I am interested in using the given core, so I'll do Rommel. I will probably play through again on Manstein, possibly with an imported core, since I am not confident without having map knowledge and without my favorite units for the highest difficulty.
Belgrade
The starting core for 1941 is certainly experienced and powerful. It does seem a bit lacking in terms of fighters and artillery.
I want to try to use the given core units for this campaign unless I lose them, even though I normally dislike the towed rocket artillery and the Bf-110, I would like to try them out for the campaign.
Some starting Yugoslavian counterattacks were good, and out in the open like this, caught me a bit offguard. Unfortunately for them, my experienced 12 strength units easily crushed the attackers, even without artillery support. I would like very much to have more Stu assault guns in my core, since they seem awesome for covering fire. 110% rate of fire, 9 HA, 8 ammo (same as a 10.5 cm leFH), high defense (this is supposed to be available in France now, which would make it the highest ground defense unit available at the time), low price. Considering just how great this unit is, I wish there were a few more core slots open so I could buy two more. As it were, however, I had to purchase a Bf-109F and a second recon unit.
One interesting AI maneuver was when I headed towards Opovo after taking Zrenjanin on the western part of the map. I noticed there were two cavalry sitting on the west bank of the Tisza River, but they didn’t rush out to attack me. I had this sneaking suspicion that they would attack me after I left Zrenjanin, and that is in fact what happened, they walked into the city after I shifted most of my forces south. Fortunately for me, I anticipated this move, and had left some units left in the area to take back the city. Anyway, a very nicely done AI counterattack, futile though it may be here. I’m looking forward to the Russians, who will surely attack with a massive number of units in situations like that. Whatever the AI scripting here was, it was good.
I wished the Belgrade area was somewhat more fortified, with a few more units, because I took the city very easily. The AI then reinforced its southwest city with tons of units, and it took a bit more effort to clear them out, although not much. DV was easily achieved, but the conditions are broken, so it’s cheat codes time.
DV 13/18.
Metaxas Line
Hmm, prestige seems okay on Rommel. I overstrength a good number of units, upgraded some panzers/planes, and bought two more StuIIIBs. I deploy all units in the northwest.
There were a few tank/cavalry counterattacks. Nice to see the British units having some experience, while the Greek units have none. Still, my forces quite easily brushed aside all opposition. Three of the StuIIIB assault guns are very powerful. These guns are almost a little too good now. One of them flat out did 5 damage to a British cruiser tank, although more commonly they just suppress really well. They are also very tough, which is another great quality. I think a slight price increase might be reasonable for them, but they should be this useful.
Otherwise, there’s not much to say. I blasted apart most of the opposition without issue, and made DV in 10/14. I think there should be a few more units near Apollonia to defend that VH, and to launch a counterattack when German units approach Thessalonika. I left most of the Greek units along the eastern part of the Metaxas Line alone, there was no reason to go after them, which I assume is the intention.
Good scenario, DV 10/14.
Crete-Naval
The briefing wasn’t kidding when it said the British had naval assets in the area, and the destroyers would be at best a “screening” force. I had purchased a Ju-88, and with my He-111 this force devastated the Royal Navy, eventually sinking every ship and even saving two of my destroyers. I find it incredibly ridiculous, however, that the Italian destroys had 2 stars, and the British naval units had 1-2 stars (I think only a light cruiser had 2 stars, most had 1). The Royal Navy needs to have 2-3 star ships, while the Italian aux destroys all must have 0 experience.
The British have one annoying Mosquito. I remember reading somewhere that the Mosquitoes were a very good fighter for the most part, one of the best the British developed. I can’t remember whether I fought any in the original campaign, but this particular fighter-bomber was insanely tough. I surrounded it with 3 Bf109s and my Bf110, on two separate occasions, and only brought it down to 5-6 hp every time. On the third time I got lucky with my first attack and brought it down to 4, and then I managed to kill it. But yeah, I really liked fighting this unit, it is suitably powerful.
The landing was not too bad, it took me 3 turns total, I concentrated most of my forces in the west. I lost a recon car while it was still in a transport in the east to a light cruiser attack, which is not a big deal. The Allies opposition is lacking in armor, which is fine, but I wished they had a few more AT units, or maybe more infantry, mostly in southern Crete, so that the Allies can launch counterattacks north. The AI units did adopt a reasonably active defense, using their units to shoot at my approaching transports and block potential landing sites, so that is good.
The other thing is, honestly, this should be a “limited core” scenario like Greece or Kiev from the original game. The Germans did not have the resources to transport this many forces over to Crete, which is why they resorted to the very costly airborne assault. Even taking some liberties with that, I think a limited core scenario would still be the best, even if some people dislike that. If I can’t bring over all of my units, then the current opposition is fine, but if I could, then this mission is pretty easy.
DV 14/15.
Minsk
So, after 30+ scenarios, we arrive at Russia. After crushing the Polish, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the British Expeditionary Force, the Yugoslavians, the Greeks, the British again, will the Wehrmacht succeed in another blitzkrieg, or will it get bogged down in the endless expanse of the Soviet Union?
Very interesting mechanic with the airfields, I don’t know exactly how the triggers work, but I did not ever encounter a Soviet plane. I think it might be wise to spawn a few fighters/bombers from the airfields in the back several turns in though, because the Soviets did fly missions, despite losing somewhere around 2000 planes in the first 3 days.
I raced ahead in true blitzkrieg style, channeling Guderian at times. Nothing could slow the advance. If there was opposition, an assault gun + stuka + panzer attack blasted it aside, and the tanks rolled onwards. Recon units dashed forward to seize unguarded hexes or airfields. I managed to seize Minsk and most other objectives in around 9 or 10 turns. I did not realize that the Karl mortar would be brought up in several turns to help with Brest, which I think the briefing should say that (or maybe I just don’t remember reading it). With the help of the mortar, and my pioneer + 88 in PaK mode, the fortress fell around turn 12.
The Soviets being out of ammo and understrenghted at the front was a nice touch.
I only encountered 1 T34, and several KV tanks. I feel there needs to be several more T34s, and especially tons of T-26s, which was the most numerous Soviet tank before Barbarossa. They would be weak and easily brushed aside, like the briefing said, but adding something like 10 or 12 would not be excessive, because each would be killed in 2, 3 panzer attacks at most, and even quicker with stuka support. They can be deployed in large formations and even set to hold position passive until activated like 5 turns in, so the Germans can surround them and force surrenders.
There were 3 conscripts south of the Bug River that never activated, they should probably come to help Brest when it is in danger.
In summary, make the Soviet planes spawn a bit quicker, and add many more obsolete Soviet tanks.
DV 12/20, a bit too short and easy.
Edit: I've been reading that you can capture a T34 after getting Minsk. I guess I must have blocked the spawning hex, ah well.
Campaign 41, starting core, Rommel
Moderators: Slitherine Core, The Lordz, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design
-
Blathergut
- Field Marshal - Elefant
- Posts: 5882
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:44 am
- Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Smolensk
Crossing the Berezina River was not too tricky, air power + artillery was sufficient. There were a few intense counterattacks when I crossed the river by Soviet tanks, but with assault gun support my own forces were able to deal with the various Soviet forces without too much of an issue. However, I sent my air force out to recon, and I found the massive group of Soviet forces right outside of Smolensk, and some of the Soviet units across the Dnieper in the southeast.
I crossed the Dnieper with a substantial force, despite having no good reason to do so, since there are no VH in that area. The Soviet attacks were fierce, but I ultimately prevailed. I strongly suggest that Pochinok be made a VH, otherwise, I can put two or three units at Mogilev and neutralize the entire Soviet force southeast of Smolensk, and DV is too easy. There are enough objectives north of the Dnieper that MV is still doable.
In the north, using my StuG IIIB to provide support, and my stukas to wreak havoc, I slowly but surely destroyed the entire Soviet battle group. They refused to attack into my 12 strength panzers backed up by assault guns. It took a few turns, but I wiped out the group without issue, around turn 11 or so. Still, Smolensk and Vitebsk proved to be better defended than I expected, each city even having some armor left to counterattack with. So I was forced to bring up substantial artillery and bombard both cities into surrender.
Captured a KV tank at Krasny.
DV 17/21.
Ostrov
The briefing is helpful. I advanced with two groups, one up the east-edge of the map, and one up the middle, but veering west to capture VH as needed. The first armor attack in the east was defeated with the same formula: Stuka + assault gun + panzer. In a few turns, all of the armor was destroyed with almost no German losses.
In the west, I had left an infantry isolated by itself. Out came a T34, and 2 BT tanks, and they only brought the 11 strength unit down to 5. Perhaps I got lucky, but I felt even without giving the AI extra strength that infantry should’ve died. I retreated that unit, then used the same formula to crush all of the Soviet armor in the west. The thing is, I rarely even lose strength from my tanks anymore, due to how efficient this method is. The AI also won’t attack with its tanks, due to the suppression from my StuGs.
After killing the two armor columns, I simply marched my units north towards Ostrov. The AI reinforced at the last minute, and in fact made some reasonably good choices, bought some BT tanks and recon cars to counterattack with, killing a recon car of mine, but it didn’t matter. DV was easy to achieve.
I honestly think StuG IIIB needs to have a slight prestige increase, the rate of fire needs to be reduced to 100%, its ammo need to be reduced to 5 (same as StuH 42), its defense needs to be reduced to the same as a PzIIIF (same chassis, right?) , and its HA reduced to 8 or 7. I think it’ll still be a great unit, but currently, it is just way too good and effective, and right now I kill Soviet armor almost as if I had Panthers and Tigers.
Similarly, the Ju-87B and the Ju-87R needs to have their HA reduced by 1 or 2 each. In fact, my fighters have been successful strafing tanks, knocking 2 strength off T34 regularly. I guess the issue might actually just be the power of the overstrength/elite air units.
So far, I’ve lost 1 infantry, which was an auxiliary back in Crete-Naval, and 7 recon cars, since I am fond of sending them out to scout counterattacks, in all of these missions. That is too low of a number, and I think that is reflective of the very powerful new assault guns, the highly experienced/overstrengthed German units, and the relatively weak opposition so far, even by the Russians. I mean Smolensk was a hard fought campaign, which took a month, and the Germans only managed to encircle and destroy about half of the Red Army there. It felt too easy in this campaign. I feel there needs to be some way for the AI to be threatening, even without +5 strength to all of its units. I dearly hope I will eat my words soon.
DV 14/18.
Novgorod
This map is significantly harder than the last one, due to rougher terrain, rivers, and a reasonable amount of Soviet opposition. It was more difficult to successfully apply the one-two-three punch combination. So what was the result? I lost some strength, and some of my panzers actually dipped below 10. Yet it was still a massacre for the AI, which only managed to kill a lone recon unit, and nothing else. Well, on the last turn, I left this StuG IIIB on a swamp, and the AI attacked it twice with tanks and once with a conscript. I would almost be happy for something of mine to finally die. But no, it survived with 3 strength.
I don’t know what to say, I don’t think the AI is playing poorly. It seems to actually be better, with clever counter attacks and generally good use of units, it’s just the current German unit composition is too good.
Oh, besides the 3 assault guns, I have a 10.5 cm LeFH, a 15 cm sFH, and the 15 cm Nelwerfer, basically, the three from the original core. They perform well, but I might have gotten Wurfrahmen and maybe more 3 range artillery, if it weren’t for how good the assault guns are.
Might want to have more rain in this scenario.
DV 13/19.
Leningrad
The main issue with this scenario is that you get 6 powerful artillery right off the bat. That is a LOT of extra firepower, frankly way too much. What should be a challenging scenario was kinda of a joke. I blasted my way up to and including Leningrad, with one loss: a recon unit.
First off, Leningrad needs massively buffed defense, like 10 strongpoints, several forts (the type that fires shells, you can call them “naval batteries” if you want), more artillery, ALL units in there need to be overstrength to 15 (will be 20 on Manstein) so anyone crazy enough to attack will incur losses. Leningrad should not be something you just waltz into in August 1941.
Secondly, I recommend making the siege artillery some sort of “convoy” type unit, although I’m honestly not sure what you can do exactly, but they need to be unusable during the battle, otherwise, they provide a huge boost to firepower to the player. If in the event you cannot actually do so, making it so that they spawn only after capturing ALL of the objective hexes, so there is relatively little time left to use them. Give them trucks to slow their transportation a bit. MV is still easy, since it has nothing to do with the artillery.
Turn limit should be reduced by 2-3.
The Soviet counterattacks are again not a problem. Buff them.
I know I sound very cranky, but honestly, without knowing the map, playing on Rommel, and up to this point in the campaign all I’ve lost are 9 recon cars. None of my panzers were ever in danger of being destroyed, and even my infantry are more or less invincible. So far, the maps are great, the counterattacks are interesting, the Soviet units are fun to destroy, but the tuning seems to be way off.
Leningrad captured.
Why have I lost nothing except recon cars?
DV 20/21.
Crossing the Berezina River was not too tricky, air power + artillery was sufficient. There were a few intense counterattacks when I crossed the river by Soviet tanks, but with assault gun support my own forces were able to deal with the various Soviet forces without too much of an issue. However, I sent my air force out to recon, and I found the massive group of Soviet forces right outside of Smolensk, and some of the Soviet units across the Dnieper in the southeast.
I crossed the Dnieper with a substantial force, despite having no good reason to do so, since there are no VH in that area. The Soviet attacks were fierce, but I ultimately prevailed. I strongly suggest that Pochinok be made a VH, otherwise, I can put two or three units at Mogilev and neutralize the entire Soviet force southeast of Smolensk, and DV is too easy. There are enough objectives north of the Dnieper that MV is still doable.
In the north, using my StuG IIIB to provide support, and my stukas to wreak havoc, I slowly but surely destroyed the entire Soviet battle group. They refused to attack into my 12 strength panzers backed up by assault guns. It took a few turns, but I wiped out the group without issue, around turn 11 or so. Still, Smolensk and Vitebsk proved to be better defended than I expected, each city even having some armor left to counterattack with. So I was forced to bring up substantial artillery and bombard both cities into surrender.
Captured a KV tank at Krasny.
DV 17/21.
Ostrov
The briefing is helpful. I advanced with two groups, one up the east-edge of the map, and one up the middle, but veering west to capture VH as needed. The first armor attack in the east was defeated with the same formula: Stuka + assault gun + panzer. In a few turns, all of the armor was destroyed with almost no German losses.
In the west, I had left an infantry isolated by itself. Out came a T34, and 2 BT tanks, and they only brought the 11 strength unit down to 5. Perhaps I got lucky, but I felt even without giving the AI extra strength that infantry should’ve died. I retreated that unit, then used the same formula to crush all of the Soviet armor in the west. The thing is, I rarely even lose strength from my tanks anymore, due to how efficient this method is. The AI also won’t attack with its tanks, due to the suppression from my StuGs.
After killing the two armor columns, I simply marched my units north towards Ostrov. The AI reinforced at the last minute, and in fact made some reasonably good choices, bought some BT tanks and recon cars to counterattack with, killing a recon car of mine, but it didn’t matter. DV was easy to achieve.
I honestly think StuG IIIB needs to have a slight prestige increase, the rate of fire needs to be reduced to 100%, its ammo need to be reduced to 5 (same as StuH 42), its defense needs to be reduced to the same as a PzIIIF (same chassis, right?) , and its HA reduced to 8 or 7. I think it’ll still be a great unit, but currently, it is just way too good and effective, and right now I kill Soviet armor almost as if I had Panthers and Tigers.
Similarly, the Ju-87B and the Ju-87R needs to have their HA reduced by 1 or 2 each. In fact, my fighters have been successful strafing tanks, knocking 2 strength off T34 regularly. I guess the issue might actually just be the power of the overstrength/elite air units.
So far, I’ve lost 1 infantry, which was an auxiliary back in Crete-Naval, and 7 recon cars, since I am fond of sending them out to scout counterattacks, in all of these missions. That is too low of a number, and I think that is reflective of the very powerful new assault guns, the highly experienced/overstrengthed German units, and the relatively weak opposition so far, even by the Russians. I mean Smolensk was a hard fought campaign, which took a month, and the Germans only managed to encircle and destroy about half of the Red Army there. It felt too easy in this campaign. I feel there needs to be some way for the AI to be threatening, even without +5 strength to all of its units. I dearly hope I will eat my words soon.
DV 14/18.
Novgorod
This map is significantly harder than the last one, due to rougher terrain, rivers, and a reasonable amount of Soviet opposition. It was more difficult to successfully apply the one-two-three punch combination. So what was the result? I lost some strength, and some of my panzers actually dipped below 10. Yet it was still a massacre for the AI, which only managed to kill a lone recon unit, and nothing else. Well, on the last turn, I left this StuG IIIB on a swamp, and the AI attacked it twice with tanks and once with a conscript. I would almost be happy for something of mine to finally die. But no, it survived with 3 strength.
I don’t know what to say, I don’t think the AI is playing poorly. It seems to actually be better, with clever counter attacks and generally good use of units, it’s just the current German unit composition is too good.
Oh, besides the 3 assault guns, I have a 10.5 cm LeFH, a 15 cm sFH, and the 15 cm Nelwerfer, basically, the three from the original core. They perform well, but I might have gotten Wurfrahmen and maybe more 3 range artillery, if it weren’t for how good the assault guns are.
Might want to have more rain in this scenario.
DV 13/19.
Leningrad
The main issue with this scenario is that you get 6 powerful artillery right off the bat. That is a LOT of extra firepower, frankly way too much. What should be a challenging scenario was kinda of a joke. I blasted my way up to and including Leningrad, with one loss: a recon unit.
First off, Leningrad needs massively buffed defense, like 10 strongpoints, several forts (the type that fires shells, you can call them “naval batteries” if you want), more artillery, ALL units in there need to be overstrength to 15 (will be 20 on Manstein) so anyone crazy enough to attack will incur losses. Leningrad should not be something you just waltz into in August 1941.
Secondly, I recommend making the siege artillery some sort of “convoy” type unit, although I’m honestly not sure what you can do exactly, but they need to be unusable during the battle, otherwise, they provide a huge boost to firepower to the player. If in the event you cannot actually do so, making it so that they spawn only after capturing ALL of the objective hexes, so there is relatively little time left to use them. Give them trucks to slow their transportation a bit. MV is still easy, since it has nothing to do with the artillery.
Turn limit should be reduced by 2-3.
The Soviet counterattacks are again not a problem. Buff them.
I know I sound very cranky, but honestly, without knowing the map, playing on Rommel, and up to this point in the campaign all I’ve lost are 9 recon cars. None of my panzers were ever in danger of being destroyed, and even my infantry are more or less invincible. So far, the maps are great, the counterattacks are interesting, the Soviet units are fun to destroy, but the tuning seems to be way off.
Leningrad captured.
Why have I lost nothing except recon cars?
DV 20/21.
I would respond because you are a really good player. I know this from first hand experience from our games.deducter wrote:I feel there needs to be some way for the AI to be threatening, even without +5 strength to all of its units. I dearly hope I will eat my words soon.
I know I sound very cranky, but honestly, without knowing the map, playing on Rommel, and up to this point in the campaign all I’ve lost are 9 recon cars. None of my panzers were ever in danger of being destroyed, and even my infantry are more or less invincible. So far, the maps are great, the counterattacks are interesting, the Soviet units are fun to destroy, but the tuning seems to be way off.
Why have I lost nothing except recon cars?
DV 20/21.
And you know what? Unfortunately I don't think it's possible for the AI to be more threatening without giving it +5 strength. This is my casualty report from Manstein of 1941.
http://i.imgur.com/51lMA.jpg
It's funny but Colonel difficult setting, for me, is actually harder than Manstein. Why? Because whenever I play Colonel(current campaign or DLC campaigns), I'm so bored to tears I can't bring myself to play the game anymore. So it's harder for me to finish Colonel than it is to finish Manstein.
You still have the hardest scenarios of 1941 ahead of you (last three) but I'm pretty sure you won't have that much trouble with them either. Might lose a few more units on the Streets of Moscow, and I doubt you'll sweep clean the entire map of Demyansk Pocket, but that's probably about it.
For people who play on yours and my level, there is pretty much only Manstein.
The reality is that vocal as the elite gamers are, we represent a tiny minority of the players. Matter of fact, show me who else plans on Manstein? Kerensky and deducter. Have you ever seen anyone else talking about their experiences on Manstein setting?
To everyone else: I'm not trying to disparage you guys and your ability to play the game. Don't feel you're 'bad'
We have a huuuge spectrum of players. Some people struggle in Grand Campaign 1939 and feel its too hard. Other people somehow get 10,000 prestige saved up by the time they are done with Grand Campaign 1939 (seriously impar WTF)!
So... 1941 will probably see a few difficulty tweaks in the upcoming update, but it's not really going to be anything outragous. An extra Soviet unit here or there, take away a few German AUX units here and there. For the likes of you and me though... all I can say is Manstein.
After all, in a super campaign of monumental length... if we ever have a scenario that is too hard and decimates the player's core. How can they be expected to finish the following scenarios, let alone entire campaigns ahead of their now decimated core?
I'll make you a promise. When we get to the final DLC 1945 and the final map, Berlin, I'll make it absolutely preposterous just for you. And if people complain that scenario decimates their core 100 times worse than Bagration does.. tough luck, it's the very end of the DLC campaigns, and even if they are decimated, there is nothing left for their core to do anyways.
Another idea, for the short term, is let the scenario 'choice' mean more than 'variety' One scenario path can be 'hard mode' while the other is 'easy mode'. Currently, our paths are pretty constant in their difficulty, whichever way you go its just about as hard.
Have to be careful with this idea though, people who dont pay attention to briefings and warnings and jump into the 'hard' path might get decimated.
The thing is, I lost units in Campaigns 39 and 40 in the DLC on Rommel, and that was great! It was never crippling, the most I ever lost was 4 I think in Dunkirk since I was too eager to charge ahead. Now I can still charge ahead, but with the StuG IIIB covering my panzers, I fear absolutely nothing.
A lot of the other things can be quibbled with, but I feel very strongly about the following two:
1)Leningrad with 6 aux artillery right off the bat is too much. Most of the scenario would be much much much harder if they didn't show up right away.
2)StuG IIIB needs to be nerfed all around.
I think with those two changes, I will lose the odd panzer or two on Rommel, and things will be brutal on Manstein.
A lot of the other things can be quibbled with, but I feel very strongly about the following two:
1)Leningrad with 6 aux artillery right off the bat is too much. Most of the scenario would be much much much harder if they didn't show up right away.
2)StuG IIIB needs to be nerfed all around.
I think with those two changes, I will lose the odd panzer or two on Rommel, and things will be brutal on Manstein.
As a perfect example this is obviously a "newbie". I don't mean that in a bad way, he's clearly new. It's his VERY FIRST ever post on the forums. 
The content, on Colonel, is geared towards this player. Someone new to this game, but who is a competent gamer. We can't make DLC campaigns harder without risking to alienate people who are fresh to the game.
The content, on Colonel, is geared towards this player. Someone new to this game, but who is a competent gamer. We can't make DLC campaigns harder without risking to alienate people who are fresh to the game.
LostAgain wrote:I love '41! Everything worked as it should, the graphics are great, and I was pleasantly surprised when I "captured" Russian equipment. I played on Colonel level and found each scenario challenging without being frustrating. If this is a taste of things to come I can't wait! Now I'm going back and playing '39 and '40. If my beta '41 is still active it will be interesting to see if I can carry my units from these two scenarios into beta to try it again![/list]
Preface:
I guess the reason I sound so critical is not because the scenarios are poorly design, but because something seems off compared with DLC 39 and DLC 40. Those two had more bugs to begin with, but the balancing was on the whole very good. I played on Rommel and lost my fair share of units, and it was never too crippling. Manstein was very challenging, I had to restart at least once on most scenarios. But the balancing in DLC 41 seems off, because the German army feels more powerful than it should be, stats-wise.
When engaging British/French tanks back in Campaign 40, they actually did feel superior to the Panzer III and the Panzer IV. The stats reflected it as well, the Char B1, the Somua, the Matilda II were all very powerful, well-armored, and superior to the German tanks, as was historically true. I am not an expert on WWII tanks and don’t know the statistics of the armor/guns, but I know that when the Germans first encountered the T34 and the KV tanks, they were absolutely shocked. Historically, most of those tanks actually broke down or were abandoned by their crews or destroyed by air power/88 gun, rather than directly destroyed by German panzers. So far, I’ve sometimes been using Stukas on them, but more often than not I just attack once with a StuG, and twice with PzIV to kill a T34 taking 1-2 strength damage at most, which seems too easy and not historical at all.
I think the stats of the KV tank are fine and engaging them feel right, but the Panzer III and especially Panzer IVF feels too tough compared to the Soviet tanks. In fact, the Panzer IVF has better armor than the T34/40, which doesn’t sound right to me. Add on top of this 2-3 experience/overstrength of the German units, no wonder I feel like I have Panthers and Tigers. I think there needs to be some balancing of the stats, making the T34/40 tougher while reducing the Pz IVE, F and PzIIIH, J models’ armor. Remember experience will give those panzers more defense and attack. Even reduce the number of good Soviet tanks if necessary, just make engaging the T34 more of a challenge, like engaging a Somua. I think only minor stats adjustments are necessary. I wonder if any other players agree with me, and especially if compare with fighting the Allied tanks in Campaign 40.
Now that my rant is finished, on with the report.
Vzyama:
I lost two recon cars this time, compared with one the last scenario. This mission was suitably challenging, with weather being a major component of it. Engaging Soviet units was still easy. The lowest one of my panzers got was 6 strength.
One major issue with this mission was that some Soviet units on the east bank of the Dnieper River activated some turns in and took Safonovo, but didn’t press on towards Smolensk. I imagine the intention of making Smolensk a VH was to encourage the AI to do that, and the player would be wise to guard the river crossing lest they lose a VH. However, the AI parked three units, including a KV2 tank, at Safanovo for the entire mission. There were also about 6-8 more units on the east bank just sitting there, doing nothing, also for the entire mission.
I noticed when I was close to victory, the time was like November 2. Streets of Moscow starts on December 2. I was wondering whether you might consider a significant change to weather.
Make it rain more, and get muddy faster, but after like 15 turns, make it snow so the ground freezes over and the panzers could continue their advance. This was actually the case in Operation Typhoon. Extend the mission to something like 25 turns or 27 turns. Even reduce the number of Russian units to account for the bad weather, I just think the game would be more interesting this way.
Can’t remember when I won DV, it was DV 16/20? Or 18/20? Somewhere around that time.
Streets of Moscow
My MP games of Urban Warfare has prepared me for this map. It may come as a shock for many players, seeing this massive, sprawled out city, and if they rush tanks or even infantry forward without artillery cover, they will almost certainly lose units. I rarely left my units uncovered by some sort of suppressive fire, and coupled with my experience of knowing that it’s often best to reload 1 or 2 ammo before the unit runs out of ammo, that being in a city hex when snowing gives full resupply, etc.
The KV5 tank is deadly… except it is placed in an urban hex, where its CD of 1 made it a 2-shot kill by my infantry. It’s probably best to place this tank to the northwest or northeast and have it counterattack that way.
The AI seems fond of blundering into my units during their counterattacks, often incurring ambushes and otherwise wrecking their decent tanks. It also loves to move tanks into city hexes for my infantry to destroy.
The T34/41 is better than the T34/40, but I still feel like I’m fighting with Panther-esque armor. I rarely take damage from them, even when my own panzers are not covered by anything, as long as it is in the open.
With all of this said, this is a MASTERPIECE. This is quite possibly the best scenario produced to date. Absolutely brutal yet exciting battles. I know on Manstein I will lose units. Many of them. And my new units will be green recruits, which will not help matters. I have no idea if DV is possible in that case. If this is Moscow, what will Stalingrad be?
There’s a T34/41 available for capture at Krasnogorsk.
18 Ground Defense Panzer IV = Panther-esque invincibility.
DV!
DV 22/24.
Demyansk Pocket:
I received another KV-1B tank, was this for Streets of Moscow DV? If so, how was the trigger done to add it directly to the core?
Honestly, I got bored sitting around and blasted my way out. Surrender, surrender, surrender, that or outright destroyed. My panzers took like 1-2 damage from Soviet T34s and KV tanks, even without artillery support. Yawn. Interestingly enough, the captured T34s actually took damage, since they were green and their defense was lower. That is how the PzIV should be!
I could not clear the entire map before I escorted all the supply planes, DV in 16 turns. I wonder if I could given the remaining 6 turns. I think it would be quite possible.
I did lose a green Marder I bought when I left it on a forest without artillery cover to infantry attacks. So I did lose something after all!
Show this image to those who doubt that experience/overstrength is useful.
Final thoughts:
I strongly suggest reviewing the data tables for 1941 Soviet and German equipment. The T-34 should be superior to any German tank. I actually think the defense stats of most of the upgraded Panzers need to be reduced. PzIVD to PzIVF goes from 6 GD to 13, which is insane. If it goes to 9 or 10, that might be more reasonable, it will actually be less than the T34! Keep in mind the massive experience modifiers players will have, along with heroes should they import their core. The main reason why I’m overstrengthing everything even on Rommel is that my units hardly ever take damage.
For those who enjoy reading a wall of text, this Beta report I think will convincingly illustrate the powerfu combination of experienced + overstrengthed units. My panzers were nigh invincible because of that combination.
Scenarios are great. Streets of Moscow is suitably challenging. Best DLC in terms of scenario design yet, but unit stats imbalance made it less enjoyable.
There are many captured units, but are there too many? 8 units total in this series of missions, and I only use 7 panzers normally. Admittedly I only found 3, and on Manstein I’m not sure I’m going to get more.
I guess to quote Kerensky, “You are a victim of your own success.” My hope was that on Field Marshall or Rommel, the game this campaign will be challenging, some DV possible but certainly not on the first attempt. And on Manstein some missions become near impossible. The latter still may be true, but the former is not.
I guess the reason I sound so critical is not because the scenarios are poorly design, but because something seems off compared with DLC 39 and DLC 40. Those two had more bugs to begin with, but the balancing was on the whole very good. I played on Rommel and lost my fair share of units, and it was never too crippling. Manstein was very challenging, I had to restart at least once on most scenarios. But the balancing in DLC 41 seems off, because the German army feels more powerful than it should be, stats-wise.
When engaging British/French tanks back in Campaign 40, they actually did feel superior to the Panzer III and the Panzer IV. The stats reflected it as well, the Char B1, the Somua, the Matilda II were all very powerful, well-armored, and superior to the German tanks, as was historically true. I am not an expert on WWII tanks and don’t know the statistics of the armor/guns, but I know that when the Germans first encountered the T34 and the KV tanks, they were absolutely shocked. Historically, most of those tanks actually broke down or were abandoned by their crews or destroyed by air power/88 gun, rather than directly destroyed by German panzers. So far, I’ve sometimes been using Stukas on them, but more often than not I just attack once with a StuG, and twice with PzIV to kill a T34 taking 1-2 strength damage at most, which seems too easy and not historical at all.
I think the stats of the KV tank are fine and engaging them feel right, but the Panzer III and especially Panzer IVF feels too tough compared to the Soviet tanks. In fact, the Panzer IVF has better armor than the T34/40, which doesn’t sound right to me. Add on top of this 2-3 experience/overstrength of the German units, no wonder I feel like I have Panthers and Tigers. I think there needs to be some balancing of the stats, making the T34/40 tougher while reducing the Pz IVE, F and PzIIIH, J models’ armor. Remember experience will give those panzers more defense and attack. Even reduce the number of good Soviet tanks if necessary, just make engaging the T34 more of a challenge, like engaging a Somua. I think only minor stats adjustments are necessary. I wonder if any other players agree with me, and especially if compare with fighting the Allied tanks in Campaign 40.
Now that my rant is finished, on with the report.
Vzyama:
I lost two recon cars this time, compared with one the last scenario. This mission was suitably challenging, with weather being a major component of it. Engaging Soviet units was still easy. The lowest one of my panzers got was 6 strength.
One major issue with this mission was that some Soviet units on the east bank of the Dnieper River activated some turns in and took Safonovo, but didn’t press on towards Smolensk. I imagine the intention of making Smolensk a VH was to encourage the AI to do that, and the player would be wise to guard the river crossing lest they lose a VH. However, the AI parked three units, including a KV2 tank, at Safanovo for the entire mission. There were also about 6-8 more units on the east bank just sitting there, doing nothing, also for the entire mission.
I noticed when I was close to victory, the time was like November 2. Streets of Moscow starts on December 2. I was wondering whether you might consider a significant change to weather.
Make it rain more, and get muddy faster, but after like 15 turns, make it snow so the ground freezes over and the panzers could continue their advance. This was actually the case in Operation Typhoon. Extend the mission to something like 25 turns or 27 turns. Even reduce the number of Russian units to account for the bad weather, I just think the game would be more interesting this way.
Can’t remember when I won DV, it was DV 16/20? Or 18/20? Somewhere around that time.
Streets of Moscow
My MP games of Urban Warfare has prepared me for this map. It may come as a shock for many players, seeing this massive, sprawled out city, and if they rush tanks or even infantry forward without artillery cover, they will almost certainly lose units. I rarely left my units uncovered by some sort of suppressive fire, and coupled with my experience of knowing that it’s often best to reload 1 or 2 ammo before the unit runs out of ammo, that being in a city hex when snowing gives full resupply, etc.
The KV5 tank is deadly… except it is placed in an urban hex, where its CD of 1 made it a 2-shot kill by my infantry. It’s probably best to place this tank to the northwest or northeast and have it counterattack that way.
The AI seems fond of blundering into my units during their counterattacks, often incurring ambushes and otherwise wrecking their decent tanks. It also loves to move tanks into city hexes for my infantry to destroy.
The T34/41 is better than the T34/40, but I still feel like I’m fighting with Panther-esque armor. I rarely take damage from them, even when my own panzers are not covered by anything, as long as it is in the open.
With all of this said, this is a MASTERPIECE. This is quite possibly the best scenario produced to date. Absolutely brutal yet exciting battles. I know on Manstein I will lose units. Many of them. And my new units will be green recruits, which will not help matters. I have no idea if DV is possible in that case. If this is Moscow, what will Stalingrad be?
There’s a T34/41 available for capture at Krasnogorsk.
18 Ground Defense Panzer IV = Panther-esque invincibility.
DV!
DV 22/24.
Demyansk Pocket:
I received another KV-1B tank, was this for Streets of Moscow DV? If so, how was the trigger done to add it directly to the core?
Honestly, I got bored sitting around and blasted my way out. Surrender, surrender, surrender, that or outright destroyed. My panzers took like 1-2 damage from Soviet T34s and KV tanks, even without artillery support. Yawn. Interestingly enough, the captured T34s actually took damage, since they were green and their defense was lower. That is how the PzIV should be!
I could not clear the entire map before I escorted all the supply planes, DV in 16 turns. I wonder if I could given the remaining 6 turns. I think it would be quite possible.
I did lose a green Marder I bought when I left it on a forest without artillery cover to infantry attacks. So I did lose something after all!
Show this image to those who doubt that experience/overstrength is useful.
Final thoughts:
I strongly suggest reviewing the data tables for 1941 Soviet and German equipment. The T-34 should be superior to any German tank. I actually think the defense stats of most of the upgraded Panzers need to be reduced. PzIVD to PzIVF goes from 6 GD to 13, which is insane. If it goes to 9 or 10, that might be more reasonable, it will actually be less than the T34! Keep in mind the massive experience modifiers players will have, along with heroes should they import their core. The main reason why I’m overstrengthing everything even on Rommel is that my units hardly ever take damage.
For those who enjoy reading a wall of text, this Beta report I think will convincingly illustrate the powerfu combination of experienced + overstrengthed units. My panzers were nigh invincible because of that combination.
Scenarios are great. Streets of Moscow is suitably challenging. Best DLC in terms of scenario design yet, but unit stats imbalance made it less enjoyable.
There are many captured units, but are there too many? 8 units total in this series of missions, and I only use 7 panzers normally. Admittedly I only found 3, and on Manstein I’m not sure I’m going to get more.
I guess to quote Kerensky, “You are a victim of your own success.” My hope was that on Field Marshall or Rommel, the game this campaign will be challenging, some DV possible but certainly not on the first attempt. And on Manstein some missions become near impossible. The latter still may be true, but the former is not.
If you could re-post your comments on the dangers of experience, overstrength, and heroes in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=275423#275423
I would very much appreciate it.
viewtopic.php?p=275423#275423
I would very much appreciate it.
Instead of tampering too much the stats of the different tanks (I do agree with rarer but more powerful T34s by the way), the map balance and/or the prestige rewards to make up for the fact that a good player will have an experienced and overstrength army, all of this that could have a detrimental effect on game balance at the lower difficulty levels (lot of people struggling even in Poland on colonel on the general forum), wouldn't a simpler solution to simply boost the experience of the enemy units in the harder difficulty settings so that they are consistent with what a player of the targeted audience would have at this point, in addition to the other modifications of those game modes ?
To be fair, this difficulty exists, it's Manstein. Sure, the AI doesn't get more experience, but it gets +5 strength to all units.Instead of tampering too much the stats of the different tanks (I do agree with rarer but more powerful T34s by the way), the map balance and/or the prestige rewards to make up for the fact that a good player will have an experienced and overstrength army, all of this that could have a detrimental effect on game balance at the lower difficulty levels (lot of people struggling even in Poland on colonel on the general forum), wouldn't a simpler solution to simply boost the experience of the enemy units in the harder difficulty settings so that they are consistent with what a player of the targeted audience would have at this point, in addition to the other modifications of those game modes ?
I'll play on this difficulty when a new beta is released. You won't see my absurdly low casualties in that case. Oh, you'll see losses alright...
If you're curios, check out the standard AAR subforum for the report on "Spoils of War."