Simply running away will doom the Soviets.
If you let the Germans just gobble up land to save your army you will find a Germany that has high effectiveness and good position when the winter starts and can easily defend vs attacks.
This doesn't mean defend up front. This means defend to delay. Attacking costs more effectiveness than defending. The Soviets want to exhaust the German players without giving up strategic objectives or production. The Soviets have reserve armies that come into play once at war. This is the large reserve of trained men they have. If you study how many men they raised in 1941 after the invasion it is truly mind blowing. 7,234,197 in 1941 and 7,668,415 in 1942.... 1943 ~3,200,000..... 1944 and 1945 ~1,250,000 (they were running out of men)
Anyways the reserves take time to form and usually all are formed by the 4th turn. But you still have to move them into position. The Soviets also have to get rid of these crappy corps and replace them with armies strategically.
This whole method was tested when I made Assault on Communism for SC2. It is the same formula I used for that expansion. AoC had real depth to it. I play tested over 25 games with players to make it better.
Also as the Soviets you should be attacking the crap out of the Germans in the winter. Not only to cause attrition but to wear down their effectiveness. This way by the summer you are both exhausted. But as said before it cost more effectiveness to attack than to defend. So if both sides are worn out it favors the defender.
This of course has to pass the test of players and be adjusted but this is generally how it plays out or at least should play out. How the Axis player fights the Soviets depends on his strategy. Do they forgo everything for an all out 1941 Barbarossa? Or do they go in measured just to cripple their army?
Games worked on
Designer of the Strategic Command 2 products
- Brute Force (mod)
- Assault on Communism
- Assault on Democracy
Designer of the Strategic Command 3 products
- Map Image Importer