Starfire Historical Mod

[Orthank]

I'm sure that there is no problem with the save (Boromir was the host) so we will send you it soon.

I was also suprised about this land connection, first in previous game i fougth that my manpower grow dropped down because of 5% dissent hit (after event with Poland), but this time DarkMaur point me out that i will lose some of my manpower growth after beginning of the war.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Orthank, could you e-mail me a save game from when you wished to invite the USA to the Allies?

I wasn't aware that non-connected land areas no longer contributed manpower once you were at war. Has anyone double checked this?

- Mithel

yes it does happen. There was talk about it in some other post.

Know my thoughts about the game as russia.

I dont know if I over invested in airplanes - especially since germany already had improved + air to air missles in 1940 - think this should be nerfed. I just based my thoughts on what the germans would have - and I did not expect adv. medium tanks. However I am not complaining about that as it was a strategic choice.

The main problem was that germany could field advanced medium tanks (24 of them) on the battlefield by september 1940. If that was not the case and they had medium I could have still fought as we would have had about the same amount of tanks which along with my infantry would have given me a chance. At least the war would have been dragged out a bit. Howerever in this game I would have only had advance in something like 170 days + time build them. So much too late to do anything. The Germans should be only 1 model ahead (at max) so that they have a bigger advantage. Lets not forget that the are more efficient which is a huge difference. So allowing them 2 classes of tanks better is lethal to russia.

I also do not agree that germany should have a bigger IC than the russians. Russian has to be able to catch up with them, whilst I had 660 IC and the germans over 700 in 1939. So in effect if germany did not declare war on them they would have had a bigger and bigger advantage over time - which is plain nonsense. Russia is a powerhorse and the germany should have motivation to attack them asap. The IC issue was also caused by the fact that germany had the whole industry tree done by 1940 - I was doing the last gold tech by then. I suggest adding time so that things like that are available by 1942 or 1943.

I think the changes to russia with the tech guy that gave the 5%, minister of mass combat are too much. I only had 600 manpower compared to the german 500. Russia should not have any problems with manpower as they maybe only did by the end of the war.

The USA issue was very irritating - its WE dropping when portugal was taken. Also the Ally WE should have gone to 100% as the axis declared war on portugal, yugoslavia and greece. Only after the 3 country did france declare war. I would understand 1 country but 3.. I know that its difficult to balance a 2 on 1 then a 2 on 2, but this game was okay all for a couple of issues.

I was pretty pleased the way combat works - the move times were okay too. However I would cancel the +1 to the eng as its an too big advantage. Maybe add + 0.25 + another 0.25 through techs..?

The way I look at problems with the techs is that you cannot research them all at the same time. It would be great if you could allocate IC to all the fields so that they would be steadily developed. The way it goes now its I can only research 2 or 3 techs at the start whilst eg. can only start with the infantry techs in 38 which already puts me years behind. What I would suggest its either nerfing all the build costs to minimum and extending the time it takes to research to represent the fact that historically the governments invested in all aspects of the army and did do simultanious research in all fields, or cutting the research times but maxing out costs. Or maybe doing a mixture of both.

This way we could control on when what country more or less gets access to tech and model the ic/supplies efficiency according to the tech tree. This of course would mean reworking the whole tech tree, but I think this is the best way to start as it influences all aspect of the game.

As to germany - I think all is okay except for the tanks. The UK got hit too badly with the manpower. As to Italy - I think Maur did a good job with them as they did take out a lot of the uk fleet + they secured the underbelly of europe.

F

 

[boromir]

Well, the Luftwaffe should have an advantage over SU, and its impossible to get it by sheer numbers (especially if UK is human), so quality has to do it, same for tanks. The IC distribution seems ok, this was only 1940. After all, the UK has lots of IC too, and other factors come into play, such as resources + the fact that in much of the Ukraine and Belarus there is no IC. Also the Russians manage CG demand more efficiently don't they?

I'm not saying that the current IC setup is 100% fine, just that changes should be made carefully. Note that the Russians had way more armies anyway - imo they could have been put to better use. Some of them had to garrison the Turkey border as well against the Italians. What if Italy was not human controlled?

Russia has to sacrifice something. They already don't have to invest anything in the navy anyway.

Anyway, next time Fiendix will play Germany I think , but this will likely be with 1.06. I really hope we get 1.06 before Easter, and that the delay is really worth the wait ...

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Anyway, next time Fiendix will play Germany I think , but this will likely be with 1.06. I really hope we get 1.06 before Easter, and that the delay is really worth the wait ...

I can play if you let me have the advanced tanks as it is right now and leave the russian manpower as it is

F

BTW Maybe we should mod the event that ends czechoslovakia to check if germany is at war with the allies. It should not fire if thats the case.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Mithel,

We played the 0.99m version - we started a bit earlier in the end.

This time the Soviets have nothing to brag about though

Four players, Germany (boromir) /Italy (DarthMaur) vs UK (Orthank) /USSR (Fiendix), normal level, no attacks before 1939, no cheesy S.America/USA moves, no tech sharing (except to minor allied ai nations, over which military control may be acquired), UK can control ANZAC troops too, built units do not need to be automatically deployed if built.

Republicans won SCW, Anschluss + Munich went as expected.

War started early 1939 - late January, with Germany/Italy targeting PA countries - Portugal, Yugoslavia, Greece. Spain was supposed to be taken too, but as the Republicans won yet again, the Russians quickly invited them to their Alliance. Portugal was a mess up, because they were supposed to be annexed by Italy quickly, with Spain as a followup. But Germany couldn't wait any longer to start the war, so democratic countries were also dowed, which resulted in AI France declaring war in March 1939, dragging the Allies into the war. This meant Portugal was quickly lost.

As a result, Germany took: Denmark, Poland, Luxemburg (diploannex), Belgium, Holland, Northern France, Norway, Sweden.

Italy took: Portugal (lost quickly), Southern France (Vichy), Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey. Italy was overstretched at the beginning and quickly got kicked out of Africa.

The RM pact was honored (house rule). USSR diploannexed the Baltics, declared war and annexed Finland, Romania.

After the Germans finished in the North, and Italy annexed Turkey, together they kicked the UK out of Africa via the Mid East.

Barbarossa started Oct 1st 1940. The Allies surrendered Nov 18 1940, with German tanks near Moscow and a D-DAY attempt by the UK beaten back, Italy still fighting with Republican Span. I think the Allies surrendered too early, but they were in a state of shock at the advanced mediums speeding their way

We played, as always, armour heavy.
Barbarossa army setup:
Germany:
land: 50 infantry, 12 mountain troops (eng), 24 motorized (eng), 48 armour (all eng) - 12 basic med 40, 12 basic med 50, 24 advanced med 70mm, +3 of the starting tanks.

air: 36 fighters (24 improved), 24 improved dive bombers
navy: built 24 extra subs

Russia:
land: 151 infantry (some with brigades), 12 motorized (many brigaded), 15 mountain, 36 tanks which were basic mediums either 50mm or 70mm (with either antitank, antiair), +5 starting tanks
air: 36 fighters (24 basic, 12 pre-war), 12 basic dive bombers

Comments:

Germany had about 500 manpower by the time of Russian surrender - not very much, but ... Russia only had 600 manpower too! I think they have lost too much manpower, and maybe should get the mass combat minister back, but he should be available in 1939 and not at the start.

Italy and UK's manpower seemed ok.

Germany had air superiority primarily because the UK made a mistake in tech tree development, and fought with basic fighters. I also researched air-to-air missiles which increased my advantage (extremely costly to research but this is the only thing the rocketry tech tree is good for, and it does add an interesting element to the game, after all, the UK can choose to research this too).

I think Russia overinvested in air, which meant they lost out on the improved medium tanks. Nevertheless advanced medium tanks on the field in late 1940 are a bit too much perhaps. The way the tech tree is setup in 1.05c, and Starfire, it allows advanced mediums to be developed about the same time improved appear.

I therefore suggest that the "Armoured Spearhead" doctrine should be dropped as the prerequisite of the improved med, replaced by the "Force Concentration Doctrine". At the same time, it should be possible to start researching advanced medium *prototype* only after the "Force Concentration" doctrine is developed, while the "Armour Spearhead" doctrine should remain as the prerequisite of the the advanced med models. This would ensure extra investment and delay between improved and advanced.

Also improved heavy prototype should then recquire advanced medium prototype (in addition to basic heavy), to avoid tech rushing there.

The above may recquire more thought though, because I feel its important that the Germans are able to field better tanks than the Russians, otherwise they aren't going anywhere anyway, as the Russians have numerical advantage. If the Russian player fielded improved, with I reckon was possible if he concentrated on the vital techs, it might have been a problem for Germany, so I don't think Germany is overpowered as it stands.

Resources: not too much of a problem really, but I guess this is because we didn't get very far. I noticed steel was hard to come by once war started, as nobody I conquered, apart from the Swedes had any. I feel giving less resources and making tanks more fuel reliant just encourages earlier ahistorical outbreaks of the war.

IC wise, Germany had about 800, Russia 700, which is ok too (stats are at Barbarossa start date).

Fun game, and I had my revenge

However, if Russia had more manpower then the war would have gone on longer and would have been very very interesting

Hehe...

Mainland Portugal was indeed lost quickly, and Spain was not captured because it became Comintern (thus preventing assault of Gibraltar). Anyway, Spain would be hard to crack by Italians only, as it had 40 divisions (and minors are very strong in this game)

Although UK forgot about Goa, Macao, Timor, Cape Verde, Sao Thome, etc (Cape Verde could be good place to resupply subs after Suez was taken, but German player somehow did not think so. Anyway, soon after, Casablanca was taken too)

Anyway, the winter of '39 was ideal type crisis situation-Germany wanted to declare war in March, which would mean Italian navy and half of its army cut off in Atlantic and Indian ocean. Meanwhile i tried to capture all that Portugal 1vp provinces as fast as possible, while UK task forces followed my ships...

Vichy did not happen, btw, France was split alongside Loire river.

And i wasn't "kicked out" of Africa-i had no troops there, moved them to Italy in '36.

Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria were minor allies, and quite useful. Iraq was also annexed by Italy (most of Africa was Italian by the end of the war, with Belgium about to be annexed, btw)

 

[boromir]

Hehe...

Mainland Portugal was indeed lost quickly, and Spain was not captured because it became Comintern (thus preventing assault of Gibraltar). Anyway, Spain would be hard to crack by Italians only, as it had 40 divisions (and minors are very strong in this game)

Although UK forgot about Goa, Macao, Timor, Cape Verde, Sao Thome, etc (Cape Verde could be good place to resupply subs after Suez was taken, but German player somehow did not think so. Anyway, soon after, Casablanca was taken too)

Anyway, the winter of '39 was ideal type crisis situation-Germany wanted to declare war in March, which would mean Italian navy and half of its army cut off in Atlantic and Indian ocean. Meanwhile i tried to capture all that Portugal 1vp provinces as fast as possible, while UK task forces followed my ships...

Vichy did not happen, btw, France was split alongside Loire river.

And i wasn't "kicked out" of Africa-i had no troops there, moved them to Italy in '36.

Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria were minor allies, and quite useful. Iraq was also annexed by Italy (most of Africa was Italian by the end of the war, with Belgium about to be annexed, btw)

Minors were indeed useful. OK, strictly speaking the Italians were not kicked out but abandoned Africa at first. As for Rep. Spain, the Italians would have defeated them in the end because I was planning to send in the Luftwaffe to help.

I didn't use Cape Verde for the very simple reason that the UK located improved naval bombers in mainland Africa within range of the island, and would have bombed my subs to pieces in port - they would have been very easy to locate. I did a lot of damage to his convoys in the region, so he was actively hunting for them there. But the UK simply has too many convoys ... however, my attacks were not completely useless as they had a psychological effect and served as a distraction for the UK player.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

And when it comes to conclusions....


Manpower.

UK is way too low. SU is way too low. Italy D) is too low (nah, not really. Not that much anyway, although i did lack manpower, i was around 0 most of the time. No mass combat minister hurts)



Players/Force composition.

Mithel, you must know that they are very strange players. I mean, Germany had more tanks than infantry divisions (or at least comparable amount). I do not know if thats the only approach, but they think that tanks are the one and only weapon. I wonder how would it end if i would play as SU and use more infantry approach (of course, not with your latest modifications to SU). I personally found engineered mountaineers quite able to stand against British tanks in the Egypt.


Industrial Capacity.

Here is the main culprit. Germany had over 300 IC available from the very beginning, while allies had pathetic amounts due to those "war production" events. I mean, 20 usable IC for SU... coupled with provincial IC redistribution... it is also the source of this incredible tech advantage of Germany (couple with the fact it had 2/3 of Soviet manpower growth, and with my manpower we had more than them combined probably, and you get the result that Axis almost can't lose)

Germany had not only the tech but also the numbers advantage over SU (well, not really 150 divs to 200, but including those minor Axis and Italians in Caucasus, it had). Not to mention numerical and technological advantage in air and armored units.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

(..) and served as a distraction for the UK player.

I actually think that that was all he was doing at that point in the game

F

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Players/Force composition.

Mithel, you must know that they are very strange players. I mean, Germany had more tanks than infantry divisions (or at least comparable amount). I do not know if thats the only approach, but they think that tanks are the one and only weapon. I wonder how would it end if i would play as SU and use more infantry approach (of course, not with your latest modifications to SU). I personally found engineered mountaineers quite able to stand against British tanks in the Egypt.
.

I will do a test with orthank. Sov will build only infantry + limited amount of tanks whilst germany will build only tanks + limited amount of men - we shall see how that will end.

F

 

[boromir]

Players/Force composition.

Mithel, you must know that they are very strange players. I mean, Germany had more tanks than infantry divisions (or at least comparable amount). I do not know if thats the only approach, but they think that tanks are the one and only weapon. I wonder how would it end if i would play as SU and use more infantry approach (of course, not with your latest modifications to SU). I personally found engineered mountaineers quite able to stand against British tanks in the Egypt.

[ ... ]

Industrial Capacity.

Here is the main culprit. Germany had over 300 IC available from the very beginning, while allies had pathetic amounts due to those "war production" events. I mean, 20 usable IC for SU... coupled with provincial IC redistribution... it is also the source of this incredible tech advantage of Germany (couple with the fact it had 2/3 of Soviet manpower growth, and with my manpower we had more than them combined probably, and you get the result that Axis almost can't lose)

Germany had not only the tech but also the numbers advantage over SU (well, not really 150 divs to 200, but including those minor Axis and Italians in Caucasus, it had). Not to mention numerical and technological advantage in air and armored units.

Mountain troops indeed didn't do too bad against UK tanks but you forget some significant issues:
- their tanks were not exactly advanced
- Germany had 6 tanks there under Rommel, taking part in the fighting
- Germany had air superiority with 12 fighters and 12 dive bombers, which played a very very big role - as I recall I was getting loads of requests from you to send them all over the place

Without the German planes and armour, you would have lost. Indeed you did lose your mountain troops in the end, to those very same UK tanks. In the end, the UK tanks were destroyed (or disbanded?) after fighting against German toops only (tanks not infantry!).

As to Soviet manpower, yes it was too low, dunno about the IC - if you all feel that way, maybe the relocation was a bit too severe (or maybe they should have the +5% research minister back). Also, the Russians made a strategic mistake by attacking and annexing Romania. They should have attempted to coup and invite them to their Alliance first or puppeted them instead of annexing, if that failed.

Germany simply has too little manpower to invest in infantry. Infantry = WWI war, the Germans simply can't take these sort of losses and afford no offensive power. Without offensive power, they can't hold to France if UK attacks, because they have ZERO mobility. Mobility is the key to modern warfare.

In the end I had to withdraw 12 tanks from the East, so we both had the same amount of tanks (the Russians had 5 more even). With the minors mostly on their way to Spain, we were very much outnumbered in the East. And we only had tech advantage in the East in terms of planes, not numerical superiority.

 

[boromir]

I actually think that that was all he was doing at that point in the game

F

Nah, this was after Suez was lost, the fight in Africa was still going strong when it started. When he had nothing else to do in Africa I withdrew my subs.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Also, the Russians made a strategic mistake by attacking and annexing Romania. They should have attempted to coup and invite them to their Alliance first or puppeted them instead of annexing, if that failed.

In the end I had to withdraw 12 tanks from the East, so we both had the same amount of tanks (the Russians had 5 more even). With the minors mostly on their way to Spain, we were very much outnumbered in the East. And we only had tech advantage in the East in terms of planes, not numerical superiority.

I actaully think that annexing Romania is a very good move - I doubted if I could coup it as the last times I tried it ended with Romania joining the axis. Finally they gave me a lot of supplies which I could use to build troops...

Well you did move out the tanks - but so what - mine were at 0 org for the next month whilst redeployment + battle with the english + redeployment again would have taken you probably 20 days or so...

F

 

[boromir]

I actaully think that annexing Romania is a very good move - I doubted if I could coup it as the last times I tried it ended with Romania joining the axis. Finally they gave me a lot of supplies which I could use to build troops...

Well you did move out the tanks - but so what - mine were at 0 org for the next month whilst redeployment + battle with the english + redeployment again would have taken you probably 20 days or so...

F

Sure, but what the English could have landed again as soon as I moved the German tanks out. Yes the Romanians joined the Axis in the previous game but that was because I couped them back. That still gives you time to declare war. Most importantly, you could have taken the supplies anyway by taking Bucharest and puppeting them.

The German tech advantage was not incredible, the Soviets simply didn't try to go at the improved meds, investing in tech that would have played a role in the future but not now.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

I will do a test with orthank. Sov will build only infantry + limited amount of tanks whilst germany will build only tanks + limited amount of men - we shall see how that will end.

F

With that latest starfire where SU doesn't have manpower advantage?

Its not about building, but also about tactics. I should have mentioned how do you play to Mithel.

Ie: there were no garrisons in western Europe, except some infantry in Paris and even less in Scandinavia.

Eastern front was not a front at all-most of it was empty provinces facing empty provinces

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Sure, but what the English could have landed again as soon as I moved the German tanks out. Yes the Romanians joined the Axis in the previous game but that was because I couped them back. That still gives you time to declare war. Most importantly, you could have taken the supplies anyway by taking Bucharest and puppeting them.

The German tech advantage was not incredible, the Soviets simply didn't try to go at the improved meds, investing in tech that would have played a role in the future but not now.

the uk had no troops after the last "dday" to do anything more. Anyway 6 of your tanks would have been enough to do the job. As to Romania - true maybe puppet would have been a slightly better choice.

Wadda u mean I didnt try to go at the improved.. I started taking ONLY that from day 1 - its just that the doctrines needed to get spearhead doctrine take much too long to get. Furhtermore how am I supposed to do a lot of research with 20 or so IC in the first year. Maybe I should not upgrade provinces - but if I didnt do that I would have had much less IC in 39 - approx 500 or so. Too little to build tanks etc. On CG I spent the same amount the germans did.

F

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Mountain troops indeed didn't do too bad against UK tanks but you forget some significant issues:
- their tanks were not exactly advanced
- Germany had 6 tanks there under Rommel, taking part in the fighting
- Germany had air superiority with 12 fighters and 12 dive bombers, which played a very very big role - as I recall I was getting loads of requests from you to send them all over the place

Without the German planes and armour, you would have lost. Indeed you did lose your mountain troops in the end, to those very same UK tanks. In the end, the UK tanks were destroyed (or disbanded?) after fighting against German toops only (tanks not infantry!).

As to Soviet manpower, yes it was too low, dunno about the IC - if you all feel that way, maybe the relocation was a bit too severe (or maybe they should have the +5% research minister back). Also, the Russians made a strategic mistake by attacking and annexing Romania. They should have attempted to coup and invite them to their Alliance first or puppeted them instead of annexing, if that failed.

Germany simply has too little manpower to invest in infantry. Infantry = WWI war, the Germans simply can't take these sort of losses and afford no offensive power. Without offensive power, they can't hold to France if UK attacks, because they have ZERO mobility. Mobility is the key to modern warfare.

In the end I had to withdraw 12 tanks from the East, so we both had the same amount of tanks (the Russians had 5 more even). With the minors mostly on their way to Spain, we were very much outnumbered in the East. And we only had tech advantage in the East in terms of planes, not numerical superiority.

I lost my mountaineers in province east of Tripoli because i invaded it to prevent UK fleet from evacuating them. I had to do it fast so they had low org, and thus were defeated. I made a mistake of sending my transports for more troops so when the battle was lost the units were destroyed.

UK tanks were disbanded because i landed in Tunis again, this time practically making sure those tanks will be destroyed.

Of course, German tanks driving west from Cairo were also important to this maneuver.

You are right about Romania-SU should have either couped or puppeted them. Same about Finland probably. In Starfire, minors are very important.

 

[boromir]

With that latest starfire where SU doesn't have manpower advantage?

Its not about building, but also about tactics. I should have mentioned how do you play to Mithel.

Ie: there were no garrisons in western Europe, except some infantry in Paris and even less in Scandinavia.

Eastern front was not a front at all-most of it was empty provinces facing empty provinces

There was more in Scandinavia (6 infantry, 6 mountain, 3 tanks) than in France (12 inf). Germany would have had ZERO manpower if I tried to produce more infantry as garrision troops. Germany would have been unable to garrison both anyway. Its much better to build *mobile* units which you can move where the threat appears. Much more efficient. Of course, the French garrison was useless, because the UK landed guess what ... with tanks. The UK invasion was slowed down by 3 (!) Slovak (!!) tanks, not the useless German infantry that nearly got destroyed because they lacked ... mobility. The UK invasion was beaten back by 12 relocated German ... tanks.

Same applies to the East front anyway, where the Soviet infantry was in permanent retreat - he had lost a couple of big battles with my tanks (again, not infantry), which forced him to retreat.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

:By the way-i am not that experienced in land warfare-i usually played naval in mp (it shows. UK lost half of its fleet to my puny Italians here ), so they might be right about all those tank heavy-no front approach.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

With that latest starfire where SU doesn't have manpower advantage?

Its not about building, but also about tactics. I should have mentioned how do you play to Mithel.

Ie: there were no garrisons in western Europe, except some infantry in Paris and even less in Scandinavia.

Eastern front was not a front at all-most of it was empty provinces facing empty provinces

No we will add some startup manpower to the russians.

Yes well Mithel was also suprised that you can play that way - but its the only way to go. Whats the point of having garissons in western europe (more than Germany had) if you can redeploy (as you saw) troops and take out the assualt on france in a couple of days and then redeploy the troops back to the russian front????

Eastern front - empty spaces - well I could have left 2/3 units in each terr. but what good would that have done.. Did you see what his dives did with my cavalry ?? They were smashed to bits. Furthermore I didnt have so many troops to do that.

F

 

[unmerged(2833)]

There was more in Scandinavia (6 infantry, 6 mountain, 3 tanks) than in France (12 inf). Germany would have had ZERO manpower if I tried to produce more infantry as garrision troops. Germany would have been unable to garrison both anyway. Its much better to build *mobile* units which you can move where the threat appears. Much more efficient. Of course, the French garrison was useless, because the UK landed guess what ... with tanks. The UK invasion was slowed down by 3 (!) Slovak (!!) tanks, not the useless German infantry that nearly got destroyed because they lacked ... mobility. The UK invasion was beaten back by 12 relocated German ... tanks.

Same applies to the East front anyway, where the Soviet infantry was in permanent retreat - he had lost a couple of big battles with my tanks (again, not infantry), which forced him to retreat.

Well, as in my above post. Its not critique, its that i think other players, including Mithel, play other way, so it is important that he knows this.

By the way, in Scandinavia only part of those troops you listed were in reserve-most were facing Soviets in Finland.