First thoughts + bugs? + wishlist

[Hubert Cater]

Hi jgalzier,

It can be found on page 84, but here is the relevant text below:

7.25.9. Linking HQs
Friendly HQs can be linked in a chain to supply
other HQs over extended distances. Normal HQ
supply based on resources is calculated first. Then
if an HQ can increase another HQ’s supply in its
vicinity, using the same rules governing how HQs
supply other units, the linked HQ can receive an
increased supply value.
Through this the HQ could provide better
supply to nearby units, increasing their combat
effectiveness, Action Points for movement and
maximum reinforcement ability.

[Asberdies]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

Asberdies, one thing that might help is that the smaller numbers on the unit (to the right of its strength) show the level of its various upgrades so you can tell at a glance what a unit's upgrade status is. The upgrade numbers are shown, left to right, in the order of their listing on the upgrade popup from top to bottom. This was helpful to me once I figured it out.

Yep right now i understand what those numbers mean and it helps, thanks

[TheBattlefield]

ORIGINAL: itkotw

Once again, I want to stress Pinsk is just an example. I don't care about the city of Pinsk, it is not part of my strategic plan. I was just using it as an example. Yes, Pinsk did eventually regain supply for a time, after my 3 corps and 1 army couldn't break it, after a while I had to move the troops elsewhere, and I only left one Italian Corps to "guard" it (one corp has a ZERO percent chance of taking even a cut off town). I am just using Pinsk as supply system thought experiment. Even when there were 4 units attacking, I see that my units, in Axis held territory ("in supply"), were worse off than the town that was surrounded (sort of "out of supply", but not really)(the enemy would have 3 supply, of the 6 hexes surrounding the town - 1 hex has 4 supply, 2 has 3 supply, 2 has 1 supply, and one hex has 0 supply). I used the town of Pinsk to highlight the fact that the general supply system creates situations where a cut off town has better supply than units being "in supply" for a year. I think that, maybe, entrenchment could be used to give troops surrounded in towns a chance for a bit, but reduce the supply for a unit in a surrounded town to one. Also, make entrenchment slower to gain and slower to breakdown in attack. This would allow a unit to prepare in a town, get surrounded, have its entrenchment broken down over a turn or two, and then succumb to a final attack.

As for the Russian units, yes they are somewhat weaker. They have, in general, one point less in each category. I was thinking about doing the math to see how that one point difference impacts the battle calculations (with identical morale, experience, readiness, and supply). If my Axis troops didn't gain any real experience in the Polish and French campaigns (I though both of those actions went ok and pretty historical), and the maximum morale and readiness is the same as a Russian unit, the battle out come would be practically equal. A German army (with infantry weapons II) has a max soft attack of 7, while a Russian army (with the same upgrade) has a soft attack of 6. So the Russian unit is 86% as good as the German unit, in the spring of 1942. This advantage the German unit has gets even worse when you compare units with equal morale, readiness, and supply. When this is added to the fact that Russia is at an equal technology level and has maxed out it unit pool (remember, this is in spring of 1942), there seems like no give and take. There is not sense of suspense or danger for the Russian side, they have won in the spring of 1942. I also see that the Russians have 1777 mpp left in their pool, so every unit I destroy will come back in a few turns. As I mentioned above, my 1942 level army is fighting a 1945 level Russian army.

Maybe there needs to be a "manpower" and "equipment" type resource. Losing units should impact the game somehow. I have destroyed 14 corps and 4 armies (and 14 ships) of the British (and the minor allied nations), but Britain happily creates more corps to throw at me. Besides other resources, maybe unit destruction could impact nation morale too (and then make national morale effect other things like mpp output and maximum unit morale). In single turn, I destroyed 4 new Russian tank corps in the spring of 1942, but I am sad knowing I can never destroy enough units. The 4 Russian tank units I destroyed is like 50% of their total tank force (I am not 100% sure of the Russian build limits). I think the real life affect of 50% of the Russian's tanks vaporizing would be pretty great in real life.

I guess what you mean. But I also fear that your conclusions will ultimately lead in a way to flank your personal strategic concept by means of technical changes in order to get expected game results that fits exactly your kind of gaming. Please don't get me wrong, mate. Your observations of the game are absolutely correct. In certain areas of a hostile territory the supply of your own units could be so catastrophic that even a distressed opponent can theoretically have a better one. The different combat strength of the individual combatants is indicated only gradually, but not with differences which are necessarily effective in the course of the game. And almost all resources of the game are reduced to the virtual MPP. Yes, all this is true. But it's all well balanced (at least for the current campaigns against the AI) and for nearly any problem (beyond a theoretically conceivable bug) the game also offers (at least) one solution variant. Even if it may be difficult for comprehensible reasons (I finally know my own frustrations) actually try to counteract exactly the opposite. Do not fundamentally question the existing mechanisms, but try to adapt your approach to the identified circumstances. Easy said: In a well-made game a "historical" gaming should lead sooner or later to a "historical" result. Downfall! At least for the the powers of the axis...

So be faster. (Anyone who waits for the last snow is actually in June/July in Paris and will reach rather rare the city limits of Moscow at the end of '41)

Be more consistent. (Enemy units which can still move at the end of the (as early as possible) first round of war in the east or are not destroyed in bad supply in the further process, will be repositioned quickly by the AI and thrown back into the fight. They then appear in a game phase in which the Russian side can already set up various scripted and additionally purchased units)

Be flexible. (Who says Greece must be conquered? Who says that the Benelux states must be attacked one after the other? Who claims that Turkey is not a suitable partner in accessing the Caucasus?)

Set priorities. (Germany can lose the war in Africa, but in a failure on other battlefields will never win there. The number of core units purchased - tanks, fighters, artillery and tactical bombers - should be exhausted before a Barbarossa and, if possible, already set up. The infantry armies should then follow quickly. The first you need for the beginning of the attack. The latter from the spring of '42. Optimize and concentrate your research in the important core areas)

There are more strategic approaches for a successful campaign than I can enumerate here. And any experienced player could add more. Probably you will someday realize that there should be many more Pinsk ratios, much more and stronger allied units and even more abundant resources for the AI opponent, so that it can encounter your attack somewhat more "historically". If the game is well done - and I'm pretty sure it is - then much is reduced to a question of perspective and personal taste...and for that there is also a cool editor! [:)]

[itkotw2000]

You are right that to win at this game I can/should choose to do some things and not others. I can choose not to invade smaller countries, I can choose not to follow a rough historical timelines, I can choose not to help my allies, I can choose not research technologies that will not help me defeat Russia. So you are saying I should do the minimum in some areas and max out other areas (unit pools and specific research) to win the game. In computer war gaming, they call that "min/maxing". In another ww2 game that just came out, HOI IV, people say that you should only build Marine and Mountain units, not plain infantry, just to beat the game. That is min/maxing. You notice I talk about "beating the game" and not "beating the Russians". Min/maxing tries to find flaws in a game and exploit them.

I restarted my save game at May 29, 1941 to try to see how fast I could make it to Moscow, min/max style. This involves exploiting the game mechanic that allows the player to capture a string of connected towns to get 100% supply (since 5 supply is the max from a captured town, I am considering 5 supply as 100%). Also I am exploiting the fact that a single string of towns down a single rail line can support an unlimited number of troops. In my restarted save, I did not have my troops lined up perfectly for a min/max strategy, but I started the attack down the Minsk/Smolensk/Moscow path. I captured Moscow on Nov 17, 1941. That is 11 turns. I had bad weather on the Oct 26 turn, so maybe I could have done it one turn faster. And I didn't just conquer it with one unit (meaning I didn't just rush a single unit ahead). The final assault involved 3 tank, 1 mech, and 3 infantry corp. I had enough troops around Moscow to almost take the other "industrial" hex to the NW of Moscow (I fought the Russian army unit down to one strength, captured that hex on the next turn).

Finding ahistorical, unrealistic exploits and min/maxing them is not my style of play. Your view of a historic game - "In a well-made game a "historical" gaming should lead sooner or later to a "historical" result. Downfall!". I would agree that if a player makes historic decisions, the game should have a historic outcome, but I always try to play every WWII game from a historic "what if" view point. I try to invade countries in their historic order, I try to advance and secure a "front line", guard areas that would realistically need to be guarded, etc. I know that my play style is my fault and all of my above posts represent that play style. But I am trying to judge the game on small scale realistic/historic outcomes, rather than whether or not the game has a historic end. I think it is more important for the little parts to make sense instead of having a predictable end. I would even go as far to say that most of my WWII gaming experience never gets to the "end". I always restart after awhile and try new things and see where those decisions lead. If a game does not take into account a players decisions, 100% of them would end historically and not be very fun. It is hard (impossible) for game makers to make everyone happy.

Even though I can "exploit" and get to Moscow by Nov 17, 1941, it is still the "small" things that bother me: Supply in general, units being reinforced in pockets, units being deployed in pockets that contain ports (can a port really support an infinite number of units?), technology levels (maxed out infantry weapons tech in 1941 means german soldiers have stg44, g41, g43, and panzerfausts ?), countries sustaining massive losses with little consequence ( in one of my games I surrounded 4 Bitish units in north africa - 1 armored, 2 corps, and 1 army. The next turn they were destroyed. If we guestimate 13000 troops per division, 2 div per corps, 3 div per army, and treat the armored unit as a corps, for a total of 9 divisions or 117,000 troops in that pocket now captured or killed. That is huge losses considering "historically" Britain lost less than 600,000 troops (casualties or captured) in the whole war).

During my last min/max rush for Moscow I did have something funny happen. The AI deployed a Greek corps on the Russian border with Romania, in the town of Cernauti.

[Capitaine]

An historical "storyboard" for a game is an important aspect of its efficacy at being a good simulation of its subject matter. So I don't think you're amiss by playing this way. I do it to some extent myself. But as the game goes on, the storyboard diffuses quite a bit so you're likely to get more departures from history the further you progress. I think it's most important to get the early blitzkrieg operations mostly right, with a reasonable ability to achieve the historical timetable. Particularly with optimal play.