106 Beta 3

[kane279]

GC'36 as Germany: some experiences from a Nov 1940 perspective

Sealion in Summer 1940 is possible, UK didn't build many interceptors (had only 4 at start of campaign with 1 in development). The Royal Navy did their best but was no match to the far more modern Kriegsmarine. RN lost about 60 ships in a series of battles in the english channel, UK held the islands for about 6 weeks which is ok, I didn't expect more resistence without any airforce and the better part of the RN beaten and the rest holing up in gibraltar.
All in all: still possible early on but UK defends fierce and well. With better buildup in the pre-war time (more interceptors, maybe 3 extra inf for homeland defence - maybe via event?) and the british islands should become a real challenge!

While conquering Yugoslavia I've experienced an oddity: When trying to attack across a river with INF the attack time was alsways 4 hours in the future. when attacking from another field without river in between everything was fine.

Italy is a real good and competent help for germany in northern africa. quite ahistoric ;-) More help for the allies from AUS, NZL and CAN would certainly help here

Japan reached the line just above Nanjing in fall 1939 (line Nantong to Baoji)
...and did NOTHING in the time to Nov 1940 now.
They are in supply, have good org, well deployed troops - they just don't attack any longer.
and they never try to attack from the south (french-indo china) into Guanxi areas.
I would at least suggest to make the area around Nanjing (Shanghai, Hangzou) a higher priority target than the western areas.
In the south Hainan & Guangzou would make logic targets

USSR buildup seems fine: 36 ARM/ LARM, 64 MOT, 176 INF ... makes me sweat when thinking of barbarossa in a few month

 

[MegaPIMP]

My own observations as Germany into 1948:
The Brits had lots of stuff guarding the home islands for awhile, beating back my invasion attempts (I did not expand the navy short of more transports and destroyers). After Italy joined the fight they quickly abandoned the home islands with everything but garrison divisions, allowing me to roll over them shortly after taking France.
Only the Royal Navy put up a fight but weren't quick enough to stop my marines from landing after the third attempt. I did not need air support.

Italy got halted pretty quickly by the British and then invaded in Sicily and the main boot of Italy, only my Intervention saved them (probably where all the British home defense divisions went).

Japan invaded well but stopped after taking the bulk of China, leaving only the rear industrial areas/VPs. The AI did really poorly against partisan uprisings, leaving no mobile divisions in the rear area and letting the partisans take vast territory each uprising before doing something about it.

Despite the British losing the home islands and having almost no divisions in India, the Japanese AI did a shoddy job of invading India, or even Burma (didn't get anywhere with the few divisions set aside for it). The same for the invasion of Indonesia, leaving several large Dutch islands untaken until very very late (1945+) when they managed to invade half of Australia.

The Soviets did a good job of building up, did not accept the Molotov pact and sat quietly looking angry in massive doomstacks across the border. We had a nice little cold war going on there (while I quietly invaded and took all of Africa / The Middle East).

The Americans lost well over 1.2 million men doing...stuff. A botched invasion of the British islands, didn't show up in Africa at all except for their airforce (which reduced Italys IC to 4, the AI did nothing to repair it despite total German air coverage for years afterwards), took Singapore/kicked Thailands ass and then racked up massive casualties fighting Japanese garrisons or something. Mostly sat around in 40+ doomstacks twiddling their thumbs while 2-4 Japanese divisions sat in various pockets in Singapore for months. Not the best showing exactly.

 

[Pioniere]

Croatia

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

When I annexed Yugoslavia and went for setup Croatia Germany is occupying Zagreb I think this is wrong.
Croatia should be free from German occupation just be German puppet.. Is it a new ting that the Croatian army corps should start in Zagreb?

[/URL] Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/IMG]

A lot of missing pictures for N. Ireland's teach teams.

savegame: File Name: Croatia.eug save game.rar
http://www.sendspace.com/file/csaiu6

 

[MegaPIMP]

Second test game, as Italy, 1936 - 1943.
I decided not to join the Axis, but give the German AI a hand when it needed it. I took over Yugoslavia Early and Greece joined the Axis (along with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria). While the British wouldn't be tied up with Italy, Germany wouldn't need to waste time in Yugoslavia and Greece (even gaining an early ally there). Turns out that didn't work out so well...

The German AI rolled the west easily enough while the British AI invaded Greece and eventually rolled up Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungaria and Slovakia all on its own. Suffering some 750 000 losses in total by 1943. The German AI could not force them back, due to Barbarossa.

As for Barbarossa, the usual happened with the German AI running into a brick wall and never even getting close to St Petersburg, Moscow or Stalingrad. Running up way more casualties than the Soviets. By the time of 1943 the German AI had suffered 1.8M casaulties in total and had run out of manpower, losing division after division through combat attrition.

The Soviet AI had lost not even 1.4M and that with my Italy invading the Baku area through annexed Turkey, tying up some 50 Soviet divisions and inflicting 100-200k casualties.

Meanwhile the US AI was using Strategic bomber to cut down the German Industry to less than 200 IC! Either the AI is horrible at stopping bombers or they are a wee bit overpowered, weak as the German AI is already.

The Japanese totally failed to invade anything beyond Shanxi and Guang in the south, getting rolled back handily by the Chinese AI. The Japanese AI also failed to annex the Phillipines, occupy Singapore or conquer more than 50% of Indonesia. They sat foot in Burma but got pushed out by the few british divisions left there.

As it is now the Soviets can almost defeat the German AI on its own, easily with the British helping and with the Strategic bombers swarms of the US AI its not even close to a fair fight. I quit in the summer of 1943 but the Soviets were soon gonna be in Poland and probably Berlin by 1944 (if the British tank swarms operating out of Slovakia don't beat them to the punch).
Giving Germany 200-300 more manpower might help (were Germany really completely dry on manpower after 1.5M losses historically? Even so its not working out gameplay wise for the AI), but the problem is probably more on the side of the Soviets who feel way stronger than they should early on.

 

[Kirkegaard]

I have so far only played ½ game as germany, with a 10% bonus to everything for all other nations.

My thought so far:

Nat vs. Rep. Spain as always stalemate again. Maybe if the war is undecided at 1940 there should be made a temporary and very aggressive AI for both nations to decide the battle fast.

USSR is hard, okay I gave them a bonus (+10%) and Romania ended up in war with Italy = annexed but I have so far failed doing a real successful babarossa and have only managed to take a few areas, and some I have even lost again. Maybe USSR still have a bit to high morale/org.

Japan do also have a hard time.

 

[Mattias]

Ther German production needs to be better balanced

I have played a couple gamed as The Netherlands - great fun with very limited resources - but quite soon my 4 Fokker interceptors managed to achieve limited air superiority over my 2 remaining provinces and I wondered why. When I loaded as Germany in September 1940 I noticed they had built vast numbers of aircraft but (not very surprising) could not reinforce them nor their also quite numerous armoured divisions.

The result of this was a German army fighting almost the entire war with severely understrength air and armoured units despite having lots of manpower left. Because of this - and the losses they took assaulting the well fortified Dutch army - they got stuck in Belgium and quickly lost when Stalin finished his preparations in the summer of 1942. Germany was quickly divided between France and the Soviet Union.

My suggestion is to adjust the German build AI so it produces less aircraft and a bit less armour and some more cheap infantry (as they had to do IRL because of the same reason). /Mattias

 

[Mattias]

... Nat vs. Rep. Spain as always stalemate again. Maybe if the war is undecided at 1940 there should be made a temporary and very aggressive AI for both nations to decide the battle fast

The Spanish civil war was a stalemate for long periods - and could easilly hav been for much longer than IRL if the Republicans hadn't started so many unprepared offensives. IMHO it works quite well in game, with the fascists usually winning 1937-1940, compared to 1939 IRL. /Mattias

 

[Denniss]

I have played a couple gamed as The Netherlands - great fun with very limited resources - but quite soon my 4 Fokker interceptors managed to achieve limited air superiority over my 2 remaining provinces and I wondered why. When I loaded as Germany in September 1940 I noticed they had built vast numbers of aircraft but (not very surprising) could not reinforce them nor their also quite numerous armoured divisions.

The result of this was a German army fighting almost the entire war with severely understrength air and armoured units despite having lots of manpower left. Because of this - and the losses they took assaulting the well fortified Dutch army - they got stuck in Belgium and quickly lost when Stalin finished his preparations in the summer of 1942. Germany was quickly divided between France and the Soviet Union.

Sounds more like the AI is not assigning enough IC to reinforce units.

 

[Kirkegaard]

Just lost a 27 ships fleet in a 5 sec. battle.

I got these two messages:
- our fleet in Kattegat has been completely annihilated
- We lost a naval battle against United Kingdom. (No ships where sunk)

I think the ships where lost because I tried to escape under the battle.

Edit: when I'm looking at navel battle statistic, I have no losses in this battle.

 

[kane279]

Nat vs. Rep. Spain as always stalemate again.

at my game Nat.Spain won in early '39

USSR is hard, okay I gave them a bonus (+10%) ... Maybe USSR still have a bit to high morale/org.

my game germany '36 at normal difficulty: Barbarossa started on 2.June '41 and ended in bitter peace for SOV in early november '41.
In the first month SOV lost about 1/2 it's divisions, in early August I had Moskow, in Early September Leningrad & Stalingrad. Quick breakthrough attacks to Sverdlov & Baku finished SOV off in late October

I was rather astonished an a bit disapointed because it was that easy. At start of Barbrossa I hab around 100 INF (about 30 tied down otherwise and not being part of Barbarossa), 12 MOT, 3 HQ, 3 MAR and 20 ARM. SOV had 175 INF, 68 MOT, 1 HQ and 38 ARM! I would have guessed it would be a close call, but the SOV got slaughtered

 

[Pioniere]

in mid 42 I began to lose whole divisions with full strength and the did not retreat into enemy-lines. I lost 9 in one row each time I retreated in detraction to safety but they were eliminated. I will try one more time an other day with the same save-game if I get the same result I load up the savegame to aod tech support....been loong week any way...I throw in the towel...the flames of eastern front burns my soul..

-------------
Got his CTD yesterday

appname:aod game.exe
appver1.0.0.1
modname: aodgame.exe
modver1.0.0.1
offest:00001012
This happen during a sea battle. This was within the same savegame

 

[froglegs]

You all need to finally realize by now that your change in the misc file that adds (-2) attack for each ship beyond 2 rather than the time tested (-1) is a total failure when carriers are involved.

Playing as USA with normal settings except for (-30) on the human difficulty setting for combat a USA navy using 2 CV, 2 CL, and 1 DD (5 ships total) in fleets with good commanders (King, Nimitz, Halsey, Spruance) will absolutely totally destroy the entire Japanese AI navy in lessan than a year with perhaps just a couple of carriers lost themselves. Think about it -- the US fleet with the 5 ships is (-6) attack and the 30 ship IJN fleet with maybe 4-6 CV's and the rest BB, BC, CA, and the rest CL/DD are -56 combat attack. BUT ONLY THE CARRIERS ARE SHOOTING!!!

You programmers need to get your but in gear and figure out just how to change the exe file in your game so that carrier air attack strength is not reduced for CAG versus ship combat based upon the total number of ships in the given battle like it is for surface to surface combat.

Geeze!

 

[Gringoesteban]

You all need to finally realize by now that your change in the misc file that adds (-2) attack for each ship beyond 2 rather than the time tested (-1) is a total failure when carriers are involved.

I'm not sure whether -1 or -2 is better. It seems like the outcome of any naval battle would also be heavily impacted by leaders, weather, mix and models of ships in the opposing fleets, naval doctrines, etc.

example:
30 ship fleet, say it is composed of 15 capitals and 15 screens
assume all the capital ships are in range but none of the screens are
30 (-) 2 (=) 28
28 (x) 0.02 = 0.56 penalty
(1 - 0.56) (x)15 capital ships (=) 6.6 equivalent capital ship combat power

vs.

6 ship fleet, say it is composed of 3 capitals and 3 screens
assume all the capital ships are in range but none of the screens are
6 (-) 2 (=) 4
4 (x) 0.02 = 0.08 penalty
(1 - 0.08) (x) 3 capital ships (=) 2.8 equivalent capital ship combat power

All else being equal, the 30 ship fleet should blast the crap out of the smaller fleet at a 6.6 - 2.8 ratio. Also, the damage inflicted by the smaller fleet on the larger fleet would be spread out across more ships, so each individual ship in the larger fleet would take fewer hits.

If we use all the same assumptions as above but with a misc file factor of 0.01 rather than 0.02, then the larger fleet will dominate the smaller fleet even more, with odds of 10.8 - 2.9.

Given that in AoD large land stacks get nerfed via the stacking penalty feature, it seems logical to apply the a similar line-of-reasoning / design-philosophy to naval combat, too. With a misc file value of -0.02, the Player might use smaller fleets. With a misc file value of -0.01, the Player might use larger fleets. I am not sure there is an obvious answer to which value is better. In the misc file for the Third Reich AoD Mod, I have used both -0.01 or -0.02 depending on the version of the Mod, and nobody noticed or complained.

You programmers need to get your but[ts] in gear.... Geeze!

Making suggestions and/or disagreeing with the game's design philosophy is fine and to be expected. However, this comment seems a little harsh, doesn't it?

If you feel that strongly about it, edit your own misc file and use the value -0.01.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You all need to finally realize by now that your change in the misc file that adds (-2) attack for each ship beyond 2 rather than the time tested (-1) is a total failure when carriers are involved.

Playing as USA with normal settings except for (-30) on the human difficulty setting for combat a USA navy using 2 CV, 2 CL, and 1 DD (5 ships total) in fleets with good commanders (King, Nimitz, Halsey, Spruance) will absolutely totally destroy the entire Japanese AI navy in lessan than a year with perhaps just a couple of carriers lost themselves. Think about it -- the US fleet with the 5 ships is (-6) attack and the 30 ship IJN fleet with maybe 4-6 CV's and the rest BB, BC, CA, and the rest CL/DD are -56 combat attack. BUT ONLY THE CARRIERS ARE SHOOTING!!!

I don't agree with you math there either buddy.

6 Carriers x 0.44 (-56% penalty) = 2.64 equivalent CVs shooting.
4 Carriers x 0.48 (-52% penalty) = 1.92 equivalent CVs shooting.
2 Carriers x 0.94 (-6% penalty) = 1.88 equivalent CVs shooting.

Then you add the fact that the a US CV have a 14-20% chance to target a enemy CV (using 100% random targeting ) and the JAP CVs have a 40% chance to target a enemy CVs. This effectivelly at least doubles the Japanese efficiency compared to US meaning they over a long course of games should win this matchup easilly (all else being the same)

If their tech level and doctrines are the same the taskforce with 4-6 Japanese CVs should crush a US force with 2 CVs most of the time. Looks like you were a victim of some bad Random hits/targetings. Given how the mechanics work yes a critical hits from a CV at almost 100% efficiency is very lethal, but what ship it targets is still random (or should be), 2-3 times more CVs firing half as leathal hits should win in the long run unless the two CVs get lucky or can outrange them so badly they can't reach back.

To me this is a AI issue (if there is one at all) not a game mechanics Issue, you shouldn't change the game mechanics just because the AI doesn't know how to build a good CTF, you should change the AI....

 

[froglegs]

Forget the math! Run the stupid experiment!

As human take Halsey unpromoted, Nimitz unpromoted. and King unpromoted and assign them each to a fleet with 2 CV 4's or 5's, 2 CL 5's with AA & radar, and 1 DD 5 with AA. Base King and Nimitz at Pearl and Halsey at Aukland, set damage at 90% and run Naval Combat Patrol with King and Nimitz for sea zone off Wake and Halsey for Solomons ares -- just to keep it simple. Understand what I mean by set at 90%? Returns to base when less than at 90%.

At the end of 1 year tell me the stats! Run the stupid experiment!!!

 

[Templier]

Sealion in Summer 1940 is possible, UK didn't build many interceptors (had only 4 at start of campaign with 1 in development). The Royal Navy did their best but was no match to the far more modern Kriegsmarine. RN lost about 60 ships in a series of battles in the english channel, UK held the islands for about 6 weeks which is ok, I didn't expect more resistence without any airforce and the better part of the RN beaten and the rest holing up in gibraltar.

Hi,

Please help me. How did you manage to defeat them on land ? I threw 9 divisions (limited by my transport #, mostly 39' infantry, 2 tank div, no marines) into Plymouth, and the British repelled the amphibious landings after a few days fighting. I can take on their garrison units but I cannot stave off their motorized, Indian infantry and tank divisions for a successful beachhead. That's when my army's organization drains.

How many divisions do you properly need? I managed to take control of the channel sea. I used shore bombardment as well. I'm not faring well in the skies though.

 

[unmerged(90310)]

closed due to official release.