1.08.02 ... some comments

[Longshanks]

Loki, what was your level of difficulty? I'm thinking about posting my results, but wanted to see what level most of you all were playing on first.

[jwolf]

He jacked up the Axis stats and dropped Soviet to 90. Check his first post where he has a pic of the settings. He made it pretty tough on the Soviets.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Gabriel B.
Loki 100

I am curious if you abandoned Karelia and the Volkov river voluntary .
I would have not tryied to keep Leningrad at all cost, but make the defense of those two a must.

In this game I was experimenting with the number of divisions to leave in Leningrad after it was cut off. Opted for a single army/9 divisions and don't think that is enought to allow for rotation and reserve commitments. Think you need 2 army commands in the city and about 14 divisions (plus junk guarding the Finnish border).

I gave up Karelia quite early on. In a PBEM of the Barbarossa scenario I got badly caught out by reinforcing 7 Army on that narrow isthmus on the top. Certainly stopped the Finns but in the end that army was cut off when the Germans took Leningrad etc. So I tend to be cautious about that.

Since I think the way to knock Finland out of the war is not via Karelia but by retaking Leningrad and driving north using armour etc, I'm not sure there is any real long term gain to trying to stall the Finns at the top of Lake Ladoga?

I probably could have held the Volkhov/Svir line if I'd wanted to commit enough, even after losing Leningrad. As it is I'm falling back to a shorter line that should be easy to defend substantially. The advantage to this is more Finnish attrition.

ORIGINAL: Longshanks

Loki, what was your level of difficulty? I'm thinking about posting my results, but wanted to see what level most of you all were playing on first.

ORIGINAL: jwolf

He jacked up the Axis stats and dropped Soviet to 90. Check his first post where he has a pic of the settings. He made it pretty tough on the Soviets.

Its basically 'challenging' (ie 90/110) but I push their morale up to 130 and fort level to 120. Given the WiTE AI effectively randomises its OOB (you'll find elite Pzr divisions in a Hungarian corps etc), some of the extra CV that the morale bonus gives is to compensate not just for lack of planning etc but also for loss of cv due to command structure. The fort bonus is compensation for the AI not doing the typical PBEM trick of pre-digging fall back defense lines.

[jwolf]

ORIGINAL: loki100

I probably could have held the Volkhov/Svir line if I'd wanted to commit enough, even after losing Leningrad. As it is I'm falling back to a shorter line that should be easy to defend substantially. The advantage to this is more Finnish attrition.

The thing is, the shorter line works in favor of the Germans, too. Except in the most critical near-lose positions for the Soviets, I would think it's in their interests to have a long line rather than a shorter one. You want the Germans to be defending a long flank once you begin to retake the initiative.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: loki100

I probably could have held the Volkhov/Svir line if I'd wanted to commit enough, even after losing Leningrad. As it is I'm falling back to a shorter line that should be easy to defend substantially. The advantage to this is more Finnish attrition.

The thing is, the shorter line works in favor of the Germans, too. Except in the most critical near-lose positions for the Soviets, I would think it's in their interests to have a long line rather than a shorter one. You want the Germans to be defending a long flank once you begin to retake the initiative.

I actually find the dynamics around this point vary as the war progresses. Esp in WiTE now with the low 1942 morale, your only hope is to build really strong lines (at key points) and make the axis expend its final advantage in attrition not movement? On the other hand both in the final stages of 1941 and from 1943 onwards I'd agree that the key for the Soviets is to stretch the front to create multiple pressure points and really stop the Germans building up substantial reserves?

[micheljq]

Just want to tell AI maybe not enough agressive in 1941. But it plays well in 1942-43, until march 1943 where I was able to isolate a big push in Kharkov area.

German AI v.1.07.15, from may 1942, the german were pounding and doing a lot of losses on me, like 70K manpower a turn with 13K for the german. Not advancing much but doing a lof of successfull attacks.

When winter of 1942 came, the AI pushed in the south, took Kiev finally, and when the Dnepr was frozen it did cross. At one point I was losing more than 100K manpower per turn. The AI was losing sometimes just 15K but sometimes 23K.

February 1943, Leningrad fell despites forts. Whermach did keep on pushing, to the point the forts fell to zero, and Leningrad fell slowly. I could not help, the most powerful german divisions were there. I was pushed back 4 hexes from Leningrad, 8 hexes from Velikiye Luki with heavy losses, despite me creating infantry corps.

Fortunately in march 1943 i was able to isolate the push toward Kharkov.

Michel.

[morvael]

Sorry, while we try to make sure recent patches don't break the AI, we don't work on improving it, only maintaining it in a working condition. The AI was never stellar, especially when it comes to making big encirclements. Therefore it can't be as good as human players are. Many of the changes in recent patches improve the experience for PBEM gamers, solo players less so.

[micheljq]

Just want to say it is not a plea for improved AI. I just like to share my experience with it.

Michel.

[loki100]

Just to provide some more info, though of course this has been on 1.08.03 since the last update.

here's the situation at the end of the Summer/Autumn fighting with the autumn mud now set in.

Even with masses of HI, I've been losing about 20,000 supply units per week from the amount held in store. At the end of April I had just over 1 million (with demand at 330,000) its now down to 750,000 (demand at 300,000). Net supply usage has been about -20,000 per turn. I've just started to set the production of arms pts <100 (as that is now building up) and next stage will be to reduce supply allocation for forts building.

Up to about the end of July this seemed like it would be a typical 1942 AI offensive. It had formed more of a coherent armoured block between Kharkov and Orel than it usually does but it stilol has/had far too much armour up in the north. From the end of July, the impact of an effective NM of 36 (40-10%) started to hit as units that lost battles shed morale. Even with a bigger army than you would have PBEM and a full cadre of Gds Rifle Divisions, its been impossible to hold where the AI has attacked.



At least I don't have the problem of a global supply shortage making the NM loss worse and stopping any recovery, but I do have a lot of very weak rifle divisions.

[morvael]

You play with morale set to 90%?

[morvael]

I think 1.08.04 will address most of your problems. Unit supply consumption was reduced and morale setting impact on CV was reduced, thus two biggest problems will be gone.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

I think 1.08.04 will address most of your problems. Unit supply consumption was reduced and morale setting impact on CV was reduced, thus two biggest problems will be gone.

pity in a way, that was by the 'best' (ahem) summer 1942 I've seen the AI produce.

I'd suspect most of my supply problem was having an army >8m, even with very few lost HI that is really too much for 1942, so in this context my problems were self-inflicted.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: morvael

You play with morale set to 90%?

Yes, and German morale at 130 ...

[morvael]

The problem was units consumed 100% weekly need, even if they had 50% of biweekly need on hand (they should consume 50% of weekly need in that case). Less chance for morale increase while resting, but much less supply consumed in case of shortages.

With new version you'd probably have to play with 150/70 morale to achieve the same results. The plus side of the change is that it will be easier to scale (more linear impact now).