Slitherine

verstaubtgesicht wrote: an investment of hundreds of hours...

You tell me about it... probably I have put thousands of hours into this mod by now... but I do not really mind a minute of it!

First and foremost, the starting core.

Yeah, you can experiment with a different one (and different players will have different opinions on the ideal core here), but since it is quite small compared to the rest of the Axis army in the big scenario I think it does not make a huge difference. I set it up in a way that it should be ideal for most players and winning or losing the war should not depend on changing it or not. It is much, much more important what you do with the whole army, both tactically and strategically.

Second, last time I upgraded most of my AA to 88cm (36 type) with the notion that I'd need it for more robust air war in France, and then anti-tank killing during the winter of '41 in the East. Good or bad idea?

I personally think it is a waste of prestige to upgrade all AA to 88mm. Also it is unhistorical. Germany produced more than 144,000 2cm FlaKs and "only" 20,000 88s. Additionally, the 88 is only very effective against tanks early in the war, later, as the new generation of Allied tanks with 75-76 mm main guns are to become the standard with a high soft attack value (thanks to their effective HE rounds), the soft target AAs are pretty much doomed.

So you can upgrade a few if you want to, but not all. But it is true for just about every other unit class, as for those pioneers, where you probably made the same mistake. A main feature of this mod and its equipment file is that there is no super unit in it. You should go for a well balanced army composition with both weak (but cheap to maintain) and good (but expensive to upgrade and maintain) units in it who can supplement each other. And the same goes to experience - ideally should have a few units getting elite replacements to maintain their high exp. and the rest should slowly degrade by mainly getting green replacements. Then strong and/or experienced units should make the first attack and then the weakened enemy units can be finished off by the average or below average Axis units. It is also accurate historically - Wehrmacht attacks were usually spearheaded by elite SS and heavy Panzer units who were followed by the not so good units.

Last time I had a lot of idle non-motorized inf moving on foot trying to catch up (trains have a limited throughput, especially in terms of receiving stations close enough to the front), and the same with horse-drawn arty.

It is absolutely accurate historically. The Wehrmacht was in fact much less motorized than the (Western) Allied armies or as many people would think. The main reason was the lack of oil but also there were much less cars produced in Germany before the war than in the US or UK, so there was much less industrial capacity to produce trucks and stuff. Historically around 80% of the German field artillery was horse-drawn and similarily the majority of the infantry was marching on foot for most of the time. Only towed AT guns and AA guns had motorized tractors. As a player you can change it in the mod, but of course it will cost you prestige which could be better spent elsewhere. So again, I can suggest you to balance your army: have some fully motorized spearheads to take the lead, which can be followed by the non-motorzed bulk of the army who will capture any cities left and occupy the area. Use the Luftwaffe as your mobile aerial artillery, as historically. As you noted correctly, after the early Blitzkrieg phase the prestige spent on motorization is largely wasted, anyway. And obviously for long sieges like the siege of Leningrad or Sevastopol you do not need motorized units at all.

I also noticed that once HMS is gone, bombarding UK fortifications with the Atlantic fleet achieves two goals: 1) reduces the radars and forts to rubble - hence reduces vision and enables easier invasion later on, if one decides to go that way; 2) shipa are gaining prestige quikcly without any potential harm! However, it's almost an exploit... Why isn't the UK fleet alerted by this? Thoughts?

The Home Fleet only responds to a serious ongoing invasion attempt. Otherwise it would be too easy to lure it out from Scapa and destroy it under favourable conditions. Unfortunately I do not have more AI zones to make the AI "smarter" in this regard. However, destroying radars and forts unmolested is obviously an exploitation of the restricted AI and I am aware of it. Thus in v1.8 Allied radars will be changed back to Anti-Air class, so that the AI can repair them back to full strength unless they are destroyed in one turn, which is hard. Also forts will get 3 entrenchment points at the beginning of each turn to give them more protection.

Final question on Atlantic shipping lanes. Does the AI "see" all units on the "$" hexes regardless of the noraml vision by their units?

No. There is no AI cheating in the game. Not at all. The AI can only "see" what its units can. Actually it sees less than the player as for example if the player attacks an enemy unit in bad weather which has an unseen supporting artillery behind it gets displayed for a moment when it fires, and from that point the player knows that there is an arty, even though it remains hidden. On the other hand if the AI attacks under the same circumstances it will instantly "forget" about that arty unit and will insist on attacking against the seemingly unprotected unit leading to further losses.

Is there any hint about an optimal placement/movement of subs? For example, one of my subs in the upper lane was left undisturbed for 20 turns or more, while the others got attacked seemingly out of nowhere.

There are many AI units in the mod who set are to patrol a certain area. Some of them are patrolling their given area randomly, others by following a route going from one hex to the next nearest. Thus it is impossible to predict their movement and while some areas on the map can be perfectly safe for a while in one play through in another the same area can be packed with enemy units who seemingly find any well placed player unit instantly. It is all pure luck, but the player can adopt to it in some cases. Sometimes by using historical tactics. For example the Kriegsmarine used the so-called Wolfpacks by gathering large numbers of U-boats to counter the similarily large numbers of Allied shipping. It also works in the mod (for a while at least): if you have several U-boats they can destroy any single Allied unit which happens to find them in one turn. Then the AI will again "forget" about them as none of its units can see them during its turn. Even better if they have air support. Things only get worse from early 1943 when the number of Allied destroyers and air cover significantly increase. Just as historically.

McGuba, first let me echo many who have played this mode and expressed gratitude for your gift to all of us. This is such a well designed, thoughtful mod that never ceases to amaze me with the level of historical detail and accuracy, balance, and similarity to real-life situation. Not to mention that the "re-playability" is by far the highest that I've ever seen for PC (the biggest weakness of PC is that it's static, and in the regular non-moded game a played scenario becomes stale right away).

In this message I'd like to address some "philosophical" points and questions, and maybe ask for more concrete tips later once I get a chance to return to the game. First, I think that there is the fundamental question of how much the play should be steered towards the historic outcome vs. fun of playability and an opportunity for a player to change the historical outcome (if there is a 95%+ probability that the player would end up in a bunker in Berlin in May 1945, that would not be much fun). Second, how much should the play be left to players' self-discipline vs. curtailing exploits with hard coded set up? Third, how much should luck play a role?

On the first question, I believe that the mod is relatively "fair and balanced", i.e. there is a strong historic undercurrent, but also an opportunity for players to go in a different direction and change the outcome of the war (as evidenced by several exquisite AAR's). I only have one possible suggestion: instead of a unidirectional scripted response by the allies, maybe their behavior should change more dramatically based on the human player's achievements (or lack thereof). For example, if the Axis makes certain moves/achievements, change the response, such as if Egypt falls, abort Torch, and bolster the force in the Middle East, or try to invade other parts of fortress Europe directly. This already exists to a certain degree (Russian response depends on how much territory they lose in '41), but more unpredictability could be introduced.

I struggle with the second point, because I'm not a disciplined player. OK, I can refrain from reducing the coast of England to rubble with warships, due to the limitations of the game in terms of how many zones the game can control, but the there are many more subtle questions. Is it ok to upgrade most of your infantry to grenadiere and Pz I's and II's into PZ III in fall '41? Is it even fair that there are any upgrade opportunities like that? On one hand, generally, if there is an upgrade available and one has enough $$$, then it is up to him to decide if they are ready to pay the full price for an upgrade. On the other hand, upgrading all existing tanks into the most powerful ones seems like excess and it doesn't follow history by a mile.

Third, I hate one battle game changers where it is your luck that ruins many turns/hours of careful play. For example, one bad roll of dice in a critical naval battle can cripple you for good. Yes, historically Bismarck went down with a lucky shot (so did HMS Hood), but such game changers can be very discouraging, or if in your favor undeserved. I think that the game should be geared towards rewarding smart play and luck reduced. I guess one culd play with modified chess, but then that ruins the unpredictability of other battles.

verstaubtgesicht wrote: First, I think that there is the fundamental question of how much the play should be steered towards the historic outcome vs. fun of playability and an opportunity for a player to change the historical outcome (if there is a 95%+ probability that the player would end up in a bunker in Berlin in May 1945, that would not be much fun).

I think it is very much possible to change the historical outcome, even for average or below average players, at least for some extent. And then there is the chance to change the difficulty level, especially the available prestige for those who struggle on the recommended setting (General).

Historically the Axis made several mistakes, for example the missed opportunity to invade Malta in 1941 or 1942 had a very negative effect in 1943. A possible invasion of that island had a very realistic chance, they even made some plans, but in the end shlelved the idea for a number of reasons. Also, there was a chance to capture Leningrad, but they decided to starve it instead, so that they did not have to deal with feeding its inhabitants afterwards. And then there was the idea of driving on Moscow early instead of encircling Kiev, of if not, taking Moscow in 1942 instead of going south. And so on, and so on. These, with many others, are all possible in the mod and have an effect on the outcome of the war.

I only have one possible suggestion: instead of a unidirectional scripted response by the allies, maybe their behavior should change more dramatically based on the human player's achievements (or lack thereof). For example, if the Axis makes certain moves/achievements, change the response, such as if Egypt falls, abort Torch, and bolster the force in the Middle East, or try to invade other parts of fortress Europe directly. This already exists to a certain degree (Russian response depends on how much territory they lose in '41), but more unpredictability could be introduced.

I generally agree. But very early during the development of this mod I was asked by several players not to add way too much unhistorical Allied invasions, such as invasions in Denmark or in the Balkans. And I agreed. This mod aims to follow the historical events with some limited AI responses to unhistorical player achievments.

Also, it is not so easy to implement it due to the lack of AI zones. As the AI is pretty much unable to effectively control such a huge map on a strategic level (and there is no point in blaming it for that as many human players are struggling, too), I have to use these zones to set up its behaviour. And since the number of AI zones is very limited, I can only add a limited number of possible AI responses. And I decided to use most of these to better simulate the historical events.

As for Torch vs. strengthening the Middle East, Torch was mainly an American offensive, mostly independent from the British efforts. On top of that, the US did not really want to strengthen the British colonial empire, on the contrary, they were aimed to put an end to it after the war the latest, and in fact they managed to do so. They were planning to land in Morocco from the very beginning, so that even if the Axis manages to close down Gibraltar they can make a foothold in North Africa by attacking it from the Atlantic Ocean undisturbed. So an Axis success or failure in taking Gibraltar or Egypt did not really influence their plans.

And yet still, in v1.8 I will attempt to go in this direction and add some more unpredictability, but mainly in Norway. Since there will be more enemy units appearing on the map, players get a little compensation by the addition of Trondheim, Norway, to the list of "valuable" (prestige generating) cities. Which means 50 extra prestige in each turn, i.e. almost 5000 prestige points until turn 99. But it comes at a price, too. Norway was indeed important, mainly due to the Sweedish iron ore shipments which were transported by its shores. Thus the Germans deployed a large ground army for its defense and the heavest ships of the navy, fearing an Allied invasion. Which did not happen historically, again for a number of reasons. But the Allies did consider a landing in Norway for a while, and later used this possibility to tie down considerable German forces which could have been used elsewhere. So in v1.8 players will be told to deploy the Tirpitz to Trondheim to act as a "fleet in being", as historically, and as long as it is there the chance of an Allied invasion in Norway remains minimal. And even if it is not there, the invasion only may or may not happen. But chances are increasing with time. And if happens can be defeated by ground forces as well.

As a sidenote, if there were more AI zones, I would possibly use them to further improve the northern theatre by adding Murmansk and the northern convoy routes. While I could extend the map itself, there is no point in doing so unless I can fill it with meaningful content, which necessitates more AI zones.

I struggle with the second point, because I'm not a disciplined player. OK, I can refrain from reducing the coast of England to rubble with warships, due to the limitations of the game in terms of how many zones the game can control, but the there are many more subtle questions. Is it ok to upgrade most of your infantry to grenadiere and Pz I's and II's into PZ III in fall '41? Is it even fair that there are any upgrade opportunities like that?

I am aware of the need for some degree of "self restrain", whatever it means to each player. Some players do not care at all, and exploit the weaknesses of the AI to the full. It is up to them, and if they enjoy playing the mod like that, I do not really mind. However, with each release I try to reduce these as much as I can. For example in v1.8, as I wrote already, British forts will get +3 entrenchment at the beginning of each turn and the Chain Home radars will be back to anti-air class so that the AI can repair them between two turns. Also, I try to make Allied bombers a bit more responsive so that they would attack those bombarding ships more often. These will make it harder for players to clear the English beaches with ease. But for anyone, who plans a Sealion operation, clearing a landing beach is a must, so it should not be made totally impossible.

Also, in v1.8 regular infantry and grenadiers will no longer be in the same upgrade family, so it might no longer worth upgrading too many of them. And upgrading all Pz.I and Pz.II to Pz.III in fall 1941 is not necessarily a good idea as those earlier tanks are cheaper to maintain and can be used in a secondary supporting role for some more time. The Pz.III also has its shortcomings and until the arrival of the Panther the long barrel Pz.IV is definitely better. If a player upgrades all tanks to Pz.III he might have problems from late 1942 till mid 1943 stopping the hordes of T-34s. The Pz.IVG does a much better job in this.

On one hand, generally, if there is an upgrade available and one has enough $$$, then it is up to him to decide if they are ready to pay the full price for an upgrade. On the other hand, upgrading all existing tanks into the most powerful ones seems like excess and it doesn't follow history by a mile.

True, but historically Germans could also decide what to do with their available financial and industrial potential. Produce more modern tanks, or more Fw-190s? Concentrate on better artillery and infantry or give more support to the navy so that it can keep its fleet at full strength at all times? Clearly, you cannot do all this at the same time in the mod, unless you are playing with like 200% or even more prestige allocation.

And by the way, historically they managed to upgrade most tanks to Pz.III and Pz.IV by mid 1942, so I think if a player can upgrade all by that time, at the cost of upgrading other units, it is not a big problem:

In 1941 they invaded with roughly 3.600 tanks of which only ~40% belong to the modern Pz III and PZ IV types. From these the Pz III had only 30mm frontal armor (some had extra 30mm bolted on) and roughly 28% had the outdated 37mm gun, the rest the 50mm L42. The Pz IV was armed with a low velocity 75mm gun ineffective against tanks and its armor was only 30mm (a small number had 50mm)

The new versions introduced in 1942 had updated guns and armor. The Pz III received the long 50mm L/60 and additional armor (50mm basic and 20mm bolted on). The Pz IV got the long 75mm KwK40 L/43 that had excellent antitank performance and its armor was increased to 50mm basic plus 30mm bolted on. In the summer of ’42 the Pz III and Pz IV comprise ~67% of German tank strength and out of these 45% have the new tank guns.

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.u ... front.html

As for the limited historical availability of the long gun:

Originally, in August 1940, Hitler had ordered the L/60 gun, but the Ordenance Department did not implement the decision as the L/42 had recently been introduced and had proved successful. At his birthday demonstration in April 1941, Hitler saw the Pz IIIJ still without the long gun and insisted on its fitting as soon as possible.

(Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two)

So it could have been fitted much earlier in larger numbers, but Hitler's order was simply sabotaged. In this mod the basic assumption is that the Führer is no longer there and the player has full control over war production. So why not produce more of these earlier if the technical possibility is given?

Third, I hate one battle game changers where it is your luck that ruins many turns/hours of careful play. For example, one bad roll of dice in a critical naval battle can cripple you for good. Yes, historically Bismarck went down with a lucky shot (so did HMS Hood), but such game changers can be very discouraging, or if in your favor undeserved. I think that the game should be geared towards rewarding smart play and luck reduced. I guess one culd play with modified chess, but then that ruins the unpredictability of other battles.

Now it somewhat challenges the previous need to make it more unpredictable. It cannot be more unpredictabe and "luck reduced" at the same time, I guess. And I think the mod does reward "smart play": for example if one provides enough escort and protection to vulnerable and important units and have enough reconnaissance information at the area such bad experiences can be minimized. Then it takes us to the very interesting "smart play" vs. "taking the risk" approach, which again has its historical paralels, such as the risky and failed British Market Garden operation, which promised to end the war by Chirstmas 1944 vs. the slower but safer progress supported by the Americans, or the risky and successful German drive through the Ardennes in 1940.

I personally prefer to play with random chess, even at the cost of sometimes banging my head into the wall after some unfavourable outcome. And it goes both ways: people tend to forget when the enemy suffers a similar bad experience and only make note of their own misfortune.

One quick tactical question: if all required hexes for the siege of Leningrad are occupied at the beginning and the end of the turn, but units were moved during the turn(the unit that occupied a hex was moved, and then replaced by another unit), is the siege maintained?

Yes. You just have to make sure all hexes with a "B" are occupied by an Axis ground unit at the beginning of the Axis turn. Which means if the AI manages to lift the siege during the Allied turn, the defenders of the city will not loose any strength points during the actual 5-8 turn period.

Very, very interesting , if only I knew before start my own play through, but no problem it can be still useful for other players as well.

Maybe we should ask McGuba to put this thread next to the download link, so everybody could know about it.

faos333 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:28 pm Very, very interesting , if only I knew before start my own play through, but no problem it can be still useful for other players as well.

I would love to, but I think it is a little outdated now and in order to do so I would prefer to have it updated a bit. A lot of things have changed in the mod since this was written and certain things may confuse players.

For example it says

It has big worth to play the first three "introduction" scenarios too!

when in the current version there are 4 pre-Barbarossa scenarios. (One more was added after it was written.) Or when it suggests players to take over just the 2 Pz I's and the 2 fighters from the original core in Poland and sell all others, including the infantry when now there are only 5 core units and no infantry or artillery and only one fighter in the starting core and it is like that for quite some time. New players who read this may become confused and may think they have made an error during the installation or something as they are missing these units from their core.

And now I did not read this topic through but I guess there may be other things which have been changed as well in the last few years and presenting outdated information or suggestions to new players could do more harm than good. And also a lot of new mechanics were added to the mod recently like the fast redeployment of the air units and I am not sure if these are in, I guess they are not, but these can also affect the gameplay and may make some old suggestions and tipps irrelevant.

So I don't know, maybe if could edit these old posts and fix things which are no longer relevant or just create a new topic or post with all the relevant and up-to-date information then I would be happy to add it to the first page of the mod's topic

good idea to update these tips I can help too, the problem is I have not played from Poland

My question is apart from prestige and exp to five core units in the early scenarios what are the other benefits?

For example can I trade parts of 5 core to buy instead aircrafts and artillery?

Also, where this 5 core will be deployed in 99 turn scenario, would I have the freedom of placement?

I would prefer to assign the 5 core tanks, artillery and the fighters in the south front

I think the respective AARs hold tipps (or spoilers?) for the different versions as well... plus a few things you need to experience yourself IMHO...

faos333 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:06 am My question is apart from prestige and exp to five core units in the early scenarios what are the other benefits?

The other benefit is that a new player is introduced to many of the new mechanics and rule changes of the mod and thus it serves as a tutorial. Then when he gets to the main scenario he knows more about these and can have a better chance to win. And also, in order to see the whole picture, the war has to be played from the beginning I think. Then the player can have the full experience by increasing the Axis territory step-by-step instead of having France, Poland, the Low Countries and the others already under his control. Finally, players who finish the Mediterranean scenario can choose between the three versions of the main scenario and then get heroes as well. Because if they choose moderate or real+ version in single scenario mode no heroes and medals are given.

faos333 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:06 am For example can I trade parts of 5 core to buy instead aircrafts and artillery?

Yes, this limited core composition can be changed by disbanding some of them but I would recommend keeping the starting 3 tank + 1 fighter and 1 tac. bomber as in that case he will start Barbarossa with the historical order of battle. But that's just my recommendation.

Also, where this 5 core will be deployed in 99 turn scenario, would I have the freedom of placement?

There is a very limited freedom in this. The basic assumption of the mod is that the player gets full freedom right at the moment Barbarossa starts to find out how it could be done differently. Otherwise it would not be Barbarossa but Barbarossa modified or something like that.

There are several benefits above the mentioned ones:
- You can collect a lot of extra prestige by capturing units and capturing plus cities
- You start collecting with the five core units much earlier xp points
- You start collecting with the five core units much earlier kill points - earlier possibility of having heroes

I would keep the hero-panzer, the fighter and the stuka. Maybe the stuka could be also sold for a fighter, but we really need that tac. bomber in the pre-scenarios to make good achivements.
Also the two other panzer could be sent after Poland for fighters, but we need them later and with the possibility to train 3 strat level bombers to fighters this makes a good solution.
Still I would sell them and buy for it two Pz IV's. That saves prestige and they could not collect so much xp, kills in Poland.
Also these tips have more weights in Rommel difficulty where every prestige counts.

Of course theses things make the Barbarossa scenario easier and a little less historical, but help a lot.

---

About the panzerless problem in the south: I write it now only, how I remember, not by research my earlier games: you can send at least the PzIIIH right after the 1st turn to south not bogging down by fighting the Soviet armor. It is also possible to send the PzIIIF back to ugprade and then send it via train to the south. Until the Dnyieper you do not encounter heavy Soviet armor units anyway, so with air support you can achive, and for later stages, you can send additional panzers (also the stationary two panzers, which will be released).

McGuba wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:47 pm .......

Uhu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:27 pm ......

Thank you both, all this seems very interesting and tempting for 2.2 play.
From what I read I am kind of making my mind to have more than 1 fighter in the core.
When in future I will start from Poland I will play in General settings, so no prestige shortage.

As for updating this thread I will write some tips from my recent play through.

You are welcome!
I would suggest we start a new thread with updated tips.

faos333 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:29 pm

McGuba wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 12:47 pm .......

Uhu wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:27 pm ......

Thank you both, all this seems very interesting and tempting for 2.2 play.
From what I read I am kind of making my mind to have more than 1 fighter in the core.
When in future I will start from Poland I will play in General settings, so no prestige shortage.

As for updating this thread I will write some tips from my recent play through.

ok Uhu please start the new thread by honorary writing the first post

It's much more fun to start from Poland... even cooler would be to start from Spain )

Sorry, I did realised the notifications of your comments. I started now a new topic! viewtopic.php?f=121&t=105417&p=922630#p922628
How can we insert pictures? Linking it is more complicated. Earlier I used wordpress for it, but it became a garbage... Do you know than any other good and long lasting sites, if pix cannot not be insterted just as?

faos333 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:53 am ok Uhu please start the new thread by honorary writing the first post

Uhu wrote: ↑Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:33 pm Sorry, I did realised the notifications of your comments. I started now a new topic! viewtopic.php?f=121&t=105417&p=922630#p922628
How can we insert pictures? Linking it is more complicated. Earlier I used wordpress for it, but it became a garbage... Do you know than any other good and long lasting sites, if pix cannot not be insterted just as?

faos333 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 9:53 am ok Uhu please start the new thread by honorary writing the first post

A. You can use the IMGUR service, is free and long lasting.
Better create an account before posting the images, so you can keep truck
https://imgur.com/

B. You can use the built in forum capability to attach images

C. If you need technical help with WordPress I can provide easily