This is so hard
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: This is so hard
Well, let's see what you think after you have played it. [;)]
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
RE: This is so hard
My favorite game. Takes a fair amount of learning to master-
(Many requests to have this sticky'd a long time ago...)
tm.asp?m=4223401
(Many requests to have this sticky'd a long time ago...)
tm.asp?m=4223401
Rex Lex or Lex Rex?
RE: This is so hard
ORIGINAL: willgamer
My favorite game. Takes a fair amount of learning to master-
(Many requests to have this sticky'd a long time ago...)
tm.asp?m=4223401
good idea!
-
SwampYankee68
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 9:37 am
- Location: Connecticut, U.S.
RE: This is so hard
I highly recommend Warsaw to Paris. It plays historically but is challenging. No added Russians for "play balance"
"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
-
Neogodhobo
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:08 am
RE: This is so hard
ORIGINAL: SwampYankee68
I highly recommend Warsaw to Paris. It plays historically but is challenging. No added Russians for "play balance"
There is no added Soviets in Decisive Campaign : Operation Barbarossa. I dont know why you would think that. the historical OOB is available pretty much everywhere, books, internet, and the game itself.
-
Neogodhobo
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:08 am
RE: This is so hard
Historically, the Germans failed Operation Barbarossa. The soviets never crumbled during the operation, they were hard to battle against. They were very good at defending and they would fight harder, and to the death, more often than any other armies would have. This was all stated by the Germans during Operation Barbarossa.
The reason why the soviets were pushed back a lot was because of poor leadership, command and control being destroyed, communication being sabotaged and of course, complete surprise. Not because the soviets were not hard to fight. Whenever the Germans had to engage in battle, it was a hard battle. Take for exemple the Brest Fortress where it took the Germans about 7 days to capture.
Its completely normal to have difficulties fighting the Soviets in the game. What makes it easy to destroy them is how,when and where you move your troops. This is what got the Germans trough the gates of Moscow.
Play the game and test it out a lot. The Germans had wargame and had lots of opportunity to recreate Operation Barbarossa before engaging the real thing. It was originally planned to have one panzer army from AGC to assist in the capture of Leningrad, meaning that two panzer armies would be operating in the South. But the wargames had showed that this was not the best course of actions.
Lots of the original plans for Op. Barbarossa were changed after playing the wargames. You can do the same. Play the frontier battle over and over again until you get good and you know what works and what doesn't.
Try different approach, think outside the box.
I have a full playtrough ( of the frontier battles ) where I dont use my Panzer groups AT ALL. Just because I want to save them for October-November-December. I used my mechanized divisions only. ( I do not recommend this tactic however ).
Just try a lot, and play a lot. I have never made it close to Moscow myself, and have about 100 hours put into the game. But I get trough the Frontier battle pretty easely now and in a timely fashion. I need to practice my strategy for the late game a bit more.
What I found out work best is to drive 2nd Panzer group into the Pripyet marshes, along with 4th army HQ all the way to Gomel, once this is done, I use 4th Army HQ to hold and defend the Dnepr river from Mogilev to Gomel. while I shift 2nd Panzer Group into AGS. By the time I arrive in Gomel (with 2nd ) and Mogilev-Gomel line ( with 4th ) ( this is done in about... 3 or 4 turns ). My armies in the South have connected with 3rd Rumanian HQ and have a static defense line from Lvov to Proskurow to Odessa ( Odessa might not be captured just yet though ).
So 2nd Pz.gr will make their way to Kiev ( usually garrisoned so I skip the battle ) and then I continue to Rovno and Zhytomyr. 2nd Pz.Gr Infantry at this time is usually still in the marshes, so I make them walk from the marshes directly down to Rovno. Effectively closing the kessel. What happens here is you have about 1 million Soviet stuck in that Kessel in about 5-6 turn of the start of the game. Nevermind all the other kessel you created with AGN and AGC while you were working on that one, you should have about 2 million Soviets in your Kessels, either already destroyed, or on the verge of.
That creates a big blow, the only difficult choice at this point is where to advance. Because everything is left undefended ( apart from Garrison ). You can go to Kiev,and Kursk almost without danger of seeing enemy troops. Or you can use your newly freed 1 Pz.Gr to drive to Odessa and capture it in a lightning fast. Creating another kessel between 11th Army HQ and your Panzer Group.( if you are going for this, the trick is to not move your Southern armies at all apart from 17th Army, 6th Army and 1st Pz.Gr. That way you can capture more Soviets. You can then drive to Rostov without seeing much enemy troops.
I usually bring 2nd Pz.Gr back to AGC. At that point, you will need them as you will be struggling in the Center. Drive them to Smolensk, and make a kessel 3rd Pz. Gr. You will have another huge pocket of Soviets trap from Minsk ( where your infantry will probably be stuck fighting while you go south with 2nd Pz Gr. ) to Smolensk. This adds another 500,000 soviets to your kessels. At that point you have about 3 millions soviets eliminated and its abouty turn 10 to 15.
Of course, there is an alternative choice, instead of going South with your 2nd Pz Gr. you can stay center. When you get to Gomel, there will be no one in Smolensk. apart from Garrisons. Drive to Smolensk and meet with 3rd Pz Gr. who will be waiting for you in Polotsk. This creates also a huge kessel in the Minsk-Smolensk area, and makes you ready for a drive to Moscow without much resistance ( although, I never yet tried this strategy, but I have thought about it and planned for a while now that I think I am ready to try it soon )
The trick with this game is to plan ahead. Before you even start turn 1 you should know what you are about to do. Choosing Hitler's Directive might be easier on PP, but it can get way easier if you choose to capture Rostov and just completely annihilate the armies in the South with your two panzer groups. Or if you chose to go Moscow, then you would stay in Center and make the Smolensk-Minsk kessel.
Dont just go turn by turn, advancing everyone as the game goes. This is when you create a Verdun type of game. Because you havent planned anything, so you cant move your troops according to your plans. I bet this is the reason why most people dont succeed.
Now dont get me wrong, I didnt get to Moscow myself, just yet, but this is how I used to play the game, without planning ahead. Now that I started to plan ahead and think about my strategies, I started being way more successful. Such as capturing over 3 millions soviets by turn 10-15. With about 200,000 of my own casualties.
The reason why the soviets were pushed back a lot was because of poor leadership, command and control being destroyed, communication being sabotaged and of course, complete surprise. Not because the soviets were not hard to fight. Whenever the Germans had to engage in battle, it was a hard battle. Take for exemple the Brest Fortress where it took the Germans about 7 days to capture.
Its completely normal to have difficulties fighting the Soviets in the game. What makes it easy to destroy them is how,when and where you move your troops. This is what got the Germans trough the gates of Moscow.
Play the game and test it out a lot. The Germans had wargame and had lots of opportunity to recreate Operation Barbarossa before engaging the real thing. It was originally planned to have one panzer army from AGC to assist in the capture of Leningrad, meaning that two panzer armies would be operating in the South. But the wargames had showed that this was not the best course of actions.
Lots of the original plans for Op. Barbarossa were changed after playing the wargames. You can do the same. Play the frontier battle over and over again until you get good and you know what works and what doesn't.
Try different approach, think outside the box.
I have a full playtrough ( of the frontier battles ) where I dont use my Panzer groups AT ALL. Just because I want to save them for October-November-December. I used my mechanized divisions only. ( I do not recommend this tactic however ).
Just try a lot, and play a lot. I have never made it close to Moscow myself, and have about 100 hours put into the game. But I get trough the Frontier battle pretty easely now and in a timely fashion. I need to practice my strategy for the late game a bit more.
What I found out work best is to drive 2nd Panzer group into the Pripyet marshes, along with 4th army HQ all the way to Gomel, once this is done, I use 4th Army HQ to hold and defend the Dnepr river from Mogilev to Gomel. while I shift 2nd Panzer Group into AGS. By the time I arrive in Gomel (with 2nd ) and Mogilev-Gomel line ( with 4th ) ( this is done in about... 3 or 4 turns ). My armies in the South have connected with 3rd Rumanian HQ and have a static defense line from Lvov to Proskurow to Odessa ( Odessa might not be captured just yet though ).
So 2nd Pz.gr will make their way to Kiev ( usually garrisoned so I skip the battle ) and then I continue to Rovno and Zhytomyr. 2nd Pz.Gr Infantry at this time is usually still in the marshes, so I make them walk from the marshes directly down to Rovno. Effectively closing the kessel. What happens here is you have about 1 million Soviet stuck in that Kessel in about 5-6 turn of the start of the game. Nevermind all the other kessel you created with AGN and AGC while you were working on that one, you should have about 2 million Soviets in your Kessels, either already destroyed, or on the verge of.
That creates a big blow, the only difficult choice at this point is where to advance. Because everything is left undefended ( apart from Garrison ). You can go to Kiev,and Kursk almost without danger of seeing enemy troops. Or you can use your newly freed 1 Pz.Gr to drive to Odessa and capture it in a lightning fast. Creating another kessel between 11th Army HQ and your Panzer Group.( if you are going for this, the trick is to not move your Southern armies at all apart from 17th Army, 6th Army and 1st Pz.Gr. That way you can capture more Soviets. You can then drive to Rostov without seeing much enemy troops.
I usually bring 2nd Pz.Gr back to AGC. At that point, you will need them as you will be struggling in the Center. Drive them to Smolensk, and make a kessel 3rd Pz. Gr. You will have another huge pocket of Soviets trap from Minsk ( where your infantry will probably be stuck fighting while you go south with 2nd Pz Gr. ) to Smolensk. This adds another 500,000 soviets to your kessels. At that point you have about 3 millions soviets eliminated and its abouty turn 10 to 15.
Of course, there is an alternative choice, instead of going South with your 2nd Pz Gr. you can stay center. When you get to Gomel, there will be no one in Smolensk. apart from Garrisons. Drive to Smolensk and meet with 3rd Pz Gr. who will be waiting for you in Polotsk. This creates also a huge kessel in the Minsk-Smolensk area, and makes you ready for a drive to Moscow without much resistance ( although, I never yet tried this strategy, but I have thought about it and planned for a while now that I think I am ready to try it soon )
The trick with this game is to plan ahead. Before you even start turn 1 you should know what you are about to do. Choosing Hitler's Directive might be easier on PP, but it can get way easier if you choose to capture Rostov and just completely annihilate the armies in the South with your two panzer groups. Or if you chose to go Moscow, then you would stay in Center and make the Smolensk-Minsk kessel.
Dont just go turn by turn, advancing everyone as the game goes. This is when you create a Verdun type of game. Because you havent planned anything, so you cant move your troops according to your plans. I bet this is the reason why most people dont succeed.
Now dont get me wrong, I didnt get to Moscow myself, just yet, but this is how I used to play the game, without planning ahead. Now that I started to plan ahead and think about my strategies, I started being way more successful. Such as capturing over 3 millions soviets by turn 10-15. With about 200,000 of my own casualties.
-
Neogodhobo
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:08 am
RE: This is so hard
I also started playing as the Soviets recently. The first few times I got annihilated in a matter of a few turns. but now I can recreate history and keeps the Germans at bay ( within the historical time frame ). Its all about learning how to play them because they play very different from the Germans.
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: This is so hard
ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
ORIGINAL: SwampYankee68
I highly recommend Warsaw to Paris. It plays historically but is challenging. No added Russians for "play balance"
There is no added Soviets in Decisive Campaign : Operation Barbarossa. I dont know why you would think that. the historical OOB is available pretty much everywhere, books, internet, and the game itself.
So how about the random (and strong) garrisons?
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
RE: This is so hard
Hi,
Designer here. The random, strong garrisons can be looked at in several ways.
Historically the Soviets went all out to fortify and garrison a number of major cities in the time period portrayed by the game. They used civilian and prison labour extensively for this and dredged up equipment that doesn't show on any official OOB.
They were extremely difficult cities to take and caused a lot of heartache for the Germans (eg. Sevastopol, Leningrad, etc.)
It's a key element of Barbarossa that needs to be represented in-game.
The garrisons are randomly determined each time you play and you can end up with more garrisons than there were historically, or less. Most of the time it's about where it should be but it's possible to get outliers. It's safe to say that, overall, the garrisons provided are equivalent to what the Germans faced on the day.
They are in randomised locations (although there's a measure of geographic logic behind the randomness) for reasons of hindsight. If you started the game knowing that, Sevastopol, for example was always going to be heavily fortified you'd devise a strategy that took that into account.
The Germans didn't have that knowledge. Nor should the player.
In terms of any game replicating historical outcomes it's, from my point of view, largely a non-argument. If you pick up a wargame on, say Barbarossa, and expect to get historical outcomes from historical force dispositions and weapon equivalencies then that's O.K but you start the campaign with a vast level of knowledge and hindsight that the Generals on the ground didn't possess.
The decisions that they made were done using an information horizon that is tiny compared to yours when you recreate the conflict.
I strongly suspect that if Hitler and his High Command had the same level of knowledge as today's player on Barbarossa they would have made the decision to give the whole thing a miss as it was, from their perspective, an unwinnable campaign.
The game is deliberately meant to be tough to win as either side. Even with this you are still, as a player, miles ahead of your historical counterparts.
Imagine having to play Barbarossa knowing nothing about what happened historically. It'd be a very different experience.
Cheers,
Cameron
Designer here. The random, strong garrisons can be looked at in several ways.
Historically the Soviets went all out to fortify and garrison a number of major cities in the time period portrayed by the game. They used civilian and prison labour extensively for this and dredged up equipment that doesn't show on any official OOB.
They were extremely difficult cities to take and caused a lot of heartache for the Germans (eg. Sevastopol, Leningrad, etc.)
It's a key element of Barbarossa that needs to be represented in-game.
The garrisons are randomly determined each time you play and you can end up with more garrisons than there were historically, or less. Most of the time it's about where it should be but it's possible to get outliers. It's safe to say that, overall, the garrisons provided are equivalent to what the Germans faced on the day.
They are in randomised locations (although there's a measure of geographic logic behind the randomness) for reasons of hindsight. If you started the game knowing that, Sevastopol, for example was always going to be heavily fortified you'd devise a strategy that took that into account.
The Germans didn't have that knowledge. Nor should the player.
In terms of any game replicating historical outcomes it's, from my point of view, largely a non-argument. If you pick up a wargame on, say Barbarossa, and expect to get historical outcomes from historical force dispositions and weapon equivalencies then that's O.K but you start the campaign with a vast level of knowledge and hindsight that the Generals on the ground didn't possess.
The decisions that they made were done using an information horizon that is tiny compared to yours when you recreate the conflict.
I strongly suspect that if Hitler and his High Command had the same level of knowledge as today's player on Barbarossa they would have made the decision to give the whole thing a miss as it was, from their perspective, an unwinnable campaign.
The game is deliberately meant to be tough to win as either side. Even with this you are still, as a player, miles ahead of your historical counterparts.
Imagine having to play Barbarossa knowing nothing about what happened historically. It'd be a very different experience.
Cheers,
Cameron
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: This is so hard
Everytime I encounter a strong garrison in the Baltic Sates, it feels wrong, and from historical POV it is wrong.
The fact is that the early turns are made tougher because the AI can't handle bigger gaps that might appear. It can be sugarcoated with philosophical discussions, but the fact remains.
The fact is that the early turns are made tougher because the AI can't handle bigger gaps that might appear. It can be sugarcoated with philosophical discussions, but the fact remains.
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
-
Neogodhobo
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:08 am
RE: This is so hard
Either way, as soon as turn 1, the game is historically wrong. Simply because the player has made a move and the AI has responded to this move.
JJKettunen : As a final note, you dont have to like the idea behind what they did. Its not sugarcoating it, its explaining to you why they decided to do random garrison. Anyway I suggest you get Gary Grigsby's war in the east ( if you dont already ).
________________________________________________
And to follow on my previous post, I just made it to the gates of Moscow ( well, a few kilometers away from Rzhev ) and its August 26 ! Im also approaching Leningrad, and while Odessa has not been captured, I am near Kharkov. My tank division are very low on manpower though, and same for the infantry. I inflicted more or less 2 million casualties on the Soviets and I have lost about 60,000 men ( or was it 80 ? ) either way, its a very good number, and Im quite proud of myself.
What made the big difference is that I choose the option to re-organised the front line before battle, according to my plans. I was planning for 2nd Pz Gr. to go South, but last minute changed of plans, I sent told them to say Center, and made a huge Kessel. Took a long pause in July with AGC and waited for AGN and AGS to catch up, creating a static frontline. Everyone was on the same page, everyone rested, refitted, and changed to Sustained offensive. took me about the whole month of doing nothing ( and catching up to the frontline for the divisions/armies who were further back ). But it really paid off in August where I was able to make several more kessels. The soviet had all catch up to me and it was just easier to punch trough and take advantage.
JJKettunen : As a final note, you dont have to like the idea behind what they did. Its not sugarcoating it, its explaining to you why they decided to do random garrison. Anyway I suggest you get Gary Grigsby's war in the east ( if you dont already ).
________________________________________________
And to follow on my previous post, I just made it to the gates of Moscow ( well, a few kilometers away from Rzhev ) and its August 26 ! Im also approaching Leningrad, and while Odessa has not been captured, I am near Kharkov. My tank division are very low on manpower though, and same for the infantry. I inflicted more or less 2 million casualties on the Soviets and I have lost about 60,000 men ( or was it 80 ? ) either way, its a very good number, and Im quite proud of myself.
What made the big difference is that I choose the option to re-organised the front line before battle, according to my plans. I was planning for 2nd Pz Gr. to go South, but last minute changed of plans, I sent told them to say Center, and made a huge Kessel. Took a long pause in July with AGC and waited for AGN and AGS to catch up, creating a static frontline. Everyone was on the same page, everyone rested, refitted, and changed to Sustained offensive. took me about the whole month of doing nothing ( and catching up to the frontline for the divisions/armies who were further back ). But it really paid off in August where I was able to make several more kessels. The soviet had all catch up to me and it was just easier to punch trough and take advantage.
-
JJKettunen
- Posts: 2289
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Finland
RE: This is so hard
Well, I did the '43 scenario published with WitE, along with playtesting the game, so in general I know what I'm talking about. [;)]
Jyri Kettunen
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
-
Neogodhobo
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:08 am
RE: This is so hard
Nice, What adds realism to WitE is the massive multiplayer game we created. Have you seen those ? I highly recommend playing that way.
Its basically 4 vs 4. One act as Hitler or Stalin, the other 3 act as Front Commanders. I dont need to explain in detail Im sure you get the idea of what it looks like. But I love playing that way, Iv already went trough 4 or 5 Front commander replacement ( I play as Stalin ). Wich makes it so much closer to the realities of war ( as if I sent them to the gulag or if they died in battle or were captured ).
To add a bit of realism, we also made the German team veterans of the game. While us Soviets were pretty new to it. Needless to say, we are getting crushed but the first Winter offensive is on the way. My Marshals just delivered me top secret offensive plans and I am currently studying them to either approve them or make some changes to them. The Germans have captured Moscow a few months ago but the fighting still goes on. As Hitler always said, capturing Moscow does not equal victory and he was damn right. I had to kill off two Marshal whom I blame for the capture of Moscow. But now I my Generals have gain enough experience, we are slowly starting to hold the Germans at bay. Heroically defending Gorky as we speak.
Anyway check those games out in the forum, its a blast !!
Its basically 4 vs 4. One act as Hitler or Stalin, the other 3 act as Front Commanders. I dont need to explain in detail Im sure you get the idea of what it looks like. But I love playing that way, Iv already went trough 4 or 5 Front commander replacement ( I play as Stalin ). Wich makes it so much closer to the realities of war ( as if I sent them to the gulag or if they died in battle or were captured ).
To add a bit of realism, we also made the German team veterans of the game. While us Soviets were pretty new to it. Needless to say, we are getting crushed but the first Winter offensive is on the way. My Marshals just delivered me top secret offensive plans and I am currently studying them to either approve them or make some changes to them. The Germans have captured Moscow a few months ago but the fighting still goes on. As Hitler always said, capturing Moscow does not equal victory and he was damn right. I had to kill off two Marshal whom I blame for the capture of Moscow. But now I my Generals have gain enough experience, we are slowly starting to hold the Germans at bay. Heroically defending Gorky as we speak.
Anyway check those games out in the forum, its a blast !!
RE: This is so hard
I will never take on a strong point directly, especially with Panzers. Its the same thing the Germans did in WW2 they would bypass then surround strong points. I win more than I lose as German, it took some time to get the feel of it but I'm doing it right I think
I think I will finally stop procrastinating......... tomorrow
RE: This is so hard
I agree it's way too difficult for the Germans than historically. It does annoy.Still one of the greatest engines ever.
RE: This is so hard
ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
(...)
Its completely normal to have difficulties fighting the Soviets in the game. What makes it easy to destroy them is how,when and where you move your troops. This is what got the Germans trough the gates of Moscow.
Play the game and test it out a lot. The Germans had wargame and had lots of opportunity to recreate Operation Barbarossa before engaging the real thing. It was originally planned to have one panzer army from AGC to assist in the capture of Leningrad, meaning that two panzer armies would be operating in the South. But the wargames had showed that this was not the best course of actions.
(...)
I have a full playtrough ( of the frontier battles ) where I dont use my Panzer groups AT ALL. Just because I want to save them for October-November-December. I used my mechanized divisions only. ( I do not recommend this tactic however ).
(...)
Dont just go turn by turn, advancing everyone as the game goes. This is when you create a Verdun type of game. Because you havent planned anything, so you cant move your troops according to your plans. I bet this is the reason why most people dont succeed.
Now dont get me wrong, I didnt get to Moscow myself, just yet, but this is how I used to play the game, without planning ahead. Now that I started to plan ahead and think about my strategies, I started being way more successful. Such as capturing over 3 millions soviets by turn 10-15. With about 200,000 of my own casualties.
Sorry I couldn't resist to point it out: the reason people try such unhistorical and unwise generally tactic is within the game mechanics. I also found myself saving my armored divisions and attack secondary targets mostly with infantry in DC games because of artificial attrition of mechanized units built within the game.
While I think it was just math error*, it sets armored random losses in every battle at 50% (yes half of your tanks are killed by accidents). You may check it in every battle log - just look at details, not graphics, not text results, just details.
The solution what to change, if you do not like this situation, is written by me here
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4508819
* I believe it was supposed to be 5% not 50%
═══
There is no such thing as a historically accurate strategy game. Every game stops being historically accurate from the very first move player do. First unit that moves ahistorically, first battle with non-historical results, mean we ride in unknown.
There is no such thing as a historically accurate strategy game. Every game stops being historically accurate from the very first move player do. First unit that moves ahistorically, first battle with non-historical results, mean we ride in unknown.
-
Templer_12
- Posts: 1709
- Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 11:29 am
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: This is so hard
Game is to hard?
Personally, I am very happy that the game is demanding.
Unpretentious scissors, stone, paper games are there enough out there.
Personally, I am very happy that the game is demanding.
Unpretentious scissors, stone, paper games are there enough out there.
-
General Straw Wall
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:17 pm
RE: This is so hard
Is it not possible to provide a modified AI that provides a more historical results early in the game?
-
ChuckBerger
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:11 pm
RE: This is so hard
Historical results are definitely achievable in this game, and indeed it is possible to far outstrip the German timeline. Playing against normal AI, I have little difficulty most of the time achieving a victory by September/October. For a challenge, I play at hard or really hard. I find only the very highest difficulty level is actually unbeatable.
If you're not winning as the Germans against the AI, it's because you aren't playing to the full combination of your strengths. The game requires a skilled coordination of many different aspects - cards, air power and artillery, command bonuses, political points, unit posture, refitting, and tactical bonuses from surround, etc.
Some people seem to think that Barbarossa should simply be a matter of moving Germans forward, and watching Soviet defence lines crumble as soon as they are touched. In fact you have to plan encirclements very carefully - if you do, they can be executed and it isn't all that hard to encircle Soviet pockets of 10+ divisions, or even 30+ divisions sometimes. As was historically the case, you don't have a prayer unless you can pull off these encirclements.
I think maybe people also forget that the Germans had 700,000+ casualties by the end of 1941, and as early as Smolensk some divisions were reporting 50%+ losses (battle and mechanical failure) of AFVs. And that's with nearly "perfect play", in an operational if not strategic sense. I hate Eastern Front games where the Germans suffer next to no losses at all during 1941.
This game is not without its flaws. In particular, I find it is actually a bit skewed towards the Germans, particularly in AGS where it has some a-historical bonuses, for the Axis Allies in particular. And the game doesn't give the Russians enough incentive to fight hard for every scrap of ground - since only Leningrad, Moscow, and Rostov really matter, a Russian "three fortresses" strategy is viable, to the neglect of historically important parts of the front like Orel-Kharkov area.
The Soviet paralysis is well-simulated through inability to move units around as a player might like to, rather than through tactical penalties. If you can't play to the Russians' weaknesses in mobility and reaction speed, and insist on a tactical advantage, then you are misunderstanding the game and you will fail. If you can't figure out the logistics game, you will fail. If you can't work out how to load bonuses up on your schwerpunkt, you will fail...
If you're not winning as the Germans against the AI, it's because you aren't playing to the full combination of your strengths. The game requires a skilled coordination of many different aspects - cards, air power and artillery, command bonuses, political points, unit posture, refitting, and tactical bonuses from surround, etc.
Some people seem to think that Barbarossa should simply be a matter of moving Germans forward, and watching Soviet defence lines crumble as soon as they are touched. In fact you have to plan encirclements very carefully - if you do, they can be executed and it isn't all that hard to encircle Soviet pockets of 10+ divisions, or even 30+ divisions sometimes. As was historically the case, you don't have a prayer unless you can pull off these encirclements.
I think maybe people also forget that the Germans had 700,000+ casualties by the end of 1941, and as early as Smolensk some divisions were reporting 50%+ losses (battle and mechanical failure) of AFVs. And that's with nearly "perfect play", in an operational if not strategic sense. I hate Eastern Front games where the Germans suffer next to no losses at all during 1941.
This game is not without its flaws. In particular, I find it is actually a bit skewed towards the Germans, particularly in AGS where it has some a-historical bonuses, for the Axis Allies in particular. And the game doesn't give the Russians enough incentive to fight hard for every scrap of ground - since only Leningrad, Moscow, and Rostov really matter, a Russian "three fortresses" strategy is viable, to the neglect of historically important parts of the front like Orel-Kharkov area.
The Soviet paralysis is well-simulated through inability to move units around as a player might like to, rather than through tactical penalties. If you can't play to the Russians' weaknesses in mobility and reaction speed, and insist on a tactical advantage, then you are misunderstanding the game and you will fail. If you can't figure out the logistics game, you will fail. If you can't work out how to load bonuses up on your schwerpunkt, you will fail...