Having played a complete HSR game as Germany on UGROFAZ level, I have some understanding of the dynamics. I am sorry to say that I do not believe that the overall historicity - fidelity to historical powers and limitations - of this mod is particularly high. I also will claim that some of the changes in this mod hinder the AI badly enough to allow the player too easy a victory on any level of difficulty.
Maintainence costs of units:
Tanks, mech infantry, and aircraft use up a great deal of oil. This change, combined with very restrictive coal-to-oil conversion for players, makes it extremely costly to a human to operate these units. Let me define "extremely costly": An improved medium tank costs 14 oil when moving. Once one's oil reserves have been tapped out, it will take 46.66 coal to create that much oil. I assume maximal tech.
I did not build tanks. I built mech infantry late in the game, and remain uncertain as to whether they are worth the expense.
Bad as the problem is for human players, for the AI it is worse. This statement sounds absurd; the AI can convert coal to oil 1-to-1, rising to 1-to-2 in some cases. However, the AI builds so many tanks and planes that most nations, the USA excepted, suffer a major economic crunch no later than 1943. Russia get hit early and hard, the UK follows later (probably when she starts fielding modern tanks in quantity). This throws their entire war efforts out of wack.
If you doubt the above, I will present screenshots. I won the game because I ran a more efficient economy and military.
---------------
The stats and costs of aircraft:
Aircraft costs and stats are very curious. All aircraft other than fighters start out being extremely expensive to build and restore to maximum strength. I repeatedly had to invest 2000 supplies - the cost of building almost 4 infantry divisions - to restore my tactical bomber stack after moderate usage.
All models of aircraft in a particular category have the same stats: A pre-war aircraft is as good as a turbojet bomber. Techs increase the stats of tactical aircraft fairly slowly, but every plane benefits. So there is almost only one model of tactical bomber.
I could not get tactical or dive bombers to yield good results in battle. In a test game, I went to great pains to get Improved tactical and dive bombers for the early war, building 12 (at further expense), and seeing them have only limited effect and take significant casualties in the clear skies and open terrain of Poland.
Fighters are totally different. Improved interceptors are so good that there is nothing clearly better for dogfights until improved rocket fighters. Because of how the tech table is laid out, you do not have to learn about basic fighters - just jump straight to improved. However, unit costs are such that it is better to build pre-war fighters, and then convert them to modern ones.
Because of AI lack of interest in air technology, and their mid-game economic collapses, improved interceptors (when sufficiently numerous) ruled the sky for me until the end of the game. Repeatedly annihilated enemy forces in a given theatre of operation, never faced a serious challenge.
The best strategic bomber is the pre-war model. It has a base strategic attack of 12; all other models have 6. I was wondering why one-bomber runs were so powerful ... now I know.
With an oil usage of 8, a single strategic bomber group would use all the oil Germany produces from its own provinces. Sufficient numbers of strat bombers can drain even Texas dry.
---------------
The stats and costs of ships:
Destroyers seem expensive. This makes it hard for the Allies to stop my subs...
Subs are quite inexpensive. Those small electro subs are just plain ridiculous. Assuming the British knew about the mass-production of ships and that they were using an "open seas" minister, they could build a destroyer unit for the cost of more than 11 small electro subs (when built under Donitz)!
---------------
Rate of technological advancement:
Tech advancement is quite slow.
By 1-1-1945, the (AI-controlled) Americans could build Improved heavy tanks, basic surface ships and medium-range subs, and basic planes of all types except for improved interceptors. They remained ignorant of any centrimetric radar application and any mass-production application.
In similar fashion, the Russians never learnt how to build T-34s, and although the British were fielding Advanced heavy tanks*, they were also making do with basic fighters!
* High-level British tanks are mis-named. This can be seen in both the unit production and tech screens.
Germany had the tech advantage after about 1941. However, she failed to maintain technological parity with the historical Third Reich in any fields other than infantry, artillery, land doctrine, electronic, and industrial tech.
---------------
Tech and utility of techs:
Infantry and artillery techs are very powerful, and can be obtained very rapidly. In a test game as South Africa (normal difficulty) I came within an ace of conquering Germany by focusing purely on these fields.
Land doctrines are reasonably priced. Expensive, but very useful. Same with rocketry, electronic, and industrial tech.
Armour tech just ain't worth it, in my opinion, unless and until oil consuption rates are rejiggered.
Submarine tech is definitely not over-priced. I ruled the waves with subs. If, however, electro subs (especially small electro subs) beame more expensive to build, then a reduction in cost might not be amiss.
Surface ship tech, heavy aircraft tech, air doctrine, and sea doctrines are all too expensive. If the cost of surface ship tech and sea doctrines were divided by 3, and the cost of heavy aircraft and air doctrines reduced by 33%, they would be competitive for at least some nations. It would be good if the benefits of air doctrines were more balanced; right now, some are far more useful for their cost than others.
I love the airmobile cavalry idea!
---------------
Overall historical fidelity:
I did not get the sense of an historical game.
As Germany, assuming I fielded no units that consumed oil, got hit with no resource-draining events, had stockpiled maximal rubber and oil, had maximal industrial tech, and wanted an industry of 400, I faced an economic crunch in 2.5 years. Historically, Germany fielded dozens of Panzer and mech divisions, thousands of aircraft, had an effective IC of substantially more than 400, and it was still not until 1945 that the Reich was so short of rare materials that she faced an crash in war production. This oil and rubber shortage business has been taken too far.
France was far weaker than historically. With an IC of roughly 75 for most of the game, she was worse off than Italy. In the game, as of 1-1-42, she could not build basic light or medium tanks, basic fighters, or basic bombers. And yet, with 309 divisions, she had the largest army in the world!
In the early game, Great Britain had by far the best land doctrines. Late in the game, she had by far the best tanks. But she did not take an interest in much else; ships, planes, and electronics showed little or no advancement. I leave you to determine how this compares to history.
The game heavily penalizes historical German moves, such as the conquest and occupation of much of Europe. 20 divisions for Polish police duty, 10 for the Low Countries, 2.5 for Demark -- these numbers add up quickly. A smart player will simply not play historically; he will leave most of the small fry alone until the major Powers are defeated.
Manpower is extremely generous, not merely to the AI (a reasonable rebalance), but to the human layer of many nations. For example, South Africa can without difficulty raise 50 divisions!
Maintainence costs of units:
Tanks, mech infantry, and aircraft use up a great deal of oil. This change, combined with very restrictive coal-to-oil conversion for players, makes it extremely costly to a human to operate these units. Let me define "extremely costly": An improved medium tank costs 14 oil when moving. Once one's oil reserves have been tapped out, it will take 46.66 coal to create that much oil. I assume maximal tech.
I did not build tanks. I built mech infantry late in the game, and remain uncertain as to whether they are worth the expense.
Bad as the problem is for human players, for the AI it is worse. This statement sounds absurd; the AI can convert coal to oil 1-to-1, rising to 1-to-2 in some cases. However, the AI builds so many tanks and planes that most nations, the USA excepted, suffer a major economic crunch no later than 1943. Russia get hit early and hard, the UK follows later (probably when she starts fielding modern tanks in quantity). This throws their entire war efforts out of wack.
If you doubt the above, I will present screenshots. I won the game because I ran a more efficient economy and military.
---------------
The stats and costs of aircraft:
Aircraft costs and stats are very curious. All aircraft other than fighters start out being extremely expensive to build and restore to maximum strength. I repeatedly had to invest 2000 supplies - the cost of building almost 4 infantry divisions - to restore my tactical bomber stack after moderate usage.
All models of aircraft in a particular category have the same stats: A pre-war aircraft is as good as a turbojet bomber. Techs increase the stats of tactical aircraft fairly slowly, but every plane benefits. So there is almost only one model of tactical bomber.
I could not get tactical or dive bombers to yield good results in battle. In a test game, I went to great pains to get Improved tactical and dive bombers for the early war, building 12 (at further expense), and seeing them have only limited effect and take significant casualties in the clear skies and open terrain of Poland.
Fighters are totally different. Improved interceptors are so good that there is nothing clearly better for dogfights until improved rocket fighters. Because of how the tech table is laid out, you do not have to learn about basic fighters - just jump straight to improved. However, unit costs are such that it is better to build pre-war fighters, and then convert them to modern ones.
Because of AI lack of interest in air technology, and their mid-game economic collapses, improved interceptors (when sufficiently numerous) ruled the sky for me until the end of the game. Repeatedly annihilated enemy forces in a given theatre of operation, never faced a serious challenge.
The best strategic bomber is the pre-war model. It has a base strategic attack of 12; all other models have 6. I was wondering why one-bomber runs were so powerful ... now I know.
With an oil usage of 8, a single strategic bomber group would use all the oil Germany produces from its own provinces. Sufficient numbers of strat bombers can drain even Texas dry.
---------------
The stats and costs of ships:
Destroyers seem expensive. This makes it hard for the Allies to stop my subs...
Subs are quite inexpensive. Those small electro subs are just plain ridiculous. Assuming the British knew about the mass-production of ships and that they were using an "open seas" minister, they could build a destroyer unit for the cost of more than 11 small electro subs (when built under Donitz)!
---------------
Rate of technological advancement:
Tech advancement is quite slow.
By 1-1-1945, the (AI-controlled) Americans could build Improved heavy tanks, basic surface ships and medium-range subs, and basic planes of all types except for improved interceptors. They remained ignorant of any centrimetric radar application and any mass-production application.
In similar fashion, the Russians never learnt how to build T-34s, and although the British were fielding Advanced heavy tanks*, they were also making do with basic fighters!
* High-level British tanks are mis-named. This can be seen in both the unit production and tech screens.
Germany had the tech advantage after about 1941. However, she failed to maintain technological parity with the historical Third Reich in any fields other than infantry, artillery, land doctrine, electronic, and industrial tech.
---------------
Tech and utility of techs:
Infantry and artillery techs are very powerful, and can be obtained very rapidly. In a test game as South Africa (normal difficulty) I came within an ace of conquering Germany by focusing purely on these fields.
Land doctrines are reasonably priced. Expensive, but very useful. Same with rocketry, electronic, and industrial tech.
Armour tech just ain't worth it, in my opinion, unless and until oil consuption rates are rejiggered.
Submarine tech is definitely not over-priced. I ruled the waves with subs. If, however, electro subs (especially small electro subs) beame more expensive to build, then a reduction in cost might not be amiss.
Surface ship tech, heavy aircraft tech, air doctrine, and sea doctrines are all too expensive. If the cost of surface ship tech and sea doctrines were divided by 3, and the cost of heavy aircraft and air doctrines reduced by 33%, they would be competitive for at least some nations. It would be good if the benefits of air doctrines were more balanced; right now, some are far more useful for their cost than others.
I love the airmobile cavalry idea!
---------------
Overall historical fidelity:
I did not get the sense of an historical game.
As Germany, assuming I fielded no units that consumed oil, got hit with no resource-draining events, had stockpiled maximal rubber and oil, had maximal industrial tech, and wanted an industry of 400, I faced an economic crunch in 2.5 years. Historically, Germany fielded dozens of Panzer and mech divisions, thousands of aircraft, had an effective IC of substantially more than 400, and it was still not until 1945 that the Reich was so short of rare materials that she faced an crash in war production. This oil and rubber shortage business has been taken too far.
France was far weaker than historically. With an IC of roughly 75 for most of the game, she was worse off than Italy. In the game, as of 1-1-42, she could not build basic light or medium tanks, basic fighters, or basic bombers. And yet, with 309 divisions, she had the largest army in the world!
In the early game, Great Britain had by far the best land doctrines. Late in the game, she had by far the best tanks. But she did not take an interest in much else; ships, planes, and electronics showed little or no advancement. I leave you to determine how this compares to history.
The game heavily penalizes historical German moves, such as the conquest and occupation of much of Europe. 20 divisions for Polish police duty, 10 for the Low Countries, 2.5 for Demark -- these numbers add up quickly. A smart player will simply not play historically; he will leave most of the small fry alone until the major Powers are defeated.
Manpower is extremely generous, not merely to the AI (a reasonable rebalance), but to the human layer of many nations. For example, South Africa can without difficulty raise 50 divisions!