Some disagreement with the Commander Grand Strategy

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's actually possible to alter the spawn rate of partisans in general.txt. So people can easily do that to get fewer partisans.

When I play I usually get 1 partisan per turn in 1941. In 1942 it increases to maybe 2 on average. One time I got 6 partisans in a turn, but that doesn't happen so often. If your Axis units move deep into Russia then you will get more partisans, but that's natural. It shows the huge problem the Germans had with actually garrisoning all the cities in Russia. It drained their army of troops that could have been used on something useful like fighting at the front.

I don't know where you get the idea of arbitrary changes to GS. We haven't done development on GS for many months and all development is done first within an alpha group and then within a beta group. Sometimes we post ideas on the forum to hear what people think. Feedback can mean that certain ideas are scrapped or modfied. What's so arbitrary about that?

It would have been arbitrary if we introduce changes all the time only to introduce new versions where the changes we first introduced are cancelled or changed. But I don't think that's true. I don't see many changes from GS 1.00 to 1.10 where changes we released to the public have been reversed or seriously changed. I can tell you that we do a lot of work in the beta group before we expose the changes to the public. You have to be a betatester to understand that.

Right now we're making a big update (v1.10). There is a reason it can be many weeks before you will see that one. It's because we do all the development within the beta group so you, the public, won't have to deal with the bugs or updates we do while testing. So why do you call that arbitrary? Is it better to keep completely silent about what we're working on and then suddenly release a new version with lots of changes?

I also have to mention that GS is a free upgrade to CEAW and we have no obligation to do or not do certain things because we don't make a single dollar doing GS. Nobody has purchased GS and can expect a certain level of support etc. If people buy a commercial product then they can expect certain things from the developer or distributor, but a free user mod isn't made to sell anything. We (the core GS team) have a view what kind of game we want to make. It might be that some of the changes we make won't suit everybody, but that can't be helped. We would rather make the WW2 grognards happy that doing changes for average Joe players. It's not our goal to make a simple game that a newbie can enjoy. Such players should stick to the vanilla game. We m ake GS into a game WE (the GS development team) want to play ourselves. If others can play it then fine, but we won't make GS into something we don't like ourselves. If you sell a game you have to make things thta will increase sale, but fortunately we don't have to think like that.

[Kuz]

Look you and your team have done some really good things for CEW. It is really good in a lot of aspects.

But some of the things you've done don't make sense. You want "historical" results but utilize non-historical rules to engineer it. The Russians were not immune to the winter. To make them some sort of supermen is not historical. The efficiency loss on the germans is fine but the half strength affect is just to much especially in the central European zone. Same with the western allies. Did not Patton half to pull out of an attack on Metz to attack the south end of the Bulge? Did not the Germans attack in the winter to create the Bulge? Why would they attack at all knowing they'd be so ineffective.

I'm in a game right now where my tech level 8 fighters are taking a beating from tech level 2 Russian fighters. They are located in the Poland so they didn't take the effectiveness loss, but they're fighting at half strength I dont get that? Even if during the winter the germans were only able to launch 25% of their fighters they should be able to kick the crap out of I 16s. Its like F15's getting beat by MiG17's

The mod is a lot better than vanilla in all accept one aspect.. It was up to the player to decide their strategy, in the mod it feels scripted and strategy is dictated to you.

" It might be that some of the changes we make won't suit everybody, but that can't be helped. We would rather make the WW2 grognards happy that doing changes for average Joe players. It's not our goal to make a simple game that a newbie can enjoy. Such players should stick to the vanilla game. We m ake GS into a game WE (the GS development team) want to play ourselves" -- So we disagree and we're newbs or average? Please....do I need to send you my Grognard resume? Sir you put this out to the public and therefore you get all the praise and any criticism.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The ground units get only a -1 to attack and half shock during winter. Armor gets -2 to attack and half shock. Air units are halved.

You can only get tech 6 in any area so Germany can't have tech 8 in air units and Russia tech 2. Maybe you think of tech 5 dogfight which will give you air attack 8 which is halved to 4. Russia starts with air attack 4 and would later in the game have air attack 5 or 6. So the German fighters fight at air attack 4 instead of 8, but with their survivability intact. The Russians fight with air attack 6 or so.

This means the Russians will inflict normal damage while the Germans half damage. A usual air fight of 4:2 in German favor might end up with 2:2 instead. That's not so bad so you have to halt all battles.

The Russians are definitely not supermen in GS. Most Russian players can only make counter attacks during the winter for a few turns before running out of steam. Germany recovers quickly from the efficiency loss from the severe winter.

Please notice that the Germans are NOT weaker on defense in bad weather. That means they can hold agains the Russians as well during the winter as when the weather is good. It's only the German ATTACK capability that is less. E. g. you can't launch a full scale offensive during the winter as the Germans, but you may do limited attacks.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

The scripting is about certain actions having consequences. As long as you know about them you can plan accordingly. This is similar to game rules.

E. g. World in Flames uses the famous US Entry table where every action you make will have an impact on US entry time. You get a huge rule book with what would happen if you do certain things. Many other games like Columbia Games Masterfront, War in Europe, TSR/SPI WW2, Avalon Hill Russian Front etc. have rules about what would happen if you do certain things.

E. g. in MasterFront you can't release 2 Romanian corps units until you capture Sevastopol. That is scripted, but based upon the historical fact that the Romanians were afraid of a Russian seaborne invasion from the Crimea.

I don't see any problem with scripting as long as it's not made to prevent sound play. E. g. there are no bad scripting effect from attacking Spain as the Germans. The bad effect comes from placing many units away from the eastfront before Barbarossa, but that is a strategic choice you do.

I feel that GS is not heavily scripted compared to most strategic wargames. Can you tell me which scripting in GS is so bad?

You say you're a grognard. Well, then you should be used to reading rule books and having to follow the rules there. What to call scripting is the same as game rules, e. g political rules. Again I want to repeat that we're making a game that WE like to play and we can't make everyone happy.

Why don't you turn off the rules you don't like by editing general.txt? There you can turn off the weather penalties on combat so the Germans and western Allies can attack at full strength. You can even let the Russians have the same penalties as well. So you can edit GS to your liking by doctoring the general.txt file. I

[rkr1958]

Hopefully you guys don't assume all GS comments & criticism should be labelled as forum trolling or else I might soon get banned from the forum along with a lot of other posters

No one is going to be banned for stating their opinion no matter how negative it is to GS or to CEAW. As long as we keep the comments about the game (i.e., no personal attacks) and keep the language at a proper and professional level then all voices and opinions are welcomed.

By the way, I deleted a post referring to someone as trolling. While I may not personally agree with what the original poster (OP) posted it was obvious that he had well thought out and sincere points.

[Kuz]

"You can only get tech 6 in any area so Germany can't have tech 8 in air units and Russia tech 2. Maybe you think of tech 5 dogfight which will give you air attack 8 which is halved to 4. Russia starts with air attack 4 and would later in the game have air attack 5 or 6. So the German fighters fight at air attack 4 instead of 8, but with their survivability intact. The Russians fight with air attack 6 or so"

Yes I phrased that wrong. When I click on the upgrade button I show level 8/8 and the Russian is 2/?. So my air attack factor normal is 6 but on the east its 3 vs his 4. Why is one plane techniclaly inferior vs another because its flying in cold weather. I understand that the Germans had a real problem with the weather but that is reflected by their efficency numbers. I think the weather rules as the affect combat factors should be removed for all units. Movement is a different story. I agree that movment was more difficult in the snow and dang near impossible in places in mud. Thats not in question.

To your other posts about the other games yes but the scripting/rules were balanced and I never got the feel that I was forced to a certain action based on the rules. Maybe its just me but the feel i get from the game as it stands is it doesn't matter what you do as the German's the Soviets are going to beat you.

"Why don't you turn off the rules you don't like by editing general.txt? There you can turn off the weather penalties on combat so the Germans and western Allies can attack at full strength. You can even let the Russians have the same penalties as well. So you can edit GS to your liking by doctoring the general.txt file " If I do this then I'm techinally playing a different game then the rest of the community.

"You say you're a grognard. Well, then you should be used to reading rule books and having to follow the rules there. What to call scripting is the same as game rules, e. g political rules. Again I want to repeat that we're making a game that WE like to play and we can't make everyone happy." Fine I'm done. Its your mod.

[massina_nz]

<snip> By the way, I deleted a post referring to someone as trolling. While I may not personally agree with what the original poster (OP) posted it was obvious that he had well thought out and sincere points.

"I resemble that remark"

[rkr1958]

<snip> By the way, I deleted a post referring to someone as trolling. While I may not personally agree with what the original poster (OP) posted it was obvious that he had well thought out and sincere points.

"I resemble that remark"

Go stand in the corner then and come back in 5-minutes.

[mamahuhu]

1 Althrough the winter climate of western Europe is cold , the military instrument of the main war countrys were quite suitable for the winter climate . they only had problems of how to make them work well at extremely cold weather( less than -15 degree centigrade). Even during the end of 1944 ,the last attack from Germany ,the bad weather which made ally had no air support only last 5 days .But in this game ,one turn is 20 days . To consider about the climate in this game is quite right . But if we consider about weather , there is some balance broken by the unreasonable weather .

2 We do believe that air attack could destroy everything if it was strong enough & lasted enough time . How about to adjust the data of the attack result of the third the forth maybe the fifth ,sixth attack to make the troops survived at least 10% . There were hundreds of example in the World war 2 that the troops almost be destroyed by air attack, the one who survive from the continuous air raid ,usually was badly injuried & could not fight .

3 We accept your point, but if the commander of Germany had the sealion intention at very beginning , they should deserve the choice of success .

4 We made it when we played with AI at Ally moderate advantage mode & it still appeared in 1942 . it should be a computer bug .

5 The problem we met is happened with AI . So the game was not over . However too many guerilla is unreasonable .

6 We get the point .

7 No , it robs the Russian choice of building tank bloc to defend the panzer. As we know that the Russian had the quantity advantage & the Germany had the quality advantage .The only thing can stop panzer group is tank group .

8 We understand your upset . We only provide the idea for reference & fun .

9 BB is not good at ASW , but my point is despite of the loss , BB should be able to fight back if ally’s convoy was attacked even if BB was not just staying with convoy . If the axis sub really had the ability like this in 1941 or 1942 , Britain would have been gone .

10 No matter whom to pay how much to pay , it will take place before the shipment, after that the only thing will cost more was fuel .

11 I learned this from the discussion .”This only simulates Royal Navy ships deployed in Indian Ocean: many of these ships saw also action in the Atlantic and Mediterranean scenarios. Due to CEAW map limitations they appear at Basra.”

12 Ok . it really took more time .

13 Ok

14 The technology is one of the Germany’s advantage , if you cut the possibility for “Germans get too far “ ,why don’t you also strictly limit ally’s manpower & money ? If so ally will not have too more money & too more people !

15 Yes ,it doesn’t matter if we play pbem. . But to make something we loved perfect ,……..


Anyway , thanks a lot for your instant attention & kind answers . we just want to share the fun with you ! Maybe someday we can play a pbem with you . Have a nice day !

[gerones]

1 Althrough the winter climate of western Europe is cold , the military instrument of the main war countrys were quite suitable for the winter climate . they only had problems of how to make them work well at extremely cold weather( less than -15 degree centigrade). Even during the end of 1944 ,the last attack from Germany ,the bad weather which made ally had no air support only last 5 days .But in this game ,one turn is 20 days . To consider about the climate in this game is quite right . But if we consider about weather , there is some balance broken by the unreasonable weather .

This makes the difference: in the real war the allies had no air support during 5 days in Ardennes, but in GS you can have air support during all bad weather turns regardless this air support is halved in effectiveness.

And there´s also a difference between mud weather and winter weather: in winter weather you are still able to attack with your armoured units with more or less decent results. So in GS you could really launch an offensive in winter weather like the germans did in Ardennes.

[BuddyGrant]

It's actually possible to alter the spawn rate of partisans in general.txt. So people can easily do that to get fewer partisans.

When I play I usually get 1 partisan per turn in 1941. In 1942 it increases to maybe 2 on average. One time I got 6 partisans in a turn, but that doesn't happen so often. If your Axis units move deep into Russia then you will get more partisans, but that's natural. It shows the huge problem the Germans had with actually garrisoning all the cities in Russia. It drained their army of troops that could have been used on something useful like fighting at the front.

I don't know where you get the idea of arbitrary changes to GS. We haven't done development on GS for many months and all development is done first within an alpha group and then within a beta group. Sometimes we post ideas on the forum to hear what people think. Feedback can mean that certain ideas are scrapped or modfied. What's so arbitrary about that?

It would have been arbitrary if we introduce changes all the time only to introduce new versions where the changes we first introduced are cancelled or changed. But I don't think that's true. I don't see many changes from GS 1.00 to 1.10 where changes we released to the public have been reversed or seriously changed. I can tell you that we do a lot of work in the beta group before we expose the changes to the public. You have to be a betatester to understand that.

Right now we're making a big update (v1.10). There is a reason it can be many weeks before you will see that one. It's because we do all the development within the beta group so you, the public, won't have to deal with the bugs or updates we do while testing. So why do you call that arbitrary? Is it better to keep completely silent about what we're working on and then suddenly release a new version with lots of changes?

I also have to mention that GS is a free upgrade to CEAW and we have no obligation to do or not do certain things because we don't make a single dollar doing GS. Nobody has purchased GS and can expect a certain level of support etc. If people buy a commercial product then they can expect certain things from the developer or distributor, but a free user mod isn't made to sell anything. We (the core GS team) have a view what kind of game we want to make. It might be that some of the changes we make won't suit everybody, but that can't be helped. We would rather make the WW2 grognards happy that doing changes for average Joe players. It's not our goal to make a simple game that a newbie can enjoy. Such players should stick to the vanilla game. We m ake GS into a game WE (the GS development team) want to play ourselves. If others can play it then fine, but we won't make GS into something we don't like ourselves. If you sell a game you have to make things thta will increase sale, but fortunately we don't have to think like that.

You guys are doing a great job, and don't need to feel defensive in any way about any of your decisions. Don't sweat a few of us old timers who like to consider other idea's for CEAW .

[Peter Stauffenberg]

About 7. Russia had organized their armored units in mech corps at the start of Barbarossa. Their armor forces weren't reorganized into tank brigades until 1942. So the Russians did the same mistake as the French and other countries, i. e. spreading out their armor units to the infantry or motorized units.

Look here for example of Barbarossa OOB:
Baltic MD:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... my_08.html
8th Army
12th mech corps containing the 23rd, 28th armor divisions and the 202 mech division.
Similar for 11th Army with 3rd Mech corps.

Western MD:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... stern.html
6 mech corps

Kiev MD:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... _kiev.html
8 mech corps

Odessa MD:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... dessa.html
2 mech corps

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Interior Russian forces in Europe:
7 mech corps

So you see that the Russian armored units were all organized in mech corps.

From April 1942 the Russians formed Tank Corps based upon 3 Tank Brigades in each tank corps:
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/42 ... -tank.html
http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/42 ... -tank.html

Look here for some very interesting reading about the Soviet armor organization:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/default.asp

So the Russian tanks are definitely in GS in June 1941. They're spread into the 15+ mech corps the Russians start the game with. Germany starts with just 2 mech corps. Have you learnt how much better the mech corps is compared to an infantry corps? Then you would appreciate having as many as 15 to play with.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

2 We do ...
3 We accept ...
4 We made ...
etc.

You aren't really Gollum, are you? We wants the precious.......

[TotalerKrieg]

This thread may have largely run its course but there are some points I feel inspired to respond to.

One more thing: you'll never make the game perfect. Personally, I think it should be left as is, but the GS team is continuing to update and try to improve the game. They will never get it right; it's physically impossible to make a perfect game that everyone will see as perfect. What is perfect to you is certainly not perfect to me, and what is perfect to me is certainly not perfect to the next guy. GS 1.06 is a very good game, enjoyable despite its shortcomings and flaws, and that's about all you can hope for.

I have to say I disagree pretty strongly to this statement. Just a game can't be absolutely perfect doesn't mean it can't be improved in a meaningful manner which is fun to play for everyone. A WWII game which doesn't allow amphibious landing in contested hexes seems considerably flawed. How can one have an Overlord that is even remotely realistic if that is the case? I think fixing this is a very important step in the right direction for CEAW.

8 It is not reasonable that if axis attacks Canada before Dec 7th 1941 ,USA will declare war with axis automatically . Actually if it really happened around 1940-1941 ,USA will probably sign an agreement with axis to share the cake of axis victory.

8. This is why I’m not on board with some of the new GS changes the mod team is doing in 1.10. YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHAT THE USA WOULD HAVE DONE. It’s as simple as that. I hate using all-caps, but this is a recurring problem that I see and it bothers me.

Well, I agree that you can't know that the US would have declared war in this circumstance, caps or no caps. I don't think there is much doubt that Roosevelt would have wanted to declare war but there was considerable antiwar sentiment in the US and it is possible he could have been assassinated if he tried to do it. As to the thought that the US would sign agreement with the Axis to share the cake, I don't think that is reasonable either. Even in the highly unlikely event that the US wanted to, Hitler's views on the US would have made that highly unlikely. Instead, I think Hitler's views and actions suggest he would have considered the US as part of the cake to be divided. If the GS team wants to revisit this decision, they could also make this event determined by an odds calculator (50% they declare war, 50% they don't). Of course, whether this is worth anymore time is also debatable, as an Axis invasion of Canada is an extremely rare event and will cost them big in other fronts if they chose to do it.

An American declaration of war grounded in the Monroe Doctrine is certainly more historical than having the USSR automatically enter the war in the fall of 1941

The SU entry time is something I also find non-historical. I know some consider this debatable but for me the vast majority of evidence indicates that the SU was not going to enter the war in 1941. If it was up to me, I would have the SU enter randomly sometime in early 1942 (January-March or so). If the Axis fail to declare war by the end of 1941 and do so in 1942 before the SU automatically joins the war, I would set no loss of efficiency for the Soviet military (the idea being that they would be prepared for war in 1942).

[Peter Stauffenberg]

USSR entering the war does not mean they have to attack the Germans. It means they boost their production and you can actually start moving their units to better locations etc. Having the USSR as a neutral where you can't move their units in 1939-1941 is not right either because the real Russians certainly did a lot of things. Winter war, annexation of Bessarabia, Baltic States, invasion of Eastern Poland etc.

I think this was done in CeaW to make sure the Russians keep their main force at the front instead of retreating it behind the Dnepr prior to Barbarossa. When the threat of a 1941 Barbarossa is gone in 1941 I guess the original CeaW game designers felt they could allow the Russians to become active so they could move their units. Knowing that Russia will mobilize eventually if you don't start a 1941 Barbarossa would be a good reason for the Axis player to not ignore the east front.

One problem with many games is that there will always be loopholes in the rules that clever guys can exploit. This is how it is with the Axis attacking Canada and then jump on USA. Supermax showed how it can be done. Since we don't want to directly prohibit where you send your units we can't stop the Axis player fron doing that. They Germans would not have been able to support major operations across the Atlantic prior to US entry with the puny Navy they had. You need to get supplies to your units and even if England had fallen you need transports and supplies to get the units across. Germany would not have air superiority over Canada either since they would have no airbases within range.

So the code we added had a result that most Axis players would forget about landing in America and that's a good thing. The chances of success in the real war would have been very low. So a simple contingency that USA would mobilize if Canada is attacked has stopped such an exploit.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's impossible to know what would have happened if something ahistorical had happened. But we know that the chance of USA doing nothing is very little. At least the Americans would be on alert and strengthen the borders.

If the Germans in GS attack Canada it doesn't mean USA suddenly has a lot of units to start attacking with. The US gears up their production so they can build reinforcements. It's similar to USA sending troops stationed in western or central USA to the east to prevent the Germans from thinking of invading USA too.

So what's happening is the same as with the Russians in October 1941. The US will activate and they can actually do something with their forces. At least the Germans need to have the strength to also knock out USA if they try for Canada.

USA enters the war in December 1941 because Japan attacked. It's scripted so they also join against Germany. What if the Axis player had NOT DOW'ed USA with Japan or not done what Hitler did, i. e. DOW USA to support Japan? Then USA would not join and we don't know how much longer the USA could stay out of the war if the Axis had left USA alone. What would it have taken to let the Americans understand that neutrality is not in USA's best interest?

So we will always see in games that ahistorical possibilities and dealt with differently. It's impossible to create something that everybody would agree is the "correct" response to ahistorical events that you want the players to do. So you need to make a choice that works game wise and stick to it. This is what we've done. The worst thing that can happen is that someone finds an exploit that everybody would start doing. Then the game balance falls apart and people won't play anymore. If e. g. invading USA in 1941 was a sure winner in GS then I think GS would have lost all credibility being a more historical simulation than CEAW vanilla.

[harrybanana]

I have no problem with the US DOWing the Axis if the Axis invade Canada. Don't forget that from the very beginning of the War the US was very pro Allies. The bombing of London as reported in the US created even greater empathy for Britain and the Commonwealth. Could you imagine how much greater the sympathy in the US would have been if the Germans had actually invaded and captured the UK (which is pretty much a precedent before the Axis will invade Canada). If following the conquest of England the Germans had invaded Canada (something which would have been almost logistically impossible anyway) I personally believe the US would have DOWed Germany. Not only would they have done so to protect American political interests but economic interests as well. Canada was (and I think maybe still is) America's #1 trading partner and was certainly it's best friend and closest ally in the whole world.

Had the Germans conquered Britain the US would have:

1. Greatly increased their miltary production and
2. Sent a warning to Hitler that any invasion of Canada would not be tolerated.

Having said all this, I believe it would be fair to remove the 2 Canadian garrisons in Fredericton and Halifax. They are probably no longer needed to deter a German invasion of Canada and I for one have seen a growing # of players deploying them to France or Britain.

[TotalerKrieg]

I think this was done in CeaW to make sure the Russians keep their main force at the front instead of retreating it behind the Dnepr prior to Barbarossa. When the threat of a 1941 Barbarossa is gone in 1941 I guess the original CeaW game designers felt they could allow the Russians to become active so they could move their units. Knowing that Russia will mobilize eventually if you don't start a 1941 Barbarossa would be a good reason for the Axis player to not ignore the east front.

It's impossible to know what would have happened if something ahistorical had happened. But we know that the chance of USA doing nothing is very little. At least the Americans would be on alert and strengthen the borders.

So what's happening is the same as with the Russians in October 1941. The US will activate and they can actually do something with their forces. At least the Germans need to have the strength to also knock out USA if they try for Canada.

Upon thinking about your points, I see what you are saying and I agree. It is completely not historical to have the US unable to do anything if the Axis invade Canada and for the USSR not to be able to move their forces around once a typical Barbarossa window has closed. The only way to allow both countries to maneuver in this game is to allow them to enter the war. So consider my comments regarding both events retracted.

Having said all this, I believe it would be fair to remove the 2 Canadian garrisons in Fredericton and Halifax. They are probably no longer needed to deter a German invasion of Canada and I for one have seen a growing # of players deploying them to France or Britain.

Probably, but without the garrisons the Axis can still land and get supply quickly which may be enough to give them the foothold they need. The US will enter but at really low manpower so they could still be in trouble if the Axis can land enough troops/air rapidly. It might best to leave them just have that additional hurdle.

[Plaid]

Probably, but without the garrisons the Axis can still land and get supply quickly which may be enough to give them the foothold they need. The US will enter but at really low manpower so they could still be in trouble if the Axis can land enough troops/air rapidly. It might best to leave them just have that additional hurdle.

I think that opportunity to conquer USA and Canada is good thing, so why they shall not have their foothold?