Let's get ahead of ourselves : Axis Operations 1944/1945

[Snake97644]

I would not mind having some de Gaulle type nemesis heroes in '44. It would add both flavor and challenge to both the historical and ahistorical lines. I think the idea of having them loitering around optional objectives is a good idea.

[Tassadar]

Something broken like an autosurrender combo or anything that could kill the player's units with little to no ability to counter would definitely be very very unpopular (ShockTactics/Envelopment + OverwhelmingAttack). I'd also maybe stay away from QuadripleGun, DoubleAttack traits as examples, maybe NoRetaliation and LightningAttacks too depending on what they're put on.

Agreed on the instant surrender interaction. That would be too frustrating since to counter it, the player would actually have to know it exists beforehand, so most people would just end up reloading and that's not the point. Double Attack with Rapid Fire also seems too dangerous for the same reason (as we already see how Rapid Fire fighters and almost instant kill a 5 star top grade player fighter in Epsom and in Operation Roland). Aside from that however, I'm fine with everything else provided it does not result in the mentioned instant-delete effect. Some difficult to get rid off units can be fine, as well as creative use of traits that already exist, such as:

I had the idea to see a crazy Soviet mass artillery position, where every single unit has 'shock tactics' meaning they can paralyze a whole group of player units in place, rendering them immobile and helpless.

Good call for a position where the other enemy ground units do not patrol (to avoid the player's army mass surrendering by accident), but a very creative way to make a puzzle for the player to get to a bonus location in the first place, by maybe having to sneak past these or somehow overwhelm them to avoid getting pinned down.

If I put Lightning Attack on enemy fighters, all the escorts in the world won't be able to save your bombers.

On a lower grade Soviet fighter form time to time, why not, as a discouragement from effortlessly using overwhelming bomber power on ground hero units for example.

A Prudent/Avenger/Inc Max Overstrength T34/85 might be completely unkillable.

Maybe bride engineers like this? They could still be forced to retreat, but it would take a lot more effort to cut off a river supply line than just sending a Double Attack Rudel after them.

[Kerensky]

Agreed on the instant surrender interaction. That would be too frustrating since to counter it, the player would actually have to know it exists beforehand, so most people would just end up reloading and that's not the point. Double Attack with Rapid Fire also seems too dangerous for the same reason (as we already see how Rapid Fire fighters and almost instant kill a 5 star top grade player fighter in Epsom and in Operation Roland). Aside from that however, I'm fine with everything else provided it does not result in the mentioned instant-delete effect. Some difficult to get rid off units can be fine, as well as creative use of traits that already exist, such as:

I had the idea to see a crazy Soviet mass artillery position, where every single unit has 'shock tactics' meaning they can paralyze a whole group of player units in place, rendering them immobile and helpless.

Good call for a position where the other enemy ground units do not patrol (to avoid the player's army mass surrendering by accident), but a very creative way to make a puzzle for the player to get to a bonus location in the first place, by maybe having to sneak past these or somehow overwhelm them to avoid getting pinned down.

If I put Lightning Attack on enemy fighters, all the escorts in the world won't be able to save your bombers.

On a lower grade Soviet fighter form time to time, why not, as a discouragement from effortlessly using overwhelming bomber power on ground hero units for example.

A Prudent/Avenger/Inc Max Overstrength T34/85 might be completely unkillable.

Maybe bride engineers like this? They could still be forced to retreat, but it would take a lot more effort to cut off a river supply line than just sending a Double Attack Rudel after them.

Reading your AAR was partly inspiration for this.
Your Rudel constantly making mince-meat of some of the more extravagant Soviet armored units I customized in 1943.

[euramer]

I would vote for one big (priced) DLC with quite separate historical and ahistorical path if possible. I liked De Gaulle in the previous DLC, and I am ready for some more, difficult to kill, figures from the past. The principle of ambush from heroes strengthened units is also important and fun, it can be deadly, so long that either it not obligatory or that there is at least one way, to solve it, for an average player.
What about a scenario where very little replacements are available and only green units, to reduce a little our 5 stars veteran units, like in the desert? It would be devilish?
I would also create special categories of mines which would either "chain" detonate, can be detected only by saper next to them, explode from the side of a road if anything heavier than soldier on their feet pass near, or generate an automatic canon attack (with heavier consequences)...
I think that strategic bomber should have their main heroes too, and could increase their defense for each unit next to the first (like in the war when they came by the hundreds): It would make attacking a pack much more a challenge.
Fog of war could be, for one aerial scenario, replaced by...night and searchlights?
I have plenty of ideas like that to shake our certainties, tell me what you think and give me yours?

[BarbarianHunter]

I vote von Manstein 4 Chancellor

I guess he left a good impression with how he has been presented in the campaigns?

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

[Kerensky]

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

"Prussian Field Marshals do not mutiny."

That's a direct quote from... Field Marshal Erich von Manstein.

[charge62]

In reply to the posts about heroes for the Allies.

Perhaps use a two-fold application of what is already available.

1. Implement leaders for the Allies. Then the player's briefing could include an appraisal of the opposing commander's abilities.

2. A chance for a random hero for every allied unit. Perhaps a table like the following.
15% no hero
60% one hero
15% two heroes
10% three heroes

[adiekmann]

A little late in reading all this and chiming in...but, I agree with some of the others who tipped towards strong hero stacked enemy units, but not ridiculous ones that steamroll over your entire army of studs. Stronger than DeGaulle, yes, but not ridiculously strong.

I like the idea of shock tactics heroes on Soviet artillery when you are playing a defensive roll/scenario. Soviet artillery was at times overwhelming and pinned the defenders in, destroying communication and such. But it needs to be carefully arranged where it makes the situation a challenge, not a ridiculous steamroller event that the player has no chance of countering no matter how many times they restart the scenario or how clever they are.

I like the historical branch to generally move in this direction. Not impossible, but very well thought out situations that will make it difficult to "win," or perhaps even survive. There are many ways I can think of doing this. For example, arrangements where you might not lose your core units, but it will cause a serious drain on your prestige to keep them alive because of the pressure and strength of the AI attack or star units. But like your shock tactics idea above, those are probably the little twists that can be designed into a scenario that can change what otherwise would be a player overrun into a tough situation.

Some related examples, Kerensky, that you have already done include in AO41 at Thermoplyae at those two passes, and more recently at Taman Peninsula in the all air scenario. Those took a few restarts to figure out. That I like.

[BarbarianHunter]

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

"Prussian Field Marshals do not mutiny."

That's a direct quote from... Field Marshal Erich von Manstein.

We're talking about the ahistorical branch. Clearly he is an adaptive man and besides, we shouldn't taint the players who like to win their games by forcing them to bring high command along for the ride. Von Manstein 4 Chancellor!

[Kerensky]

Some related examples, Kerensky, that you have already done include in AO41 at Thermoplyae at those two passes, and more recently at Taman Peninsula in the all air scenario. Those took a few restarts to figure out. That I like.

Or as I like to call it, the Massacre of Taman Peninsula.

[Bee1976]

To answer the "giga-Hero" question, well i would love that as "further options" for the heroic showdown challenge.
Im not sure if its easy to implement, that would be awesome. Maybe 4 difficulty settings:
1: basic, the challenged stays as it is now
2: easy means enemy units get 1-2 heros useful, but no hard combos or no too hard Heros
3: medium: harder heros and harder combos are more common. i.e. combinations like lightning attack and no retaliation together
4: hard all combos allowed, even the real broken stuff, 2-3 heros per unit possible

And of course not hard scripted for each mission. Better would be a random script assigning the heros to the units when the mission starts.

Again, im not sure if this is "easy" to code or easy to implement, but that would be really enjoyable (at least for me) and would raise the replayability a lot

If its not easy to make, and there is a need to hardscript them for 44 and 45, i would enjoy that too (i still like de gaule...) but i would avoid instand surrender combo. because that would force players to play around it. which means on every new mission a player must bring up solutions for a possible thread like this.
ok, good recon is everytime useful, but my strategy would be unsing cheap shock tactics recon/strat bomber to simply stun the auto surrender enemy.
that is fun when a player chooses this and wants this kind of thread but im pretty sure hard broken hero combos out of nowhere might frustrate a lot lot players.

so yes strong enemy units hardscripted are ok for me, but they shouldnt be broken.

[Femto]

I think it would be nice if there is some way to simulate the slow but steady artillery push of the Red Army, especially in historical paths. However, the AI is not particularly adept at using artillery.

I suggest reviving extended support ability (scrapped trait that enables full-range support) and giving them to special heroes. An over-strengthened 203mm howitzer with hero combo of extended support plus fast deployment will be truly dangerous still not overly lethal threat to players.

[Raganr129]

I vote von Manstein 4 Chancellor

I guess he left a good impression with how he has been presented in the campaigns?

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

"Prussian Field Marshals do not mutiny."

That's a direct quote from... Field Marshal Erich von Manstein.

We're talking about the ahistorical branch. Clearly he is an adaptive man and besides, we shouldn't taint the players who like to win their games by forcing them to bring high command along for the ride. Von Manstein 4 Chancellor!

I hope this is just an opportunity to introduce us to different historical figures and place us under a different field marshal. Maybe a promoted Rommel, Rundstedt, or Guderian or someone else. While I understand a lot of people want to partake in an Operation Valkyrie type scenario and take out "High Command", I'd be annoyed and disappointed.

I'm not saying the ahistorical branch should glorify a 'nazi' victory or that I or anyone else is in any way a fan of the ideology, but politics and heated political discourse is way too pervasive in everyday life nowadays. I think it would be a shame if long briefings and mission chains focused on that aspect of the war. I don't need political talking points leaking into my wargame, I can get those anywhere else, and I come play games to escape media such as that.

I fully expect this stance to be wildly unpopular and get backlash for it.

[adiekmann]

I think it would be nice if there is some way to simulate the slow but steady artillery push of the Red Army, especially in historical paths. However, the AI is not particularly adept at using artillery.

I suggest reviving extended support ability (scrapped trait that enables full-range support) and giving them to special heroes. An over-strengthened 203mm howitzer with hero combo of extended support plus fast deployment will be truly dangerous still not overly lethal threat to players.

...or, how about a hero for AI only that is artillery specific and like the now defunct "On the Roll." But instead of gaining a +1 attack, it receives a +1 Range each turn! Now it can reach even your own support units like AA, AT, and ART!

[adiekmann]

To answer the "giga-Hero" question, well i would love that as "further options" for the heroic showdown challenge.
Im not sure if its easy to implement, that would be awesome. Maybe 4 difficulty settings:
1: basic, the challenged stays as it is now
2: easy means enemy units get 1-2 heros useful, but no hard combos or no too hard Heros
3: medium: harder heros and harder combos are more common. i.e. combinations like lightning attack and no retaliation together
4: hard all combos allowed, even the real broken stuff, 2-3 heros per unit possible

And of course not hard scripted for each mission. Better would be a random script assigning the heros to the units when the mission starts.

Again, im not sure if this is "easy" to code or easy to implement, but that would be really enjoyable (at least for me) and would raise the replayability a lot

If its not easy to make, and there is a need to hardscript them for 44 and 45, i would enjoy that too (i still like de gaule...) but i would avoid instand surrender combo. because that would force players to play around it. which means on every new mission a player must bring up solutions for a possible thread like this.
ok, good recon is everytime useful, but my strategy would be unsing cheap shock tactics recon/strat bomber to simply stun the auto surrender enemy.
that is fun when a player chooses this and wants this kind of thread but im pretty sure hard broken hero combos out of nowhere might frustrate a lot lot players.

so yes strong enemy units hardscripted are ok for me, but they shouldnt be broken.

I think a good combo to increase difficulty for good players with OP cores is David vs. Goliath and Heroic Showdown. I play from '41 onwards now with at least one of these.

However, the problem I see with Heroic Showdown is the random assignment of heroes. Often units get assigned a crap hero that does little or nothing to strengthen an AI unit, or a good hero assigned to a unit that it doesn't help (think bridging unit with double attack). I think the purposeful assignment of one or two heroes by the scenario designer is much wiser and can alone, when carefully chosen, really increase the challenge. The one that frustrates me the most is probably Prudent. In any case, doing this is a lot simpler than coding your suggestion above moving forward, and you can always still click on Heroic Showdown and possibly still get some tough enemy combos.

I experienced this in a recent playthrough at Kerch Peninsula scenario. My units couldn't advance (move) and I first thought the game was broken until I checked and saw that that fort in the city hex randomly received a Shock Tactics hero! That's why I like Kerensky's idea. Even a single carefully chosen hero assigned to a specific AI unit in a particular position can greatly alter how a scenario otherwise would normally play out.

[Bee1976]

I think a good combo to increase difficulty for good players with OP cores is David vs. Goliath and Heroic Showdown. I play from '41 onwards now with at least one of these.

However, the problem I see with Heroic Showdown is the random assignment of heroes.

Well i played David vs. Goliath for a long time, and to be honest, its really tough in SCW (really really tough) and the first mission in ao39 is somewhat harder with manstein on aswell. but in later war years manstein matters less and less and you can start award farming (soft/hard kills).
Some missions are still harder like crete, german ai dies faster than in times with the new but now abandoned ruleset for paras.

heroic showdown could be a fun and tough challenge, but as you described it, too often the enemy gets not useful heroes. ofc hard scripted tough heros affect the challenge and difficulty and i agree this could be real fun in AO44 and 45.
But if Kerensky is thinking about hero combos, some "love" for better hero assignment during heroic showdown might offer the opportunity to present real broken hero combos as enemies and raise the replayability a lot (if the player chooses this).

thats the reason behind my wall of text.

tldr:
If the players chooses to meet real broken hero combos with a sub checkbox or a lever on heroic showdown, this will add some spice to the game. assigning 1 or 2 useful heros for enemy units on heroic showdown will increase the fun aswell, if this is an option.

If the player cant choose this option, and everyone has to fight against hard scripted hero combos during 44 and 45, i would avoid avoid combos like instant surrender, because i think most of the players wouldnt enjoy this. but challenges as you and Kerensky described would be most welcome for me (and a shock tactic artillery camp sounds fun to play around).

[BarbarianHunter]

I guess he left a good impression with how he has been presented in the campaigns?

Well, not exactly. It's his ongoing issues with high command I was thinking of. One possible reading of the ahistorical tea leaves has the army returning to Germany sooner than one might expect.

"Prussian Field Marshals do not mutiny."

That's a direct quote from... Field Marshal Erich von Manstein.

We're talking about the ahistorical branch. Clearly he is an adaptive man and besides, we shouldn't taint the players who like to win their games by forcing them to bring high command along for the ride. Von Manstein 4 Chancellor!

I hope this is just an opportunity to introduce us to different historical figures and place us under a different field marshal. Maybe a promoted Rommel, Rundstedt, or Guderian or someone else. While I understand a lot of people want to partake in an Operation Valkyrie type scenario and take out "High Command", I'd be annoyed and disappointed.

I'm not saying the ahistorical branch should glorify a 'nazi' victory or that I or anyone else is in any way a fan of the ideology, but politics and heated political discourse is way too pervasive in everyday life nowadays. I think it would be a shame if long briefings and mission chains focused on that aspect of the war. I don't need political talking points leaking into my wargame, I can get those anywhere else, and I come play games to escape media such as that.

I fully expect this stance to be wildly unpopular and get backlash for it.

I'm neither here nor there. Just thought Manstein's situation could be worked into the plot. If it were just 44 & 45 left for ahistorical it would probably be too much of a diversion from wargaming. As it's ahistorical, the war could drag on into 46, 47, etc...with lots of opportunities for more fictional battles & DLC's. As for Manstein's declaration that he would not mutiny, it certainly would not be the first time the powered elite have lied about their intentions.

[FunPolice749]

Since you guys are talking about 1944 and 1945 in here, I have a question.

Do you think it's time to see some mega Allied heroes? Units that are hero stacked to the point where they have access to broken hero combos that the player has?

While I'm always mentioning we don't balance around that sort of thing, having hero stacked enemies are interesting in their own right. Degaulle generated more than a few complaints, but we haven't seen the likes of that kind of hero in a long time.

And it's about time for the Allies to really be winning, and at the very least they should be able to put serious hurt on even the most Elite hero stacked Tiger tank units, which currently no number of swarming 1 star 10 strength T34 tanks can accomplish.

Would you like to see more insane enemy heroes with multiple synergistic abilities in 1944 and 1945?

We'll take the obvious precaution to make them guard non-mission critical objectives, so players who don't want to tangle with them can always opt out and no one is 'forced' to fight such enemy units.

Thoughts?

I had the idea to see a crazy Soviet mass artillery position, where every single unit has 'shock tactics' meaning they can paralyze a whole group of player units in place, rendering them immobile and helpless.

A Prudent/Avenger/Inc Max Overstrength T34/85 might be completely unkillable.

If I put Lightning Attack on enemy fighters, all the escorts in the world won't be able to save your bombers. Well no, that's not true. I guess you could fully enclose a bomber in a ring of escorts. That would prevent such a fighter from gutting a Stuka.

Not sure I'll ever put Overwhelming Attack/Envelopment together though. I imagine it will be a keyboard smashing inducing, alt f4 out of the game moment if such a unit started deleting 5 star 15 strength Tiger IIs.

I think for optional objectives it would be great to see some truly hard hitting hero units. I could imagine during Bagration one optional objective would be to protect a specific city but that involves getting tangled with an incredibly powerful Soviet army (much more than what we’ve seen already )

Personally I really like the idea of going “how the hell am I supposed to deal with that” for the optional objectives through super units. I want to feel like I’m outnumbered, outgunned, and my individual units aren’t any better than allied units. The only option being a desperate retreat sounds a great way to represent how the war has gotten out of your control and it’s just a slow grind towards Berlin.

[Bee1976]

Well what i would love to see is a long mission in ao44 and/or 45.
like warshaw or madrid. A long fight, many turns, many units, a big map with some more frontlines. Defensive like Ebro. That would be nice

[adiekmann]

Well what i would love to see is a long mission in ao44 and/or 45.
like warshaw or madrid. A long fight, many turns, many units, a big map with some more frontlines. Defensive like Ebro. That would be nice

...or like (I think) the Bagration scenario from the vanilla campaign. That was for me the greatest grind...and I liked the stress of it! Of course, I haven't played it in two years, so what I find it that difficult now? But the challenge and experience is what I remember and a that's why I think Kerensky's idea of adding some strong heroes to strengthen the AI's forces is a welcome idea! Anything to bring that challenge back to the player whose core dates back to Spain.