A BETA-preview Barbarossa AAR

[unmerged(18239)]

Nice updates Singleton Mosby! Just one addition questions concerning terrain: Do you feel like terrain really has a realistic influence on the progress/outcome of a battle?

Yes, the mountainous Carpathians and forests of the Pripjet slow down troops considerably.

So, Singleton Mosby, can you tell if the game supports multicore?

I have no idea, how can I find out?

Of the 55k remaining, I assume they were all wiped out as well, you just didn't get any notice that you lost 55k men?

I didn't get a message but they were all wiped out, shattered and reconstituted without a leader and without any org or strength in Moscow. It did not really 'hurt' however.

Quick question. Noticed that in the Battle of Parechcha the Soviet side had no leader. Was this because no leader was assigned or somehow a result of encirclement?

I didn't check but I suppose no leader was assigned.

Yes please, that was what I meant. Of course, I am aware that it's a beta, and the detailed data is subject to change...

I will check it out during the weekend.


And I guess someone owes me a set of steak knives

 

[e_quality]

And I guess someone owes me a set of steak knives

Indeed someone does. 143,727 views and counting. Very impressive and well deserved.

 

[unmerged(18239)]

Yes please, that was what I meant. Of course, I am aware that it's a beta, and the detailed data is subject to change...
As an aside, considering how much I am itching to get my hands on the game, anything you can reveal is welcome. In particular if it's as impressive as the AI's performance

One thing which is impressive and hasn't been mentioned by anyone, neither by me, is the music in the game. I never liked it very much in the Paradox title but now, with this massive battlefield and numerous units, the music is really good and seems to be different for each major nation as well.

Ok, to answer your earlier question:
Scenario= 1936 / difficulty = normal

US: 37.60 leadership points
UK: 37.07
USSR: 11.55 (I guess because of the putch, or did that take place in 37/387?)
Germany: 18.84 (Seems a bit low for a country focussed at leadership perfection)
Italy: 7.41
Japan: 12.98

 

[Registered]

USSR: 11.55 (I guess because of the putch, or did that take place in 37/387?)

The purge (not putch) started in '37 i think. As far as the Red Army was concerned.

 

[supernova]

Germany: 18.84 (Seems a bit low for a country focussed at leadership perfection)

I guess this has to do with certain laws passed in 1935 which caused many scientist to leave or to be fired from their jobs.

 

[Sangeli]

I say you should declare war on Finland; Finland cannot be considered neutral when it is supplying the Germans with valuable nickel from Petsamo.

 

[unmerged(65128)]

The purge (not putch) started in '37 i think. As far as the Red Army was concerned.

The purge were between 1936-39 after that Sovjetunion started a military reform.

 

[33Vortex]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, I've not read all posts in this thread, still.

All these combat reports stating that troops are getting killed is quite worrying! Seriously though, a soldier does not have to die in order to be a casualty and taken off front line duty. A correct way of labeling losses would be 'casualties' instead of 'killed'. It doesn't make sense to list only those who were killed!

Typically the number of wounded is higher, sometimes by a factor of 3-4 or even more, than the actual number of soldiers killed in combat. The relevant figure here is how many men are no longer able to fight, ie those listed as casualties.

I hope this has been (or will be) corrected before release. A minor issue I know but in a way it makes my eyes bleed.

 

[Sangeli]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, I've not read all posts in this thread, still.

All these combat reports stating that troops are getting killed is quite worrying! Seriously though, a soldier does not have to die in order to be a casualty and taken off front line duty. A correct way of labeling losses would be 'casualties' instead of 'killed'. It doesn't make sense to list only those who were killed!

Typically the number of wounded is higher, sometimes by a factor of 3-4 or even more, than the actual number of soldiers killed in combat. The relevant figure here is how many men are no longer able to fight, ie those listed as casualties.

I hope this has been (or will be) corrected before release. A minor issue I know but in a way it makes my eyes bleed.

I know what you mean. I wonder if they have modifiers as well because on the eastern front the ratio of deaths to wounded was much higher because of the cold, infection, disease, etc.

 

[LeeDub]

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, I've not read all posts in this thread, still.

All these combat reports stating that troops are getting killed is quite worrying! Seriously though, a soldier does not have to die in order to be a casualty and taken off front line duty. A correct way of labeling losses would be 'casualties' instead of 'killed'. It doesn't make sense to list only those who were killed!

Typically the number of wounded is higher, sometimes by a factor of 3-4 or even more, than the actual number of soldiers killed in combat. The relevant figure here is how many men are no longer able to fight, ie those listed as casualties.

I hope this has been (or will be) corrected before release. A minor issue I know but in a way it makes my eyes bleed.

There are some medicine/first aid techs in HoI3, so unless they max out at raising dead the word used should indeed be "casualties".

(The techs might not do what I think they do, though. I just assumed they work kinda like the hospital tech in HoI2.)

EDIT: I forgot what thread this is! Kind Mr. Singleton Mosby, could you please tell us what do the "Combat Medicine" and "First aid" techs (of the Industry tab, according to screenshots) do?

 

[Alex_brunius]

I guess this has to do with certain laws passed in 1935 which caused many scientist to leave or to be fired from their jobs.

No, leadership is not a representation of the top scientists, its the lower staff that can work for any officer/scientist/spy or diplomat.

Ok, to answer your earlier question:
Scenario= 1936 / difficulty = normal

US: 37.60 leadership points
UK: 37.07
USSR: 11.55 (I guess because of the putch, or did that take place in 37/387?)
Germany: 18.84 (Seems a bit low for a country focussed at leadership perfection)
Italy: 7.41
Japan: 12.98

It does look like paradox strategy here is to still let the Allies have most of their advantage in long term as research (and now leadership) bonuses.

Allies total: 86.22
Axis total: 39.23

 

[KAding]

A CPU might lose responsiveness if it's already at max, since it's a sign that it can't keep up with demand. But it's certainly doing more computation at 100% utilization than 80% (unlike an interstate).

And just because a process uses 100% of CPU does not mean it will run or feel sluggish or that the CPU is too slow. All that depends on the design of the program.

Usually games are designed to just use as many CPU cycles as they can get and a CPU running at 100% indeed provides more power than one at 80%. Heck, are there any full-screen 3D games out there that do not by default use 100% of the CPU (at least one core that is)?

 

[unmerged(15623)]

And that's without some major allied contributors. I'd guess France and Commonwealth could add as much as 30 points to it.

Which among other things, begs the question; how powerful will intelligence be?

While single player AI will likely not be able to use any kind of unified spy strategy, what will happen to a multiplayer Germany that gets hit with over 100 leadership points in espionage starting from January 1st 1936?

Will Hitler go out of office in week? Will German factories grind to halt? Will German neutrality rise to record hights, rendering them unable to DoW anyone, ever.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Ok, to answer your earlier question:
Scenario= 1936 / difficulty = normal

US: 37.60 leadership points
UK: 37.07
USSR: 11.55 (I guess because of the putch, or did that take place in 37/387?)
Germany: 18.84 (Seems a bit low for a country focussed at leadership perfection)
Italy: 7.41
Japan: 12.98

Is this raw number or modified numbers? I've seen a bunch of +x% leadership / -x% leadership modifiers on laws, and something called "education" on one of the screenshots. In particular, closed societies seem to have leadership malus's and open societies have boni.

As for the guy who noticed that Allied leadership > Axis leadership, that doesn't even include Canada or Australia, the low countries, or Poland... or even France.

I also wonder to what extent leadership can be "pooled" - can Canadian diplomats help sway the US toward the Allies? Do GoEs get a bonus for espionage in their occupied countries? Can a country with too many divisions gift some to an ally with surplus officers?

Has anyone done an IC comparison yet?

 

[Kuciwalker]

US leadership is about the same as UK leadership? I call BS for the simple reason of relative population

 

[Tigerland]

While single player AI will likely not be able to use any kind of unified spy strategy, what will happen to a multiplayer Germany that gets hit with over 100 leadership points in espionage starting from January 1st 1936?

Will Hitler go out of office in week? Will German factories grind to halt? Will German neutrality rise to record hights, rendering them unable to DoW anyone, ever.

Leadership unbalanced allocation betwen sliders (oficers, diplo, espionage, RD) is probably unrealistic and an obvious potencial exploit. The best way to limit such danger is to put maximal and minimal % spending on each slider dependent on political regime, laws ideology, tech etc. just like the system in crusader kings where the taxes for each social class was limited depending on laws enacted.

 

[asteris_]

Well one question Mosby:

Are leadership points editable?
I mean through text files

 

[Alexander Seil]

Leadership unbalanced allocation betwen sliders (oficers, diplo, espionage, RD) is probably unrealistic and an obvious potencial exploit. The best way to limit such danger is to put maximal and minimal % spending on each slider dependent on political regime, laws ideology, tech etc. just like the system in crusader kings where the taxes for each social class was limited depending on laws enacted.

I suggest that problems be fixed once they're problems. "Obvious" exploit? The only person in this thread even remotely qualified to identify "obvious" exploits is Mosby, as he's the one who's playing the actual game, rather than dreaming about it.

In any case, officer levels don't automatically adjust. There's an officer pool. Just because you move the slider there to the max doesn't mean that your troops are suddenly shatter-proof. The allocations are limited by the fact that everything except for research takes time to actually take any effects.

Is this raw number or modified numbers? I've seen a bunch of +x% leadership / -x% leadership modifiers on laws, and something called "education" on one of the screenshots. In particular, closed societies seem to have leadership malus's and open societies have boni.

Chances are that it's modified, since it's presumably easier to obtain the modified numbers (rather than fishing for raw numbers from text files or province info boxes).

As for the guy who noticed that Allied leadership > Axis leadership, that doesn't even include Canada or Australia, the low countries, or Poland... or even France.

Well, Axis doesn't include Hungary, Finland and Romania, either. Though France would give Allies an edge.

I also wonder to what extent leadership can be "pooled" - can Canadian diplomats help sway the US toward the Allies? Do GoEs get a bonus for espionage in their occupied countries? Can a country with too many divisions gift some to an ally with surplus officers?

I think influence either moves the country in question towards your own position on the triangle or towards your faction's corner. That means that Canada can certainly use its diplomacy to influence nations towards the Allies.

 

[Devout]

I suggest that problems be fixed once they're problems. "Obvious" exploit? The only person in this thread even remotely qualified to identify "obvious" exploits is Mosby, as he's the one who's playing the actual game, rather than dreaming about it.

I agree that people should be patient and not panic over data posted in a 2 month old beta version. I am very impressed with PI's development process and they seem to be way ahead of the schedule [as compared to other games], giving them plenty of time for optimization, AI development, and game balance tweaks.

But I must admit that the first area I will look for to gain an edge over other nations is the leadership spending allocation. In my opinion, the development diaries have tried to explain the importance of each leadership area, but never addressed in any way how they are balanced. I always assumed that leadership will be so tight, that spending in each category must be carefully considered and ignoring one area would be taking significant risks. But if a nation or alliance has twice the leadership of its opponents, the allocation process may be undermined and potentially, exploits could be the outcome.

So a reason to panic? no. Reason to be scared? no. But I do think it is reasonable for someone to be concerned that a potential exploit could result from significant leadership differences.

I personally have faith in PI to see this "obvious" concern, and address it (assuming it actually even needed to be addressed).

 

[unmerged(63310)]

interesting preview

Some of the leadership breakdowns is likely due to majority of Axis countries starting at some part of a war or moving towards war set of laws which give leadership malus. However- I can't see how USA and UK would have = leadership so it must simply be due to its an early build.

Only other question I'd have is about penalties for shifting leadership completely out of an area. I hope there is a minimal limit or built in reasons not to want diplo/into at 0. Or for instance USA keeping 100% leadership in research until 1940 then increasing officers etc would severely limit how much practical knowledge is gained from building what you've researched so actually optimizing research requires some leadership spent in both officers(practical inputs to the researchers and testing) and diplo/intel(keeping tabs on what potential enemies are doing, sharing some research with allies etc).

At least the very slow speed of USSR increasing officer commitments even with major investment bodes well for not wanting to put off investment in officer leadership.