Impressions and suggestions

[Tordenskiold]

Impressions after about 20 hours of game play
I play the allies and started the game on September 1, the date of the invasion in Poland. I play at Medium level. As Poland the AI surrendered on my behalf November 1, and that was fair enough. I had only very weak forces left and Warsaw was conquered. It means the German AI used 24 days more than historically. The Poles surrendered October 6. in WW2.

Denmark surrendered automatically when German declared war on them in April 1940 and so did Norway. So it means that Germany did not have to use ships and troops on a presumably rather long and exhausting battle of Norway which in WW2 started on April 8. 1940 and the Norwegians did not surrender until June 10. Why Norway surrendered in the game is strange because Royal Navy had by then sunk most of the large German vessels which would make an invasion of Norway very difficult for Germany. (I would suggest that vessels must have full strength to leave port, or else German ships have no chance of moving around without being annihilated by the Royal Navy).

Anyway, I am at the moment fighting in France and it seems that I would be able to keep Germany from conquering Paris another 4 more weeks which means that the battle will go on at least out August. In WW2 Germany attacked the west May 10. 1940 and France surrendered June 22. In the game Germany attacked in mid April so again the AI would use much longer time than historically.

I think that one of the reasons behind the slower progress for Germany is of course that a human should do better than the AI, but I think a major flaw in the game is the weak armored formations. As of now, the only feature with armor formations seems to be speed. It can move further each turn than an infantry unit. If an armored unit could hit the enemy unit twice or at least move a hex after pushing an enemy unit back, it would make a big difference and Blitzkrieg would be a reality. Pincer movements and much more surrounded units would be the result, as well as more rapid advance for Germany in the start of the game.

I have also noticed that instead of pushing forward some of the German units in France has turned around only to destroy week surrounded French units instead of moving forward and leave the “cleaning up” to weaker German units already engaged. This makes the Germans loose valuable time and time is crucial since conquest means Production Points and thus means better and more forces.

The AI also seems to waste air forces on attacks doomed to be intercepted and thus resulting in casualties. Air power is crucial in the game and I think that is a correct approach. Airpower made a difference in WW2.
I like the game and this feedback are given with the best intentions.

[borsook79]

ORIGINAL: Tordenskiold

Impressions after about 20 hours of game play

Denmark surrendered automatically when German declared war on them in April 1940 and so did Norway. So it means that Germany did not have to use ships and troops on a presumably rather long and exhausting battle of Norway which in WW2 started on April 8. 1940 and the Norwegians did not surrender until June 10. Why Norway surrendered in the game is strange because Royal Navy had by then sunk most of the large German vessels which would make an invasion of Norway very difficult for Germany. (I would suggest that vessels must have full strength to leave port, or else German ships have no chance of moving around without being annihilated by the Royal Navy).

Actually the same was done in SC2:WAW - generally AI is not capable of doing things like invasion of Norway...

ORIGINAL: Tordenskiold
I think that one of the reasons behind the slower progress for Germany is of course that a human should do better than the AI, but I think a major flaw in the game is the weak armored formations. As of now, the only feature with armor formations seems to be speed. It can move further each turn than an infantry unit. If an armored unit could hit the enemy unit twice or at least move a hex after pushing an enemy unit back, it would make a big difference and Blitzkrieg would be a reality. Pincer movements and much more surrounded units would be the result, as well as more rapid advance for Germany in the start of the game.

Whatever do you mean?? Armour units can attack, move and attack in the same turn as it is now. Provided that they move little enough distance to save AP...

[Tordenskiold]

Is that right? It is rather hard to see this happen because the battle sequences are rather messy and often zoomed out. I have not had strong enough Armoured forces to attack myself so this is just my impression. Well, forget about that one then, sorry to mess things up.

[cpdeyoung]

First impressions are just that, and are always interesting. I have been playing this game, and the preceeding one for awhile, and I am very impressed with the fun I can have playing the AI now. It does things I would not do, but in general many of the old problems have been addressed and it can give a good tactical, and even operational game now. It will get better.

I have mentioned often a technique you can use to get a smarter opponent. Save the game at crucial points, noting where in the game each save is, and then come back later and play the other side. This way you can get to fight against yourself. It is surprising how much fun this can be.

Have fun, and continue to post your thoughts.

Chuck

[swatter555]

As far as AI progress versus historical, the victory/surrender conditions need to be worked on. Playing as the Germans, it took me until November to force France to surrender. At that point I had conquered 80% of France and destroyed 90+% of their army. They only had one city left. They campaign was decided by the third week, but I had to run around the board capturing and destroying everything to get them to surrender.

Surrender conditions for France should be much less strict and more historical. After Paris is captured and a couple of other cities, they should surrender.

[SlickWilhelm]

Interesting impressions, Tordenskiold. I haven't gotten that far yet myself, but hope to soon.

From your impressions, it sounds like the game does a good job of promoting reasonable historical outcomes(except for the Norway surrender).

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: swatter555

Surrender conditions for France should be much less strict and more historical. After Paris is captured and a couple of other cities, they should surrender.

I agree, My experience too.

Just wish listing-

Paris plus x cities whose identity is determined at random during game setup.

[cpdeyoung]

Road to Victory had pretty easy surrender (Vichy) conditions and the current situation is a reaction to that. If you understand the requirements for obtaining the Vichy sequence you can get them in a reasonable time I think. I think we are dealing with a situation where the historical events are a bit unusual. I do not think many on the German side expected the actual outcome. Hitler certainly did not.

Those who did not go through the RtV debate will have a different view of the situation.

Chuck

[swatter555]

You shouldnt balance France so that a human player can survive as France. That results in a-historic outcomes.

[cpdeyoung]

If Germany throws itself into the fray, and does not try to take on the USSR and Yugoslavia etc, at the same time I expect France will accept an armistice when it is offered. If Germany makes mistakes, or have very poor luck, or has a aggressive USSR to her rear, then I do think any decent wargame sees a "surviving" France.

Hitler certainly expected France to perform much better than it did. It could have gone another way. I am not asking for it to happen often, but I do want it to be a possibility.

Chuck

[PDiFolco]

Thing is that the French army was pretty crappy, badly organized, outmoded, and with an awful bunch of incompetent leaders...plus the war industry was still not really in place in '40, and the public opinion was not favorable to a "real war".  Hitler didn't know it but we do [:'(], so I think that French should be nerfed so that something close to the historical outcome is "usually" feasible.
Playing French vs the AI (at +25%) I think France can stand enough to wait for D Day without surrendering... [X(]

[cpdeyoung]

Well, I will agree that I have beaten the old AI with Great Britain and France, but I wondered about the new. I am not dead set against change, but if the AI hits the French like it hits the USSR I think all is well.

I am going to be interested how the Axis AI does against the Allied AI in my AAR game.

Chuck

[jimh009]

France can survive...but it takes a pretty strange set of circumstances to arise to allow it to happen. The fact that strange circumstances arise in this game is, I think, one of the game's strengths. In my last game, the AI was playing well...conquered Poland quickly and declared war on France in April. Initial drive into France was slow, as the AI was still shifting resources from Poland. But by early-May, the entire French line was teetering on the brink of collapse while Paris was about to be encircled.

Then a miracle happened.

The USSR demanded land in Romania. Romania refused. USSR declared war on Romania. Romania then became part of the Axis...and then Germany declared war on the USSR (all in one turn). So, USSR and Germany at war in May 1st, 1940!

Needless to say, this was an epic disaster for the German player. ALL German units were in Poland, fighting the French. The Russians, despite their units being pathetically weak, surged into Poland and soon entered Germany. The Axis was officially eliminated (not a single axis controlled city) by January, 1941.

With the USSR intervention, the AI had to withdraw units from the French frontier...giving France some help. With the Russians surging forward, I also focused all UK production on reinforcing France...to heck with research or maintaining the UK fleet or the pesky Italians. After a month of stalemate, by July, France and the UK started to slowly push the Germans back. Russian and French forces met on the Rhine, eventually. France was also charged with subduing Italy, something that was quite easy once Germany surrendered.

[Champagne]

I hope that the game doesn't get TOO weird at times.

[OttoVonBlotto]

It's a what if game, nothing wrong with that. Why repalay history every time to the letter when you can change it sometimes and see what a might have been from all perspectives.

[RandomAttack]

There are a lot of great suggestions throughout these threads, but everyone has their own wrinkles on what they would like changed & how.  Personally, I would NOT like to see a lot more "complexity" added (build times, range of air units, etc.).  What I would like to see are PATCHES that fix all the issues (CTDs, events, etc.) with the basic game, and then maybe some MODS that are optional for those that want to change fundamental game mechanics.  This game is about 90% in the "sweet spot" for me.  I would hate to see an update that combines the two so that it's an "all or nothing" proposition.  Some of the changes to basic gameplay proposed might very well ruin the game for me-- and then I'm stuck having to play a bugged version if I want to play at all.
 
Nothing personal against any recommendations, but I"ve played several games where stuff that wasn't broken (IMO) was "fixed" to the point that I lost interest in the game...

[swatter555]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Well, I will agree that I have beaten the old AI with Great Britain and France, but I wondered about the new. I am not dead set against change, but if the AI hits the French like it hits the USSR I think all is well.

I am going to be interested how the Axis AI does against the Allied AI in my AAR game.

Chuck

I am not saying that France shouldnt get a chance, but the pendulum must have swung too far in the other direction. The French clearly lost the war in three weeks in my game, yet they held out for seven months. Within 2 weeks, all divisions in Belguim were isolated. Within 3 weeks, my panzers were outside of Paris and another force was swinging behind the Maginot line. The war was over, yet I had to (in the most tedious manner) track down and destroy every unit and take every city. That is just silly and shouldn't happen in a game like this.

Its the same kind of mentality that destroyed HOI, they made every country playable. Now we have people complaining in other threads about what the heck the German AI is doing fighting in France in winter of 40. This is why. Plain and simple, France was not prepared or determined to face the Nazi warmachine. That is history, that is fact.

You can make whatever arguments you desire, but the current victory conditions are too a-historical.

[willgamer]

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

There are a lot of great suggestions throughout these threads, but everyone has their own wrinkles on what they would like changed & how.  Personally, I would NOT like to see a lot more "complexity" added (build times, range of air units, etc.).  What I would like to see are PATCHES that fix all the issues (CTDs, events, etc.) with the basic game, and then maybe some MODS that are optional for those that want to change fundamental game mechanics.  This game is about 90% in the "sweet spot" for me.  I would hate to see an update that combines the two so that it's an "all or nothing" proposition.  Some of the changes to basic gameplay proposed might very well ruin the game for me-- and then I'm stuck having to play a bugged version if I want to play at all.

Nothing personal against any recommendations, but I"ve played several games where stuff that wasn't broken (IMO) was "fixed" to the point that I lost interest in the game...

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this way. [:D]

The only thing I would add to what you'd like to see in patches is user interface improvements to speed up play or help understanding the game.

[Wolfe1759]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

There are a lot of great suggestions throughout these threads, but everyone has their own wrinkles on what they would like changed & how.  Personally, I would NOT like to see a lot more "complexity" added (build times, range of air units, etc.).  What I would like to see are PATCHES that fix all the issues (CTDs, events, etc.) with the basic game, and then maybe some MODS that are optional for those that want to change fundamental game mechanics.  This game is about 90% in the "sweet spot" for me.  I would hate to see an update that combines the two so that it's an "all or nothing" proposition.  Some of the changes to basic gameplay proposed might very well ruin the game for me-- and then I'm stuck having to play a bugged version if I want to play at all.

Nothing personal against any recommendations, but I"ve played several games where stuff that wasn't broken (IMO) was "fixed" to the point that I lost interest in the game...

I was beginning to think I was the only one who thought this way. [:D]

The only thing I would add to what you'd like to see in patches is user interface improvements to speed up play or help understanding the game.

I very much agree with the above.

At the moment we have got a good fun and playable game balanced with enough "realisim" to make it an interesting strategic WW2 game.

While a number of the improvements in this and other posts are good suggestions on individual issues and may improve the realisim of the game, adding every individual incremental "improvement" will probably result in a lot more messy and a lot less playable game.

For the time being I would be keen to hold judgement on any issues around balance and realisim rather than making some quick changes which might lead to a spiral of balance updates (assuming the developers haven't lost the will to live at that point) as the percieved balance shifts from one side to the other.

As to the game going "off script" from what actually happened in the course of WW2 I think this is a very good thing and actually makes it more rather than less realistic.

[cpdeyoung]

So many debates in the Road to Victory forum over issues of balance vs. realism, but the developers have come up with a fun game, which can satisfy both sides I think. Please remember that you can use "house rules" to address issues, and thus still further adjust the game to your desires. "House rules" are not evil. They allow for modification without imposing your view on all others.

Chuck