Russian balance

[sveint]

It seems many people think Russia is currently too weak. My own experience seems to be that while they are certainly not too powerful, they aren't drastically weak either.

Here is a typical situation from one of my games. The only game I have going as the Allies where this is not the case is against harrybanana, but he is an outlier to say the least.

[ncc1701e]

Thanks for the feedback. Could you please tell me if you can survive 1942 summer campaign in your games?

[eskuche]

I think some/many people conflate skill with game balance. Until there is willingness to accept that one might just be worse, it's hard to say what's game balance and what isn't.

[stjeand]

I agree with that...

I only say it based upon my experience.

So far no one I have played has held Moscow in 41...me as the Allies or me as the Axis.

NOW I am in a game with Harrybanana now and perhaps he will but I can't say.

I don't consider myself a bad player...nor a great player...Just average.
I have never held Moscow in a single game.

Could be I am a bad player. [:D]

[Duck Doc]

As the Allies that is a pretty good front except at Leningrad. You have even avoided any salients and have a solid front. Quite an accomplishment.

Compared to dedicated East Front games in WarPlan I find as the Germans taking the Orsha land bridge, Kiev and Crimea are a cinch and Moscow tends to fall like a ripe plum. This is playing against the best player I know, Myself. HOWEVER, this is a strategic game and I tend to cut it a lot of slack in this regard. The requirement to take Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad for victory is fair but I propose that a thrust via the Caucuses to the Mideast would be a greater challenge. Capture the Suez Canal as the Axis and win the game.

[sveint]

I don't have many games in 42 yet, I'll report back later.

When stating one's opinions on this one must of course consider both games where one plays Axis and where one plays Allied (like stjeand does).

[AstroBlues]

I am in a game where it is Feb. 1942. The Russians are still holding. Leningrad is cut off.

What is being said about choosing assault for the Russian units in 1942. Is this a better defense option than Anti-Tank?

Ron

[stjeand]

What is being said about choosing assault for the Russian units in 1942. Is this a better defense option than Anti-Tank?

It is not a better defense BUT you receive a LOT of free armies that are assault. So the thought here is you just have to focus on one advancement and you just build all assault troops...that way you can advance other things you may need.


As I am learning more and more playing the Allies...I have a lot more to test. Sadly I and Harry thought I was doing well in Russia until...
One very bad horrible not good turn and then it was over. He cut off all my armor and mech and that was all for Russia.

We will have to see how it defends now that France has fallen.

I know I need more Allied practice...and will get it at some point.

[PL1]

How are the Allies doing? Are they putting pressure in Africa, are they bombing Germany, are they posing a serious threat to invade France/Italy or both?

[Villain]

ORIGINAL: PL1

How are the Allies doing? Are they putting pressure in Africa, are they bombing Germany, are they posing a serious threat to invade France/Italy or both?

IMHO the Allies are usually hard pressed to survive and win the BOA due to the common strategy of not attacking the Netherlands, Norway and Greece to prevent the UK from receiving their (95) MM. Pretty hard to create/pose a threatening force or build a bomber fleet when you're spending every spare PP building MM and Escorts and maximizing your shipyards. Being creative requires Landing Ships to invade but prior to the USA joining the Allies they just don't have the luxury to build more than a few before their shipyards are busy building MM/Escorts.

The Germans need only send a token force of 2 or 3 Inf corps to effectively hold Libya since the Allies have not the strength nor regain effectiveness fast enough at the limit of supply range to force their way into Tobruk. Not needing to garrison Netherlands, Norway or Greece also frees up units either for USSR, to garrison France or threaten a Sealion.

[PL1]

95 MMs are a lot of MMs... The equivalent of 950 PP or 2 Hbombers 39 tech. I dont mind having choices (to attack or not), but there should be consequences. Just to push the conversation further and to put a trigger on events, the entry of the US seems to be a good one :
For Netherlands : Considering that Germany declared war on the US after PH, maybe an automatic declaration of war on Netherlands as well? Making the Netherlands a US or UK ally.
For Norway : Automatic cancelation of the Winter Convoy when the US enters the war (plus a trade with US of their rare resource/PP/MMs)?
For Greece : If Cairo and Tobruk is in Allied hands when and after the US enters the war, then Greece eithers becomes an Allies Ally or becomes a trade partner with US (rare resource/PPs/MMs)?

Not sure if they would have wanted to fight... but help maybe. Maybe after an event likely to shift the balance, they might have wanted to be part of the winning side.

[Nirosi]

+1 interesting ideas! Hope Alvaro will have a look[:D]

However I believe the problem is not that the Allies are hard pressed to win the BOA without Norway/Greece/Netherland MMs, because I believe that to make it historic, they should be hard pressed even with them. The problem is that now it is even harder and it can paralyse them for an extra year or so even by trying very hard (now with the new weaker UK). They will still win it most of the time but later (maybe too late).

But even with all those historical MMs I hope that we will not see the UK been able to survive the BoA and build 150 LCs by 1941 as we could see before! Even with all those countries, seeing the UK winning the BoA against a willing Germany and still be able to have enough LCs to land 4-5 corps somewhere by 1941 is borderline game breaking to me and means that the BoA is too easy to win.[:(] Of course, there will be exceptions (and that makes it fun), but if that would be the norm again, a fix would be needed. We would need quite a few games to see...

PS: this of course considers that Germany takes the BoA seriously, if not, then everything is Ok and the UK should be able to punish them earlier[;)]

[Nirosi]

More thinking about the three countries because I have time today. [:)]

We tend to see the problem as a whole, but in a way, there are three different questions and not all three countries (not giving their MMs to UK) are equally problematic.

The Greece one is hard to call. I believe it is not worth it most of the time for Germany to invade, but at least there is a drawback since Greece gives some PPs, and also Bulgaria, that also gives some PPs and also produces PPs for itself. Bulgaria also gives 3 divisions, but lets not count them as they are used to garrison ports in Greece anyway. So at least there is a small drawback even if it is probably still worth it not to take it unless for some strategic reasons related to some players German plans? Then again, Germany was not really interested in the real war, it was kind of forced to by the situation.

Norway, the more I think about it, the more I believe there is no problem since the drawback is quite big. It would be very easy for the UK to take Norway with a single corps in 1941. And then Germany would lose 25 resources for 8-9 turns a year. Those are resources that would then have been multiplied by the yearly multiplier for transformation in PPs. So quite a lot of cash. Even when counting the garrison requirements, I believe that Germany does not make a 2vs1 “damage” to the UK which is the ratio more or less required for the Axis against the Allies to win. And this is without counting the strategic advantage of having Allied units in Norway right across Denmark. Honestly, I think I would be happy to see Germany not take Norway when I play the Allies. It seems balanced enough for me to allow for a fair strategic choice.

Netherland is the most obvious problem since there is no drawback for Germany to avoid it; quite the contrary. But I am wondering (I am thinking out loud here) if the solution is not a very easy one: France invading Luxembourg (in March or April). With a French Corps well entrenched in Luxembourg, it might make it harder for Germany to take Belgium in one turn (but I did not test it). Germany might have to (or be tempted to) take the Netherland a turn earlier (since they now can without giving Belgium to the Allies) simply to still keep its timeline.

So, I believe that all those are either no problem (Norway) or minor problem (Greece) or major problem (Netherland maybe), but when taken together (especially the last 2) then it becomes problematic.

[PL1]

Those are nice, but they are strategic choices made by the Allies, like a counter-move in a chess game. They are not considering the political ramification of decisions. We have lots of examples of those in the game : the DOA on Poland, the DOA of France and UK on Germany, in the 39 scenario, the prerequisite for the DOA of Italy, the US/USSR entry modifiers for certain events, the Benelux event etc. You just have to look at the Game notes to find lots of examples.

I believe that, for the Netherlands in particular, there should be a trigger following the Japanese invasion. I cant believe they would have stayed neutral the whole war. Hard to negotiate with the US following the Japanese defeat when you did not gave them access to your ports following a Dday event... Maybe the Norwegian trigger should be tied to the same as the Swedish one, Paris in allied control. Maybe unprotect the trade route if not in German hands... there is a lot of possibility. As for Greece, I cant believe they would have stayed neutral. They might have wanted a piece of Yugoslavia's territory after the war, or Bulgaria or some other concession. Hard to do when you looked on and did nothing. Also, for those countries, I strongly suspect that their preparedness for war would have gone up seeing everything that was going on around them. A boost in their tech and their mobilization at least. There is no surprise after a while. You know the world is in flames

You could also go an other path altogether and give objectives to certain countries to unlock certain advantages. In lieu of a free yearly upgrade of % of the war economy, the special Manpower Germany receives at certain dates, access to certain rare material to get a certain type of unit upgrades... Those are just some ideas.

[Nirosi]

I still think the only real problem is the Netherland. In the case of Greece and Norway there are some kind of trade off. Also, my feeling is that on the contrary, it is very realistic to imagine that Greece would have done everything possible to stay neutral in view of the overall situation (or maybe join the winners symbolically just in the last few weeks of the war like Turkey did).

In the case of Norway, I think the situation is already perfectly represented in the game since with everything I know Germany did actually invade Norway because they were afraid of Allied intentions and did not want to risk seeing the British there first (and before he was PM, Churchill actually was trying to convince the government to do so). So, the actual trade off: take Norway of risk having the UK do it and cut your iron ore in winter seems fair to me and historically based.

However, if players do not like it, another one could bring the same effect: make the iron route immune to raiding only if the Germans occupy Norway. Can still make sense. However, I do not think it will change the way most players play. Those Germans that do take Norway would still do it, obviously; and most of those that do not would probably still not I think.

So, for me Greece is represented realistic enough now and for Norway it as almost perfect now as it represent the real historical dilemma. Netherland is however more problematic both because of the Pacific but also the game balance.

[stjeand]

One larger issue is that these countries never had as many MS as they give the UK...
Axis avoid them because the numbers are highly over exaggerated.

The Netherlands had the majority of their shipping in the Pacific...this does not account for that it just gives all the MS to the UK.
Norway lost a lot of MS when Germany attacked...this does not account for that so Germany gets a huge amount there too.
Greece I can't speak for...I don't know enough about what they had or did not as I have not ready much.

[george420]

What is BOA?

[Nirosi]

BoA is Battle Of the Atlantic

[sveint]

I think we're getting off topic. The Western Allies and neutrals are fine (or to be discussed elsewhere). The question is, are the Soviets too weak?

So far my experience is that they may be just the tiniest bit too weak. But nowhere near what others are reporting.

[PL1]

Yes and no about the topic because "weak" is subjective to what you put them against, but I understand your point.

Is the USSR "weak" is a tough one, because you don't know what they will be fighting nor when. The only gage I can think and one that would match the aggressiveness of what they face would be to match their exp and/or their PP % and/or their doctrine, etc., to their losses. That way, if it is light, then it goes down slower and if it is high, then it goes up faster. You could argue that they learn under fire. After listening to all of Dan Carlin's podcast on both WW's, I think he would agree