Yes, there is. There is considerable icd savings by delaying due to tech achievements! :rofl:
-
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.
Yes, there is. There is considerable icd savings by delaying due to tech achievements! :rofl:
Brilliant! Well done
May I ask to see the inflicted losses and losses charts please?Ha, um.. I can't remember to be honest. I want to say August 21st but I really can't remember. But, as you alluded to, this was using the 1941 scenario. Maybe using the 1936 scenario it would be even easier (for one thing I certainly wouldn't have the stupid OOB to deal with!) I am tempted to try and see if I can beat your impressive record but multi-player (and Jarski's mod) are too good to miss!
I hope it's not as easy as that. As Pang said, it shouldn't be so easy to defeat after the fall of Moscow.
There is the long route via Vladivostok.
Did i really said that? The loss of Moscow hurts in terms of ic, of resources and of ESE. If the German AI takes Moscow this often means that Bitter Peace will trigger soon. Of couse the goal is to allow soviet AI to deliver some good resistence after the fall of moscow, but limitations in ic etc. will limit those options.
I doubt the AI SU has enough convoys to stretch that far, but maybe they do. The best I can do is guarantee they would not supply from Mezen.
EDIT: Checking loading as the Soviets I see that they actually do. Well, no war is ever won perfectly... besides, the last Soviets in Lapland got elimanted before too many convoys reached them - and the PAR that landed in Mezen will go on and take the rest of Northern Russia. In fact, he becomes instrumental in preventing the SU AI's attempt to retreat into the Arctic Region and - by himself - is responsible for eliminatimg about a dozen Soviet divisions.
Sorry, I just now got the first image in the "The Wehrmacht Finishes Off Barbarossa" to display which is too bad you did not see that last instalment starting with that appropriate image. Oh well. The trials and tribulations of publishing in Forum.
I thought the goal was to win? Chucks... I'll have to start all over again! :laugh:
Last edited:
Strange how things change over time, isn´t it
Yes, how true. It's past worrying about! :rofl:
You got that wrong. The goal of AI is to deliver as good resistence as circumstances will allow. And there are cases where soviet AI will prevail after it lost moscow.
Thanks Commander666 for this interesting mini-AAR and providing all the pictures that came along with it.
And maybe I did misquote Pang as saying the USSR should still be a threat after the fall of Moscow; but I still stick by that point. I guess one of the big problems with AoD in terms of the Germany-USSR war is the way production is handled. I remember someone on this forum quoting that 175 divisions were newly formed by the Red Army June 1941-December 1941 in real life; that's 116,375 ICD (in terms of un-brigaded infantry, excluding retooling). In AoD you really have to be prepared before the actual invasion as the USSR, which was certainly not the case IRL.
Another problem IMO is the logistical ease by which you can invade the USSR. While ESE does drop, is it nowhere near as harsh as what it would have been IRL. The logistical issue applies to the game as a whole; you should not be able to supply 100+ divisions that are solely based in Gibraltar, or 300+ divisions in and around Gibraltar. You should not be able to supply 20-30 armoured and motorised divisions in addition to the Italian units in Libya. IRL Germany even had supply problems when invading France, which seems impossible to achieve in this game (without deliberately trying to do so).
And maybe I did misquote Pang as saying the USSR should still be a threat after the fall of Moscow; but I still stick by that point. I guess one of the big problems with AoD in terms of the Germany-USSR war is the way production is handled. I remember someone on this forum quoting that 175 divisions were newly formed by the Red Army June 1941-December 1941 in real life; that's 116,375 ICD (in terms of un-brigaded infantry, excluding retooling). In AoD you really have to be prepared before the actual invasion as the USSR, which was certainly not the case IRL.
Another problem IMO is the logistical ease by which you can invade the USSR. While ESE does drop, is it nowhere near as harsh as what it would have been IRL. The logistical issue applies to the game as a whole; you should not be able to supply 100+ divisions that are solely based in Gibraltar, or 300+ divisions in and around Gibraltar. You should not be able to supply 20-30 armoured and motorised divisions in addition to the Italian units in Libya. IRL Germany even had supply problems when invading France, which seems impossible to achieve in this game (without deliberately trying to do so).
Due to hawk lobby (-36% icd) and doctrine discount(-25% ic) and assemly line (-20% days) it is more like 44688 icd. Divided by 300 ic that is 149 days for 175 divs. June to december is 180 days. So it is far less extreme than your statement might imply.
Oh, please, taking into account consumer goods, supplies, salaries, etc. it would not be even half of this number, and no aircraft included. I would rework Lend-Lease system and add British support for SU in 1941. Shortening unit building time at the minor cost of organization (by event), should allow to build at least around 100 divisions in this period.
Ok, you have a valid point. But the USSR doesn't really have 300 IC to spend purely on infantry; what about reinforcements, an airforce, motorised and armoured units, upgrades, infrastructure builds and so on.
EDIT: Just noticed bosman's clear and concise reply to Pang's comment, I completely agree!
Changing lend and lease into a more steady stream of supplies and resources makes sence because AI cannot properly handle otherwise and a human play could exploit supply reduction by keeping stockpiles low. But changing production values of infantry seems wrong. Utilizing the mass combat Chief of Staff and 30% gearing bonus on average would require only 157 ic put on infantry over a period of 180 days to get addional 175 infantry divisions. A human player can have build up more than 30% gearing bonus in Mid of 1941 and AI will use something near 30% on average. In 1.08 soviet AI does build a lot of infantry in 1941. I donnot think it adds up to those 175 divs but the division model of AoD is heavy simplified anyway. A german divisions had something like 18000 men, a chinese division something like 10000 men and the soviets had somehing in the middle.
Now take into account, that soviet IC usually drops down after Barbarossa starts, due to almost certain german conquests and you have to spend more of it on repairs. It doesn't look so optimistic then. Practically, i was able to build about 60-70 divisions of pure infantry. I could build more, but those would be only military units. IRL building time of infantry divisions varied depending on situation. Soviets built many divisions which were of pure quality during Barbarossa. Giving them bonus to construction time at the cost of org and morale is simply more realistic IMO.
BTW, standing/drafted army slider should affect this relation much more than now.
BTW, standing/drafted army slider should affect this relation much more than now.
At the start of Barbarossa USSR has something between 350 and 400 ic. If a total of 150 ic goes into reinforcements, consumer goods and supplies the given number is possible if moscow is not lost.
I believe you mean poor quality.
I think it is overmodding. Building milita instead of infantry is an option to represent poor quality at low costs.
I believe you mean poor quality.
I think it is overmodding. Building milita instead of infantry is an option to represent poor quality at low costs.
I doubt you could have more than 200 IC for production only at the beginning of Barbarossa. Later it's going to be less than 150. As i said, focusing on infantry may give this number, but adding only one line of tanks and planes takes nearly 30 IC and i can hardly imagine someone playing effectively with this scheme.
hehe, yes, stupid typo.
If we were able to upgrade militia to infantry, like in DH - yes, but without such an option it's not the same.
It was a pleasure doing it... and I learned much. Of course, I'm still learning because I decided I need more practise in other thread - "Advice for UK".