Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DicedT

So the consensus is that the game favors the Germans? Because almost all of these changes seem to favor the Soviets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkhorn45

Unintended consequences,in order to get siege artillery to Riga you now are forced to set agn route to go to riga which I don't find optimal prefer the kaunas route.
Your right s.a.is now virtually useless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willgamer
So coastal red dot cities, with unlimited supply, may simply be impregnable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I posted this in a Tech Support thread, but really think it's better here, with a couple of edits:

This is kind of interesting for those so inclined. Start a new game of 1.03B as human vs. human. FOW *must* be off. Speed thru the first turn screens. Pick a Soviet Inf Div in the open with 100 entrenchment and attack with two German Inf Divs. Look at the battle details. Lo and behold, all the expected modifiers seem to be fully applied!

My takeaways are:
1) People playing PBEM/hotseat are getting MUCH different battle results than those playing against the AI. Battles seem MUCH more decisive (due to the application of *all* bonus/penalties). So people that play mostly PBEM are having very different experiences/results than those playing the AI. Apples and oranges. I think this is where a lot of contradictory opinions are coming from.

2) In SP the AI side seems completely buffed. If you are the Germans, the Soviets get FULL entrenchment which significantly impacts your advance. Seems like the Soviet casualties are about HALF what they are in hotseat/PBEM. If you are playing as the Soviets you get the entrenchment PENALTY, as well as seeming to be more hobbled as to how many units you can activate, etc.

So a straight SP experience isn't even attractive to me at this point. I'll just play hotseat to get a "fair" game, although that is not what I wanted. I would REALLY like to see Vic & Cameron come up with a SP mode that quits buffing the AI so much. Let's use the same rules for both! For me it isn't just about winning or losing, but "feeling" some kind of historical parallel. Let ME decide the level of difficulty, and the BASELINE should be same as PBEM/hotseat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

Should have posted here vice tech support-- sorry!

To further request clarification, since I'm not sure I am cogently making my point, the Soviet AI counterattack penalty can only be expected to slightly reduce German casualties that are already relatively small. A counterattack doesn't seem to result in anything other than a "miss" for the counterattacker. Meanwhile, the unreduced entrenchment value seems to have a sizeable effect on reducing Soviet casualties. So I just don't see how these two things can be considered equivalent or a "small advantage" for the AI. Just from playing both ways (SP & hotseat)it seems there is a *significant* difference in favor of Soviet AI. That's fine for a higher difficulty, but I don't think it's right for "normal".

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi,

Here's a copy of a post I've made on the bug forum. It's probably just as relevant here.

---

To clear up a bit of confusion here's how the early turn penalties work.

(...)
Overall the Soviet AI gets a better deal here than a Soviet Player, but not excessively so.

Cheers,
Cameron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Are you sure you fully understand the combat mechanics? For example Soviet Infantry indvidual #Y would typically have the following interactions in 1 combat round:

-German Infantry (X) attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied. German Att Bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) counter-attacks German Infantry (X) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-Soviet Infantry (Y) attacks German Infantry (Z) : Sov Def Bonus applied. No German Att bonus applied.
-German Infantry (Z) counter-attacks Soviet Infantry (Y) : No Sov Def Bonus applied German Att Bonus applied.

Anyway I understand your point, but we feel the difficulty level for NORMAL is quite good as it is, especially with 1.03 which will be slightly easier for the German player than 1.02.

best wishes,
Vic

quote:

Zhukov is still buggy. When you try to switch over to defensive posture, armies that fail the roll refund 5 PPs even when the cost to do this is actually zero with Zhukov in the theater. Presumably this also true for any costs above zero.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lancer

Hi Franciscus,

Good point but I suspect we are looking at two different situations here.

I could be wrong but AJE is more 'point' based combat (stack of Romans vs. stack of whoever) fighting on an area based map.

That's very different to Barbarossa where an individual battle is a small part of a bigger picture front line and the map is divided into multiple small hexes. An individual battle matters less than the coordinated efforts of forces over the entire front.

Giving the AI no benefits compared to a Soviet player would have it overwhelmed in short order because a human's vastly superior ability to conceptualise an entire front, or theatre, as a coherent whole.

Cheers,
Cameron

quote:

(When you stop playing chess for ten years and start up again the first few games are always ... interesting).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

@willgamer,

The thing is the combat details were never meant as an integral part of gameplay. They have just been made available to allow curious people a look under the hood. All the rules of thumb are in the manual and most players develop a sense of intuition after one or two games.

However to answer your core question of "why would a defensive bonus be applied to something thats attacking?".. Well because I strongly believe defensive successes are grounded in the ability of the defender to kill the attacker. So the defensive bonus does not give the defenders more armour to withstand attack and dammage, but simulates defensive doctrines, preperations and the like that lead to higher casualties for the attacker. Picture a defensive machinegun nest opening up fire on appoaching attackers. From the individuals perspective the MG is attacking (thats the perspective mentioned in the combat details) even though from a units perspective the unit as a whole is defending.

And answer to the other question: Basicly it is very simple.. the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not.

Best wishes,
Vic

quote:

ORIGINAL: RandomAttack

I don't see the issues as being with the AI at all-- it's all the "balance issues" at the very start: full entrenchment modifier, morale at 60(!), etc. According to the tooltip all the "Easy" button does is give you more fuel & PPs. Again, if you had the same combat modifiers as in PBEM for an "Easy" SP difficulty it would make a huge difference. I understand you think that would somehow make the game insultingly easy and just aren't going to do it. I disagree but it's your call of course.