MP question : defeating the elephant man

[Chris10]

chris, I just remembered why I'm not a fan of strategic bombing. With tactical, the opponent has to spend PPs to re-up where fuel and ammo are free. It didn't seem fiscally sound to spend PPs on the bomber and not try to recoup them with usage. It wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise but that's what I think at present.

The strategic concept and real value of Strats is often overlooked and even neglected cause they deal little to no direct damage...but.... Strats are far more resistent to enemy AA than Tacs/Fighters and more resistant to enemy fighters than Tacs and backed by fighters its costly to bring them down + they always eat up enemy fuel/ammo even when their strength points go down..any unit pinned down by a Strat is as good as useless and on each attack you get the chance of high supression which then gives the chance of a direct hit by a nearby ground unit with a fair chance of taking no loss while additionally eating up 1 ammo with each attack...that can render an Elpehant inmobilized/out of ammo in 1 turn for example
If properly used Strats are highly effective against heavy enemy armor and heavy fortified and entrenched regions..no fighting without ammo and with a strat above and an adjacent enemy unit no resupply...> trapshooting
on the other hand Strats can be used to simply delay enemy advance without using any ground unit to fisically engage the Elephants by simply harrassing their fuel which leads to multiple turns need to spend on resupply instead of advancing and fighting and this renders especially the Elephants pretty ineffective in relation to their cost which in the case of an 6x Elephant striking force will cause huge frustration on the axis side...obvioulsy you need recon nearby and fast armor to harrass enemy mobile AA if needed....plenty of possbilities...

[deducter]

I have also been able to take out the southern town and even cross the river (with deception) in a russian counter attack. I took a lot of territory and towns but i couldnt actually snag anymore major flags and ran out of time in the end. In fact in one game the elephants even pushed on in the North and took the eastern corner while still holding the centre. My northern areas were almost completely absent of tanks in those games, a very odd looking map. By then I had lost 4 Russian games while winning all my German battles and decided I'd had enough of the elephants, ISU 122's and conscripts in SAS. I have not played it since. I still think there is something odd about the battle and would prefer to see less of these rare tank hunters in such prominent offensive roles.
but each to there own i guess

But the thing is this map is not unbalanced. I have won with both factions, German and Soviets, against the same player. And I employ all sorts of units as the Germans, I buy everything from Panthers to StuG IIIG to StuG IV to the occasional Tiger. Admittedly, as the Soviets, I pretty much only ever buy the ISU-122 for armor, but I use guards and conscripts, along with a wide variety of air units.

In my paired match against Eggmanrc, I actually won quicker as the Soviets than as the Germans. Both games ended with me taking all VH. I feel the Soviets might actually have a small advantage on this map, if you play correctly.

[soldier]

In my paired match against Eggmanrc, I actually won quicker as the Soviets than as the Germans. Both games ended with me taking all VH. I feel the Soviets might actually have a small advantage on this map, if you play correctly.

An impressive feat to be sure, I don't remember taking all VH's in this battle (but a few battles have ended suddenly). My hats off to you

[Naxor]

Yeah elephant is overpowered but i think the russian conscripts are a way more annoying unit. Russians wins always if the player is smart enough to use the endless supply of conscripts. No matter how many of them you destroy because they are just too easy to replace. Return to kiev, urban warfare and scenarios like that are just now unplayable on german side because most of the players know the magic of the conscripts.

[Chris10]

......unplayable on german side because most of the players know the magic of the conscripts......

..........so did Stalin
maybe reduce the conscripts to 12 or 13 in MP

[soldier]

Conscripts are always able to take 3 or 4 off your good German troops in close defense, even if your guys are experienced. This is because they have the same close defense as pioneer or Grenadier and .5 more men which is a big equalizer in forests but doesn't help them so much in the open.

In my custom mod i get better results by bumping up all other troops close defense to 3 and leaving conscripts at 2 but i can't do much about them in MP unfortunately.

[deducter]

Yeah elephant is overpowered but i think the russian conscripts are a way more annoying unit. Russians wins always if the player is smart enough to use the endless supply of conscripts. No matter how many of them you destroy because they are just too easy to replace. Return to kiev, urban warfare and scenarios like that are just now unplayable on german side because most of the players know the magic of the conscripts.

My games with eggmanrc proved that Elefants are not overpowered, if you are smart about dealing with them. They are a bit too powerful and slight nerf might be fine, but nothing drastic needs to be done.

Smart use of conscripts is important to victory for the Russians, but by no means is using only conscripts enough to secure victory. The Germans have a significant advantage in armor compared with the Russians.

I actually think the Allies have an advantage on Urban Warfare. The quality of their infantry is much better for killing tanks in close terrain, and they have vastly superior artillery.

If you think the Soviets are too good on UW and Kiev, I'd be happy to prove otherwise.

[Naxor]

Germany have better armor overall but it doesn't always help. For example in scenario like iron cross red star the soviets have better armor (kv1c) and also conscript wild card + one extra core slot. Two equally skilled players = soviet victory. One match can't prove anything but in the long run it's clear conscripts give a huge advantage for russians.

[deducter]

Germany have better armor overall but it doesn't always help. For example in scenario like iron cross red star the soviets have better armor (kv1c) and also conscript wild card + one extra core slot. Two equally skilled players = soviet victory. One match can't prove anything but in the long run it's clear conscripts give a huge advantage for russians.

I do agree that ICRS is the only map that is massively favored for the Soviets and is unbalanced. It's not just the conscripts or KV-1C, I've used mostly T-34 and still won easily.

However, on all other maps the Germans and Soviets are well-balanced. I'd be happy to prove my point to any doubters.

Edit: we had players complaining for instance that Steamrollers is massively favored for the Germans because of the Elefant. So if the Soviets were all powerful, how could this be?

[soldier]

It seems that if someone feels that some units are unbalanced then the best players here (I'm looking at you Kerensky and Deducter) feel that a "trial by fire" in MP somehow proves that all units are fine as they are. All this actually proves is that they are good players and could probably still win even if using inferior equipment (something no doubt both have done).

It would be a shame if all unit suggestions were dealt with in this way and that no improvements were ever made because of it
I too have won many battles but personally think the elephant and the conscript could be modelled better and that those MP battles could be even better than they currently are.

[deducter]

It seems that if someone feels that some units are unbalanced then the best players here (I'm looking at you Kerensky and Deducter) feel that a "trial by fire" in MP somehow proves that all units are fine as they are. All this actually proves is that they are good players and could probably still win even if using inferior equipment (something no doubt both have done).

It would be a shame if all unit suggestions were dealt with in this way and that no improvements were ever made because of it
I too have won many battles but personally think the elephant and the conscript could be modelled better and that those MP battles could be even better than they currently are.

My experience with map balance comes from playing against players at a comparable skill level and from playing paired games. That's how I know that maps and units are reasonably balanced. For instance, I've played Frozen North, Kiev, UW, and Steamrollers against Neccromancer who is at the same skill level as me, and all the matches were extremely close, and we've both won and lost on these maps with both factions.

ICRS is an exception because I always lose as the Germans and always wins as the Soviets in paired games.

I don't play intentionally gimping myself using "inferior equipment." I buy stuff like the StuG III or the Panzer IIIN because they are effective and serve a useful purpose. If you want me to fight Elefants with ISU-122, of course I'll lose. You can't base balance on simple factors like which tank is the best, rather, you have to evaluate things very carefully with all other factors considered (prestige level, general cost of equipment, # of core slots). Currently Elefants are bad against infantry, have terrible ammo, and are very slow. So the trick is to deal with the Elefants with infantry while attacking elsewhere as the Soviets on Steamrollers. Generally a good German player can stem the initial Soviet onslaught, in which case the Soviets need to buy time using conscripts/some armor to hold 5 VH for as long as possible.

Philosophically we can debate whether a German player should be allowed to buy so many Elefants or not. That's a reasonable discussion, and I personally feel that there should be a limit on heavy armor. However the current system is balanced, because a heavy armor focused strategy is not unbeatable in MP. Similarly, conscripts are very good if used properly, but I've beaten Soviet players as the Germans by maintaining about a 3:1 kill ratio of infantry. I think this reflects historical realities really well.

That said, I do agree that balance isn't tested to a perfect extent, since I don't have a large sample size of games where I played against an equally skilled opponent. There are probably slight advantages to one side or another for various maps (Frozen North slightly for Soviets, UW slightly for the Allies, at least imo). I agree other improvements in MP units could be made, especially promoting the use of medium tanks like the Panzer IV and T-34, and strategic bombers could be improved somehow, but the other units are well-balanced.