<t> In my last game, I feel like I overbuilt the Soviet army (too many riflecorps, perhaps too few tank or mechanized corps) and might have compromised my offensive potential by having too many units on the map seeking supply. Do people have any advice on how large of an on-map Soviet army I should ...

I think your point about games ending in 1941 really needs to be emphasized. I think the victory point allocations and victory point check system for wins/losses needs to be re-examined to give Axis players a real chance to win the game after 41 by holding back the Soviet offensive.

<t> As a Soviet, I oftentimes move divisions between armies a lot in 41. If there's a way to group select multiple divisions and then reassign them as a group to a new army, that would eliminate some tedium (I'm imagining a Shift-Click option on the map to select the divisions). <br/>
<br/>
In the ...

<t> I’d urge caution in making multiple changes to assault fronts too soon. <br/>
<br/>
Assault fronts give a lot of benefits: due to the Command Capacity increase, they put a larger percentage of the Soviet force under good commanders and allow you to put that larger percentage under good ...

<t> I’m hardly an expert, but at some level, your ability to advance is affect by 4 constraints. The first is your supply network. You won’t be advancing on Moscow if your trains stop at Minsk. And you won’t be advancing if you lack enough trains—which you gain from lvl 2 railyards connected to your ...

<t> I’d kill for a multi unit reassignment tool—shift click a bunch of units and reassign them all at once to a HQ. same thing for plane upgrades in the commander’s report and map transfers—I’d love to be able to shift click/mass select units and then transfer them to the map all at once or upgrade ...

<t> I dislike using reserves as the Soviets in 41. You really don’t have enough troops to stack and cover the line, and winning combat that the axis initiate is hard. It’s not impossible with good rolls, bad rolls for the axis, heavy terrain, rivers, etc. But the Germans will win the combats that ...

<t> I had a couple of reactions to the points in the thread:<br/>
<br/>
(1) Has anyone seen data on average win rates or win rates for the top 10% of players? Usually it’s better to let this settle before making large changes.<br/>
<br/>
(2) Is the Soviet army too strong too early, or are the ...

I prefer to think of it as a prioritization or triage system—what goal is most important, which is second, etc. But I suppose wish list is as good of a description as those.

<t> To the extent it’s relevant to your playstyle, the Soviets historically build around 31 tank corps, of which maybe 24 saw combat. <br/>
<br/>
I think the more interesting question about early tank corps isn’t how many—that’s limited by truck stocks—but how to balance the tank corps against the ...

<t> Do you have supplies in the depots themselves? If yes, then the issue is the depot to unit link. Check the trucks in units and pool and the supply priority of units. Also, check the logistics log to see what your need is and what is received by units. <br/>
<br/>
If you don’t have supplies in ...

I kind of think that disbands should not be allowed for units that began the turn isolated. If a unit wasn’t in supply during logistics, I have trouble seeing how all that manpower and equipment could be shipped back to a pool.

<t> That attack above was halted at 875 distance, which is quite far away. As a result, you’ll probably see far fewer elements that even had a chance to fire in the details screen and therefore fewer losses, especially if you were in close terrain (at least that’s my understanding of one effect of ...

In my Soviet games, I’ve noticed that production sometimes ramps up over a few turns for new weapons and I’ve noticed there seems to be a “need” component where production does not occur (or it occurs less) if you have a sufficient reserve already. This is all anecdotal and may be wrong.

<t> I’d probably keep them as a 3rd/rear line of defense and, once the panzers have pushed quite far, have fatigue and depleted CP, are in clear terrain, and preferably overextended past the German fighter support. I’d conduct a deliberate attack with several tank/mech divisions, perhaps a rifle ...

<t> I believe I started with 10 divisions, and then increased closer to 15. It changed quite frequently because (1) the TOE changes and (2) the soviets start with stockpiles of some items, so those items become constraints later. I might be misremembering though--I'm in Feb. '43 of my campaign now ...

<t> I doubt that low TOE units have priority in the reserve (although it’s possible—I didn’t code the game). I think what you’re seeing is that there’s always a bottleneck of some sort—AT guns, 122mm howitzers, 81mm mortars, DSHKs, etc.—that is more limiting than other constraints. High TOE units ...

<t> Any advice on how (or whether) I should use these? They seem to drain a lot of artillery, which in Jan 1943 in my GC 41 campaign is still in short supply. I have a few divisions that I can’t disband because Enhanced TB Control is off. I had planned to either leave them in the SR at 50 Max TOE or ...

<t> Would you recommend something other than 2 tank brigades? My goal was to maximize my chance to promote tank brigades to guards for tank corps, but I didn’t experiment with different setups to see the impact on CV. Also, I disbanded most of the naval brigades to redirect manpower and equipment to ...

<t> Thanks for your input. I was using 2 assault headquarters and still ran into command capacity issues (but I think that might have been the result of playing against the AI; my 41 losses were lower than most of the AARs that I've read). I also delayed setting a 3rd assault headquarters because I ...