A big 'flaw' of the game and why I stopped playing

[Searry]

I have immense love for this game and it's definitely on my #2 spot with #1 being WITW. But I don't like this one thing which seems to make every game go in the same sort of broad strategy. I'll quote myself from another thread.

"I have noticed experienced Germany players first try to destroy almost everything they can with almost magic like maneuver with split up tank divisions and try to take the most important railways or even maneuver through the marshes if Kiev proves too difficult and then proceed in a huge tank ball from every direction of the map towards Moscow to absolutely blast it to hell just before winter and it always succeeds because even though the winter comes after a couple turns of mud, the light snowfall allows a few last turns of intense mechanized maneuver. I think it's a big flaw of the game which warrants it's own thread."

I have tried slowing down the enemy in literally every city with full infantry divisions and left pockets of NKDV and infantry wander in the countryside making nasty looking supply problems for the Germans. I have tried to not use up my tanks and save them for the defence of Moscow. I have tried retreating as fast as possible, leaving annoying zocs. I have tried balanced and weighted front commitments.

I think the south is essentially useless to hold because the terrain there is so bad for the Soviets you can guarantee you'll get encircled if you don't dig behind every river and even that doesn't always help. I have done this a few times to try to slow down the German tanks going towards Moscow but it never works. So the lesson is to not commit in the south, right?

What about Leningrad? You're guaranteed to lose it but there isn't a big point in using it as a diversion because if you get in a pickle in the north the whole flank bursts open(which almost always happens anyway) and the Finns march in, still, you want to keep Leningrad to keep the Finns building fortresses and happily farming rye in their homeland.

The middle part is easiest, but as the north and south are finished, you get the massive CV panzer blob of death coming at you from all sides, and even if you only committed to the defense of Moscow, you're not at all guaranteed to keep it.

I am sad how this German strategy seems to be the best for '41 and I have no idea at all how to defeat it.
Failing so many times and investing hundreds of hours in micromanaging everything but still not figuring it out is a massive frustration.

If I had the WITW filters for airforces I would come back to this game to try to learn how to do it, if it is possible, but for some reason, the last time I checked, these ESSENTIAL QOL changes were not implemented.

Where is the formula to limit the damage on the Soviet army in '41 so you can launch a good blizzard offensive?
The dilemma is that the Soviet CV is unable to take Moscow in blizzard conditions in my experience.

[Neogodhobo]

You mean single player or multiplayer ?

[Searry]

Multiplayer.

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Searry

I have immense love for this game and it's definitely on my #2 spot with #1 being WITW. But I don't like this one thing which seems to make every game go in the same sort of broad strategy. I'll quote myself from another thread.

"I have noticed experienced Germany players first try to destroy almost everything they can with almost magic like maneuver with split up tank divisions and try to take the most important railways or even maneuver through the marshes if Kiev proves too difficult and then proceed in a huge tank ball from every direction of the map towards Moscow to absolutely blast it to hell just before winter and it always succeeds because even though the winter comes after a couple turns of mud, the light snowfall allows a few last turns of intense mechanized maneuver. I think it's a big flaw of the game which warrants it's own thread."

I have tried slowing down the enemy in literally every city with full infantry divisions and left pockets of NKDV and infantry wander in the countryside making nasty looking supply problems for the Germans. I have tried to not use up my tanks and save them for the defence of Moscow. I have tried retreating as fast as possible, leaving annoying zocs. I have tried balanced and weighted front commitments.

I think the south is essentially useless to hold because the terrain there is so bad for the Soviets you can guarantee you'll get encircled if you don't dig behind every river and even that doesn't always help. I have done this a few times to try to slow down the German tanks going towards Moscow but it never works. So the lesson is to not commit in the south, right?

What about Leningrad? You're guaranteed to lose it but there isn't a big point in using it as a diversion because if you get in a pickle in the north the whole flank bursts open(which almost always happens anyway) and the Finns march in, still, you want to keep Leningrad to keep the Finns building fortresses and happily farming rye in their homeland.

The middle part is easiest, but as the north and south are finished, you get the massive CV panzer blob of death coming at you from all sides, and even if you only committed to the defense of Moscow, you're not at all guaranteed to keep it.

I am sad how this German strategy seems to be the best for '41 and I have no idea at all how to defeat it.
Failing so many times and investing hundreds of hours in micromanaging everything but still not figuring it out is a massive frustration.

If I had the WITW filters for airforces I would come back to this game to try to learn how to do it, if it is possible, but for some reason, the last time I checked, these ESSENTIAL QOL changes were not implemented.

Where is the formula to limit the damage on the Soviet army in '41 so you can launch a good blizzard offensive?
The dilemma is that the Soviet CV is unable to take Moscow in blizzard conditions in my experience.

My opinion. The only thing that keeps german panzers at bay is their supply network. If you play against a player that really masters the supply system, you are done. To be fair, the germans would have killed for having the same easy way of "feeding" the units german players have in the game. But I guess it is made on purpose. If germans could just win one out of ten games (assuming equally skilled players) then very few people would want to play as the axis, making for a boring game.

That said, I think many soviet players throw the towel well before they should. It wont be unitl 1943 when they will be ready to face the germans on equal conditions, but most soviet players give up after a good first or second good year of the germans. I am not saying that was your case, but I have seen it a good number of times.

Regarding the blizzard, again the thing is if you play against an experienced player or not. I have seen two neebies playing where the german one hacked to pieces the soviet one early during 1941 (he took Moscosw, Leningrad and Rostov) but the was badly ready for the blizzard, he refused to give up his conquests and ended the first winter in a very bad shape (he lost around 10 german inf divisions, Rostov, the Stalino area, Kursk, Voronezh, Orel...)

[EwaldvonKleist]

The problem about the comment is Searry that there are so many variables. What is your approach to the game? Do you play to relax a bit after a day of hard work, do you like to recreate history, do you like to minmax? How are is the skill level of your opponents? Which versions did you play under? In which situation did you resign? How much time do you take per turn? I guess that every good Soviet player invests at least 3 hours per turn in 1941, often significantly more.

If you look on the AARs, you can find many games that make one draw exactly the opposite conclusion that you gave as well as some that support your impression, so you can't put up general rules.

As such, replying in any detailed way to your post is pointless, because it is way too vague. IMO the best way for you to improve would be to post an AAR where you show your gameplay and explain a bit what you do admin wise, collecting feedback of other players where you can improve your strategies.

Also, did you try playing the Germans as well? Did you achieve similar results? Because playing Germany in a good way is everything, but not trivial.

[Aufklaerungs]

...they can with almost magic like maneuver with split up tank divisions...

Split up panzer divisions? I've tried unsuccessfully to split these guys, but couldn't. Figured it was because some are comprised of one brigade (three battalions) while others have panzer regiments with two or three battalions. I feel like an idiot! Didn't think it was possible to have battalion-sized CUs; figured they'd have to be SUs. They must split into one tank regiment or brigade and two motorized inf brigades/regiments?

Maybe try a few games as the axis side and let your opponent deal with all the frustration. Best way to learn to play the Soviets well is losing to an experienced Soviet player. There are some compassionate geniuses who will school you by turning off FOW for the Soviets only! so you can pick up some nifty tricks that buy you valuable time and mitigate some losses. I think mastering Soviet air power potential is a must. Forget inflicting air combat casualties on the fascists early on. Build air group experience and morale from the get-go. Also good Soviet players know the ins and outs to maximize their Guard unit production from all those routed units in 41 & 42. Dancing with the Axis allies whenever possible is the best way I've found to start accruing experience/morale.

[Searry]

ORIGINAL: No idea

My opinion. The only thing that keeps german panzers at bay is their supply network. If you play against a player that really masters the supply system, you are done. To be fair, the germans would have killed for having the same easy way of "feeding" the units german players have in the game. But I guess it is made on purpose. If germans could just win one out of ten games (assuming equally skilled players) then very few people would want to play as the axis, making for a boring game.

That said, I think many soviet players throw the towel well before they should. It wont be unitl 1943 when they will be ready to face the germans on equal conditions, but most soviet players give up after a good first or second good year of the germans. I am not saying that was your case, but I have seen it a good number of times.

Regarding the blizzard, again the thing is if you play against an experienced player or not. I have seen two neebies playing where the german one hacked to pieces the soviet one early during 1941 (he took Moscosw, Leningrad and Rostov) but the was badly ready for the blizzard, he refused to give up his conquests and ended the first winter in a very bad shape (he lost around 10 german inf divisions, Rostov, the Stalino area, Kursk, Voronezh, Orel...)

Yeah, supply is key for the Germans and any German play must learn how to use it, especially the greatly flawed HQBU system which I dislike a lot. The WITW system is so much better.

I have tried many times to make a good blizzard push after the army is devastated but I feel like there's no time to prepare for the blizzard after the Germans have maneuvered themselves to very good position with ease.
The '41 Blizzard army is weak, incredibly weak compared to how the Germans really exhausted themselves that winter.
Another possibility is that I make it weak by making wrong decisions, but I have no idea how to squeeze any more CV in there.

Yeah I feel like if I play the Soviets against newbies I absolutely destroy them with ease which isn't fun at all.

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist

The problem about the comment is Searry that there are so many variables. What is your approach to the game? Do you play to relax a bit after a day of hard work, do you like to recreate history, do you like to minmax? How are is the skill level of your opponents? Which versions did you play under? In which situation did you resign? How much time do you take per turn? I guess that every good Soviet player invests at least 3 hours per turn in 1941, often significantly more.

If you look on the AARs, you can find many games that make one draw exactly the opposite conclusion that you gave as well as some that support your impression, so you can't put up general rules.

As such, replying in any detailed way to your post is pointless, because it is way too vague. IMO the best way for you to improve would be to post an AAR where you show your gameplay and explain a bit what you do admin wise, collecting feedback of other players where you can improve your strategies.

Also, did you try playing the Germans as well? Did you achieve similar results? Because playing Germany in a good way is everything, but not trivial.

I am a minmaxer, I don't care about relaxation or history. I think my opponents are masters of the game. I played in 2016 and 2017 but don't remember the versions. I spent many hours per turn.

AARs? Sure but do you have some recommendations? Pro vs Pro type of stuff.

How is it vague? What would you suggest I try to explain? Good idea about writing up one myself, maybe I'll do that if I take the plunge.

I have played the Germans extensively and I started to feel like I got the handle of things. Definitely not trivial.

ORIGINAL: Aufklaerungs

Maybe try a few games as the axis side and let your opponent deal with all the frustration. Best way to learn to play the Soviets well is losing to an experienced Soviet player. There are some compassionate geniuses who will school you by turning off FOW for the Soviets only! so you can pick up some nifty tricks that buy you valuable time and mitigate some losses. I think mastering Soviet air power potential is a must. Forget inflicting air combat casualties on the fascists early on. Build air group experience and morale from the get-go. Also good Soviet players know the ins and outs to maximize their Guard unit production from all those routed units in 41 & 42. Dancing with the Axis allies whenever possible is the best way I've found to start accruing experience/morale.

Mastering the Soviet air potential will have to wait for WITE 2 as how the air system works in WITE is a massive pain compared to WITW, but what I have done is micromanage carefully the experience and morale from the first turn but by the time you're done you need a break so you don't start seeing numbers everywhere [:D] I have done exactly what you said about the guards. Dancing with the allies and attacking even the lone German division when I had moderate-clear chances of victory.





But yes, the idea of writing an AAR is a good one if I dare to take the plunge into this game again.
I fear I have some ring rust though because the game mechanics aren't represented in such a clear matter compared to WITW.

[Searry]

Sorry for double posting, but I think nobody either got what I meant about the frustrations of Soviet defence until mud or commented on the panzer blob coming towards Moscow in the last turns before mud and then blasting away or encircling the Soviets when the first snows come.

[Aufklaerungs]

by the time you're done you need a break so you don't start seeing numbers everywhere

Taking a break every hour is a must. Otherwise, something similar to a visual brainwashing process kicks in and quickly turns you into [&:]

[No idea]

ORIGINAL: Searry

Sorry for double posting, but I think nobody either got what I meant about the frustrations of Soviet defence until mud or commented on the panzer blob coming towards Moscow in the last turns before mud and then blasting away or encircling the Soviets when the first snows come.

I commented on it, but not directly. The best soviet defence on 41 is knowing when to run. That is why lack of recon aircraft hurts the soviets so much. If you know where are the panzers, you know where (and perhaps when) the hammer is about to fall. And then you run to th next line in what it is a game of running:

1. Before the hammer falls
2. Run more than the supply network of the germas, so that they are a bit farther each turn.
3. You have to balance your running with the need to evac factories. This is the only real reason to stand in 41.

Now, you can say that the soviet during 41 should be more than that, and I agree to some extent. The problem is that has been the only way to make a "balanced" and interesting game for both sides (interesting for the soviet if he plays beyond 42 because he is still alive)

[beender]

Under the most recent official patch 11.01, i believe Germany is almost guaranteed a win if the player masters the supply system (as @No Idea pointed out) and has a good vision for strategy. The soviet players, whatever the skills, can do their best to increase the difficulty, but hardly change the result.

Since the 11.02 beta put Soviet in an even worse position at least in early turns, the superiority of axis is larger.

As for splitting mobile divisions and creating a panzer ball, I actually don't think they are the best tactics and can be taken advantage of quite often. But I agree with your conclusion that Axis is unstoppable in 41 summer, so there is no need to elaborate on the details.

[EwaldvonKleist]

Agree with 1.11.01 extrapolating from exp under 1.10.00.

I played a game as Soviets under 1.11.01, no +1, no air drops. My opponent played an opening that killed as many units as Smokindave's shown in his AAR, but it was tight. He had a win against at least old timer Axis player in 1942. Still under 1.11.01, Leningrad, Moscow, Voronesh and Rostov were safely in Soviet hands in T17 with an OOB of 5Mio., which equals 5.3 or 5.4 million men army under 1.10.00 in terms of infantry strength (Sovet HQs were downsized, so initial manpower is lower).

So it is definitely possible to hold L/M/V/R vs. solid/good German play, even if you struggle with storing much information (possible Arrangements of units) in the head at the same time as I do.

If you look at Tyrone's AARs where he plays the Soviets, he always holds Leningrad OR Moscow and Rostov with an okish Army even against players who have played many GCs.

Now, it is possible you were facing top notch Axis players only. But in this case, I do not see the problem, why should the very best Axis players under balanced to slightly to very pro Axis game versions not have a chance to win?
As already said, 1.11.01 is very different in terms of logistics from before, just experienced this myself.

[EwaldvonKleist]

You asked for AARs: Look at Tyrone vs. Sapper, HLYA vs. Dinglir, Smokindave vs. BrianG (not yet decided but Soviets in the game despite the loss of L and M).

The opponent who recently took me on my challenge in the opponents wanted section had won 8+ games in a row as Soviets.

Etc. etc.
HLYA has won how many Games as Soviets?
Sparkley Tits?

So no, the Soviets are not destined to lose every game. You either played an unbalanced version all the time and/or gave the Axis too generous settings and/or played only the best 1% of Axis players and/or there is room for improvement in your tactics/operations/strategies.
Did you try 1.11.01?

Did you win regularly as Axis when playing them?

[EwaldvonKleist]

Quotes from your initial post:

I have tried slowing down the enemy in literally every city with full infantry divisions

IMO a questionable tactic, especially if you use good units for that. You lose more than you cause (temporary) cost on the Axis side in most cases.

I think the south is essentially useless to hold because the terrain there is so bad for the Soviets

Terrain is bad for the Soviets but so are logistics for the Axis side.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
HLYA vs. Dinglir

I do particularly recommend this one by HLYA called "Defence of the Soviet Union begins one hex west of Pskow" not for following what it describes - but for the thinking of how to make a good 1941 defence.

But on the topic of 1941 why would it not be a great German success? That after all was the historical reality. The game is about doing very well in 1941 and then being overwhelmed in later years. If the Axis did not do incredibly well in 1941 they would be crushed very quickly and it would be a boring game.