Germany HORRIBLY overpowered

[MJF]

MUF

Interesting idea. I would have thought with that level of forts and 9-12 units, even if not fully up to date you should hold easily. That's one reason I gave up on them as it made the defence too easy. Also its a sizeable investment which you can't do anything with once you move onto the offensive.

Sadly, that's true.

I normally defend somewhat further west, to get a shorter line, with the southern anchor on the two hilly provinces you get from Romania in 1940.

When I tried something similar about 1+ years ago (1.10?) I was being driven back about 1/2 way to Hawaii and gave up.

Try and improve the infra on the defensive line as it helps regenerating damaged units along with a high infra line from Moscow to the front to help as well.

Great idea. I am consistently about 500 IC behind on upgrading however. Infra has been building in "The usual places"... 5+ IC and resource-rich provinces. I have a lot more air power, which has saved me on their attacks, but is costly. Also, at my current spot (It was at 11/44, but see below) I have 27 SS IV's and the Sub doctrines. IDK why -- I thought I could break out around now.

In games previous to my last one, which was in v1.09 so some time back I left Lithuania neutral rather than having the problem of invading and rebuilding and the Germans never attacked it or brought it into the Axis so that also helped shorten the line.

Another great idea. I was concerned of a German attack through there.

Last game I took it IIRC after taking Finland, which gave time to rebuild it. Loss one province of my defensive position, which was in Lithuania and gave the Germans a 3-1 province attack bonus so thought I was going to be defeated but in repeated battles in that region and others were held. Then started attacking when winter came to try and shorten the line and next thing I know by 25th Dec I'm occupying Berlin so the Germans have really exhausted themselves. Still had a large block in Poland and holding the line to the south as I punched through E Prussia. Again that was two versions back. Previous games I found I couldn't really attack effectively until winter 42.

May not be doable in 1.11. USSR Org is really poor in '41-42 vs Germany.

You mention artillery bombarding the German positions. This can help by reducing their infra but is very expensive in supply so I normally only did this when provinces were under heavy attack to hit the provinces their being attacked from by my adjacent provinces.

I eventually came to the same conclusion. No damage to their (by then) entrenched troops. All I was doing was damaging infra in areas I might've needed strong soon, for my own counterattacks. I'm making no supply as good ole Yankee lend-lease gives me what I seem to need. More for upgrades, which I can't get caught up on.

Without building forts and forcing Inf 41 I was able to get ~9 divs in place along the front by the time the attack came. Like you 1 brig Eng and depending on terrain 1-3 AT and the rest Art. Along with ~9 Mnt divs in each of the two hill positions to the south. Behind the front line I had corps i.e. 3 divs of either Mot/SPArt or Inf/Art who would move in to support the front line. A bit short on Inf initially as still building up and would have had 12 in each front line province but they add numbers while the Mot corps being highly mobile can add support quickly. Had virtually no air but didn't see to need it.

Similar to me, except for my heavier air. I had 4 corps of 1 LA, 3 Mot and 1 CAV in '41, to plug holes or increase defenses. Built this up by '43 to 2-3 ARM, 3-4 MECs and 1 CAV. The 3 MOTs separate as a defensive mobile force.

Occasionally the front force would be forced to retreat, as in Prilkui but with the 25% boost to org regenerate guy in post their able to regroup and return fairly quickly.

I'm way too afraid that once they get through, I'll never get them back!

Really need to get back to that campaign but on my laptop and playing other games at the moment.

which games?

Should be able to secure virtually all the continent but can I go on to world domination - sorry I mean liberation?

Anyway have fun and be interesting to see how you get on.

Steve

 

[MJF]

Well, at least one can keep the experience gained in prolonged fighting. That is quite valuable and it does not come at the cost of higher tc-load or higher maintenance costs. So on balance this is actually quite cost-effective.

If one would try to withstand the german onslaught by building up a very large army, than after having worn down the germans large parts of this army would become onsolete in the sense that there is no further use for it, at least no good use. So entrechenment with high level forts is really the smart choice.

Problem is -- It's too good! They have stopped attacking, hence no depletion. No depletion, no advantage, or much ability to counterattack.

 

[Commander666]

I am consistently about 500 IC behind on upgrading however... … ...
More for upgrades, which I can't get caught up on.

If I might comment on the above which seems to be your specialty so much that you devised ways to compensate - such as having an "early global attack strategy" to have wars happen before the enemy can build up very much.

If you remember, this issue first came up with your earlier posted attempts at Fall Gelb when you mentioned the lack of upgrading. Pang, myself and others replied how important upgrading was to make your attacks stronger. This is especially true of infantry that upgrade in about a week if on good ESE and given maximum funding. The benefit from having the most current level of INF is huge - especially if enemy has not yet upgraded to that level.

Generally it is easier for human to manage upgrading but it seems you are accumulating upgrades that need doing more than the AI. All in all it seems, IMO, a problem of too fast research to create so much obsolescence combined with probably too much unit construction (instead of diverting massive amounts of IC into upgrading so an army of ~100 INF can be all upgraded in about a month).

As regards the most basic fact, IC spent on upgrading is much more efficient than is any new unit construction to get most army strength for least IC spent.

Now, while planned withholding of upgrading to accumulate levels of obsolescence for savings when upgrading is taken later works well during peace, it usually does not work well at all if war has begun. For example, not upgrading INF-1936 to INF-1939 by "Danzig or War" is a serious weakness... and will never be rectified by tech rushing to INF-1941 so the INF-1936 can then be upgraded to INF-1939 at considerable discount. All the battles in the meantime will find you at definite disadvantage all along. No amount of new units can give you the strength equivalent of the upgrade if compared on an IC basis.

So, how does one find the hundreds - even 500 IC - to tackle upgrading? You do all of the following as much as is needed:

• Set supplies and CG sliders to nil while consuming your stockpiles of supplies and $ (hopefully you have thousands in stockpile).
• If not enough IC so made available for upgrading, set all construction to idle, and cancel construction on anything with too many parallel lines.
• Also reduce research (even down to zero) to make more IC available for the upgrading slider.
• All along, sell your blueprints and excess resources to your alliance members for supplies and $ to keep pumping up those two stockpiles.
• Keep expenditures of province repair least possible but with the key provinces prioritized.
• As regards reinforcements, keep them unprioritized except key frontline forces so this slider can also be reduced.
• Cancel Espionage funding and any other expenditures like Influence buys to maintain $ stockpile highest possible.
• Finally, avoid Dissent.

The trick is one of "balance" so upgrading always occurs immediately and at 100% (of any chosen stack) as much as possible, and falls between wars. Of course, exceptions will be planned where upgrading is delayed and tech rushing undertaken to avail of "savings with upgrading of units having several levels of obsolescence". But they still need to be upgraded before next war starts.

In your case, with a "continuous war to win global supremacy" upgrading must still happen - especially for the ground units. In short, if you can't upgrade in a timely fashion what you've got, you definitely should not be building more of the same. This rules applies further so, for example, if you can't upgrade the CVs you got, you probably should not be building more of them.

Finally, while your "500 IC behind on upgrading" does seem like a shocker to me, it also depends on just what those units are and - if not contributing much to the war effort - then upgrading might not be desirable. In that case they should probably be disbanded. Either way, human needing 500 IC of upgrades simply is not an efficient "master plan".

 

[MJF]

And the AI is so helpful by just attacking over and over (with horrible losses) that the German AI literally bleeds to death. Good reason to not build forts since then it is kinder to the enemy!

Unfortunately fo me, this is exactly correct! No more Nazi attacks!

Instead of 12:1 kill ratios they might suffer only 5:1

I'd be happy with that!

 

[MJF]

This is my normal set up too. I find the infra improvements extremely valuable. Forts not so much since it seems the German AI really can't manage a break thru anyway, even without forts (at least in my experience).

It was close several times in '41 in Riga. I had 6 brigaded INF + an army of 2 LA, 3 MOT, 1 CAV there. 9-12 INFs would've been better maybe. Only air power kept the breakthrough from happening. Then when I got more units in there, the attacks stopped. Priluki was hit hard (As I reported above) but only twice.

The trick is those mobiles rushing to hot spots to stop the German attacks

This and the Sturmoviks saves me.

... and the AI just wears itself down failing on attack after attack

That's what's missing.

Forts would certainly help that but I prefer forces that can fall back if needed, or advance when the opportunity to win presents itself.

I don't retreat well.

 

[Commander666]

I don't retreat well.

I agree this is a tough one to learn. Took me years. I discovered that the trick is to do it well before you need to. Also, pre-plan it with some unit holding province you intend to retreat to. Actually, there is considerable strategy with doing the most aggressive "Scorched Earth". And a good retreat can create a "killing field" that the enemy then falls into.

 

[MJF]

Well, at least one can keep the experience gained in prolonged fighting. That is quite valuable and it does not come at the cost of higher tc-load or higher maintenance costs. So on balance this is actually quite cost-effective.

If one would try to withstand the german onslaught by building up a very large army, than after having worn down the germans large parts of this army would become onsolete in the sense that there is no further use for it, at least no good use. So entrechenment with high level forts is really the smart choice.

More on this:

As their attacks stopped, and the allies took Africa, A Stand-Alone Japan triggered C-N. A few provinces in No Africa were falling to the Italians, but -- Stalemate...

So I decide in Summer '43 to launch the Great Patriotic Counterattack.

It was like Kursk-reversed. I get nowhere, esp in the north.

I wait another year. On 8/23/44 more mecs give me 3 Southern armies of 3 ARM, 5 MECS, 1 CAV. Konev & Vassilievskij Will launch from Perekop to Kherson, with Zhukov down there in reserve. 2 x 3 MOTs are in Poltava. Konev & Zhukov have an HQ attached. A corps of 1 ARM + 3 MOTs sits in Perekop. All my provinces now have 12 INF divisions.


With the redirection of Zhukov to Perekop, and with major help from the air force (now 20 CASs, 16 TACs and 24 INTs) I break through. The northward attack takes Krivoy Rog, but with Mec retreats. Only VorV with the 12-stack INF from Perekop saves the day in Krivoy (at 50% strength loss...the Motherland thanks them).

After taking Odessa from the weak Romanians, I'm able to get into Balta before the retreating Germans. They had been retreating from Dne...sk (the river bend province, where my infantry had started attacking to try to hold them), so this destroyed about 20 German divisions.

Then, the Artillery Bombardment crash bug showed up. It was 11/2/1944. I forgot to set autosave to monthly from 3 months.

But wait - I have an autosave from 11/1/1944. Great! Then, when i go to load the autosave, this happened:

No button loaded the game. Three months lost. I was furious. I spent the next 4 days in the Virtual Gulag. I have been unwilling to play since, until now, maybe.

I thought I had figured out the AB crash bug, believing it only happens if AB is over-commanded. I have been careful to avoid that since. Either I exceeded that this time, or the bug happens regardless of command structure.

At this point, and in light of the above advice, my plan is to wait until summer 1945. This will allow:

1. Building up of Infra in the Dnieper wall line, although IDK if that matters now, since they are not attacking -- my wall is too strong!

2. A further upgrading of my army. My Land Techs are up to date now, but the army isn't.

3. The allies might launch more attacks.

4. I may have rockets capable of penetrating into Germany by then, but see below.

In the past, when playing as a passive Minor, to observe AI vs AI, the Allies never really get going against Germany. The USA drops Nukes, but little or no follow-up. A few Amphibs in Bulgaria. Trouble is, at this point, that effort - if successful - could cost me the game.

BTW, in these AI vs AI games, the USSR, recovered from BP and facing flimsy German defenses, wins the game. Anyone else see this?

If I wait too long, then later those Yankee Atom Bombs will have my name on them! Kurchatov is hard at work on atomic stuff, but he's not very good...

So...Human Wave it is. I have one advantage -- Look at the German IC:

They're out of rares. Hmmm...

 

[MJF]

Well, let's see if I can address this.

If I might comment on the above which seems to be your specialty so much that you devised ways to compensate - such as having an "early global attack strategy" to have wars happen before the enemy can build up very much.

If you remember, this issue first came up with your earlier posted attempts at Fall Gelb when you mentioned the lack of upgrading. Pang, myself and others replied how important upgrading was to make your attacks stronger. This is especially true of infantry that upgrade in about a week if on good ESE and given maximum funding. The benefit from having the most current level of INF is huge - especially if enemy has not yet upgraded to that level.

Generally it is easier for human to manage upgrading but it seems you are accumulating upgrades that need doing more than the AI. All in all it seems, IMO, a problem of too fast research to create so much obsolescence combined with probably too much unit construction (instead of diverting massive amounts of IC into upgrading so an army of ~100 INF can be all upgraded in about a month).

As regards the most basic fact, IC spent on upgrading is much more efficient than is any new unit construction to get most army strength for least IC spent.

Now, while planned withholding of upgrading to accumulate levels of obsolescence for savings when upgrading is taken later works well during peace, it usually does not work well at all if war has begun. For example, not upgrading INF-1936 to INF-1939 by "Danzig or War" is a serious weakness... and will never be rectified by tech rushing to INF-1941 so the INF-1936 can then be upgraded to INF-1939 at considerable discount. All the battles in the meantime will find you at definite disadvantage all along. No amount of new units can give you the strength equivalent of the upgrade if compared on an IC basis.

This is my third time trying as USSR. The above strategy by me as Germany has me taking all of Europe, Great Britain, & the Western USSR by September 22, 1940. I then establish a blocking presence in Karachi as I take Canada. By the time I hit the USA (August-September 1942) my upgrades are caught up. Good thing, as now I will need them. The USA was annexed before the end of January 1942. With CV's, BTW. No new subs, until late 41, where I got out 6 SS IIIs, bothering the UK by Western Africa.

My strategy however is a bit wanting when it comes to play as USSR -- perhaps.

So, how does one find the hundreds - even 500 IC - to tackle upgrading? You do all of the following as much as is needed:

Set supplies and CG sliders to nil while consuming your stockpiles of supplies and $ (hopefully you have thousands in stockpile).

Usually, when playing as Germany, but these are spent on finishing my CVs and MOTs. The 6 CAV IV/ACs I have by then, borrowed from you, BTW, are helping the 3-only LAs

If not enough IC so made available for upgrading, set all construction to idle, and cancel construction on anything with too many parallel lines.

And lose my gearing bonuses?

Also reduce research (even down to zero) to make more IC available for the upgrading slider.

That's an idea.

All along, sell your blueprints and excess resources to your alliance members for supplies and $ to keep pumping up those two stockpiles.

Done already.

Keep expenditures of province repair least possible but with the key provinces prioritized.

Didn't think of that, as Germany this early. As USSR, I did!

As regards reinforcements, keep them unprioritized except key frontline forces so this slider can also be reduced. Cancel Espionage funding and any other expenditures like Influence buys to maintain $ stockpile highest possible. Finally, avoid Dissent.

Already doing.

The trick is one of "balance" so upgrading always occurs immediately and at 100% (of any chosen stack) as much as possible, and falls between wars. Of course, exceptions will be planned where upgrading is delayed and tech rushing undertaken to avail of "savings with upgrading of units having several levels of obsolescence". But they still need to be upgraded before next war starts.

This is mostly happening now -- when I play as Germany. I prioritize the LA, the 1 existing CAV, and Air units. Heck, I recall having some INT IVs once by "Danzig or War!" IIRC, almost all upgrades are done by August '40, when I launch Barbarossa. With my German strategy, most INF upgrades do not seem needed until then, or even not before the invasion of the USA.

An interesting thought is, what if I got those INF upgrades done, vs building up 3, 4, or even 8 Marine divisions, by 11 or 12/39, when I launch Sealion? Would '39 INF, as an invasion force, preclude the need for Marines? I seldom if ever have MAR IIs by early Sealion.

In your case, with a "continuous war to win global supremacy" upgrading must still happen - especially for the ground units. In short, if you can't upgrade in a timely fashion what you've got, you definitely should not be building more of the same. This rules applies further so, for example, if you can't upgrade the CVs you got, you probably should not be building more of them.

Agreed.

Finally, while your "500 IC behind on upgrading" does seem like a shocker to me, it also depends on just what those units are and - if not contributing much to the war effort - then upgrading might not be desirable.

It's the Infantry, and they are the main force holding the line. That, and level 10 forts!

In that case they should probably be disbanded. Either way, human needing 500 IC of upgrades simply is not an efficient "master plan".

Not for "The Great Patriotic War" -- maybe.

 

[stevep]

Well, at least one can keep the experience gained in prolonged fighting. That is quite valuable and it does not come at the cost of higher tc-load or higher maintenance costs. So on balance this is actually quite cost-effective.

If one would try to withstand the german onslaught by building up a very large army, than after having worn down the germans large parts of this army would become obsolete in the sense that there is no further use for it, at least no good use. So entrechenment with high level forts is really the smart choice.

Pang

That is a point about mass obsolescence of a large army. If your built about 150 Inf 41 along with say 30 Mnt and 30-40 Mot divs then keeping them updated can be a big drain. Although how much would be necessary for the bog standard Inf I don't know. Tend not to update the original starting forces - don't disband them as too much of a cheat and also useful with the massive dissent from rejecting the purge - but once the initial crisis is over in 41 they can be disbanded to free up manpower.

Never really got to the stage of war for world domination with the democratic powers so not sure how that would go.

Steve

 

[stevep]

And the AI is so helpful by just attacking over and over (with horrible losses) that the German AI literally bleeds to death. Good reason to not build forts since then it is kinder to the enemy! Instead of 12:1 kill ratios they might suffer only 5:1

But I admit that playing the opposite way - as France with many puppets (but no help from the alliance leader UK) and planning an attack against SU for spring 1945, I built level 10 forts at Memel, Konigsberg, Warsaw (the Ruskies touch that on 3 sides) and several more key places down to about Bucharest. Of course, I hope they will attack my forts once I DOW them... and then Pang's observation will result in efficient destruction of the enemy.

Very true about suicidal attacks, although it does seem to happen occasionally. IIRC after some early slaughters I had to reduce my fort garrisons to only 3 divs before the Germans would attack.

Never got around to playing any anyone other the Russia, other than one brief go with Germany as rather a slow player and tend to find by the time I've player 3-4 games there's another version update so I'm starting again from scratch.

 

[stevep]

More on this:

As their attacks stopped, and the allies took Africa, A Stand-Alone Japan triggered C-N. A few provinces in No Africa were falling to the Italians, but -- Stalemate...

So I decide in Summer '43 to launch the Great Patriotic Counterattack.

It was like Kursk-reversed. I get nowhere, esp in the north.

I wait another year. On 8/23/44 more mecs give me 3 Southern armies of 3 ARM, 5 MECS, 1 CAV. Konev & Vassilievskij Will launch from Perekop to Kherson, with Zhukov down there in reserve. 2 x 3 MOTs are in Poltava. Konev & Zhukov have an HQ attached. A corps of 1 ARM + 3 MOTs sits in Perekop. All my provinces now have 12 INF divisions.


With the redirection of Zhukov to Perekop, and with major help from the air force (now 20 CASs, 16 TACs and 24 INTs) I break through. The northward attack takes Krivoy Rog, but with Mec retreats. Only VorV with the 12-stack INF from Perekop saves the day in Krivoy (at 50% strength loss...the Motherland thanks them).

After taking Odessa from the weak Romanians, I'm able to get into Balta before the retreating Germans. They had been retreating from Dne...sk (the river bend province, where my infantry had started attacking to try to hold them), so this destroyed about 20 German divisions.

Then, the Artillery Bombardment crash bug showed up. It was 11/2/1944. I forgot to set autosave to monthly from 3 months.

But wait - I have an autosave from 11/1/1944. Great! Then, when i go to load the autosave, this happened:

No button loaded the game. Three months lost. I was furious. I spent the next 4 days in the Virtual Gulag. I have been unwilling to play since, until now, maybe.

I thought I had figured out the AB crash bug, believing it only happens if AB is over-commanded. I have been careful to avoid that since. Either I exceeded that this time, or the bug happens regardless of command structure.

At this point, and in light of the above advice, my plan is to wait until summer 1945. This will allow:

1. Building up of Infra in the Dnieper wall line, although IDK if that matters now, since they are not attacking -- my wall is too strong!

2. A further upgrading of my army. My Land Techs are up to date now, but the army isn't.

3. The allies might launch more attacks.

4. I may have rockets capable of penetrating into Germany by then, but see below.

In the past, when playing as a passive Minor, to observe AI vs AI, the Allies never really get going against Germany. The USA drops Nukes, but little or no follow-up. A few Amphibs in Bulgaria. Trouble is, at this point, that effort - if successful - could cost me the game.

BTW, in these AI vs AI games, the USSR, recovered from BP and facing flimsy German defenses, wins the game. Anyone else see this?

If I wait too long, then later those Yankee Atom Bombs will have my name on them! Kurchatov is hard at work on atomic stuff, but he's not very good...

So...Human Wave it is. I have one advantage -- Look at the German IC:

They're out of rares. Hmmm...

Ouch, very nasty. Both the bloody and largely unsuccessful slogs to break the Germans and the crash. Never known it happen in my games but possibly never got them over command. Didn't even realise it could.

Will try to reply to other posts later but just noticed the time and have to go.

 

[Commander666]

And lose my gearing bonuses?

AFAIK, there is no loss of gearing when idling (which is a type of funding). Gearing is lost if not funding the construction line (includes set to idle but not funded) so that the item turns red.

It's the Infantry, and they are the main force holding the line. That, and level 10 forts!

As per your revelation of having ~500 ic of obsolete infantry, that is the worst case possible since it is obsolescence of the most vital unit. While many exceptions can exist for delaying upgrading of other units, none exists for INF on a front line in a war. There is also no reason for it because a stack somewhere (where not currently fighting) can be upgraded in about 8 days using the tips explained above. So you can get the whole front line upgraded asap since all units eventually will be not fighting (upgrading not possible), and can upgrade then rather very quickly if you would only fund a stack appropriately. Or cut a stack in half and put under new leader so you will at least upgrade six units at 100%.

As was stated, ic spent on upgrading is far more effective than ic spent on constructing more inf. In fact, as regards the scenario described, having your INF at best possible is the most important thing. While forts will help, they wear down to zero. Upgraded INF in the hands of a human should be able to stop the German AI but if you are fighting against superior INF, of course you will be needing help from forts and interdiction just to survive. The AI is actually very good at brutal trench warfare and - with stronger INF than you - you should be on the verge of defeat.

Yes, the idea does need some management of setting upgrade/don't upgrade on all INF so you get 100% of the ic allocated into the stack you want upgraded asap. If you are even seeing that you have 500ic of upgrading it means that nothing has been set appropriately, and any ic put into the effort will probably upgrade first units that are not the most important.

I recommend setting EVERY unit to "Don't upgrade" so your upgrade slider reads nil needed. Then you are ready to begin a program of upgrading. Now select a stack size that you can upgrade at 100%.

Or - alternately - just set one stack to upgrade even if you can't fully fund it. That will still get several units upgraded in a week, and rest of stack next week. This has the added advantage that there is no "ic wastage" for a unit that is 99% upgraded, but needs another full day to complete (when, let's say it was achieving +8% daily). The extra ic of unit finishing upgrading simply goes into next unit starting upgrading for a "seamless optimum use of the allocated ic".

So in effect, once 1 stack gets some units upgraded, set next stack to upgrade. Just keep your slider at most ic you can manage. And while this method is extremely efficient and needs nearly nil micromanagement (after all units are firstly set to not upgrade) I prefer always upgrading at 100%. That has disadvantages about "matters of precision" needed to not waste significant ic at completion of each upgrade and, on hindsight, recommend you don't try for 100% funding; and instead just set next stack to upgrade ahead of time so ic will automatically be transferred to next units appropriately. I hope this technicality is clear.

 

[Commander666]

IIRC after some early slaughters I had to reduce my fort garrisons to only 3 divs before the Germans would attack.

Yes, I am starting to think that in my game as France, my over zealous fort construction might result in the SU not wanting to play. We just annexed N. Spain and will DOW Stalin in spring of 1945 - we being the many puppets like DDR, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Balkan minors, etc and the usual Allies (except the UK who is doing nothing army-wise except accumulating more Churchill tanks on Britain).

But I was afraid of the by now massive Red Army, and UK's lack of cooperation (except parking all its many STRs on my forward air bases so they get over loaded). At worst, if the forts aren't attacked, I always have a solid rear to fall back into. And because minimal MP is my biggest issue, at least the forts aren't reducing my MP every time another builds.

BTW, @ MJF the attack was planned for June 1944 to coincide with the recently completed upgrade of my ADV INF-1943. But the huge dissent hit for DOWing Franco and other things made me decide to postpone until next year. IMPORTANTLY for this discussion, then I will have recently completed upgrade to Semi-Modern INF-1945.

I would not be surprised if I will find myself attacking hundreds of Soviet INF-1941 because of their poor upgrading program. If so, it will be a cake walk that probably needed no forts at all. But as I don't know, I am playing it safe with having forts to get me off on a good start since the French Army is only 110 INF, 7 CAV, 7 MTN, 4 HQ, 4 MOT and 13 ARM (planned to be ARM-6 by then). But the point is that the whole research and upgrading exercise is planned to capitalize on me having the most superior units I can.

As always, "lean and mean" is far better than "many obsolete" units.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

As always, "lean and mean" is far better than "many obsolete" units.

Indeed.

Reducing research in times of emergency is an option, but not a very good one. It is better to just limit the build up of the military to what one can actually afford without having to cut research or other important expenses at a later point in time. One should instead aim at building up proper stockpiles of money and supplies and therefore gain the flexibility that likely will be needed.

A smaller military is a handycap in the short run and requires a more careful weighting of its possible uses. It requires to analize what not to do for now and wait with those tasks of lower importance till forces can commit to them without impairing the grand strategy. In other words less task can be achieved in given (short) period of time and thus they have to be streched over a longer period of time in some way. But the average utilization of any military asset over say the first 360 days will increase. This means that they will build up significantly more experience. It may take a year or so to notice this, so the first year will be one of though choices. But once this initial phase is well survived you have the reward of high quality military assets.

 

[stevep]

Sadly, that's true.

When I tried something similar about 1+ years ago (1.10?) I was being driven back about 1/2 way to Hawaii and gave up.

Great idea. I am consistently about 500 IC behind on upgrading however. Infra has been building in "The usual places"... 5+ IC and resource-rich provinces. I have a lot more air power, which has saved me on their attacks, but is costly. Also, at my current spot (It was at 11/44, but see below) I have 27 SS IV's and the Sub doctrines. IDK why -- I thought I could break out around now.

Another great idea. I was concerned of a German attack through there.

May not be doable in 1.11. USSR Org is really poor in '41-42 vs Germany.

I eventually came to the same conclusion. No damage to their (by then) entrenched troops. All I was doing was damaging infra in areas I might've needed strong soon, for my own counterattacks. I'm making no supply as good ole Yankee lend-lease gives me what I seem to need. More for upgrades, which I can't get caught up on.

Similar to me, except for my heavier air. I had 4 corps of 1 LA, 3 Mot and 1 CAV in '41, to plug holes or increase defenses. Built this up by '43 to 2-3 ARM, 3-4 MECs and 1 CAV. The 3 MOTs separate as a defensive mobile force.

I'm way too afraid that once they get through, I'll never get them back!

which games?

MUF

Replying to the assorted points
a) I had a couple of failures the 1st few games but found the right balance. By tech forcing Inf 41 by late 40 IIRC I could have most of the required forces in position, albeit you might have about 15 lines of Inf in production and just about everything else comes to a stop. Plus very little air and virtually no naval - other than the transports needed for the conquest of Finland.

b) As I say I skimp on other powers. Also while I may have about 8-10 lines of IC construction and a lot of infra early on I only have Moscow still on IC growth once the military build up comes. I never really upgrade the starting Inf 18 although I can upgrade their brigades when switched to new units to minimise production of new brigades. Use the old units as partial dissent relief when facing the hit after rejecting the purge - although the main element of suppression in the key provinces is via new build either Gar or Cav as have used both in different games. Then during the combat with Germany their either on coastal defence - although can only remember one game where the Germans tried to flank me with amphibious landings in the N Baltic region or on the border with Japan, just to keep them quiet,

c) Well they never did it, or lured Lithuania into the Axis in about 5 games but that might have been changed in v1.11. Possibly the seizure of Memel does enough to alienate them from this? In my last game I did occupy it, albeit after the Winter War IIRC - invading Estonia/Latvia in late 39. Basically prefer doing this rather than waiting for a diplomatic annexation partly because never quite sure how that works and partly because I get control quicker, enabling use of their resources and development of infrastructure in those territories.

d) That may be a problem but just checking we're talking about the same thing. Not the actual org of the units, which I think I had about 50-60 or so - long time since I played it so could be remembering it wrong. No way you can catch up with the German org even with rejecting the purge and forcing the land doctrine as much as possible. However there's an official, something like chief of staff, who gives I think it was 25% increase in rate of restoring org to units forced to retreat. Coupled with a 200% line from Moscow to the front and good infra where thei retreat to - or as near as I can get - you can reorg a 9-12 div army pretty damned quickly and get them back into the battle, often within a few days. Sometimes a big battle can last a month or more and some formations can be going back in for the 3rd or 4th time before its over but if you can recycle the units fast enough it makes it very difficult for the Germans to break through and since their attacking very costly in manpower.

e) Infra can be rebuilt pretty quickly plus I'm using this mainly in short intense bursts against provinces their launching attacks from, or possibly only one of them, just to weaken that attack a bit. If your got say ~18 Art brigades from two adjacent provinces it can have an impact but gods it eats up the supply! Always had to produce a fair amount myself as well as anything I get from the US.

f) Other than the big field armies I tend to lose mainly 3 divs corps for supporting operations, either in defence or attack. In the latter case if you can break the line they can spread out a fair bit and ravage a good amount of German territory, which even if they get it back they have to rebuild.

g) The key thing is that by recycling units back into the battle ASAP not to let them get through. With the lower max org your forces will tend to retreat earlier, even 40 level entrenced units if the attack is big enough, but you can get them back to max pretty quickly and back into the line. Germany, especially after they meet the main defensive position, rarely attack more than 2-3 spots at the same time and the AI will sometimes switch to other attacks which gives a chance to fully entrench the field armies again. Always pull extra forces back to the 2nd line when not attacked so their not tied up when they move to support a position under attack.

As I say this was in v1.09 or 1.10 so may not be viable in the new version.

h) Largely total war games. I'm a LOTRs fan and found that they had a large strategy game based on Medieval War II. Got a massive Northern Dunadain state that's steadily moped the northern Orcs, Dunlendings, Isengard, the Corsairs and much of Harad while also subsidising and supporting allies. Stopped playing it last summer when the football world cup started and need to get back to it. Started playing a few Medieval War scenarios - have won as England and on the verge of victory as Egypt and might try Byzantium and then the HRE next, then say England on a harder setting. Then go back to DAC - Divide and Conquer the LOTRs spin-off and finish that campaign then possibly get back to AoD - by which time it might be up to v1.12!!

Also play a dual version with a mate one night a week. However since the Total War games were set up for single player only those are user mods and none I've seen yet that are that flexible. For instance in multi-player you can't fight defensive battles, having to rely on the AI to fight it for you and it can be very bad. Don't even get a battle report so unless you have a general killed or PC [population centre] captured you may not even know about it until next turn and "what the hell happened to that army!"

Steve

 

[Commander666]

Many good points and just like to touch on the seeming contradiction regarding upgrading - but which is not a contradiction at all because you are discussing different divisions used differently in different places. So:

By tech forcing Inf 41 by late 40 IIRC I could have most of the required forces in position, albeit you might have about 15 lines of Inf in production...

This discusses the defense of the German front, and has done everything possible to assure the most modern infantry will face the Hun.

I never really upgrade the starting Inf 18... … Use the old units as partial dissent relief when facing the hit after rejecting the purge - Then during the combat with Germany [they're] either on coastal defence … or on the border with Japan, just to keep them quiet...

This discusses INF that will probably never fight and are far removed from the war with Germany, but are needed as placed. Major savings in IC are gotten by not upgrading them, and more savings realized by reduced supply consumption of earlier models makes this a beauty in economics.

 

[Commander666]

Reducing research in times of emergency is an option, but not a very good one.

I would say "it depends".

Firstly, certainly at times one desires 100% progress to get that next tech - especially doctrines - achieved in time.

But next, it might generally be very good to only research at about 80% (so a reduction) to save money. This is highly country dependent but especially true of "junior members" like France who - with the puppeting of the DDR - will be able to only ever tackle items where blueprints exist just because UK and the DDR give so many.

But finally, IMO, there is nothing worse than paying exponentially for accelerated research … … … and get that tech achieved which one isn't even ready to tackle the associated upgrading because of backlog, and other ic shortfall problems. That then needs player to turn all those units to "don't upgrade" with possible headaches trying to find them in a war.

So - while I agree with you generally on principle - many exceptions can occur to justify pushing that slider down. But to clarify, when I zero the upgrading slider, it is probably only for a couple weeks - and mostly done to pump the maximum into province repair if my greatest need is giving the blitzkrieg units the very best I can to assist their forward drive. Achieving techs that create upgrading is exactly what one should not divert money on then because nothing can upgrade anyway with the blitzkrieg demanding maximum provincial repairs. In fact, the priority during war - for me - is mostly to maintain 100% on repair sliders. So all upgrading is stopped. And any new techs achieved are probably not IMMEDIATELY valuable because good planning should have insured that important doctrines were achieved before the war started. But exceptions will occur. Basically what I write applies to the short wars which I prefer, but if in a state of perpetual war, of course, one needs to keep funding research appropriately to achieve next new doctrines, etc, etc.

 

[MJF]

Yes, the idea does need some management of setting upgrade/don't upgrade on all INF so you get 100% of the ic allocated into the stack you want upgraded asap. If you are even seeing that you have 500ic of upgrading it means that nothing has been set appropriately, and any ic put into the effort will probably upgrade first units that are not the most important.

I never encountered numbers this high with Germany. Not after the war started, anyway. With USSR, you command much larger armies, so...

I recommend setting EVERY unit to "Don't upgrade" so your upgrade slider reads nil needed. Then you are ready to begin a program of upgrading. Now select a stack size that you can upgrade at 100%.

Or - alternately - just set one stack to upgrade even if you can't fully fund it. That will still get several units upgraded in a week, and rest of stack next week. This has the added advantage that there is no "ic wastage" for a unit that is 99% upgraded, but needs another full day to complete (when, let's say it was achieving +8% daily). The extra ic of unit finishing upgrading simply goes into next unit starting upgrading for a "seamless optimum use of the allocated ic".

So in effect, once 1 stack gets some units upgraded, set next stack to upgrade. Just keep your slider at most ic you can manage. And while this method is extremely efficient and needs nearly nil micromanagement (after all units are firstly set to not upgrade) I prefer always upgrading at 100%. That has disadvantages about "matters of precision" needed to not waste significant ic at completion of each upgrade and, on hindsight, recommend you don't try for 100% funding; and instead just set next stack to upgrade ahead of time so ic will automatically be transferred to next units appropriately. I hope this technicality is clear.

These are great ideas!

 

[MJF]

YBTW, @ MJF the attack was planned for June 1944 to coincide with the recently completed upgrade of my ADV INF-1943. But the huge dissent hit for DOWing Franco and other things made me decide to postpone until next year. IMPORTANTLY for this discussion, then I will have recently completed upgrade to Semi-Modern INF-1945.

I would not be surprised if I will find myself attacking hundreds of Soviet INF-1941 because of their poor upgrading program. If so, it will be a cake walk that probably needed no forts at all. But as I don't know, I am playing it safe with having forts to get me off on a good start since the French Army is only 110 INF, 7 CAV, 7 MTN, 4 HQ, 4 MOT and 13 ARM (planned to be ARM-6 by then). But the point is that the whole research and upgrading exercise is planned to capitalize on me having the most superior units I can.

As always, "lean and mean" is far better than "many obsolete" units.

How the hell do you play France & beat Germany? You can't MC the UK, can you?

I can see constructing lvl 10 forts from Maginot - the Channel, but doesn't that just lead to the stalemate I now face as USSR?

 

[MJF]

A smaller military is a handycap in the short run and requires a more careful weighting of its possible uses. It requires to analize what not to do for now and wait with those tasks of lower importance till forces can commit to them without impairing the grand strategy. In other words less task can be achieved in given (short) period of time and thus they have to be streched over a longer period of time in some way. But the average utilization of any military asset over say the first 360 days will increase. This means that they will build up significantly more experience. It may take a year or so to notice this, so the first year will be one of though choices. But once this initial phase is well survived you have the reward of high quality military assets.

I would venture to say that this describes my German strategy, although I likely stumbled on this, vs "Thinking it out." My thinking there was simply "I have to win ASAP, or my adversaries will grow and develop doctrines beyond me, and I will fail." This is exactly why Germany failed, IMHO, although they probably would have lost...years later.

IDK that "Lean & Mean" can work with USSR...