GSv2.10 Q&A Quiz Contest

[richardsd]

This is because Russia starts with organization tech 1 while Germany has organization tech 3. Each organization tech advance will increase the max efficiency of the unit. The more effective the Russian unit is the higher casualties it will inflict on the German units and the less damage they will receive.

Russia will struggle with destroying German units late in the war unless the organization tech has advanced at least to tech 3. At tech 1 the efficiency increase is just 3. At tech 2 it's 11 and at tech 3 it's 21. So 2 extra levels in organization will boost the efficiency by 18. That's more than the best leader (Zhukov). Even better is that the efficiency increase from organization applies to ALL units and is CUMULATIVE with the increase from a leader.

correct - and very important it is too!

[Peter Stauffenberg]

Here is my question.

What is the highest accumulated tech value a unit type has in GS v2.1 and which unit types can reach that value?

With accumulated tech value I mean the value you see on a unit when you upgrade it. E. g. if it shows 15/18 it means the current tech is 15 and max is 18 with the techs you have at the moment.
Accumulated tech value means the unit can get tech advances from several tech areas. The number increases if you get a new tech that will improve some kind of value on the unit type.

[joerock22]

I think tanks can get up to 24 tech level -- 6 blitzkreig, 6 armour, 6 tank destroyers, and 6 organization.

[Peter Stauffenberg]

That is true, but 2 other unit types can as well. Which? I will be going on a holiday so Joe can make the next question.

[joerock22]

That is true, but 2 other unit types can as well. Which? I will be going on a holiday so Joe can make the next question.

Yes, these types can also get 24 tech:

Mechs - 5 artillery, 4 fixed defenses, 6 anti-tank, 2 blitzkreig, 1 armour, 6 organization
CV - 5 dog fight, 3 close air support, 2 strategic operations, 3 surface ships, 3 ASW, 6 organization, 2 radar

Anyway, my question is this:

Is it ever possible to exceed a) the yearly SS limit, or b) the yearly Guard limit? If so, please tell us how.

[zechi]

That is true, but 2 other unit types can as well. Which? I will be going on a holiday so Joe can make the next question.

Is it ever possible to exceed a) the yearly SS limit, or b) the yearly Guard limit? If so, please tell us how.

Yes, both is possible. The Germans get a free SS volunteer unit in 1943. If then have already used all SS slots, you will exceed the available SS slots.

More or less its the same with the Soviets. The Soviets also get free Guard units as Siberian reserves in 1941. So if you manage to get some Guard units in the initial phase of Barbarossa these free units will also be in addition to you available Guard slots.

[joerock22]

Yes, both is possible. The Germans get a free SS volunteer unit in 1943. If then have already used all SS slots, you will exceed the available SS slots.

More or less its the same with the Soviets. The Soviets also get free Guard units as Siberian reserves in 1941. So if you manage to get some Guard units in the initial phase of Barbarossa these free units will also be in addition to you available Guard slots.

You are correct, sir! The initiative is yours.

[zechi]

OK something simple. Name the best leader for each power.

[joerock22]

OK something simple. Name the best leader for each power.

Let's see, off the top of my head...

Germany - Mainstein
Italy - Messe
Britain - Montgomery
Russia - Zhukov
USA - Eisenhower
France - um...Giraud (I had to look up France)

[zechi]

OK something simple. Name the best leader for each power.

Let's see, off the top of my head...

Germany - Mainstein
Italy - Messe
Britain - Montgomery
Russia - Zhukov
USA - Eisenhower
France - um...Giraud (I had to look up France)

Can't take a look at the game at the moment, but if I remember correctly neither Eisenhower nor Messe are the best leaders for their countries, at least not if you go by price in PP as the game engine values a bonus to Attack as more valuable then the command range.

[richardsd]

OK something simple. Name the best leader for each power.

only simple if you provide a definition of 'best'

Patton for instance costs more than Eisenhower

[zechi]

OK something simple. Name the best leader for each power.

only simple if you provide a definition of 'best'

Patton for instance costs more than Eisenhower

OK, I think the PP costs indicates which leaders are the best or why should Eisenhower be cheaper then Patton if he could be considered the better leader in game terms?

[Peter Stauffenberg]

It's subjective what's best for you. E. g. a 7-1-0 Patton leader might be considered better than the 8-0-0 Eisenhower leader if you're on the offensive and need the +1 to ground attack to kill German panzers. In other situations the extra +2 max efficiency from Eisenhower can be considered better than the +1 ground attack from Patton because the max efficiency increase applies to all units within range.

We're using the same ration as in the vanilla game although the leader cost is cheaper in GS v2.1 due to the reduced range (-2 range compared to the Vanilla game).

[zechi]

It's subjective what's best for you. E. g. a 7-1-0 Patton leader might be considered better than the 8-0-0 Eisenhower leader if you're on the offensive and need the +1 to ground attack to kill German panzers. In other situations the extra +2 max efficiency from Eisenhower can be considered better than the +1 ground attack from Patton because the max efficiency increase applies to all units within range.

Of course in different situations different leaders are better then other. A leader with a defensive bonus will be better if you are trying to defend an important location etc.

But if you do not look at special situations but only at the raw stats, the game engine seems to assume that a bonus to attack is more valuable, as these leaders are more costly if compared to other leaders without bonus to attack, i.e. Patton costs more then Eisenhower and is considered the better leader by the game engine if you look only at the raw stats without referring to special situations.

[joerock22]

I guess it is subjective when you consider which leader is "best." I ask the question, which leader will help their side more? Eisenhower at 8-0-0 or Patton at 7-1-0. I submit that unless you're talking about small-scale battles, the extra efficiency boost of Eisenhower makes him the better leader. He will help all surrounding units more than Patton, so he is a better army commander. Patton is a better unit commander. It depends what you're looking for which man is "best."

[richardsd]

I guess it is subjective when you consider which leader is "best." I ask the question, which leader will help their side more? Eisenhower at 8-0-0 or Patton at 7-1-0. I submit that unless you're talking about small-scale battles, the extra efficiency boost of Eisenhower makes him the better leader. He will help all surrounding units more than Patton, so he is a better army commander. Patton is a better unit commander. It depends what you're looking for which man is "best."

Its probably not the best use of Eisenhower, but I like to get him supporting the USAAF bombing of Europe early on.

[Diplomaticus]

Since a leader with 8 leadership and 6 hex radius has the power to affect more units and boost their effectiveness higher, I'd say that, except in specific circumstances, Eisenhower is better than Patton. The +1 attack is, after all, only usable by a single unit, and it means risking a high value HQ in the front lines. In many turns the +1 doesn't get used at all, while the leadership radius is always useful.

[joerock22]

Its probably not the best use of Eisenhower, but I like to get him supporting the USAAF bombing of Europe early on.

I do the same thing, actually. When the Allies assemble their massive air armada in England in 1943-44, I have Eisenhower and Montgomery commanding. The ground troops are led by Patton, O'Connor, etc. I think it's more important to have the air units in the 90s effectivness than it is to have the ground units in the 90s.

[zechi]

But if you argue that leader with a higher leadership is better, then he should be more expensive then leaders with a bonus to attack. Otherwise the higher price does not seem to justified.

Nevertheless, as I agree that you can argue about the "best" leader and Eisenhower can be considered better then Patton, you get the initiative.

[joerock22]

Here's mine: which country (or countries) suffers the highest morale loss on DOW?