Not so mobile warfare . . .

[blahmaster6k]

I do perform breakthroughs with only infantry-units. ( micro )

This is not optimal unless you're in awful terrain or supply. Infantry just don't have the stats to break through a well-defended front line without taking many casualties. Unless you're using space marines as your "infantry" or something like that, of course. How very kind of you to insinuate that I don't micro, really appreciate it /s.

I perform my breakthrough not wherever possible, but into a few ( mostly 2 ) selected provinces, very successful by the way.

This is indeed what you're supposed to do, but you're supposed to do it with tanks. Once again, I appreciate your sarcasm and insinuation that I'm a bad player. I've played a fair bit of competitive multiplayer. There are players way better than I am that came up with the strategies I'm talking about, and they've proven to be the best by countless players over countless hours of MP experience.

 

[Zauberelefant]

This is not optimal unless you're in awful terrain or supply. Infantry just don't have the stats to break through a well-defended front line without taking many casualties. Unless you're using space marines as your "infantry" or something like that, of course. How very kind of you to insinuate that I don't micro, really appreciate it /s.


This is indeed what you're supposed to do, but you're supposed to do it with tanks. Once again, I appreciate your sarcasm and insinuation that I'm a bad player. I play competitive multiplayer. There are players way better than I am that came up with the strategies I'm talking about, and they've proven to be the best by countless players over countless hours of MP experience.

I think you're reading too much in SophieX comments here. There are a few ways to skin a bear and you both agree that 40w tanks are not the sole tool to break through.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I think you're reading too much in SophieX comments here. There are a few ways to skin a bear and you both agree that 40w tanks are not the sole tool to break through.

Yeah, you're probably right, sorry. It's hard for me to view things from a non-competitive mindset, so seeing people advocate for what I see as bad habits in a thread that's by a new player trying to get better kind of makes me a bit judgemental, but I shouldn't respond the way I did. I just want new players to become skilled enough to enjoy this great game, that's where I'm coming from at least.

To be sure, nearly anything can beat the AI. That being said, if new players take advice that beats the AI but is more difficult than playing optimally, then decide to go into multiplayer or try to do hard challenge runs where you need to play optimally to have a chance at success (many of the more niche achievements) they're going to have a bad time.


EDIT: After my most recent playthrough, I'm starting to understand more the position of players who handicap themselves on purpose. I did a run as the USA where I abused the Naval Treaty and the Homeland Defense Emergency Act along with some communist focuses to be on Total Mobilization with 0% consumer goods as the USA by October 1936, with Japan annexed before 1937. Democracies can use the Local Autonomy occupation policy, so Japan was at 100% compliance by 1940. I had 300 military factories by 1940, the build slots and infrastructure in the USA and Japan were capped out, and didn't need to invest into navy at all because I was democratic USA in the Allies with Japan already having been annexed, allowing me to have a massively ahead in tech air force and armored corps.

It was a very simple matter to completely steamroll AI Germany, with D-Day in France in 1941 with 20 40-width heavy tank/amtrac divisions after invading Italy slightly earlier and I was so overpowered that even building Heavy Fighters and Tactical bombers instead of the "meta" air force composition of FTR and CAS, I was pretty much invincible. It was so unfair that I didn't even have that much fun with it.

 

[SophieX]

Once again, I appreciate your sarcasm and insinuation that I'm a bad player.

I do not use sarcasm and I had never said or thought that you are a bad player.

My only intention was and still is, to show that each playing-style ( including templates, numbers of the certain divisions...and the way how to use them in the various situations of the game; using battle-plans or micro all, as I do ) has its own "metas".

 

[blahmaster6k]

I do not use sarcasm and I had never said or thought that you are a bad player.

My only intention was and still is, to show that each playing-style ( including templates, numbers of the certain divisions...and the way how to use them in the various situations of the game; using battle-plans or micro all, as I do ) has its own "metas".

Fair enough, once again I apologize for being rude, I jumped to conclusions far too quickly. And I see your point about differing playstyles. I retain my argument that breaking through with infantry is a bad idea if tanks are an option for said breakthroughs though

 

[SophieX]

once again I apologize...

No need; in the "heat" of a discussion, a little misunderstanding could sometimes be followed by something undesirable.

But I think we "come together" at last

 

[Harin]

Dang-nabbit! I though you two, were going to have a real barn-burner of an argument. I even brought popcorn up here to see the fireworks, but nooo, you had to get all adult on us. What fun is that?

Seriously, I am glad to see how you handled it. You both make good contributions to this forum and I still have much to learn from your posts. Keep up the good work.

 

[Secret Master]

Dang-nabbit! I though you two, were going to have a real barn-burner of an argument. I even brought popcorn up here to see the fireworks,

 

[blahmaster6k]

View attachment 605202

Well, that certainly is a meme strategy that occasionally sees play in MP, but afaik it's usually used for overruns after breaking the line with medium or heavy tanks, rather than encirclements. Pure LTs tend to not do well in combat. It's a great meme though.

 

[Dalos]

Well, that certainly is a meme strategy that occasionally sees play in MP, but afaik it's usually used for overruns after breaking the line with medium or heavy tanks, rather than encirclements. Pure LTs tend to not do well in combat. It's a great meme though.

As I stated earlier in the thread, I conquered half the World with just 20 width light tanks making advance and 20 width pure infantry holding the line. So it is valid, at least for SP.

Edit : They weren't pure LARM divisions, I mixed them with MOTs but the point stands...

 

[Zauberelefant]

Dang-nabbit! I though you two, were going to have a real barn-burner of an argument. I even brought popcorn up here to see the fireworks, but nooo, you had to get all adult on us. What fun is that?

Seriously, I am glad to see how you handled it. You both make good contributions to this forum and I still have much to learn from your posts. Keep up the good work.

Ain't no one thankin' good ole Zauberelefant, Bringer of Peace?

 

[Dalos]

Ain't no one thankin' good ole Zauberelefant, Bringer of Peace?

You brought peace for our time!

 

[Harin]

Ain't no one thankin' good ole Zauberelefant, Bringer of Peace?

Herr @Zauberelefant, your diplomatic skills were tested by two worthy opponents. Success was not guaranteed. The stakes were high, but the three of you bravely fought the flaming posts side by side, replacing discontent with understanding. Masterfully done! Salute!

 

[Fireforce20]

Put a little more stuff into the Panzer divisions, at least until you have 20 or 21 width.

The infantry is fine, it's the same I use.



No land-lease, just the AI moves it's air force where the battle is. They will move back to France/UK once Poland falls, so you won't get rid of them so easily.

I enjoy most aspects of the game but find the micro of the air, in particular strategic bombing by the AI very irritating and forces the player to counter with micro of air which is tedious at times. I would like to see some element of automation in interception where there is the ability to get fighters to cover more than one region on interception duty and they then go to where the bombers are going. Relocation and deployment of air wings should also take a much longer

Air combat casualties in the game I have found are also way way below any sort of real marker.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I enjoy most aspects of the game but find the micro of the air, in particular strategic bombing by the AI very irritating and forces the player to counter with micro of air which is tedious at times. I would like to see some element of automation in interception where there is the ability to get fighters to cover more than one region on interception duty and they then go to where the bombers are going. Relocation and deployment of air wings should also take a much longer

Air combat casualties in the game I have found are also way way below any sort of real marker.

Thankfully, Air is scheduled to be redone. And while not so realistic, currently it's working ok-ish.

 

[Secret Master]

Air combat casualties in the game I have found are also way way below any sort of real marker.

Are you kidding? I kill plenty of planes in air to air combat. Give me 2000 fighters with decent mission efficiency in an air region, and I will give you some air casualties. Hell, I see plenty of situations where air wings lose XP due to losses over time. This doesn't even address losses to division AA. (State AA against STRs is a different kettle of fish.)

If you aren't see lots of air losses, there might be some problems with your air defense/offense plan. (Or the AI just doesn't have that many planes up and flying in the first place.)

 

[blahmaster6k]

I enjoy most aspects of the game but find the micro of the air, in particular strategic bombing by the AI very irritating and forces the player to counter with micro of air which is tedious at times. I would like to see some element of automation in interception where there is the ability to get fighters to cover more than one region on interception duty and they then go to where the bombers are going. Relocation and deployment of air wings should also take a much longer

Air combat casualties in the game I have found are also way way below any sort of real marker.

Trust me, it's just as annoying in multiplayer. There are players in every faction whose sole job is to micromanage the whole team's air force. Most servers have to have house rules banning teleporting planes around, typically something like you can only assign bombers to a new region once every two weeks so that both team's air controllers can actually play the game and help their faction, rather than having to spend every minute just following the same group of bombers around with fighters or risk having their airfields and factories reduced to dust.

 

[sekelsenmat]

I enjoy most aspects of the game but find the micro of the air, in particular strategic bombing by the AI very irritating and forces the player to counter with micro of air which is tedious at times. I would like to see some element of automation in interception where there is the ability to get fighters to cover more than one region on interception duty and they then go to where the bombers are going. Relocation and deployment of air wings should also take a much longer

Air combat casualties in the game I have found are also way way below any sort of real marker.

Yes, that's one reason why I rarely play as Germany, other nations aren't that much impacted in my experience, the AI Allies seems to prefer strat bombing Germany rather than Italy/Romania/Japan etc

 

[Dalos]

It's not that bad IMHO. I set around 200 fighters to intercept in key zones when I was not trying for major breaktrough - Benelux, United Kingdom, start of Barbarossa...