amatteucci
Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000 From: ITALY Status: offline
|
In fact I think that getting to Berlin a year and half earlier than the historical benchmark does not imply that the AI did a poor job. Even if I agree that there is, undoubtedly, room for improving the AI, mainly for what concernes the 'historicity' of its behaviour. In my current CG game I was able to stop the German advance, roughly, on the Dvina (well, not really ;)) and Dnepr line after being routed, pocketed or simply pushed along until then. I was fotunate enough to be able to build a defensive line along these rivers by the time rasputitsa set in and then the front stabilized. It wasn't too hard to do but it wasn't easy either (in my first CG I gave up after the AI actually managed to encircle both Leningrad and Moscow). Then, as the winter arrived, I was able to organize some local couterattacks and slowly push backward the invaders. This meant that I hadn't Leningrad besieged or Crimea overran. I had to start my "liberation" further west than the Read Army actually had to do, with fewer losses and bigger production. Long story short, I managed to stop the Germans avoiding both Operation Typhoon and Case Blue. This means at least 2+6 months of German advances avoided. Assuming that the time to recover invaded areas ir roughly equal to the time it took for them to be overran, this means that a 16 month shorter war. If we also consider the increased Soviet production (due to scarce industry relocation) and the Germans that cannot take advantage of the 1944 production boost, we see that the performance of the AI wasn't that poor. Opinions?
|