I can't compare on the long term, I was used to defeat the opponents during the first years of war, as Germany during the beta testing.
-
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.
I have to agree. Because the simple logic wouuld say that the Germans were really stupid to not have defeated USSR after the first 2 months of Barbarossa under these conditions. Supply was for a big part horse drawn, which explains very well that the German forces didn't always have the best equipment for example.
Germans? I read lot about that battle (not wiki) and it was just total mess for Germans, they lost atleast 2x more then Soviets with cautious calculations.
Ok, back to the game. First i really like the changes that the patch brings to the gameplay. But it's quite hard for me to get some good results aswell. I agree that the changes to GDE and Org provide a more realistic reflection of WW2 warfare. But it brings problems. ARM/Mot is so much faster than INF now (realistic, for sure). Launching a spearhead deep into enemy territory results in failure to me every time right now. I wasnt able to defeat france ('36) campain in three trys. They just overrun my flanks everytime i managed a break through before achieving my operational goals. I tryed to encirle them on maginot line, they cut off my spearhead with enormous amounts of infantry. I tryed to cut off troops in the north (historical way) they just pushed through siegfried line and destroyed my flanks at the same time. I tryed to rush paris and central france for a fast victory, they crushed my flanks from everywhere. Infantry adcances to slow to help holding the lines. 3x Mot INF isnt able to hold lines long enough, cause low org -> spearhead cut off -> defeat. I'll try something diffrent later the day. Perhaps trying '33 cenario with more INF and less mobile forces. Perhaps ill trade more tac's for less CAS.
My armie i was working with was (May, '40):
~100 INF
6x Arm
12x Mot
3x HQ
16x INT
8x CAS
8x TAC
what do you think? Did you manage to get better results? I was playing on normal difficulty.
My armie i was working with was (May, '40):
~100 INF
6x Arm
12x Mot
3x HQ
16x INT
8x CAS
8x TAC
what do you think? Did you manage to get better results? I was playing on normal difficulty.
I don't know about '36 in the current version but I was able to build a bigger army than that by about 10% in the '33 scenario. Oh, and france was pretty damn hard. Did not go smoothly at all.
If we really want to get picky most basic German infantry tactics in offence and defence had lots of leftover influence from WW1, but then again the simplicity and far less rigid C&C made it easy to follow KISS-mantra to greater degree.
I'll try that too. Bulding a bigger army from '33 is always possible but i wanted to get to combat fast. What was your tacitic with france? Did you rush for Paris or defeat them in the field? Also I'am not sure what to concentrate on, considering army layout. I like the idea to abuse the impressive new speed of mot units and the empowered tanks but wondering how to protect the flanks. When having larger amounts of mot inf in the fields standard inf numbers wills suffer. It's still all INF to win for sure? What about brigades? What you guys think about the airforce? CAS/TAC? both? INT/FIGHTER ? hmm.. : ) Would be nice to hear more reports.
Look at the manpower and mobility doctrines. Mobility GDE starts at 100, Manpower starts at like 47 (but gets higher quickly).
You make it seem like invading and occupying Soviet Union/Russia was a piece of cake. It's not. Just ask Napoleon (a pretty good commander with a pretty decent army right?)
It took a Herculean effort to go as far as they did and I agree with the others; had virtually any other nation (cough Italy cough) been given their situation, they would've surrendered a long time ago.
and you should get your head out of you back side and read about what halted the german advance
was it the russians soldiers? stalins organ? t 34s?
or was it really just general winter?
nobody is talking about equipment
even so you said it yourself, the germans didnt have the best equipment all the time, yet they made things work, and they made them work very well.
now take all the trucks away from the russians and americans, put them in the same conditions as the germans and watch them crumble within weeks
It was not general winter. Operation Taifun / Battle of Moskau showed, that the Germans had lost more troops then they could handle. They did not halted due to the bad weather, they stopped cause they forces were exhausted, had to reinforce and to reorganise. In that time, the sovjets could bring their forces in Moskau from 100.000 ( they lost 660.000 in Briansk and Wismar ) to over 500.000. During the Battle of Moskau, they stopped the Germans and during the spring they pushed the germans back to the lines they had before Operation Taifun.
"Very well" in this case meaning "collapsing horribly and suffering a terrible defeat".
Lucifer ,i'd like to know. Since you participated in the testing , how did Barbarossa ended for you ? I noticed from the event files that the Soviets get a ton of cheap units in the build queue after the Patriotic war event. Did you get steamrolled or did you managed to win ? I'm just curious .
You didn't get the purpose of my point. And yes, I was answering to a comment regarding equipment, saying that
.
When one has such an uber-equipped army against that, one must win. But it was not the case, hence this argument is not valid.
I always succeeded defeating SU, it was just more or less difficult. I tried various OOB, sometimes more oriented to mobile forces, sometimes more MTN. I remember one when I was short of oil just before the victory (perhaps one week before). Horses had to draw the panzers, basically
Once, I refused to honor the pact, defended against France while invading SU early 39, just after Poland. I was back against France for fall, and had almost achieved victory before Christmas. Then winter came, and I did the final push in March, waiting only to save my mp. But it was before some major rework.
I believe discussions on military history can have a valuable contribution if you back it up with trustworthy sources. If someone has the right literature or serious internet sources or verifiable expert knowledge on a topic, that would actually help. Because then such information can be given to the mods and if the information is indeed better than theirs, and if it fits with the gameplay, then such things can lead to game improvement. And always keep in mind historical accuracy will suffer to some degree to make a game playable.
If you have baseless discussions on which nation is historically more awesome or who you feel had better tanks, then such talks will only lead to internet fights which are always useless. I came here to read about something technical/game-related and all that's there is nonsense.
If you have baseless discussions on which nation is historically more awesome or who you feel had better tanks, then such talks will only lead to internet fights which are always useless. I came here to read about something technical/game-related and all that's there is nonsense.
Well, the technical, game-related part of the thread has already been answered.
German troops use the mobility doctrine, which gives them high GDE. High GDE means they take few casualties and lose organisation slowly. That's why they have a lower organisation number than the Soviet troops, who use the manpower doctrine - low GDE, high organisation number, but they take high casualties and lose organisation quickly as a result.
Early Mobility effective Morale is one of the highest according to design docs. Effective Morale = GDE * Morale.
If anything, early manpower doctrine (pre 1941) is terrible compared to other doctrines.
If anything, early manpower doctrine (pre 1941) is terrible compared to other doctrines.
