry, it is not just unrealistic, it is a complete fantasy.

I appreciate the advice from some players around immediately occupying Syria after Vichy... Noted.

-> However, I would also say that a game mechanic that forces players into an a-historic choice only to prevent another equally a-historic choice because of the games unrealistic supply and invasion system is not a very elegant solution. In my humble opinion there is something that should change here.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 12

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 9:03:36 AM

AstroBlues

Posts: 398
Joined: 8/10/2007
Status: offline

I think The old Avalon Hill Battle of the Bulge game said on the box top: You are in command. You do not have to make the same mistakes. You can change history. Doing the same thing all the time is boting. Wargames are supposed to be where you can change history. It is good to change things up.

(in reply to BlackLancer)

Post #: 13

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 12:40:35 PM

boldairade

Posts: 722
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline

In fairness to the game, the entire OP is not correct.

The Royal Navy can absolutely choke out an Axis landing in Syria, particularly if any effort to secure Cyprus is made(and should be if you see Axis forces massing for amphibious invasion-easy to spot)

This is not an inane 'GET GUD" response.

You absolutely CAN blockade the Axis and starve out an invasion. But you'll have to defeat the Italian Navy, and fight off Naval bombers(if the Axis player was smart enough to develop some).

Costly? Very likely. But the OP that the RN can't blockade an Axis invasion of Syria in not correct. It IS incumbent on the player to deploy the RN effectively to do so, however. It's not automatic.

(in reply to AstroBlues)

Post #: 14

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 12:58:55 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

From a realism perspective, I see 2 major issues:
1. There was no way the Axis could have invaded Syria with that many troops in 1940 and the cost to do so would have been incredibly high. Could they have invaded Syria in 1940, probably, but with a much smaller force.
2. I don't think there is any way the Axis could have supplied that number of troops in Syria in 1941. They had challenges just supplying their North Africa forces which I don't think were near the size of the Syria invasion shown and North Africa is closer with larger ports.

Ultimately, the game doesn't really model invasion advances made during ww2 and its pretty much as easy to invade in 1939 as it is at the end of the war. The cost of invasion and transporting is pretty low overall especially since transports get re-used. The port supply mechanism is pretty generous in that you get "basic supply" even if you are way over the max amount the port could bring in. All of these things lead to it being much easier in general to execute significant invasions but arguably make the game more flexible with more options.

< Message edited by redrum68 -- 12/9/2021 12:59:46 PM >

(in reply to boldairade)

Post #: 15

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 3:25:08 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

For the most part here everyone is correct.

The Axis could never really supply that many troops in Africa.
Then again neither could the Allies but they can in this game.

Syria was invaded by the UK but in 1941...saying you need to invade them in 40 is not out of the question...but leaving them means that the Axis could invade IF they put forth the PP to build the landing craft.
Had Syria been invaded by the UK early the Axis would have been stuck with PP spent on LC that they could not use for that purpose. Lost PP...so a choice.

This is a game and realism it not fully in effect here.

In the current game the Allies can invade Italy in 1941 if they wanted...could they in 1941 really? Nope, they did not have the resources to do it.
The Allies can invade France in 1942...I have seen it...could they have really in 1942? Nope.
The Axis can invade the US anytime...could they in WW 2? Nope.
Could Germany have invaded the UK? Not really because they did not spend the resources on doing that...BUT could they have? Maybe...
So do you allow it?

BUT many of these things are there for a reason.

IF you force the game to say the Allies can't invade France before date X...then the Axis will move the defenders to Russia and have that many more units there.
IF you force the Axis to not be able to invade the UK then the UK evacuates all their defenders and wipe the floor with them in Africa.

Every action has a reaction.

Yes invasions are not perfect...but ones listed here are easy to prevent.

If things like this has been locked down I am sure there would be complaints in the other direction.

I suspect in the future you will see the following...

Someone will pull off an Operation Sealion against you and you will change how the UK is defended. It happens to everyone once.
Someone will invade Murmansk or Archangel once...and you will defend it.
Someone will invade Russia via the Black Sea...and you will defend it.
Someone will invade Germany during the invasion of France causing you pain...and you will defend it.

There are a lot of little things that once you see them you change the way you play and ultimately the game will fall into more historical place.

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 16

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 5:49:19 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

Yeah, ultimately I think it boils down to should invasions be more difficult/costly? From a realism standpoint, they definitely should be and you outlined lots of examples that historically weren't really feasible. On the other hand, from a gameplay perspective, it potentially adds more variation to the game. I personally fall somewhere in between where I think invasions seem a bit too easy/cheap currently but to the points made, most of them can be countered.

< Message edited by redrum68 -- 12/9/2021 6:04:13 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 17

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 6:00:59 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

The issue with invasions is...IF you know they are coming you could completely stop them.

We are playing a historical simulation where you know FAR to much and that causes issues with the mechanics.

For examples...

The Russian air force was decimated in the opening war...but does any Russian player lose a single plane in the first turn? Nope because they know the Germans are coming and pull them all back out of range.
The Germans know the Allies are landing at some point...and know where they basically have to land. If they dump a few panzers there...the Allies may fail.

Opening up the invasions to more places because it is "easier" makes is so that the Germans can not commit to defend the main place the Allies have to land and makes it more realistic in that they do not know where the landing will come as it can be multiple locations rather than just Normandy.

I have always felt that landing is too easy...but if you make is more difficult it could potentially be made nearly impossible against the correct opponent.

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 18

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 6:09:40 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand
The issue with invasions is...IF you know they are coming you could completely stop them.

We are playing a historical simulation where you know FAR to much and that causes issues with the mechanics.

For examples...

The Russian air force was decimated in the opening war...but does any Russian player lose a single plane in the first turn? Nope because they know the Germans are coming and pull them all back out of range.
The Germans know the Allies are landing at some point...and know where they basically have to land. If they dump a few panzers there...the Allies may fail.

Opening up the invasions to more places because it is "easier" makes is so that the Germans can not commit to defend the main place the Allies have to land and makes it more realistic in that they do not know where the landing will come as it can be multiple locations rather than just Normandy.

I have always felt that landing is too easy...but if you make is more difficult it could potentially be made nearly impossible against the correct opponent.

Mostly agree though I think the one thing that should be tweaked is the distance that you can invade in a single turn. As Sea Lion, D-Day, Operation Husky, etc were all fairly short distances where the current 24 hex distance in a single turn is quite far. Though the counter argument is that you can rail units across the entire map in a single turn which gives the defender a large advantage if they see the preparations.

The start of Barbarossa could be changed to force a number of locked units or auto-spawn units to simulate the surprise. That is how SC WaW/Europe do it.

< Message edited by redrum68 -- 12/9/2021 6:10:18 PM >

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 19

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 11:06:57 PM

generalfdog

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/18/2020
Status: offline

Good responses here I would only add that it may not be as unrealistic as you think keep in mind German landings in Norway, and Crete were all done with British naval presence and superiority and north Africa was supplied. Taking Syria is almost the only way the Axis can hope to take egypt because without those ports they run in to to many supply issues, just like they did historically, it's all based on port size and distance from them, and interdiction of supplies by naval and air forces does work. In the screen shot I can see neither of you have occupied Cyprus which is a mistake, and your Axis opponent is having more issues then you think there is no way all that air force he has over there is worth anything, I bet they all have little red triangles and are almost useless , a few may be doing something if he is pumping supply trucks in to them every turn. Either way give it a chance for it's scale it is the most realistic best playing game out there

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 20

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/9/2021 11:28:35 PM

sveint

Posts: 3556
Joined: 1/19/2001
From: Glorious Europe
Status: offline

If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

(in reply to generalfdog)

Post #: 21

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/10/2021 12:43:14 AM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint
If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

Fair point. Though I think the big difference between the historical Norway invasion and the example here is the distance the troops traveled and the sheer numbers. Norway was a pretty small invasion force and was successful due to surprise and lack of defenders. It essentially lasted just a few days.

(in reply to sveint)

Post #: 22

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/11/2021 3:49:10 PM

Nikel

Posts: 355
Joined: 3/24/2009
Status: offline

Is a good thing to have options available, even those that did not happen historically, but that could have happen.

Lets call it "room to manoeuvre".

But they have to be credible in context. So you may invade Siria to pincer Egypt. But not without adequate preparations and supplies, in this case you should hold Cyprus before.

Van Creveld is no fan of Rommel when he writes:

"Although brought to a stop at Alamein, Rommel had by no means given up. He still intended to resume the attack after a few days� recuperation. However, the full impact of his long communications line now made itself felt. Of the 100,000 tons needed each month, Tobruk � itself hundreds of miles behind the front - could handle barely 20,000. Lorries were in as short a supply as always, and attempts to use the British railway from Sollum resulted in only 300 tons per day being transported instead of 1,500 as planned. What was worse, the port and the sea-routes leading to it were hopelessly exposed to the attacks of the Egypt-based RAF. Sending supply ships straight to Tobruk (or to the even smaller and more vulnerable ports of Bardia and Mersa Matruh) was difficult. On the other hand, unloading them at Benghazi or Tripoli, 800 and 1,300 miles behind the front respectively, involved impossible wastage and delay. Faced with this dilemma, Commando Supremo hesitated. In July, disregarding a storm of protest from Panzerarmee, the Italians opted to unload at Benghazi and Tripoli, with the result that although only 5 per cent of the shipping was lost and 91,000 tons put across, it took weeks for the supplies to reach the front. Rommel himself saw the dilemma clearly enough, but, he insisted that the Italians send their ships directly into Tobruk, with the result that in August losses rose fourfold and the quantity of supplies put across dropped to 51,000 tons."

< Message edited by Nikel -- 12/11/2021 4:23:12 PM >

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 23

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/11/2021 5:12:06 PM

stjeand

Posts: 1508
Joined: 1/10/2021
From: Aurora, NC
Status: offline

It would not be difficult to put in place that for the Axis to supply Syria they either had to have Turkey as an ally or control Cyprus.

BUT that is not how the game currently sits.

I believe in the next version there will be more "supply" based restrictions.

Something like MM and Transports are required to supply ports. Without them you can't...and when you are low supplies become scarce.

(in reply to Nikel)

Post #: 24

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/11/2021 6:40:15 PM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

Remember this is a game. If I made things 100% historical it would be very boring. If you knew the Germans would never succeed at Sealion as current data shows and I simply didn't allow it then that would make for a very boring game. Or invading Syria, or Gibraltar.

As examples.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to stjeand)

Post #: 25

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/12/2021 4:27:29 PM

AstroBlues

Posts: 398
Joined: 8/10/2007
Status: offline

(in reply to AlvaroSousa)

Post #: 26

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/12/2021 6:41:50 PM

Edorf

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/14/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

quote:

ORIGINAL: sveint
If the invasion of Norway hadn't happened historically, and anyone did that invasion in a game, everyone would call it "extremely unrealistic".

Fair point. Though I think the big difference between the historical Norway invasion and the example here is the distance the troops traveled and the sheer numbers. Norway was a pretty small invasion force and was successful due to surprise and lack of defenders. It essentially lasted just a few days.

Not just a �few days�. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That�s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a �few says�.

From Edorf aka �The Norwegian Viking�

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 27

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/12/2021 6:47:00 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

Not just a �few days�. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That�s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a �few says�.

From Edorf aka �The Norwegian Viking�

Well they didn't surrender til 2 months later but much of the damage was done in just the first few days. Landing a force equal to an entire army group in Syria and marching on the try to conquer Egypt is a completely different type of invasion.

The Soviet-Finnish war was completely different as it was primarily a land war not a naval invasion.

(in reply to Edorf)

Post #: 28

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/12/2021 7:56:07 PM

Edorf

Posts: 121
Joined: 5/14/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

quote:

Not just a �few days�. The invasion of Norway started on April 9 1940 and the armed resistance ended on June 10 1940. That�s two months.
Similarly the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939 lasted for three months but has never been referenced to as lasting just a �few says�.

From Edorf aka �The Norwegian Viking�

Well they didn't surrender til 2 months later but much of the damage was done in just the first few days. Landing a force equal to an entire army group in Syria and marching on the try to conquer Egypt is a completely different type of invasion.

The Soviet-Finnish war was completely different as it was primarily a land war not a naval invasion.

Of course I see your point. Norway was essentially completely doomed the day Germany decided to invaded and they were large effect in control very early on. But nevertheless the resistance lasted for quite some time, considering the small number of defenders.

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 29

RE: Extremely Unrealistic Supply and Invasion Mechanics... - 12/12/2021 8:24:50 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

Yeah you had some inland resistance and then the Allies landing to try to counter the Germans especially in northern/western Norway. But most of the ports and major cities fell very quickly.

I think invading Syria in a similar manner could have happened (quickly capture all ports and major cities), its the quantity of troops and then trying to supply that army as it marched on Egypt that I find to be unrealistic in this example.

(in reply to Edorf)

Post #: 30