greta differences on level off difficulty BETWEEN campaigns

[kokkorhekkus]

I don't know if others players have same experiences

But it seems that the early war is easy for the germans & the level of difficulty is (over)rising in '43

On my second try with the DLC (first try : pieged by Streets of Moscou, butt all DV until that scenario with an exhausted Core for 1942. Playing on FM with no Cheat codes and other reloads (we must accept war reality kamrads, bad luck for the hero but he is dead with this lucky die rolled russian cavalry !)

So, second try, FM level, but ancient "experimented" PG player

1939 = all DV
1940 = all DV
1941 = all DV (with no "Streets of Moscou" too much dangerous I think)
1942 = 3 MV, DV on all others (one or all MV evitable without problem in a third tentative, but almost a lost in the ruins...a bad "berserk" trigger for all I think ), but yes it's fun to have opposition ! "docks" is a must, good feelings for attack axes I suppose because it was relatively an easy one for me. With accent on Volga barge massacre I precise.
1943 = 4 MV for the moment , and the impression that a loss is possible. The boring impression (for me) that an all Tigers, Elephants and Panthers core force is the only issue for having DV...

The omnipresence of russian flak ? Not very realistic ?

There is really a gap between 1939-1942 and '43 and I imagine 1944/1945.

It's interesting but perhaps too much and not very progressive between campaigns ?

Great game and DLCs, the ambiance of each campaign is well done, it's only the gap when '43 arrive wich is perhaps a bit too much ?!

[robman]

I too am in the middle of '43 and find it much harder than the earlier DLCs. I have had to play most scenarios twice to get a DV, and never managed one at Orel despite trying three times. Currently playing Oboyan for the second time. (I played the northern branch as far as the Kursk Armory and now am trying to do the same for the southern branch.) I agree that the omnipresence of Soviet AA is a major reason for the increased difficulty, more so than the increased presence of the Red Air Force. Tanks and more tanks, the heavier the better, seem to be the key.

[kokkorhekkus]

It's perhaps a major problem robman (or others players), far more in a "Rommel" difficulty point of view

I think I will like to play with that level in few weeks

But...if the gap "campagn difficulty level" between '39-'42 and '43-'45 is too much important, "Rommel" difficulty could be an impossible option through '39 until '45

And personnaly I don't like restart a scenario, a result is a result but in my point of view it's interesting to see personnal progress from try to try on the long time ("restart '39 to '45 DLCs" is what I mean )

Playing with Tigers hordes is no fun for me, but perhaps the only solution. Ideas around variety & quality are in discussion, but if at FM or "Rommel" level a plaisant game is impossible because of an overwheelming JS2 deployment in '44 & '45 it will be difficult to have a pleasant long term campaign with even few DVs possible in '43 through '45 ?

[deducter]

Pure heavy tanks are not a necessity for victory. I recorded numerous videos of the Kursk North Path, played on Rommel using a "historical" core with a modified equipment file that generally restricts prestige even more, and I achieved DV on all 3 scenarios. I really should get around to uploading the rest of 1943...

That said DV on some maps is very hard. On Orel, for instance, I choose to get MV so as to save prestige for Kursk. It is quite possible to win DV on that map with a historical core provided the player can afford to overstrength every single unit (and have most of them at 3-4 stars). However, the player's core will be very beat up in the process.

To do well with a historical core post-1943 requires a different mindset. Sometimes I spend 20-30 minutes a turn doing nothing but thinking and planning out my moves very carefully. Such a slow, ponderous playstyle is not for everyone.

Anyway, philosophically I have no problems with DV being very difficult or impossible post -1943.

[Kamerer]

I have not played with deducter's historical mods, but I have played all DLC's on "rommel" through from 39 to 45. I achieved a DV on all scenarios except a) a few early '39 Poland ones where I had no prestige to field enough units or artiller, and b) Orel (for the reasons mentioned in his post above - it can be done but it is WAY to costly on reduced prestige levels - I did get a DV there playing on regular "Feldmarschall" - but the prestige there is no problem).

The key is, I beleive, not heavy tanks (that's super expensive and counter to what Rommel and other reduced prestige variants reward). I find the key is two-fold: 1) lots of artillery, and 2) fighter traps.

Understanding spotting ranges and what the enemy will pounce on allows you to position fighters and artillery just out of his vision and thus lure him into ambushes. This works with air or ground units. If anything, I find the quantity of AA and artillery you face UNDER representative of what was historically the case. I have found the going easier with the 1.10 patch, actually, as a more aggressive enemy will leave good defensive terrain/entrenchment more readily, making him easier to kill.

Playing with Tigers hordes is no fun for me, but perhaps the only solution.

I went back and looked at an old game/campaign played with Rommel. I played through most of '44 and '45 with mostly medium tanks. I looked and at Goldap (first of '45 campaign) I had 1 x PzIV, 5 x Panther, 5x Tiger I and 1 x Tiger II. By Berlin it was still 50/50 medium/heavy - just can't afford to buy all those heavies. Carefully cultivating experience, and selecting which "hero" units get upgraded helps, too. Big defense bonuses become Panthers, movement bonuses become tigers, etc. Really helps later on. Fighting with fewer, higher quality units backed with copious artillery let's you get DVs with careful planning and execution.

[deducter]

Correct use of artillery is very important. In SP, artillery is too good, since they are too cheap and too easy to build up experience, and I think overstrength artillery is overly effective. Hence why I massively increased the price of artillery in my mod. I generally have 25% of my core as artillery units, so by 1943 I have about 10 artillery units.

In MP, artillery is good but hardly too powerful. One common mistake I see is that opponents will buy lots and lots of artillery, which generally does not work out well. While the AI is incapable of dealing with artillery, a clever player can.

The fighter trap is a clever technique when executed correctly. I do it all the time, but you want to be very careful with it. You especially do not want that fighter to be escorting a bomber at the same time. Sometimes it is also worth it to not do a fighter trap even if you can to ensure that a high cost, vulnerable unit like the Wurfrahmen is adequately protected.

I don't think there is any one right answer for advanced tactics, which is what makes this discussion very interesting. I am very good with infantry and close combat tactics, so I prefer to lure the AI into close terrain and destroy them there. Other players may be better with tanks or air units. For instance, personally I don't really use many bombers in 1943-1945, but other players have great success with those.

Understanding how ambushes/rugged defense/zone of control is also very important. I try to do ambushes as much as possible, sometimes by withdrawing out of the sight range of the AI. I like to put infantry on fortification hexes, because when enemy armor attacks there is a very good chance of rugged defense which is devastating to the attacking tank. ZOC is critical to forcing the AI to move the way you want to, and also to allow your forces to spread out more without having everything clumped up, which makes your units vulnerable to surrender.

[robman]

I found that a fairly artillery-intensive core worked well until 1943. After Stalingrad, I soon discovered that I was no longer able to adequately protect the artillery, especially in the closing turns of the scenarios as I became increasingly overstretched. So I went back to the beginning of GC'43 and started buying more tanks, aiming for about a 2:1 ratio of tanks to artillery. It seems to work better for me, though I still find '43 to be very, very difficult. Which is good.

[Kamerer]

Hence why I massively increased the price of artillery in my mod. I generally have 25% of my core as artillery units, so by 1943 I have about 10 artillery units.

Yes, I agree. Usually about 25% of mine is artillery, too so about 1:1 tanks:artillery overall. I also agree it's overly effective. I am now re-playing the GC with your equipment file/mods, on "Rommel." I haven't got far yet, but it does appear to feel much more realistic. I think I'll certainly keep the same habits as before and see how it goes.

[kokkorhekkus]

thank you for this interesting debate, with experts !

I agree all DVs all time is not good, but if some players are capable to play in "rommel" mode through 43 to 45 without a devasting loss that ends campaign early all is alright for me.

I love fighter ambushes too, but there's better : fighter + flak ambushes

the focus around arty learn me a lot, arty is very important, so when I will play the "Model" offensive next time,it will be with a better ratio for arty.

Flak is difficult to deploy by numbers, more than two on the front seems to be rare i suppose. In a particular scénario I remember having 3 on the field (core's flak I precise),and I'm curious to see if the '88 is efficient on AT too even in '43 and '44, with proper arty support behind it for sure !

[boredatwork]

I'm in the process of replaying the DLC for the third or forth time. I'm using a custom difficulty level so it's hard for me to guage in terms of absolute difficulty.

Having said that, 43 feels different than the first 3 times through it in a way that 39-42 didn't. IMO it could is the result of the 1.10 AI changes that were not foreseen when the DLC was originally released. Specifically the AI now makes use of swichable units, where as before it did not. The original progression in balance was likely dependant upon that limitation - for example groups of soviet units that had things like an 85mm AA next to an 85mm AT or a light AA next to an 85mm AT - both locked into their roles. Similarly SU Assault Gun units were locked into either AT or Artillery mode.

With 1.10 that limitation no longer exists, consequently the AI can stack units as it sees fit (albeit not necessarily always intelligently) resulting in 2 AA guns or 2 artillery in close proximity.

As a result this time around I'm finding for example the value of my airforce is declining - where as before I would consider accepting the attrition to bomb or strafe something potentially within range of an AA, under 1.10 I have to be mindfull that the soviet 85mm is now as overpowered as the 88 and now potentially comes in pairs. Even if they don't kill my aircraft, they can easily kill 4-6 pts a turn which burns through my prestige unpleasantly quick. My airforce is much less aggressive now and will often spend clear turns sitting around an airfield because it's not worth the loss in prestige exposing them to the hordes of russian flak.

Similarly once I get deeper into the defensive battles I'm worried that the overpowered Su series of assault guns will wear through my infantry much faster than was the case in previous play throughs.

[kokkorhekkus]

You're right boredatwork !

"Russian the AT/AA switcher" is a plague

We must approach '43 with a good PP reserves to have "monsters"

On my (3) try it seems good, more than 10 000 pp at mid '41 and more than 40 (good and exp.) units in reserve when long time approach is at mind

So for the interest of PZC play at "Rommel" Level with reforms for the cost of rare units like tigers (sup. pp cost or progressive sup. pp cost for oneto another(s)) could be fun for the future, with balance perspective not to be underrated

infantry weakness in'43 is a pb you're right, underlined by most players I think

[deducter]

Just fyi, a lot of what's been discussed, like infantry weakness, the full Tiger/Panther core, the abundance of prestige, etc., has already been addressed in the GC Unit Revisions. I tend to respond to feedback fairly quickly too, so if you have suggestions I like to incorporate them.

One thing that seems to be happening is that the switching of the AI's units is wreaking some havoc on gameplay balance. My question is, does it seem to make things harder or easier?

[orlinos]

[...] One thing that seems to be happening is that the switching of the AI's units is wreaking some havoc on gameplay balance. My question is, does it seem to make things harder or easier?

After dealing with nasty AA/AT in Stalingrad and right now geting my butt kicked solidly in Kotelnikovo, I have to say it, that switching makes it indispensible to fly very specific, anti-AA missions. Since the AI tends to switch all its units to the same state at a time, it's best to wait for it to switch to AT, and than send Stukas at the same time. (Or heavily bombard all guns in AA state before sending airforce, but that might not always be possible - and Stukas will still take some damage).

If situation allows it, things might even be slightly easier, since the player has to deal for example with 2 AT guns, instead of a combination of AA/AT (it happens after bad weather, for example). In other cases, it makes it very difficult to proceed, since I have to first encircle the enemy with no airforce support (and get killed by tanks, probably). Only than - and if a situation is right - can I execute a swift anti-AA action.

I am a slow player, so I can deal with that, but I am wondering if it won't hurt faster, skilfull players - it might eliminate many possibilities for quick maneuvers.

[Paperpanzer]

I always try to prioritize the units to destroy

Arty
AA/AT
Tanks/Mobile AT
Recon
Infantry... etc

It slows me down but I try to build forces up out of spotting range of an objective, hit the high priority targets and draw up in a defensive line ready for the counter attack in the following turn.

I never go anywhere without Recon or supporting SP Arty, and even with 14 strength Pzkpfw IV g’ I don’t attack an unsuppressed AA/AT units. well any unit really….

Just grinding my way through Stalingrad Docks at the moment.

The fighter trap also works with Arty, I clear an objective but don’t take it , I then leave a Arty unit beside the objective with tank or Stug AT in the next row of Hex’s…. It needs to be close to the front line to work, but I have caught a few t60/70’s, BT’s and the odd t34.

Leave the Arty in its trucks/halftracks and you might attract the odd bomber as well.

[Longasc]

Yes, the DLCs get way more difficult after 1943. I really struggled. Most who did well came to the 43+ DLCs with excessive prestige and pimped to the max cores. During testing I often started from scratch at the beginning of each DLC campaign and it was really hard. -> I intend to get through, but I am busy with Africa Corps and the "Tyria" campaign of Guild Wars 2. Which doesn't let me login atm!

Also, as some people mentioned the Mediums vs Heavy ratio: Even if the Panther counts as a medium tank... well... it's quite a difference to a Panzer IV and StuGs, isn't it?!