RE: Russian balance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message


Nirosi -> RE: Russian balance (7/30/2021 2:31:59 PM)

Hi Flaviusx,

I can understand the opportunity cost but more for the lost steps to train (which I admit is hard to evaluate as it can vary from little to huge). For the tech advancement, whether one waits to upgrade in 1942 or builds in 1942, the tech cost will eventually be the same, and in the same year. And a January 1942 mech is not a bad unit at all. Seems to me that by waiting only 8 months or so, one gets a much better defensive value for its PPs to repair (the 10 steps ones at least) than to scrap. I'll try to test defensive effectiveness more thoroughly when I have time.

This of course would be false if the Soviets need to scrap the bottom of the barrel for infs prior to Barbarossa, but my intuition for now is that for most games, with the actually changes, they will not be that pressured anymore. Of course again, it depends on temperature, skills, OOB, strategies (I think most Soviets did not run away enough, I included; not sure how necessary that is anymore however)...

However, one thing I did not yet take into account is that if the corps (build from scrapping the mecchs) do survive and transform into 1/2 armies, then the PPs cost starts to be more interesting for the infs. as you can save on future builds maybe.

I also see, of course, the need to sometime disband units. But it depends what the Soviet wants most: PPs or time. You example of disbanding an XP lagger is the most efficient for time but will cost more PPs (sometimes very little more, sometimes almost double). Another way is simply to send it into combat. Low XP steps will die and be replaced with 50Xp steps and survivors steps will even improve (sometime very fast), and the unit will even do stuff to the enemy meanwhile instead of been in the queue.

But yes, I agree and I can see how for really big laggers that did not see combat yet, or very little combat (XP still in the 20s for example; or have no opportunity as you say [crowded front I assume?]) the PPs cost will not be that much more to disband indeed once taken into account losses necessary to improve and the 50% PPs you get back for disbanding. I've done it to.

I do not think there is any absolute answer to a game with so many variables. I depends so much of context, the players strategy and also the... opponent.




stjeand -> RE: Russian balance (7/30/2021 2:32:13 PM)

I will take your word with that Flaviusx...I have yet to see the Soviets survive long enough to actually prune any units.
I always need ever single unit no matter what shape it is in...

HOPEFULLY with the changes it is now possible.




Nirosi -> RE: Russian balance (7/30/2021 2:43:32 PM)

quote:

I always need ever single unit no matter what shape it is in...


Indeed, when one has big holes in the front, sometime the situations decides for you[8|]




Flaviusx -> RE: Russian balance (7/30/2021 4:04:25 PM)

Truth be told, I might save 3 of the cadre mech for a special purpose. NOT for ports. I have a better place for them. But I only need 3 of them for this. The others go in the scrap pile. And those mech may indeed get enough experience doing this to make them worth the bother.




ncc1701e -> RE: Russian balance (8/1/2021 8:23:28 PM)

I am a little worried about German army in the East when it will change to garrison mode. With few fire brigades, I am wondering if Soviets will be strong enough to go to Berlin.




Flaviusx -> RE: Russian balance (8/1/2021 8:32:36 PM)

It can get a little rough. The Soviets will have to be willing to pay a stiff butcher's bill and take their lumps. I'm okay with this. For a while now it seems to me the game is biased towards the offense. The garrison rule restores the balance and you just cannot roll the opposition anymore once you get the initiative.

Between garrisoned infantry and panzer corps working as fire brigades and the luftwaffe, Big Red is going to take a while to get a head of steam. But now that means games may go the distance instead of a decision happening either in 41 (for the Germans) or more rarely in 43 for the allies. Not a whole lot of games make it to 45. It usually ends up being a blowout for one or the other side. I'm happy that's going to change.




sveint -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 3:11:15 AM)

I've now got a game where the Soviets are "stuck" at 37%. I haven't done anything drastically different from other games, and yet this will surely be a loss. I think experience progression needs to be reviewed.




CHINCHIN -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 8:38:57 AM)

The rate of increase of the Russian experience is good. Keep in mind that if you it's below 50% of manpower, the experience decreases.




Flaviusx -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 11:29:45 AM)

Yeah, like I said, getting experience for the Sovs is kind of an issue now, especially with liberal use of garrison mode.

I think the game favors experience gains from attacks over defense, btw. Not sure of this, but it feels like it. The Sovs tend to get more experience when they do attacks rather than merely defend.

My present solution to this problem is to farm experience in Finland. This is the one place I think it is worth saving the early mech for. 3-4 of them, anyways. They can actually make some difference up here unless the Germans heavily reinforce it. The Soviets cav is also useful up here. They are too weak to do much of anything in the main front, but in Finland they can go kind of nuts.




stjeand -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 1:04:55 PM)

I usually send a German mech north to keep the Russians from messing around too much. That prevents most of their ski trips.




stjeand -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 1:08:33 PM)

Keep in mind we need a lot more testing with the new changes.
Not sure there has been a game that was start to finish with the new garrison rules.

THOUGH the Soviets got a huge bonus in the hybrid games where it was started with the old version and then the new kicked in.
They received the full garrison value for their troops where as the Germans have to spend more to get their troops out of garrison so lost PP.

This hosed me up as I did not have it all calculated correctly and missed the 41 invasion by 2 months...so now I have to test 42 invasion




Harrybanana -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 10:35:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Keep in mind we need a lot more testing with the new changes.
Not sure there has been a game that was start to finish with the new garrison rules.

THOUGH the Soviets got a huge bonus in the hybrid games where it was started with the old version and then the new kicked in.
They received the full garrison value for their troops where as the Germans have to spend more to get their troops out of garrison so lost PP.

This hosed me up as I did not have it all calculated correctly and missed the 41 invasion by 2 months...so now I have to test 42 invasion


I assume you are talking about your game with me. I agree that the Rule change coming when it did in our game really messed you up bad. I do think that a 42 Barbarossa is viable, but only if the Axis use 41 to conquer the UK, Gibraltar and the Middle East (or at least 2 of these 3). I am not so sure if a 42 Barbarossa can work if you haven't done any of these.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Russian balance (8/9/2021 11:02:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nirosi
I do not think there is any absolute answer to a game with so many variables. I depends so much of context, the players strategy and also the... opponent.


This is correct. I did my best to make sure this game isn't a min-max game with a lot of fluid variables.




stjeand -> RE: Russian balance (8/10/2021 12:42:24 AM)

quote:

I assume you are talking about your game with me. I agree that the Rule change coming when it did in our game really messed you up bad. I do think that a 42 Barbarossa is viable, but only if the Axis use 41 to conquer the UK, Gibraltar and the Middle East (or at least 2 of these 3). I am not so sure if a 42 Barbarossa can work if you haven't done any of these.


Very probable. I won't be doing any of those so I suspect I will be toast.

But here's to trying.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0234375