HamburgerMeat wrote: Wed Sep 13, 2023 10:05 pm
My naval game was basically nonexistent, but my even bigger mistake was poor investments with the italians. i went for advanced aircraft and C&C but no anti air, which is a bad idea versus an aggressive UK player (which IMO is the right way to play as the UK).
Theyve definitely made it alot harder to overwhelm the USSR. between the additional units, the more frequent bad weather, and increased difficulties getting to 110% national morale, the USSR finally feels like the juggernaut it is supposed to be. Winter is so debiliating that its probably best to operate german troops out until after the storm passes. While cutting off units to <4 supply made more sense before, the sheer quantity of USSR corps/armies makes this less important than before. In earlier versions, i remember how unforgiving it was to play as the USSR, but now the quantity is there so that one could make some mistakes with unit placement without costing the war. probably still a mistake to invest in a forward defense versus barbarossa though
I like the changes to bombers, with being able to strike even with precipitation yet removing the detrench and reducing attack values. Anti air flak may be a bit too cost effective (losing 4 strength off a medium bomber is extremely expensive). at the same time, experience on german bombers seems overtuned, as i was able to send out bombers without escorts against soviet aircraft. Intercepting these experienced bombers usually resulted in soviet fighers being damaged and bombers being unscathed.
in any case, I dont think abandoning the middle east is a good strategy anymore, as taking Cairo substantially boost german national morale, most likely past 110%. with that threshold crossed, force marched german units will quickly recover and be able to go on the offensive. In addition, the "dagger to the heart" strategy of focusing on army group center all the way to perm is substantially more risky. as such, it's probably a better idea to focus on depriving USSR of MPPs
Rather than a knockout blow to the USSR and ignoring the middle east, the "easiest" axis victory now might be a coordinated long-range amphib sneak attack on the USA, taking DC and the alternate capital with german and japanese troops, operating all aircraft in.
First, GG to HM. Excellent opponent and the best tactical player I've ever played against.
I'll add some final thoughts as well but I generally agree with HM's summary here. HM generally outplayed me on land tactically but I think lost due to some of the strategic decisions and naval gameplay. I think my largest mistakes were:
1. Defending forward with the USSR which probably lost me an additional 2-3k MPP in the first few turns of Barbarossa and did almost nothing to the Germans.
2. Having too many units in the south part of China which led to Chungking falling faster and lots of units lost in poor supply.
3. Being too slow with the USA. I probably should have started building land units sooner and be landing in France/Italy in late Spring or early Summer. I'm probably 3-4 months behind what I should have done once I realized the German strategy of all-in on USSR capitals.
The Germans clearly went for an all-in on the USSR Center to capture their 3 capitals and try to force surrender in 1942 or early 1943. This I think is a relatively common strategy (not as common as focusing on USSR South though) but is pretty risky as if they lose momentum then they don't have the MPP income to compete with the Allies. HM definitely took this pretty far with ignoring everything else but the USSR and even focusing all German research/purchase on only things needed against the USSR (tanks, infantry, bombers) while ignoring fighters/AA.
Really the only Allied counter to this is a very aggressive UK and USA that are invading in 1941 and 1942 as if they wait til 1943+ then the game is probably over. I do think the last several patches have made this significantly harder for the Axis to achieve as well with difficult weather, a harsher Soviet Winter, and more USSR income but they do have year round bombers now so I'd say its relatively balanced. I think focusing on the USSR Center is probably the most difficult and risky vs North/South which are easier and cut more of the USSR income.
The UK invasion of France is definitely one of the turning points in the game. I think if the Axis had garrisoned France with just a few more decent units then this wouldn't have really been possible so early on. The Axis also chose to contain rather than push it back into the sea. If the Germans sent probably 2 panzers to France in 1941 then they could have crushed all the UK units but with the all-in towards Moscow, its difficult to spare any strong units. IMO, its probably the better play to crush the UK invasion but I'm not sure whether that would have changed the outcome of the game.
I generally like the weather changes around air as well but I think now bombers are too OP as they can fly all the time. I think the morale damage should also be halved during bad weather and maybe shouldn't increase per GAW level. This makes it so bombing land units during winter isn't as strong while still making it so air-to-sea combat isn't really impacted which is probably the biggest improvement for the weather changes as a few unlucky weather rolls could ground land based air causing a massive swing in naval battles. Other options are increasing the AA unit limit for nations like the USSR so they can somehow deal with the 10+ bombers that Germany can send against them. Generally as the USSR, I fear bombers even more than panzers now.
The Middle East is probably the one thing I disagree on. I think in most games the Axis can ignore it and just focus on the USSR. Going for the Middle East is a huge gamble as the Axis often struggle to control the Med or they have to send most of the German air units to do so which vastly weakens their Barbarossa. I'd like to see more changes that force the Axis to at least contest North Africa as pulling out all their units except a few garrisons just feel gamey. I have to imagine Italy would have caused all sorts of headaches for Germany if that happened historically so maybe larger NM penalties if North Africa falls too soon or a per turn NM penalty like the USA has for Pacific islands to force the Axis to try to keep at least some North Africa presence.
I have no idea if the Axis could pull off a full invasion of the USA but if that is the case then the scripts that give the USA units when invaded should be buffed. I'd say generally LRATs are still too strong and there are a number of threads discussing that and options to change them. The biggest issue is still the range they have and that you can amphib invade things halfway across the world when the reality is almost all amphib invasions during the time period were much shorter range. Currently, why would the USA bother invading Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia when they can just invade Italy/France directly with LRATs? There are a lot of solutions to this but I know one of the challenges is trying to make it so it doesn't cripple the AI.
