bagration

[flakfernrohr]

I played Bagration for about six hours last night. I have to say that it does not look promising to be able to win much less come out of this with any units for other later campaigns.

Looks like the German armor fires HE shells instead of AP a number of times since they don't inflict casualties on the Soviets quite often. Infantry gets blown out of dug in emplacements in the cities as easily as butter spreads on bread. Of course the Soviets inflict even more damage than can be imagined in one on one scenarios too. I have never seen infantry destroy Tiger II's that number 5 or more and the infantry is only 10. Not only do the Soviets have a huge advantage with numbers of tanks and heavy equipment, the Germans never get a chance to replenish supplies or replacements. They are too busy fighting. It is just way too lopsided.

Even though I was demolishing lots of Russian units and several surrendered, I never got any points for it. That was weird. I began with too little infantry and too much inexperienced armor although I was allowed to upgrade for better equipment. It didn't do much good in the long run, I may as well have been using Czech tanks. My FW190's did not have much effect at times and seemed to get wiped out easily one on one. Soviet fighters with machine guns destroyed German Tigers and Panthers?

In the other PZ General game in the same campaign I had a significant number of other good infantry and armor units to do the battle with. And I came out of the battle with enough units intact to continue on later campaigns. I don't see this happening in this game.

I know fully well that Army Group Centre was vaporized and utterly destroyed by Operation Bagration in real life, but this IS a game after all. I enjoy a fierce fight and being an underdog and to have a real challenge. It doesn't look like a challenge, it looks like a no win situation even in desperation. So if it's a game based on true historical odds and variables, it's really not much of a "game" because it's too unbalanced in one direction. At least it seems like it now, maybe I will have an epiphany and things will change.

[willgamer]

Perhaps a poll is needed, but for just me, once you've been booted off the mainline track to ultimate victory and playing on to scenarios that crushingly demonstrate your demonstrated lack of skills is a little depressing.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think you are onto something heare regarding not only Bagratian , but likly many late war scenarios

It not so much that the Soviets have piles of IS2's etc

To be blunt, infantry appears to be useless late game
Its not even a matter of hard attack defence values of one compared to the other, i think there are other things in play

in general:
* entrenchemnt really doesnt seem to be as signicant as one would expect
*close terrain does not hinder tanks very much
* the trigger to get a rugged defence seems very, very small % wise To be honest i think the largest chance for a RD (using the L key ) i have seen in game to date was like 12% That seems very small

Correct me if im wrong but memories of the original PG (plus I fired up PG forever last nite to compare) recall that any infantry with 4-5 levels of entrenchemnt could not be assaulted by any unit without triggering a rugged defence and would uusually result in the attacker wiped out ( the "attack broken up" message), meaning every sp was destroyed/suppressed w/o fireing a shot) To have a chance you need to use artillery/air to knock down that entrenchment before assaulting and even then it could be costly

* I mentioned this in another post , but why do intantry (attacker and defender) use their very low close defence values when fighting in close terrain? All it means is Infantry v infantry combat in cities will go that much faster(as both will take higher casualties) than in the open, which is the antithesis of the vast #s of men and TIME clearing a city could be/take....


Now Bagration specifically
Deploying 5 star infantry units at the front in cities behind rivers with all the mal effect on armour should have.(which I tried) You would expect those attacking IS2's to eventually overrun the infantry yet , it only take 2 shots to obliterate the defender , and that is when they are swiimking across a river, worse they suffered little or no dmages

Part of the problem is the AI moves ist and no matter where you deply, you get a 0 entrenchment level.

Anyways, the tempo of the game seems very very much faster , which many might like, but IMHO, it takes away the need for combined arms aproach late war.

i dont expect this to offically be changed, however maybe down the road open up the data files that control when rugged defence is triggered/the effects , as well as the effects for entrenchemnt?

[flakfernrohr]

I concur with willgamer and TheGrayMouser. Entrenched infantry was a key element in the old PZG. I wish it was so in this game. And maybe, just maybe the German gunners could get it straight between HE and AP rounds.

[Douaumont]

Glad to see I am not alone. It is truly the Destruction of Army Group Center! I'm going to start a new campaign since it appears the only way to win is to not have to fight this thing at all.

[Douaumont]

Is it just me or does the AI's entrenched infantry give me a lot more headaches than my infantry causes him? The AI force is overwhelmingly armor and it just blasts through my infantry in cities with little to no help from his own infantry.

[edahl1980]

Any ideas how to survive this? By turn 3 1/3 of my force is destroyed & I surrender. IS2 & T34/85 are just tearing up my Panthers & Tigers. I see no reason to play the game any further if this is how the last scenarios go. Too depressing to watch all your experience units wrecked.

War is hell and depressing.
From 1944 to the wars end the Soviets tore up the Germans.
Your experienced units are supposed to get wrecked, and you lose the war.
At the wars end it is you and a few other veterans who go to reunions and talk about all those wrecked experienced units that didnt survive.

My first game turned from good to hell around Moscow'41, lost it narrowly. And 2 experienced units i had since Poland got nailed.
I did not win at Stalingrad either. By Bagration it was a one way ticket to Berlin and i was just trying hard and failing....

Oh, i play on the hardest difficulty.
I'm gonna start another game tommorow, the first game was a good learning process. I think i will strike back in my next game and win the whole thing.

[edahl1980]

After reading many posts i wonder?
Does no one use Jagdpanthers? They are fast and powerfull.
Everyone complain about IS2 being so powerfull. My JagdPanthers smash the IS2 with few problems.
And they are cheaper than King Tigers....


*edit* i play campaign.

[edahl1980]

I think you are onto something heare regarding not only Bagratian , but likly many late war scenarios

It not so much that the Soviets have piles of IS2's etc

To be blunt, infantry appears to be useless late game
Its not even a matter of hard attack defence values of one compared to the other, i think there are other things in play

in general:
* entrenchemnt really doesnt seem to be as signicant as one would expect
*close terrain does not hinder tanks very much
* the trigger to get a rugged defence seems very, very small % wise To be honest i think the largest chance for a RD (using the L key ) i have seen in game to date was like 12% That seems very small

Correct me if im wrong but memories of the original PG (plus I fired up PG forever last nite to compare) recall that any infantry with 4-5 levels of entrenchemnt could not be assaulted by any unit without triggering a rugged defence and would uusually result in the attacker wiped out ( the "attack broken up" message), meaning every sp was destroyed/suppressed w/o fireing a shot) To have a chance you need to use artillery/air to knock down that entrenchment before assaulting and even then it could be costly

* I mentioned this in another post , but why do intantry (attacker and defender) use their very low close defence values when fighting in close terrain? All it means is Infantry v infantry combat in cities will go that much faster(as both will take higher casualties) than in the open, which is the antithesis of the vast #s of men and TIME clearing a city could be/take....


Now Bagration specifically
Deploying 5 star infantry units at the front in cities behind rivers with all the mal effect on armour should have.(which I tried) You would expect those attacking IS2's to eventually overrun the infantry yet , it only take 2 shots to obliterate the defender , and that is when they are swiimking across a river, worse they suffered little or no dmages

Part of the problem is the AI moves ist and no matter where you deply, you get a 0 entrenchment level.

Anyways, the tempo of the game seems very very much faster , which many might like, but IMHO, it takes away the need for combined arms aproach late war.

i dont expect this to offically be changed, however maybe down the road open up the data files that control when rugged defence is triggered/the effects , as well as the effects for entrenchemnt?

I dont agree.
Infantry places in cities defending with artillery backing them up is quite good. If you place an AA gun behind the artillery its even better.
Actually, you are wrong. In PG. Infantry with 5 entrenchment could be attacked by pioneers and engineers and you rugged defense would not happen.

[edahl1980]

And i do not agree that they should make Bagration easier.
Find out what you are doing wrong and try again. Or lower difficulty level.
And dont be so obsessed with king tigers, there are other good vehicles also.
I dont even use King Tigers(Actually i had one in my first game), my panzer units in my first game consisted of Panthers, PzIV and JagdPanthers. A 3 star Jagdpanther with 13 strenght rip IS2 and anything else the Soviets throw at me to pieces. It's a rape everytime i attack someone.

Do NOT make Bagration easier. If anything, make it harder.

[aleader]

I disagree. Making it even harder (campaign) means even less point playing it. Funny how my 13 strength Jagdpanther got slaughtered by the IS-2's, especially when they were eventually surrounded. Care to post some screens of your easy victories? Most seem to agree the late war scenarios are simply a waste of play time. Poll?

[edahl1980]

I disagree. Making it even harder (campaign) means even less point playing it. Funny how my 13 strength Jagdpanther got slaughtered by the IS-2's, especially when they were eventually surrounded. Care to post some screens of your easy victories? Most seem to agree the late war scenarios are simply a waste of play time. Poll?

Well.
The game is finished.
I didnt win the war. Gonna try again tommorow as i have most of the day free. Then we'll see.

[edahl1980]

I disagree. Making it even harder (campaign) means even less point playing it. Funny how my 13 strength Jagdpanther got slaughtered by the IS-2's, especially when they were eventually surrounded. Care to post some screens of your easy victories? Most seem to agree the late war scenarios are simply a waste of play time. Poll?

Then lower difficulty.

[Kerensky]

I'm personally aiming for smarter scenarios, not necessarily harder ones.

Besides, if any scenario is too easy, it's always possible to dramatically increase the difficulty through the three bonus difficulty setting that you unlock through completing Field Marshal.
15 strength Allied units is no joke, even relatively easy scenarios like Poland, France, and Kiev becomes serious challenges.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think you are onto something heare regarding not only Bagratian , but likly many late war scenarios

It not so much that the Soviets have piles of IS2's etc

To be blunt, infantry appears to be useless late game
Its not even a matter of hard attack defence values of one compared to the other, i think there are other things in play

in general:
* entrenchemnt really doesnt seem to be as signicant as one would expect
*close terrain does not hinder tanks very much
* the trigger to get a rugged defence seems very, very small % wise To be honest i think the largest chance for a RD (using the L key ) i have seen in game to date was like 12% That seems very small

Correct me if im wrong but memories of the original PG (plus I fired up PG forever last nite to compare) recall that any infantry with 4-5 levels of entrenchemnt could not be assaulted by any unit without triggering a rugged defence and would uusually result in the attacker wiped out ( the "attack broken up" message), meaning every sp was destroyed/suppressed w/o fireing a shot) To have a chance you need to use artillery/air to knock down that entrenchment before assaulting and even then it could be costly

* I mentioned this in another post , but why do intantry (attacker and defender) use their very low close defence values when fighting in close terrain? All it means is Infantry v infantry combat in cities will go that much faster(as both will take higher casualties) than in the open, which is the antithesis of the vast #s of men and TIME clearing a city could be/take....


Now Bagration specifically
Deploying 5 star infantry units at the front in cities behind rivers with all the mal effect on armour should have.(which I tried) You would expect those attacking IS2's to eventually overrun the infantry yet , it only take 2 shots to obliterate the defender , and that is when they are swiimking across a river, worse they suffered little or no dmages

Part of the problem is the AI moves ist and no matter where you deply, you get a 0 entrenchment level.

Anyways, the tempo of the game seems very very much faster , which many might like, but IMHO, it takes away the need for combined arms aproach late war.

i dont expect this to offically be changed, however maybe down the road open up the data files that control when rugged defence is triggered/the effects , as well as the effects for entrenchemnt?

I dont agree.
Infantry places in cities defending with artillery backing them up is quite good. If you place an AA gun behind the artillery its even better.
Actually, you are wrong. In PG. Infantry with 5 entrenchment could be attacked by pioneers and engineers and you rugged defense would not happen.

Sir, i was not talking about tactics, but general game mechanics. Obviously artillery backing an infantry unit in a city changes the odds, also pioneers which ignore entrenchments

What I was saying is entrenchment and rugged defence, when you rarly trigger it, is very devalued in this game vs PG.
The value of rugged defence is minimal , especially when the defender is attacked by a tank. Ist you are likly to be in close terrain which caps initiative, however the tanks can STILL win the initiative because the random die roll and experiance is applied AFTER the cap. Second, all rugged defence does is set the initiative for the attacker to 0, (again they get to roll for some and experinace kicks in), not a heck of a lot of difference when it would have bee set to ONE in the ist place. Sure , entrenchment and rd add some to the defenders ground defence value, but in no way add any to the attack value vs the tank.
Anyways whether you like it or not it is just my observation/opinion that the developers appear to have wanted to make the tempo in this game much faster....Perhaps they felt players would have been frustrated if they needed to reduce a city via artillery and multiple assaults by other infantry vs driving up with the latest and best tanks and taking a city in one turn. I am not asking for anything to be changed based on what I would like to see, just pretty please allow some of these mechanics be made moddable:)

[texican]

Any ideas how to survive this? By turn 3 1/3 of my force is destroyed & I surrender. IS2 & T34/85 are just tearing up my Panthers & Tigers. I see no reason to play the game any further if this is how the last scenarios go. Too depressing to watch all your experience units wrecked.

I think this is a scenario they will likely patch; just my guess. I played and it was like fighting the 1955 Soviet army; might as well have been T-54's rolling over my troops. Anything less than a 3-star Tiger II is toast.

Humorously, I had just one land unit survive; I ended up with a Tiger II roaming behind enemy lines.

Hopefully, they will replace the IS-2's with mostly T34-85's and bring this scenario down a bit. Would also be good if they found a way to make the Kursk scenario challenging at the same time. Remember, the Germans had almost all their armor way south at the time Bagration took place. Had there been a seasoned mechanized force with Army Group Center, the outcome would likely not have been so disastrous.

[edahl1980]

I think this is a scenario they will likely patch; just my guess. I played and it was like fighting the 1955 Soviet army; might as well have been T-54's rolling over my troops. Anything less than a 3-star Tiger II is toast.

Humorously, I had just one land unit survive; I ended up with a Tiger II roaming behind enemy lines.

Hopefully, they will replace the IS-2's with mostly T34-85's and bring this scenario down a bit. Would also be good if they found a way to make the Kursk scenario challenging at the same time. Remember, the Germans had almost all their armor way south at the time Bagration took place. Had there been a seasoned mechanized force with Army Group Center, the outcome would likely not have been so disastrous.

T-34 wont be able to smash through your defense like the IS2 does. So then it will be another "slaughter the Russians" map.

Ive only played this map once and then it was part of my campaign. And i didnt notice anything out of line with IS2. Sure its a powerfull tank, but its supposed to be. I hate Kates, because they trash my defending infantry in cities and i keep having to retreat to get away from them. But that got better when i got air superiority. Cannonbirds destroy Kates really fast, and they inflict damage upon IS2 as well.
I believe my tank force was: 2 Jagdpanther, 1 King Tiger, 2 Panthers, 1 MarderIII and 2 skirted PzIV(Dont know the letter)
Gonna start a new campaign tommorow, and ill keep an eye out for bagration when i get there.
Ill come back with some feedback on how it goes.

[soldier]

Seeing how medium tanks really struggle to damage the big cats, I'm not sure how a historically balanced force would fare under AI command . I could see it throwing fleets of T-34's at something like a Jagdpanther and only achieving the destruction of its own armour force, that's probably the reason these scenarios feature so many IS-2's.

i also agree with Gray Mousers comments on infantry entrenchments and rugged defense. I rarely see rugged defense occur in Panzer Corps and when it does happen, often little damage is done. Similar features like artillery suppression and mass attack really penalize an entrenched troop in a strongpoint but appear to nothing to Tiger.
Probably these balance issues mean that only a force of IS-2s can carry out an offensive and only a force of German heavies could stop them.

[texican]

Seeing how medium tanks really struggle to damage the big cats, I'm not sure how a historically balanced force would fare under AI command . I could see it throwing fleets of T-34's at something like a Jagdpanther and only achieving the destruction of its own armour force, that's probably the reason these scenarios feature so many IS-2's.

i also agree with Gray Mousers comments on infantry entrenchments and rugged defense. I rarely see rugged defense occur in Panzer Corps and when it does happen, often little damage is done. Similar features like artillery suppression and mass attack really penalize an entrenched troop in a strongpoint but appear to nothing to Tiger.
Probably these balance issues mean that only a force of IS-2s can carry out an offensive and only a force of German heavies could stop them.

Medium tanks did take down the Tigers and Panthers, historically, and they did it by getting in close (i.e. close combat). I think that when a smaller tank attacks a Tiger or Panther, there ought to be some chance of the combat going into "close combat" mode, where perhaps armor factors are temporarily halved and initiative is inverted (i.e., a short gun suddenly becomes much faster than a longer gun in terms of traversing a turret and getting off a shot quickly.)

Here's a formula that might work:

If armor factor of defender greater than armor factor of attacker and separately greater than attack value of attacker (i.e., greater than both if measured separately to both), then attacker has some chance of engaging in close combat:

25% modified 5% upward by each star of experience of attacker and 5% downward by each star of experience of defender.

[edahl1980]

As promised...

Campaign: 1939-1945
Difficulty: Field Marshall
Map/Scenario: Bagration
Outcome: Decisive victory.

My core
(* indicate how many stars they have.)

[Infantry]
** Wehrmacht infantry
** Wehrmacht infantry
*** Wehr Grenadiers
*** Wehr Grenadiers
* Fallschirmjager
* Fallschirmjager
** Gebirgsjager
* Brukepioneer
** SS Grenadiers

[Tanks]
* PzIV-J
* PzIV-J
*** Panther G
** King Tiger
** King Tiger
* SS PzIV-J
* SS Panther G

[Recon]
** SDKFZ 232 (Recon)
SDKFZ 233 (Recon) (Didnt participate)

[Anti-Tank]
* Elephant
** JagdPanther

[Artillery]
** 21 CM (Artillery)
** 21 CM (Artillery)
** 30 CM Nebelwerfer
* Wurfrahmen
* Wurfrahmen

[Anti-Air]
** 8.8CM Flak

[Fighters]
* BF-109K
* FW-190-D-9
*** FW-190-D-9
*** FW-190-D-9

[TAC]
*** Ju-87G
*** Ju-87G
*** Ju-87G
** Ju-87G
** Ju-87G

[Level Bombers]
*** Me-410A
*** Ju-188A



Defensive strategy.
Most of the green line is covered by a river. Any Soviet attempt to cross it result in cannonbird attack followed by tank assault. 1, 2, 3 and 4(The red line) is simply delay action. I stay here for 1-2 turns max, then retreat to the second line of defense where infantry is already waiting. I make cannongbirds attack anything in sight that could threaten my big tanks/AT's.

1. King Tiger, Grenadier and 21CM Artillery. FW190 above protecting from air strikes. The grenadier will take a beating early on so i move King Tiger and artillery one hex back. This will keep artillery safe while it can still protect the King Tiger. The Grenadier i wrote off for the rest of the scenario and i move them safely behind the front line.
2. Jagdpanther, 30CM Nebelwerfer, 8.8CM Flak.
3. Elephant and 21CM artillery. Elephant have no protection against air strikes, but anyone attacking will get an answer from the 88 and a fighter plane asap.
4. King Tiger and Grenadier. FW190 Protected. Grenadier was encircled and killed in the retreat. Most cannonbirds are also stationed here while being protected by the FW190.
5 and 6 i improvise based on how retreat goes. For me the Elephant was broken so badly i couldnt repair it so i wrote it off and moved it away from the frontline. Jagdpanther also took a breating but made it back and could still pack a punch, it was later destroyed thought.
At 5 Bridgeengineers are held up in the woods, regular infantry in the city(Lepel) and a reserve PzIV-J awaiting orders next to bridge.
At 6 the mountain troops are set up in Borisov. There is also a reserve PzIV-J awaiting orders in Minsk, which is just off the map.
7. i put my SS units here. (I like to keep them together) SS-PzIV-J, SS-Panther G, SS-Grenadiers and Wurfrahmen. A sdkfz-232 as reserve FW-190 protecting skies. This is mainly where Ivan concentrated his attacks and the SS-PzIV-J was destroyed.
8. Panther, Wurfrahmen and regular infantry. BF-109K and a cannonbird in the skies. This front saw little action so the Panther moved up to 7 and the cannonbird assisted whenever the remaining 2 was attacked. They turned back atleast 2 Stalin tanks.

In addition there are 2 Ju-52’s with Fallschirmjagers waiting to drop where needed. In my case they ended up at 5 and 6 because these lines were hit hard by Stalin tanks early on.

Priorities early on.
1. Air superiority. By turn 3-4 there isnt many VVS planes left to worry about.
2. I send cannonbirds to destroy kates and other artillery pieces. Kates seem to tear up infantry pretty good so i got rid of them fast.
3. I also took the juicy opportunity to destroy the AA tanks when i got the chanse.
I also concentrate cannonbirds to attack heavy tanks/AT’s that threaten to breach line or destroy my retreating armor
I ignore infantry, scout vehicles and light/medium tanks for the first turns.

My casualties were
*** Wehr Grenadiers.
* SS PzIV-J
** JagdPanther

May they rest in pieces.

Ill finish by saying i do not think this map is to hard.