santabear

Greetings, fellow sufferer! I started a thread titled "Machismo AI" that deals with the same issue, so please don't consider this advice from an expert. I'll just share some of my thoughts/laments. The crucial problem is to not get bogged down in Russia, lest the Allies get feisty in the West. And this is related to the MPP problem: AI is paying the same amount per unit, but is getting far superior units. Here are the things that can go amiss that will make the war unwinnable: a. Not enough MPPs early on to build a good air force b. Russian readiness increases too quickly, so Barbarossa works at first but can't be sustained c. Britain and America get lucky with their air tech--they have fewer units but of superior quality Note that the war is decided before Barbarossa. The invasion of Russia will always start well--it's maintaining it while fending off the Allies that's the problem. When I do manage to win, here is how things go: 1. Germany MUST have air supremacy in the West. Superior quality air units in sufficent number to defeat an invasion. Building an Italian HQ and some Italian air units helps a great deal. With 4-6 German and 3-4 Italian air units, you can cause enough damage to turn back an attempted Overlord. Obviously, SINK THE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS first. Once the Royal Navy springs a few leaks your back will be safe. The key to success in Russia, though, is air supremacy in the west. Once you can concentrate your MPPs on the Russian front your chances of fending off the Siberians improve greatly. 2. When the Siberian army transfers: Don't get overextended trying to take Moscow or Rostov. Reinforce units and make sure you have a solid line and good HQ support. Line up some good reinforcements in case the Ivans get lucky somewhere. 3. Advance slowly in Russia, making sure all your units stay in good supply and close together. When the counterattack comes, send in the reserves where they can destroy the most important Russian units. Once the tanks and the rocket unit are killed, the Russians will start to retreat again. In other words, you go over to the defensive for a turn or two, sucker the Russian into attacking, then counterattack him into oblivion. 4. If you get to this point, you've won the war. Enjoy the feeling--it's rare! =========================================== OK. So here are two junior officers trying to get into staff college. Can someone help us out?

Konstantin: I think you're absolutely right--the Germans underestimated the Russians badly. Besides the quote I have below, there's the other famous line from the Germans: "It will be like a child's game in a sandbox." But I think we all agree in principle. JerseyJohn said: And the point I was trying to make (but apparently failed miserably...) was that Hitler HAD to win fast, so he constantly gambled hoping for a lucky break once he realized that Britain wasn't going to quit. He built an entire Wehrmacht geared to short, intense wars--his plan was always to win fast and make peace before the international community could unite and mobilize. He couldn't consider a long war, because Germany was DOOMED past 1941. Kaput. Finished. In Churchill's words: "All that remained was the proper application of overwhelming force." I believe that Hitler was actually in serious trouble after 1940, and he knew it. (I said his decisions were logical, not intelligent--there's a difference!) The Russians probably would have done much better in 42 (continuing their winter offensive), but they were still getting factories moved to the east and therefore ran out of supplies and equipment. And "lend-lease" wasn't worth **** to them until 43-44, by which time they didn't need it (although the food and trucks helped). I'm sure they really didn't care much about getting a few Matilda and Sherman tanks when they had T34's and KV's! Stalingrad didn't decide the war, it just speeded things up a bit. The Germans never had the "oomph" to achieve their goals. Hitler has also been criticized for trying to take the Caucasus and Stalingrad simultaneously (the original plan was Stalingrad first, then Caucasus, I think). But he was pushing to knock Russia out quickly--before he had to worry about the West--and before he had to get supplies all the way across Russia in the autumn mud. Following the "correct" advice of the German generals would have meant that Germany lost the war a bit more slowly, that's all. Konstantin's point about the German intelligence failure is crucial. They actually thought they could win until the battle started; then they couldn't believe how many Russians there were. (hey, I guess you have to do SOMETHING to stay warm in the Russian winter...). It's pretty amazing when you think of it: Two countries with NKVD, Gestapo, SD, spies, military intelligence, you name it. One is so unprepared for an invasion the frontier troops don't have ammunition and can't convince the leadership they're being shot at; and the other doesn't have the slightest idea how many troops they're facing. And they blundered around until 20 million people died. It would be funny if the human cost weren't so tragically wasteful.

Kuniworth: I have a troublesome computer set up here (in Europe) so I can't do two-player SC. When I get back home (this fall), though, I'd like to play a game with you. We could play two games--in one I'll be Axis, in the other Allies--and we can try things out with each other. You're right about AI--I was speaking "hypothetically" when I talked about trading units. AI will just keep grinding ahead with what he has in France. But Russian rockets appear frequently, and AI buys lots of corps for the Russians. I think it's programmed to rely on air in the West, and ground units in the East (that's just a guess, but that's what I run into). And anyone who gets to the gates of Moscow in this scenario has my undying respect--I'm as likely to capture Venus as Moscow in this scenario. I think if the Germans stay alive until May, 1947 they've won, even if there are some Allied units in Munich! A stalemate is possible, but it's a rare event in this scenario for me. I went home last night and played it against AI and got my ass well and truly kicked. Napoleon: "Do you expect me to hold back the sea with my hands?" Perfect quote for this scenario. [ April 25, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Wow. And he knows music, too! If there's ever an SC convention, JJ, we'll have to have a beer (or two...). Shostakovich 5 is a great piece; the seventh (he wrote the first two mvts in Leningrad during the siege), is my personal favorite to listen to--the 5th is more fun to play. You should know that the end of the 5th was intended to be played fast and "driven" though it's usually done triumphantly these days. Shostakovich's intention was for the music to be a FORCED triumphal march as though someone (guess who he could have had in mind?) was driving people to act more heroically than they truly felt. It's a very anti-Stalinist piece, but Stalin & Co were such cultural/intellectual rubes that they didn't understand that at all. They thought it was a wonderful representation of the "triumphant Soviet man." And, I guess, in a sense they were right... [ April 25, 2003, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Air defense in SC is no problem: Buy air fleets to provide air cover. Improved radar, etc. is nice, but in the end effective WWII air defense depended on fighters. AAA can't effectively protect the ground pounders (though it can inflict losses on the attackers). The real "devil" seems to be when both sides invest in "jet aircraft" (as always happens). Then the game is in danger of becoming a "luck of the draw" event in which the side that gets the best random rolls at opportune times can win. The current patch makes it less likely that one side will get far ahead in any tech area, and this seems to help--it's tougher for the Luftwaffe to dominate the RAF early on. So it seems to me that we're headed in a good direction with this fix. Making units more expensive will more heavily favor the side with greater MPPs. It seems to me that, as an Axis player, I would want air to be expensive to buy, and very expensive to reinforce early in the game. Britain would never be able to compete because of her low MPP numbers. So it might be possible to dominate Britain before Russia even enters the war. Does anyone have a thought about how that would work out? If we were to consider an "MPP based" fix, I would suggest making research points more expensive, or lowering the maximum number from 10 to 5. That would force players to only have 1 or 2 chits per area, which would slow down the aerial arms race somewhat.

Actually, you've done a lot right, Hubert. A wonderful game got better. Mr. AI seems to be doing better with large-scale coordination and long-range planning than in the previous version. There are so many variables that it's difficult to be specific, but the game IS better against the AI. So CONGRATULATIONS!

Edwin: Great information. Thanks for sharing your "strategic insight" with us--I always enjoy your posts.

JJ: I'm a musician (a conductor, actually), and have many stories about both Prokoffiev and Shostakovich. Shostakovich has an interesting memoir titled "Testimony"--his account of the competition to write a new USSR national anthem is hysterically funny. I will try to look up the words to Prokoffiev's "Ode to Stalin." You'll laugh yourself sick. It's one of the pieces P wrote to get (back) into Stalin's good graces. Periodically, he would get in trouble and would have to do some film music (Nevsky, Ivan, etc.) or some other schlock to buy his "get out of jail" card. Even though he hated his music for Nevsky, it's his best piece of this genre--the Battle on the Ice is very nice; John Williams "borrowed" quite a bit of it for the "Battle in the Forest" in Star Wars III. HINT TO POWERS THAT BE: The synthesized movie music that starts the game could be replaced with some MP3's of Prokoffiev's score to Alexander Nevsky... The "end of the war" tune is nice. But in neither case does the composer get credit. Who wrote the music?

I have managed a few draws vs. AI, but using ONLY the "beginner, novice and green" settings. I don't notice much difference in MPPs between those settings, so they give very similar games. Certainly anything with an experience bonus is pointless, except for developing one's ability to cope with adversity. The strategy you outlined is very much what I do: Fight the Allies away from their air as much as possible, and try to counter attack whenever possible in the East. Try to make the Russians "run north and south" that is, to extend their attacks laterally along the line rather than driving westward through openings. Your idea of a screen of corps with a mobile "fire brigade" running around to problem areas is the way to do it. They will try to outflank the counter attack, but the counter attacking units can disengage and scoot away. Meanwhile, Germany survives two more weeks. Fight along rivers, in the mountains, in swamps, trees--anywhere but in the open. Use units like "speed bumps" in Italy, forcing the Allies to advance through the worst terrain. It's more important to preserve Axis units than to destroy enemy units. The Allies would love to trade units one-for-one--they can replace them. I've never thought about cashing in the air, but that could be a good idea. It doesn't last long anyway.

The concept of a 'house rule' to limit air sounds like an elegant way to manage the issue. Interestingly, the AI never accumulates air units the way human players will (although in the newest patch I've faced some jazzed Russian air forces--6 units of lvl 3 jets, for example; maybe random events, maybe AI got a little coaching from HC). I may experiment to see if some self-imposed air limits might work in AI play, too. (Although anihilating Britian with waves of aircraft is fun...no wonder Hitler went crazy...)

JJ: Great photos! I remember seeing an old film (newsreel maybe) of the "Spruce(d) Goose" in action. The film is about 3 minutes long and in that time the plane just begins to lift off of the water (as the announcer rhapsodizes over "another soaring achievement of American avaition"). Hilarious. =========================================== Shaka: I agree with you. Hitler's decisions are logical if you assume he knew his position was desperate from late 1940 on. He did vascillate between going for the 'big win' and planning for a long war in Russia--and that hurt him, but in general he got to the top by playing to get "one big win" and he continued in that vein until the end. His worst mistake was in valuing obsequiousness more than ability in his advisors. Goering, especially, caused him much grief. ============================================ And I can't believe this thread has gone on this long without someone saying: "It's not how big it is, it's what you do with it." So I will... [ April 24, 2003, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

If SC gets the "Hitler option" that wastes German MPPs, it also will need the "Churchill option." Churchill also proposed and championed useless projects against the advice of his military and scientific experts. (for balance, yes, he did have good ideas too...) =========================================== And Jersey: That's exactly what Hitler proposed to Molotov. Mr. M wasn't interested--he was smart enough to know that without the Balkans, Russia would always be at Germany's mercy. A lot of diplomatic calculations were based on the (correct) premise that Germany and the USSR might sign a short term non-aggression pact, but forces 'beyond their control' (stupidity and greed, for example) would prevent an alliance. There was also the calculation that Germany could not successfully invade Britain. If Germany had done better in the Battle of Britain, or had managed a credible navy, there would have been a lot more scrambling. As it was, the US make Churchill work very hard just to get those 50 obsolete destroyers. The real nightmare scenarios would have been a German alliance with either Britain or France. Those are combinations that could 1. close the Atlantic, 2. dominte the Med, and 3. wage war against Russia Dann haette ich auf deutsch geschrieben... [ April 23, 2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

THANKS!

And the feature is documented in the version notes. There is a link in Hubert's "new players read this" thread at the top of the first page. There's a lot of stuff in there and it's easy to miss things the first several times through...I'm still finding things out (usually after some unit is wiped out unexpectedly) The Suez feature is most useful if the Axis gets feisty in the Med. If the Allies want to get serious down there, they have to knock out the Italian fleet--which usually means attacking through Gibraltar and from the eastern Med simultaneously. (Where is the damn "send in frogmen/midget subs" option when you need it??)

One quick point: Stalin gave a speech to Russian cadets in early 1941 in which he said that the Russian army had to recon with the possiblity of war with Germany in the near future. He would do everything diplomatically possible to delay any potential war to the autumn of 1941, when the fall rains and winter weather would make it impossible for the Germans to attack. But they would have to recon on war with Germany in 1942 at the latest, and possibly Russia would have to attack first. It's quoted in the "official" Russian (Soviet) history of the war, published in the 1980's. Most of the work was done after Khrushchev's XXth Congress speech, so I don't think they went out of their way to portray Stalin heroically.

I'm writing to solicit opinions/ideas to help solve a conundrum. Most scenarios play "well to ok" (that is, they're competative but winnable) with the 'expert' setting AS LONG AS the experience bonus is knocked down to +1. Some scenarios are still winnable at +2 (though the games take FOREVER), but (for me) Barbarossa on is an Axis disaster...and any mod that gives the Allies an edge on the pre-packaged scenarios becomes impossible or nearly so. Even Bill Macon's 1939 mod gets very tough with that level 1, exp +2 French tank running around. General Gamelin laughs as Guderian and Rommel flee for their lives. The problem, of course, this that these nifty +2 units are only costing Mr. AI what I'm paying for a bunch of fuzzy-faced rookies (except in Russia, where they normally cost less cuz he gets ahead in IT fast). Has anyone found a way to make the +2 thing work? I'm trying to figure out a way to get a little more challenge; but obviously it's not much fun to sit there and watch your entire Western front get destroyed. Perhaps my military skills are weak? Any hints?

I'm writing to solicit opinions/ideas to help solve a conundrum. Most scenarios play "well to ok" (that is, they're competative but winnable) with the 'expert' setting AS LONG AS the experience bonus is knocked down to +1. Some scenarios are still winnable at +2 (though the games take FOREVER), but (for me) Barbarossa on is an Axis disaster...and any mod that gives the Allies an edge on the pre-packaged scenarios becomes impossible or nearly so. Even Bill Macon's 1939 mod gets very tough with that level 1, exp +2 French tank running around. General Gamelin laughs as Guderian and Rommel flee for their lives. The problem, of course, this that these nifty +2 units are only costing Mr. AI what I'm paying for a bunch of fuzzy-faced rookies (except in Russia, where they normally cost less cuz he gets ahead in IT fast). Has anyone found a way to make the +2 thing work? I'm trying to figure out a way to get a little more challenge; but obviously it's not much fun to sit there and watch your entire Western front get destroyed. Perhaps my military skills are weak? Any hints?

I like your Normandy "rope a dope" move. Just to be clear about my contribution: That is just my guess from having played a lot against AI. I don't have any real 'background' information--the game designers may be laughing hysterically at that post (well, perhaps giggling a bit). It does fit my experiences, though.

Edwin--all good points and ideas; especially about the "Dieppe raids." If the British are too passive during the campaign in Russia they'll lose every time. I'm sure human players for the Allies are much more aggressive during Barbarossa. My guess is that there are three basic modes (passive, middlin', and aggressive) for AI that influence all of his decisions, and that one of these modes is selected early in the game (or perhaps before play starts) randomly. The aggressive AI will always attack by air when it gets the chance, and will try mulitple Overlords. There is also a "sneaky aggressive" AI that will build air units in northern Britain, then try to swoop transports, ships and air in quickly. The aggressive AI is not deterred easily by losses; it will persist in operations and repeat them until very substantial losses have been inflicted. The problem that I've seen is that the aggressive AI is often too aggressive for its own good, especially with British naval units. It's also too easy to gang up several German air units to take out the British/American air in southern Britain. The most enjoyable games, though, are the ones against the aggressive AI, because they offer the most challenge to strategic decision making--setting priorities, allocating resources, temporizing, etc. In the latest patch, Hubert said the tweaked the AI to attack less when surrounded in cities--which is a good start. Perhaps later AI's could have another semester at staff college to become more sophisticated about unsustainable loss rates. If there is a way to improve communication between Stalin and Churchill that would help, too. Then an aggressive AI would become a very formidable opponent. AI should also "look before it leaps" more carefully in the "opportunity" phase of its turn. Too often, it will zip an army onto a mine hex, placing it in a position to be wiped out the next turn. The mine hex in the middle of Russia is nice for baiting the AI into depleting his forces piecemeal. [ April 16, 2003, 05:38 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

I've been playing the new patch for several days and have noticed a consistent "anomaly." If I hit "escape" it minimizes the game (always has, still does). When I click on the taskbar to reopen the game, though, the screen redraws except for the taskbar portion--so the MPP values for Italy and USSR are hidden under the taskbar. I have to save the game, exit and reenter. Then everything's fine. This didn't happen in previous versions. Any ideas? [PS I have Windows 98/IBM Thinkpad]

I've noticed the same issue as Iron Ranger. Sometimes the screen pauses in "mid explosion" as one unit is attacking another. It hasn't happened until I installed the patch.

If the Axis can get Italy going early enough, the Italians can invade Turkey as Edwin suggests; amphib over from Grece (or up from Alexandria) and attack Ankara through the mountains. HQs for supply are essential, and tanks help a lot (better movement). The Germans can thump away at Istanbul to keep those forces busy. There are HUGE advantages to the Axis gaining control of Turkey: 1. Sail the Italian fleet into the Black Sea and the Russian cruiser dies rapidly. Then the RUSSIANS have to worry every time the get near the sea. 2. The Italians can walk from Turkey into southern Russia. This is where most of Russia's MPPs come from and it's often weakly defended. You can run Ivan out of MPPs quickly down here. 3. Also as Edwin suggests, a landing south of Rostov to encircle that city can work wonders as well. Sometimes this strategy is possible, sometimes not, depending on how the Italians fare early in the war. Outside of Gibralter (which is important), an invasion of Spain doesn't seem to pay the same dividends to the Axis to me. But perhaps someone has found differently.

Thank you Hubert for the continued improvements. I've released my aggressions by wiping out the Allies a few times using the new patch and Bill Macon's "revised" 1939 scenario. Here are the observations from three games as Axis vs. AI: - fixed Carrier intercept bug, defensive bonuses no longer affect losses >Yes, as far as I can tell. - fixed country surrender bug that would not recognize enemy unit control of resources like ports etc., i.e. should remain in enemy control instead of automatically being assigned to conquerer (as noticed by allied players after the fall of France) >Yes. I let the Canadians have the mine until post-surrender to test this. (They came all that way, after all). - fixed strength of Soviet Shaumyan Cruiser for Barbarossa, corrected to start at 10 >Yes. Dammit...needs several air units to kill him off properly now. - Yugoslavian Coup now has a greater link to Axis actions taken against Greece, can still happen if Greece not invaded but less likely >Didn't invade Greece, Yugo still couped on schedule; but not enough data yet... - added a 2 city supply system for the UK (London and Manchester) similar to 3 city supply system added in v1.06 for the USSR, counters gamey cutoff of London during Sea Lion >Marginally more difficult to finish off Britain. But I've always just invaded in the south and slogged forward. The AI also seems to be somewhat more aggressive/intelligent (though that may come from the different scenario or random factors.) He was very persistent about trying to invade France when the Russian battle was at its height--three attempts; on the third he kept sending in ships and transports as fast as I could air them into oblivion. And lots of Allied air support, too. The Russians also seemed more intelligent about the Siberian army: Instead of frittering away the reserves piecemeal, they massed for a counter-attack. (Though in these games I attacked Stalingrad instead of heading to Rostov). The overall strategy would have defeated the Axis if it had been timed a little better--the invasion of France actually started after the Russian counter attack had been got under control.

Hopefully, we'll eventually spiral back to the "ultimate truth""--the issues that are at the core of the problem. As someone who has to play only against AI, I would welcome all of Edwin's suggestions for randomizing starting positions. And the points about Axis amphib. capabilites are well taken; in addition the Italian navy seems to always dominate the Med., which a) didn't happen, and is difficult to see how it could have happened.

** DAMN COMPUTERS. SOMEONE PLS DELETE THIS DUPLICATE POSTING ** JJ & Edwin: Your US ideas sound good to me. Clearly the US gov't. would see the "good" reasons to go to war, but as JJ mentioned the population lagged some (long) way behind. It would probably come down to the ability of Roosevelt to "lead" public opinion--and the kind of random events you suggest would likely be the keys. (My original post used the words "might enter the war"--I agree it would not be a certain event. The US didn't even declare on Germany when Barbarossa started--as usually happens in SC. And there is still debate whether US would have declared on Germany after Pearl Harbor. Hitler saved the Allies a lot of headaches by taking the initiative!) [ April 14, 2003, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]