You don't want to disband the starting Soviet infantry. Much better to put them all on garrison and get back a couple thousand points that way. Also make sure they don't upgrade by turning off refit for them. You want them on the front line to die to slow the german advance. (and to prevent them from going to war too early)
I think the other dimension to this question that is being overlooked is manpower.
WarPlan has a rather curious approach to manpower in that players receive an allotment each turn for use in building new units and reinforcing existing armies. However, manpower is subject to a stockpile cap - iirc for the USSR it is 1,400 – so your are presented with a use them or lose them scenario.
This game mechanism is totally at odds with how forces were mobilized in WWII. From the USSR's perspective, Tschadenko reported to Stalin in September 1942, that the USSR had approximately 31,500,000 manpower resources at the commencement of Barbarossa. As there were roughly 4,200,000 men in the peacetime forces, about 27,000,000 men were available as “trained” reserves available for recruitment. The reason the Red Army survived the disasters of 1941 was it could mobilize those manpower pools and throw them at the Germans. Equipping the new armies presented a dilemma for Stavka as large segments of the arms industry was being transferred to Siberia. WarPlan “gives” the Soviet player 25 Rifle Armies as “free” reinforcements after the USSR has been attacked. This accounts for only 900 manpower points and to me seriously under represents Soviet potential.
A more elegant approach would be to have each of the powers begin the game with a pool of manpower which would be augmented each year by “drafts” based on the home country population points remaining under its control. As this pool is consumed by the player, they would be presented with a couple of issues. First, a malus to production would begin representing the removal of skilled manpower out of industry. Second, national experience would decline if losses require the drafting of older / younger / physically challenged recruits. This need not require much, if any, micromanagement by the player. While this approach is not feasible for current iteration of WarPlan, I do hope the Alvaro considers changing manpower in future releases.
From a gameplay perspective, I have adopted Flavius’ solution by spamming Calvary Corps financed by disbanding the starting USSR Rife Corps after the Finish War event ends. Also, I try to keep the manpower stockpile below 100% so as to not waste my incoming manpower. This also has the bonus of “flipping” 20% experience manpower to 35% experience units. I view these Calvary Corps a both useful to slow the German attack and also as manpower holding buckets as I will “flip” them later on as the USSR national experience climbs to 45% or 50%. Yes, it is a lot of micromanagement, but I feel its is forced on the Soviet player by the game system.
ORIGINAL : sillyflower
I agree with Alvaro's point that the game needs balance above all else
I suppose it really depends on what is meant by balance here. Alvaro described his game this way:
WarPlan is an incredibly accurate World War II simulation engine. It is a balance of realism and playability incorporating the best from 50 years of World War II board wargaming. Play a recreated World War II in every detail, thanks to the engine flexibility and database.
I see “accurate” along with a balance of “realism” and “playability”. There are apparently serious issues with the design as Alvaro is repeatedly trying to force the Soviet player to fight forward. He recently sped up German rail building and it has essentially removed the very real supply issues faced by the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa. I have yet to see an AAR where the German army is in anywhere near the historical condition of December 1941 or anything resembling the Soviet counterstroke of that same month. So what do we mean by accurate or realistic? Is a further nerf to the USSR the answer?