Blitzkrieg 41-42

[Erik2]

I'm not a big fan of this import mechanic, without commanders anway.
The bummer with this import process is that all units are basically destroyed in the next campaign. Reviving them gives them only slightly more exp than freshly purchased once with Boot Camp, Tank/Flight School if they had about 4-stars or more before.

By the way, your 41-42 data.cmp file can't import core units.
Move the entries from the [ALLIANCE] tag down to [CORES] and change Blitzkrieg39-41 to Blitzkrieg39-40

Fixed import, thanks

BTW, you have a very good grasp of the editor. Any scenario creation plans?

[Erik2]

Andy

In general I try to avoid doing drastic changes to a scenario. It is too easy to do too much and then you need to re-balance it again. Different unit purchases and playing styles may play a big part.

Smolensk:
As I've mentioned earlier, I try to balance a scenario by changing supply, resource income and turn numbers. I'd rather leave the AI units as is. The German command points include transport for all infantry types and players may save 1 point pr inf unit transport and buy another unit instead.
Due to the very different air combat mechanics between OOB & PzC I'm 'willing' to increase the air command points a bit. Say add 3 points for an additional unit for starters in Smolensk.
I've reduced Soviet resource income and increased German. I've also added more turns and increased supply in towns.
Hope that helps.

I have already added all German commanders to the first 7 scenarios.
Campaign updated.

[Andy2012]

In general, you cannot move this 1:1 from Panzercorps to OoB and expect a playable result.

In my experience so far with both campaigns I would disagree. I hope Erik would not make drastic changes until he gets more feedback from other players. The scenarios just need to be play tested for objectives, deployment points, and turn lengths. Playing through the 39-40 campaign again and I'm finding in much easier this time as I think Erik greatly reduced the supply rate for the AI as they rarely reinforce damaged units.

Regarding the AI's air force, I admit I avoid air combat in this game. That is not the scenario's fault but a flaw with OOB in fighter vs fighter as well as fighter escort mechanics. A 2 star Bf109F attacking a 0 star I-16 will take 2+ losses for inflicting 3 damage. That is just not a ratio you can win by as your fighters will be completely worn down after a few turns. I bring 3 or 4 AAA units to start the battle and wear down the enemy air force making sure my ground units advance under their protection and units vulnerable to air attack (i.e. artillery, AT guns) stay hidden in cities or forest. Then use my fighters to pick off the weakened units. Once I have air superiority I retire the AAA and fighters and start with the tac bombers and more ground forces. Some air commanders with a strong defense rating might make air to air combat more reasonable in the campaign.

Yes, Erik should wait for other player's feedback, absolutely. AI reinforcements are an issue in this campaign, too. The devs once wrote somewhere around here that they had this issue in the DLCs as well - AI reinforcements are somewhat frustrating when you have just pushed back a wave of tanks and then you see them reinforce and come at you again two rounds later. Thats why they set AI reinforcements per turn to 0. BTW, this is what I mean with balancing and making the Russians somewhat weaker.

Your figher strategy seems valid. However, that only works if you have a) enough credits to buy both AA and fighters and stockpile them b) can do without bombers for a while c) have enough turns / roads to retreat the AA once its job is done. I have a, but not b and c. Besides, the Luftwaffe was way stronger in the beginning of Barbarossa. This right now feels like attacking a superior enemy, both in the number and quantity of resources - this is what I mean with porting 1:1 from Panzercorps. It just changes the feel, playability and historical connection of the mission.

[Andy2012]

Andy

In general I try to avoid doing drastic changes to a scenario. It is too easy to do too much and then you need to re-balance it again. Different unit purchases and playing styles may play a big part.

Smolensk:
As I've mentioned earlier, I try to balance a scenario by changing supply, resource income and turn numbers. I'd rather leave the AI units as is. The German command points include transport for all infantry types and players may save 1 point pr inf unit transport and buy another unit instead.
Due to the very different air combat mechanics between OOB & PzC I'm 'willing' to increase the air command points a bit. Say add 3 points for an additional unit for starters in Smolensk.
I've reduced Soviet resource income and increased German. I've also added more turns and increased supply in towns.
Hope that helps.

I have already added all German commanders to the first 7 scenarios.
Campaign updated.

Yes, balancing needs to be done slowly. That was just a general observation - Crete, Minsk and Smolensk shared a way too powerful AI (numbers of units, resources), which especially with the Russians seemed weird. It is like attacking a superior, well-rested, well-resourced and organised enemy instead of carving through the rabble the Red Army was back then. BTW, I usually go for a very balanced core army, OoB style. Maybe this demands the all-tank army the Panzercorps grand campaign had in mind. Will think about it.
Smolensk: Yes, more air command points for the Luftwaffe would help. Will check it out.
How do I add commanders in your campaign? Are they there from the start? Never saw any portraits, so I assumed you left them out. Also, there were never any objectives tied to them. I guessed you wanted to keep the Panzercorps style.

[Andy2012]

@Erik: Oh yeah, the Waffen SS mountaineers I get in turn 3 now put my army in undersupply again. Even with everything going smoothly and a few towns conquered, but flags not raised. Dont be so tight with the supply in the deployment areas. A little bit of wiggle room would help.

[Andy2012]

@Erik: Alright, won Smolensk in 28 turns. All objectives, got the commander. But I didnt keep my T34 and the elite mountaineers for the next mission. Oversight or on purpose?
In Ostrov, I once again have 10 command points left and a ton of resources, but I cant deploy any more units until I conquered a few more towns. Supply too tight, again.
I think Smolensk is working now. Just minor thoughts - how about adding retreat points for the AI? Also, cutting off the off-map supply routes is not a viable strategy to move the Red Army in undersupply.
Still a great job, had a lot of fun with the last version.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[Andy2012]

Germans need a good supply of sausage, cheese and bread to fight properly. Patton's theory of eating belts doesn't work well I think.

Yep, the Wehrmacht is on the fashionable Erik diet. Stalingrad started early this year - apparently cauldron battles (german Kesselschlacht) do not come with hot sausages, just hot lead. I'll stop now with the food puns.

Stupid jokes aside, I won Ostrov in 17 turns and got the commander. Havent replayed the first missions, did I miss any commanders there?
I think Ostrov is kind of working the way it is now (apart from the supply issue at the start), but the turn limit is quite tight. I could only do it with my perfect handling of my core army , but others might need a few turns more. Especially with the Red Army constantly reinforcing its considerable tank forces. I think 22 turns or 24 might do the job.
I am in Novgorod now and it is once again Erik diet for the Wehrmacht - 9 command points left, but not enough supply to deploy all the units I want. Also, 19 turns seems pretty tight too. Although there are paved roads everywhere, so this might work.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[Andy2012]

@Erik: Just a quick one - finished Novgorod, Turn 15 out of 19. Everything is working nicely, got the Commander (Rall).
With the experience of my troops going to 5 stars across the board now, missions tilt in my favour now. The paved roads around Novgorod also made a huuuge difference.
That deployment issue (not enough supply) is the only persistent bug so far. Is also present in Zhitomir.

[Erik2]

Ostrov: Added a couple more turns

Supply overall: This is not a bug. I check all scenarios that I am able to deploy the original units (with all inf in transports)
Remember, if I add a lot more supply to the towns it means it will be harder to cut off Soviet supply as well.

[Andy2012]

Ostrov: Added a couple more turns

Supply overall: This is not a bug. I check all scenarios that I am able to deploy the original units (with all inf in transports)
Remember, if I add a lot more supply to the towns it means it will be harder to cut off Soviet supply as well.

You dont have to add supply everywhere, just at my deployment area. I really like this gameplay with 2xlight infantry, light AT and light arty as a strike team without transport pushing along roads. Really powerful attacks and quite fast, too (on roads). I think you should accomodate this playstyle. When defending or doing fighting retreats, I would change this setup to 88AT and maybe halftracks, but for attack missions, this is a very powerful combo. Highly recommend it.

BTW, I never managed to use cut off tactics in any of your missions. And i tried to seize all road junctions and rail connections on the edge of the map. As far as my gameplay experience is concerned, supply only works against me at the start. The Red Army is always well-stocked.

This is still fun, but there just is not any supply dimension to these missions. (Mostly because it is not an issue with Panzercorps).

[prattaa]

Why is it such a problem to have to deploy additional units later after you have captured a few more supply points?

I just played Warsaw last night and cut off the entire city. For the first 8 of 20 turns out was a very tough fight and I was thinking more command points were needed but I kept pounding away at the supply points in the city with strat bombers and by turn 14 they were cut off and red efficiency. Then it was mop up time. Excellent scenario. All objectives worked. Don't change a thing. There is a supply dimension to these scenarios.

[Andy2012]

Why is it such a problem to have to deploy additional units later after you have captured a few more supply points?

I just played Warsaw last night and cut off the entire city. For the first 8 of 20 turns out was a very tough fight and I was thinking more command points were needed but I kept pounding away at the supply points in the city with strat bombers and by turn 14 they were cut off and red efficiency. Then it was mop up time. Excellent scenario. All objectives worked. Don't change a thing. There is a supply dimension to these scenarios.

It is not a big thing, but I would still consider it an oversight. Minor one. Very minor - and easy to fix.

In Blitzkrieg 41-41, I hardly use Stratbombers at all. Since the Red Airforce is quite strong, I need my air command points for fighters. (Really, stratbombers are low priority.) Mostly play with Stukas, Russian AA is also pretty strong. This all figher and Stuka approach has been very successful so far.

Supply dimension: Erik uses a fixed supply system with the villages and cities, these are held by the enemy - so taking villages mostly knocks out units. I take their supply points, but the Red Army also loses units, so they need less. Damaging them, forcing a retreat and leaving them be is no option, they constantly reinforce. So I need to kill them. This mostly had the result that I killed units and advance constantly, but the Russians never go unsupplied. What I meant with supply dynamic is that some missions like Kiev Cauldron in Blitzkrieg actually require you to take certain cities and use the ensueing undersupply to beat the AI. These very specific tailorings in mission design are not in this campaign since it copies the setup of Panzercorps missions, which didnt have that. So I am not saying Erik botched this, I am just saying it isnt there. You could change it if you emphasized certain supply dumps (give one city 50 supply) and mention it in the briefing. But this would mean moving away from the original missions.

[Horst]

Supply system: cutting-off supplies is sometimes possible, like in the mentioned Warsaw scenario, but some maps are designed with supply-monsters of hexes at the enemy’s last primary city. Or it is simply the fact that you have to kill anything in your path to prevent red-numbered 1-strength AI units from cutting-off your own narrow supply paths.
There is no need to let the player start with a tight budget of supply points if the scenario doesn’t demand it. The AI on defense has often enough the opportunity to cut off the player’s narrow supply lines. The supply of the player’s exit zone could always be adjusted accordingly, so no need to change all towns hexes.
It's simply tedious to deploy more units later, especially if still takes like 3+ turns until you have finally hoisted a newly captured flag. Depends on the scenario of course. Gifting more command points by progress is fine by me.

[Andy2012]

Supply system: cutting-off supplies is sometimes possible, like in the mentioned Warsaw scenario, but some maps are designed with supply-monsters of hexes at the enemy’s last primary city. Or it is simply the fact that you have to kill anything in your path to prevent red-numbered 1-strength AI units from cutting-off your own narrow supply paths.
There is no need to let the player start with a tight budget of supply points if the scenario doesn’t demand it. The AI on defense has often enough the opportunity to cut off the player’s narrow supply lines. The supply of the player’s exit zone could always be adjusted accordingly, so no need to change all towns hexes.
It's simply tedious to deploy more units later, especially if still takes like 3+ turns until you have finally hoisted a newly captured flag. Depends on the scenario of course. Gifting more command points by progress is fine by me.

Agree. To make this into a campaign that uses the OoB supply system and the tactical possibilities it offers to the fullest, Erik would have to redesign everything. And then it wouldnt be a Panzercorps port anymore. Hopefully, the devs make a Russia campaign that does that. Except for Kiev, it never really was there so much. In the Pacific, is more like a random thing on the fringes.
@Erik: Just move the supply in the deployment areas up a notch (10,20 points) and we're golden. Simple.

[prattaa]

If there is a problem with supply on the maps it's the AI's suicidal tendency to leave important road junctions and cities to go off on the fringes of the map to occupy 5 or 10 point railway or road exits. I would be curious to see if their defensive behaviors improved by removing those border supply zones and increasing VL supply. They might be more inclined to defend them.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[Andy2012]

If there is a problem with supply on the maps it's the AI's suicidal tendency to leave important road junctions and cities to go off on the fringes of the map to occupy 5 or 10 point railway or road exits. I would be curious to see if their defensive behaviors improved by removing those border supply zones and increasing VL supply. They might be more inclined to defend them.

Yeah, saw this behavior, too. Strange.

[Andy2012]

I think strat bombers are severely underrated cause people don't know they provide this value.

Or just dont have the air supply after prioritising fighters.