- Jun 18, 2013
The Bolsheviks strike back is a good or bad thing for the Commune? For RP they should be enemies because or at least rivals, but dunno if DH can simulate that
At this point, I am actually wondering if this might as well be an AAR or not, though I don't think I am up to writing RP and narrative parts to the quality I want just yet (a whole lot of reading I need to get done before that) I thus still think of it more like a how-to guide than an AAR which is why it isn't under the AAR category. I will eventually write a narrative RP driven AAR, but I want to be able to describe how Syndcalist structures might operate from an informed position first. If I see a narrative growing in my head regardless of what I think about how qualified I am to write it, I may opt to turn this into an AAR anyway. If I do, I will start over in the AAR thread and rework what I have done so far into a narrative framework while perhaps continuing to post here in reference to the gameplay elements.The Bolsheviks strike back is a good or bad thing for the Commune? For RP they should be enemies because or at least rivals, but dunno if DH can simulate that
I thus still think of it more like a how-to guide than an AAR which is why it isn't under the AAR category
So early war would be sometimes in 37?unless you want the challenge of a very early war with Germany
That's fine. And a few roleplay elements even in a guide I do like, spices things a bit up and avoids boredom... helps also to explain the sometimes weird decisions one chooses to go with in DH.
I think I will go ahead and parcel out the AAR part as an AAR while continuing this guide as a game focused one. It's the best way of letting myself continue the one without being dependent on the other as time and research allow. The benefit of playing Anarchists is that there is more theory stuff available. For the purposes of the guide, I will start mentioning developments of the AI and their implications to France starting with a quick overview of AI decisions up to this point.I would vote to keep this thread AAR-free. I think that the, "This choice has benefits A & B along with risks C & D." style is very helpful. It would be difficult to also write an AAR in the same thread at the same time and do them both well. I agree that there is good material for one here, should you want to do so in parallel.
Normally, it has no immediate implications as Russia will remain neutral for the most part (unrealistically so in my opinion as one would expect them to grab the Eastern puppets if say Berlin or continental Germany is taken, there really should be more events covering this) Russia might not even remain as a functioning state depending on how its events unfold (I once saw it get swallowed up by Turkistan, Mongolia, Japan, Don-Kaban, Finland, and a surviving rump European Russia.)EDIT: I understand that the situation in Russia can shake out in, like, 8 different ways. I have never played Russia (I hear it is fun), how would different outcomes affect us in France?
Technically, you can declare war whenever via the DoW action. Eventwise, the above was still in May of 36. There are various events and flashpoints that can start an early war in both 37 and 38 such as the demanding Geneva from the Swiss, British intervention in Norway, the assassination of a German ambassador, or French support of revolutionaries in the Rhineland. What I'd define as the "normal" war date is 39 which is when the AI gets the Alsace Lorren or War decision which as far as the German AI is concerned will always end in war. Even then the war can start a few months earlier over misfires during military drills.So early war would be sometimes in 37?
Not really to the first question, KR is probably the most thought out Alternative History scenario for KR and therefore has a lot of its own historic timeline that is quite distinct from our own. War and peace are mostly determined by the very detailed event chains of the game ranging from capitulation conditions to post-war map re-drawing, to declarations of war. You could still declare war manually, but the events do help weave it into the scope of the mod's narrative better.Does this scenario/mod follows in any way the timeline and events of the historic 30ies and war in 39? Or what determines war and peace in the mod?
Sorry, life caught up with me, will be getting back to this really soon (over the next few days) and staying on it this time until it's done! Thanks for asking.Is this abandoned? Would be a pity, it's really interesting!
Was already wondering that myself. As good a time as any to make sure I'm notified of this thread
Is this abandoned? Would be a pity, it's really interesting!
I am not sure I'd go that far because brigades still have a rather disproportionate IC cost as opposed to the cost-effectiveness of simply building more divisions, but I do agree that some brigades seem to be more effective in KR than in vanilla. Perhaps if you serial run an artillery brigade or two it can get cost-effective to equip all or a substantial part of the army with them or with cheaper brigades such as AT (or at least I think they are cheaper?) Artillery brigades specifically suffer from a speed reduction penalty I am loath to impose on the entire infantry army but one that is more tolerable in the case of my fortress busters. I am not sure it's truly cost-effective to build the armoured cars for my motorized divisions and I wouldn't bother in a more optimized playthrough but they seem to give them a punch.A further precision, with KR and brigades we also get bonuses of soft attack, organization and/or morale with the terrestrial doctrines, which makes (with good ministers too) that it can be interesting to brigading all his army (while in DH full, putting brigades in his infantry is more of a waste of IC) and even if it mostly revolves between AC, eng and art.
Excellent.Now that this update is uploaded
DH isn't exactly the most casual game... I guess, we all have those phases.I simply got a bit tired of DH for a while but now that I've had a bit of a break I am back to it and having as much fun playing the grand old game as ever.
ACs are dirtcheap. For the Commune, I think, an AC raises the IC cost of a MOT by just 7% but raises soft attack by around 16% and lowers vulnerability by 15-18%. So that's truly a bargain... other than the MP-cost if one is low there.I am not sure it's truly cost-effective to build the armoured cars for my motorized divisions and I wouldn't bother in a more optimized playthrough but they seem to give them a punch
Definetly. Neither is the cost ratio art : inf good. Artillery raises the cost of an INF by more than 50%, the lowered vulnerability is neglectable, mobility reduced... another INF is almost always better and comes with free additional org.Artillery brigades specifically suffer from a speed reduction penalty I am loath to impose on the entire infantry army
Well, it reminds me of a game with the KR Japan where I had surrounded at least half of the Russian army but I was not able at first to defeat them because there were so many of them even if I ended up winning in the long run thanks to attrition and sending reinforcements.Obviously, fighting a two-front war against Germany is much easier for the Commune, but for the most part, the chances seem to favour a one front war even with the Soviets in charge. Russian intervention on Germany's side naturally makes the war much harder but there are ways and circumstances the Commune can get around it. Firstly, Russian redeployment tends to go right up to the front line meaning that it can pay to postpone completing an encirclement to let the Russian troops in first thus destroying them in detail and denying the huge numerical Russo-German advantage, at least until Germany can be safely knocked out from the war. That said, sometimes the volume of troops in a pocket can simply be too much for the Commune to handle, at which case it pays to bait the Russo-German forces deeper into a bulge inside the Commune with a fighting infantry army retreat and keeping the armoured divisions ready to encircle one army at a time.
Remark, even in case of victory of the normal Spain this one to a event to join the Entente or the Mitteleuropa, so the victory of the CNT is important in spite of everything.Four possible interventions in the Commune's favour include firstly a Soviet/Russian attack on Germany as described above. Secondly, a victorious CNT in Spain as an ally (though one of limited utility on account of the additional coast it presents and low IC potential) Thirdly, an early reunification of Italy under the SRI banner (Which is particularly useful against Austria) Finally, a coup in the Netherlands which makes the invasion of Germany far easier to accomplish.
The anti-tank brigade (AT) is not very interesting in my opinion, AC is better since in any case, the "heavy" divisions (arm, motor, etc.) are a minority.Perhaps if you serial run an artillery brigade or two it can get cost-effective to equip all or a substantial part of the army with them or with cheaper brigades such as AT (or at least I think they are cheaper?)
AC is all the more valuable (even if they have lowered the vulnerability values) that when your motorized take a counter-attack and especially if the enemy sends its armored div.ACs are dirtcheap. For the Commune, I think, an AC raises the IC cost of a MOT by just 7% but raises soft attack by around 16% and lowers vulnerability by 15-18%. So that's truly a bargain... other than the MP-cost if one is low there.
I give really all MOTs an AC. Actually I start even lower and give already every CAV an AC... I upgrade them to MOT anyway.
Personally, I brigade my infantry with art 1945 when precisely this -1 in max speed disappears besides, in general I don’t have much else to produce at that time.Definetly. Neither is the cost ratio art : inf good. Artillery raises the cost of an INF by more than 50%, the lowered vulnerability is neglectable, mobility reduced... another INF is almost always better and comes with free additional org.
Nevertheless I find myself using INF/art with great joy at some rare strategic positions: strongpoints or Schwerpunkte where they, without moving, can support attack towards several directions and afterwards need to stay put there anyway to continously defend the region for strategic/logistical reasons.
I start to think that in DH the artillery values are a bit too much nerfed. It doesn't feel correct that proper artillery brigade usage in DH is reduced to only a few special circumstances when comparing it with the uber-importance of artillery in WW1 and still heavily used in WW2... and not only by the Red Army, there was a reason why Guderian insisted on motorized artillery support for even Panzer.
There are a few things I might have to trim going forwards because I am getting a bit behind my armoured division timetable for a 1940 attack largely due to all those serial orders mounting to a pretty big IC investment. Perhaps trying to combine what I learned to do via firepower doctrine and mobile doctrine plus the naval investment isn't as effective as I thought, but as I am aiming for a mid-1940 attack date (mostly to give the AI a bit more of a levelled playing field) I still have three years to reverse course over armour. Most of the other components are there, the motorized divisions I want, a bigger air cover than I generally get due to leaving it too late, plus a solid core for an infantry force capable of doing its part in the Alsace encirclement operation rather than leave it all on the tanks as I usually do. I also think that in the long term investing in the navy early even for a limited run will really help advance the timetable of effective operations in Africa.Ah and I forgot to thank you for this tutorial, when I tried with the Commune, I had not succeeded (I had underestimated the enemy fortifications )
Russia is indeed very hard to beat when it's in full strength and you are its only enemy. Most of the games I lost were lost to Russia.Well, it reminds me of a game with the KR Japan where I had surrounded at least half of the Russian army but I was not able at first to defeat them because there were so many of them even if I ended up winning in the long run thanks to attrition and sending reinforcements.
Yes, that's very true. What I meant is that Spain by itself isn't the most effective of allies, but that the possibility of it turning against you is bad enough that I'd consider building light infantry divisions to help the CNT out rather than leave it just to the AI. In most cases, the CNT will lose due to inferior IC resources and because by the nature of how Spain is set up in the game when the CNT advances into the Spanish interior the shared border between Spain and the Carlists tends to shrink leaving the CNT on the receiving ends of both armies. The same doesn't really apply to the other two in the same way. Even if all the CNT army ends up doing is defending its coast, it's better than having to station your own forces to do the same job. Plus the CNT tends to compensate with a large air force.Remark, even in case of victory of the normal Spain this one to a event to join the Entente or the Mitteleuropa, so the victory of the CNT is important in spite of everything.
I really should run the numbers on all those combinations. For some reason, sometimes building things one way is cheaper than building them in another way. For example, building Super Heavy artillery on its own is more expensive than building inside an infantry order. My reasoning for keeping them separate is that I like to group my infantry according to speed - cavalry as the first line of reserves, unequipped or lightly equipped infantry as the second, artillery as the third, and super heavies as the siege train against forts and heavily defended rough terrain. It also helps in planning out fronts, such as a Northern Front rushing into Germany after the encirclement of the armour, cavalry, and infantry while the artillery divisions become the Southern front and press into Austria's mountainous frontier.However, for my current part, I test this: inf with art AND sp-art, the idea is to have a cheap "armored div" (hard/soft attack values equal or higher) to have less need to produce real ones. It’s not a bad idea on paper, although I think it’s a waste of IC...
I would love to get into the numbers game and look into what sort of brigade attachments truly are IC effective at some point.ACs are dirtcheap. For the Commune, I think, an AC raises the IC cost of a MOT by just 7% but raises soft attack by around 16% and lowers vulnerability by 15-18%. So that's truly a bargain... other than the MP-cost if one is low there.
There are a few things I might have to trim going forwards because I am getting a bit behind my armoured division timetable for a 1940 attack largely due to all those serial orders mounting to a pretty big IC investment.
I've noticed that you use IH/improved hulls for your CVLs. I must admit I much too stingy for such an investment (well, perhaps not stingy but usually too hard pressed to find the ICs).6 destroyers for my career forces
Nope, it's not.For some reason, sometimes building things one way is cheaper than building them in another way. For example, building Super Heavy artillery on its own is more expensive than building inside an infantry order.
From memory, I had sent my MOT to the far north of Manchuria expected the Russian redeployment then sent them for a movement of encirclement, with a landing on the other end of the encirclement. All this after defeating China and Mongolia, in order to have as many troops as possible. (If it helps you in case of another confrontation with the Russian colossus).Russia is indeed very hard to beat when it's in full strength and you are its only enemy. Most of the games I lost were lost to Russia.
Main reasons for building them is that Germany is building its own panzer divisions and I already have the tech for it, but the most I can manage in time is about 12 divisions, well below the 24 I usually have when I go mobility and even that takes tons of IC. another reason to avoid tanks is that my infantry army is not as large as I want it to be with all the manpower I posses. I am thinking of starting a massive infantry build up once the tanks are finished in march, perhaps of light infantry for the faster build time, or even militia with artillery. Still, I think I will stick with tanks simply because I want them not only against Germany but potentially also against Russia as hard hitters against their masses (though motorized and armoured will be operating separately to exploit the former's speed)In some of my last games I didn't really know where to take the IC nor the tech teams for tanks... so I built only MOT as a fast unit. It worked surprisingly well. I had more MOT than usual, more IC for other stuff and basically 1 more tech team (which didn't need to research tanks all the time).
I had two such encounters with the Commune and I think two I can recall with Germany. Never played Japan, but I am looking forward to doing so at some point. I lost to Russia both as Germany and as France, though in the former case it was actually more because of the Commune while in the latter I did nearly manage to pull off my strategy of baiting the Russians into the French interior where I could destroy them in detail, but Austria's entry into the war once I advanced combined with the Russian recovery proved too much for me to handle manpower wise. The Commune really needs to watch it unless you game the bonuses.From memory, I had sent my MOT to the far north of Manchuria expected the Russian redeployment then sent them for a movement of encirclement, with a landing on the other end of the encirclement. All this after defeating China and Mongolia, in order to have as many troops as possible. (If it helps you in case of another confrontation with the Russian colossus).
The only bonus I really used effectively in this guide was the manpower stuff, and I'd say that it mostly makes France meet everyone else on equal ground rather than suffering an inherent (if well deserved) weakness there. What really overpowers a player against the AI in DH is that the AI will generally assume a broad front approach whereas a human player can concentrate their forces. It's thus possible for the player to overwhelm the AI practically at will.But people should know that these stacking bonuses absolutely overpower you vs the AI.
I will grant that is true, especially in KR, because the manpower system is so prohibitive. It took me a year to recover when I bled my reserves to zero in my first game as the commune, all the while cannibalizing some divisions to maintain others at that. France especially suffers from manpower problems but they are endemic in DH to all powers in the sense that what you generate is really what you get, no mobilization events like vanilla, though you do get a few hundred out of events. Its also very easy to encircle the German AI because it doesn't know it needs to defend Belgium or its border with Belgium for some reason. Liege is practically empty if you get there fast enough and the most I see the AI bring there are about 3 divisions, certainly not enough to counteract a serious invading force.It's not just not fair, it completely destroys the challenge early on and this is why the player constantly surrounds large formations in Belgium area in every game very easilly no matter what happens in all AArs.
True enough, though I will grant that it's tougher to do with Russia and Germany. In the latter case, its especially a case in which you have to make cost alternatives, oftentimes deal with dissent or deal with coups in your vassals. The main exploit for Germany is that war is actually a god-send after Black Monday, you get so much of your IC back I'd say Germany has a vested interest in picking as many fights as possible (so by all means little vassals, rebel!) The only real cases I'd say can be rather messy are Ukraine and Africa, both of which provide quite a lot of divisions you won't be able to replace as easily.Worse, when you know dissent events are happening, you can mold your strategy around them, the AI can't, as it starts every game in a fresh state.
My way is to self-impose various limitations and ground rules. For example, in this case, I am doing a rather suboptimal build order (though not entirely on purpose) I know what sort of army can defeat Germany but for this guide I've settled for showcasing different possibilities as opposed to going all-in on one specific way. In another game, I might build paratroopers because I know the IC investment of doing so is very prohibitive and will leave my forces much more limited (that's the main reason I failed in my first game, paratroopers simply aren't worth it as the Commune, though they are worth their weight in gold as the UoB)I think the best way to experience this kind of mod is to play it blank once, like I did, never reload and accept everything that happens.
And then, probably never play it again.
They're also the absolute cheesiest way to take out any Britain as any Germany in whatever scenario possible. But rejecting a Second Peace with Honour gives you plenty of time to build them as Germany, and to bomb the British fleet into submissionthough they are worth their weight in gold as the UoB