I just want to say that this AAR is a brilliant piece of work.
Truly one of my fav.
Keep up the good work!
Truly one of my fav.
Keep up the good work!
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
You have done well to get that many with all that expenditure. Will you leave anything in the east of trust the M-R Pact? (I think I had about 60k supplies when I hit France, but that is probably more than I need. I think that subconsciously I am in HOI2 mode and think I can give the accelerated supply bonus to units).
Heh.
This is exactly what I love about this AAR: the human aspect. Keep it up !
Tnanks kigrwik: I know I put in a lot of detail so I need to keep a story going or it will read like a spreadsheet. But I put in the detail bacause many times when I have been reading other AARs there has been a magic move or reaction and I have thought "Where did that Army come from?" or "When did Rumania join the war?" or even "What tech has he got to get those results?".
So everything is there. If a disaster occurs you will see it develop: I promise I don't save all the time (well, I save at midnight every day, but only for screenshots). And I rarely get more than 5-6 days ahead: it is too confusing writing otherwise as I forget what was happening. My notes are actually more reminders of what's happening.
1 reason I find it useful to build up supplies is so as to be able to fund upgrades later on. By the time you introduce the 1940 & 1942 techs for inf and armour your IC will probably be under stress what with replacements, new units etc. So one option is to temporarily set supply production to 0 (or very low) and divert the IC to fund your upgrade bill. If you don't keep on top of the upgrades at key pts (42 seems particularly so as its unlikely you've 'won' at that stage, 44 is maybe a bit easier to manage as things should be decided - for good or ill, and you may well have a lot more IC from conquests), otherwise, even if you prioritise, you just end up with a monumental backlog.
In that case, I tend to feel I've wasted the leadership that went into research, especially as I tend not to want to scrap older land/air units.
Not least as some of them might have accumulated a lot of valuable experience.
Thanks Karaiskandar: hard at work as we speak (well, writing 1-3 Aug). Hope I can keep you hooked.
Comments like yours remind me I should think ahead a bit more. Obviously that is a good approach - I have already experienced upgrade stress and it can only get worse. (And I agonise over prioritising units: should it be my fighters or my tanks?) To have developed a tech and not taken advantage of it asap is criminal waste - leadership, even for Germany, is too scarce.
Thanks for the advice, I tend to think about a week or so in advance so it is good that someone is a bit more perceptive.
You should consider annexing Romania and Bulgaria and in fact basically everybody not aligned to a faction. It will increase your IC, manpower and leadership as well as your resources. Actually, Yougoslavia and Hungary should've been annexed too, as your own administrative skills are way better than those of the AI and a unified building program would be worth a lot more than this situation where everybody is building his own stuff, sometimes vastly inferior to other members of a faction. I do miss the option of sharing techs with your faction members.
Edit: Any plans about Norway and Sweden? Since you're planning on allying yourself with Finland, I assume this country is removed from the list of possible targets.
Edit: Any plans about Norway and Sweden? Since you're planning on allying yourself with Finland, I assume this country is removed from the list of possible targets.
Last edited:
You're welcome, I'm really impressed by the level of detail you can offer.
And the AAR point of view is quite original also. Furthermore the IA seems to put quite a good fight.
The east will be left to my brave Hungarian and Romanian allies (Bulgaria needs its troops to help Italy in Greece - actually to prevent the Greeks from entering Bulgaria ).
Building only reserve divisions was the key to get a force of this size despite building up the navy and spending IC on the luxury of a rocket test site.
Yes, managing supplies is very important, too, I think I was just at around 10k during my "real" buildup phase and building no AA helps, too, since I am fairly confident in my 18 INTs (12 at pure defensive duty of protecting the Reich).
CharonJr
edit: Oh, and I have to add that I am playing hard on an easier level (essentially normal with the -20% modifier to combat) - in addition I am using about 230IC for new troops.
And thank you again for this AAR which managed to break my resolve to wait till 1.4 with my next game. This one turns out to be quite interesting. The Belgiums just managed to prevent me from taking Bastonge for 2 weeks, but this gave me enough time to get my 2 shiny new para-divisions into shape for a drop (a kind of reverse Market Garden with my paras securing a "highway" over the bridges and through the forests of Liege and Leuven with 14 armor divisions racing to relieve them and head towards the Channel and northern France.
).Building only reserve divisions was the key to get a force of this size despite building up the navy and spending IC on the luxury of a rocket test site.
Yes, managing supplies is very important, too, I think I was just at around 10k during my "real" buildup phase and building no AA helps, too, since I am fairly confident in my 18 INTs (12 at pure defensive duty of protecting the Reich).
CharonJr
edit: Oh, and I have to add that I am playing hard on an easier level (essentially normal with the -20% modifier to combat) - in addition I am using about 230IC for new troops.
And thank you again for this AAR which managed to break my resolve to wait till 1.4 with my next game. This one turns out to be quite interesting. The Belgiums just managed to prevent me from taking Bastonge for 2 weeks, but this gave me enough time to get my 2 shiny new para-divisions into shape for a drop (a kind of reverse Market Garden with my paras securing a "highway" over the bridges and through the forests of Liege and Leuven with 14 armor divisions racing to relieve them and head towards the Channel and northern France.
Last edited:
Something that bugs me.
So, Finland declared victory, even though they surrendered due to superior Russian weaponry and the ability of Russians to replace losses? Uh-huh.
I'm sure the leader of Polish government-in-exile is busy boasting of its 'victory' over the Germans. After all, they delayed the German offensive and killed a few Germans. Maybe the Finnish Prime Minister would like to meet up with him, and maybe compare notes, or award him a medal of bravery?
So, Finland declared victory, even though they surrendered due to superior Russian weaponry and the ability of Russians to replace losses? Uh-huh.
I'm sure the leader of Polish government-in-exile is busy boasting of its 'victory' over the Germans. After all, they delayed the German offensive and killed a few Germans. Maybe the Finnish Prime Minister would like to meet up with him, and maybe compare notes, or award him a medal of bravery?
Kind of reminds me of the United States claiming to have never lost a war due to the fact, that the vietnam war wasn't a war, because no vietnamese communist ran into the foreign office to declare war ;>
Originally I did think of creating a united Europe against Russia, but it seemed to me it would take too much time and the Soviets would use that time to build an enormous army.
While not glued to reality, I am trying a vaguely historic approach, so Norway of course was a possibility. Having to send my marines to the front has put this on hold for now. Raincheck until I am well into France.
You're welcome, I'm really impressed by the level of detail you can offer.
And the AAR point of view is quite original also. Furthermore the IA seems to put quite a good fight.
Thanks again.
And yes, this would have been a very boring (and maybe short) AAR without the AI being a bit inventive.
The Danish attack was a real surprise: I thought my Nordsee garrsion would deter that.
I built only reserve divisions until about a month before war.
And I am still waiting for the first of my PARAs: my very expensive TR planes have done nothing for months. Another example of bad forward planning: could have had another 3 divisions.
Last edited:
Re-reading that I realise I didn't get across what I intended.
To simply report it as a surrender would have been too easy - I wanted to leave a seed that the Finns felt aggrieved and were ready to take on Russia again if they had some help. I probably over-egged it: what I really wanted to do was portray the Finns claiming that they had been forced to surrender by force of numbers, not because of a lack of will to fight.
It wasn't any easier to write when I didn't have any battle results. Anyway, in my very first post I did warn everyone that this was my first go at an AAR!
"...the Fuhrer did, however, enquire when he could expect to see a final report on Fall Weiss, including lessons learned." Indeed! Are you sure you weren't on someone's general staff somewhere?:rofl:
It's okay, I wasn't complaining about your writing, I was complaining about the Finns' nationalism.
That what bugged me, your AAR is good.
Nothing so exciting unfortunately.
But I have endured an awful lot of senior administrative meetings, and that is the "nice" way to tell people they are late with something. The only response is to give a date, and then you are doomed.
Ver 1.4 : What shoudl I do?
I have been thinking about what to do when 1.4 comes out, and am still to make a decision. If anyone has an opinion, please let me know. (I don't say I'll follow it, but I will definitely consider it.)
These are the options as I see it.
1. Ignore 1.4 and keep going with 1.3
2. Load 1.4, ignore all the warnings about possible incompatability, play until ludicrous outcomes/events or continuous crashes occur. (If they occur - I have found with other patches that they can work OK)
3. Load 1.4, speed play (with as close to possible the same decisions) to roughtly the same point and provide a "cross-over" update to highlight any differences. (Also a Plan B if Option 2 is tried and fails).
4. Load 1.4 and start again
The main factors that will impact my decision are (in no particular order):
1. I have put a lot of time and effort into writing this AAR (and some of you must have put in few hours reading it!) and I am loathe to just ditch it
2. When I started it I wanted it to serve as a sort of reference for anyone wanting to see the results of some decisions, or simply to see what the game could do if you let it
3. I wanted to see and to show others what the AI could do if you "let go".
4. I always like to play the most current version of any game: seems pointless to play something when an improved version is out.
5. I know I have some dedicated readers and I don't want to let them down.
6. I suspect if I keep with 1.3 I will find it hard to maintain both my and my readers' interest: 1.4 AARs will be more informative and useful
7. If I started again, it would be difficult to avoid repeating myself
8. I would like to see what happens.
So you could possibly deduce that 1 and 4 are the least favourite at the moment. If pushed I would say I am leaning to Option 2, with Option 3 as a Plan B if the game crashes or I am invaded by flesh eating zombies in 1942 or if I find that most of Germany is underwater.
All opinions welcome, but if you could explain why you have an opinion it would help me make up my mind.
Whatever the decision, I'll keep going at least until the end of the open Beta. (In fact, I will probably try a few weeks of 1.4 beta privately to see how compatible it is. As I said, sometimes saves do work, especially if they are not too divergent from a "standard" game. The changes listed to date don't seem too extreme eg no extreme map changes).
Thanks in advance
PS Option 5, going without sleep and playing/writing 24/7 to finish before 1.4 is released was considered and rejected. I am on a tightrope as it is and it would be embarrassing to be grounded from my own computer.
I have been thinking about what to do when 1.4 comes out, and am still to make a decision. If anyone has an opinion, please let me know. (I don't say I'll follow it, but I will definitely consider it.)
These are the options as I see it.
1. Ignore 1.4 and keep going with 1.3
2. Load 1.4, ignore all the warnings about possible incompatability, play until ludicrous outcomes/events or continuous crashes occur. (If they occur - I have found with other patches that they can work OK)
3. Load 1.4, speed play (with as close to possible the same decisions) to roughtly the same point and provide a "cross-over" update to highlight any differences. (Also a Plan B if Option 2 is tried and fails).
4. Load 1.4 and start again
The main factors that will impact my decision are (in no particular order):
1. I have put a lot of time and effort into writing this AAR (and some of you must have put in few hours reading it!) and I am loathe to just ditch it
2. When I started it I wanted it to serve as a sort of reference for anyone wanting to see the results of some decisions, or simply to see what the game could do if you let it
3. I wanted to see and to show others what the AI could do if you "let go".
4. I always like to play the most current version of any game: seems pointless to play something when an improved version is out.
5. I know I have some dedicated readers and I don't want to let them down.
6. I suspect if I keep with 1.3 I will find it hard to maintain both my and my readers' interest: 1.4 AARs will be more informative and useful
7. If I started again, it would be difficult to avoid repeating myself
8. I would like to see what happens.
So you could possibly deduce that 1 and 4 are the least favourite at the moment. If pushed I would say I am leaning to Option 2, with Option 3 as a Plan B if the game crashes or I am invaded by flesh eating zombies in 1942 or if I find that most of Germany is underwater.
All opinions welcome, but if you could explain why you have an opinion it would help me make up my mind.
Whatever the decision, I'll keep going at least until the end of the open Beta. (In fact, I will probably try a few weeks of 1.4 beta privately to see how compatible it is. As I said, sometimes saves do work, especially if they are not too divergent from a "standard" game. The changes listed to date don't seem too extreme eg no extreme map changes).
Thanks in advance
PS Option 5, going without sleep and playing/writing 24/7 to finish before 1.4 is released was considered and rejected. I am on a tightrope as it is and it would be embarrassing to be grounded from my own computer.
Games started under 1.3 might be fatally flawed already, so you should try speed play to see if you can get a situation that resembles the curret, but there are still weeks to that point and over a month to final 1.4.
It would be sad to abandon this AAR which is a great work.
It would be sad to abandon this AAR which is a great work.
IMO it will depend on what 1.4 is actually fixing.
If it fixes some of the more annoying AI weaknesses like overstacking/sending to many troops to keep them in supply (which should have a huge impact early on for Japan, later for everybody) or stoping France from wasting its armor on the Maginot (they had at least 8 armor divisions there while I have been already racing mine throught Belbium - France felt in less than 2 weeks after I entered French soil - but I have been lowering their nation unity since the beginning of the game, too) speedplaying up to your current point in the game sounds like the better option to me.
If it fails to fix those issues I would tend to simply continue with 1.4 installed since as you said you essentially want to show what the game could do if you let it and the game would be 1.4 at this point.
Unless there are some other fixes which would have a huge impact on your current situation which might be not so obvious (like the AI building more fortresses or trading more aggressively for ressources it lacks - the later could/should lead to a far better Italy in addition to helping Japan) which would lead me to prefer speedplaying up to the current point again.
CharonJr
If it fixes some of the more annoying AI weaknesses like overstacking/sending to many troops to keep them in supply (which should have a huge impact early on for Japan, later for everybody) or stoping France from wasting its armor on the Maginot (they had at least 8 armor divisions there while I have been already racing mine throught Belbium - France felt in less than 2 weeks after I entered French soil - but I have been lowering their nation unity since the beginning of the game, too) speedplaying up to your current point in the game sounds like the better option to me.
If it fails to fix those issues I would tend to simply continue with 1.4 installed since as you said you essentially want to show what the game could do if you let it and the game would be 1.4 at this point.
Unless there are some other fixes which would have a huge impact on your current situation which might be not so obvious (like the AI building more fortresses or trading more aggressively for ressources it lacks - the later could/should lead to a far better Italy in addition to helping Japan) which would lead me to prefer speedplaying up to the current point again.
CharonJr
I see that the 1.4 patch will include a massive leadership and technology overhaul for non-major european countries. So I suspect that it will not be save-compatible with 1.3... But I may be wrong...