Mrslobodan Feedback Thread

[Ason]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the symbol on the croatian units is wrong. It looks like Romanian airforce symbol, should be only black croatian trefoil or a red and white checkerboard symbol in my opinion.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

Ah thanks for the tip, and the replies!

Is moving units adjacent to the city the only way of decreasing supply or is it also affected by time, I mean as time goes by without connection to the country supply should run out aswell?

From the turn that they lose their rail connection to a source of greater supply, a Soviet resource's strength will fall to a maximum of 5.

That alone will make a big difference, so sometimes it is best to cut off an objective in one turn, and attack it in your next when the defender's supply and therefore combat effectiveness will be lower.

[sPzAbt653]

I second the disappearing UI whenever you move around the map, very annoying.

+1

[Ason]

The allies just landed in normandy. I'm very impressed by the aggressiveness of the landings. Alot of units landing at once, both britsh and americans and they also take a good chunck of territory.
I had to divert about 6-8 units from the eastern front but it looks like I will be able to hold both fronts, this is very exciting:D

I'm still waiting for something like "Allied bombing campaign in Germany has begun"..
Is there a possibility of allied AI using strategic bombers over Germany and some message like that? So far they've only bombed northern France.

[Ason]

Army Group North pushing on. I'm a little bit disappointed by the AI in this area.
Alot of support units stuffed in there, they had plenty of time to retreat/send reinforcements before I cut off the railway from Narva.
It's true they had some infantry in the front, but that was when I was surrounding Riga, and those units got cut off east of Riga but they didn't retreat.

The heavy artilley has been sitting at the front for 2 turns now(while I was dealing with a cut off armored train just north of Riga.

I'm glad to see some infantry in Tallinn though:D

Ps. The coastal hexes are a bit weird when it comes to frontlines. does that northern part count as a land connection? Also north of Riga there is one coastal hex with soviet color:/
Should be fixed to avoid confusion, also it doesn't look very nice.

[Ason]

It's August 1943. I'm slowly pushing the allies back on the western front and in Tunisia.

I was well prepared with 2 Armies in France and I was quick to send reinforcements to Tunisia, so I wouldn't say my success is solely because of bad AI. I sent all the units I needed from the Eastern Front, even if it meant some areas lost all their defense. The landings in France looked great, they were aggressive and they really had the potential to threaten me if I had not sent enough units to cover all open hexes around the front.

Since the front is looking pretty good in my favor, I think I can safely say that two things "saved" me, hopefully I'm speaking too soon:D

-One was the passiveness of the soviets, which made it very easy to send units from east to west, I only lost one or two cities because leaving some big gaps here and there. Would really like to see a bit more aggressiveness from the Soviet, even if it's beginner difficulty.
(although I'm worried with the small amount of units the axis can field (only cover perhaps 50% of all eastern front hexes) a more aggressive AI will be very hard to counter because of all the gaps).

-The second thing that saved me was the fact that the US landed with very unskilled units(the british were much tougher but they were also inferior to mine). Some of the US units had no upgrades at all but most had stuff like 101,102,21 etc compared to my 321.
I guess this is something that can be different every round, which if that's the case is nice, but still it would have been nice if they had been a little bit better.
They could also have postponed the invasion until they had better upgrades. Basically they shouldn't carry out a doomed invasion (their upgrades should be similar to the germans before invading)

In Tunisia the front was initially held by 1-2 Italian corps, and they managed to hold the front because the US was not trying to flank around them and strike Tunis from the south/kasserine pass, they just followed the coast and tried to grind their way through the italian corps. The italians held out until I managed to land the DAK and Rommel, and I'm now pushing them back into Algiers.

Overall it was very nice to see the invasion, like I said it had alot of potential and also got me a bit worried for a while. It was also nice to see them invading France and Tunisia at the same time.
I guess things that could be improved are AI aggressiveness on both fronts and also allied units having better upgrades.

I also must mention the fact that I've captured Egypt, Syria and Iraq so I guess that also has a big impact in my favor.

[Ason]

The finnish city Rovaniemi is spelled wrong, should be Rovaniemi not Ravaniemi.

[Ason]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

I just captured Cairo but then I got a big picture with message saying that the Italian forces surrenders in North Africa..

Also, I'm just south of riga at the river, I have a whole line of units guarding the river, no enemy hexes behind me, all units have supply of 5 but I can't reinforce them, why is that?

Hi

The timing of the Italian surrender coinciding with your capture of Cairo is pure coincidence.

If your units have supply of 5 then they should be able to reinforce above strength 8, providing you have sufficient MPPs, haven't done anything with them yet, and they aren't adjacent to the enemy.

Hopefully one of these conditions makes sense as a reason why you couldn't reinforce?

But the Italians didn't surrender, they are still going strong from Egypt to Tunisia :s
Was that notification just to show what happened historically? If so it should say so imo. I thought it was a bug.

There were enemy units adjacent but most of the time that doesn't stop me from reinforcing(which I don't think it should)
is there some % chance that adjacent enemies can't reinforce or how does that work?

[BillRunacre]

There is a message about Italian forces surrendering in East Africa and I understood you to mean that one, as there isn't another in the game apart from when Italy itself surrenders.

Hopefully that was the case as otherwise it's going to be a bit of a mystery?

[Ason]

Ohh now I understand, I forgot about the world outside the map

[BillRunacre]

Great! [:)]

[Ason]

I saved my game in the middle of my turn and quit the game, when I loaded it again I immediately got a decision event about creating russian volunteer army.

[BillRunacre]

Odd, but hopefully this Decision appeared at an appropriate phase of the war, i.e. from 1st September 1943 when Smolensk, Kharkov and Kiev are all in Axis hands?

[Ason]

Yes I have captured all of them, I captured smolensk on the same turn I saved the game though, so I guess that event should have popped up when I pressed next turn.


It's not possible to operate units to Helsinki(all capitals/cities?) after you move a unit out of it.
I moved that corps out of helsinki and tried to operate a garrison to helsinki but it can't go all the way. I tried with one much closer and it had the same problem.

[n0kn0k]

Helsinki has 2 strength. Perhaps thats the issue.

[Ason]

Yeah might be it.



Please make time affect supply, atleast when a unit is not in a city or anything.. Makes little sense to me how a unit cut off in nowhere can keep supply on the same level for several turns, supply should include food and water, which should run out eventually and make the units weaker.

I like that you can hold out if you're in a pocket with a city (creates realistic situations like stalingrad and budapest), but a unit cut off in nowhere without a HQ sould get weaker by time imo.



Edit:
Alright so I defeated the US and british forces in France, but they still had like 4-5 Transport ships just sitting in the English Channel. After 2-3 turns of this I figured "alright they have no landing units left", so I moved alot of forces back to the eastern front. Right after I did that they landed units again...

I just thought this was a bit weird. If the landings failed in real life (after even capturing Caen and citis like it) there would be something else happening, like moving leftover transports back to mainland and waiting, planing and organizing a new strike at the same place or a new location..

I'm just worried this is something that will keep happening. If the landings fail will the allies just keep trying and trying at the same place immediately after already having been pushed back to the beaches and totally failed the first invasion?

[Ason]

Army Group North has basically been stopped in Estonia, the german 11th Army was trapped and destroyed west of Narva and the soviets then managed to reestablish a connection back to Russia.
I'm glad to see they landed more infrantry in Tallinn and the artillery units are no longer holding the front, although I must say the artillery units are for some reason very good at defending against German infrantry.
The short time I managed to attack them they held out just as good, if not better than their infrantry units.

However the soviets are still not doing much, they have sent alot of units to Tallinn but they are not really trying to push me back (only their airforce and artillery attack my units, but it was enough to make me fall back a little bit).

Army Group South has reached and captured Stalingrad without any major trouble, and the advance into the Caucasus has also begun.
Stalingrad was defended by some units to the west of the city, but I was a bit disappointed when I reached the Don river but found absolutely no enemy units on the other side. Stalingrad itself was also very badly defended and almost no units were found to the east of it..

Army Group Centre can't do much but hold a very thin line around Smolensk in the hope that the soviets won't attack it.
I simply don't have enough units to even form a frontline, just a corps or army at a hex here and there.


The biggest concerns I have with the campaign in Russia at the moment are:

1.Extremely passive AI (not sure if it's because of beginner difficulty)
2.AI concentrating around cities and very few units can be found between them, basically no frontline, just groups of units around cities.
3.Lack of units on maybe both sides, but definately on German side.


I think adding divisons to the campaign would make it so much better. In my opinion the amount of armies should be decreased and then put a bigger focus on corps and divisions.
That way we could have mostly continuous frontlines, and the smaller amount of armies could be used more as a concentrated force in an offensive or as a concentrated defensive force in a city.
The map size basically feels too big to have so my armies and no divisions and I'm really worried about a more aggressive AI or human opponent.
With the huge gaps in the front I think it will be very easy for the side that has the most units.


Each Army Group had about 5 armies in total (both Pz.armies and infantry armies) that makes 15 armies in total. Right now, on the eastern front I have 11 infantry armies and 3 Tank groups/armies but then I have about 25-30 corps + HQ's + support units. That seems like alot more than what existed in real life and I still only cover about 60-70 % of the front (not even counting caucasus since there wasn't a continuous frontline there), now I could cover more of the front if I spread out more but that would give me no spare units for offensive operations. Of course the german should get very stretched by the time they reach Stalingrad, but even at that time they had units all over the front. With more divisions and less armies the front would get weaker but it would also mean there was no huge gaps that the soviets could just exploit and roll past an entire army. They would basically have to break through a front before they could encircle anyone.


I understand divisons might be too small for the first years in Poland and France. So I'm suggesting to keep the start of the campaign as it is, but add option for all countries to buy divisions and decrease the total amount of armies they can buy.


Anyway don't get me wrong, I've been enjoying this game very much so far! I hope I don't sound too negative, just want to help to make this game as good as it can be before release[:)]

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

Yeah might be it.

Yes, the start, destination and any points in between would need to have a strength of at least 5.

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan
Please make time affect supply, atleast when a unit is not in a city or anything.. Makes little sense to me how a unit cut off in nowhere can keep supply on the same level for several turns, supply should include food and water, which should run out eventually and make the units weaker.

I like that you can hold out if you're in a pocket with a city (creates realistic situations like stalingrad and budapest), but a unit cut off in nowhere without a HQ sould get weaker by time imo.

Its supply level is determined by the strength of the resource it is on, coupled with whether or not it has HQ support.

While that alone doesn't decline any further unless the resource or HQ are damaged, a cut off resource will normally have a supply of only 5 making the occupying unit a weak target for attack.

But the Morale and Readiness of the unit will fall a bit until it reaches its minimum based on its supply level, HQ support and strength.

If available, use Strategic Bombers to pound that resource, and then attack it in the following turn and it should be even easier.

[Ason]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan

Yeah might be it.

Yes, the start, destination and any points in between would need to have a strength of at least 5.

ORIGINAL: Mrslobodan
Please make time affect supply, atleast when a unit is not in a city or anything.. Makes little sense to me how a unit cut off in nowhere can keep supply on the same level for several turns, supply should include food and water, which should run out eventually and make the units weaker.

I like that you can hold out if you're in a pocket with a city (creates realistic situations like stalingrad and budapest), but a unit cut off in nowhere without a HQ sould get weaker by time imo.

Its supply level is determined by the strength of the resource it is on, coupled with whether or not it has HQ support.

While that alone doesn't decline any further unless the resource or HQ are damaged, a cut off resource will normally have a supply of only 5 making the occupying unit a weak target for attack.

But the Morale and Readiness of the unit will fall a bit until it reaches its minimum based on its supply level, HQ support and strength.

If available, use Strategic Bombers to pound that resource, and then attack it in the following turn and it should be even easier.

Yes, I actually like how the supply setup works for pockets where there are resources, but I'm talking about an enemy unit on a plain terrain hex, no resources or HQ's in the pocket. I'm saying in my opinion if a unit is cut off in a situation like that, every turn should make them weaker and weaker.

[sPzAbt653]

Right now, on the eastern front I have 11 infantry armies and 3 Tank groups/armies but then I have about 25-30 corps + HQ's + support units. That seems like alot more than what existed in real life

I have a lot of oob information, and for what its worth I count 32 Inf Korps and 11 Mot Korps at the start of Barbarossa [Mot Korps being the ones that were redesignated as Pz Korps in 1942]. That includes 2nd Army which was in reserve, but does not count units not involved in Barbarossa or in Norway/Finland.