Steel Division 1944 (by wargame red dragon devs) in game trailer and unit stream

[Destraex]

Jason that is excellent. I salute you both. I am also just playing against the AI currently - coop. It can give you a damned good thrashing.

[Jarhead0331]

A lot of interesting observations in our game against the AI.

The map contained large relatively open fields in the center permitting me to set up kill zones with beautiful lines of sight with my strong anti-tank and armored assets which filled the ranks of my 17.SS battlegroup. Jason, meanwhile, secured some very defensible terrain on the right flank with his crack infantry, while I held the center and anchored the left. We spent some quality time reviewing the map and it's terrain features before we deployed for battle and thought we had a very competent plan.

Now, making things a little more interesting, the best defensive terrain in Jason's AO was a little further north of the main line of resistance. As a result, he made contact pretty early on in the game with various recon elements, which over time became supported by heavier infantry and mechanized forces. Jason's falschirmjaegers were shredding everything the Canadian infantry and US airborne forces threw at him, but by the middle of phase B he was starting to get pressure from increasingly heavier forces, and his anti-tank capability was limited to relatively short range panzershrek units. As a result, and since contact on the left and center was extremely light, I started deploying units on the right flank to reinforce Jason's luftlanders...and, of course, that's when a relatively controlled skirmish on the right flank turned into a heated struggle for the entire battlefield.

It started as a rapid recon probe on the extreme left flank and quickly turned into an all out advance with infantry supported by light armor, anti-tank guns and P51s. My well positioned forces did a great job of annhilating those initial forces that tried to explore the center and left flank. With my stukas supported by Jason's Messerschmitts, we were able to provide some effective CAS while inflicting losses on the allies air assets. Unfortunately, by phase C, the allies had extensive AAA setup across the front that made further sortie dangerous and costly.

My recollection of the armor deployed by the allies differs somewhat from Jason's. I could swear I saw Shermans supported by wolverines. Much of the allied armor forces were committed on the right, where Jason's light infantry forces were already depleted from heavy combat since early in phase A. At the same time, capable and long range infantry support and anti-tank units steadily crept down avenues in the center and on the left. During this time I lost some high value units like panzer IVs and Marder IIIc's. We went into phase c with a wide 1000 point lead over the allies, but by the time the bell rang, we were only a couple hundred points apart and the situation was deteriorating. So, we were quite literally, saved by the bell.

My general observations...the AI makes effective use of recon elements. It starts with quick probes of the frontline and always dips its toes in before diving in with heavier combat forces. At least in this game, the AI made contact with lower point infantry and mechanized units and appeared to use these forces to wear our positions out, before committing a steady thrust with heavier combined arms forces, including high value armor units. It's hard to say whether the AI random deck was built this way by chance, or whether the AI purposely held back it's heavy units for a final quarter assault. Either way, it made for an exciting battle.

Also, the AI seemed to try different things and would not keep sending its forces into my kill zones while expecting a different result. Instead, after I hurt him, I noticed his probes would shift to other areas, perhaps checking for weakness?

Finally, the AI is aggressive. Jason said before we launched, the AI will always come to you, and he was spot on. The AI seems to only know how to go on the offense. At no time did the AI wait, trying to consolidate its positions, or goad us into advancing to its positions. It used a 100% offensive strategy. I wonder if higher difficulty settings may result in other more defensive strategies.

Anyway, awesome battle all around. Thanks to Jason for kicking ass on the right and holding it together long enough for us to pull out with a win. Great fun and can't wait to do it again!

[sandman2575]

Great AAR, JH & JP. 

The AI really is surprisingly competent, like JH says, making good use of recon and probes, and massing for assaults. It's also very effective with counter-battery fires. And definitely true that AI on Medium or higher is pretty relentless, keeping pressure up almost all along the front. Easy AI seems content to hold territory in some places, which is why I find it far easier to handle than Medium -- Medium AI feels more like the Wargame titles in terms of difficulty and stress!

Speaking of stress -- I know this is a mechanic in Wargame, but I love that Eugen made the effects more front & center with the 'red bar' -- It really is an ingenious way of countering the simplistic 'rock paper scissors' play of other RTSs. No matter how powerful an individual unit may be, your opponent can usually counter it with good tactics and good combined arms. Recent game I was getting pushed back hard by the AI. Purchased a Jagdpanther and thought, "OK, suck on this." The AI didn't have any hard-anti-armor fielded -- but it did have plenty of AAA. My Jagdpanther barely even got in the fight. It was completely flustered by Bofors fire, stress bar went right up and it wound up falling back in short order. And love that Morale also plays into this -- a veteran or elite Jagdpather would've stood up better to the AAA. As a rookie, it lost its cool quickly.

I'm extremely impressed by SD44. The more I play it -- and I haven't really been playing anything else -- the more I feel like Eugen has achieved something really special with this release.

[JasonPratt]

Ah, 17th! I'm sure I knew that originally, but I haven't played enough for them to stick out as distinct yet. (Also, since I always play the Luftlanders I don't have much experience with other German divisions yet.)

On the topic of heavy armor, what I meant was that while I saw some high-value anti-armor guns I didn't see any double-digit armor plating on my side of the map. My games so far have often featured no small amounts of very tanky tanks that can shrug off all kinds of hits, and can only really be beat by air (at least in my deck). Of course I was often distracted by plotting new routes to my outpost for incoming units -- on this map (which was Pegasus Bridge and which did not feature Pegasus Bridge as I joked shortly after loading!) one of our three ingress lanes was actually on the lower right side rather than on the bottom side, which was one reason I chose to stake out a position to defend on the far right. Our other two ingresses did cross bridges over the river, but were much better for JH's line.

I really was a bit surprised that my main outpost held out as long as it did; I kept expecting they would die and I'd be falling back or rather rebuilding at other defensive points closer back to parallel with JH's shooting gallery line. Since we were playing "destruction", not conquest, and since JH had great anti-tank guns he could pull up early, and since I knew from experience the game likes to attack (whether destruction or conquest), I recommended he set up a thin but long line in the middle with a shorter secondary line on the left to snipe the enemy. And he did super-great at that.  O0 But in hindsight, I feel like I should have taken a similarly "south" position in one of the defensive towns, to anchor his right flank. Why? Because this greatly shortens the time and routes to deploy new troops. And while the new release out of beta adds a rule where someone gaining 90% of the map (or something like that, I forget the exact figure but it's high) will auto-win during destruction mode, I felt pretty sure we could deny that until we racked up our score.

As it was, I spent a lot of time building up pockets of new airborne resistance in a descending wedge left and right of my position (with some reinforcing help from JH on my left side), and throwing my air in to CAS and CAP/intercept problems. What I meant to do, but never really did, was build up an arty park.

Also, I continue to be somewhat amazed at just how surprisingly worthless my Marders and STuGs are. They're freaking anti-tank guns, and not small ones, with ARMOR -- they ought to kick a lot of ass! But I've theorized that the game doesn't really know how to model their low profiles (especially with the STuG) in creating overshoots, difficult aims, and deflection shots. It occurred to me after the fight last night, when watching (out of the corner of my eye, as it were) how great JH's guns were doing, and recalling how great my few 88s usually do, that I may be desperately mis-using the Marders and StuGs, too: they aren't tanks. And I try to push them forward like tanks, instead of treating them like tougher and more easily re-positioned ANTI-TANK GUNS. Because my tanks are totally worthless, except at shooting jeeps and halftracks in Phase A.


In regard to whether the AI held off (quasi-)intentionally on deploying the Shermans late, or whether that was a deck effect: I'm inclined to think it was a deck effect, but I've seen at least one case where the computer chose to hold back sending out its air force until very late in a conquest game. Even if it had no air-stacks until Phase C, it still prioritized other units due to some instructions or protocol calcs. There's a lot to be said for holding on with what you got until you build up enough req points to put in a huge task force which then super-stack-rolls forward; I wouldn't be surprised if the programmers gave the AI some instructions under conditions for that.

Still, we were on a downward lose-slope at the end. Against two Easy AIs, and with JH's line just murdering everything. My side was about to fold (even though I had gotten some resupply trucks up to the airborne outpost). Against two medium AIs... it might have been a rather different game.  :hide:

[JasonPratt]

And love that Morale also plays into this -- a veteran or elite Jagdpather would've stood up better to the AAA. As a rookie, it lost its cool quickly.

And having a leader in radius would have substantially bulked it, not only adding a star of experience in effect but also reducing suppression effects and, if I recall correctly, eliminating surrender effects.

[Jarhead0331]

Also, I continue to be somewhat amazed at just how surprisingly worthless my Marders and STuGs are. They're freaking anti-tank guns, and not small ones, with ARMOR -- they ought to kick a lot of ass! But I've theorized that the game doesn't really know how to model their low profiles (especially with the STuG) in creating overshoots, difficult aims, and deflection shots. It occurred to me after the fight last night, when watching (out of the corner of my eye, as it were) how great JH's guns were doing, and recalling how great my few 88s usually do, that I may be desperately mis-using the Marders and StuGs, too: they aren't tanks. And I try to push them forward like tanks, instead of treating them like tougher and more easily re-positioned ANTI-TANK GUNS. Because my tanks are totally worthless, except at shooting jeeps and halftracks in Phase A.

This is an outstanding point and observation. I KNOW I tend to treat my StuGs and Marders as tanks, trying to employ them as such, and I ALWAYS end up paying for it. You're absolutely correct...They are basically just anti-tank guns with treads and should not be used in a direct infantry support/armor role. Eventually, I'll suffer enough to learn this invaluable lesson.

[RyanE]

Is there any kind pf reply feature to watch games that have been played, like a recorder?

edit...nevermind, I saw the answer on the Rock, Paper, Shotgun review that every skirmish and MP game is automatically recorded.

[Pete Dero]

Also, I continue to be somewhat amazed at just how surprisingly worthless my Marders and STuGs are. They're freaking anti-tank guns, and not small ones, with ARMOR -- they ought to kick a lot of ass! But I've theorized that the game doesn't really know how to model their low profiles (especially with the STuG) in creating overshoots, difficult aims, and deflection shots. It occurred to me after the fight last night, when watching (out of the corner of my eye, as it were) how great JH's guns were doing, and recalling how great my few 88s usually do, that I may be desperately mis-using the Marders and StuGs, too: they aren't tanks. And I try to push them forward like tanks, instead of treating them like tougher and more easily re-positioned ANTI-TANK GUNS. Because my tanks are totally worthless, except at shooting jeeps and halftracks in Phase A.

This is an outstanding point and observation. I KNOW I tend to treat my StuGs and Marders as tanks, trying to employ them as such, and I ALWAYS end up paying for it. You're absolutely correct...They are basically just anti-tank guns with treads and should not be used in a direct infantry support/armor role. Eventually, I'll suffer enough to learn this invaluable lesson.

Source : THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WEAPONS  OF WORLD WAR II

Sturmgeschütz III

Following from its experiences in World War I, the German army saw the need for an armoured mobile gun that could follow infantry attacks and provide fire support and the firepower
to knock out strongpoints and bunkers, During the late 1930s such a gun was developed using the chassis, suspension and running gear of the PzKpfw III
tank. This armoured gun was known as the Sturmgeschütz III though its formal designation was Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für Sturmgeschütz 7.5-cm Kanone SdKfz 142, (assault gun model
3) and it had the usual upper hull and turret of the tank replaced by a thick carapace of armour with a short 75-mm (2.95-in) gun mounted in the front. This weapon was first issued for service in
1940 (StuG III Ausf A) and was soon followed by a whole series of vehicles that gradually incorporated overall and detail improvements, to the extent that when the war ended in 1945 many
were still in service on all fronts. The 1941 models were the StuG III Ausf B, C and D, while the slightly improved StuG III Ausf E appeared in 1942.
The main change to the Sturmgeschütz III (or StuG III) series was a gradual programme of upgunning, The original short 75-mm gun was an y 24 weapon (i.e. the length of the barrel
was 24 times the calibre) and had limitations against many targets except at short ranges. Thus it was replaced by longer guns with improved performance, first an y43 (StuG III Ausf F)
and then an L/48 gun (StuG III Ausf G).
The latter gun also provided the StuG HI series with an anti-tank capability, and this was in a way to the detriment of the original assault-support concept, for it was far easier to produce a StuG
than it was a tank, so many StuG Ills with L/48 guns were diverted to the Panzer divisions in place of battle tanks, Used as a tank-killer the StuG III had its moments, but it lacked traverse
and adequate protection for the task. It had to be retained as such, however, for German industry simply could not supply enough tanks for the Panzer divisions.
As an assault gun the StuG III series was far more successful.

[JasonPratt]

Ryan, yes as you remembered, there's an automatic recorder, which is also pretty much the only feasible way to get down close enough to the map to appreciate the gfx! However, the playback is ultra-stupid in that you can't go backward. Just about every game will be at least 1/2 an hour, and so if you want to follow multiple units around and test angles for screenshots or whatever, then you have to start over again from the beginning, like an answering machine recording!  :pullhair:

[JasonPratt]

STuGs and STuHs (the howitzer version, which my deck has a couple of), should certainly be used as mobile direct-fire infantry support weapons against hard and soft points respectively. But in SD44, those roles don't really exist. And even the Marder, which was more intended for direct anti-armor action than the STuG originally, just doesn't have the reaction time and aiming and armor to attack into anything more than the lightest armor. Better than the cruddy French tanks I start with, simply in virtue of having more powerful guns, but they seem to die just as quickly if not moreso.

It might be possible to micro-manage leapfrogging teams of Marders and/or STuGs in short overwatch progressions, but good the hell luck doing that in multiplayer without the ability to slow time!

[Tuna]

The Marder should be considered more of 'mobile'  AT gun. It should be able to kill stuff, but I would think highly vulnerable when taking fire itself.

Stug on the other hand is armored and has a low silhouette I should think it would do very well against light allied armor. They both have formidable guns.

[RyanE]

I ntactical games like CM and Graviteam, Stugs are good anti-armor if longer ranges where the limited traverse isn't as much of an issue.  Back in the CMBB days, I used to charge Stug emplacements and then, if I made it, peel off to the side where the Stug couldn't get to me in time before I put a shot in its side.

[sandman2575]

The Marder should be considered more of 'mobile'  AT gun. It should be able to kill stuff, but I would think highly vulnerable when taking fire itself.

Stug on the other hand is armored and has a low silhouette I should think it would do very well against light allied armor. They both have formidable guns.

Very much agree. Marders should be best employed for ambushes, as defensive assets. StuGs on the other hand should be able to play a key supporting role in offensive thrusts.

I guess I haven't had the same experience as JP -- I've found StuGs to be pretty hardy on the offensive.

[sandman2575]

Thinking about StuGs and StuHs though -- anyone else bothered by the fact that howitzer / infantry-gun units like the sIG 33 and leFHs, or StuHs and 105mm Shermans have to be used as direct fire units? I guess it's just for gameplay purposes, but it really cuts down their usefulness. I seldom take them in my decks, especially for bocage-heavy maps with bad lines of sight.

[RyanE]

Isn't that what they were originally designed for, Infantry direct fire support.  Like Soviet SU-152s.