Slitherine

Epic conclusion and despite your success in russia the same historical conclusion

Last Allied turn, ground:

Air:
Axis only controls West Russia and cut off from all the oil fields, minimizing its income. The Western Allied units cannot enter the Soviet sphere (and vice versa) if there is at least one Soviet victory objective city in Allied hands (i.e. the Soviet Union is still at war - or as in this case, again back at war... ) or they start to lose strength in each turn. After Romania changed sides (which was inadvertedly triggered by the Allied tank reaching East Romania from the Balkans) I got back some Soviet cities as well (I think Odessa) which started this script. But, at the same time, after I captured a few more Soviet cities the Soviet army also remobilized itself and I got several late war Soviet units in the Urals.

Anyway, I will look into this as I am not happy about these scripts now. It works well in single player with the silly AI, but not so much in multi. I think I will add a tag so that once a main enemy surrenders, it would not get any more reinforcements, any time later, even if some of its cities are liberated by the other main Allied nation.

Re-activated Soviet army in the north:
and south:

British Commonwealth units in the Caucasus:
In each turn these lost some strength points after the above script was activated. Which would have made it difficult to hold this area, had the Axis had some units here to start to recapture it.

Nevertheless, the British High Command is very pleased with the outcome of the events. While it managed to defeat the Germans and Italians in North Africa and the Middle East, the Germans and the Soviets weakened each other in the Eastern Front significantly. Although the Wehrmacht finally managed to defeat the Soviets, it suffered so high losses in the process that the Western Allies had no problem in invading Western Europe. At the same time, the Allied High Command, attacking from the south after the victory at Tunis, also managed to create three additional frontlines: one in Italy, one in the Balkans, and one in the Caucasus. The surrender of the Soviet Union allowed the British to cross the pre-war Soviet border and advance to Baku as it was no longer bound by the Anglo-Soviet agreement. But it was only possible after the successful defeat of the German expeditionary forces in Iraq.


The British Admirality is also pleased with the result. It managed to cause higher comparable losses to the enemy navies. It ended the U-boat peril and managed to preserve all its aircraft carriers. However, some captains became over-enthusiastic in the pursuit of enemy U-boats and ships and as a result let their ships run out of fuel in the middle of the sea :

Needless to say, these reckless captains will be court-martialed and will be sent to the Solomon Islands to help to bury the dead as a punishment.

The most successful British fighter unit:


The most successful British Commonwealth fighter unit, which had a major role in the victories in the Middle East:


And the most succesful US fighter unit, which arrived later but also had a huge role in the defeat of the Luftwaffe:

The "Beast Killer" Hellcat, which managed to one shot kill (force surrender) the venerable German Tiger I unit near Paris, after the successul artillery suppression:

In the end, I must say I was a bit disappointed as I was secretly hoping that Intenso will be able to win both matches as that would have proved that the mod is well balanced in multiplayer as a player can win from both sides. In my opinion he would have deserved a minor victory or a draw at least.

However, as I explained (here: http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 11#p762935) that this time we were playing with half the normal prestige being allocated due to a strange bug in the main game, it cannot really be seen as a fully successful test play as playing with half the normal prestige had a fatal effect on the Axis war economy. With normal prestige being allocated, Intenso might have been able to purchase and upgrade enough units after the defeat of the USSR to enable him to stop the advance of the Western Allies. But we also noticed that currently the Western Allied air forces are a bit too strong and should be weakened. So maybe even with double Axis prestige it would be simply overwhelmingly strong. And of course we found lots of other things which will be fixed or changed in the coming next version so it will surely be more balanced than this test version was. Nevetheless, it will possibly require a few more test plays to set the desired balance correctly. After all, setting the current balance of the single player game required many replays by several players over the years.

McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:42 pm Anyway, I will look into this as I am not happy about these scripts now. It works well in single player with the silly AI, but not so much in multi. I think I will add a tag so that once a main enemy surrenders, it would not get any more reinforcements, any time later, even if some of its cities are liberated by the other main Allied nation.

Maybe you could check if key SU cities/victory objectives are occupied (i.e. garrisoned) by enough Axis units and make a potential SU rearmament (after surrender) depending on this?

PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 8:40 pm

McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:42 pm Anyway, I will look into this as I am not happy about these scripts now. It works well in single player with the silly AI, but not so much in multi. I think I will add a tag so that once a main enemy surrenders, it would not get any more reinforcements, any time later, even if some of its cities are liberated by the other main Allied nation.

Maybe you could check if key SU cities/victory objectives are occupied (i.e. garrisoned) by enough Axis units and make a potential SU rearmament (after surrender) depending on this?

I think after the SU surrenders, it should not "reactivate" under any circumstances. And the same goes for Britain. A surrender means surrender and should include certain guarantees that the losing side would not rectify it, especially not in the current short time period of the scenario i.e. within a few months. That's why I did not really pursue the idea of attacking with the new Soviet forces here too soon. I just moved them to regain some border cities to see how it affects the number of new Soviet units appearing. But it only happened in the very last turns, after the fall of Germany, so it did not really matter.

And of course, normally the scenario should have ended in both cases after the fall of Germany.

Well, sure... but this contradicts the partisan concept a bit as well as the fact that the Germans had planned for several occupation divisions (in theory at least)... and the Soviet Union "continued" beyond the AA-line...

The A-A line as the end-goal of military hostilities was chosen because an occupation of the entire Soviet Union in a single military campaign was considered impossible in view of its geographic dimensions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-A_line

True. But I think a few partisan units can still appear even after the defeat of the SU and they can recapture victory objective cities forcing the Axis player to again capture them back and of course partisans can very effectively block and slow down the movement of Axis troops to the west as it happened here as well many times. So some Axis units should be left behind anyway, I guess. It is just I do not think that partisans should have the power to reactivate the whole of SU (or another country) after its surrender. It would make them a bit too powerful.

Maybe they are already too powerful as currently they can recapture victory cities in the back allowing the Soviets to get more new units time to time. There might be a debate if it is good or not. But I think there should be a difference between the SU being at war or out of war. While still at war, partisans or other regular units recapturing objectives may boost morale and/or hinder enemy supply lines allowing the Soviet economy to increase its war efforts, a SU which has already surrendered to the enemy should not change its mind and field whole armies all of a sudden only because partisans (or the British?) recapture some cities.

Well, I see... on a similar note, I found it interesting that the SU got accumulated reinforcements once the SU had three victory objectives again, i.e. it got the reinforcements even for the time it didn't hold three victory objectives, is this correct?

PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 10:08 pm Well, I see... on a similar note, I found it interesting that the SU got accumulated reinforcements once the SU had three victory objectives again, i.e. it got the reinforcements even for the time it didn't hold three victory objectives, is this correct?

Not exactly. It got some, but probably not all. Most units that appear has a turn interval limit so that for example a certain T-34/43 unit would appear between turn 44-54, if the SU owns at least four victory objectives in that time period at the first occasion. Normally it is turn 44. But if the Axis captures all but three SU objectives by 44 this unit would not appear. However, if the Allied player can then recapture one more objective by turn 54 and own four, it will appear immediately at the beginning of the next turn, unless the Axis recaptures the objective in his turn. That's why it is important to hold Axis units in the back. So that they can immediately recapture a lost objective if needed. But then again, if the Allied player cannot retake four objective cities by turn 54 this unit is lost for good for him. That's why I only got relatively modern SU units in the late turns if you check out again that screenshot. I only got those Soviet units which were about to appear in the few turns preceding the turn when I again had four SU objective cities. So all the more obsolete types were gone.

This turn interval is usually around 10 turns, but some units have more or less and some does not have this restriction at all. And it is pretty much the same in single and multiplayer.

Besides denying too obsolete units to show up, this system also makes it important for the Axis player to hold major objectives like Moscow or Leningrad as long as possible because it affects units "produced" by those important objectives in a similar way. That's why I tried to hold Leningrad a long as possible. Maybe there was one or more units which were set to appear by turn 60 but only if the Allied side holds Leningrad. And if I manage to hold Leningrad 1 turn longer, this unit(s) would not appear.

There are hundreds of Allied units appearing so obviously I do not know the characteristics of these, and the player should not know either in most cases. It is enough to do the best to hinder the enemy's efforts and then the game will do its part as well in the background.

Loss analysis - Final


Statistics are taken from the latest data, after the end of both games.

Comparison with previous data for the Axis (t=86) viewtopic.php?f=145&t=89711&start=360#p783532
Comparison with previous data for the Allies (t=86) viewtopic.php?f=145&t=89760&start=360#p783531

In the game Intenso for Axis, as a result of the defense of Germany and Berlin, almost all Axis troops were destroyed. They decided to die for Germany.
This is reflected in the statistics. On average, Allied losses are up 40%.
With the exception of Kriegsmarine. Which was completely destroyed.

In the game McGuba for Axis, the statistics has hardly changed since the last comparison.
With the exception of tanks and fighters, where the loss ratio is 1 to 2.
The remaining classes are approaching 1 to 1. The Allied losses are on average more than 20%.

The ratio of losses in the game for the Axis.
Quite interestingly, it is almost the same 1 to 1.
Except that Intenso lost more fighters by 30%. Including due to the fact that McGuba evacuated part of its aircraft to Africa.

The ratio of losses in the game for the Allies.
Intenso's losses in tanks and fighters are 20% more.
And the loss of MсGuba in infantry and bombers is also greater by 10-20%.
Interestingly, the McGuba lost substantially fewer ships for the Allies.
This fact affects the ratio of fleet losses in the game Intenso for Axis, because in absolute numbers, the fleet losses for Axis in both games are the same.

In absolute numbers,
it is clear that the losses are almost the same. Especially for the Axis.
In addition, McGuba lost more infantry for the Allies.
Intenso for the Allies lost more tanks (this is probably Operation in Berlin).
And much more ships.


--
Table of contents

McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 7:42 pm Anyway, I will look into this as I am not happy about these scripts now. It works well in single player with the silly AI, but not so much in multi. I think I will add a tag so that once a main enemy surrenders, it would not get any more reinforcements, any time later, even if some of its cities are liberated by the other main Allied nation.

I agree.

McGuba wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 9:48 pm Maybe they are already too powerful as currently they can recapture victory cities in the back allowing the Soviets to get more new units time to time. There might be a debate if it is good or not. But I think there should be a difference between the SU being at war or out of war. While still at war, partisans or other regular units recapturing objectives may boost morale and/or hinder enemy supply lines allowing the Soviet economy to increase its war efforts, a SU which has already surrendered to the enemy should not change its mind and field whole armies all of a sudden only because partisans (or the British?) recapture some cities.

I think that the partisans should be of two kinds.
The first large unit of about 7+ points strength that do not have cammo trait, can capture cities.
And small sabotage groups 2-3 points strength have cammo trait and cannot capture cities, as well as AT guns.

Conclusions

I think the game for Axis was very dramatic.
The first part of the game went like clockwork. Blitzkrieg ... Moscow.
But after Moscow, at first only half of prestige began to be felt.
The pace of the offensive slowed down and the conquest of Russia dragged on. And everything went wrong.

Parisan war severely broken the Axis. And the Soviets could reactivate the receipt of reinforcements like that several times.
This delayed the end of war in Russia until the beginning of D-Day.
Although it was planned that it would be about 50 turn.

This affected the fact that the Expeditionary Corps in Iraq could not receive reinforcements and was defeated.
Although it was enough to capture the Middle East, but the reinforcements of the Allies from Egypt and upgrading tanks were not taken into account.

Then a completely unexpected thing happened in Tunis when the Tiger was lost.
And the Allies were able to start landing in Sicily and Italy.
This finally led to the collapse of all further strategy.

But even then there was hope for a Draw. It was before the beginning of the D-Day when the Allied aviation showed itself
Besides Italy, the Allies unexpectedly opened two more fronts.
They seized oil in the Caucasus and landed in the Balkans for Romanian oil.
Of course, there was no longer any reason for the troops to capture back the Caucasus (oil would have started to flow only through a delay of 24 turns (12 turns in a normal game).
All this time there was a threat of reactivation of the reinforcements of the Soviets.
But the calculation showed that this does not affect the game, they will not have time. So it happened.

Well. Now I am analyzing the whole game, I think that if it were not for the three Allied fronts in Italy, the Caucasus and the Balkans.
That could definitely keep Berlin, and maybe even get a Draw.

But, if there was full prestige and adjusted Allied aviation, then I think it would be possible to crush Allies in France

Double post, in case of those who will read in the future ...

I think that the multiplayer version of the mod has a huge replay potential.
No less than a single version.
Although this AAR was long and detailed. I think that after it there will be only more questions than answers
And this is good.

I think this is one of the most exciting games I've played.
Before that it was a single version of the BE mod
So thanks to McGuba for this wonderful Mod!
And I hope that he uses in mod a number of my ideas and suggestions in the future.

But do not forget that such mods and games expand when they are played by different players and share their feedback and ideas.
So I will be glad when it appears in public access.

Also, THANKS to ALL who have been with us all this time and read and commented this AAR!
Especially those who read both AARs Allies.

So you guys will start a second test play soon then?

PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 3:14 pm So you guys will start a second test play soon then?

I really hope that I will be able to have another go later, with either Intenso or maybe somebody else, but certainly not so soon. The last few months have been sometimes quite busy as besides running this paired multiplayer match, which was already a bit time consuming, I also constantly made changes to the next version, which ranged from map changes to creating and adding new or modified units, modifying unit stats, fixes, etc., and I also made two single player campaign tests, the second one is near completion now. After I finish the single player test I need to have a look at the list of planned changes that we agreed on with Intenso and to start to implement them. Then do the fininshing touches and upload it. Following that I plan to take a little break from PzC and maybe after that have another go with the multi.

PeteMitchell_2 wrote: ↑Wed May 22, 2019 3:14 pm So you guys will start a second test play soon then?

I would have a some rest and then maybe I continued to work on my Russia at War mod.
And when the next version MP BE is ready, maybe 2.1 would be happy to test it in the future.