Normandy´44_250 or 750?

[Stevo62]

I am currently on turn 240 of the 750 turn campaign against the AI playing as the Axis forces. So far this has taken me about seven months of game time and I have successfully halted all of the Allied advances and have pushed them back from St. Lo. I honestly believe that as things currently stand an Axis victory is more than likely.

[toledo]

Interesting!
I'm on turn 13 and of course the first encirclements of the beach bunkers and just behind them occur.
I don't think it's that easy, because the SS is appearing more and more.
But here's what I think.
As an experienced player, you simply have to add 10-30%.
The point of the number of rounds that usually remains at the end is the purpose of the given percentages, isn't it?
That was exactly what I didn't understand about Mius at first, because you don't give your opponent an advantage. I finished a lot of rounds earlier on both sides.
It's not the AI and his moves that change (although...), but only the effort to advance.
Which then ends in +/- morale and additional exhaustion.
If you can do the 250 in 150-200 turns, then the difference up to 250 (or 750) is the difficulty level. I need more time, because the more difficult the opponent is, the longer I need for bunkers etc..
That must have been the designer's intention (as well as that of the whole series), otherwise you wouldn't need a slider for the percentages.
Since the AI can never replace a human player (in almost no game), it makes sense to always give 10-30% right at the start, depending on your own ability.
Not every player effectively encircles because he doesn't plan in advance, but simply plays what suits him.
If I were ever to play the campaign again afterwards, it would only be with more percentages for the opponent.

I'd probably be 20-25 by now, but I was about to play through Solasta and it always makes me tense when I put games on hold just before the end.
But I'll easily make it until winter, including the Scheldt campaign.
That will fit in when I start Bulge. Winter=Ardennes^^

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

[Lowlander]

Between 10 to 20 years ago I played the 750 turn campaign by PBEM, a few days ago I started in hot-seat mode playing #30-Campaign-1x_Alt.scn using the default rules plus Delayed disruption, also replacing Virtual Supply Truck with Explicit Supply ( on map vehicles ). which takes the game to another level and as a bonus you get to explore the French highways and byways. IMO it's playing pretty historical.

[toledo]

Yes, I would also have liked to use the supply.
I'll keep that in mind^^
I've just looked it up and you can also play with the AI. But it's too late now.
I like real supply much better too.
Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't read that.

[Steel God]

Food for thought on Virtual versus Explicit Supply in N44 - and I say this due to current experience with the N44 Campaign - we discussed explicit supply before we started it, and as the Allied Player I recommended that we use VST because it would make it harder on the Allies than Explicit Supply. The number one limitation the Allies have is Supply in N44, even above the Germans themselves. The Allied Supply level starts at 20, and we're just shy of 70 turns and the Allied Supply level is still only 30, and we all know what happens on June 19th and 20th - STORMS that destroy the Mulberries and slash Allied Supply Levels down to near nothing again. With a 20 supply level you are almost guaranteed to go low ammo when you shoot, imagine when (if) the new rules are implemented and you can't fire when low ammo? Even with the supply level at 30 now, once it reaches my front lines my units are all in the low 20s again anyway. It is (and should be) a logistical nightmare for the Allies and I spend most of my time rotating units off the line and back near an HQ to resupply. Now if we had used Explicit Supply with a universal supply level the Allies would be Low Fuel and Low Ammo much less often, and yes I'd need to manage the trucks, but that's easy if you're already managing the traffic jams the Allies have. I think in this title, using Explicit Supply would definitely favor the Allies, who already have every other advantage you can think of. For comparison we are using Delayed Disruption as well, but not the original default rules, we are using the default for the ALT scenario with the McNamara numbers for the OOBs.

[toledo]

So the supply problem is the real problem for me. But I also knew what to expect. Although I have everyone within range of their HQs and divisions, the main problem is fuel, because not all the HQs are there yet.
Especially tanks.
Logistics is really the main focus in this campaign and I like that.
When you say that supply is easier with trucks, that would actually be exactly the opposite of what the designer wanted, wouldn't it?
I'll test this myself when I play a small version of the campaign. Just to see what it looks like.

[Lowlander]

Remember I'm playing this hot-seat mode purely for my own entertainment.

Clarification the actual campaign is based on John Sowden #31 Normandy campaign updated by Indragnir's V1.3 Grand Campaign and the Gold Map edition by Green, so to be clear I'm playing Green's Campaign Version.
But after several turns I realised that the alt Indirect Fire rule was way too powerful. could never exit Omaha and Sword on D-Day.

So I restarted Green's Grand Campaign gold map version but used #30-Campaign-1x_Alt.scn settings as stated above.

After updating all the PZC series to V4.04 this is the only extra scenario/campaign that I retained.
However only Green's version works since the update,

[Steel God]

Logistics is really the main focus in this campaign and I like that.
When you say that supply is easier with trucks, that would actually be exactly the opposite of what the designer wanted, wouldn't it?

To be clear, I am not familiar with the scenario you are specifically playing, so my comments may not correlate to your game. In my situation I am playing the ALT version of Scenario 30, which is the 250 Turn Stock Invasion Scenario, modified to have the OOB updates that converted it to the McNamara Data Base to make it consistent with all the new OOB files. So, in the game I am playing the VST Rules make the situation harder for the Allies than Explicit Supply would. 1) Because the supply levels for the Allies start at 20 and go to 30 after 20 or 30 turns. Those rates are anemic but the 20 number is especially important as any supply value under 20 a unit will not draw replacements. Even at 30 you can only push inland so far until your supply values are perilously close to 20 again. 2) With such a low supply value your units will be constantly low ammo and low fuel, and you will have to constantly rotate them out of the line to get close to their HQs to resupply. Furthermore, since the Corps level HQs for the Allies don't start arriving until turn 60 or 70, all those Corps level Engineers, Artillery, and Cavalry Squadrons will never resupply making them of very limited value.

With Explicit Supply in play the Local Supply Value is a default of 80 (instead of 20), so those Allied Units will suffer much less from low fuel and ammo conditions, artillery will also be more readily available. Resupply will be matter of making sure the supply trucks are where you want them or need them, and is then automatic, as opposed to the need to pull units off line, get them closer to an HQ and then it's a percentage chance to resupply. Comparing the two situations it is clear to me that VST in the case of the N44 battles is the harder condition to operate under.

As for the designers intentions, again I can not speak to your specific scenario as I have no knowledge of it, but N44 Stock Scenarios were certainly never designed nor tested using the Explicit Supply rules since that rule was added later in the series and then retrofitted onto it at some point. On the subject of Explicit Supply generally I can tell you that it was added with some reluctance by Tiller back in the day and was done to address specific situations within a specific title, it was never the intention or desire that it be the default supply system, and the system works best using VST rules in MOST (but not all situations). I think generally that unless a game features situations where units will be surrounded on a regular basis (like the very fluid combat operations in North Africa as an example) then VST rules will do a better job of representing the prevailing supply problems of a specific battle.

[Strela]

Steel God is right, explicit supply is used for very specific situations.

In my first PzC title Kharkov ‘43, it was the default supply model used as the railways in particular were critical for supplying the Axis, while the Soviets outran their supply, particularly when advancing to Dnepropetrovsk. Using explicit supply and features such as supply trains allowed us to model the Soviet aim of cutting the railways, knowing that the Germans were completely dependent on them after Kharkov fell. Using explicit supply also allowed long range raids, but also challenges of getting supply where needed due to very challenging ground conditions. All of this was less possible with VST.

For my second title, Moscow ‘42, VST was perfect as supply dwindled the further you got from the supply sources. There was no singular supply routes and we wanted to show the Soviets running out of steam in the winter offensive the further they advanced and the same for the Germans in Fall Kremlin as they approached Moscow. VST was more than suitable here.

[toledo]

Thanks for the explanation. I'll just test it myself once I've played through the 250.
So that I understand the difference.