Grand Campaign Unit Revisions - Update for GC42-43West

[deducter]

Hi deducter,

I recently started a playthrough with your equipment file with -75% prestige. And so far I like it. I like it a lot. I had little difficulties in obtaining DVs during the 39` and 40` campaigns. My air force rained supreme on all fronts, but I had to be very careful with the positioning of my panzers. Out of my combat units, my infantry were always the ones to suffer the most casualties. Your equipment file changes contributed to a much more historical feel of the DLCs. I will post my core composition and and a brief overview of my experiences for `39 and `40 some other time, but I wanted to comment on the upcoming changes for the Allied units that you are contemplating.

I find -75% prestige to be the most enjoyable for 1939-1942, but by 1943, this difficulty is extremely brutal. I did successfully complete such a playthrough for 1943, but I had almost no prestige left at the end, and I knew I would be destroyed in 1944, so I had to up the prestige to -50% to continue. 1943-1945 is hard enough with just -50%, and I strongly recommend playing at that level even if you are an experienced player. You won't be disappointed by the challenge. I'd love to hear about Kiev43, the Bagration missions, and 1945 in general. However, note that I will be making 1943-1945 a little easier by expanding the reinforcement choices (also some more nerfs to the Soviets assault guns). It used to be that I always just waited until the end of scenarios and elite reinforced almost all units, but that's not interesting strategically. Basically I will make it so that in 1943-1945 normal reinforcements won't drain as much exp, and elite reinforcements in battle for all years will always be 25 higher than deployment stage, so in some situations you might want to spend some additional prestige for the extra combat boost immediately.

In anyway, I think that this warrants the reduction of INI of most of the US tanks by at least 1.

It's interesting that you proposed reducing the INI of US tanks. I already have values for the Red Army tanks, and I used that as a baseline. It just so happens that works out so that the US tanks will have about the same INI as their equivalent Red Army tanks, if we take say the 75mm gun to be in the same tier as the Soviet 76mm gun and the 76mm gun ~ the Soviet 85mm gun. I've already lowered the INI of most of the 1943-1945 Red Army tanks compared with the stock eqp file. Lowering it even more will be crippling to the AI. The it is critical that a good number of the AI's tanks have the INI value of 10 to maintain a challenge, because at that level each extra 100 exp gives 1 extra INI, allowing the AI to be much more aggressive with its attacks. If you lower the INI further, I found the AI will often sit there and refuse to attack with units like the T-34/85. So, despite your reasonable historical arguments, I think the current INI values for the American tanks cannot go lower for gameplay reasons.

This situation is similar with many Soviet units. The best Soviet fighters have stats that are too high if going by technical data, but I've found that to ensure the Red Air Force is actually threatening and capable of wrestling the Germans for air superiority in 1943-1945, I've had to inflate their combat values. So I sometimes give certain units an extra boost. My main goal is to make sure that combat between units feels historical.

That said, I haven't really tested 1942-1943W, so if the consensus is that the Allied tanks are too good, I'll reduce their combat values. My general philosophy is that the Western Allies should have air superiority, equivalent infantry and artillery, and inferior AFVs when compared with the Germans. I hope once I release the new version players can let me know what they think. The release should be today or tomorrow.

[ThvN]

Most German panzers were destroyed by US tac bombers and artillery.

Hello Koz_333, welcome to the forum. I might be a bit of a surprise, but ground attack aircraft caused relatively few direct losses to heavily armoured vehicles, their primary contribution was destruction of infrastructure, supplies and their transports. Artillery did contribute similarly. Most tanks were 'simply' taken out by (anti)tank guns. I'll give you some statistics for panzer loss causes and a link for the tac bombers, some of the information is pretty surprising:

Source: PanzerTruppen, author Jentz

The British analysed 110 panzers captured between the 6th of june and the 7th of August 44’:
53 put out of action by AP shot
8 by HEAT
9 by HE
1 by mines
7 by aircraft rocket
3 by aircraft cannon
7 demolished
4 abandoned
18 by unknown cause

note: demolished means blown up by crew, abandoned means left behind by crew (no fuel, got stuck, etc.)

Between the 8th of August and the 31st of August 223 panzers where analysed:
24 by AP shot
1 by HEAT
4 by HE
7 by aircraft rocket
1 by aircraft cannon
108 demolished
63 abandoned
13 by unknown causes

Between the 17th of December and the 16th of January 57 panzers in the northern part of the Ardennes salient where analysed:
18 by AP shot
3 by HE
1 by a bomb
3 by “possible” aircraft attack
13 demolished
11 abandoned
8 from unknown causes

An analysis about the effectiveness of ground attack aircraft in destroying tanks:
http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Bus ... ters4.html

official USAAF data on ground targets destroyed:
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t198.htm

[ThvN]

This is more or less what I thought. You'll note that I do have the INI for the the ISU-152 at 6 and the ISU-122 at 8 to be quite low. So I'm quite happy with how their direct fire mode is modeled. The obvious change is to make sure the ISU-122 can't be switched, and to reduce the range of most Soviet assault guns in ART mode to 2, except the SU-76 which will remain at 3.

My personal feeling is that a good blend between balance and history is to let the SU-76 and the SU-122 to switch, but remove the ability to switch for all other assault guns. However, there are quite a few preplaced SU-152 and ISU-152 in ART mode. I can go further and simply change their entries to their direct fire mode, but I'm not too sure about this change.

Yes, if they are preplaced that might be troublesome. As a compromise, you could keep the switch function for the (I)SU-152 but give the ARTY modes range 1? I don't know if you consider that a satisfactory solution of course...

[deducter]

I doubt the AI is capable of using range 1 artillery with any competency. Due to the way the AI works, I'm worried it'll simply drive its SU-152 in artillery mode up to a Panzer IV and try to suppress 2 steps, since that doesn't have any risk of losses, and the AI seems programmed to go for the lowest risk moves when possible. If we want the AI to switch, range = 2 is a minimum.

[deducter]

v1.9 Summary of Major Changes

Game rules
GreenReplacementsExp up to 40 in 1942 and 50 in 1943-1945 purely as balance changes
ScnEReplaceCost now always 25 higher than CamEReplaceCost, the same difference as using green reinforcements

This should make using both normal and elite reinforcements in battle and during deployment viable while keeping overstrength costs very high. Using normal reinforcements should save you prestige while not crippling your experience levels too much, while using limited elite reinforcements in battle during late war is affordable. No longer should elite reinforcing at the deployment stage feel like the only viable choice. In fact, I don't think there'll be any obvious choices with regards to reinforcement/overstrength now for all unit classes. For instance overstrengthing artillery was for the longest time the best use of prestige, but now, due to the presence of substantial Allied air power/artillery and the high cost of overstrength, this should no longer be the case. It'll be up to the player to decide what to do.

Western Allies units redone, highlights include:
-Consistent modeling of the various Western Allies guns
-All Western Allies AFV overhauled
-Bren carrier and M3 Halftrack changed to soft targets
-Powerful, durable American and British planes
-Western Allies infantry on par with those of the Germans
-Recon units tweaked, including moving various light tanks such as the Vickers and M3/M5 Stuart to the recon class
-British artillery has +1 ROF due to superior fire control
-American 155mm Long Tom has range = 4
-M7 defenses upped to the same as the M3 Lee
-Most British and American SP artillery have more appropriate defense values
-M16 MGMC ROF 10 to 12, so as to make this unit a 2cm Flakvierling 38 equivalent
-American AT guns have different images
-LRDG renamed SAS mobile grp

Soviet tweaks:
-Yak-1b introduced in 1943, Yak-1 and Yak-1b adjusted
-T-60 and T-70 have more historically correct armor
-Only the SU-76M and SU-122 are allowed to switch, all other Soviet assault guns are not.
-The SU-76M has range = 3, all other Soviet assault guns have range = 2
-76.2mm artillery and SU-76M in art mode ROF reduced from 11 to 10

Germany tweaks
-The introduction of many pieces of equipment is delayed on the Western Front in 1943. Furthermore, the costs for these units are generally higher than in GC43East. This is because of the high demand for AFVs on the Eastern Front.
-Air units use GC43East values for both cost and combat power. In addition, the FW 190A is available immediately in 1942, as is historically correct.
-Captured French equipment available for purchase during the first 5 missions of GC43West
-1944 Panther costs reduced by 5%
-Halftrack-mounted Flak cost reduced by 20-30%
-17 cm artillery ROF 6 to 7, 21 cm artillery attack slightly reduced

Italian troops adjusted. Highlights include:
-Italian Infantry have 15 strength but 7 ROF. In game terms, they have extra hit points but very little offensive combat potential.
-Bersaglieri has move = 4.
-Alpini upgraded to 43 variant.
-The cost for most non-infantry units are reduced by 33% to make them cheaper to reinforce.
-G.55 Centauro’s defenses very significantly increased.
-Most Italian armor are still of poor quality.

[orlinos]

Doing Prokhorovka just now, for the second time. The first was to mostly see what is going down - I had very bad unit placement (gathered far too much close to the Rzhavets, where the player is actually blocked by trenches by the river).

I left some infantry to enjoy summer in Russia (while they still can) and moved infantry forces to the forests in the middle.

I bought another SdKfz 7/2 - now I have two, plus two 88 - and a temporary 3.7 FlaK with no transport to support my troops in Rzhavets, since on the first try my artillery was massacred by Russian airforce and I couldn't do a thing.

Russian Airforce do seem agressive - are they stressed or what?! I just witnessed a Sturmovik bomber attacking my new SPAAG and taking half strenght point's of it! I guess it believed it to be the best target, all other units being well covered. It also did much damage to one of my fighters (it only had 3 stars and I have trouble retraining it, since the Reds keep pounding it).

And it was just the first turn...

Deducter, I can't compare '43 to vanilla, since I've never been that far, but the feeling during play is definitely different from previous DLC's. I guess I am experiencing exactly what my enemies were experiencing during 39-42. Lots of aggressive airforce, hard-hitting artillery and powerful infantry. I often have to keep towed artillery in the back, since the Russians will take all overstrength off it in a second. My infantry gets nervous when they hear the Katyushas are near. I am happy I invested in some self-propelled arty - although I still haven't bought half of the new toys - I only got a Brummbär, still no Wespe or Hummel. Before Kursk, I felt like a woman on a shopping spree.

Back to those damned steps, where I feel totally lost in the open spaces...

[4kEY]

Deducter, what about making specific 'versions' for specific difficulties? For example, your newest proposals for the Eastern Front being applicable to the 'bonus' diffuculties. Since I'm playing on General I feel obliged to play through on the v1.84 I have now...however, the 1944 cost reductions still seem very appealing.

I'm about to begin Barbarossa, and I do realize I'm unqualified to make a suggestion like this - not having played through v1.84 yet.

[deducter]

Doing Prokhorovka just now, for the second time. The first was to mostly see what is going down - I had very bad unit placement (gathered far too much close to the Rzhavets, where the player is actually blocked by trenches by the river).

I left some infantry to enjoy summer in Russia (while they still can) and moved infantry forces to the forests in the middle.

I bought another SdKfz 7/2 - now I have two, plus two 88 - and a temporary 3.7 FlaK with no transport to support my troops in Rzhavets, since on the first try my artillery was massacred by Russian airforce and I couldn't do a thing.

Russian Airforce do seem agressive - are they stressed or what?! I just witnessed a Sturmovik bomber attacking my new SPAAG and taking half strenght point's of it! I guess it believed it to be the best target, all other units being well covered. It also did much damage to one of my fighters (it only had 3 stars and I have trouble retraining it, since the Reds keep pounding it).

And it was just the first turn...

Deducter, I can't compare '43 to vanilla, since I've never been that far, but the feeling during play is definitely different from previous DLC's. I guess I am experiencing exactly what my enemies were experiencing during 39-42. Lots of aggressive airforce, hard-hitting artillery and powerful infantry. I often have to keep towed artillery in the back, since the Russians will take all overstrength off it in a second. My infantry gets nervous when they hear the Katyushas are near. I am happy I invested in some self-propelled arty - although I still haven't bought half of the new toys - I only got a Brummbär, still no Wespe or Hummel. Before Kursk, I felt like a woman on a shopping spree.

Back to those damned steps, where I feel totally lost in the open spaces...

I reduced the cost of the half-track mounted Flak quite a bit in v1.9, and also later on you can get the Panzer-chassis flak, which are plenty armored against the Soviet planes. I also continue to use 88 guns, but you could upgrade ones with attack heroes with SPAAG, and watch them knock out the Russians out of the sky.

Remember that you are meant to overstrength some units. I think infantry are the best bet, followed by panzers with +IN and +Attack heroes. You want to try to unlearn the concept of overstrengthing all artillery and all bombers, which was by far the best use of prestige in the stock eqp file, but this is no longer the case. There's no obvious choice to overstrength anymore, beyond perhaps your SE infantry, since those units are so good. Also overstrength at least 2 fighters for Prokhorovka, your best bets are +IN and +attack heroes. I try to have all my fighters be 3-4 stars for this scenario point. Make use of mass attack tactics with planes too. The Russians are particularly vulnerable to that. Note, for instance, units like a 2 star La-5FN which has IN = 12 (10 + 2). If you have even one plane assisting with mass attack, the INI will drop down to 10 (9 + 1), which is a huge difference.

Deducter, what about making specific 'versions' for specific difficulties? For example, your newest proposals for the Eastern Front being applicable to the 'bonus' diffuculties. Since I'm playing on General I feel obliged to play through on the v1.84 I have now...however, the 1944 cost reductions still seem very appealing.

I'm about to begin Barbarossa, and I do realize I'm unqualified to make a suggestion like this - not having played through v1.84 yet.

There's no need to make different versions for different difficulties, although I might decide to make a customized diff.pzdat file, with more graduated levels of prestige differences. If you are a veteran player, someone who finds the GCs with the stock eqp file unchallenging unless you intentionally handicap yourself by weakening your core, you should play on Rommel. I think even the best players will find the game hard for 1943-1945. If you consider yourself an average player and just want a more historical experience, playing on General is a great choice. 1943-1945 will still be plenty challenging.

You should always update to the newest version. You can just override the files, and as soon as you load a new scenario the games will take place. The changes to elite reinforcements are huge for 1943-1945.

[orlinos]

I reduced the cost of the half-track mounted Flak quite a bit in v1.9, and also later on you can get the Panzer-chassis flak, which are plenty armored against the Soviet planes. I also continue to use 88 guns, but you could upgrade ones with attack heroes with SPAAG, and watch them knock out the Russians out of the sky.

Remember that you are meant to overstrength some units. I think infantry are the best bet, followed by panzers with +IN and +Attack heroes. You want to try to unlearn the concept of overstrengthing all artillery and all bombers, which was by far the best use of prestige in the stock eqp file, but this is no longer the case. There's no obvious choice to overstrength anymore, beyond perhaps your SE infantry, since those units are so good. Also overstrength at least 2 fighters for Prokhorovka, your best bets are +IN and +attack heroes. I try to have all my fighters be 3-4 stars for this scenario point. Make use of mass attack tactics with planes too. The Russians are particularly vulnerable to that. Note, for instance, units like a 2 star La-5FN which has IN = 12 (10 + 2). If you have even one plane assisting with mass attack, the INI will drop down to 10 (9 + 1), which is a huge difference.

Prokhorovka was a unit killer and great fun. After adjusting my initial deployment, I was doing really good – a KV-1B and a Ferdinand were sufficient to protect Rzhavets – along with a newly bought infantry (I found out I seem to only have 2 ordinary infantry units at that moment and wanted more, for their move 3). I turned it temporarily into Grenadiers, so they did well despite being green.

To get Kartashyovka in the north, I sent a T-34, a Sherman (to keep it in the woods), Panzer IIF, 2 infantry and Pioniers. They did great, but at the end the one auxilliary SPAAG was not sufficient to keep Red Airforce away. When I think about this now, I should have bought a cheap Flakvierling after getting into the city. It would save me much prestige.

The big tank battle in the open went quite all right, unexpectedly. At this moment, I have a nice and veteran core of tanks, with 2 SE Tigers and a SE Panther (with D+2 and Move+1! it’s faster and more deadly than Vin Diesel!). I found it a good idea to turn my 2 old veteran SE tanks (IIIM’s) into heavy tanks. The bonus fuel is very helpful.

I also had 2 experienced Marders and a new Hornisse, 2 Panzer IV H’s and an old Panzer IIIM which somehow managed to climb up to +5 overstrenght when I wasn't watching.

I was doing great, until I boldly attacked Hill 247. I succeeded, but during just a single turn I lost:
- Ju 88A (why upgrade it? It’s cheaper this way and my fighters will protect it. Oh no! Never protect a bomber with understrength fighters…)
- a brand new Brummbar
- a Marder IID
- a new SdKfz 7/2.

Thank Rudankort for "reform units".

I managed to conquer one victory hex in Prokhorovka and stopped a few turns from getting Maloyablonovo. Still, I decided not to repeat this scenario again, since overall it I did quite good and I can deal with losses. Also, it was too awesome a fight for me, just to repeat it.

---
I definitely overstrenght infantry, I love it too much and find very useful. I admit I put a bit too much prestige into artillery, this will slowly have to stop. I also learned when to use mobile and heavily protected artillery, and when to use towed – usually I keep it in the back, so as not to get it shot by Russians. Obviously, Range heroes are helpful.

I find medium tanks and Marders to be great prestige savers and I like putting overstrength points in them. The IIIM, for example, if treated carefully and protected from bombers, will protect my flanks and hardly lose overstrength points, since most tanks won’t attack it. And 15 strength mean it will do great destroying stuff I don’t want to waste a Tiger’s turn on.

Tigers and Panthers get hit more often, since I often use them very aggressively, so I generally avoid overstrength.

---
I use a lot of mass air attacks. I slowly stop using Stukas very often, since the Russians will hit them too hard, even through overstrengthened and double (or triple) cover. I guess I should only use them at the end of a scenario, when Russians are weakened.

Fw 190F and Me 410A are very helpful when I try to gather a big mass attack bonus (obviously I position them so that they are defended after the attack). They allow other fighters to be used as tank protection elsewhere. And they can still deal some ground damage, when needed. I haven’t yet used Bf 110G, so I can’t comment on it as a dedicated bomber killer.


---
The new replacement rules work great. I still tend to avoid mid-scenario replacement for most tanks, unless I really need them. But I need to repair my planes, since Russians often tend to concentrate few fighters on a plane with no overstrength and harm it severely. Being able to e-replace during the scenario means it’s back in action quickly and my prestige levels do not suffer that hard. Previously I had to choose between leaving such plane on the airfield (and having less planes to defend my ground units), breaking the bank with e-replacements or letting the plane loose half experience (and become an even better Russian magnet).

[deducter]

The new replacement rules work great. I still tend to avoid mid-scenario replacement for most tanks, unless I really need them. But I need to repair my planes, since Russians often tend to concentrate few fighters on a plane with no overstrength and harm it severely. Being able to e-replace during the scenario means it’s back in action quickly and my prestige levels do not suffer that hard. Previously I had to choose between leaving such plane on the airfield (and having less planes to defend my ground units), breaking the bank with e-replacements or letting the plane loose half experience (and become an even better Russian magnet).

Are normal reinforcements acceptable to use now? I'd be curious about what % of the time you reach for normal vs elite reinforcements. Personally I use normal reinforcements about 50% of the time now.

[orlinos]

Are normal reinforcements acceptable to use now? I'd be curious about what % of the time you reach for normal vs elite reinforcements. Personally I use normal reinforcements about 50% of the time now.

I did no measurements, so I cannot give precise percentage. Generally, I use elite reinforcements:

- When the unit is truly my elite, especially if it is infantry - unless it's close to maximum anyway.
- When reinforcing fighters. When I used green pilots, I just drew brutal attention to such unit and wished there was a possibility of fighters escorting other fighters.
- Cheap but useful units, like Marders or StuG's. Since they are no Tigers, they definitely need high experience to be useful.
- When a unit truly lost lots of strength and normal reinforcements would almost turn it into a green one. In my experience, this just leads to constant damage in the future, so it's better to pay now. I might still retreat such unit to reinforce it between scenarios and save some prestige - especially if current scenario is near the end.

Very often I use normal replacements when a unit only lost few strength points and experience drop is rather low (0-1 star). Since I am now much better at keeping casualties low, I do not have to do it too often.

Very expensive units generally get normal replacements. Tigers can do fine with 1-2 stars anyway.

[4kEY]

Wehrmacht forces at the start of Minsk41:

4th Wehrmacht Inf - 461/84 - A3
10th Grenadier - 483/32 - A2
Pioniere - 738/20 - Spotting +2
2nd SS Inf - 851/49 - A1/A2
1st SS Gren. - 501/32 - D3
20th Kradschutzen - 483/82 - D1
42nd Pz.IB - 16/3
25th Pz.38t - 353/53 - D1
18th Pz.IVE - 408/26 - D2
30th Pz.IIF - 45/35
40th Pz.II Flamm - 0/0
CharB1 - 35/2
1st SS Pz.IIIH - 405/22 - D2
3rd SS Pz.IVD - 27/8
1st Sdkfz 232 - 244/56
5th 3.7cm Knocking-Device - 110/42
32nd Pz.Jager IB - 64/17
24th 10.5cm leFH 18 - 3/0
16th 15cm sFH 18 - 475/3 - R1
3rd 17cm K18 - 347/13 - A3
19th 15cm Nebelwerfer - 16/0
50th StugIIIB - 0/0
36th StugIIIB - 73/4
6th StugIIIB - 374/5 - A2
41st Wurfrahmen - 0/0
38th Bf09F - 35/1
26th Bf109F - 202/4 - A2
11th Ju87B - 790/14 - D3
15th Ju87B - 903/21 - A3
31st Bf110D - 122/14
37th Bf110D - 87/12
34th Ju88 - 180/8 - A1
28th He111H2 - 86/9

Reserve:
49th Fallschirmjager - 8/5
23rd Fallschirmjager - 271/7 - D1
9th BridgeEngineer - 110/32
12th Pz.IIIH - 260/41 - A2
8th Pz.IIF - 191/55
Somua - 167/11
CharB1 - 16/1
MatildaII - 69/6
MatildaII - 10/6
18th Sdkfz 222 - 8/8
39th Sdkfz 231 - 4/8
33rd 3.7cm Knocking-Device - 0/0
20th 7.5cm FK - 3/7
13th 15cm Nebelwerfer - 351/18 - R1
21st Sturmpanzer - 109/25
105mm Wz.29 - 265/16
22nd 3.7cm Flak - 54/2
43rd 8.8cm Flak - 13/4
2nd 8.8cm Flak - 271/3 - A3
27th Sdkfz 7/1 - 128/16
35th Bf109E - 166/10
7th Bf109E - 454/27 - D2
17th Bf109F - 160/11 - A1

Prestige: 15,666

I'll probably do this at the beginning of each campaign. I'll record any interesting experiences or necessary feedback as well, especially later on.

As I said earlier, my Dad is also playing this mod. He's about to Stalingrad, and he's used two tactics all along which have made his forces into an utterly unstoppable steamroller: 1. when he reaches, clears, and surrounds the final objective in a scenario he will have what he calls a "turkey shoot". This is where one lets the AI use its prestige to buy more units for the player to kill. This can go on for a long time and leads to an insane number of kills (see 2.) 2. He'll keep re-rolling the dice to get super-hero batman bonuses.

Honestly, this is my first play through the game in a long time where I HAVE NOT practiced tactic #2. However, after looking at my core I'm tempted to have a turkey shoot or two to boost the experience of my units. I'm not sure whether to consider this cheating or not, as one is taking advantage of a natural gameplay feature...does anyone have an opinion on turkey shoots?

[orlinos]

[...]
As I said earlier, my Dad is also playing this mod. He's about to Stalingrad, and he's used two tactics all along which have made his forces into an utterly unstoppable steamroller: 1. when he reaches, clears, and surrounds the final objective in a scenario he will have what he calls a "turkey shoot". This is where one lets the AI use its prestige to buy more units for the player to kill. This can go on for a long time and leads to an insane number of kills (see 2.) 2. He'll keep re-rolling the dice to get super-hero batman bonuses.

Honestly, this is my first play through the game in a long time where I HAVE NOT practiced tactic #2. However, after looking at my core I'm tempted to have a turkey shoot or two to boost the experience of my units. I'm not sure whether to consider this cheating or not, as one is taking advantage of a natural gameplay feature...does anyone have an opinion on turkey shoots?

1. I think it's a valid tactic, since it’s “legal” in the game, but for me it would be too boring. You can always adjust unit’s experience by using a cheat (exp #N - sets experience of the selected unit to #N) – the same result, without the grind.

Personally I do consider "training purposes" when picking targets and hitters, but not to the extent of a grind. For example - while preparing for Prokhorovka I’ve decided I’ll need more ordinary infantry in the future. I created a Grenadier unit, put it in a hex which would be heavily attacked anyway and defended it through the whole scenario. I’ll downgrade it in the future, when it’s more experienced. (It won’t be soon, since it died by surrender in Dnipropetrovsk)

2. I prefer accepting what faith brings me. It makes the game a bit different each time – if I get a Move hero on an artillery or FlaK unit – unit’s usage feels totally different. I got an Ini hero on one of my Pionieres – they play like Grenadiers on steroids! While normal Pionieres inflict heavy damage but also heavy losses if the enemy is not well-bombarded. But on another playthrough – I will have to adjust to different hero compositions.


Coming back to experience. Lately, I did some artificial test in the editor, to find the fastest methods to train units (I had some unit loses and after reforming them I slowly retrain them). It seems that a unit receives more experience, the more formidable enemy it faces AND the more damage it causes.

Now I understand, why my Pionieres had trouble gaining experience and trailed behind the rest of the infantry – not only I used them sparingly, as a specialized unit, but also only on heavily suppressed enemies. If I want to level a unit fast I should let it fight a tough enemy, incur some losses and e-replace it afterwards.

[4kEY]

Yes, Orlinos. It also seems to me that the AI is programmed to reward the player for "accepting" certain things. I like the limited randomness as it does make the game more interesting, and maybe from a certain perspective more realistic. I suppose I should also state here that this is the first play-through in a long time where I have not saved after almost every move and re-rolled/re-played engagements that "did not taste right". The latter has certainly helped me develop as a player because you can immediately learn and revise your tactics to more efficiently use your forces in a particular sector.

"Coming back to experience. Lately, I did some artificial test in the editor, to find the fastest methods to train units (I had some unit loses and after reforming them I slowly retrain them). It seems that a unit receives more experience, the more formidable enemy it faces AND the more damage it causes."


What sort of test? Did you artificially strenghten AI STR or EXP? What about entrenchment? Unit class?
I found that the German unit's ROF seems to factor into the equation, as well as overstrength (though maybe indirectly). Basically, the more red-dice-rolls you get the more EXP gained. I had not considered at all the strength or quality of the opposing unit at all...

[orlinos]

Yes, Orlinos. It also seems to me that the AI is programmed to reward the player for "accepting" certain things. I like the limited randomness as it does make the game more interesting, and maybe from a certain perspective more realistic. I suppose I should also state here that this is the first play-through in a long time where I have not saved after almost every move and re-rolled/re-played engagements that "did not taste right". The latter has certainly helped me develop as a player because you can immediately learn and revise your tactics to more efficiently use your forces in a particular sector.

I reloaded all the time on my first campaign, now I find it better to replay whole scenarios (if I play like an idiot, which is quite often) rather than individual engagements, although that might be helpful from time to time. I often replay end-turns – less for the re-rolls, but rather for the changes in tactics. I am slow, so I often have to improvise on the last turn, to get a DV.

A good thing about “letting things go” and not doing too much reloading is that sometimes great situations – almost adventures! – happen, when I have to make some frantic improvisation to get out of a hopeless mess.

"Coming back to experience. Lately, I did some artificial test in the editor[...]

What sort of test? Did you artificially strenghten AI STR or EXP? What about entrenchment? Unit class?
I found that the German unit's ROF seems to factor into the equation, as well as overstrength (though maybe indirectly). Basically, the more red-dice-rolls you get the more EXP gained. I had not considered at all the strength or quality of the opposing unit at all...

Nothing that fancy! I just banged on a lone Panzerjäger 1B with heavy Russian tanks (KV’s, T-34/41’s etc.) and a Matilda. Sometimes the Panzerjäger was defended by StuG artillery, sometimes not.

If I bombarded enemy hard and even enforced surrender – AT earned very little experience. If Panzerjäger was hit very hard and wasn’t able to really strike back – it earned very little. If I got lucky and Panzerjäger hit first and hard – it managed to earn one star after this single fight.

(Obviously, it’s all a bit silly, since the tanks were too advanced and way beyond the capabilities of the Panzerjäger. But hey, it was fun).

I think ROF and overstrength should both matter, because the more dice you roll, the more points you can remove off the enemy. That is why so little experience is when enemy is fully suppressed – the unit is not actually fighting any strength points.

I have no idea in details, how experience gain is calculated. If it is the statistics (Attack, Defense etc,) that matter – than both experience and entrenchment raise them. But Rudankort would be a better person to ask about the details.

[orlinos]

Nothing that fancy! I just banged on a lone Panzerjäger 1B with heavy Russian tanks (KV’s, T-34/41’s etc.) and a Matilda. Sometimes the Panzerjäger was defended by StuG artillery, sometimes not.

More tests, with Wehrmacht Infantry killing 3 different Matilda 2's in the woods, with entrenchment of 2,4,8. With and without suppression. I used chess mode, to ensure fight results are predictable.

1) Amount of kills when dealing with 2 and 4-entrenched Matildas was the same, but 4-entrenched gave a bit more experience. So entrenchment matters. I guess because of Defense boost.
2) Too much suppression gave less experience for infantry, but if suppression resulted in more kills, the fight gave more experience.
3) I also tested on mass attack. Mass attack bonus itself does nothing for experience - but if it results in more kills, the fight gives more experience.

[4kEY]

(if I play like an idiot, which is quite often)

LoL, Exactly! I've learned to just put the game down and do something else if I can't focus and get 'into' the game.

rather than individual engagements, although that might be helpful from time to time. I often replay end-turns – less for the re-rolls, but rather for the changes in tactics. I am slow, so I often have to improvise on the last turn, to get a DV.

Not so much 'individual' engagements, but 'battles' where there's maybe a dozen engagements and tactical moves and decisions in one 'area'. Like a whole battlegroup. 1/3 of my core in a specific area. I've found there are many ways to proceed with the same forces, and each one has a different 'total outcome' both on the next turn, but even on the strategic level for the whole scenario. I've learned many tactics, some from deducter, which make re-rolling individual engagements totally unnecessary....unless I'm playing like an idiot and forget to use them.

A good thing about “letting things go” and not doing too much reloading is that sometimes great situations – almost adventures! – happen, when I have to make some frantic improvisation to get out of a hopeless mess.

I agree completely. Not only is it rewarding in this sense, but it seems this is when I get some of my best awards.

I am slow, so I often have to improvise on the last turn, to get a DV.

I've evolved into a "slow" player. I like to surround cities and pummel them into despair before committing my infantry. I like to lure the enemy into destroying itself. I'll opt for a slow-moving impenetrable line rather than a fast moving column, even if it means the enemy will have more time to reinforce its positions - there are exceptions, I suppose, but I generally find intelligence of enemy locations to be insufficient to do this. I'm not a gambler.

edit: I suppose I could buy a few disposable aircraft that could be dedicated 'recon/bait'.

[deducter]

Experience gain has a complicated formula; it may be published somewhere on these forums. It's one aspect of the game I don't understand too well, but in general, the more "difficult" the combat and the more against-the-odds the result, the better your experience gain. The experience level of both units matter, so your 1-star StuG IIIG will gain a lot more experience fighting a 3-star T-34 than a 0-star T-34. Also, when some of the strength points of the defender is killed you can still gain exp; this is easily verified by having something like a Il-2 knock off strength points on a Hornisse and seeing that the Hornisse will gain exp after the attack. However, I feel the formula for experience is a bit off topic; I'm more curious about the general experience level and the relative rates of elite vs normal reinforcement. There's nothing I can do to mod the exact experience formula. If I could, I would change a few things, most notably massively lower the rate gain for artillery and bombers.

As for saving/reloading, just don't complain that the game is too easy if you abuse it to get perfect results/heroes. Even 1943-1945 will be too easy if you start with a core full of +3A/+3I heroes and then reload each turn until you get perfect results. To really experience the difficulty, you should keep reloading to a minimum. An ironman playthrough of this mod would be very impressive.

[4kEY]

I'm more curious about the general experience level

I've reinstalled the campaigns as I go, so the general experience level is back to 'normal'.

and the relative rates of elite vs normal reinforcement.

I'll make do with a 6 strength unit if it means conserving its experience. It's not as easy as was in '39 - '40 to get it back. It sounds like your latest changes might help with this.

As for saving/reloading, just don't complain that the game is too easy if you abuse it to get perfect results/heroes. Even 1943-1945 will be too easy if you start with a core full of +3A/+3I heroes and then reload each turn until you get perfect results.

I might owe an apology to the developers for some remarks I made in the past because that is pretty much what I was doing. My only rationalization is that I'd increase the general experience level of AI anywhere between 350-500.

To really experience the difficulty, you should keep reloading to a minimum. An ironman playthrough of this mod would be very impressive.

This is what I've had in mind all along. The old way stopped being 'fun', 'immersive', or 'fulfilling' in any way. While I can't deny the benefits of having been able to experiment with different approaches "immediately after the fact", as opposed to "whenever the same, or similar, situation occurs again" - there's a flipside: as in real life, learning without pain is no learning at all (Edit: maybe that's why history repeats itself...)

[Razz1]

Yes, Orlinos. It also seems to me that the AI is programmed to reward the player for "accepting" certain things. I like the limited randomness as it does make the game more interesting, and maybe from a certain perspective more realistic. I suppose I should also state here that this is the first play-through in a long time where I have not saved after almost every move and re-rolled/re-played engagements that "did not taste right". The latter has certainly helped me develop as a player because you can immediately learn and revise your tactics to more efficiently use your forces in a particular sector.

"Coming back to experience. Lately, I did some artificial test in the editor, to find the fastest methods to train units (I had some unit loses and after reforming them I slowly retrain them). It seems that a unit receives more experience, the more formidable enemy it faces AND the more damage it causes."


What sort of test? Did you artificially strenghten AI STR or EXP? What about entrenchment? Unit class?
I found that the German unit's ROF seems to factor into the equation, as well as overstrength (though maybe indirectly). Basically, the more red-dice-rolls you get the more EXP gained. I had not considered at all the strength or quality of the opposing unit at all...

You have to be careful about your analysis as you have not accounted for experience gains through SUPPRESSION.

Yes units do gain experience through suppression.