General thoughts on main campaign and Mod ideas

[Altaris]

Playing through my first PBEM campaign at the moment, I am Soviets and got my behind handed to me pretty good in 1941. By December 1941 lines were pretty close to what they historically reached in 1942, except Leningrad and Sevastapol had also fallen.

For the most part I'm loving this game. It's a very close simulation to the Eastern Front, but I do have a few things I've been disappointed with.

1) Tanks (along with bomber de-entrenchment capabilities) are WAAAY too effective vs cities. Historically the Soviets held up pretty good around the areas represented by cities in this game, Smolensk, Kiev, Leningrad, etc. In my game, I had Leningrad fall to two turns of hasty attacks by tanks (preceded by bombardments) with an army in good condition and full entrechment! So much for a siege that historically lasted 2+ years!

2) The way research works, the Russians will always be at a disadvantage, assuming both sides invest in tech. Each of the 5 levels of research progress at 2% per chit, and the Russians start 1 tech level below in both infantry and tanks, the most important. On top of that, the Russians cap at lvl 4 in these, whereas the Germans cap at lvl 5. This means German corps will always be on par with Russian armies, and German tanks will always surpass Russian ones. Makes going on the counter-offensive even late in the war a pretty tall order for the Russians, who historically began grinding the Germans down by mid-1943. Seems off to me.

3) In conjunction with #2, Russians can only field 62 armies vs Germans fielding 50 corps, and Russians 12 tank groups vs German 10 tank groups. So Russians only can muster a slight advantage, but the tech/leadership disadvantage makes it roughly equal. Again, seems off to me.

This got me looking at possible mod solutions to make things a bit more historical. So far, this is what I'm looking at:

1) Adjusted research so that lower levels are easier to reach, and higher ones tougher. Progression goes 5% per chit at lvl 1, 2% per chit at lvls 2 and 3, and 1% per chit at 4 and 5. Russians start at lvl 0, but will catch up over time, in particular getting lvl 1 infantry and lvl 1 tanks by roughly early winter 1941. So early game plays out much the same, but Germans can't just push the Russians around at whim after the first 3 months or so.

2) Cities and forts have tank defense ramped way up to 8, and bumped tank defense up slightly for marshes and forests. Cities now really require flanking from multiple directions and gradual siege mechanics. They can still be taken, just not on a rush/whim as happens in vanilla. Tanks can still be utilized, and have some advantage at breaking entrenchments since they can double-strike, but they'll get beat up a little doing this, which is a cost in of itself. They are better served flanking cities and aiding with a siege that way.

3) Medium bombers no longer have de-entrenchment capabilities until lvl 2 bombers are reached. Tactical bombers still can de-entrench, and are better for actually dealing damage to units. Medium bombers serve more a role of bombing supply, scouting ahead, and demoralizing enemies (with better range) but they won't directly destroy entrenchments.

4) Number of Russian armies increased from 62 to 80, and divisions from 50 to 60. They still take a time and money to field, but gradually the Russians can build the historical Soviet juggernaut. Germans can still make the Russians have a rough go of it with a tactical defense withdrawal, but from 1943 onwards, the Russians should have the ability to grind the Germans down.

I'm playing a test of this in hotseat right now. I'm not saying this is the perfect setup, but I wanted to get an idea of how it would play out. Would be interested in hearing feedback from other PBEM'ers to see if these seem like good changes or too much.

[Big Al]

I designed AoC so I'll answer your questions. A lot of thought went into this expansion. Some ideas I had were ping-ponged back and forth between play testing and what I originally designed. I play tested my self ~20 games with 2 very excellent opponents and 1 close to my skill level. Some of your points I do agree with but practically they are not appropriate to the design system itself.

#1 Tanks - I lowered bomber de-entrenchment a good deal. Only the few TAC units de-entrench like the normal TACs in SC. The level bombers are reduced and I think the STRs have a 0. Tanks need de-entrench. Originally I had them not de-entrenching with the idea of combined arms where a plane would hit, infantry would break the line, and tanks would bust through. While in concept it was a great idea within the game it failed. A little too off the mark of what was expected, it made the game variance higher due to a tank imbalance. The larger it was the more advantageous exponentially.

As for Leningrad, we have hindsight. If the Germans packed enough punch up there they could have done the same. Your opponent probably moved his best planes and a significant portion of his tanks to the area. Think of Kursk 1943 and how both sides massed up units. Look in Wikipedia at the casualty reports. They are huge in comparison to others battles.

#2 & #3 The Russians are always at a disadvantage in technology. They have to be. Otherwise they will roll over the German lines. At the start of Barb 41 the Germans have experience and levels. As time progresses the Soviets start balancing out. in 1943 their production advantage starts becoming quite large. Look at Bagration and you will notice how many more MPPs the Soviets have over the Germans to compensate for their "1 level behind" situation. They also have more tanks and more planes. Any more than what is in the force pool starts throwing off the game too much. The idea of the force pool is that you generally can't attack everywhere at once with all your units. One must pick and choose their battles in 1942. I did this to better simulate the victories of 41, battles of 42, and onslaught of 1943. Also late in the war the Germans need to divert some resources to the Western and Italian Fronts.

As a designer sometimes excellent ideas don't work in a game system. Sometimes they are too complex, overly dependent, or increase the variance skill. So adjustments need to be made. The strategy for AoC isn't easy and there is a learning curve of many levels with complex solutions on dealing with many possible approaches. It also has a dynamic approach to each year's strategy for both sides depending on what is where on the map. After 20 games I wasn't lacking in boredom or new ideas to try, and I designed the game. I am very critical of my own work.

But SC model is flexible. You can go in the editor and adjust whatever you want. Open the scenario you want, do a "save as" and name it something else. Then work in that model to adjust what you like. That's how I got started with Brute Force 1939 and that mod is one of the most popular mods out there.

I am very glad you are enjoying the game. Thanks for the compliments and feedback.

[Battlefield]

2) Cities and forts have tank defense ramped way up to 8, and bumped tank defense up slightly for marshes and forests. Cities now really require flanking from multiple directions and gradual siege mechanics. They can still be taken, just not on a rush/whim as happens in vanilla. Tanks can still be utilized, and have some advantage at breaking entrenchments since they can double-strike, but they'll get beat up a little doing this, which is a cost in of itself. They are better served flanking cities and aiding with a siege that way.

Hi Altaris

In the "Defense Bonus" values, the game currently only considers the attacking unit. The nature of the defending unit (hard/soft) can not be taken into account by variable values ​​or exclusion. By inflating the "Tank Tefense" values ​​therefore also a defensive tank unit would receive a rather unrealistic advantage. Precisely in the for larger tank formations less suitable environments such as cities, swamps or forests.

[Altaris]

So does the Soviet Union get a bunch of extra MPP as the game progresses? That lowers my concerns, as I thought by April 1942 I was getting close to maxxing out and I'm currently running at about 60% the MPP production of Germany. If the Soviet Union gets ramped up heavily in MPP's, then I can understand the limit on army units better.

At the very least, I think cities need to be much safer from tanks. I see Battlefield's point about tanks, but then again, it's perhaps a waste of a tank's other benefits to sit them in a city if the city is just as adequately protecting infantry from tank attacks. This isn't really a major change, in reality it means Leningrad and Sevastapol can hang in there longer (they could still be broken, just not in 2 turns of tank hasty attacks preceded by bombardments).

So far in my head-to-head test (just entering August 1941) it seems pretty historical. Germans still busted through to Smolensk, but at least the Russians can slow them down a few turns, especially at Smolensk itself.

I totally agree tanks need to be able to de-entrench. I used tanks for this purpose against Smolensk, they didn't do much damage, but they helped break the trenches very well, then the infantry surrounded the city and took it down. The city defense won't make a huge impact if the enemy can surround the city, but it makes a huge difference in situations like Leningrad where it's much harder to hit multiple flanks. I think that's a good change. Within these constraints, it would still be possible to take Leningrad with a concentrated assault, but it would be costly and take a few weeks of turns, I believe. That's a more historical result, Germany bypassed it not because it was impossible to take, just too costly (which in hindsight was probably a poor decision). I'm not advocating making it invincible, but it shouldn't be wrecked by two tank hasty attacks with a fully entrenched army in place and a decent leader in charge. Same goes for Sevastapol.

Air power in the mod seems appropriate now too. Tac bombers are still very effective and good for breaking trenches, but limited range keeps them from being uber. Medium bombers are somewhat effective, but only for softening the enemy - their major advantage is the wide range. But they are no longer trench busters, which IMO they shouldn't be.

[Big Al]

This is my opinion and the opinion of someone I know who it extremely well educated and brilliant on military strategy and the 2nd world war. Germany could not have won the war vs Russia as it played in history. At best they could drive for a stalemate exhausting the manpower of the Soviets later in the war.

With that said AoC was designed considering hindsight and a possibility for the Germans to win outright in 1942/43. So skill level can have an effect on a game pretty large. Knowing where to defend, how to defend, where to counter attack, when to counter attack are key. Waiting for Soviet tanks in late 1942, knowing to put them in the rear with good HQs to build up their readiness to engage tired panzers.

I posted a whole strategy guide on how to play AoC. Ask on the forums too. I had a game similar to yours in which in 1942 the Germans made a critical mistake and it cost them the offensive early. They attacked too soon for Baku and I positioned myself near Moscow also. Kind of historical.

My best suggestion is think about how the play went after the game is over, take notes, and discuss it with your opponent. You will find some interesting discussion and should hopefully you will be as eager as I was to start the next game and try the new strategy.

[Altaris]

Good points guys, thanks for the feedback. I agree after playing that this is set up for a more balanced war than historical, I think you are right on the money with what the historical reality was, Big Al. This takes some adjustments to strategy, but probably does make for a more competitive PBEM match. I still like the idea of some slight alterations for a more historical scenario, I think I'll continue working on it, but this sheds some light on effective strategies for the Soviets in 1941/1942.

I think with the vanilla setup, an effective strategy would be to use tanks to protect cities. Battlefield's comments got me thinking about this. Infantry armies just don't have enough protection from tanks to adequately hold cities against concentrated attacks. Tanks on the other hand, might very well, and would be situated in a nice centralized spot for possible counterattacks.

[Altaris]

Just entering August 1941 in my test of this mod, I'm finding it works very well. It's not drastically different than vanilla, but the city defensive bonus vs tanks means Smolensk area held out for about 2 turns longer than normal (rather than tanks being able to smash it to bits with hasty attacks, it had to be surrounded first, then the infantry took it out the next turn). Smolensk fell on the first turn of August, almost dead on with where it fell historically. Perhaps more significantly, AGC's tanks were needed to secure the city, and took 1 or 2 step losses helping to break down the city entrenchments after it was surrounded.

Also, crossing the Dnepr is a bit tougher without medium bombers being able to shred entrenchments. This made for a historical decision after Smolensk to swing the AGC tanks down south to put pressure on the Russians to either evacuate Kiev area or face encirclement. I chose to evacuate them, but I do think there's some viability to letting them get encircled to tie down the Germans a few turns til reinforcements roll off the production line.

Up north, AGN reached the outskirts of Leningrad, but the tanks can't just blast holes through the Russian lines once they reach the swamps. This makes for a far more historical approach to Leningrad, IMO. I can move my Tac Bombers and artillery up that way and force a siege of the city, and I might be able to take in 1941 too, but it's a major commitment to do so, not a whim choice to simply send in tanks on hasty attacks.

Research wise, the Russians are still lvl 0 infantry tech, but they will probably reach lvl 1 around mid October (currently at 65ish%). This will allow for a stiffening of resistance as late October, early November sets in. Germans will hit lvl 2 infantry and tank tech sometime in the winter or early Spring 1942, giving them a 30-40 turn or so range in 1942 where they can once more have an advantage similar to that in the 1942 drive.

Haven't watched my last PBEM turn in vanilla, but evidently my opponent took Stalingrad in 1 turn, where I had an infantry unit at full strength, upgraded, good readiness/morale, and full entrenchment. Faced off against him was one mechanized infantry that could do a ready attack, at lvl 8 strength. So I'm assuming it got hasty attacked by tanks again after artillery bombardments and massive air bombardment. Sorry, but the idea of a big city like Stalingrad falling in 3 days while heavily defended is just off. If it can be flanked and surrounded, I could see that being the case, but it wasn't here. I would never advocate cities being invincible, but good grief, they should be capable of holding out for at least a few turns under reasonable circumstances!

I'm waiting to see how the mod works as the game progresses, but I think these are very reasonable and solid changes from what I'm seeing so far. Yes, it will probably make it very difficult for the Germans to take Moscow, Stalingrad, etc, but that should be the case, IMO. Also, these are benefits the Germans can take advantage of too on the defensive. So when the Russians begin driving back westward, the Germans can make good use of these benefits at historical key areas.

Overall, vanilla is a very good scenario, but the city situation in particular just feels way off from historical plausibility. Watching very potent defensive positions like Leningrad, Sevastapol, and Stalingrad fall while heavily defended, without even putting a dent in the German war machine, has just left me a little annoyed, I guess.

[Altaris]

Actually, after reviewing the last PBEM turn, I was wrong about what was adjacent to Stalingrad. There actually were 2 tanks and 1 mech already adjacent... not that it mattered one iota, as after the bomber attacks, the mech alone destroyed the city army garrison, the tanks then could carry on the endless wave of destruction.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is a feasible defense for the Russians in vanilla? Even level 6 entrenchments are completely pointless when they can be taken out by 4 medium bombers and 2 tacs in one turn (and even less if artillery is present). Not to mention readiness and morale are ruined after such an attack. I think putting a tank corps there has some merit, but even that is only going to be slightly effective for a turn or two extra. This is where I find the inability of the Russians to mount any kind of counter-attack on equal terms particularly frustrating. If I'm reduced to trying to defend only as best I can, but that's not a viable option either, then there's little that can be done except wait for the inevitable.

I would point out my opponent is a very capable veteran of SC2, which makes a big difference. He keeps his units up to full strength, under good leaders, so they have excellent readiness. Thing is, I understand those mechanics as well. The only thing I could've done better (and this is hindsight learning the scenario) is to delay further back to the west. But I still don't see this being a long-term solution, it would've just been 1943 when I was faced with destruction after being grinded down for two years. If he had stuck his tanks out ahead more, I probably could've attritioned him down, but he's too smart to do that. He'll send in his infantry to the front lines, let them grind down my defenses entrenchments and such, then move the tanks in the next round when I am no longer able to mount any kind of counter. Then it's a rinse/repeat all the way to Moscow, evidently.

[Battlefield]

Hi Altaris

Well, so does the game. And on the Global or European level does it all even excellent. The BtB campaign goes to the limit of what is feasible with the existing game mechanics. It's fun, for sure. But by the absence of other allied countries and the rather larger map scale, the scenario goes in the border region between an operational and a more tactically oriented gameplay. If you then judged the scenario very strictly, the lack of bridges, land mines, suburbs, realistic calculated warfare in urban environments (attacker and defender) and similar trifles could be critical remarks. But these are all things that are (almost) insignificant for a game in a rather more global scale. It would also be quite frustrating for a player of the German side, if he had to fight a siege battle for the cities Brussels, Paris, Belgrade and Athens deep in the summer of 1942, because the Allied player perfectly uses his resources and has skillfully dug in there. It applies here as in all other strategy games: Realism and gameplay have to find their balance...

[Altaris]

I agree that for a game on the scale of, say, Assault on Democracy different rules should apply. But AoC is very much built around tactics, and for the most part it does this well.

To clarify, I'm not advocating making cities impregnable fortresses. What I'm finding with my mod is that cities fall pretty quickly once flanked and surrounded, especially when subjected to heavy artillery and air bombardment. But they typically won't crack under direct frontal assaults, which they shouldn't when the defender is well dug in and prepared.

I just reached October 17, 1941 in my hotseat test of my mod. Germans are reaching very close to historical lines, and I've been impressed with the closeness to dates I'm getting. For example, I'm just about to surround Kharkov, which historically fell on Oct. 23, probably right in line with what I'm going to see. Kursk should fall too, but I think that's as far east as the Germans are getting in 1941.

Leningrad played out well, I thought. Germans reached it by early September, and I put 2 Tac's, 4 Medium Bombers, and 1 artillery in the vicinity to try and crack the city. It took a few turns (about 10 days of game time), but I finally managed to get 3 adjacent squares to Leningrad under control and isolate the city from the mainland. The next two turns, I was able to whittle the Russians down and take the southern part of the city. As of mid-October, the Russians still hold the northern part of the city, and poor weather is hampering my efforts. I think winter could be interesting, as the Russians might have good reason to try and relieve the city (though their tanks will also suffer from trying to crack through swampy terrain - it is a dual-edged defensive sword).

My end analysis is that even with tac's and artillery, entrenchment levels can be brought down quite well, and the medium bombers then serve an important role of demoralizing and de-readying the defender. But it was a big commitment, and probably kept me from getting further in the Ukraine or near Moscow (I still came very close to historical lines though).

That's what I'm advocating, and liking about the setup so far. It makes for hard choices on the German part, not just randomly steering an endless wave of destruction on three broad fronts forever.

MPP-wise, things look well, very close to even right now. The Russians will build up some more as Ural factories relocate. Russians also have hit lvl 1 infantry tech, and I'm upgrading them as quickly as I can along the front. The tech bump seemed to come at a good time, right about October 10th 1941. That's usually when things start to be rather desperate for the Russian anyway.

[Rosseau]

When you are satisfied, an update on everything you changed would be great.

[Altaris]

Currently, I am playing with the following changes. Nothing too drastic, and seems to be working well thus far:

1) City and capitals now have a +8 tank defense bonus. Tanks won't do much damage to cities unless the defenders are already in bad shape. But they can still use their double-strike to reduce trenches by 2 on the city, which is sometimes worth it.

2) Swamps now have a +6 tank defense bonus. In my mind, tanks should be next to useless in swampy terrain, this seems to do the trick.

3) Divisions can no longer de-entrench (but corps can). This is to avoid semi-gamey tactics of using divisions to lower trench levels for a really cheap cost.

4) Medium bombers no longer lower trenches until Ground Air Attack is teched up to level 2. They are still pretty handy for lowering readiness and morale, but they need to be massed to really be effective.

5) Tech levels increase faster at lower levels. Level 0 -> Level 1 progresses at 5% per chit per turn, 1->2 and 2->3 at 2% per turn, and 3->4 and 4->5 at 1% per turn. So Russians get lvl 1 infantry and tanks a bit earlier (usually sometime around October 1941), then Germans will get lvl 2 tanks and infantry around springtime 1942, which I'm thinking will work well for a 1942 resurgence.

That's it. They aren't drastic changes, and the Germans still are quite potent. But the Russians aren't as toothless as I've found them to be in vanilla once they get past those initial 3-4 rough months. I really want to see a campaign that plays like the Eastern Front really did, a bloody slug-fest from mid-1942 onwards. For that to occur, defensive positions have to be at least somewhat adequate to allow for both sides to have counter-attacking potentials.

[Altaris]

Reached March 1942, and found some issues with this setup and the winter 1941 events. Russians were able to completely break open the German front in the center, mostly due to the heavy morale losses the Germans pick up via the winter events.

Up to December 1941, the mod played very well along roughly historical lines. I really liked how Leningrad was playing out. The Germans took half the city, but couldn't root out the defenders in the northern part of the city. That was largely due to my decisions to take the tanks away from the fight after I took the southern half of the city, I think had I kept them there I could've cracked the rest of the city eventually. It also was likely to fall in 1942 if I concentrated artillery and tac's up that way, but Leningrad wasn't going to crack without concentrating a lot of firepower in the vicinity. Sevastopol in the south was a similar situation, though I think that one would be easier once the fortress was surrounded.

End lines as of 1941 were practically identical to historical end lines. Never took Rostov, but then again, the Germans couldn't hold it in 1941 either. MPP's for each side were very close by end of 1941, about 420 a turn for Germany vs 380 for Russia, but Russian factories in the Urals were starting to equal out the difference.

So going to restart with some additional changes to help balance out winter in this scenario. I've changed the winter events to only do strength damage, so that German morale doesn't get shredded. HQ's losing strength will reduce supply for the Germans anyway, and the strength losses will also take a bit of a toll on readiness and morale. This setup leaves the Germans with an interesting choice in early winter. If they pull back to city vicinities, they can greatly reduce their winter woes due to HQ hits affecting supply. But doing so can mean letting go of some prime defensive positions around the Moscow area.

My end goal is to create a situation where Russians can launch an effective but limited offensive in winter by concentrating their new tanks and prime infantry. But I want to ensure they don't breach too far and take some damage in the process.

I'm also slightly increasing research gain per turn for lvl 1->2 tech, moving it from 2% per chit per turn to 3%. As of March 1942, the Germans were still only around 60% the way to lvl 2 infantry and tanks, I want them to hit this by spring 1942 for launching a spring 1942 offensive with a slight advantage.