Will you fix these game killers?

[Lennartos]

Yes these issues should all be adressed in 1.05.

Not all of them are easy fixes though
There are a lot of screws that can be turned on.

For the current USSR / German issues i think that reducing stocks a bit and supply amount for each ESE% will already solve most of the problems.
Right now germany has bad ESE, butr the stocks are still 80% full when they reach moscow - thats not really a good thing.

Also it seems that around 80/20 are german wins, propably depending on the UK / US bombing intensiveness. If UK / US get air superiority, before germany reaches moscow, then they will slow down more and more, until they in 43/44 will implode, and be pushed back by USSR.

Also what is still missing is the AIs understanding that it has a better supply and morale. Right now the AI doesnt attack if it doesnt have a chance to win.
Well that is incorrect! Human wave is all about fighting hopeless battles to outwear the enemy and overrun him when he is down.
So expect to see a bit more agressive / smart AIs for China + USSR.

Well at least that is my plan for now - lets see what comes out when i start working on it

 

[DarkLight]

I have to agree about China. I play mostly as minors ( Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Romania, Sweden).

Seeing China go down the tubes in mid 1938-1939 really ruins things for me. If something historical. such as the survival of Nat China, has absolutey NO chance of happening, then the game itself is flawed.

 

[Blecky]

new combat system and POL AI

Playing GER in a 1936 campaign. Nothing ahistorical happened. Poland is attacked after the Danzig or War event. The battles last longer than before and the Polish AI is feeding its divisions (3 LARM btw) into the battles, so it takes three to four days to win each. But after that there´s nothing left. I´ve built 3 ARM lv II, which are fairly slow, and they arrived from Oppeln in Warsaw on Sep 7 1939. Two days later the eastern part of Poland is handed over to the Soviets and POL is annexed.

AFAIK some reason for introducing the new combat system was to prevent the GER troops to overrun POL in two to three weeks as it happened in ARMA. Right now it took nine days, because the AI had thrown its reserves into the battles with nothing left to guard the rear. The AI definitly needs some improvement there.

 

[unmerged(66950)]

Yes these issues should all be adressed in 1.05.

Not all of them are easy fixes though
There are a lot of screws that can be turned on.

For the current USSR / German issues i think that reducing stocks a bit and supply amount for each ESE% will already solve most of the problems.
Right now germany has bad ESE, butr the stocks are still 80% full when they reach moscow - thats not really a good thing.

Also it seems that around 80/20 are german wins, propably depending on the UK / US bombing intensiveness. If UK / US get air superiority, before germany reaches moscow, then they will slow down more and more, until they in 43/44 will implode, and be pushed back by USSR.

Also what is still missing is the AIs understanding that it has a better supply and morale. Right now the AI doesnt attack if it doesnt have a chance to win.
Well that is incorrect! Human wave is all about fighting hopeless battles to outwear the enemy and overrun him when he is down.
So expect to see a bit more agressive / smart AIs for China + USSR.

Well at least that is my plan for now - lets see what comes out when i start working on it

Thank you, I really appreciate your commitment to fixing these. This game has so much potential, it could be the best WW2 game if these and other issues are fixed.

In all 4 of my games,Germany invaded in the summer of 41, and USSR had bitter peace within 10-11 months of the German invasion.

 

[eleinvisible]

It might be that I'm playing CORE but all the offensive wars seem to stall. Japan gets stuck in China and Germany gets stuck in the Soviet Union until it runs out of manpower/resources and collapses. So I am pretty happy as it is now!

In vanilla I did see an awful lot of Japan attacking the Soviet Union... I believe that is a somewhat realistic, albeit more rarely.

 

[Tuscan]

I have to agree actually. In the 4 games i have played so far, Germany knocks USSR about like a rag doll, Nat China gets stomped on like armies of woodlice. As for waking the sleeping dragon, thats as futile as trying to wake up my younger brother on a Saturday morning.

I have no doubt though AOD will be excellent when these bugs are addressed.

 

[Kelben]

Do not forget the pretty passive US invasions... Okay they take interesting strategic position Eneiwok Kwajalein for instance but then do not make any uses of them. In 1.02 I recall an really impressive assault on China, USSR, Japan mainland while freeing the Pacific, it sounds unlikely to happen again now.

 

[unmerged(136398)]

Personally, I don't see the need for the Japanese, to attack the US when they already have taken China, which was always their goal. Historically, Japan in it's own recognition had no other choice than to declare war on the US after they cut off Japan with their stupid embargo.

The Japanese needed American oil. Regardless of what would have happened in China, they would have been forced to either succumb to the Westerners' demands or attempt to force the Americans to the negotiation table as they historically did.

China didn't have the oil the Japanese craved for, and the Russian oil was in Baku. Reaching Baku would have been a logistical impossibility, and fighting the Russians in the far east would have been a logistical nightmare.

Either way, Japan was an industrial dwarf and was doomed to fall the second its junta decided to attack China.

 

[Iarodus]

I usually hate when people say "it can be fixed by modding", but these were gamebreaking enough for me that I did that. My steps were:

1. Raised manpower, IC, and supply cost of all divisions, especially infantry. Made IC cost rise a little more exponentially with tech.
2. Increased defensive and toughness ratings of infantry.
3. Increased offensive, base org & moral ratings for armor but reduced defensive ratings.
4. Doubled time to attack and time after attack before you can attack again.
5. Upgraded China's starting OoB a bit.
6. Increased partisan and occupied territory cost on TC.
7. Increased IC cost for upgrades, lowered IC but raised manpower cost for reinforcement.

The end result is Germany usually makes it to the Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad line but is usually stopped by losses, increased Soviet resistance, and supply problems. Sometimes they breakthrough, most often it's a slow slog back.

It's the same thing in China for Japan. Usually they get to where Japan was historically after the Ichi-Go offensive. Sometimes they take all of China around 1942/3 but usually they just sit and wait for the end.

I'm guessing the reason why I haven't seen Japan invade Siberia is that their army is stuck in China until Barbarossa is either won or defeated.

It also makes other things more realistic I think. With combat you really need armor or waves of bombers leading breakthroughs since sending even a bunch of infantry against a few dug in similar-tech infantry will wreck the winning infantry divisions far more than the losing and take a long time. It stops the Soviets from having 600+ divisions, the Rumanians having 60+, and various 1 province minors sitting on 12 divisions by the end of the war. Due to increased upgrade costs and increase in cost in late war units, you cant just upgrade everything to inf '45, Panthers, Me-262's, and 88mm PAK as before. Smaller countries like Italy can no longer keep up with upgrading even as fast as their tech.

 

[Iarodus]

The Japanese needed American oil. Regardless of what would have happened in China, they would have been forced to either succumb to the Westerners' demands or attempt to force the Americans to the negotiation table as they historically did.

China didn't have the oil the Japanese craved for, and the Russian oil was in Baku. Reaching Baku would have been a logistical impossibility, and fighting the Russians in the far east would have been a logistical nightmare.

Either way, Japan was an industrial dwarf and was doomed to fall the second its junta decided to attack China.

They needed Dutch East Indies oil. To get it by war would likely have required war with the US. Probably the best option with 20/20 hindsight would have been for Japan to come down with all their might short of war on the Dutch government to get it to approve the oil deal they had initially agreed to in late 1940 or early 1941 (I forget the exact time) before US pressure cauued them to back away (would make an interesting event, give the Japanese player other options).

Funny thing about the "junta", very little prior to 1941 occurred because it ordered it. The Japanese government was deeply divided about what to do with China in 1937, and even after the Kwangtung Army decided on its own to invade following the Marco Polo Bridge incident there was debate in Tokyo about recalling it. The occupation of Indochina that lead to the US oil embargo was actually done against direct orders from Tokyo not to do it. So the Junta in Tokyo had very little control actually over what was going on. Even the army was limited in its control of subordinate commands.

 

[unmerged(209792)]

I think Germany is way too strong.

Germany itself isn't necessarily OP, it simply just doesn't make the crucial mistakes Hitler did (aka not listening to his generals). Germany could've easily won the war in the east by taking Moscow in the fall of 1941 (to anyone not researched on the matter, Moscow was the center of all major and main communications, supply routes, roads etc. - you can compare taking Moscow from the USSR in 1941 to chopping the head off a chicken) as was originally planned, but Hitler changed his mind, only to later change it again. And by that time it was already too late, mainly due to the mud season and later the freezing winter.

That's just one example of his many big strategical mistakes during WWII.

What I'm saying is that it's not really Germany that should be changed, but its AI.

 

[DesertSnow]

I usually hate when people say "it can be fixed by modding", but these were gamebreaking enough for me that I did that. My steps were:

1. Raised manpower, IC, and supply cost of all divisions, especially infantry. Made IC cost rise a little more exponentially with tech.
2. Increased defensive and toughness ratings of infantry.
3. Increased offensive, base org & moral ratings for armor but reduced defensive ratings.
4. Doubled time to attack and time after attack before you can attack again.
5. Upgraded China's starting OoB a bit.
6. Increased partisan and occupied territory cost on TC.
7. Increased IC cost for upgrades, lowered IC but raised manpower cost for reinforcement.

Personally, I tried increasing the military wages and the results were positive (no more huge armies for minors). It seems to me that you have gone several steps forward, so I would be grateful if you could give us more info on the changes you made (or upload some of your modified files)...

 

[Iarodus]

Personally, I tried increasing the military wages and the results were positive (no more huge armies for minors). It seems to me that you have gone several steps forward, so I would be grateful if you could give us more info on the changes you made (or upload some of your modified files)...

Well as a general rule I think I did +/- 20% on the division changes mentioned and +/- 10% on the global changes. As for the Chinese OoB I upped the power of militia, got rid of understrength at start units, and upgraded some divisions to 1936 tech. I'm going to get the vanilla files to see what I changed to make sure I didn't do anything crazy and also run a few more test games to ensure the results are as I've seen before. So far in my current one they are at least. I apologize though, I would be a bit more proactive on the matter but this is my non-sober night.

I should note that I would suspect my changes are open to extreme gaming. I always build generally historically so it works for me, but, for example, I may have made armor so powerful that 40 armor divisions can do far more than 10 armor and 90 infantry divisions. Or maybe not, I can't test for every exploit alone.

I did think about modifying military wages, but I suspected the AI would ignore it and build as many divisions as it could and then just have 1939 tech in 1944. I think I should add that if it works.

 

[Iarodus]

Germany itself isn't necessarily OP, it simply just doesn't make the crucial mistakes Hitler did (aka not listening to his generals). Germany could've easily won the war in the east by taking Moscow in the fall of 1941 (to anyone not researched on the matter, Moscow was the center of all major and main communications, supply routes, roads etc. - you can compare taking Moscow from the USSR in 1941 to chopping the head off a chicken) as was originally planned, but Hitler changed his mind, only to later change it again. And by that time it was already too late, mainly due to the mud season and later the freezing winter.

That's just one example of his many big strategical mistakes during WWII.

What I'm saying is that it's not really Germany that should be changed, but its AI.

That's one of the reasons WW2 especially is one of the hardest wars to properly develop a wargame for. There were a bunch of mistakes that doomed Germany, but then there were a bunch of mistakes that doomed various allied nations. Is a human player going to repeat them? Probable not. So yeah, the AI is what mostly needs to change but it also needs to change based on who the human player(s) is(are).

 

[unmerged(155178)]

Militia\inf are super weak because of the stacking penalties. Any sense in reducing stacking penalty for armor in Blitzkrieg, reducing penalty for inf\militia in Human Wave? That plus some cheap inf\mil ministers for the Soviet Union could better model how they performed, rather than just raising IC.

 

[unmerged(136398)]

That's one of the reasons WW2 especially is one of the hardest wars to properly develop a wargame for. There were a bunch of mistakes that doomed Germany, but then there were a bunch of mistakes that doomed various allied nations. Is a human player going to repeat them? Probable not. So yeah, the AI is what mostly needs to change but it also needs to change based on who the human player(s) is(are).

All in all Barbarossa was well-executed by the Germans, and choosing to eliminate the Kiev pocket and free up more German troops for the front was reasonable given the large quantities of Russian soldiers trapped there. The problem was that the Russians were tougher and more robust than expected. Although they lost millions of men, they were able to replenish their losses and continue the fight.

And in AoD the AI commits far more mistakes than the historical belligerents did. You see German divisions invading too deeply and being encircled and destroyed, the Italians stacking Albania, Greece, neglecting North Africa and losing it already in 1941, and Commonwealth divisions landing with single divisions that end up being evaporated without a struggle... The difference is that in AoD, Germany has 300 divisions in time for Barbarossa, while in reality they had ~150; the British have 150 divisions (incl. Commonwealth troops) whereas they in reality fielded ~35, etc..

 

[unmerged(208610)]

No...it was not. Hitler's generals themselves regarded the Kiev operation as an abysmal blunder. Hitler's insistence on it may have thrown away the the only chance the Germans had to defeat Russia. Without the Kiev battle the Germans could have been in Moscow by August.

452,700 Soviet soldiers were surrounded in the largest encirclement in human history. 4 soviet armies evaporated. Yet you would have the Germans march 200km to meet the more readily defensible capital of the USSR with just as many soldiers. Whilst the Ukraine soviets would have surely kept their peace.

Though I wouldn't be surprised why someone who calls himself "Teutonic 88" favor some historical revisionism.

You'd think someone named PanzerJaeger would show some more respect.

 

[Balesir]

Keep it civil, please - making personal attacks and accusations is not allowed. This is a warning.

 

[unmerged(36286)]

Keep it civil, please - making personal attacks and accusations is not allowed. This is a warning.

So as not to derail this thread I have responded to you in a private message.

 

[unmerged(36286)]

452,700 Soviet soldiers were surrounded in the largest encirclement in human history. 4 soviet armies evaporated. Yet you would have the Germans march 200km to meet the more readily defensible capital of the USSR with just as many soldiers. Whilst the Ukraine soviets would have surely kept their peace.

Fedor von Bock, Guderian and almost all of the German generals involved in Operation Barbarossa vehemently argued in favor of continuing the all-out drive toward Moscow. Besides the psychological importance of capturing the enemy's capital, Moscow was a major center of arms production and the center of the Soviet communications and transportation system.

The only one who wanted Kiev encircled was Hitler.

I'd take the views of the German general staff, and the views of almost all professional historians, over the views of an Austrian corporal and some random Wermacht fanboys on the internet.

Sure, they captured a lot of soldiers at Kiev..but there were a lot more in the USSR's manpower reserve. When fighting a Hydra, it doesn't matter how many heads you chop off, you have to stab it in the heart.

To relate this to the thread topic -

The game inadequately models the logistical difficulties of fighting in Russia and Russia's manpower advantages. As it is these factors kick in only when Germany has reached the Urals - the game needs to be tweaked so that these things make an impact earlier.

You'd think someone named PanzerJaeger would show some more respect.

My forum name indicates my enthusiasm for panzers and armored fighting vehicles - a hobby that unfortunately leads one into occasional contact with a certain 'type' of person, who becomes easy to recognize after a while.