Some thoughts on Blitzkrieg

[luer]

Hi there, first of all, I do admit that I have not been playing all of the versions previous to Blitzkrieg. Also, I have not been going through the entire forum, so some things may have been posted elsewhere.

I think the game has a lot of potential and some of the features I find very well thought through. So, thumbs up there!

However, I have also a few concerns and the game has not yet really "infected" me. That's a pity and therefore I thought that some of my comments might be appreciated.

For artillery, I just made an independent post. I believe Infantry Guns are too strong and unrealistic.

My main concern is that the gameplay is not at all "blitzkriegy" or blitzkriegesque, IMHO. The key to success so far (France) is that you just have to very systematically wipe out all the opponent's units and don't even think about bold Panzer attacks, sweeping pince movements or schwerpunkt. Attack in broad front and wipe them out methodically is the key to success.

I think there are several reasons for that:

-while I like the supply system, I find it not right that a cut off unit loses most of its movement points right away. (as if it were electric tanks dragging a big wire behind them.) In reality, a tank unit would at least be able to go back to open the lines.
-shattered units with low cohesion (or effectiveness) should not have an effect on supply. These scattered, shattered and fled units need to be tracked down one by one, which is just not what happened in Blitzkrieg
-I find tanks too weak. (Maybe this is a leftover from the Pacific where tanks were actually more WWI-style moving fortresses). Now, I am not AT ALL a tanker boy, quiet the opposite, but I find them too static. Maybe this could be rectified if they could fire and move (as well as move and fire).
-Overrun attacks might be an option, too (maybe as choice in the left panel; try overrun), a risky attack, that might, if successful, leave the tanks still mobile and ready to fire
-less time in the scenarios and more replenishment points between scenarios. That would force you to hurry, but you get some losses back between some scenarios. (ALso, I am a big fan of being careful with your units, but it being so crucial, makes it more static).

Some more general thoughts:
-I find AT guns too powerful on the attack, especially when they attack tanks. This is not quite how they were and could be used.
-IMHO, artillery could have a defensive effect, this is where artillery was strongest. Maybe assign a hex they have fireplans for (if they did not fire on the offence).
-I find recon ground units wasted money as they are now, which is a pity. Their spotting range is not great, they can be surprised and they can only move twice in a turn. The combination of these three makes it very difficult to use them properly.

Some minor things:

-Ar 196: really? With the recon planes being most important, I find it annoying to fly a seaplane around Warsaw or Brussels. Please make it the Hs126.
-Pz II should still be available in 1940 and 1941.
-I will add further feedback later while I play along.

There are more units that one could include, but I do understand that this would have only minor effects on gameplay and would more be for history buffs, which should be done in mods.

Unfortunately, while I can open the data files and successfully added a unit in the beginning, I do not seem to be able to change a single unit stat now and have the game still start . I can click the mod OK, but then nothing happens.

On a last note, this is not supposed to be a rant. Really not. Quite the opposite.

[Erik2]

+1
Good post that supports some issues that some of us old-timers have raised a few times in the past.

Crippling out of supply-effects. I think motorized units in the last patch now have some movement left (2-3 hexes), but infantry should be able to march at nearly full movement speed.
Artillery defensive fire similar to AT units. But maybe restrict it to 1/2 the usual effect since it may fire defensively several times during a turn.
AA/AT units moving quite a distance and then attacking with fairly good results. These were defensive weapons.
Recon units is not worth buying as a core-unit, I add them as auxiliaries in scenarios. I think they maybe should be able to convert ownership of objectives, but not convert regular hexes for supply. Certainly the Germans often used recon-in-force.

[NightPhoenix]

To add my 2 cents, i can find myself in some of the comments, not others. It seems also many people are divided on many topics. Some people seem to be quite struggling with the new DLC, others find it still too easy. I understand the difficulty settings are not for everyone, but it would be hard to please everyone on the same difficulty. If the scenarios have too much time, play on Feldmarshall difficulty, more enemy units to deal with means a tighter clock.

I personally use the blitzkrieg tactics quite often, take France for example. Most of the front (east and middle) little units, advance is slow and cautious. In the west, a Panzer-spearheaded attack towards Le Havre. I open with artillery barrage, then come the Panzers mopping up with infantry. The panzers do tremendous damage. I have 2 pz III core units, if the enemy is lucky they will deal 2-3 damage in total to them during the entire scenario, most of the results with the panzers is 3 damage done 0 or 0+ to receive.
The same applies for other scenarios, in the Soviet Union most of the forward attacks are spearheaded by tanks, following with infantry and the artillery is there to back it up. Supply lines are often tight, until the infantry arrives to clear everything out. As for artillery, most of the smaller ones do only 0+ damage to tanks and 1-2 to infantry. only the 17 cm and 21 cm do more (1 to tanks and up to 3 to artillery) but they are quite expensive. I personally feel its not too much. The efficiency drop is also 1-2.

As for the recon plane, and the ground recons i agree i suppose. It's strange to have that floatplane while other options are plenty. I would also never use ground based recon. Just not worth it. Pz II should indeed still be able during entire 1941 campaign, most of the tanks used at the start of Barbarossa were the I's and II's. AT guns rarely come up. They are very weak against infantry, so i would be interested to see anyone who makes a lot of use of them, and effectively tell their opinion.
As for the shattered, low supply units, i don't really see a problem myself but maybe their AI behavior should be set to limit their movement?

Personally i think with the gameplay the game works great, there are just a few minor tweaks, such as the still missing pictures with some of the objectives. Is there nobody who said anything about this during beta-testing? It really seems to me the most obvious and sloppy of mistakes which has been around forever.

[Erik2]

Missing graphics were reported during beta-testing. Some may have slipped through the tracks in order to meet the dead-line I guess.
Or stuff may have been added/edited after the tests were finished. Just guessing though.

[kondi754]

I think that the developers have found a good balance between the various elements of the game and it is very difficult to convince them to change anything. They are afraid that if they change one thing, it will be needed to change everything to keep the gameplay so its better don't touch.
As refers to the difficulty of the game, I can only say that during beta testing almost all partcipants had set the difficulty level at 2nd or 3rd, and it was noticeable how next threads - referring to the following scenarios - had fewer (less and less) posts, so it seems to me that the game is difficult.
Personally I play at 4th level, and I know of only one player (except developers), who played in OOB at 5th.
If someone says that the game is too easy is probably playing at level 1st or 2nd but is afraid to play 3rd ....

[luer]

Let me point out one thing: I am not talking about difficulty here. I somehow miss the "feel" of Blitzkrieg, and rather feel I move my units through a Guadalcanal-style grinding battle.

I feel there are some possibilities to address this. I suggested some, I have others in mind as well. I also do believe that some units' movement speeds need outbalancing.

[kondi754]

Let me point out one thing: I am not talking about difficulty here. I somehow miss the "feel" of Blitzkrieg, and rather feel I move my units through a Guadalcanal-style grinding battle.

I feel there are some possibilities to address this. I suggested some, I have others in mind as well. I also do believe that some units' movement speeds need outbalancing.

I like the style of this game and I "feel" Blitzkrieg.
However, during testing I proposed some little changes but developers rejected or ignored (mostly ) my ideas, so I am writing you have only a small chance to change anything, especially you propose "big" changes.

[luer]

thanks for your feedback. I have no hope that any developper is listening. I just want to give it a try, as I think there is a lot of potential, but like this, I will play the campaign maybe once or twice and will most probably not buy the sequel. WHich would be a pity, also from the developpers' perspective.

Just playing now, paying attention what it actually is that is slightly annoying me all the time, here are some examples:

I just manhandled my 3.7cm PaK without horses, trucks or anything four hexes and successfully attacked a French H35 faring better than my tanks. No, AT guns were not used that way.

I also need to get used to the feature that my fastest unit in the Ardennes is my Infantry gun without transport. (Yes, the Ardennes are no tank terrain, but they are also REALLY not the terrain where a couple of guys want to drag around a gun).

But I am a positive guy, so no whinging.

[kondi754]

thanks for your feedback. I have no hope that any developper is listening. I just want to give it a try, as I think there is a lot of potential, but like this, I will play the campaign maybe once or twice and will most probably not buy the sequel. WHich would be a pity, also from the developpers' perspective.

Just playing now, paying attention what it actually is that is slightly annoying me all the time, here are some examples:

I just manhandled my 3.7cm PaK without horses, trucks or anything four hexes and successfully attacked a French H35 faring better than my tanks. No, AT guns were not used that way.

I also need to get used to the feature that my fastest unit in the Ardennes is my Infantry gun without transport. (Yes, the Ardennes are no tank terrain, but they are also REALLY not the terrain where a couple of guys want to drag around a gun).

But I am a positive guy, so no whinging.

When it comes to light AT guns it seems to me that it makes sense. Note that the opponent(AI) always has much more tanks, so you need to have something you can quickly challenge them. Note that heavy AT guns (eg. 88mm) behave and move in accordance with the rules of military art and reality. Moreover, for 88's you need to buy tractor at the start.

[VPaulus]

thanks for your feedback. I have no hope that any developper is listening.

Developers and producers do read these forum posts, I can assure that.

[Erik2]

And they do change things based on user feedback. I've seen several of my ideas implemented during the last 1-2 years. I started spamming them during the original beta-testing
But they need to have their internal discussions to make sure it is a good change and that it des not break anything.

[luer]

Good to hear. Of course I am aware people are listening. ( I came over with my matrixgames account and was developping for them in the past (2003/04) myself, so I know both sides and I am aware that gamers can be annoying. ANd they pull in all kinds of directions. That is why I phrased my comments like I did.

Thanks for responding.

[Mojko]

Hi there, first of all, I do admit that I have not been playing all of the versions previous to Blitzkrieg. Also, I have not been going through the entire forum, so some things may have been posted elsewhere.

I think the game has a lot of potential and some of the features I find very well thought through. So, thumbs up there!

However, I have also a few concerns and the game has not yet really "infected" me. That's a pity and therefore I thought that some of my comments might be appreciated.

For artillery, I just made an independent post. I believe Infantry Guns are too strong and unrealistic.

My main concern is that the gameplay is not at all "blitzkriegy" or blitzkriegesque, IMHO. The key to success so far (France) is that you just have to very systematically wipe out all the opponent's units and don't even think about bold Panzer attacks, sweeping pince movements or schwerpunkt. Attack in broad front and wipe them out methodically is the key to success.

I think there are several reasons for that:

-while I like the supply system, I find it not right that a cut off unit loses most of its movement points right away. (as if it were electric tanks dragging a big wire behind them.) In reality, a tank unit would at least be able to go back to open the lines.
-shattered units with low cohesion (or effectiveness) should not have an effect on supply. These scattered, shattered and fled units need to be tracked down one by one, which is just not what happened in Blitzkrieg
-I find tanks too weak. (Maybe this is a leftover from the Pacific where tanks were actually more WWI-style moving fortresses). Now, I am not AT ALL a tanker boy, quiet the opposite, but I find them too static. Maybe this could be rectified if they could fire and move (as well as move and fire).
-Overrun attacks might be an option, too (maybe as choice in the left panel; try overrun), a risky attack, that might, if successful, leave the tanks still mobile and ready to fire
-less time in the scenarios and more replenishment points between scenarios. That would force you to hurry, but you get some losses back between some scenarios. (ALso, I am a big fan of being careful with your units, but it being so crucial, makes it more static).

Some more general thoughts:
-I find AT guns too powerful on the attack, especially when they attack tanks. This is not quite how they were and could be used.
-IMHO, artillery could have a defensive effect, this is where artillery was strongest. Maybe assign a hex they have fireplans for (if they did not fire on the offence).
-I find recon ground units wasted money as they are now, which is a pity. Their spotting range is not great, they can be surprised and they can only move twice in a turn. The combination of these three makes it very difficult to use them properly.

Some minor things:

-Ar 196: really? With the recon planes being most important, I find it annoying to fly a seaplane around Warsaw or Brussels. Please make it the Hs126.
-Pz II should still be available in 1940 and 1941.
-I will add further feedback later while I play along.

There are more units that one could include, but I do understand that this would have only minor effects on gameplay and would more be for history buffs, which should be done in mods.

Unfortunately, while I can open the data files and successfully added a unit in the beginning, I do not seem to be able to change a single unit stat now and have the game still start . I can click the mod OK, but then nothing happens.

On a last note, this is not supposed to be a rant. Really not. Quite the opposite.

I must say that I disagree with most of your suggestions. Basically the only think that I would support are the ground recon units changes. I would like to see a supply reduction to 1 (from 2) or maybe they could gain some interesting trait like being invisible unless adjacent to enemy unit.

In general I would like to stress out that in game gameplay is much more important than realism or historical accuracy. What OOB does great is that it builds on lessons learned in the Panzer Corps (I'm looking at you overstrength, but also weather, ammo, artillery defensive fire, AA guns and many more). OOB takes a very pragmatic approach and does it's thing very well. So in the future you should consider explaining why are your suggestions good for gameplay first and not just because of historical accuracy if you want them to be implemented.

Of course if you propose changes that are based on historical accuracy but have no impact on gameplay, that's fine.

[luer]

Of course if you propose changes that are based on historical accuracy but have no impact on gameplay, that's fine.

That was points like the Arado Seaplane. I also do disagree with some of the dates, but that was not the point of my post.

So in the future you should consider explaining why are your suggestions good for gameplay first and not just because of historical accuracy if you want them to be implemented.

I am a but puzzled here because I am coming from the gameplay perspective. I find the game unbalanced in units movements. I find the gamplay sometimes not agile enough, because you slowly and tediously mob up scattered and shattered units. I find tank units should be the key to more agility in the game and therefore I suggest a risky attack and/or attack+move. I think that cutting units off should be harder or the effects should set in less quick. These were suggestions more on gameplay rather than historical nitpicking.

Because I do agree that gameplay is most important in a game and you will always need to cut some corners because otherwise it becomes unplayable-at least to me. Of course I do consider how reality was, because if not, I could also play some phantasy game.

But let's agree to disagree, all is well.

[kondi754]

I've written about Arado, about the dates and a lot of other things that have no impact on gameplay - there was no response.
We wrote about many things you don't like a long time ago.

[hrafnkolbrandr]

I really like my ground recon unit. Of course I use it more as a cheap unit to chase down routing enemies.

All my recon is done with 109's for the most part.

[Andy2012]

Agree with some of the issues raised here. However, Blitzkrieg is in my view easily the best DLC yet. Still on Kiev, so not done yet.

Some of my thoughts so far:

- Even though "destroy xx units" to win is kind of Wehrmachty and Blitzkriegy (no Prisoners, no mercy), it is boring in gameplay. In Minsk and Smolensk, I tracked down isolated and immobile units way behind the front after I took the objectives just to make the cut.
- Btw, I gained that russian arty piece (Yelnya), but in Kiev, it was gone again.
- Securing my supply lines is vital, I get that. However, my core should be the thin end of the wedge, not get smaller and smaller because units get dropped from it to secure the flanks. Suggestion: Hilfstruppen (non-core garrison units etc) to hold vital bridges and road junctions on my flanks. I mean, these could have weaker stats than my Wehrmacht troops and basically just serve as road blocks. This would help in Dunkirk and Russia. Also, have some stationary allied units set up in my rear deployment area so I dont always worry about some conscript unit sneaking in there and basically singlehandedly overrunning my supply area and stopping my Panzers dead in their tracks. You could also add this to briefings, e.g. "Italian or Romanian units will move up to secure taken objectives in cities a,b,c. However, dont count on them to hold against a determined russian assault against your supply lines." This should do the job and I can focus on attacking. You can also add Partisan attacks on them as well.
- Scouts are useless. Only kept the french one because it was free.
- Specialisations for extra supply are kind of useless. I mean, +1 and another +1 is not much. Buys you an engineer without trucks.
- Waffen SS is basically a bit wasted as well, I feel. I dont mind the Nazi stuff and skull icon. But you get 6 supply, which is basically one tank or two infantry units without transport. I got Winter War, so I started with Viking Division and got another Infantry. Then I watched the supply build up (I have now over 350 Waffen SS credits), but mostly used these units to secure my supply lines. (See above) They were just too slow to advance with my Panzers and thus never gained the experience my elite infantry has (all 5 stars). This feels a bit boring gameplay wise and also does not live up to the fanatical Nazis these guys mostly were historically. How about giving them a more unique feel, maybe even special units or at least some differents skins? Right now, they are just a bland supply line security. I know, I could have bought a tank, but my Wehrmacht Panzers are already five stars. How did you guys play them?

I might post more when I finish this DLC. I am also quite aware you guys work hard and this is an ongoing project. This is still the best DLC yet, keep up the good work. OOB is getting better and better.

[kverdon]

Ok, OOB is an interesting game but the game mechanics are far, far, deficient to enable any sort of "Blitzkrieg". Many of the issues have been brought up but I'll reiterate:

1. Kill # of enemy units - This is counter to the Blitzkrieg principle of breakthrough and exploitation to surround and bypass enemy units. This is hindered in OOB due to the ground combat mechanics that limit the amount of damage dealt in a single attack. Most often your attack of "5+" against enemy unit or 3 or 4 strength winds up leaving a 1 strength unit that you have to hunt down and kill later.

2. Ability of understrength, demoralized, broken, enemy units to cut off supply. This really hinders the concept of Blitzkrieg as a single 1 strength unit appearing out of nowhere can cut off the supply of an entire army. This is ludicrous. It forces the game play from "Blitzkrieg" to "Broad Front' strategy where, combined with the ever present primary victory condition in #1 forces you to sweep the battlefield to make sure you kill every last 1 point unit out there.

The problem I have had with the last 2 DLC expansions for OOB is that the gameplay has very little, if anything to do with the subject matter. OOB Marines devolved into a endless repeat of fighting Guadalcanal over and over again to "Blitzkrieg" that fights like a slugfest scenario after scenario.

It may have been a mistake to try and use the unmodded OOB engine to portray the European Theatre, at least in anything resembling a historical basis. Perhaps if the DLC had been labeled "OOB German Offensive" it would not have been as misleading as using "Blitzkrieg" in the title where there is absolutely no possibility of a Blitzkrieg. I agree with the original poster that the game devolves in to an endless boring grind to achieve the objectives. The only minor saving grace is the cheat code that enables you to end the scenario when realistic objectives have been met. Without that I'd have deleted this off my PC a long time ago. I certainly hope that the devs take a good look at the feedback they are getting with this expansion. With some modifications to the core rules, this could, perhaps be salvaged but as it stands this is the last DLC for me.

[Andy2012]

Ok, OOB is an interesting game but the game mechanics are far, far, deficient to enable any sort of "Blitzkrieg". Many of the issues have been brought up but I'll reiterate:

1. Kill # of enemy units - This is counter to the Blitzkrieg principle of breakthrough and exploitation to surround and bypass enemy units. This is hindered in OOB due to the ground combat mechanics that limit the amount of damage dealt in a single attack. Most often your attack of "5+" against enemy unit or 3 or 4 strength winds up leaving a 1 strength unit that you have to hunt down and kill later.

2. Ability of understrength, demoralized, broken, enemy units to cut off supply. This really hinders the concept of Blitzkrieg as a single 1 strength unit appearing out of nowhere can cut off the supply of an entire army. This is ludicrous. It forces the game play from "Blitzkrieg" to "Broad Front' strategy where, combined with the ever present primary victory condition in #1 forces you to sweep the battlefield to make sure you kill every last 1 point unit out there.

The problem I have had with the last 2 DLC expansions for OOB is that the gameplay has very little, if anything to do with the subject matter. OOB Marines devolved into a endless repeat of fighting Guadalcanal over and over again to "Blitzkrieg" that fights like a slugfest scenario after scenario.

It may have been a mistake to try and use the unmodded OOB engine to portray the European Theatre, at least in anything resembling a historical basis. Perhaps if the DLC had been labeled "OOB German Offensive" it would not have been as misleading as using "Blitzkrieg" in the title where there is absolutely no possibility of a Blitzkrieg. I agree with the original poster that the game devolves in to an endless boring grind to achieve the objectives. The only minor saving grace is the cheat code that enables you to end the scenario when realistic objectives have been met. Without that I'd have deleted this off my PC a long time ago. I certainly hope that the devs take a good look at the feedback they are getting with this expansion. With some modifications to the core rules, this could, perhaps be salvaged but as it stands this is the last DLC for me.

I wouldnt be so harsh. OoB got better and better over the course of the last DLCs. I think with some minor tweaks in the objectives (e.g. seize Kiev, hold isolation of Kiev salient for 5-10 turns), this will be awesome. I mean, Winter War had the objective "Keep isolation of the Motti", so programming this should be straightforward for the devs. And keep in mind, we are still in 1941. They have a lot of DLCs lined up with the Wehrmacht, still time to learn.

[luer]

thanks kverdon, this kind of confirms my suspicion that some of the defects I have felt while playing "Blitzkrieg" may be coming from the Pacific origin of the game.

I find it a real pity, but I have lost interest already and quit playing after just a few scenarios because of my concerns with the way you need to play. If this does not change, this will have been my last DLC for OOB. Sad.