warineur@mailman.halisp.net
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production

Subject: RE: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production
From: "Bruce Denney"
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:02:32 -0500

All of that is precisely (such as unseen reserves ect…)  why I am trying to duplicate the condition presented in the game and not second guessing the historical context. When I have been using the term “historical” I was refurring to the situation presented in the game with out the Allied production rules.

 

bruce

 

-----Original Message-----
From: warineur-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:warineur-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of SGMINFO@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 11:28 AM
To: warineur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Question on WIE Allied production

 

In a message dated 17/06/2005 16:50:42 GMT Daylight Time, jbdenney@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

 

The spreadsheet assumed "historical" U boat builds, which I think was defined to mean enough to put them in the middle of the one to the left of middle column at all times with some gradual adjustments when the table shifted gears, and also had an inbuilt assumption in respect of an historical rate of attrition, meaning the mean result of the vanilla attrition die roll for the columns as applicable based on the first set of assumptions. It took into account that the game seems to assume the Allied player will get ahead, substantially, after US entry, as to which note where the pre Overlord reinforcements start out. ( 6 plus months worth of extra A results spread over 31 cycles was about 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 double cycle lots IIRC)

The problem with this is that the U-boat war is anything but logical and historical.

 

It doesn't work...simply taking the number of boats commissioned, relating that back to the sinkings rate, and coming up with a combat table, if that was what was done. The Tonnage per u-boat calculation is also a very dangerous precedent to use, concealing many avoidable factors in the performance of this arm.

 

Add to that the bursts of successful codebreaking on both sides which flexes the Sinking rates massively and almost at random, and even the margin of safety for the UK economy is  far more variable than is given credit for...

 

Churchills famous dictum on the War in the North Atlantic was not based on actual performance so much as the realisation on his part, dodgey forecasting it was going to be, and if the Germans did strike the mother lode in terms of intelligence, or deploy correctly, or several other factors, how rapidly the game would get away from the british despite all their best efforts.

 

In the game, the British player does not wage war on the map whilst looking over his shoulder, there is more than an indication that Churchill was doing just that...

 

The problem is...

 

The U-boats were deployed an anything but an optimum manner, with direct and in some cases nonesensical interventions by the "Greatest Military Genius since Napoleon".

 

Thus the effectiveness of the U-boat arm is crippled by deployments to Norway , deployments to the med, and dispersions on other "critical"(??) missions on the personal orders of the Fuhrer.

 

Again on the allied side, the formation of hunter killer groups is as much a function of overall naval strength rather than a smoothly increasing capability. Defensive convoy protection came before all else, and it was only at the pojnt when there were sufficient escorts to go around, was it possible for the Allies to form such groups and go after the U-boats, the point at which that happens in any replay of the war is likely to be dependent on many things, but the point at which it does happen is a fulcrum point in the naval war, and could occur at many different possible points, but when it does the attrition rate for U-boats takes a steep turn for the worse...

 

The great unknown is what the orginal designers did over such events...

 

For example we all know how the Polish campaign went...

 

But suppose Hitler had ordered 3/4 of the Army to the West to watch the allied camp on the Rhine. The polish campaign would have been entirely different, but how would the game designers have coded the counter strengths and units in those circumstances, with a seriously less well performing (apparently) Wehrmacht?

 

The U-boat war might, to be historical, have anything but linear additions to the force structures during the first 4 years of the war, a serious departure from the average players builds in the game.

 

So which is the historical output? And how did the designers treat it? Did they cater for the daft deployments and factor those in? Or were they excluded as you were taking the place of OKH and Hitler...

 

Once you start examining and replaying the assumptions in the game, what turns up looks anything but clear...a degree of judicious fudging must have taken place...

 

That the British are short of productive capacity may be true, indeed is likely to be true, but probably no more than that, and there would be a devil of a job to establish that to any reasonable certainty.

 

Much of this will involve rule of thumb calculations, and inspired assumptions and guesstimates.

 

 

Bear this in mind when attempting to replicate anything in the game...

 

-|steve|-

_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>