Cheeze strategies

[AlvaroSousa]

You can't replicate the stupidity of Soviet generalship in summer of 1941 in a wargame. You need to fudge it. If the Soviets defended as well as the Germans attacked that war would have been over in 1942.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Hairog

ncc1701e has advance some units very far but the bulk are still too easy to slow down. It's the third turn and I've gotten my first big load of reinforcements. I anticipate being able to close most of my gaps in the line. We'll see.

I can't wait to see your next turn. [:)]

By the way, everyone can follow our progress here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4785412

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

You can't replicate the stupidity of Soviet generalship in summer of 1941 in a wargame. You need to fudge it. If the Soviets defended as well as the Germans attacked that war would have been over in 1942.

Well, a couple of things. The Reds had just been through a purge. Lots of generals were killed or imprisoned. So imagen being given your orders to defend a certain city or river line. You had just seen you good buddy poisoned, hanged, shot etc. some had their families killed as well. You were told that they did not follow orders too closely or they spoke out against Stalin or they became too powerful and independent.

My question is would you act on your own or possibly disobey orders by bugging out for the rear even if you saw you were going to be surrounded?

Second thought: I would argue that the 1941 Soviet units on the frontline did not have enough fuel or vehicles to outrun the mobile forces thrust forward by the Germans. So even if you told your boys to fall back they would have had to do so on foot and try to out run some very well supplied blitzkrieging panzers and their expert commanders as well as contend with no air support as the enemy interdicted your ... well, everything that tried to move, at will.

Thirdly: I read a book on surprise attacks

Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning First Edition Edition
by Richard K. Betts (Author)

Basically his premise is that surprise attacks almost always succeed in modern warfare not because of failures in intelligence but because of lack of political will. Most of the time the political leaders to not want to piss off the would be attacker and cause him to attack. One of the ways to lessen a provocative situation is to de-escalate unilaterally. From what I read Stalin was doing just that and would have ordered his generals to stand down.

Once again would you go against a mass murderer's orders knowing that not only are you at risk but also your family? I would contend that not many would.

Hence in game terms, an effective way to model this is to cut mobility dramatically based not on a general's ability at hindsight but on the political reality of the time.

Stalin was virtually comatose for a week after Hitler betrayed him and I would bet my fortune ( all 2 cents worth) that there were standing orders to not prepare for an attack or to provoke the Germans.

John Teller does this in American Civil war games by freezing in place astounding number of the Union forces in almost any one of his many offerings. Ido not propose such draconian and boring a solution.

We'll keep everyone posted on our experiences.

[LiquidSky]

Just start the game with all the Russian infantry on garrison. If the Russian player 'reforms' by bringing the unit out of garrison, then it should deserve to have full movement.

[ncc1701e]

But still, the massive encirclements of 1941 was due to the initial location of Russian units. Nothing is preventing a player today to wait on the Dnepr river or at Smolensk.

[AlvaroSousa]

Well I did change the rail repair mechanism to where if the Russians just run away they will be/should be pushed back more.

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Just start the game with all the Russian infantry on garrison. If the Russian player 'reforms' by bringing the unit out of garrison, then it should deserve to have full movement.

This sounds interesting.

[LiquidSky]

Any russian who does not set up on the front line is going to find themselves at war on the first April turn. The Germans will gladly spend the crappy weather turns moving up to whatever inland defensive line the Russians set up....thus launching Barbarossa that much closer to Moscow.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Hairog

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



Just start the game with all the Russian infantry on garrison. If the Russian player 'reforms' by bringing the unit out of garrison, then it should deserve to have full movement.

This sounds interesting.

Indeed, would be cool to try this also.

[Flaviusx]

Liquidsky has the right of it.

If the Germans invade early they can negate any attempts to runaway. So all these attempts to address the runaway are pointless. Just march in there as the Axis if the Soviet lets you. As early as April. Merely advancing the rail net is going to put Moscow in reach before the end of 41.

If anything the Soviets are a bit underpowered in this game. If the Axis make a point of it, they can grind them to powder and only maximum Allied lend lease can keep them in the game. The Soviet economy at war is barely good enough to build one (1) rifle army per turn in 1941, with the balance dedicated to replacements. This is not amazing. Yes, they get a ton of rifle armies as reinforcements, but these arrive as 39 tech and 30% experience. Not great.

[Flaviusx]

If anything, I think the Soviets should get a slight buff in this game. All those 20% experience pre war formations should begin at 30%. The Finnish war adds another 5% experience on top of this for new construction and replacements plus whatever combat experience the Soviets can get.

20% experience rifle corps are garbage.

[AlvaroSousa]

They are supposed to be garbage representing the disorganization and Stalin fear in the early part of the war.

We have adjusted the game for balance the past months and I thank everyone for helping.

Now the balance is more finesse which takes longer time. Like say 70% of games end in Axis victories. Then clearly there is something wrong. But that takes dozens of games and player's reporting. You can also have a balanced game with two low level skilled players but an unbalanced game between two high skilled players because they can manipulate the system better.

I am not great at my own game. BattleVonWar brutalized me in our two games where it was clear by 1943 I wasn't winning either game.

But my game with Hadros looks like it will come down to taking Berlin.

I am trying to play 2 games at once only vs different players so I get a feel over time.

[Flaviusx]

At 20% experience the Soviet player is very strongly tempted to just disband the lot of them and substitute them with 35% experience cavalry corps to get a unit that is basically twice as strong at virtually the same cost. You simply wait until after the Finnish war is over. Each disbanded rifle corps yield 90 production, and the cavalry corps substitute is 120 in cost. You can do this swap while the Germans are busy in France.

In light of this you might as well make 30% the floor experience for the whole Red Army and avoid these kind of gimmick builds.

[PDiFolco]

Re USSR, isn't there a "morale" system that could push it to surrender/ask armistice if most of Russia is invaded ?
If the Germans went to the Urals and took Caucasia, USSR would have been reduced to a not very dangerous backwater country...

[ncc1701e]

My current experience as Axis is that the supplies of frontline units are too good. Just an idea, could we reduce the level of supplies received by units during blizzard turns? Or, prevent supplies, replacements of units that are located in blizzard hexes?

Just an idea...

[Jeff_Ahl]

One thought about the Soviet running away issue. I saw one talking about taking away movement points for the russians, that would be a plan (and realistic as they had worse nonexisting staff:s and doctrines - less own initative and slower reaction) but I also honestly thinks that the russian corps are to damn weak to ever put anything but token resistance and maybe try and hold railway junctions to the bitter end. Why stand and even try and fight when you are overruned anyway? The germans just need to breath at the corps and they collapse.

The german doctrine was about war of manuver/bewegung and they mastered the flexible mission tactics. If the germans has more advantage in operations but a little less advantage in CV woudl probably be a good and more historic accurate way? Maybe a way to make the soviet counterpart think it can be worth stand and fight.

I there for agree with Falviusx. The russians are underpowered. German losses where acutally high at the Eastern front when actual fighting occured. The russians extreme losses was because the germans outflanked them and used Kesselslachts to annihalate them. Not frontal assualts where the Soviets vaporised for nothing. Frontal assualts where costly, which they are not in this game. You do not need to pay a high price and sacrifice anything to knock a hole in the soviet lines to be able to encircle them.

The feeling is that the germans has to much oil. No panic rushing towards the oil fields, the 1942 Operation Barbarossa comes at no specific economic/oil cost.

[ncc1701e]

Two points to answer you.

First, as German, this is not the oil that is a problem at the end of 1941. The problem is that your army is in a good shape:
. Replacements are coming like hell
. Supplies are plentiful as if the railway and/or road networks are the one of Western Europe.

Second, as Russian, in another game, I had a very good fighting around Smolensk and on the roads to Leningrad. This was really an attrition for both sides. And the Germans were weaker due to these battles than in my current game as Axis. The runaway strategy makes the Germans stronger at the end because their army is in better shape. You have to fight.

Really, I think the balance is not so far. The only thing disturbing for me is the supply network that is much too good. But, you can say the supply network is the same for both sides.

Cheers

[sveint]

This is odd, I have no trouble holding off the Germans as the Soviets. And I think the "run away" strategy is really bad.

I guess I need to play more games.

[Jeff_Ahl]

Well, I should add, when I mean token resistance that is not same as running away but never the less not trying to hold the line either and I agree that there should only be minor balancing. But with two even players and the soviets corps are to weak atm. The reserve armies that are pooring in are ok, but the corps just needs a little bit of love and that would probably be a perfect solution. I admit I was a bit over dramatic when writing my first post... [;)]

About the supply/replacment I agree. That combine with a little change for the soviet corps would probably nail it.

I still think the germans has to much oil, does not require the strategic decision making where you really have to weigh one thing against another if choosing to go for 1942 Operation Barbarossa. But I do not want any radical changes here either, small steps when changing is always my melody. Alot of good games (as this really is) have turned into garbage when radical changes has been implemented and never reversed.

[Flaviusx]

You can get around the silly corps thing by swapping them out for cav corps on a 1-1 basis once the Finnish war is over, for whatever that is worth. Save a few for garrison duty on the coasts, and just disband the others. The Sovs can easily pump out 40-50 of these things and have production to spare for upgrades and maybe a handful of mech or mountain units.

The problem is manageable. But I don't understand why Alvaro insists on sticking with this because players can bypass it with a good build order. As much as he hates min maxing he's practically forcing it here. I'd just as soon dispense with this gimmick build, but hey.

He hates min maxing. I hate noob traps. I think these rifle corps are a noob trap.