1941 Barbarossa Campaign Update

[Mithrilotter]

Duplicate posting.

[Mithrilotter]

Duplicate posting.

[Mithrilotter]

Duplicate posting.

[xwormwood]

I dream of a world, err, game where the HQs provides cap, tac bombers and artillery fire.

[Mithrilotter]

I agree that currently, the Axis AI will lose North Africa. The AI immediately operates out the German fighter and TAC bomber to Russia. This is a good move,except that the AI should wait until Alexandria has fallen. Hubert says that this is a hard AI issue to fix. So unfortunately, this is unlikely to change in the near future.

The DAK tank begins weakened in a very vulnerable position. It immediately attacks,further weakening itself. It can then be destroyed on the Allies' first turn. At that point, the DAK is just too weak to survive.

I have a number of suggestions to improve the situation. First, all German units, including Rommel, should have one level of experience. This more closely matches the legend and will improve both attacks and defense. Second, all German units should begin fully entrenched. This may not be enough to save the DAK tank but it will help.

I would suggest that Italy begins with Mobility tech and that all of its unit begin upgraded with mobility tech. Italy had motorized units in the earlier Spanish Civil War. Currently Italian units can barely move in Africa. Italy didn't use horse drawn wagons to get around in Africa. Italian leaders may not have understood mobility, but Rommel, the Axis Commander sure did. Upgrading all Italian units with mobility may be more than Italy deserves, but it will prevent the Italian AI from spending scarce MPP's on mobility upgrades. Besides, Italian units are usually used for partisan prevention and secondary defensive garrisoning. Italy having a few extra trucks won't unbalance the game.

It is curious that Germany doesn't have Level 1 AA Tech at the beginning of the game in June 1941. Level 1 AA upgrades for the DAK units could make a big survival difference.

It is curious that German bombing of Malta began in late 1940 and was pretty much continuous, but there are no German or Italian air units on Sicily.

[xwormwood]

August 1942 in my game against the Axis AI (xpt. lvl, no exp. bonus, +1 spotting, +10 MPPs).
Lybia conquered, Finland fallen.

From my point of view the Axis AI needs help. On expert level it should at least be able to threaten the Russians in 1941 while giving the Allies something to think about in North Africa.
My game is practically a mop up operation from now on, so I will swap sides.

But for now my conclusion would be that this campaign needs some improvements. Probably not too many, but nevertheless.

Having said this, I'm more than happy to play on, switching sides in a situation like this is a joy you can't pay for.

[xwormwood]

After the side swap I found out that the AI used its Maritime Bombers deep within Russia. Maybe this is something you would like to fix?

[Ason]

Yeah, I have never been able to reach the historical lines in time as axis. I've only managed to reach Kiev, but never Smolensk or Leningrad (playing on expert level 1.5+ experience).. I think the Axis should be a bit more powerful in 1941. I don't really feel the punch of barbarossa, it's basically a meatgrinder with axis initiative from the start. I think Axis should get more units at the start to be able to push deeper and encircle more units.

At the moment I always just push to the next city in line and just focus on surrounding it which most of the time is very easy because the AI doesn't really protect anything other than the city hex (no support on flanks around the city).
The problem is I have to focus an entire army group on 1 or maybe 2 cities at a time. There is no point in trying more ambitious encirclements because:

1. units that push past an enemy city run out of supply really fast.

2. Even if a major encirclement is made (many units and cities in the pocket) The enemy is almost 100% efficient/strong because of the resources in the hex.

3.Not enough units to even attempt a bigger encirclement.


I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I really feel like something needs to be done about this...

What I would do would be to:

1. Let panzer and mechanized units keep supply for longer (let them move away futher from closest supply source before they get weak.

2. Make cities run out of supply not only based on the amount of enemy units surrounding it, but also based on time after the supply connection has been cut off. So a resource hex would keep full supply only for 2-3 turns after it has been cut off, no matter how many enemies are directly surrounding it.

3. Give Axis a bit more units.

[Philippeatbay]

The Eastern Front should never look like this during the summer of '41:

[TheBattlefield]

Well, for the first turn it looks fine! [:D]

[Philippeatbay]

It's not the first turn, though it is very early in the campaign.

There should be at least as many Soviet troops as German troops, they should just die and get replaced faster.

Operation Barbarossa was not a German romp in an empty landscape.

There don't seem to be enough units on either side on the Romanian front.

There don't seem to be enough units on either side in Army Group North's theater.

The Germans almost have enough troops in Army Group Center's theater.

The Germans seem to be missing a few infantry units in the main (northern) part of Army Group South.

Part of the problem is that the number and size of the units was probably fine for a map at a third this size, but the larger scale puts a glaring spotlight on the distortions.

[TheBattlefield]

Axis on expert level, AI: +0,5 Experience

However, the overall situation is not quite historical yet but I have a lot of fun. I would recommend no changes in the strength relations.

[xwormwood]

For expert level and +0,5 exp. it looks like the strength relations should be changed a bit in favor of the Allies (because of the Moscow [?] gap).
Expert level should be a tough nut to crack, even though not an unfair one. Unfair should start by manually adding extra spotting, experience and income. But on regular Expert level it should already be an unforgiving, mean and biting AI.
To offer a true expert level I would add some historical problems for the player. Orders to stand and fight, orders to attack, orders to build units, orders to invest into certain diplomacy, orders to declare war on specific dates etc. All orders optional, but if refused, followed by punishments (like NM loss, or reduced income for x turns, lower diplo effects or research success for x turns etc.).

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

For expert level and +0,5 exp. it looks like the strength relations should be changed a bit in favor of the Allies (because of the Moscow [?] gap).
Expert level should be a tough nut to crack, even though not an unfair one. Unfair should start by manually adding extra spotting, experience and income. But on regular Expert level it should already be an unforgiving, mean and biting AI.
To offer a true expert level I would add some historical problems for the player. Orders to stand and fight, orders to attack, orders to build units, orders to invest into certain diplomacy, orders to declare war on specific dates etc. All orders optional, but if refused, followed by punishments (like NM loss, or reduced income for x turns, lower diplo effects or research success for x turns etc.).

Agree to disagree. The gap is not in Moscow - it is in front of the fortifications of the Russian capital. The Russians build up a solid front from the outskirts of Rostov to the gates of Moscow. Finally I secured Leningrad but after the winter '42/'43 I have to partly retreat from Mossow to Smolensk due to a nearby encirclement of the HGM. This is what I called a biting AI. For more punishment you currently have to add some extra MPP. Maybe somebody will create a hammering Historical War Mod in the future. The Italians will attack Greece without Axis consultations and the Russian winter will strike for two or three turns. This and much more...

[Philippeatbay]

I'm beginning to think that the problem with the Eastern Front in this game has to do with scale.

The map's scale is large enough that the game could (and probably should) be played with divisions as the basic sized unit. Armies, even assuming that all were there (and I think a few are missing on both sides) are just too large a formation and leave too many open spaces on the map. The Eastern Front was slightly porous in places at various periods of times, but there was always a semblance of a continuous front line (and on the Soviet side, several more backed up behind it).

If the game's scale were 100 miles to the hex this wouldn't be a problem. But the larger map scale needs adjustments to the OOB to accomodate it.

The other problem is time frame.

I'm not sure about this because I haven't run enough tests, but I don't think the Germans can maintain anything near an historic rate of advance with one month turns. If what's happening is what I think is happening, the problem can't be resolved by thinning out one side's OOB or imposing an arbitrary weakening (though I'm still at a loss to detect any trace of the massive early war casualties inflicted by the Luftwaffe on the Soviet Air Force). There are simply too many hexes to cross before the weather starts turning foul, even if the Soviets offer no resistance.

I'm not sure what the solution should be for this, but my guess would be that turn length needs to be somewhere between two turns a month (too many, I think) and what it is now, probably around halfway. In other words, three quarters of what it is now woud probably give the Germans the extra turn or two they need to keep to the historical schedule. Or maybe not. But I think you can fiddle with the time scale a bit without doing violence to the game system.

The problem with all of this is that we're talking about a major redesign of the game system at the eleventh hour. Divisions as the base unit would force the use stacking, which would have a lot of cascading side effects that would need to be tested. You might be able to get around this by using the corps as the base unit (doing away with armies), but that would have to be tested as well.

[jpinard]

The game does not need to be redesigned - sheesh. Want to see a WWII game that can't do anything realistic? Go pick up HOI IV.
This game does phenomenally well for it's scale. Changing a lot more you start to take "chance" out of the equation. We are playing the game with full knowledge of what went right and what went wrong in WWII. That significantly changes WWII from the first battle in Poland. IF Britain & France hadn't been stupid, Germany would have never made it past the Ardennes Forest. War over.
So if we want to see how history could repeat itself to match actual history they will have to keep making unhistorical changes to make that happen.

What I think will need to happen is people will want to edit the standard campaigns to counter their own playstyles. For instance, next time I play as Allies in Barbarossa, since I won my last game, is I'm going to add 1 artillery unit to the German forces in SW Russian front and 1 extra corps in the Middle East. I think once people win a campaign at a certain level if they don't want to change difficulties and give the AI cheats, then adding a few units will dramatically change the force equation for the rest of the game seeing how important the first few turns are.

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

I'm beginning to think that the problem with the Eastern Front in this game has to do with scale.

The map's scale is large enough that the game could (and probably should) be played with divisions as the basic sized unit. Armies, even assuming that all were there (and I think a few are missing on both sides) are just too large a formation and leave too many open spaces on the map. The Eastern Front was slightly porous in places at various periods of times, but there was always a semblance of a continuous front line (and on the Soviet side, several more backed up behind it).

If the game's scale were 100 miles to the hex this wouldn't be a problem. But the larger map scale needs adjustments to the OOB to accomodate it.

The other problem is time frame.

I'm not sure about this because I haven't run enough tests, but I don't think the Germans can maintain anything near an historic rate of advance with one month turns. If what's happening is what I think is happening, the problem can't be resolved by thinning out one side's OOB or imposing an arbitrary weakening (though I'm still at a loss to detect any trace of the massive early war casualties inflicted by the Luftwaffe on the Soviet Air Force). There are simply too many hexes to cross before the weather starts turning foul, even if the Soviets offer no resistance.

I'm not sure what the solution should be for this, but my guess would be that turn length needs to be somewhere between two turns a month (too many, I think) and what it is now, probably around halfway. In other words, three quarters of what it is now woud probably give the Germans the extra turn or two they need to keep to the historical schedule. Or maybe not. But I think you can fiddle with the time scale a bit without doing violence to the game system.

The problem with all of this is that we're talking about a major redesign of the game system at the eleventh hour. Divisions as the base unit would force the use stacking, which would have a lot of cascading side effects that would need to be tested. You might be able to get around this by using the corps as the base unit (doing away with armies), but that would have to be tested as well.

By the discussion about game scale and unit strengths we presumably get very fast to the area of personal taste. I'm not a friend of unit stacking and I hate games with "three hours to move all units" armies. Nevertheless, I would even agree with you for a restricted scenario like "D-Day" or "Ardennes". In case of a global and nevertheless clear held strategy game, however, definitively not.

Well, maybe it could be helpful if there was a gradation of max strengh between "Armies", "Corps", "Divisions" and "Garrisons" and in exchange get rid of the "elite" bonus and put in experience honourings from "green" to "veteran"...

[Ason]

There is no need to add stacking simply because divisions are added.

I made a custom campaign where I added divisions and corps to all nations and only gave them a few armies (for defense of cities).
This worked great, I was able to create a continuous frontline and din't really have a problem with not being able to stack.


I agree 100 % that the frontlines look so weak with the many gaps, we really need divisions to fill it up.

[sPzAbt653]

I made a custom campaign where I added divisions and corps to all nations and only gave them a few armies

That sounds interesting, and for a slightly different twist I have used all corps for the Majors and for me it seems to work well. OOB's are based on historic ones, so near the end game the Soviets have a ton of corps, but as the front narrows as the Soviets advance westward it is not necessary to move them all so it doesn't bother me [by having so many units].
In some cases I have retained armies, for example - giving the Italian 5th and 10th Army's in Libya in 1940 a corps oob gives them too many units [which are difficult for the computer Allies to defeat] so both armies are represented by an army unit. Similarly, a Greek corp oob is difficult to defeat, so they also have armies.
While 'no stacking' may appear to throw a flag at game mechanics, for me it has become a small relief as we don't have to navigate stacks, and a glance at the map reveals all. I think it fits well with this type of game.