Soviet command

[Arstavidios]

some questions about soviet command:

If I understand correctly a HQ takes into account the cost of the the units in all its subordinate commands.
So for the soviets in 1941 a front HQ can command 3 full armies of 24 command points each or whatever miw of armies and units to a total of 72 points before being overloaded.

at the top Stavka has to control the whole red army so it will end up overloaded as 900 command points is likely to prove unsufficient with hundred of divisions and brigades arriving as reiforcements, or did I miss something?

Is there an advantage in having the units under armies rather than the front directly, especialy if you assign one of your good leaders to the front? Of course you need to keep the units within distance of the front HQ but a front has only 72 command points so it's not too difficult to keep them within range.

You can then use your good army leaders to command armies under stavka. This way you do not need to overload fronts or armies and you optimise the use of your best leaders as you do not have enough of them for everywhere.

does this make sense?

[Montbrun]

It's all about the Leader die-rolls, and STAVKA will always be over-loaded.

Brad

[carnifex]

You NEED to keep your combat units organized under the correct hierarchy in order to maximize their effectiveness.

Combat units that report directly to the High Command will have their CV reduced by 20% and those reporting to an Army Group or Front will be reduced by 10%.

[Encircled]

Its absolutely crucial as the Russian that your armies are organised.

That command modifier can make all the difference

[Arstavidios]

Well I'm trying to figure out all that.
In 41 you're short of APs and good leaders. so puting a front under a good leader like zukov and attaching the combat units directly to the front might make sense. This way  you would also be able to pool your support units directly at front level. The good army leaders would be saved for armies under stavka control as you do not have enough front HQs to control the whole front line without overloading.

This way you should avoid the penalties for overloading HQs and you should have good leaders at the head of your fronts and armies. You may be able to save a few aps on leaders but units in your fronts will suffer some penalties from being attached to the front directly. Hopefully the good front leaders and the fact that fronts and armies should not be overloaded may compensate, but maybe not.

I'm curious to know what experienced soviet players think and do about this matter.[&o]

[pompack]

1) To the greatest extent possible organize into STAVKA/Front/Army/unit without overloading and with the "best" (everybody has their own idea of what's "best") leaders
2) Keep all cadre units under STAVKA; I put them near Moscow on rail lines just so I can find them. Keep them there as long as you can (sometimes you get desperate) or until they reach 75%TOE and National Morale level
3) Form units that won't fit under #1 or #2 into reserve armies under not-bad leaders and reporting direct to STAVKA. Deploy them in the rear of Fronts until they have to be moved forward (as an army) to plug a gap


Any unit under #1 that gets really, really hammered should be withdrawn, assigned to STAVKA, and replaced by a unit from STAVKA reserve (#2); do NOT take a unit from a reserve army (#3) and assign it to a Front because it wastes AP. Do this in preference to forming a new reserve army in order to keep your Fronts as strong as possible. The definition of "really, really hammered" is soft but if you withdraw them to STAVKA reserve too often you will use too many AP and you will NEVER have enough AP. (note that if STAVKA is not an option for reassignment, move STAVKA (by rail of course) closer to the unit)

Sometimes you will have gaps and no reserve army; in that case form a new reserve army (you have more empty armies than you will ever use) out of STAVKA reserve (#2) even if the reserve units are not ready for combat yet (sometime you just have to hurt)

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: pompack

1) To the greatest extent possible organize into STAVKA/Front/Army/unit without overloading and with the "best" (everybody has their own idea of what's "best") leaders
2) Keep all cadre units under STAVKA; I put them near Moscow on rail lines just so I can find them. Keep them there as long as you can (sometimes you get desperate) or until they reach 75%TOE and National Morale level
3) Form units that won't fit under #1 or #2 into reserve armies under not-bad leaders and reporting direct to STAVKA. Deploy them in the rear of Fronts until they have to be moved forward (as an army) to plug a gap


Any unit under #1 that gets really, really hammered should be withdrawn, assigned to STAVKA, and replaced by a unit from STAVKA reserve (#2); do NOT take a unit from a reserve army (#3) and assign it to a Front because it wastes AP. Do this in preference to forming a new reserve army in order to keep your Fronts as strong as possible. The definition of "really, really hammered" is soft but if you withdraw them to STAVKA reserve too often you will use too many AP and you will NEVER have enough AP. (note that if STAVKA is not an option for reassignment, move STAVKA (by rail of course) closer to the unit)

Sometimes you will have gaps and no reserve army; in that case form a new reserve army (you have more empty armies than you will ever use) out of STAVKA reserve (#2) even if the reserve units are not ready for combat yet (sometime you just have to hurt)

You and I handle things quite differently, although we have certain points of commonality.

I don't like to mentally play leap-frog with whole armies. Instead, my armies control limited geographic areas and are responsible for defense-in-depth at the army level.

Much like Pompack, I try to have 3 lines of defense (defense-in-depth), but as I said, mine is within the army.

At the forward-most part of the Army's Area of Operation (AO) are two types of units
a) Good-strength divisions
Good strength is defined for me basically as Morale of 42 or more, Ready and TOE of 70 (this last part is flexible, the others are not).
b) Divisions that are Unready, are already terrible on TOE and/or Morale, and who have a low chance to get to the rear line (the third line is the rear line).

I use forward elements to do 2 things:
1) Maintain contact with German armor, especially when it is extended into a pincer. This is a job for the unready units or for good units that are in good defenses and are unlikely to wind up encircled next turn.
2) Hold good/important defensive terrain. This job is primarily for good units. Unready units can be added as stacked help if it seems like a good idea.

My second line is comprised of Weak divisions that are close to good.
These I try to move very little so they save MP to dig in. They try to avoid encirclement.

My third line is comprised of newly arriving STAVKA elements, Unready units that were withdrawn from line 1 or 2, and reserves I think don't need to be in line 1 or 2 (cav, often; units that can benefit from refit). The third line's primary responsibility is to dig in at a new 'future frontline' position.

Thus within 1 army, I try to be rolling units generally from west to east.

I end up spending Admin Points to re-assign elements that get displaced from their logical HQ due to German pincers/advances.

If I wasn't playing Multiplayer I'd take screenshots, sorry. Maybe another time.

My general rules for playing Soviet are:
Fronts can easily go to 80 CP, 90 if the leader is good (Zukov, Eremenko, etc.)
Armies should stick to 16 to 20. This leaves 4 to 8 points (2 to 4 divisions) worth of space such that when your logical arrangement of armies on the map is disrupted by German thrusts, you can re-assign divisions that are permanently separated from their HQ to another nearby HQ. (over time, this re-organization process balances itself out).

I do not like to have units in Front command at all. I'll do it on occasion, but it's not ideal. I'd rather have a whole STAVKA-assigned Army mixed into a Front's AO than to have Front-assigned units mixed in. The former is easier to track, easier to keep divisions within 5 hexes of the appropriate army than it is to keep Front-assigned units within 5 of a front (which matters for SU support) and it enables SUs to be assigned to that HQ.

Also, I've determined for me, it's better to keep Corps in the field than to disband them (unless the corps becomes so hopelessly displaced and disorganized that re-organization seems impossible)

[Klydon]

I don't like combat units attached directly to fronts either, regardless who is in command.

I have a tendency to run shock armies and armies that have the really good leaders at max or near max capacity.

[Ketza]

I am starting to play as Soviet in a more serious manner and was wondering if it makes sense to not use the really good leaders very early in 41 because they may rack up a lot of defeats.

What do you folks think?

[nedcorleone1]

I really don't know too much about the win/defeat stat system at all so maybe I'm speaking out of place but perhaps there is a tradeoff between that and playing a solid delaying game in 41. Anyone else who knows more about this care to chime in?

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I am starting to play as Soviet in a more serious manner and was wondering if it makes sense to not use the really good leaders very early in 41 because they may rack up a lot of defeats.

What do you folks think?

Is that because they might get exemecuted? AFAIK, that is the only risk, other than slower promotions.

I dont think w/l records affect morale for Leaders the way they do for units.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I am starting to play as Soviet in a more serious manner and was wondering if it makes sense to not use the really good leaders very early in 41 because they may rack up a lot of defeats.

What do you folks think?

I only use them for key front commands (Leningrad Direction, Central Direction) and only after T3. I wait until at least T5 to move in Army commanders. In general I have a particular front or army contiginous before I put in a good leader because you are not getting benefit for the out-of-range units but you do get their defeats. After I havethe key fronts and their armies with good commanders AND I have other contiginous fronts I start moving better leaders into them as well.

It also takes a boatload of APs to get those fronts into nice uniform colors which is another reason to hold off on the leader shifts

[randallw]

In 1941 the chance of a defeat being credited to a leader is not as high as the chance of a victory being credited ( says so in the manual ).

The chance of a leader being executed probably is dependent on both the W/L record and political rating.

[cpt flam]

I can tell from experience that you are omtiiting KIA
this too can be disgusting [:@]

[Sabre21]

I never overload armies. Fronts and Stavka you can't avoid not overloading. The only time I don't overload fronts is during the blizzard offensive where I use a couple fronts each wth 3 trained up armies. otherwise i don't worry about overloading fronts.
 
As for leaders, I only change these out in key areas that I plan on trying to hold such as Leningrad. I assign a couple armies up at Leningrad and put a good leader in charge of the defenses in and near the city. I really don't like burning thru a bunch of good leaders early so I usually wait for the blizzard or when unique opportunities arise like hitting back at a cut of panzer unit. In the latter case i will make sure all the units that make this strike get assigned to the same army and that the army has adequate su's and a good leader. I've caused many a panzer divisions to retreat or even rout by turn 10.