Slogkrieg

[bjarmson]

Specifics on what many find wrong with Blitzkrieg are in many of the recent threads, so I won't revisit them. What I want to critique here is the overall playability of the game. The Pacific scenarios were mostly first-rate. When I heard OoB was moving to the European theatre I had high hopes. The Blitzkrieg scenarios have essentially quashed these hopes. Most of them bear scant resemblance to whatever battle they supposedly represent. It's my opinion the reason for this is the developers have come to rely almost entirely on giving the AI a 3/4 to 1 difference in available units. I imagine this was done in an attempt to make the scenarios more "playable" because the AI is inept, but it only leads to battles where you attack, repair your units, attack into a whole new group of fresh AI units, repair your units, attack .... Well you see where this is going, thus Slogkrieg. There are virtually no breakthroughs or mobile battles, which is what Blitzkrieg was about, it means "lightning war" after all. In virtually all the scenarios you run into wall of enemy units, you kill them, and this is repeated over and over the whole scenario. It's just a long slog through vast numbers of enemy units till you kill them all. In several scenarios this is the main objective. Where are the armored breakthroughs that defined this part of the war. Not here. Blitzkrieg is a vast disappointment.

[kverdon]

I think you have it nailed pretty good. The Historical flavor of the game gets diluted by some poorly crafted scenarios that sacrifice the subject matter to balance a weak AI. To make the game a challenge there are a number of artificial constraints applied. In Blitzkrieg it is the "Kill XX Units". In Marines it was the limited resource points and limited supply points, fine for 1942, Not so much for 1944-45. You may argue the mechanics of OOB and Panzer Corps but at least in PC the battles felt "right" and it was great fun.

[hrafnkolbrandr]

Too often you encounter a big group of enemy units, set up a holding force to engage them, and bring a flanking force around to cut them off (leaving units to prevent them simply breaking out and cutting off your flanking force).

Only to have *another* big group of enemy units come over and hit your flanking force in the back. And you have so much area to cover with your units elsewhere that you can't afford to dedicate the forces needed to stop this against the AI's big numerical superiority.

OR, you move on after a successful engagement and a few turns later an AI infantry unit comes roundabout to take your cities and cut off your army. You can deal with it, but you can't do it and still have 'lightning war' while you're diluting your forces to do so.

And so we have Slogzkrieg.

[Andy2012]

Specifics on what many find wrong with Blitzkrieg are in many of the recent threads, so I won't revisit them. What I want to critique here is the overall playability of the game. The Pacific scenarios were mostly first-rate. When I heard OoB was moving to the European theatre I had high hopes. The Blitzkrieg scenarios have essentially quashed these hopes. Most of them bear scant resemblance to whatever battle they supposedly represent. It's my opinion the reason for this is the developers have come to rely almost entirely on giving the AI a 3/4 to 1 difference in available units. I imagine this was done in an attempt to make the scenarios more "playable" because the AI is inept, but it only leads to battles where you attack, repair your units, attack into a whole new group of fresh AI units, repair your units, attack .... Well you see where this is going, thus Slogkrieg. There are virtually no breakthroughs or mobile battles, which is what Blitzkrieg was about, it means "lightning war" after all. In virtually all the scenarios you run into wall of enemy units, you kill them, and this is repeated over and over the whole scenario. It's just a long slog through vast numbers of enemy units till you kill them all. In several scenarios this is the main objective. Where are the armored breakthroughs that defined this part of the war. Not here. Blitzkrieg is a vast disappointment.

I still had a lot of fun with Blitzkrieg. I agree that some of the "Kill xx units" objectives should be reset. Probably to a lower level. And then make cities or a chain of cities the objective and let the Player hold them for a specific time. This would be an easy fix, I guess. (Or for the next DLC) As for the stupid AI - first, I dont think it is that bad and second, you are dealing with the 41 Red Army here. Vast numbers of men, no leadership. Kinda fitting then, dont you think?
And the whole attack, repair, attack is just the rythm of the game. In Panzercorps, you mostly repaired between missions, here you resupply during them. I used Panzer dashes and had them cut off by the AI, so it cant be that stupid. And while some objectives and missions could have definitely been better, I dont think Blitzkrieg is the complete failure you describe.

[mhladnik]

I second that. Some valid criticism, for sure, but nowhere near disastrous.

[kondi754]

I think that the game is demanding on the tactical level and should be applied here the basic principles of tactics. German army in 1941 not only drove forward, but also protects the important points from counterattack from the flanks. Armored troops "waiting" on infantry units frequently. The only basically a "risky" maneuver that I remember was a rally Manstein's Armored Corps to get on the Daugava River bridges in Daugavpils. Manstein ignored the orders of the army group's commander and really risked serious cut and encirclement.
So whatever we think of the Blitzkrieg is often just our imagination. In addition, the German tanks had fuel only to move 100km, so they had to wait.

[Andy2012]

I think that the game is demanding on the tactical level and should be applied here the basic principles of tactics. German army in 1941 not only drove forward, but also protects the important points from counterattack from the flanks. Armored troops "waiting" on infantry units frequently. The only basically a "risky" maneuver that I remember was a rally Manstein's Armored Corps to get on the Daugava River bridges in Daugavpils. Manstein ignored the orders of the army group's commander and really risked serious cut and encirclement.
So whatever we think of the Blitzkrieg is often just our imagination. In addition, the German tanks had fuel only to move 100km, so they had to wait.

Good points; quite the scholar. Especially "Blitzkrieg is often just our imagination". I like that one. And it is a game after all; its supposed to be fun first, not always that historically accurate. No need to be that anal about every nook and cranny.

[kondi754]

I think that the game is demanding on the tactical level and should be applied here the basic principles of tactics. German army in 1941 not only drove forward, but also protects the important points from counterattack from the flanks. Armored troops "waiting" on infantry units frequently. The only basically a "risky" maneuver that I remember was a rally Manstein's Armored Corps to get on the Daugava River bridges in Daugavpils. Manstein ignored the orders of the army group's commander and really risked serious cut and encirclement.
So whatever we think of the Blitzkrieg is often just our imagination. In addition, the German tanks had fuel only to move 100km, so they had to wait.

Good points; quite the scholar. Especially "Blitzkrieg is often just our imagination". I like that one. And it is a game after all; its supposed to be fun first, not always that historically accurate. No need to be that anal about every nook and cranny.

Of course, the gameplay is the most important. The game must give a certain freedom to enjoy the player, but I wish it would as close as possible to the historical truth.
I expect that here and I think that the developers really tried to do the best.
Critical voices are caused by misunderstanding of the principles of tactics, I suppose.

[kverdon]

There are some good points here about the real limitations the Germans faced in their offensive. The German Russian Offensive did however see the use of pincer attacks to cut off and surround large numbers of Solviet troops and I will admit, on a small scale, you can accomplish that in Blitzkrieg. What I think most folks are complaining about here is the way the "Kill xx" ofjectives turn the game into a continuous "search and destroy" mission.

I did not find Kiev to be very tactically challenging past the initial opening. the only real challenge (and frustration" was to hunting down cut off, hidden units and killing them off in time. I had 3 teams of Panzers/Infantry/Artillery backed up by Stukas that were able to defeat any Russian troop concentrations. That last part of the game however was simply going back and hunting down either bypassed or hidden troops that had either fled to cover or never been activated. The defense that "It's only a game and should be fun" falls apart here as many people are describing this aspect of the game as "tedious" and "boring", a far cry from "fun".

One thing that did surprise me in the game was the efficacy of my Panzer III tanks against KV1 and T34 Russian Tanks. They faired better than I expected. I initially brought along a SS 88mm anti-tank but later restarted the scenario with it changed to a Stug III as I found I did not need the AT power of the 88. Stukas could whittle them down far enough to make them an easy kill for my Panzer IIIs.

[Andy2012]

There are some good points here about the real limitations the Germans faced in their offensive. The German Russian Offensive did however see the use of pincer attacks to cut off and surround large numbers of Solviet troops and I will admit, on a small scale, you can accomplish that in Blitzkrieg. What I think most folks are complaining about here is the way the "Kill xx" ofjectives turn the game into a continuous "search and destroy" mission.

I did not find Kiev to be very tactically challenging past the initial opening. the only real challenge (and frustration" was to hunting down cut off, hidden units and killing them off in time. I had 3 teams of Panzers/Infantry/Artillery backed up by Stukas that were able to defeat any Russian troop concentrations. That last part of the game however was simply going back and hunting down either bypassed or hidden troops that had either fled to cover or never been activated. The defense that "It's only a game and should be fun" falls apart here as many people are describing this aspect of the game as "tedious" and "boring", a far cry from "fun".

One thing that did surprise me in the game was the efficacy of my Panzer III tanks against KV1 and T34 Russian Tanks. They faired better than I expected. I initially brought along a SS 88mm anti-tank but later restarted the scenario with it changed to a Stug III as I found I did not need the AT power of the 88. Stukas could whittle them down far enough to make them an easy kill for my Panzer IIIs.

Fully agree with that post.

BTW, how did you guys play the Waffen SS? I started with Viking Division, bought a second infantry and used these mostly to hold supply lines open. Works like a charm, but it mostly does not feel very much like Waffen SS. Suggestions? I mean, six supply is one tank or one artillery. Or a mechanised infantry and a scout. The way I played, I had more than 450 SS supply after Moscow. There must be a better way to do this. Ideas?

[kondi754]

I finished Battle of Kiev without any problems - I consider it as a very good scn, like Dunkirk.

[adherbal]

What difficulty level are you guys playing on? These reports simply don't match my own experience with the game, so I wonder if the problem instead lays with poor feedback about how the scenarios (and/or game) is meant to be played or whether people are using the wrong difficulty levels.

Please have a look at the Dunkirk Let's Play/AAR I'm putting up:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 73&t=74884

At no point does this feel "slogkrieg" to me. I'm constantly on the offense and making good progress. Yes the Allies put up challenging resistance whever I run into a line of defenses but otherwise there wouldn't be much of a game. Reducing the difficulty level should solve that. If these videos show the same kind of gameplay you are experiencing and disliking, I'd like to know what would have to be different to make it enjoyable for you.

[hrafnkolbrandr]

I play on the middle difficulty.

[NightPhoenix]

Things get heated up here, wow. Again i really feel like people might just not know how to tackle the scenarios, build up their forces or have other problems. I think most people play on medium difficulty and with the previous DLC (at least rising sun and American) you could kind of steamroll through the game on that difficulty. This DLC might be the first time people actually see something which might be considered a difficulty spike. And naturally some people don't like that. Suddenly you really have to think about having a rear guard protecting you from being cut off, where to attack, and where to defend. This is a strategy game though, so it's really about thinking your plan through, have a strategy, making sure you make tactically sound decisions, or even think about what happened historically and adapt to that.

As for Dunkirk, I'm pretty excited to see this let's play/AAR. Now i get to see how to get those elusive objectives to kill those invasion barges/kill spitfires.

One thing i was thinking about, which might lead people into a difficult position on the Kiev scenario, and this is just me guessing so please correct me if im wrong. The secondary objective is to surround the bulk of the Soviet forces. The cities that need to be taken however are not on the far east of the map, and there are actually units there. This might lead people to the assumption that there are no troops there? While those troops actually need to be killed. Then people converge on the troops in the center, and consequently lose because there is no time to tackle the forces on the right anymore. (since the scenario does have a tight time limit)
This might be seen as frustrating because people might be misled by the description and the objectives.

Like to know what others think about this.

[hrafnkolbrandr]

I don't think anybody (in this thread) is claiming that it is too difficult. What they are claiming is that it just isn't fun or innovative.

By and large, you tackle everything in this expansion the same exact way you tackle everything in every other expansion. Methodically slog through it. Anything else is just adding uneccessary headache.

[bjarmson]

Not sure some of you understand what I'm trying to say. Can the games be played and won. Sure. Do they do a good job of representing the battles they supposedly depict. Not so much. So if you are okay with fighting them as they are, fine. But don't mistake them as having much in common with the actual battles. At Dunkirk the Germans had about a 2 to 1 superiority in numbers, not the 3/4 to 1 Allied superiority of the the scenario. Allied units did not make any real attempts to sneak behind German lines to disrupt German supply or cut off German units, they were surrounded and merely trying to stay alive. What few supplies they had were used in desperate holding operations. Vast quantities of equipment were destroyed by air attacks as they retreated toward the beaches. Some of this could be represented by slowly feeding more troops to the Germans as they advance. This would have the effect of preventing the Allied units from squirting into rear areas, but not have much effect on the early part of the scenario. Where is the Luftwaffe conducting massive bombing attacks on bunched Allied troops? Where is Rommel bringing his armor from the south? None of this is represented in Dunkirk. So you are forced to attack, repair, attack, repair, reopen supply lines, ad infinitum till you kill all Allied units. There is not the slightest hint of cleverness nor much historical accuracy to this scenario.

When will a garrison unit be added to this game? It badly needs one now that we are in the European theatre with its vast areas to hold. If the unit was limited to being defensive only, it could hold territory but have no offensive capabilities. This is desperately needed in the Russian scenarios where vast areas must be taken and held. Also in the Russian scenarios, most Russian units should start at the orange level of efficiency, not white. Russian organizational structure and staff work were ineffectual at this time. Early in Barbarossa there were a few Russian units that put up strong fights, but most just routed and ran. This doesn't seem to be modeled very well, as too many Russian units put up stiff resistance. Thus it's back to attack, repair, attack .... Also the T-34 and KV-1 tanks seem inordinately weak, both should handle German armor attacks better since they were both substantially better tanks than the German armor of 1941. One well emplaced KV-1 could hold up an entire German armor column till an 88mm antitank gun was brought up to deal with it. To simulate the Russian lack of organizational efficiency they could be give lower offensive factors and higher defensive ones.

[kverdon]

I agree with most of the previous. It is not a lack of grasp of tactics, they are mostly easy, it is the tedium of having to hunt down every unit that grates on people. An average unit takes 3-5 attacks to kill so that gets real old when you have to hunt down and kill 100+ units just gets old, the only challenge is finding them in time.

As I pointed out earlier, I agree, the KV1 and T34/76 units seem a bit under powered in the game.

[Andy2012]

What difficulty level are you guys playing on? These reports simply don't match my own experience with the game, so I wonder if the problem instead lays with poor feedback about how the scenarios (and/or game) is meant to be played or whether people are using the wrong difficulty levels.

Please have a look at the Dunkirk Let's Play/AAR I'm putting up:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 73&t=74884

At no point does this feel "slogkrieg" to me. I'm constantly on the offense and making good progress. Yes the Allies put up challenging resistance whever I run into a line of defenses but otherwise there wouldn't be much of a game. Reducing the difficulty level should solve that. If these videos show the same kind of gameplay you are experiencing and disliking, I'd like to know what would have to be different to make it enjoyable for you.

Whoa, adherbal joins the fray. I play on middle difficulty (Major, I think. In contrast to Panzercorps, Field Marshal is just insane. 13 strength enemyunits. )

To repeat, again: I like Blitzkrieg, I had a lot of fun. It is definitely not Slogkrieg. Only Dunkirk and Kiev were a bit frustrating. Won Dunkirk first try, had to cheat in Kiev because I did not feel like hunting down the last conscript in the east far away from the battlefield. Other posters had problems in Greece as well; I guess that is related to not triggering the scripted events / allies juuuust right.

I think a lot of the problems come from not only from hunting stray units, but also from your short and clipped briefings.
You write in your AAR: "This means that while the primary objective suggests the destruction of every enemy unit, in reality a lot of them will leave the battlefield on their own if the German advance threatens the last Allied ports." See, I never read it that way. I always thought: "Well, lets knock the Belgians out of the war quickly, then rush for the coast at Oostende, then seize Dunkirk and have a nice encirclement. That should seal the deal." That was over by turn 12, then I got the all reveal at turn 15 and realized that there are still a ton of french and some british units left, pushing for my deployment area.

Another source of the problem is possibly the heavy scripting, which probably makes it quite important to play the mission juuuust right.

@devs: The things I would take away from some of these threads (and threats... ) are: 1. Gamers can sometimes be a fickle, annoying bunch of customers. 2. Make briefings a bit longer, also adds to immersion. We can all read, just look at this forum. This should clarify things and avoid confusion about objectives and proper way to attack the mission. If you think that is necessary for it to work. 3. If you really, really need another "kill xx units" scenario, make the threshold lower, e.g. 60 % of AI units. I would call that an obliterated opponent. 4. Probably, especially for the next Russia DLC, make cut-off units surrender (self-destruct, you can also add a nice white flag animation) after being on red supply / efficiency for 5 or 7 turns. That eliminates salients reliably and rewards successful Blitzkrieg tactics. You can tackle this a bit like that Paratroopers supply stash counter, just twice the length. I would only use that for singleplayer, might get imbalanced in Multiplayer.

[kondi754]

You talk a lot about improvements but I'm not sure that things you write really improve the game. Complaining about the Dunkirk scn: there are too much Allied units and Allied units attack not where you thought they would attack ...
As for the tanks T-34 and KV-1 is more complicated. How to include in the game eg. a great failure of Russian T-34 tanks? The truth is Russian tanks (T-34, KV-1) were difficult to destroy by German tanks, but also they don't inflicted too much losses by German side - poor workmanship, poor visibility, primitive targeting devices, no radio, poor ammunition, poorly trained crews, relatively weak gun in the KV-1, etc.
Therefore, I don't think that Russian tanks are too weak in the game. German infantry fought effectively with them and eliminated them in large quantities (eg. the final phase of the battle Dubno-Brody)
Did you know that the engine of T-34/41 withstand 250-300km ride and then had to be replaced? The reason was the Pomon air-filter.

I agree that the missions and tasks should be better explained.
I don't agree to any proposal which would reduce the level of difficulty.

4. Probably, especially for the next Russia DLC, make cut-off units surrender (self-destruct, you can also add a nice white flag animation) after being on red supply / efficiency for 5 or 7 turns. That eliminates salients reliably and rewards successful Blitzkrieg tactics. You can tackle this a bit like that Paratroopers supply stash counter, just twice the length. I would only use that for singleplayer, might get imbalanced in Multiplayer.

I believe that this proposal is worthy of reflection by developers.
That is my point of view.

[Shards]

What difficulty level are you guys playing on? These reports simply don't match my own experience with the game, so I wonder if the problem instead lays with poor feedback about how the scenarios (and/or game) is meant to be played or whether people are using the wrong difficulty levels.

Please have a look at the Dunkirk Let's Play/AAR I'm putting up:
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 73&t=74884

At no point does this feel "slogkrieg" to me. I'm constantly on the offense and making good progress. Yes the Allies put up challenging resistance whever I run into a line of defenses but otherwise there wouldn't be much of a game. Reducing the difficulty level should solve that. If these videos show the same kind of gameplay you are experiencing and disliking, I'd like to know what would have to be different to make it enjoyable for you.

This is interesting to watch. I usually take a completely different approach to this, making a much wider pocket by driving for Dunkirk from the South and Brugge and Oostende from the East. The key being a high-strength fast strike on Brugge with Paradrop support, to knock the Belgians out fast. I then mop up the pockets via Ypres and Kortrijk (but I do play on Level 3, my strategies might not work on 4 or 5).

Ta!