Jump to content

sokulsky

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sokulsky

  1. Being my 1st AAR bear with me as I am not experienced in detailing this out. 

     

    However Overall Plan:

     

    Beginning:

     

    1. Knock down to size HQ units and leave frontier soviet formations in low supply

    2. Take out easy targets of the soviet air.  I am not a big believer in air in this game but they are easy targets.  Airs big priority in this is to knock down entrenchment, and some low soft targets.

     

    1941:

    1.  Take Leningrad.  This is a must to allow consolidation of northern units for operations elsewhere.

    2.  Take down the soviet army as much as possible to neuter any possible 41' winter operations.

    3.  Take the south all the way to Rostov, including Sevastopol.

    4.  In order to do this HQ must move a minimum of 3 spots each turn to keep up with the advance.

    5.  Relentlessly move forward as I would rather fight with weak units and continue to degrade the soviets than give them respite and opportunity to entrench.

    6.  Take out all light tanks as fast as possible to keep the advance non-threatened as much as can be.

     

    Regarding taking Leningrad: Seems like a poor idea to be honest. It requires some significant amount of force to do it "on march" in 1941,while you still need to eliminate Smolensk and Kiev defence lines. If SOV player tries to save as much units as possible, you will face very strong opposition in either of those areas and panzers used to assault on Leningrad will be actually a burden, as most of SOV industry is pretty much elsewhere. SOV player saving mech corps can pretty much be a threat in those two areas and can knock out some panzer units and it's really not that hard imo.

     

    Even if you will destroy most of the air units SOV has in the west, SOV player can still muster 2 fighter units, 2 tac bombers and 1 strat bomber => enough to fight with them in Smolensk or Kiev battle if put on very good supply (like 8 or 9), You can damage GER supply lines efficiently and generate tons of MPP losses there. I'd advise to ignore Leningrad in pretty much every game for GER player.

  2. Opinion of a player that plays strategy games since about 16 years and mostly multiplayer mode of strategy games since about 7 years.

    I'm assesing only the multiplayer value of add ons since it's what matters the most and shows game balance the best.

    In my opinion Assault on Communism add-on offers the best player-vs-player multiplayer SC experience when it comes to WW2 Eastern Front depiction and feeling, it's just awesome and allows many, many viable strategies for both sides. It has also quite mobile, vigorous feeling when it comes to offensives and counteroffensives and multiple decisions to be made almost every turn (GER: should I concentrate more forces on Smolensk/Kiev, should I ignore Leningrad, should I go after Moscow or for Rostov, where to launch summer 1942 offensive, how to deal with earlier-than-expected weather change etc. SOV: how to delay GER advance on Smolensk, how to delay GER advance on Kiev, should I try to defend Crimea actively, how to use Mech Corps for my advantage, how to counter deadly Luftwaffe efficiently etc.). Probably the best depiction of Eastern Front for multiplayer purposes I've ever seen and it's my favourite part of SC games for now. What it lacks is perhaps more historical events for historical flavour and better depiction of overall Axis powers situation on Eastern Front. AoC gets an 8.5/10 from me. Would be higher if more historical events would be added, I also miss more Hitler, Stalin, other generals and war propaganda depictions in events there. Lack of events informing about atrocities of war lowers it's educational value considerably, but being a history geek cannot affect clear fun value of multiplayer balance.

    Strategic Command WW1 with Breakthrough! add-on has overall CP bias in main campaign coming from CP player doing several easy hindsight decisions that affect Entente player chances of winning a lot (evade attacking GB-USA trade lines => lower USA interest in war, no chance to sink Lusitania, evade sending Zimmermann telegram). Also "All vs the East" strategy works really well due to too powerful AH army (there's very small chance to capture the NM Przemysl and Gallician Oilfields) "playing from the center" overall advantage and only, very efficient move for Entente Russia (striking at Silesia) is often outrunned by a preemptive CP attack coming from the Prussia. Entente can delay OE coming into the war considerably thanks to giving OE battleship it's promised, but that's pretty much all and war of attrition doesn't support Entente like it did in history as NM locations captured in Russia tend to even rise whole % points of CP morale sometimes, while Entente NM drop no matter what. If balance issues would be resolved, this could be the best of SC games as historical flavour is just incredible and you really have this feeling of trench warfare and (sometimes) offensives that claim lives of millions but doesn't change overall situation a lot. But this game has several other AWESOME scenarios like German WW1 East Africa campaign, Brusilov's offensive, Tannenberg battle etc. and their multiplayer value has nothing to be ashamed of. There's also a WW2 Europe campaign similar to SC2 campaign but with latest mechanics. All in all, 8.5/10 from me when it comes to multiplayer, but singleplayer value of this package probably beats SC:WW2 with all add ons :)

    Can't really comment on AoD mp value as I've not played it yet but it's grand campaign WW2 scenario seemed to be the one most played recently in mp. I'm not quite sure how balanced it is, but it's probably the best thing to get from AoD as other scenarios seem to be less interesting than the things offered in other packages.

    Imo, AoC>AoD.

    Regards,

    Rafal

  3. Ok, another game question sparked by my duels with Strategiclayabout:

    Log story short: We're playing Call to Arms 1914 campaign, I'm playing CP, Strat went with Entente. The sight of pickelhaubes made me happy until I've noticed the ugly effects of ahistorical decision made by Strat regarding Ottoman Dreadnought Sultan Osman, that is to let OE have it instead of seizing it for Royal Navy.

    The consequence of seizing it is: 1 Battleship for UK and 10 to 15% swing of OE towards CP

    The consequence of keeping it is: 1 Battleship for OE and 20 to 30% swing of OE towards Entente.

    I agree with the historical effects of this event (people in OE raged because ottoman navy was financed directly from people pocket - iirc there was no budget for it, people voluntarily agreed to finance via fundraising etc.)

    I strongly disagree with ahistorical effects of this event - in my game OE war entry dropped from 68% to 44% and diplo chit cost (150 MPP's) pretty much bars me from pulling OE into the war in 1914 and early 1915.

    There's some information in the Strategic Guide that OE should join CP around march 1915 anyway, but I don't see any events that support this information.

    Moreover, it creates a very convienient situation for Entente player - Entente doesn't loose MPP's from Black Sea trade for Russia, Great Britain can prepare itself better for incoming war with OE and pretty much rush into it's territory in 1915 or simply use additional resources in Europe for any means necessary. If MPP's are required at this point to pull OE into the war, 150 is a lot for CP at the beginning. So all the goodies for Entente and a poor consolation prize for CP when OE will finally enter the war - a Dreadnought on a third-rate naval theatre and many more MPP's lost for OE itself.

    This event would be ok with a small, 5% WE drop for OE, but up to 30% swing is just YEEEOYEEEWAITTHESEC-WOAT?!!:eek:

    Any comments regarding this one?

  4. Ok, short story: I'm playing this scenario with Strategiclayabout, my dear multiplayer nemesis when it comes to Battlefront titles :D

    Long story short: He went with Brits, I went with Turks, managed to beat his land forces but on turn 25 he put an airship from relief force near Kut and BAM! here comes Major Victory for him and a whip from sultan for me :confused:

    Q1: What I mean is: Is it supposed to work like that? I can understand a land units support should work - more or less it's 1,000 to 5,000 soldiers when it comes to detachment or brigade, but an airship? They got the post, some supplies and MV for brits, bye bye P2? More or less, it would require a heavy screening of all Kut border titles and suffering constant damage from superior Kut defenders counterattacks, not to mention lack of resources to oppose Relief force efficiently.

    Q2: If it's not supposed to work like that (since it's a bit gamey), what's the proven, efficient strategy for this scenario for British forces? We've both tried brits and Relief forces seems to lack enough punch to crack ottoman lines, artillery or not - Strat suggested heavy cav approach, I've mixed some arty into this idea, but we're unsure if that should work - anybody tried it successfully in mp?

    Savegame (Breakthrough! latest patch version):

    http://www.4shared.com/zip/vA9d3762ba/Kut025.html

    PS. PM me for the savegame pass.

  5. - Can't agree completely as it works for Entente too: no silly Nivelle "Chemin des Dames" offensive with a 2,000 casualties rate per minute .

    Until 1916 France can hardly launch anything anywhere, it's just running after German in technologies and buying back units lost in 1914.

    - Indus tech is 125MPPs for all major majors (UK-France-Russia-Germany) so you mean more expensive vs income I suppose ?

    Exactly, espescially that German army is used as "sword" on both fronts.

    - Game only allows 3 chits in industry at any time and most 75/100/125 fields so you can't hypertech indus. You can hypertech trench tech however (5 chits allowed in 50 fields) but you have to consider german research limit of 1,000 MPPs:

    1x125 infantry

    3x125 industry

    5x50 trench

    - That's already 750 then you have those combinations remaining to max out:

    2x75 & 1x100 or 2x50

    1x50 & 2x100

    3x50 & 1x100

    2x125

    5x50

    - However with only 4x50 in trench you free some very interesting ones:

    2x125 & 1x50

    1x100 & 4x50

    1x125 & 1x75 & 1x100

    3x100 (3 chits in shells or intel from start Mmmmh ^^)

    4x75

    You're right, only 3 chits could be put into industry but I'm and I was struggling with putting "just" 3 there for Entente countries anyway.

    Besides, 3x125 for industry, 1x125 for Inf Tech, 4x50 for trench, 1x125 for Art tech, 1x100 for shells and 75 for Production/Fighters/something else later on and you're ready to rock as Germany as you'll put up more resources into artillery research with trench research being less of priority later on.

    - Here you have to consider how those events (especially for UK) save a lot of MPPs in the long term:

    1) the Basra event gives a great strategic chance and MPPs/NM per turn with the city and oil field

    2) deploying units near Arras help France a lot and saves a good chunk of naval transport costs

    3) the event to get "free" corps by raising a new army is a great bargain

    4) and so on...

    5) UK also has the Sultan Osman event which if declined will provide Russia with 30 MPPs per turn (Dradanelles trade) for several turns. With some luck it can end above 200 MPPs for the Tsar. Sure OE will get a battleship but the cost and NM target it will be can be more of a burden than anything.

    - Furthermore Germany also has many events to pay for (Hindenburg HQ, help to OE and such).

    1)it's another frontline and you're sending there forces of greater value to the territory value you're receiving, while steady progress there requires there even more resources that could've been used directly to beat up Imperial Germany. All for third rate frontline.

    Pack up OE with trench warfare - just 250 MPP's and suddenly half of Commonwealth artillery pieces isn't enough to progress in Middle East with satisfing pace.

    I'm sorry but defending Palestine is very easy now (just score a diplo-hit on OE - I've seen it many times) and it will join CP in no time, Battleship from GB provided or not. You'll also gain a possibility to launch a preemptive attack on Egypt.

    2)No, it's just a two units that are acting as a "road block" there. Anything else has to go via channel, 2,000 miles or 50 km - it's always around 40 MPP per corps and 15 per detachment.

    3)Add transport costs and only bargain is that costs are balanced in time and you really should accept it to... limit your logistic costs.

    5)You can "pay off" some of the lost MPP's by hunting trade ships with russian sub near Zungak iirc, which isn;t really possble if OE will receive Sultan as it will take down easily outdated russian battleship there

    Regarding "pay for event" thing - doesn't matter, Entente still has more paying to do, it also needs to replace more leaders than CP (all those sucky 4 and 5's...). CP has to do that on A-H HQ's mainly, but it doesn't matter as A-H is basically a large pillbox...

    Besides, could someone point me out why is OE so strong in Middle East and GB and arabs so weak (historical 5:1 numerical advantage of sieges of Mecca and Medina for Entente is nowhere to be seen in this game as CP player just floods that railway path with his corps and detachments that are well supplied in comparision to dried by the desert advancing Commonwealth troops)?

    Is there anybody that could fight at Gallipoli, Palestine, Arabia, Middle East and Northern France at once with considerable forces as GB in MP games?

    Why is Italy such a "no-do" when entering the war w/o artillery and opposing superior LT and trench tech w/o even a possibility to spam detachments as CP minors?

    - OE is clearly the weak link for CP as they can't cover everything. Taking Gallipolli is great and pricey indeed but just landing on the strait tile to send Entente ships to Marmara Sea can hurt OE a lot and it's cheaper . Some good amphib moves with only detachments can truly break OE apart

    Succesful landing at Gallipoli prolly requires heavy supporting of Serbia to not get flooded with tons of CP troops figting with superior supply lines on their side which is all Middle East is about in this game right now...

    It's interesting but has downsides. Actually it depends on what you do with german starting units. You don't need 2nd AH army in Galicia if CP can shorten the front quickly in Poland.

    - Furthermore those units and the HQ are enough to at least capture Belgrade securing a good supply source in Serbia for 1915 and providing some MPPs while pushing Bulgaria towards CP early. You won't need to send german units (except artillery maybe) and they will go to Poland instead where anything they conquer will give you NM (not the case for Serbia).

    Y, I agree.

    - Here you have to notice that Entente diplo chits for USA cost 150 MPPs while CP ones cost 200 MPPs !

    With Russia with it's eco and chits knocked out of war, it still means that CP can efficiently block Entente efforts :rolleyes:

    - Entente has the initiative against OE especially with Bulgaria out of the war. And while CP have more strategical mobility it cost a lot to operate units from one front to another. Overall combined NM is also weaker for CP and Russia can be a pain for Germany as long as it can maintain a continuous frontline. The possibility to hit CP NM/MPPs with diplomacy is also a great advantage (Holland, Norway, Sweden, USA...).

    Nope. Bulgaria starts to run towards CP as soon as Belgrade is captured by A-H forces (initial turns), furthermore Serbian army is almost always incapable of dealing the similar casualties to A-H troops that attack it (due to superior supply (Belgrade) and better (rofl) leadership once CP player will drop some superior commander for A-H forces there.

    Speaking about minors, both Romania and Portugal need to be pulled in by a diplo-actons while Bulgaria simply moves towards CP (so another effect of A-H invulnerability to Russian offensives beside Lemberg)

    German 45,000 is enough. Seriously, currently I've yet to see a game where A-H suffers from historical troubles (I've to stress this out, current "Let them tire themselves" tactic used for A-H would lead to NM drops in history and other political effects which are nowhere to be seen in game).

    Generally speaking the issues I see right now are following:

    - there's no NM drop for A-H & Germany for A-H being passive in Galicia for a long period of time

    - OE shouldn't been able to research high levels of trench warfare

    - OE NM seems to be too high (it definitely wasn't on the Italy's level during the WW1)

    - Arab revolt is too weak and arab units are incapable of efficiently attacking the turkish cities & Lawrence of Arabia is just a supply quatermaster in this game

    - there's something terribly wrong with ME sucking so much of MPP's from GB and (both Palestine and Iraq) turning into western front with tons of trenches

    and masses of OE troops

    - front at Caucasus tend to be ignored by both sides, unless it favours some at some point (like using OE advantage to suck some MPP's from Russia or otherwise)

    - Gallipoli with all MPP costs of amphibious action and troop transports is pretty much a no-no atm

  6. a) SC GC AoD

    B) I like SC WW1 with the Breakthrough Add-on installed best. Followed by SC GC Gold. With SC WW1 Breakthrough you get not only the brilliant (!) WW1 game, but a WW2, Russian Civil War, Franco-Prussian War game as well. Four wars for the price of one.(...)

    I second this opinion, it's the best WW1 grand strategy cpu game around and with Storm Over Europe add-on, you basically get a SC2.5 included (SC GC isn't as good imo, mainly due to the too small map size (grand offensive is just a few hexes in this or that side...).

    Haven't played Russian Civil War or Franco-Prussian War but they look tasty and with WW1 Vorbeck's Afrika campaign, this game just rocks :)

×
×
  • Create New...