Aryaman
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Aryaman
-
-
Hi
I would like to play the Franco-Prussian war scenario as Prussian. Anyone interested please email me to aryaman133atgmail.com
-
V.1.01, with hotfix applied after some turns
-
Hi
I have just finished a PBEM game of the Barbarossa 41 scenario. I played Germans and in the end I scored a minor victory by holding Warsaw while my opponent only managed to take Helsinki.
Game experience has been wonderful, it was a tough match with many alternatives and you really get the feeling of fighting in the vast spaces of the Soviet Union.
I would like to make some suggestions as well.
1) After the Soviets took Helsinki the Finnish units didn´t surrender, the Finnish air unit kept fighting to the end along their German allies.
2) Apparently NM plays little part in this game, however I would note that in my match the Soviets hit the 0% NM by 1943 while I was still at 40%, for the rest of the match I keptd dropping while my opponent could not drop a single point as there is no negative NM. That seems odd.
3) In the last 10 turns or so there is an "end of the world" effect. You don´t buy new units because they will arrive after the game is finished, and you mass almost any unit around the game objectives. I would suggest to make the end a random date, maybe dependant on events that could be bought, so that a player buys to extend the fight another 10 turns, for instance. Just to make players uncertain as when the game will end.
-
Thanks for the clarification!
-
Hi
1) I see that on the victory conditions screen it doesn´t say anything about NM, so if NM does reach 0 what about the Nation? does it surrender or not?
2) Does NM level have any influence on the morale individual units during the game?
3) Axis minor victory conditions are to hold 3 or less of the key cities, so it would be a minor victory with just Warsaw?
-
Hi Aryaman
The villages don't provide supply, and the updated campaign guide saying that will be included in the patch.
Bill
What I mean is that the supply points should be different in graphics so they are clearly visible to the Prussian player before taken them, in the scenario right now they have different graphics and can be confusing.
Regarding Napoleon III, certainly he was ill but there was a considerable support for him outside Paris in the countryside, and even a minor success I think could have allowed him to remain in power for some years until he could abdicate in his son. After all he went to war because he wanted an exterior succes to back his regime.
-
I am playing this scenario in a PBEM match and I am enjying it very much, I think it makes for a good game, with lots of strategic options and historically sound. I would like to make a couple of suggestions.
1) Graphics for the towns and supply.
Supply is an all importan t thing in the game, as it should be, but it would be easier, especially for the Prussian player, if the towns providing supply have a different greaphic than the rest, . That way the Prussian player can plan better for march invasion routes keeping his supply lines in good shape.
2) Events
I would like some historical events in which the change from monarchy to republic in France is an issue, giving for instance the option that if the French player is very succesful Napoleon could remain in office.
In all a great scenario, and I think it proves that the engine is up to represent some 19th century scenarios, I would like to see some, like the 1813 campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, for instance, or maybe even some campaigns of the ACW
-
Hi Aryaman
The chance of a retreat is based on a die roll, so sometimes they will flee when attacked, but other times they will stand and fight to the bitter end.
Bill
And what is the chance percentage? no modifiers to the die roll?
-
Hi
Some times units don´t retreat and instead they remain in the front until they are destroyed. I wonder, is there something the player can do or avoid to make sure units always retreat to avoid destruction?
-
Thanks for the clarification!
-
I have run a second test (both have been run on the 1941 Barbarossa scenario) and I found very similar results within the normal range of random variation. The Soviets again outscored the Germans in all fields except Antitank. The Results were 19 vs 9 in infantry, 20vs12 in Hevy tanks, 19 vs 9 in aerial warfare and 12 vs 14 in antitank.
-
Hi
I have noticed that the German research is still much slower than the Soviet research. As a test I run a game on hotseat without making any move, just to see how reserach developed on both sides. The Soviets were consistently outracing the Germans. By July 25 the Soviets were at 20% infantry while the Germans were still at 7%. In other fields differences were not that large, in heavy tanks 19 vs 12, in aerial warfare 17 vs 10, only in antitank the Germans outscored the Soviets 12 to 10. Germans were getting just 1% advance in infantry every turn, except one turn in which they got 2%, while the Soviets were getting no less than 3% and up to 5%. So apparently the problem with German research is still unfixed.
-
Where is the link to download the hotfix? I can´t find it
BTW is that hotfix compatible with an ongoing PBEM v1.02?
-
Bill is a different scenario designer than I am. He made probably forgot AoC is a 1 level per research tech tree. You can only put one research level into a field at a time. Like all SC games I find infantry, tank, and air warfare are 100% a must have to keep up all the time. AoC is the same.
I've been pushing to rewrite the research formula to be more linear and less random so balance occurs. Originally AoC had a slow upgrade on the tech of 1/2 point on a unit's attribute but too many people got confused so I kept it at 1 increase per attribute like all other SC2 games.
As for AoC. Some believe it favors the Soviets. I think it is balanced. I have played over 20 games myself vs some very good players as either side. There are some issues with Soviet armor that I resolved for 1942 that should balance the game more during the next patch. I submitted the files not sure if the patch came out yet.
There are some strategies to be employed by the Germans and the Soviets. I will go over them in a new strategy post I will make.
What I would like to know is if the German research is slower than the Soviet one. Because that is what is happening, so I wish to know if that is working as designed or it is a bug.
-
I am surprised and confused by part of Bill101's response: as far as I have been able to determine Germany and Italy can ONLY invest one chit in ANY area of research in this scenario. Is that not correct?
.
That is what I was going to write as well.There is a maximum of 1 chit per research field in the scenario
-
Hi Bill
What I have observed is that Italian research advance faster than German research. For instance, in 3 consecutive turns I have monitored the advance Infantry research for Germany advanced 1 or 2% while Italian 4 or 5%, no wonder Italy is now at 65% while Germany is still at 41%. Both started the same trun, as you know research on Ifantry comes by default at the start of the campaign. Italy is more advanced in research in all other fields in which it has invested. I wonder if that is only in my game, but as I have written, my opponent was suffering a comparable lag in research with the Germans in our previous match, so maybe something is not working as designed?
-
Hi
I played the Barbarossa scenario in a pbem match. By mid 1943 I was in a difficult position, having lost Leningrad, Stalingrad and Baku, but my tech level was superior to the germans in every field. My opponent was so discouraged by this that at the end he surrendered. We thought it was something in our research decissions or just plain luck, however We are playing the rematch reversed sides and I noticed that my opponent already upgraded to infantry level 1 while I am stucked at a miserable 38% for the Germans, while the Italians are at a more respectable 55%. So I wonder, is that working as designed or is there a bug in German research?
-
On force concentration, perhaps two changes are needed:
1. In addition to current supply model where each unit calculates their supply individually, there needs to be an overall supply capacity of a region (Theatre) where you compare multiple supply sources with the number of units demanding supply. This would reduce supply level of units if the strategic capacity of the region is exceeded.
It would be nice if a power could pay MPP to temporarily boost the supply capacity of a theatre, this would simulate Mulberry harbours etc. in Normandy landings without specific detailed rules and reflect strategic prioritization of a theatre of war.
2. Please reduce air operational movement, this is the worst offender in force concentrations because air is easiest to deploy. Its true there were strategic redeployments of air but no power would strip a theatre completely to concentrate in one location and that is pretty common in seriously competitive games. Naval concentrations are more reasonable but even there have seen almost entire Axis and Allied navies facing off in Far East, doubt port capacity would support this model.
I second that, especially point 1, as it is now the entire Wermacht could be supplied from Tripoli, for instance. I imagine it is easier to progranm for a limited number of units receiving supply from army HQs, while the rest get no supply at all except if they are within the city hex
-
I'd vote for D. There shoud be less direct loses but the unit morale and readiness should be greatly affected. The effect on Germans should apply for the 1941/42 winter only. It would be nice if during the subsequent years, there was a winter attrition effect on the units with the poor supply ( both on Germans and Soviets ). For example units that have their supply value below 5, could suffer from the harsh winter conditions.
Another serious issue that needs to be addressed in AOC, is the combat during the winter months. Currently it is practically impossible to conduct large offensive operations during the winter. It is frustrating gamaplay wise, because you have a lot turns when there is little or no action. It is also ahistorical, because the Soviets were conducting large winter offensives each year during the war. Just to mention the most famous ones: the 1941/42 post Moscow offensive, the 1942/43 post Stalingrad offensive and the 1945 Vistula-Oder Offensive. Currently it's simply impossible to pull something like this off in the game, due to the winter penalties on the attacking units. I am aware that this penalty was incorporated to AOC from the earlier versions of SC2, but keep in mind that in AOC the turns cover much shorter periods of time, hence there are more winter turns, when there is nothing going on. Also, the AOC system should take into the account the specific conditions of the Eastern Front - i.e that the Soviets were able to conduct large scale offensives during the winter. Maybe it could be addressed by an introduction of a DE, regarding the preparation of RED Army for the winter fighting. For example at the beginning of each November the Soviet player would be asked if he wants to spend a considerable amount of MPPs' in order to prepare his troops for the winter offensive. Saying "yes" would negate the winter penaly on the attackig Soviet units. The cost of the DE should be high, maybe 50MPP during each winter turn. The Red player would need to decide if he prefers to stay put during the winter and rebuild his forces or to go on a risky and costly offensive. Of course it's just a thought and would need to be thoroughly tested in terms of the game balance, before any potential implementation.
I agree, something to allow the Soviets winter offensive capabilities, right now winter turns except the first one are just reorganizing turns, which is very favourable to the German player
-
I would vote B, but I would like to see some damage inflicted also in 1942 winter. Germans were better prepared by then but still suffered, at any rate the Soviets still had a good advantage fighting in winter and I would like that represented
-
-
How close to Leningrad?
-
Hi
Playing a PBEM match I played all historical events, and launched Barbarossa in July 1941, I am in September and still waiting for the Finnish to join, what are they waiting for?
-
"It turned out that two of our new divisions ( one infantry and one cavalry ) couldn’t be deployed in the town of Reichshoffen because the location was already captured by the enemy"
Is that like what happens in the WW1 scenario when German units taking some Russian cities prevent the deployment of some Corps? If that is the case I think it should be corrected somehow because it leads to some gamey play.
Otherwise the scenario looks to be very playable and enjoyable. I think that maybe the Napoleonic campaign of 1813 in Central Europe, with the huge ammount of troops involved, could also be a playable scenario.
1944 Bagration - AAR
in Strategic Command - Assault on Communism
Posted
Excellent AAR! I think I will try this scenario, it looks really interesting