What the Moriss "Overload" strategy means for CEAW

[Diplomaticus]

I'm starting this thread with Moriss's own appraisal of his AAR with Supermax:

Hi everyone :

since the AAR will have to halt after the 2.01.33 &.34 patches coming , I just to come to visit this AAR to say goodbye to you .
I do agree The Great Supermax have got great achivement in this AAR . Axis had got maybe the largest advantage which Axis could ever make . But the present Axis (Germany) manpower is around 600 & fuel around 100 , there are still around 140 INF steps need to supply ,also the GDP is much less then the total of Allies (160+ VS 250+ not including convoy ) , There are still more than two & half year to go . I believe this will be a close game in 1945 . Although Axis perform well done at the first half , it is still too early to say which side will be the winner ....

So, Moriss reveals in these and other comments that the genius of his strategy is a fairly straightforward one: Do the math! The Allies have such an advantage in manpower, oil, and GDP that they can afford to be sloppy (very sloppy indeed, as you know if you've followed the AAR) so long as they act like a vampire, draining and draining Axis manpower and oil. That's the essence of Moriss's strategy right there. And the AAR proves that even with careless actions and the loss of ridiculous numbers of units, the Allies can emerge with manpower still above 75%, PP production well above that of the Axis, and a general strategic situation that leaves the game still winnable.

Much of what makes all this possible is based in historical accuracy: The Soviets did sustain almost unthinkable losses, only to bounce back and trounce the Axis. The Axis was, in fact, isolated from the rest of the world, limited to drawing on the resources of Europe while the Allies had the entire globe to draw on.

However, I think we're all concerned for the game. While, I guess, the Allies could have really followed Morriss's strategy--at least in terms of GDP, manpower, and oil--nobody likes what this is doing in game terms. While Stalin was criminally callous to the human cost of his directives, it's almost inconceivable that the rest of the Allies would really have followed such a brutally inhuman strategy of attrition. Not only inhuman, but devastating to their own cause, too. Yes, it might have won them the war, but afterward...? There's no way the U.S. or Britain would have thrown away lives, treasure, entire armies in this fashion.

So, the question remains, how do we best reflect this in CEAW? How can we tweak the game so that it still is historically accurate yet feels right as a game too? I know the design team has been working hard at this, and I've reviewed the list of changes, but one thing maybe to consider is adding a component for the U.S. that reflects their political aversion to the sorts of massive 'suicide' attacks that were acceptable in the USSR.

[Kragdob]

I was thinking about it too.

I think that inflicting huge casualties to Allies could be incorporated into the game as good 'Axis winning strategy'. If you implement for example that after loosing x number of MP US and/or UK withdraws from the war (signs separate peace treaty that society would force on the government under heavy looses). This limit could increase as turn goes by but Western Allies would need to take care of their solders as they did in reality.

This would made early huge 'Overlord' risky as loosing it could mean going back to isolationism again in case of US. You'd need to prepare for 99% sure landing which can happen only when Soviets bleed Axis enough so they are not able to send big reinforcements.

Just rough idea.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

This will be less lucrative with GS v2.01.33. Morris said himself that he feels the changes we just made have shifted the balance from the Allies to the Axis. Only testing will give us the answers. All I know is that the last word isn't said yet.