OoB Blitzkrieg and reality

[bjarmson]

I've tried replaying many of the scenarios in Blitzkrieg, but every replay just frustrates me more. The developers have decided to essentially ignore the historical realities of these battles, other than their geographical settings. Virtually every battle starts with the Germans at a 3/4 to 1 disadvantage in units of all kinds, which the developers have apparently concluded is necessary to make these scenarios "playable". Let's take the invasion of Yugoslavia for instance. The actual battle lasted 12 days, the Germans had 151 killed and 392 wounded. It was a walkover. But the developers have ignored these facts in order to make the scenario "playable". We get the same style of game that virtually all the Blitzkrieg scenarios become, a Slogkrieg. Because of the huge disparity in starting numbers, whose quality, contravening everything known about the opposing forces, is comparable to that of the Germans, all you can do is attack, repair, attack, repair, over and over and over and over. There is no sense of what the battle of Yugoslavia was actually like, which is the case of virtually all the scenarios in Blitzkrieg. The briefing in one of the scenarios urges you to move quickly, yet because of the huge disparity of units in favor of the computer this is impossible, all you can do is move from one city to another, laying siege to each. Attack, repair, attack, repair, over and over and over and over. At one time I had high hopes for this game, no more. At one time it was interesting, different battles had different feels to them, now each scenario has the same feel to it, only the maps change, but it's the same slog battle at its core. I can't express how immensely disappointed I am with what has happened.

[Andy2012]

Attack, repair, attack is the rhythm and pacing of the game. And this is not a history lesson or a historical reenactment, its a game. Game. (Just letting that sink in for a second.) Hardly any of the games claiming realism are fully realistic because they can never be.
OoB has its issues, both in gaming and in its greediness for hardware and sometimes bugs. But it is still fun. If it is that horrible for you, stop playing. Simple. Slitherine has other great games. Ever tried Panzercorps?
BTW: Finished Case Red (Fall Rot France) in 16 Turns, ten turns to Le Havre. Used a northern pincer with massive concentration of forces (tanks, mobile arty, Stukas, the lot). Played the south defensively after seizing Reims. (2nd playthrough, so I kinda knew what was coming.) You can pull off these Blitzkriegy acts in some maps; you just have to do them right. Yugoslavia is too hilly and wooded for that, though.

[Longasc]

Doesn't sound good, have bought but didn't try it yet. Heard very often that it doesn't feel very much like a dynamic tank "Blitzkrieg", but rather slow and methodical progress.

The mechanics of ground/air/sea go together nicely in the Pacific campaign, but I also wonder how the land war will work. Especially as tanks were not so much used in the Pacific campaign.

[bru888]

Are you fellows playing Blitzkrieg with the 2.9.8 patch? It's supposed to tweak those scenarios somewhat. I am not going with 2.9.8 until they fix that airfield/carrier problem, so I cannot judge.

By the way, I agree with Andy to some extent. A scenario of 12 turns recreating the Yugoslavia "walkover" would be boring. Each scenario is supposed to be a challenge for game playing interest.

That said, perhaps there should not have been a separate Yugoslavian scenario. Perhaps Blitzkrieg needed to be more grand a campaign to put the "blitz" back in "Blitzkrieg." Meaning, less scenarios and wider scope. But then, people would be complaining about not having as many scenarios.

It's hard for the devs to balance these things. I have not played Blitzkrieg yet but I am sure that it will be more interesting to me than how bjarmson views it.

[Andy2012]

Are you fellows playing Blitzkrieg with the 2.9.8 patch? It's supposed to tweak those scenarios somewhat. I am not going with 2.9.8 until they fix that airfield/carrier problem, so I cannot judge.

By the way, I agree with Andy to some extent. A scenario of 12 turns recreating the Yugoslavia "walkover" would be boring. Each scenario is supposed to be a challenge for game playing interest.

That said, perhaps there should not have been a separate Yugoslavian scenario. Perhaps Blitzkrieg needed to be more grand a campaign to put the "blitz" back in "Blitzkrieg." Meaning, less scenarios and wider scope. But then, people would be complaining about not having as many scenarios.

It's hard for the devs to balance these things. I have not played Blitzkrieg yet but I am sure that it will be more interesting to me than how bjarmson views it.

Yep, Steam version here. BTW, I think they have that airfield issue fixed by now.
However, I have not seen any tweaks with the scenarios. I think they mostly did bugfixes with triggered events. Blitzkrieg still has brown photo blanks sometimes, so there are still fixes to be made.
Blitzkrieg is still the best DLC in my opinion. After replaying the US campaign with the new spec system over the last months, I have to admit it is a lot better than the original. Scenarios are shorter and tighter and the devs are at least in my view improving mission design massively with secondary goals etc. Worth a look.

[bjarmson]

If you are going to claim your game is a WWII war game, then it needs to attempt to realistically model what happened. The developers seem to have tossed that aspect in the Blitzkrieg scenarios. The Germans were usually racing against time at this point in the war. Get to Dunkirk before the Brits evacuate most of their troops. Finish off Yugoslavia and Greece quickly so they could invade Russia. Get to Moscow before winter. Giving them the numerical, technological, and organizational advantages they actually had but holding them to tight schedules (strict timeframes for victories, actual objectives not bodycounts) could have been done or at least attempted. Yet the developers decided to make virtually every battle into a slog through an enemy who wasn't actually there. Some battles are tossups, some are walkovers. Realistic modeling can be done, check out 'Unity of Command'.

These battles simply don't represent historical realities. To those who think it's just a game and don't really care if there is any modeling of the actual battles, that's what you got. Have fun. For those of us who want some actual Blitzkrieg in our 'Blitzkrieg', I guess we'll have to wait for a better war game.

[Andy2012]

If you are going to claim your game is a WWII war game, then it needs to attempt to realistically model what happened. The developers seem to have tossed that aspect in the Blitzkrieg scenarios. The Germans were usually racing against time at this point in the war. Get to Dunkirk before the Brits evacuate most of their troops. Finish off Yugoslavia and Greece quickly so they could invade Russia. Get to Moscow before winter. Giving them the numerical, technological, and organizational advantages they actually had but holding them to tight schedules (strict timeframes for victories, actual objectives not bodycounts) could have been done or at least attempted. Yet the developers decided to make virtually every battle into a slog through an enemy who wasn't actually there. Some battles are tossups, some are walkovers. Realistic modeling can be done, check out 'Unity of Command'.

These battles simply don't represent historical realities. To those who think it's just a game and don't really care if there is any modeling of the actual battles, that's what you got. Have fun. For those of us who want some actual Blitzkrieg in our 'Blitzkrieg', I guess we'll have to wait for a better war game.

Kind of disagree with that. As long as a game is moored to the basic facts, its fine with me. Fullblown realism would mean managing logistics in an even more detailed way and cutting out all the excitement and eye-candy of a fun game. (Carrier Deck seems to go into that direction. 'Whats the most interesting thing about a carrier group? Well, managing the underground flight deck, of course.' Yeah, right. ) Realism would mean spreadsheets about fuel and rations. Kind of like "Order of Battle: Spreadsheet Warrior": While Rommel leads from the front ('Gefuehrt wird vorn'), you are his deskjockey. Feel the excitement already?
Sorry, but this seems ridiculous to me and it wouldnt sell. Slitherine and the Artistocrats are businesses with financial goals, after all.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

For realism in any complete sense of the word, one has to look for a deeper and more complex game than DC Barbarossa or the Grigsby titles. I don't actually think those exist. Seriously, if anyone played and won a game with the proper amount of realism in war, they would have mastered everything a proper general needs to know. In which case they would be well qualified to be a general. Of course, that would take years of training and stuff, and only the 'good' people can become generals, hence the purpose of officer schools and such.

Except for becoming a general, if you want realism then look to the titles I mentioned earlier. OoB doesn't claim to be a logistics simulator.

However, having a pile of units isn't really the way to model the early part of WW2 either. Fall Weiss was pretty much 'bomb and surround the main Polish armies, surround Warsaw and make it surrender'. Fall Gelb was the same thing (with the Channel Ports and then Paris as objectives), and Barbarossa started out the same way until it was derailed by a certain man with a silly mustache. Russia lost about 3 000 000 men in 1941, mostly as prisoners of war rather than combat losses. Most of them trapped and unable to put up any meaningful resistance, which is effectively the same as 300 0-strength units. I am quite sure Guderian and the others didn't fight all of those 3 million men.

A slog for Stalingrad, Kursk, Italy and a few other places is quite reasonable. It doesn't make any sense to have one in the early part of the war though. For me, a WW2 Europe game simply needs to:

1. Let the Axis rush through Poland and France.
2. Give them a good chance at Blitzkrieging Russia in 1941 (I especially like how Time of Wrath handled this)
3. If they haven't got Moscow and a few other key places by the end of 1942, the Allies should have a big pile of units to stomp them into the ground.

From the complaints I have read here, Blitzkrieg skips straight to step 3, while ignoring 1 and 2. Which is a bit silly.

- BNC

[kondi754]

If you are going to claim your game is a WWII war game, then it needs to attempt to realistically model what happened. The developers seem to have tossed that aspect in the Blitzkrieg scenarios. The Germans were usually racing against time at this point in the war. Get to Dunkirk before the Brits evacuate most of their troops. Finish off Yugoslavia and Greece quickly so they could invade Russia. Get to Moscow before winter. Giving them the numerical, technological, and organizational advantages they actually had but holding them to tight schedules (strict timeframes for victories, actual objectives not bodycounts) could have been done or at least attempted. Yet the developers decided to make virtually every battle into a slog through an enemy who wasn't actually there. Some battles are tossups, some are walkovers. Realistic modeling can be done, check out 'Unity of Command'.

These battles simply don't represent historical realities. To those who think it's just a game and don't really care if there is any modeling of the actual battles, that's what you got. Have fun. For those of us who want some actual Blitzkrieg in our 'Blitzkrieg', I guess we'll have to wait for a better war game.

It seemed to me that I was exaggerating of compliance with historical reality, but I admit you are a true fanatic.
Write to me how to show in such game i.e. capturing of Belgrade by the Germans in 1941. To facilitate this situation I tell you this task was made by 11 soldiers from the motorcycle (reconnaissance) battalion from SS-Division Reich. It's not possible get even the smallest town by recon unit in OoB, so good luck.

[LadyLex]

There is a certain amount of abstraction required when attempting to model real life, however if one claims as game to be based on WW2 it should at least be based on that reality. There is also certainly room for plenty of "what if", even in a historical simulation. I've "relived" Operation Overlord countless times in another game system, from both sides. No two games were ever the exact same and yes, I have "won" from both sides even with the "reality" of limited reinforcements on the German side.

My chief issue with OoB is related to reality also, but not necessarily scenario design per se. It's scale. As I've played through the US Pacific campaign certain things have nagged at me. Fighters and bombers with similar "fuel" ratings, aircraft which were fast than others actually being slower, "unlimited" bombing, etc. So, I decided to to some digging. What I've found so far really doesn't make any sense.

I've started be evaluating the aircraft of the Japanese and Americans, main because I currently only the Pacific campaigns and it was the aircraft performance which concerned me. I've found that there really doesn't appear to be much concern given to the modeling of air units. Movement points range only from 6 to 13 with historical speeds of these aircraft ranging from 160 to 600 mph. With this few steps in mp ratings too many aircraft have the same mp resulting in aircraft which in real life are faster than others having the same movement in game. Range is even worse with bombers with 4500 mile ranges having the same fuel rating as aircraft with 1000 mile ranges.

I've also looked at the New Georgia scenario and the scale problem is even more glaring. First, the real campaign last 109 days (from 20 June to 7 Oct). The main island of New Georgia is about 45 miles long by about 35 miles wide at the widest end. I reviewed the scenario settings in the editor and the developers have set the time scale as 1 turn = 1 day and the turn limit to 55 turns. So, they've got the time frame for the campaign nearly in half.

This isn't even the "weird" part. Looking the map in game shows the main island is about 40 - 45 hexs long by 25 - 30 hexs wide. Given the actual dimensions of the island this works out to what appears to be approximately 1 mile per hex. I'm OK with that scale. The Overlord scenario I've played is based on 1.5 miles per hex. Because scale seems to be ignored a G4M2 "Betty" launched by the Japanese in the scenario has the ability to fly for 15 days (fuel = 15) with a mp of 8. The real aircraft has a range of about 3750 miles and a cruising speed of 250 mph, which means about 15 hours flying time (yes I am well aware that there are many factors affecting this). The Betty should be able to fly the length of the Island in just over 10 minutes, yet in game it takes 2 "days".

Whether or not a scenario is "historical" or not really doesn't matter if the basic "reality" of the game isn't correct. What makes a great science fiction story so good? It's that the science is believable. This is suppose to be a game based on history, yet aircraft can stay in the air for 15 days and only fly 120 miles (the "Betty" example mp = 8 thus can move 8 hexes per turn, with each turn = 1 day. Fuel rating of 15 means the aircraft can fly for 15 turns => 15 days at 8 miles per day = 120 miles.).

I do like the game and I will continue to play, however I think the real enjoyment for me will be shifting to creating a mod which better fits reality. It's going to take a lot of work that's for sure. The game system I've played Overlord in isn't as easily modified as OoB. For this I truly thank the developers.

[bjarmson]

When I mention realism or historical accuracy, it's not meant to be taken as demanding that the scenarios play out exactly as they did in real life. I want a game that I can replay to different conclusions, but I want the game to model the starting conditions based on those that actually took place. Most of the scenarios in Blitzkrieg start with the Germans at a 3/4 to 1 disadvantage, thus most of the scenarios are slogs that in no way give you a chance to Blitzkrieg the allies. My complaint is not that these games are not playable, but that the developers have not even attempted to provide a Blitzkrieg feel to the scenarios, thus Slogkrieg. BiteNibbleChomp's three points are exactly what I am arguing about. The developers went straight to #3 without giving us the first two.

LadyLex, I think you are being too literal with your complaint about aircraft. While each aircraft counter doesn't model real life flying times, etc, the fact is they model conditions of the actual battle. What I mean by this is that there were enemy and friendly aircraft over the battlefield a lot of the time. The way aircraft are modeled by the game makes this happen. To model aircraft as you suggest would mean the game would have a lot more turns given to simply flying back and forth. Think of each aircraft counter as not just a single squadron, but as multiple squadrons who are flying back and forth so that some aircraft are over the target most of the time.

[LadyLex]

LadyLex, I think you are being too literal with your complaint about aircraft. While each aircraft counter doesn't model real life flying times, etc, the fact is they model conditions of the actual battle. What I mean by this is that there were enemy and friendly aircraft over the battlefield a lot of the time. The way aircraft are modeled by the game makes this happen. To model aircraft as you suggest would mean the game would have a lot more turns given to simply flying back and forth. Think of each aircraft counter as not just a single squadron, but as multiple squadrons who are flying back and forth so that some aircraft are over the target most of the time.

So, these "multiple squadrons who are flying back and forth so that some aircraft are over the target most of the time" can only attack once? Reality shows that air support could and did attack across the entire front and in depth, not just one local area. The fact that some aircraft could be over the target area most of the time is because of the commanders planning it that way. Aircraft would be in multiple places simultaneously, not just in a single place. They could be conducting multiple missions.

Early US carriers had 4 squadrons. Fighting, bombing, scouting and torpedo. Each would have around 36 aircraft give or take a couple. They did not operate as one big squadron. Fighters would not only provide cap, they would also accompany the strike squadrons and keep some on deck to respond to a possible attack. The bombing and scouting squadrons would send out individual, yes individual aircraft to look for the enemy fleet. Scout aircraft did not operate in squadrons while scouting. The squadron, or more likely a portion of it would send individual aircraft out on various headings using search patterns in an attempt to locate the enemy. With the current set up we get three squadrons with no real choice as what to do with the fighters. Either they all go with the strike or they all remain behind. Very unrealistic.

So, we have units representing everything from one or two aircraft up to multiple squadrons. One could argue that the enemy units in Blitzkrieg represent companies or battalions while your units represents regiments and divisions, thus easily outnumbering you 3/4 to 1 in unit numbers. Yes, strength wise you should still be able to walk over them, but this is really no different a stretch of the imagination as "multiple squadrons who are flying back and forth so that some aircraft are over the target most of the time".

German armored units racing ahead would leave enemy units behind, choosing to go around pockets of resistance. Their job was to get deep in the enemy's interior and disrupt communications and create confusion. The enemy units left behind were to be dealt with by the follow up infantry units, which were on foot by the way. The armored units certainly did face being cut off and losing their supply lines. It was up to the follow on units to prevent that from happening. Early in the war it wasn't much of an issue as the enemy was still prepared to fight a more static war just like the previous one. When their supply lines were cut, they suffered the same disruptions as any other unit in the same situation. Their commanders were willing to take big risks.

I believe my complaint to be just as valid as yours, which by the way I agree with. Set up the battle based on the historic start, then let it go from there. This includes unit sizes. Don't just throw an icon on the map for infantry. Tell us if it's a company, a battalion, or what ever. With the scale of some of the maps that are used it isn't beyond reason to expect a unit to represent a battalion or even a company. This is after all a military game. Unit size is certainly something every commander will know, especially for their side.

[bjarmson]

LadyLex, I understand the point you're trying to make, but if it was applied to all units (land, air, sea) the game would have so many units (100s likely) it would be virtually impossible to play. I'm not totally happy with the mechanics of the game, but at least they work fairly well and are not overly complicated. Some compromises need to be made, this is one I'm okay with.

You vastly overstate the number of aircraft a US carrier could carry. 4 squadrons of 36 is 144 aircraft, which is 50 more than an Essex-class carrier (the most numerous type of US fleet carrier) could carry. 90-100 was the max and likely 20/30% would be unavailable for use (repairs, etc) at any particular time, which means about 60/70+ aircraft were normally available for sortie.

Panzer units did range far behind enemy lines (though in Russia there were no strictly drawn lines once the battle started), but about 25% of a Panzer's strength was motorized/mechanized infantry which secured supply lines till the foot/horse infantry caught up. Much of a Panzer's mobile advantage was negated in the fall when the Rasputitsa (rainy season) made unpaved roads (the vast majority in 1940s Russia) quagmires of mud. Trucks bogged down, tracked vehicles suffered much greater wear and tear. Forward progress was limited, then winter set in with a fresh set of problems.

[LadyLex]

LadyLex, I understand the point you're trying to make, but if it was applied to all units (land, air, sea) the game would have so many units (100s likely) it would be virtually impossible to play. I'm not totally happy with the mechanics of the game, but at least they work fairly well and are not overly complicated. Some compromises need to be made, this is one I'm okay with.

You vastly overstate the number of aircraft a US carrier could carry. 4 squadrons of 36 is 144 aircraft, which is 50 more than an Essex-class carrier (the most numerous type of US fleet carrier) could carry. 90-100 was the max and likely 20/30% would be unavailable for use (repairs, etc) at any particular time, which means about 60/70+ aircraft were normally available for sortie.

Slight confusion in my earlier post. The combined bombing and scouting squadrons aircraft would be around 36 aircraft with each squadron having around 16 - 18 aircraft.. Since both squadrons flew dive bombers their rolls overlapped a great deal and later in the war the separate squadrons were actually combined into a single bombing / scouting squadron. This as a poor choice of wording on my part, and not a lack of knowledge on the topic.

However, the point remains that under the current model carrier operations have to be conducted vastly different than reality. The fix is actually quite simple. Bump the cargo rating on the carriers up 1 or maybe 2 points for the fleet carriers and 1 point for the CVE (which had a composite squadron including both fighters and dive bombers). Supply settings would also need some tweaking.

Adding 1or 2 to the fuel rating of tanks (thanks for uncovering this Horst!) would aid in the exploitation abilities of these units, however needing fuel did increase their logistics tail compared to infantry so keeping the number relatively low would be appropriate. However, this shouldn't negate the need for the player to properly plan their advance to ensure their lines of communications / supply remain open.

[bjarmson]

I actually advocated having more planes on carriers in some earlier thread. My idea was that fleet carriers would have 6 aircraft slots (each being half the current strength). This would allow for much more flexibility, half the fighters could provide CAP, half could escort dive bombers and torpedo planes, etc. Needless to say this has never been implemented.