I agree that there are other potential uses, which are more plausible.McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 6:03 pm Not everything is kept on "historical" rails regardless of player choices or achievments, e.g. Soviet counter offensive in December 1941 being less lethal if Moscow is captured by then, D-day not happening if Sea Lion is successful, etc. There are of course a lot of speculation in these but I think they are more or less plausible. I just think that claiming that the Allies would have sent even more help to the Soviets had the Germans were less enthusiastic about attacking the Atlantic convoys may be a bit too far-fetched. As they could have used their extra unused resources to many other things such as a more effective blockade of the continent like they did in WW1 or an even stronger strategic bombing campaign.
Perhaps my quest to strengthen the Soviets in 1942 against experienced players had a strong influence in establishing this "link".
The "relative ease" of this "causal implementation" in game might have contributed as well. (Two birds with one stone)
I agree that rng could skew that balancing a lot.McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 6:03 pmFor sure, the only question is, what it means to "underperform"? Compared to what? Since most of the Allied naval movement is randomized it is also a matter of luck, to be honest. Some players may be more lucky than others, only because they may attack with less u-boat units but those may find and destroy more Allied convoy units. Then of course the problem if someone plays with or without normal (random) dice rolls. Then the highly randomized and hard coded submarine evasion event. There are just too many variables here to balance it "correctly". As again, what should be regarded as "correct" when we only know for sure what happened historically.Thus Allied units would have to be added on top of the existing ones (to the eastern and/or western fronts), which would then only spawn if the player underperforms the "Battle of the Atlantic".
Though that could be said for many other aspects as well.
Eg one additional turn of mud/snow could make quite the difference on the Eastern Front.
Imho the player has to adjust and deal with it, which can be fun and "realistic" in its own way.
After all, currently an experienced BE player can even time the invasion and counterattack preparations.
McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 16, 2023 6:03 pmIt is really hard to find the balance here. My rough estimate, if I remember well in my "historical" playthroughs (when testing the actual latest version and when I played more or less historically) was that I could usually destroy only around 10 or even less Allied convoy units in the scenario. In these I only used the U-boats, and not the Kriegsmarine, with limited air support (only the two starting "sea planes", the Condor and the BV 138) and of course no recon-undo cheat or save reload or things like that. Which in effect can also distort the result quite significantly, if we are here.On the other hand, if the player overperforms in the "Battle fo the Atlantic", some of the currently existing Allied units can be taken away.
So perhaps I could say there could be like 10 extra Allied units on top of the current number and then if the player can wage a more effective Atlantic campaign by destroying even more convoy ships than even less Allied units would appear, like one after each additional convoy unit destroyed.
Or perhaps it could be even more drastic and each convoy ship unit would affect the spawning of two Allied units at some point. But there is a catch here, it should not be overdone as in that case players would behave the opposite by giving dispropotionately high priority to the naval war in order to win more "easily".
Also the balancing between sinking convoys and sitting on the convoy routes would be hard.
Otherwise it would become much more valuable to conserve ammo for exclusively engaging convoys.
Though perhaps that might lead to more "wolfpack" style attacks.
Maybe the routes give prestige, while the convoys only prevent unit spawns?
For adding units on top of the existing ones, I could imagine a 3 way split between adding 1) fighters/bombers over Britain, 2) perhaps some more British/US troops for Torch/Persia counterattack and 3) additional lend lease units for the Soviets?
I would really like to use this to somewhat strengthen the Soviets.
Let's for example say that 20 units are added to the Allies, each destroyed convoy preventing 2 of them from spawning.
If the player somehow destroys even more convoys (than the 10 mentioned above), it only removes one of the currently existing units.
I agree that there still might be a problem with overinvesting in the naval war. Although ship repairs are hell of expensive, so such an overinvestment may backfire on its own...
As you said, the balancing will be hard.
Imho it could still be worthwhile.
If only I could tie in the currently rather static air war over Axis territory as well.
Perhaps a more active Atlantic war could split the flak coverage between the French Atlantic coast (for ship repairs) and Germany (for industry protection)?
, while they were pressing towards Archangel !
I guess it may have something to do with the historical Allied landings elsewhere in the Mediterranean. That is, if the other historical Allied campaigns in the Mediterranean are unsuccesful (like Tunisia and Sicily) then it may not happen. But I might be wrong. 