Playtest Stauffenberg's Map

Happycat · Post by **Happycat** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:11 am

Anyone who wishes to play-test Stauffenberg's map may do so by following this link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/44567863/Modified_map.zip

The instructions are as follows:

1) Download the file Modified map.zip
2) Put it on your hard disk and extract it
3) Backup all files you have in the following folder:
C:\Program Files\Slitherine\Commander - Europe at War\data\scenario
4) Backup the file ww2_city_eng.txt from the following folder:
C:\Program Files\Slitherine\Commander - Europe at War\data
5) Copy all files I modified except the ww2_city_eng.txt from the extracted folder from
point 2 above to the following folder:
C:\Program Files\Slitherine\Commander - Europe at War\data\scenario
6) Copy the modified file ww2_city_eng.txt from the extracted folder from point 2 above
to the following folder:
C:\Program Files\Slitherine\Commander - Europe at War\data
7. Start the game and load the 1939 scenario

Note that it is VITAL to backup as outlined in steps 3 and 4. If you are playing a PBEM, you will want to be able to switch back to the "vanilla" files for that purpose (your opponent may be very annoyed to find that you suddenly have switched maps).

Another important thing to note is that only the 1939 scenario has been altered. However, the other scenario maps are included with the modified files, because the mod of the 1939 scenario won't run without them.

This is a work in progress, that Stauffenberg has agreed to share with those who are interested. Feedback is welcome, but keep it constructive, and keep it KIND please.

For background on this project, please also see the thread "Why are there so few ports?"

Stauffenberg, if I have missed anything, jump in here anytime please. And thank you for sharing this.

_________________
Chance favours the prepared mind

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:22 pm

Hi.

After having a bright moment I updated the map and units placed in the 1939 scenario a little bit.

These are the changes I made.

Turkey:
* Added the city of Erzurum in Eastern Turkey.
* Moved the motorized corps not far from it to this new city
* Added a destroyer in the port of Izmir.

The reasons for the changes are the following. Turkey had a substantial navy and deserves a destroyer
in addition to the existing battleship.

Adding the city of Erzurum has 2 purposes. One is to give Turkey a
city not very far from the Russian border in case Russia should be stupid enough to attack. Reinforcements
can be placed there and railed in. But even more important is that if Germany decides to attack the more
powerful Turkey than before he can now move units to Erzurum by rail movement and get to the Russian
border quicker. There are a lot of rough and mountain hexes all the way from Ankara to the Russian border.
So in the official 1939 scenario the Germans have to move to the Russian border spending a LOT of time
after Ankara falls. Armor units and motorized move very slowly. With the city of Erzurum added it's now
more worthwhile for Germany to attack Turkey if the goal is to have a shot at Baku in Russia. But it's still
time consuming and Germany needs a lot of units to defeat Turkey.

Yugoslavia:
* Added a city of Sarajevo southwest of Belgrade
* Added a garrison there
* Reduced the value of Belgrade to account for the new city.

The reason is that Sarajevo was quite big and important during the German offensive (Marita-Merkur) in
April-May 1941.

Romania:
* Added a costal city Constanta (with a port) in south eastern Romania
* Added a city Cluj in northwestern Romania
* Added garrisons in those cities
* Reduced the value of Bucharest to account for these new cities'
* Added a destroyer in Constanta
* Reduced the value of the oil field Ploesti from 5 to 4 (see Hungary below for reason)

I think adding a port in Romania is important because it gives the Axis a change to do something in
the Black sea and it also gives the Russians a chance to invade Romania and get supply from the port in
Constanta. This was a serious threat to the Romanians so they had to have garrisons in their costal cities.

I know it can be very easy for the Axis now to make invasion into e. g. Crimea, but I give the Russians two
extra naval units in the Black Sea (a destroyer and a sub) so they have a battleship, sub and a destroyer to
attack those transports if they decide to try to invade.

The Romanian city of Cluj is the second largest city of Romania and the capital of Transylvania.

Bulgaria:
* Added a coastal city of Varna (with a port)
* Added a garrison there
* Reduced the value of Sofia to account for the new city

The argument for adding Varna is the same as for adding Constanta. Now the Russians can invade Varna and
have supply for their units. So the Axis player must garrison these coastal cities.

Russia:
* Added a destroyer in Odessa
* Added a submarine in Tallinn
* Added a submarine in Batumi
* Made sure every Russian Black Sea coastal city now has a garrison

I read a lot about the Russian navy during WW2 and saw they had a big navy (e. g. they started the war with more
than 100 submarines). I decided to add a submarine in both the Baltic and Black Sea. With an invisible Russian sub
lurking there it means the Axis can't sea transport units without a risk of being damaged between the ports.

With these changes in the Black Sea I feel the area will be more interesting. The Axis is inferior here and can't
reinforce with more naval units until Istanbul is captured so they have to look after their Romanian destroyer
and repair it when necessary. But they now have a chance to transport units if they want and even make
invasions. But the Russian naval presence is quite strong so they can expect heavy losses if they try. The Axis
can try to balance the odds a little by bombarding the Russian naval units, but these units will probably move out
of fighter and tac bomber range after the war starts. But with the 2 new ports and extra naval units I hope more
things can happen in the Black Sea. Invasions should be possible although risky.

Adding a Russian sub in the Baltic Sea is to make sure the Germans have to protect transports of land units to e. g.
Finland or close to Leningrad. Since the sub is invisible until it attacks it means the Axis player never knows what
can happen if he sails units at sea. The Russian battleship is always visible and can't do much until Russia gets
air superiority and maybe builds more naval units. The German player will bombard it from the sea and air if
the battleship tries to do anything. So it's a sitting duck in Kronstadt.

Hungary:
* Added Hungary's second largest city of Debrecen
* Added a garrison in Debrecen
* Reduced the value of Budapest to account for the the new city
* Added an oil field called Nagykanitsa south west of Budapest with a value of 1
* Moved one Hungarian corps bordering Yugoslavia 1 hex so it protects Nagykanitsa instead

The reason for adding Nagykanitsa is that this oilfield was very important to the Germans and became
their last natural oil supply after Ploesti fell to the Russians. In the original game the Germans don't have
oil access if their only source Ploesti falls to the Russians. With this change they will at least have some
supply until the Russians capture Hungary too. This change is more accurate and won't affect game play
until late in the war because I reduced the value of Ploesti by 1. So the Germans still have a total of
5 oil points.

Just use this link to download the new version of the map and 1939 scenario:
http://rapidshare.com/files/44820994/Modified_map.zip

vypuero · Post by **vypuero** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 8:12 pm

Actually they get Oil as an off-map value of 11 per Turn to account for synthetics and hungary and the like, but that's Ok

To me the other cities are too many, but I do think a sub in the Baltic is a good idea. I also changed Sicily's city to Messina and used the Port to block the strait and give Italy control of it.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:21 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:Hi.
Adding the city of Erzurum has 2 purposes. One is to give Turkey a
city not very far from the Russian border in case Russia should be stupid enough to attack. Reinforcements
can be placed there and railed in. But even more important is that if Germany decides to attack the more
powerful Turkey than before he can now move units to Erzurum by rail movement and get to the Russian
border quicker. There are a lot of rough and mountain hexes all the way from Ankara to the Russian border.
So in the official 1939 scenario the Germans have to move to the Russian border spending a LOT of time
after Ankara falls. Armor units and motorized move very slowly. With the city of Erzurum added it's now
more worthwhile for Germany to attack Turkey if the goal is to have a shot at Baku in Russia. But it's still
time consuming and Germany needs a lot of units to defeat Turkey.

Erzurum was only connected to the rail net in 19319 with a narrow gauge line that spent much time snaking along mountains and through tunnels - there is no way on earth it could have supported the sort of strategic movement that is in CEAW (see http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/pmwiki.php/History/TCDD)

A better place might be Sivas (see map at http://www.trainsofturkey.com/w/pmwiki. ... ry/History) - the line to there was standard gauge, and completed in 1924.

Russia:
* Added a destroyer in Odessa
* Added a submarine in Tallinn
* Added a submarine in Batumi

IMO this is putting way too much emphasis on the Soviet fleet - sure they had lots of ships and subs, but they achieved almost nothing - by one count they lost a submarine for every single ship their subs killed - 156 ships for 156 submarines!! IMO the game is better off without them.

vypuero · Post by **vypuero** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 1:19 pm

Their subs did manage to kill lots of civilian refugees at the end of the war though - such nice people to have as allies.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:26 pm

vypuero wrote:Their subs did manage to kill lots of civilian refugees at the end of the war though - such nice people to have as allies.

Yes the passenger ship Wilhelm Gustloff with lots of German refugees was sunk by the end of January 1945. The ship had more than 10000 passengers and over 9000 of them died after the ship received multiple torpedoes. It's the worst naval disaster in history.

Look here for more details:
http://www.wilhelmgustloff.com/

Samichlaus · Post by **Samichlaus** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:32 pm

Hi, I just created a new mod, keeping the Stauffenberg improvments. The new improvments are as follows: (extract from the included readme file)

SamiModV1.0 for Commander – Europe at War (V1.02)

This is my first mod. It is based on the mod of Stauffenberg (for details of this see: viewtopic.php?p=30413#30413 ) . Apart from his improvments I added the following:

1. Added the Westwall (for information, although in german, see: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westwall )
2. Added german garrisons at 1939 start on the Westwall (removed some other garrisons in order to keep the play balance). This is to prevent the allied player to invade Germany too easily at the very start of the game.
3. Added three fortresses in Switzerland in order to simulate the historically correct Alps redoubt (what’s this? See: http://www.schweiz1940.ch/tannen40-en )
4. Made Switzerland „neutral“ at start of game
5. Now Switzerland can be DOWed by both sides in order to simulate the (small) chance, that Germany would attack France via (or in addition to the Benelux) Switzerland. Historically there have been at least 4 attack plans by the germans that focused on this option (called operation „Tannenbaum“, for very profound information in english see: http://www.schweiz1940.ch/tannen40-en )
6. Changed some minor geographical details on the background maps and in the game mechanics: now the Rhine river makes the correct eastern turn and makes a german attack into Switzerland a little harder. The lake of geneva is now correctly placed and is treatet like a river hex.

I asked Slitherine permission to host the mod (no answer yet) because I don't know where to host elsewhere. If someone wants to test it: em me

Samichlaus

vypuero · Post by **vypuero** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:37 pm

Oh yeah on my map I added Rhodes as Italian and gave turkey some of the islands near Izmir, using rivers to indicate the water between the mainland.

I also did the same in Denmark, as Copenhagen is an island. A few areas where hex sides would cross water I add a river to.

I noticed the lake in NW Persia is totally in the wrong place, it is too far south by hundreds of km

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:06 pm

Regarding Erzurum I read that the rail line there opened in 1939. So it was possible to rail transport units there. The line from Erzurum to Kars (further east) is supposed to be narrow gauge, but your text says nothing about the line from Sivas to Erzurum.

Another issue to consider is that the game doesn't have railroads on the map at all. I'm sure you can find other cities where the game can railroad units while it wasn't possible in real life. I think about cities like Kotlas, Batumi etc. So the game is an abstraction of real life. It works game wise and that's what's important.

Maybe you could think of rail movement as strategic movement. It means fast troop transport along roads, rail lines etc. So you don't need to specifically have a high capacity rail line to allow for strategic movement.

Have a look at MWIF (World in Flames) that is being developed by Matrix games:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.as ... age=1&key=

Scroll down to the map area showing Turkey and you see this game has a rail line through Erzurum all the way to Russia. It doesn't mean MWIF is right, but it shows other games allow rail movement in eastern Turkey. I've seen other examples as well.

So I don't think we make a huge mistake by adding Erzurum as a city. It's still several mountain or rough hexes to the Russian border.

Regarding the Soviet navy you have to take into consideration they didn't achieve much because they had little to do. At least early in the war. E. g. the Russian submarines in the Baltic would just be there invisible and strike when Germany tried something (transports etc.). But with the presence of such a unit the German player has to be careful as he had to in real WW2. In CeaW he can treat the Baltic as a German lake because the Soviet battleship in Kronstadt can't do much. The Russian navy could be used to something more useful when the Germans are retreating, e. g. threaten to invade near Königsberg or Danzig.

Here is an article about Soviet WW2 amphibious warfare:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 95/ACB.htm

By having a Soviet submarine in the Black Sea it means the Germans can't transport units at sea without risk of being attacked. That's historically correct.

With the original map the Germans could start transporting troops as soon as they got control over Odessa. With my changes they can start transporting from Constanta. It's not very historical letting the Germans perform transports in the Black Sea with no threat of being attack, especially after Sevastopol falls. The Soviet battleship is a big target for the Axis aircraft so it will do better by retreating back to the port of Batumi outside aircraft range. But then the Axis can transport units from Romania or western Russia and make amphibious landings south of Rostov. To prevent this from happening without risk it's good to have a Soviet submarine unit.

The Soviet subs were present in the real WW2. It's not the submarines fault the Germans were too afraid to make naval operations in the Baltic Sea or the Black Sea.

The point is to make the naval part of the game a little bit more interesting. We will playtest the game using these extra units. If they create strange effects that were ahistorical we can always remove them again. Only playtesting will tell.

Samichlaus · Post by **Samichlaus** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:21 pm

Hi, after Stauffenberg gave me permission he suggested I upload the mod on rapidshare what I did 5 min. ago.
Feel free to download and comment. Downloadlink: http://rapidshare.com/files/44976419/Sa ... 0.rar.html

uxbridge · Post by **uxbridge** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:39 pm

Nice with all these improvements.

One word regarding the Siegfried line though. Giving the Germans a line like this will probably give them to great an advantage later in the war. If you want to simulate these fortifications give them 3 forts opposite the Maginot line, with at least 1 empty hex in between them, and one extra further north. Then the Allies will still have a tough time trying to filter through them.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:10 pm

Regarding the Soviet navy you have to take into consideration they didn't achieve much because they had little to do. At least early in the war. E. g. the Russian submarines in the Baltic would just be there invisible and strike when Germany tried something (transports etc.). But with the presence of such a unit the German player has to be careful as he had to in real WW2. In CeaW he can treat the Baltic as a German lake because the Soviet battleship in Kronstadt can't do much. The Russian navy could be used to something more useful when the Germans are retreating, e. g. threaten to invade near Königsberg or Danzig

the Soviet subs had plenty of targets - the Iron ore shipments from Sweden. they achieved nothing.

At this scale they are well below the radar, as are the many light naval forces and naval aircraft and minefields that were deployed to counter them. By giving the Soviets a sub you force teh Germans to think about buying a destroyer, which is getting pretty silly.

A single surface unit is all that is required to represent Soviet fleet support to land forces - it can be useful, but should not be decisive. the only way it "can't achieve much" is if the Germans allocate some of their fleet or airforce to attack it....which the allied player shold be happy about!

The Soviet battleship unit represents an old ship plus a lot of old support units and some new cruisers.

The Germans also get 1 BB units - representing a couple of much better battle-cruisers and much more modern cruisers than the Sov's had. the Sov's are already over-represented!

When the Germans got to Leningrad they sealed up the Gulf of Finland with minefields and patrols - CEAW doesn't simulate this so the Soviets get a great deal more operational feedom than they had historically. Even when the Axis retreated the Gulf was still a no-go area for eth Soviets, and it wasn't free for navigation until 1947!

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:33 am

[quote="stalins_organ]the Soviet subs had plenty of targets - the Iron ore shipments from Sweden. they achieved nothing.[/quote]

The iron ore from Kiruna and Gällivare in Sweden were transported by rail to the Norwegian coastal city of Narvik and sent to Germany from there. So Soviet submarines in the Baltic couldn't interfere with these shipments.

Not even the British who could do alot more to stop these shipments managed to do much. Remember that the Germans had air superiority all the way from Narvik to Kiel. The transports sailed closed to the Norwegian shores and then into Skagerrak and Kattegat.

I've added a destroyer to the Germans. Just having 1 battleship unit is simply too little imho. The Italians start the game with 2 battleships, 1 destroyer and 1 sub. So I think the Germans starting with 1 battleship, 1 destroyer and 2 subs is about right. The Germans navy that attacked Norway consisted of quite many ships. It was even before Bismarch and Tirpitz were ready.

It's a fact the Soviets started the war with more than 100 submarines and built more than 50 subs during the war. Why did they do that unless it served a purpose? Whether they were effective or not is not relevant. The Italian armor unit was very inefficient in the war, but it still represented in the game. I think the game is supposed to represent as close as possible the OOB from the start of the war without jeopardizing play balance. I don't see adding Soviet subs will jeopardize play balance. They will only make the German player sweat a little every time he tries to transport units in the Baltic or Black Sea. He should know the COULD be attacked so he should try to escort the transports if possible. As the game is today he doesn't have to fear being attacked because the Soviet battleships are visible and will quickly die if the get in range of the German luftwaffe.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:53 am

Stauffenberg wrote:
stalins_organ wrote:the Soviet subs had plenty of targets - the Iron ore shipments from Sweden. they achieved nothing.
The iron ore from Kiruna and Gällivare in Sweden were transported by rail to the Norwegian coastal city of Narvik and sent to Germany from there. So Soviet submarines in the Baltic couldn't interfere with these shipments..

Mainly in winter when the Swedish ports were ice-bound.

The amount of Iron Ore sent from various ports can be seen at http://www.sturmvogel.orbat.com/SteelCoal.html - Ore from Narvik comprised 54% of Sedish ore in 1938, 44% in 39, but inly 13% in 1940 and 8% in 1941, rising to 24% by 1944.

It's a fact the Soviets started the war with more than 100 submarines and built more than 50 subs during the war. Why did they do that unless it served a purpose? Whether they were effective or not is not relevant.

submarine units are very important naval units in the game, and if Soviet Subs avhieved little in real life then then giving them a unit in the game so they can be a significant factor is not right.

the UK had many subs at tehstart of the war and achieved a lot more with them than the Soviets did, and get 1 unit.

The Italian armor unit was very inefficient in the war, but it still represented in the game.

Italian armour was perfectly fine in 1940. Subsequently it was not improved so became rubbish, but the M11/39 and M13/40 compare well enough with the British A10 and A13 of 1940 and and Crusaders of 1941 that they mostly faced.

They had 3 armoured divisions by 1940 (Ariete, Centauro, Littorio ), which is a corps, and they were used to some effect in the Desert and Yugoslavia, regardless of what modern mytholgy makes of them. however they did not operate as a single corps, so replacing them with a motorised unit is probably a good move.

I think the game is supposed to represent as close as possible the OOB from the start of the war without jeopardizing play balance. I don't see adding Soviet subs will jeopardize play balance. They will only make the German player sweat a little every time he tries to transport units in the Baltic or Black Sea. He should know the COULD be attacked so he should try to escort the transports if possible. As the game is today he doesn't have to fear being attacked because the Soviet battleships are visible and will quickly die if the get in range of the German luftwaffe.

Sorry but that's the weakest argument i've heard in a long time.

The Germans were not massivly concerned about Soviet submarines, and adding a unit so that they will be is just plain a-historical

Lots of people like to count Soviet fleet nubmers and add in Soviet naval units to all sorts of games (eg 2 cruisers in each sea for SC2, multiple units in TOAW Fire in the East), but their historical performance shows that these are simply not justified - the Soviet fleet carried out a lot of actions, and suffered heavy losses, but it was almost invariably in support of land armies and not "fleet actions".

their submarine force was large in number and embarrasingly absent in actual effectiveness. The fact that they built them does not mean they have to be there, and if you think the Italians shouldn't have armour then removing that unit makes more sense than adding in 2 x Soviet submarines!!

however if yo're going to persist then IMO you need at least 1 more UK Submarine (they had 58 modern boats ateth start of the war, and fielded over 270 during it), and another French one too for the 76 they had.

After all the Germans get 2 units for only 57 boats total at het start of the war, of which at least 26 were type II's of no use in teh Atlantic - so that's a maximum of 31 boats for 2 units.....

There should also be French naval forces after the conquest of France - for example the FF Naval units suporting Anvil and Dragoon in the Med comprised:
1x battleship : "Lorraine"
5x cruisers : "Duguay-Trouin", "Emile Bertin", "Fantasque", "Terrible" and "Malin"
5x torpedo boats
plus smaller craft

you say you want to include historial OOB's without changing teh balance of play - well IMO you're doing neither. Adding a Soviet sub changes teh balance of play so much you have to add an Axis destroyer......but you leave out half of the French and British submarines.........

If yuo want an accurate OOB I can get you the exact number of Soviet Corps in place on 22 June 1942 without any bother - including the 24 Mechanised Corps and their stengths....(and they were planning on building more but they were not formed by then)

and of course the idea that the VVS (Soviet Airforce) can be represented by 2 units...well I look forward to how you will be increasing that given you're not waorried bout whether somethign was actually effective or not......

Sorry to be harsh, but you're really opening up a can of worms by putting in units that had no effect on teh outcome of the war.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:19 am

stalins_organ wrote:[their submarine force was large in number and embarrasingly absent in actual effectiveness. The fact that they built them does not mean they have to be there, and if you think the Italians shouldn't have armour then removing that unit makes more sense than adding in 2 x Soviet submarines!!

Good map, mostly good ideas - this one is, IMO, rubbish.

I never said the Italians shouldn't have an armor unit. I think it's fine they have one since they actually had armor units in the war. I was only pointing to the Italian armor as a comparison to the Soviet submarines. Both had very little effect on the war, but they were both PRESENT in the OOB. I think wargames should try to reflect the OOB and not necessarily how effective they were. How effective a unit is can be represented with strength numbers, movement factors etc. E. g. Italian armor units usually have very low strength points war games. Much lower than German, British, French or Russian armor units. That's fine with me.

The problem with CeaW is that you can't make e. g. a 4 strength Russian sub unit compared to a 10 strength German sub. All units start with the same strength and the difference is only shown with tech levels and efficiency.

My point is that the Russians in fact HAD a navy. Starting the war with more than 100 subs is not nothing imho. Playing wargames is always about trying to do better than the side did historically. So if the real Soviet naval commanders didn't use their naval forces very well then maybe we in a game can do better. I feel it's nice to have units that were present in the real OOB so I can decide whether I want to use them or not. We're playing a game that will never accurately represent history. We're playing to have FUN and feel we're the commanders of the real war who can maybe do better than Eisenhower, Zhukov, Manstein or Montgomery.

I'm just making a mod to playtest if it makes naval warfare more interesting or not. I haven't even made a decision whether those units should be there or not. I will play and see how it goes. It's only a mod and not the official game. But I don't think it's right to say as you do that it's rubbish to give the Soviet player submarines when the OOB shows he started with more than 100 subs and built 50 more during the war. Whether he should have 1 or 2 is another matter. But the problem is that the Baltic and Black Sea are so far apart that we can't give the Russian player 1 and let him decide with sea he wants to use it in. He can't sail from one to the other because of Copenhagen, Gibraltar and Istanbul blocking such movement. One can, of course, discuss which sea area is more important to place such a sub if they should be given a sub.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:23 am

We cross posted - I was editing my reply.

well I've made my point - I think you're giving far too much importance to the naval aspect of the game - it should only be important in regard of the Med (where it can't be because there's no supply function for Malta to interfere with!) and hte Battle of the Atlantic (99% subs).

The rest is actually unimportant IMO.

Peter Stauffenberg · Post by **Peter Stauffenberg** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:41 am

stalins_organ wrote:We cross posted - I was editing my reply.

well I've made my point - I think you're giving far too much importance to the naval aspect of the game - it should only be important in regard of the Med (where it can't be because there's no supply function for Malta to interfere with!) and hte Battle of the Atlantic (99% subs).

The rest is actually unimportant IMO.

Look at this link for the relevance of submarines during WW2:
http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/TheRoleof ... einWo.html

Here you see these interesting number of subs for some major power when the war started:
Italy: 115 subs in June 1940
Japan: 63 subs in December 1941
Britain: Only 18 subs in September 1939
USA: 51 subs in December 1941
Russia: 218 subs in June 1941

So Russia started the war with more subs than Italy, Britain and USA combined. In the game Britain starts with a sub when the real numbers show only 18 subs were present. Italy started with 115 subs so it's ok to give them 1 sub to start with. But how can you say it's ok to let Russia start with 0 sub when they had 218 subs at the start of their war when it's ok to let Britain start with 1 sub represented by only 18 subs at start in the real war?

The article doesn't say how many German or French subs started the war, but I think read somewhere that Germany started with not so many subs. It was at least less than 200 subs. But it's ok to let the start the game with 2 subs. Germany is probably the only country who will build more subs in the game. France didn't have that many subs either and even France starts the game with 1 sub.

Doesn't it sound strange that the country with the most number of subs when the war started didn't have a single sub in the game when every other major power (except USA) has at least 1 sub?

The table at the bottom of the article is interesting. It shows the USA subs were a lot more efficient than the German subs when you think of the number of ships sunk per sub. The Russian subs were to no surprise the least efficient.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:33 am

you need to read it a bit closer....like I needed to when I posted about the Ezerum railway - the British started with only 18 subs "in HOME WATERS".....it completely ignores subs on patrol, based in the Med, etc.

Have a look at the loss statistics on that page - the Soviets sank 400,000-or so tons with their 250 subs, losing 109 of them.

the British sank 1.5 million tons, losing 75 subs - British subs were effective, soviet ones were not.

ancient · Post by **ancient** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:35 am

This game, and in fact most games of this scale, are limited in their ability to represent the different quality and effectiveness between the units of different powers. There comes a point where you have to represent qualitative differences by size.

If the design and doctrine of Soviet submarines was such that they would not be able to perform effectively in the role expected of them, then perhaps they don't need to be represented in the game regardless of their numbers.

SMK-at-work · Post by **SMK-at-work** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:49 am

That's a much nicer way of expressing what I'm trying to say - thanks!

FYI - a list of all RN Ships on 1 August 1939 is at http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWW2-3908-01RNships.htm

Subs listed are:
the home fleet had 5 (2nd Sub Flotilla)
Portsmouth had 11 in the 5th flotilla and 8 in the reserve flotilla
Portland had 8 in the 6th Flotilla and 3 in reserve
1 was in repair in Devonport
the Mediterranean fleet had 6
China Station had 15, of which 2 were minelayers

For a total of 57

Playtest Stauffenberg's Map

Playtest Stauffenberg's Map

New Mod based on Stauffenbergs improvments

SamiModV1.0 ready to download