SOE - Return of the Newbies, post-game thread!

[AshesFall]

That was certainly an odd game!

We've covered a lot of points elsewhere, about sea-lion (and why it's probably mostly useless) and the USSR. There is another post up about research and the US, who did feel very odd to me when considering their historical situation.

I think we both made a lot of mistakes, chief of them being the invasion of England and the effects that had on the timeline.

As for the purely tactical aspect, I think both of us probably need to use both Garrisons and corps more for covering our rear and holding important resource points (paris, nancy, brest litovsk). Both of us probably need to get better at shielding our HQ's and keeping them away from combat.

I tried to find ways to lower german readiness, hitting their minors, cutting supply and killing their HQ's seemed to be effective.

Big props to my opponent Will for what has to be the best executed offensive of the game (the central front offensive in 42 that shattered it, only the arrival of the siberian troops saved me). Very nicely done!

[Will95]

For my side of things, I know I made some categorical mistakes;

- Committed way too much to Sealion. I should've conserved a little more so Barbarossa wasn't quite so delayed.

- Basically forgot about North Africa where I should've been using more Italians.

- Didn't really use the Axis minors to good effect

All that said though, I felt extremely overwhelmed shortly after Barbarossa. The Russian army is just...huge. Taking into account that Germany basically needs to single-handedly (because lets face it, Italian troops past 1942 seem to be expensive doorstops ) attack Russia while defending western Europe, I just didn't have enough troops. I mean, even if I had used absolutely everything against Russia and just gambled against an invasion of europe by Brits/US (and that would've only meant another couple of corps and some garrisons), I still wouldn't have been able to crack the force I found myself up against.

Once the US start landing, then it all goes downhill. I have this feeling that by the time the US invade, I ought to have had about twice the army size than I really did, but besides the waste of 500MPPs in Russian-focused diplomacy, I don't know how I could've accomplished that- but I'm sure some of you fine folks will be able to tell me!

Thanks for any and all feedback guys, we're having a blast with the game so far and learning more about it just makes it even better.

[Strategiclayabout]

As usual only my opinion, keep that in mind while reading :

Sealion:

- Yeah, too much too late, especially given the costs to operate/amphib/transport. The usual window to avoid a failed Barbarossa is june/october 40 but benefits arn't that great unless you have a clear MED strategy.

- You still get:

* easier diplo with Spain and Turkey (though Turkey will take more time as it begins fully neutral)

* no base for allied intensive bombing against german industry

* delayed/more difficult Overlord

* more MPPs

* better protection for Norway convoys

* more bases for subs and less allied help to USSR

* the chance to invade Ireland

Minors:

- Delaying Barbarossa led to the loss of all balkanic minors and since Axis never came close to Leningrad, Finns never bothered to join either, that is a lot of units and MPPs thrown by the window (thousands of MPPs ), Germany can't afford to lose all those free units, with Italians that's nearly half of all Axis forces in 1941-42.

- I also wonder why Axis didn't "finish the job" at some point: if Hitler goes heavy in the West, better do it all the way and seize Portugal, Vichy & co to get plunder/MPPs and put modern units to defend critical tiles. It will anger USA but with a good timing (late 41) it doesn't speed up their entry that much.

- You noticed Italy was very passive in North Africa. Depending on german strategy, Benito has several choices to make: numbers for rear duty behind Germans or quality to fight on par with Allies. And you'll have to chose between land, air and naval forces for tech and production.

- When declaring on a minor, roll over it ! Bring a small but strong balanced force (air/tank/infantry/HQ) and don't waste time (think Greece, here), go for the capital. You don't know how soon you'll need those troops and you don't want them away from good supply and railroads too long.

USA:

- They're very strong. Once they land, especially with the help of "warping arrows", Axis has only 2-3 turns to deal with beachheads before they grow enough to get good supply. The main catch is that you have to time it with some kind of soviet pressure in the East to keep panzers and stukas busy. Fake landings or multiple ones can be a lot of help to confuse Hitler.

- Except for Overlord, allied landings will usually lack heavy air support early so Axis has a chance to defend with a strong mobile reserve. Give ground in USSR if needed to free up units, that's also why you need a proper Barbarossa: to have strategic depth when USA comes in.

HQs:

- They have a nice attachment range so I tend to keep the better ones in the back and push the worst ones forward where I need supply.

Middle-East:

- When UK move capital to Egypt, it makes all ressources around more valuable and there are a lot. The capital is more vulnerable than in Canada but as Cairo is a victory objective, it gives better chances to defend it with better supply and a protected sealane with USA (Suez/Red Sea).

- With a rail connection to the capital all ressources will have 3 more supply points when conquered (= +9MPPs per oil well, +6MPPs per capital, +3MPPs per city, I let you do the math).

- Those ressources are poorly defended and Turkey is shielding Allies from a direct attack though it will be angered a bit by agressive moves in the area.

- Allies could even have taken Turkey without much trouble with Soviets roaming free in Romania/Bulgaria. On the other side, invading Turkey/ME can also be great for Axis. Sealion can help to get Turkey with diplo but it will take time anyway.

Force pools:

- You saw it, at some point, you need all those small units to guard your conquests, they won't stop Allies but they will delay them and avoid some bad surprises.

- Axis can't be like USSR or USA and need to concentrate forces on the decisive point, the shift towards Ukraine when the north and center were crumbling put Barbarossa out of focus for no strategic gain was a great, fun but dangerous move.

- Closing the MED can help a lot by reducing the spots to defend against USA landings, allowing more strategic flexibility and stronger Axis reserves.

USSR:

- Every allied player has this "demoralization" time in 41-42 when experienced/teched Axis units just roll over everything but using space, weather and cheap units usually allow to gain enough time to survive. Here, conditions were great for Blitzkrieg with unentrenched enemy without AA tech and in lower supply. Without AA tech, better wait for bad weather or use terrain bonuses to attack with tanks.

- Here USSR had a lot of time to prepare and more MPPs thanks to many turns with high mobilization. USSR industry base is huge so the longer they are low on MPPs the better.

- It's more interesting to invest diplo chits in USSR for Allies than Axis, it's costly but it can disrupt Hitler's plans or force him to waste MPPs on his own diplo chits.

Hope you found it interesting, I probably forgot some things so feel free to point them out .

[Bill101]

Hi

Details of the new research system, that WWI has used since version 1.02 (and which is also used for Breakthrough) can be found here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=266&Itemid=475

You will need to scroll down a bit, or just search the page for the phrase: New Research system

A new patch for WWI Breakthrough, including some changes to 1939 Storm over Europe is planned, so I will be following these threads and AARs for both ideas and entertainment. Glad to see you've got a new one starting up!

[AshesFall]

Hi

Details of the new research system, that WWI has used since version 1.02 (and which is also used for Breakthrough) can be found here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=266&Itemid=475

You will need to scroll down a bit, or just search the page for the phrase: New Research system

A new patch for WWI Breakthrough, including some changes to 1939 Storm over Europe is planned, so I will be following these threads and AARs for both ideas and entertainment. Glad to see you've got a new one starting up!

Glad to have you following Bill, and thank you to you both for the links and the advice.

However, that link doesnt really explain how the intelligence tech interacts with the "new" system of progression, could someone please explain how research works exactly, and in relation to the intelligence tech? with "exactly" I mean, how much chance of a breakthrough at the different stages below 100%? How many % does each chit give? And so on.

With the new system, I am of the firm belief that US research maximum needs to be capped much lower, and possibly US production lowered until a while after they enter the war (the "the us ramps up production" event could be a multistage event over the first six months to a year, ramping up production slowly from a fairly low level).

[Will95]

Thanks Strategic, your advice is always highly useful, although I now fear that our current campaign will be even bloodier than the last because of it...

[Bill101]

Hi

In 1939 Storm over Europe, the % progress per chit per turn is as follows:

To attain:

Level 1 = 5%

Level 2 = 4%

Level 3 = 3%

Level 4 = 2%

Level 5 = 1%

In 1914 Call to Arms the % progress per chit is higher by 1 at all levels.

Each level of Intelligence research attained, may provide a 1% boost to your research, and the following section from the WWI Manual provides some guidance on the effect of comparative progress between yourself and the enemy, and the potential for Intelligence research itself to impact this:

The research formula also has an adjustment that takes into account real life situations that occur in every war, such as captured enemy equipment and spying and espionage.

For instance, if an opponent has achieved a higher level in a particular category, there will be a bonus applied to your chance calculation each turn.

However, the normal research chance can only be increased if a level of difference exists; it can never be reduced.

This bonus could be further modified by friendly and/or enemy Intelligence research advances. The following represents the modified research formula, using the enemy research bonus and intelligence modifier:

(% + highest enemy level - current level +/- intelligence modifiers) * applicable points in category

Example: If there is one chit in Aerial Warfare at Level 1 (where the normalized research formula means you have a 4% base chance to achieve Level 2) and the enemy currently has Level 3, then the result would be: (4% + 3% - 1%) * 1 chit = 6% chance of success per turn. Note that this assumes no intelligence modifiers for either side.

I hope this helps?

Bill

[AshesFall]

Hello Bill!

Thank you, somewhat! Just to get this straight in my head, let's use a practical example.

Germany currently has Infantry tech lvl 1, intelligence lvl 1, and one chit in infantry warfare.

Of the allies, the Soviets have 1 chit in infantry warfare, with a current lvl of 0, and an intelligence tech lvl of 1.

The US, on the other hand, has Infantry warfare tech lvl 1 and intelligence tech lvl 3.

Germany would gain; 5% +/- 0% (highest enemy level) -1% (current level) - 3% (US intelligence lvl) +1% (Own intelligence lvl) = 2% Gain per turn.

Soviet would gain; 5% +1% +/- 0% -1% +1% = 6% Gain per turn

Assuming that both sides dont get "breakthrough" and starting from 0%, Germany would need 50 turns to advance to lvl 2, while the soviets need 17 or so turns to get to lvl 1, and 20 turns to get to lvl 2.

Is this correct as a "per turn" gain?

Follow up question; How large is the chance of a "breakthrough" (immediate advance) once you reach 25%? Is it the same throughout? Does it go up as the % increases? Is this "breakthrough" chance affected by intelligence tech?

Second Follow up question; Is there a minimum? I.e. you always get at least 1% advance regardless of enemy tech? Ponder for example a US int tech of 5 in the example above.

[Bill101]

Hi Ashes Fall

I had to do some investigating and run a quick test to fully answer this, but I now have a definitive answer that should clarify your questions.

Firstly, here is a more in depth description of the research system, followed by answers to your questions:

The Research System

A) Progression tracking that will go from 0-100% and once you reach 100% you have achieved your breakthrough.

The increment per turn will be a random number based on the % chance you have each turn relative to the number of chits invested.

For example, if you have 1 chit at 5% each then you have a 2.5 -> 7.5% increment towards 100% per turn.

If you have 2 chits for a total of 10% then you have a 5 -> 15% increment towards 100% per turn.

Once your research has progressed to the 30% threshold, there is a chance per turn of achieving a research breakthrough and attaining the next level.

For example: once you have reached 30% progression, 1 chit @ 5% gives you a 5% chance every turn that you might get a hit and achieve a research breakthrough, i.e. attain the next level.

This way, you may not have to wait until research has progressed all the way to 100%, but you do have to wait a few turns at least for it to reach 30%.

* * *

Research will advance a level for whichever is achieved first, either A) reaches 100% or there is an early breakthrough once A is above 30%.

To view the current research progression a tool tip in the RESEARCH dialog will show your advancement % when hovering with the mouse above an invested research item.

Each new level of Intelligence research increases your own research bonus by 1% and decreases your opponent's bonus by 1%. If the enemy's intelligence level is higher than yours, then it will just negate your own intelligence.

Hello Bill!

Thank you, somewhat! Just to get this straight in my head, let's use a practical example.

Germany currently has Infantry tech lvl 1, intelligence lvl 1, and one chit in infantry warfare.

Of the allies, the Soviets have 1 chit in infantry warfare, with a current lvl of 0, and an intelligence tech lvl of 1.

The US, on the other hand, has Infantry warfare tech lvl 1 and intelligence tech lvl 3.

Germany would gain; 5% +/- 0% (highest enemy level) -1% (current level) - 3% (US intelligence lvl) +1% (Own intelligence lvl) = 2% Gain per turn.

Soviet would gain; 5% +1% +/- 0% -1% +1% = 6% Gain per turn

Assuming that both sides dont get "breakthrough" and starting from 0%, Germany would need 50 turns to advance to lvl 2, while the soviets need 17 or so turns to get to lvl 1, and 20 turns to get to lvl 2.

Is this correct as a "per turn" gain?

The German gain per turn could be between 2-4%, while the Soviets could gain 4-8% per turn.

Follow up question; How large is the chance of a "breakthrough" (immediate advance) once you reach 25%? Is it the same throughout? Does it go up as the % increases? Is this "breakthrough" chance affected by intelligence tech?

The threshold is 30%, and the chance of a breakthrough is based on the number of chits invested multiplied by the % chance of progressing per turn.

For example, once the 30% threshold has been crossed, 1 chit invested in the German example would have a 2-6% chance of a research breakthrough per turn.

Second Follow up question; Is there a minimum? I.e. you always get at least 1% advance regardless of enemy tech? Ponder for example a US int tech of 5 in the example above.

Intelligence levels only compete with each other, so if the enemy have higher intelligence than you, the only net effect will be to negate the benefit you'll get from your own intelligence level. It won't prevent or slow the base research % chance per turn.

I hope this all makes sense? If so then I'll add it to the Information for New Players' Thread.

Bill

[AshesFall]

Allright. So, intelligence levels can only ever reduce the "extra" progression you yourself would get from your own intelligence. Does it also reduce gain from the enemy having higher tech than you? That would seem logical ...

Given that the above is true, the germans in my example would have 5% (base) +/-0 (highest enemy level) -1% (current level) +/-0% (own intelligence level negated by enemy intelligence level, but no more) = 4% gain, in effect, a 2-6% progression each turn. I clarify, because in your answer to the total research chance in the german example you wrote 2-4%, which doesnt quite seem right with the description of intelligence. Just looking to be sure, this is pretty confusing stuff!

Also with each turn that the progression is above 30%, a 4% chance of breakthrough each turn (If I understand correctly, there is no "variance" in the breakthrough chance, no 2-6. It's a bit different under point B than under the followup question answer in your post. ).

Thanks a lot for helping out with this Bill, it's super appreciated!

[Bill101]

Allright. So, intelligence levels can only ever reduce the "extra" progression you yourself would get from your own intelligence. Does it also reduce gain from the enemy having higher tech than you? That would seem logical ...

Given that the above is true, the germans in my example would have 5% (base) +/-0 (highest enemy level) -1% (current level) +/-0% (own intelligence level negated by enemy intelligence level, but no more) = 4% gain, in effect, a 2-6% progression each turn. I clarify, because in your answer to the total research chance in the german example you wrote 2-4%, which doesnt quite seem right with the description of intelligence. Just looking to be sure, this is pretty confusing stuff!

You're quite right, so I've corrected my post above.

Also with each turn that the progression is above 30%, a 4% chance of breakthrough each turn (If I understand correctly, there is no "variance" in the breakthrough chance, no 2-6. It's a bit different under point B than under the followup question answer in your post. ).

I will have to check on this and report back!

Thanks a lot for helping out with this Bill, it's super appreciated!

Glad to be of assistance!

[AshesFall]

You're quite right, so I've corrected my post above.

I will have to check on this and report back!

Glad to be of assistance!

Great!

Also, it wasnt entirely clear; Did intelligence also affect possible "gain" from your opponent having better tech? If so, does it;

A) Negate both your own intelligence AND the bonus from tech difference separately (I.e. if you have 1 inf warfare and 2 intelligence tech and your opponent has 2 inf warfare and 2 intelligence tech, it first negates your own intelligence bonus to 0, and then -also- negates the tech disparity bonus from 1 % to 0%)

or

Negate all of these bonuses as a combined number. In this example, you would gain 2% From your int, and 1 % from disparity, but the enemy int tech reduces these total 3% of bonuses by 2% to just the 1%.

Another thing that's a bit muddy (or maybe I'm just being a bit confused) is whether intelligence tech affects the "breakthrough" chance, whether it is a flat or variable rate. I.e. would an opponents higher int tech reduce my chance of getting a breakthrough once I hit 30%?

I think those are the very last things I need clarified with this

Again, thanks a lot Bill!

[Hubert Cater]

Allright. So, intelligence levels can only ever reduce the "extra" progression you yourself would get from your own intelligence. Does it also reduce gain from the enemy having higher tech than you? That would seem logical ...

Given that the above is true, the germans in my example would have 5% (base) +/-0 (highest enemy level) -1% (current level) +/-0% (own intelligence level negated by enemy intelligence level, but no more) = 4% gain, in effect, a 2-6% progression each turn. I clarify, because in your answer to the total research chance in the german example you wrote 2-4%, which doesnt quite seem right with the description of intelligence. Just looking to be sure, this is pretty confusing stuff!

Also with each turn that the progression is above 30%, a 4% chance of breakthrough each turn (If I understand correctly, there is no "variance" in the breakthrough chance, no 2-6. It's a bit different under point B than under the followup question answer in your post. ).

Thanks a lot for helping out with this Bill, it's super appreciated!

Hi AshesFall,

I've been double checking this on my end in the code and your assessment here is correct

Hubert

[Hubert Cater]

Great!

Also, it wasnt entirely clear; Did intelligence also affect possible "gain" from your opponent having better tech? If so, does it;

A) Negate both your own intelligence AND the bonus from tech difference separately (I.e. if you have 1 inf warfare and 2 intelligence tech and your opponent has 2 inf warfare and 2 intelligence tech, it first negates your own intelligence bonus to 0, and then -also- negates the tech disparity bonus from 1 % to 0%)

or

Negate all of these bonuses as a combined number. In this example, you would gain 2% From your int, and 1 % from disparity, but the enemy int tech reduces these total 3% of bonuses by 2% to just the 1%.

Another thing that's a bit muddy (or maybe I'm just being a bit confused) is whether intelligence tech affects the "breakthrough" chance, whether it is a flat or variable rate. I.e. would an opponents higher int tech reduce my chance of getting a breakthrough once I hit 30%?

I think those are the very last things I need clarified with this

Again, thanks a lot Bill!

It would be A) but only negating your own intelligence... the other 'tech difference' is applied separately and would still apply.

[AshesFall]

Allright! So the only effect it has is reducing enemy bonus or giving you a bonus if you have a higher int than any opposing nation, not anything else. It doesnt (just to make it absolutely clear, I didnt see the answer to this in your posts Hubert, or Bills) affect the chance of a breakthrough after 30% at all, either positively or negatively?

[Hubert Cater]

Actually it can affect the chance of a breakthrough after 30%.

To re-clarify, the system works with A) and as Bill described in an earlier post.

Think of the value X as representing a factor in A) and in .

For example the value X is calculated as follows:

1 chits at 5% progression will give you a value of 5%.

Then if you are at Level-1 and your opponent is at Level-3 then you get a 3-1= 2% bonus applied so now you are at 7%. If you are at Intelligence Level-1 you get another 1% bonus so now you are at 8%.

This is the X value 8% that applies in A), so now the progression towards 100% will be 4-12% for that particular turn.

However in , once you are above the 30% threshold, you also have an 8% chance per turn of achieving an early breakthrough.

Hopefully this makes sense!

Hubert

[AshesFall]

Yep, now it makes sense. Thanks a lot Hubert!

To wit, intelligence is a race. Whoever has the most intelligence gains increased progression, and an increased chance of breakthroughs.

To return to a previous thought; The "US intelligence strat" essentially focuses on researching int tech at three chits throughout the game until you get lvl 5. Germany can never focus on int in this way, and will therefore never benefit from an int tech bonus. However, germany must still research it, because if the UK, and more importantly the Soviets, were to gain a higher intelligence than germany, they will soon overtake them in the research war. The strat then forces germany to remain at a relatively low tech level (having trouble getting breakthroughs and progression at the higher levels of tech) while still forcing it to burn MPP's to prevent USSR from overtaking it too quickly. It's a nasty gambit, and I am as of yet unsure of whether it might be a little too good