IMVHO, the russian player has too much flexibility. Flexibility means more option for players. More options mean more fun, usually.
"Too much flexibility" for what exactly? In the real world I am literally STRUGGLING with the bloody APs... I very much doubt I will be able to keep the pace and have what they had in the real conflict One thing is certain, even if I manage (somehow) to do that I know pretty well that I won't surpass my historical counterparts.
This flexibility thing is a myth. I have to assume some people only superficially played as the Soviets...
Few APs = NO flexibility. And when the Germans have the upper hand, namely in 1941-42, the utter destruction they are unleashing on you means the APs are needed to merely survive, to keep the head above the water and avoid drowning... as opposed to start building a mega-monster.
Flexibility? Don't make me laugh. Be in charge of the Red Army. Then we will talk
What exactly are you using your APs for in 41/42, then TD? I consider you the best WitE player out there (by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the patience to micromanage, you actually derive great enjoyment from it).
Now, maybe when you play the best German players (which I am thought not to be, self-admittedly), you have more strain, but I have never found the Soviet army to be under any strain at all in this game. Methinks you waste APs, but it's merely a hypothesis, not an accusation.
On to your other post, though:
So is "flexibility" to you creating, assembling more armies (or counters for that matter)? The Germans cannot have that as that would be totally ahistorical.
The reflexive justification to call something a-historical must be stomped out in this message board forum. Both sides have a-historical capabilities to defy the political imperatives of the respective sides' commander in chief. We can't justify the presence or absence of anything in game based on history, because such justifications will always fall prey to hypocrisy.
By the same token, you have some people screaming bloody murder about Lvov and the Fall of Leningrad as "a-historical" which becomes muted as hyperbole.
You know a lot of the Soviet players overlook a lot of things about their APs, and about Germany's.
I believe the primary function (if not original purpose) of APs on the Soviet side is to prevent them from creating a game-breaking number of Corps combat units. All else is secondary. So when a Soviet player spends points to disband this or that (which almost all do), they are conducting a-historical actions within the game. When a Soviet re-assigns a unit to another HQ, they are using APs superfluously, and they simply have to accept that they're involved in a bit of a tradeoff of the "now" versus the "later."
The Soviet players overlook how many of their hindsight advantages (like disbanding Corps HQs, SAD airbases, and making the ubiquitous RR Construction/Sapper) deliberately conflict with the ability to create the most important combat units later.
Germany can make a great deal of headway with APs in reorganizing their army, but that secondary design decision to make the cost of changing HQs punitively expensive simply robs them of that ability. Is no one even trying to see what you can do with the Wehrmacht with 200 APs a turn? It's awesome.
Soviets have no right to complain about anything regarding APs. They can game the system a myriad different ways while Germany is told it must be a second-class citizen to the gameplay, perpetually stuck to the rails that drive its effectiveness downward on a predictable glide slope (i.e., the National Morale level settings, the contrived drop in morale irrespective of in-game circumstance, and the Morale Increase formula which forever pushes German morale down artificially while lifting Soviet morale up artificially, to speak nothing of the refit mechanic).
I used very incorrectly the APs I bought many diggers... when the forts mattered. Then a patch changed that. Whatever, now I know you only have to be a Spartan: buy the minimum assets.
As I said, Some of you forgot (and this is critical) that the Red Army is on the ropes in the first half of the war. This means the APs are needed to merely survive. You German players have lovely units with high experience (and good commanders). The Soviets don't... You might be forced (every single turn) to bring fresh units (aka spend APs) to replace depleted/low morale units, which are reassigned to let's say Stavka, to avoid overloading that front HQ... This, the Germans CAN avoid it. The Soviets can't You have a shabby army, and even if you use many APs to replace demorailised units the army will be shabby the same. The truth is I will badly need APs to upgrade to the Red Army v2.0. Will I do it in time? It's a tough struggle (keep the head above the water etc.).
And thanks for the compliment, but no, I am not "the best WitE player out there", not even close My 1942 summer defensive campaign is the proof on my book
As I see it (AARs), German players are currently surpassing their historical counterparts, so I still don't get it.
Ya know what, I have to wonder just how "disbanding Corps HQ/SAD bases." is hindsight. Being that they disband on their own, and there is no way to stop it.
I keep hearing that the Axis player is on rails. Now, I haven't seen *any* evidence that they are. especially as they have the ability to game the logistics for at least a year before the Soviets can. The fact that the guy who just said they are wants Matrix to pay him to "go away" as it were, says alot.
In the first half of the war, it is the Soviets who are "on rails."
To quote jaw:
1. Red Army divisions begin the game on average 30% below their TOEs compared to most German divisions being 90 to 100% strength;
2. Red Army experience/morale is on average 40 points below average German experience/morale and it goes down not up until mid-1942;
3. Red Army leaders are on average 20 to 30% less capable than German leaders;
4. Red Army tank & motorized divisions have only half the mobility of their German counterparts;
5. These already diminished tank & motorized divisions convert into even less capable tank brigades & rifle divisions;
6. Red Army rifle and cavalry divisions re-organize into smaller (30 to 50%), less well-equipped, divisions within a few weeks of the start of the game;
7. Within a few weeks of the start of the game, the Red Army loses an entire level of command when its corps are either converted to armies or disbanded;
8. The first turn surprise rule results in the decimation of virtually the entire frontier army, requiring weeks to restore conhesion;
9. The AP allowance is totally inadequate to meet the demands of re-organizing the army and properly staffing it;
10. The unit creation penalty effectively makes building any new units impossible before winter.
For God's sake, how many more burdens to you want to place on the Red Army? If with all these disadvantages, the Red Army can still defeat the German Army with nothing more than a more reasonable defense, then the Germans really had no chance of victory and to "balance" the game would be to indulge in historical fantasy.
IIRC Russian ground support is hardwired to, in a nutshell, suck.
What's the most terrifying word in nuclear physics? Oops.