Powerful Panzers

[freeboy]

right, Random, understand.. so again, what should make up a proper unit? Perhaps air units are too fragile and infantry should be able to dig in.. but fortified or dug in units should then not be able to rout without a penelty.. in other words, tough to push out, but if they fail they are punished.. would make armor attacks against in place for several turn defenders impossible..

[Razz1]

The Soviet effectiveness drop is just temporary.

The AI can survive it just like a human.

Perhaps you should open up a thread about this and people can give snap shot in time of how the Soviet forces are doing.

It's not as bad as you think.

Should the penalty be reduced? That's what the thread would be about.

Remember when the effectiveness of German units drop the Soviets will do better after the patch.

So what you see now will improve a little.

[doomtrader]

Units are digging in when idle.

[RandomAttack]

[/quote]

right, Random, understand.. so again, what should make up a proper unit?

I really am not arguing for a change in basic values at this point-- just a cap on effectiveness to see if it reduces the "Powerful Panzers" to a reasonable level without "breaking" something else. If it DOES have that result, then to consider tweaking the various COMPONENTS of effectiveness to get a similar result vice the cap. I would do it myself just to experiment, but I don't see a way to implement a cap in the consts file (I could just be missing it).

[freeboy]

the tank on tank seems ok... and I plan to test my red defenses soon as  my player oponenet  redies for barbarrossa.. I understand the effectivness issue.. played both sides.. I was pusshing hard in a prior servor game concentrating armor in the south... its tough to stop the Germans in 41, completely hisorical.. its what happens from the mud of fall to summer 42... we will see

[battlevonwar]

Yes, I would love to see that Infantry keep toe to toe against Tanks later as the game progresses. (some type of script, evolution, doctrine would be nice to keep infantry competitive) I am about to start a Barbarossa Scenario vs a Real Human. It's going to be different and I know after he watched what my Panzers did that mass infantry is mass graves. Early in the game(which is okay)
P.S. a few 88s with their range, uncontested in open terrain are deadly.

P.S.S. Infantry so far are speedbumps and garrisons

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
I have stopped playing the game completely due to 2 reasons:

1) The Soviet units are reduced to 1% effectiveness when war starts with Germany. This allows Germany to drive through the Caucaus oilfields completely within a few months of campaigning. It doesn't matter at all what sort of defense the Soviets put up along their advance because the German 15+ strength units are completely unstoppable. This is ahistorical in so many ways (supply chain, Soviet defense was actually much better than this, etc). It makes the realism of Babarossa a joke.

I hope you can fix this stuff because really I can't play the game as it is.

Cheers

I agree that the USSR can't stand and fight toe-to-toe in 1941 but there are other ways to skin the cat. I posted an example of a swarm defence for the USSR which I've used successfully against the Axis three times. When you use this strategy then any 1941 Panzer advance on the Caucaus oilfields becomes self-correcting - they can't advance when they're dead [;)]

I'm sure other players have their other defence strategies for the USSR that work equally well.

[oldspec4]

Playing as the Russians, I had a defense in depth of approx. three lines before the German invasion. I actually did ok trading space for time through 1941.

Until the panzer monsters showed up in mid-1942, I had level three infantry technology and was counter attacking in various areas; and regaining territory.

Hard to fight the 50+ strength german armor though after July '42 [8|].

[Rasputitsa]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: jjdenver
I have stopped playing the game completely due to 2 reasons:

1) The Soviet units are reduced to 1% effectiveness when war starts with Germany. This allows Germany to drive through the Caucaus oilfields completely within a few months of campaigning. It doesn't matter at all what sort of defense the Soviets put up along their advance because the German 15+ strength units are completely unstoppable. This is ahistorical in so many ways (supply chain, Soviet defense was actually much better than this, etc). It makes the realism of Babarossa a joke.

I hope you can fix this stuff because really I can't play the game as it is.

Cheers

I agree that the USSR can't stand and fight toe-to-toe in 1941 but there are other ways to skin the cat. I posted an example of a swarm defence for the USSR which I've used successfully against the Axis three times. When you use this strategy then any 1941 Panzer advance on the Caucaus oilfields becomes self-correcting - they can't advance when they're dead [;)]

I'm sure other players have their other defence strategies for the USSR that work equally well.

Is part of the problem that rail lines in captured territory become usable too soon. I have had to use a self imposed restriction on using captured rail, otherwise I would sometimes have no trouble in rail moving units right up behind the armoured spearheads, deep in Russia.

I was moving my advancing units along the rail lines to clear them, but that just caused rail damage, if you move beside the rail hexes, provided there are no enemy ZOCs near the hexes containing the rail lines, they will convert to your control with little damage. Especially in the USSR all rail hexes should be damaged, whenever hex ownership changes, because the rail gauge has to be changed before rail can be used by the new owner.

Even in Western Europe I think the captured rail hexes become usable too soon, they don't all have to suffer damage, but there should be a chance of damage on change of ownership, not just because there has been combat, or movement through the hex. This represents not just physical damage to the rails, but that all the rail workers have left and fighting front-line units don't usually run trains. There should be more of a delay in getting support engineers forward and reinstating rails, representing not just the physical repair, but staffing the system.

The Allies had powerful armoured units in France in 1944 and ran out of supply at the German border, they were mainly reliant on road supply, as the rail system had been destroyed by Allied airpower. It took a long time to get the rail system working again. The Germans had powerful armoured units which were also partially reliant on road supply, because of the time it took to convert Soviet rail.

Perhaps a more realistic rail repair timetable would reduce the effect of too powerful armoured units, not because they should be less powerful, but because they are supplied and supported too quickly and can unrealistically retain their power..[:)]

[JLPOWELL]

I didn't start out intending this to so critical but the closer I looked the worse this looks.
Effectively this isn't experience its German experience. It favors attackers ONLY and that's pretty unbalanced. In addition experience is, as implemented, way overrated and if it were up to me I would just drop it as it detracts more than it adds.
To fix IMO:
- Put a cap on it 25% effectiveness max 10% or 20% more likely
- Not diluted when replacements are made surviving this allows defenders to accumulate some and makes actually wiping out a unit more important (encouraging envelopment’s etc) and offsets the effect of the cap somewhat if implemented BTW this would more realistically emulate experience as actually gained surviving veterans stiffen units a bit but don't
- Slow it down perhaps to about 1/4 for attacking units
- Optionally - Rather than effectiveness once units reach a certain level of experience (the cap probably) give then an extra AP (again this may be a play balance problem but operational skill in manouvre is a more realistic effect of experience)

You don't see any 'Tyrannosaurus Tank' Corps in the later game scenario orders of battle so why allow players to make these ridiculous units in campaign games? Rough calculations indicate it is possible to get 60+ point units just redeploy a pair of those bad boys to France and punt any invasion to the moon. Of course the US would probably drop A-Bombs on them so maybe they are not completely invincible (Is there any other way to kill one of these particularly if there is another one or two around?). The difference is the US actually built A-Bombs where as these monster tank units belong in a Japanese SciFi movie perhaps Godzilla vs 10th SS Panzer.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

(Is there any other way to kill one of these particularly if there is another one or two around?).

Tac air and lots of it. Panzers always remain vulnerable to air. I don't disagree with what's being said about panzer experience, mind you, but if you have massive air superiority, they can be countered.

[aspqrz02]

ORIGINAL: JLPOWELL

Godzilla vs 10th SS Panzer.

I'd pay to see that! [:D][:D][:D]

Actually, I agree ... already suggested that experience be reduced and that less experience be lost when reinforcing ... certainly the uberpanzers are a gamebreaker as it stands.

Phil

[JLPOWELL]

I agree regarding Tac air I have been playing as Allies in PBEM game and I ding a corps every chance I get to keep them from growing too big. But early in the game thats just not effective particularly against a HuMan opponet (kind of like the Farengi pronuncation someone used...) Humans will game it the other way and feed the beasts softened food to fatten them up (perhaps softened by GE tac air... how ironic)

Kind of brings mind King Kong swatting at planes. They can be countered given sufficient resources LOTS but they are still movie monsters not representations of reality.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: aspqrz
... certainly the uberpanzers are a gamebreaker as it stands.

Phil

IMHO the ability to create multiple uberpanzers is the gamebreaker. I'd suggest that having one or two uberpanzers (one Ratte + one Maus ? [:D]) is still within the bounds of realism in 1941/42/early 43. IIRC it was at Kursk that the massed German spearheads first met their match in a fair fight although there are valid arguments for dating this event six months earlier with the failures of the Stalingrad and Velikiye Luki relief efforts.

[freeboy]

well, If you boost the tacair vs tanks, thats wonky too.. The problem is in relation to ALL other toops.. in reality they fought poorly when the tanks ran out of gas.. no gas no shells= death.. for all the armies at all times in ww2.. armored forces are the most brittle.. so why do we not start looking for the uber monster tank corp in a reduction of supplies.. that DIRECTLY REDUCES POWER.. allot under certain curcumstances

[FieldOfGlory]

How about introducing anti-tank units to the game. Mobile TD's or AT guns like the PaK's and the 88's. That's Something that will slow down a Panzer.[:D]

[slaytanic]

I'd be the first to mod it in as a new unit, a sort of a stronger infantry division at lvl1 and a mobile tank killer division at lvl 5, but what's missing is modifiers that would make that unit stronger against tanks but not stronger or weaker against infantry. TOF only has panzers vs nopanzers modifier and that's only if inf attacks tanks. I'd love more unit-specific modifiers, not just attack or defend ones, but also those that work but offensively and defensively

[freeboy]

well.. the double whammy, my troops all go to strength 0 or 1 on the red army collapses event and the HUGE panzers.. in the  30s and 40s make my server game an excercise in how long can I withstand the enemy onslought.. I am wondering what the guys doing the testing thought of the USSR two player game..

[battlevonwar]

there are situations where the supply runs pretty low, tanks get beat up taking out the 14th corps they've eaten. then time to press the brakes and refuel, refit.. They are what makes the game less like WW1, which would be bad to ruin the game and totally do away with them. All other units are in the rear early so far as I can see. Larger Infantry Units are Snails and are only fair if they get there in time to do anything. Tanks on free range like on Russian steppe/North Africa, or anywhere where you can maneuver are uberdeadly.

Allies had great tanks, tactics and commanders later. Much later, great air too(negated the tank's abilities in places like Normandy/France and in the invasion of Germany) "Sturmoviks were like bread or air?" Anyway...Early we need Blitzkrieg, and later we need ways to combat it. We learn how.......we find methods to deal with things... Allies need to there SuperPower Units is all?

[RandomAttack]

We can keep trying to rationalize this any number of ways (putting lipstick on a pig...), but "Super Panzers" just plain break the game for me. I don't see mitigating it through other game mechanisms (tac air, etc.) as a solution to the fundamental problem--it shouldn't be happening in the first place. I'm waiting for the patch to see what's actually included before I even try to complete a long campaign. Since I'll wind up modding some stuff anyways, it will just be one more thing on the list I guess. [:)]