An early attack on the USSR.

[cpdeyoung]

May 16th, 1940 : Part one

[cpdeyoung]

May 16th, 1940 : Part two

[cpdeyoung]

May 24th, Part one

[cpdeyoung]

May 24th, : Part two

[doomtrader]

Have you been thinking about the .pdf version?

[gwgardner]

You wrote of a cost to the Germans for getting allies in the east.  What cost other than DP points?

[cpdeyoung]

I am not particularly good at managing the phasing involved with multiple nations in proximity. Too many time I have had units from the USA and GB both in contact with the same enemy units, and not been able to coordinate their activities. The "seam" between the two allies is almost always a weak point. I know there are ways of using the allies which separate them, and I remember you mentioned putting Italian troops in Romania, which allows them to aid, and keeps them "out of the way".

I also want to be able to slip Italy into the war after, or just before France falls, and I will need DP for this.

I also do not want to have too many allies in the "soft underbelly" where the British and Americans will be looking for invasion locations. As neutrals they are a nice cushion.

Chuck

[cpdeyoung]

June 1st, 1940

[gwgardner]

This is going to be a good base reference for determining if the AI improvements work.  It's highlighting so many of the current AI problems.

[cpdeyoung]

June 9th, 1940 : (Gary, I know what you mean, but I have sympathy for the Soviet commander. They must not have much left)

[cpdeyoung]

June 16th, 1940

[cpdeyoung]

June 24th, 1940

[cpdeyoung]

July 1st, 1940

[cpdeyoung]

July 16th, 1940

[cpdeyoung]

July 24, 1940

[gwgardner]

I'm guessing that to make the AI better for the USSR, the OOB would have to be more accurate.  I believe the USSR had many more divisions available than are provided in the game.  As it is, with the limited number of divisions, it would be impossible for even a good AI to form a front, even if their strategy were to withdraw to more defensible lines.

[cpdeyoung]

I really do not fault the AI for its play here. Barbarossa occured more than a year after the attack simulated in this AAR. When it occured the Germans cut through the Soviet "divisions" like a knife through butter. The play in this AAR reflects an unreal situation in multiple ways, but the biggest factor is my personal play. I am playing my Germans with perfect knowledge of how disruptive "blitz" operational technique works. The actual German commanders would never have suspected that the French and Soviets doctrine would be so ready for a fall. I have played this scenario multiple times : I know, know, that the French will not prove a real threat. I know that the Soviets will act like deer in the headlights. I know that the Soviets will not garrison their cities with care. I know that deeply understrength units can advance without consequence. What you see here is a commander, myself, demonstrating what "hindsight" does for command decisions.

If you change any aspect of this game seeking play balance you will run grave risks. I have saved this AAR's game state at multiple points and one of my pleasures when I finish this AAR will be to go back to a point, or points, in this game, reverse the sides, and humble these now rampant Germans. The AI will be shocked to find itself in the Soviet Union in 1940, and will never be nearly as successful as my Germans have been. My French and English will be giving the Germans immense trouble on the Western front and by Summer 1940 I will have the Red Army standing tall.

Does this mean the game is a flawed simulation, sure! Any simulation of a vast, complex event is flawed. I have programmed for a long time and I would be immensely proud to make an AI that could take on a skilled human player at par. To play either side of this game with competence would be a tremendous achievement for an AI.

Another factor is the luck I have enjoyed in a very low level of partisan activity. Three or four turns of partisans would have gravely affected these Germans. I think I could have handled it, but it would have slowed me down, perhaps a lot.

I also would not have had this AAR to show if I had set the difficulty levels to offset my experience in the game. An advantage for the Soviets, or disadvantage for the Germans would perhaps have the Red Army west of Poland at this point.

This is a game, as well as a simulation, and here I think it scores very well indeed. It is a lab for alternative versions of strategy in the ETO during WW2. I bought it in mid-August and have played it extensively, and had an absolute ball. I accept the game for what it is with joy. I look forward to any changes with anticipation, while I cache the older versions in case I want to go back and try some of the old ways.

As a last note, let me emphasize the importance of side switching. If you save game states at various "key" points you can come back an replay your game as the other side. In late August, early September 2008 I thought I had "solved" this game for each side. I was running out of challenge, and felt I could defeat the AI using "proven" strategies. Side switching allowed me to play against these "proven" strategies and best "myself". How much fun this has given me.

Chuck

[gwgardner]

Treating it as a land game only, I do enjoy the land game a lot.   I do employ one house rule - where it makes sense I maintain a continuous front, with all hexes on the front in a zone of control. 

[cpdeyoung]

August 1st, 1940 : In the West.

[cpdeyoung]

August 1st, 1940 : In the East.