No difference at all

[Cerion]

Interesting links about the NKVD in Barbarossa:

http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticlesNKVD.htm
http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaarticleswwNKVD2.htm

Regards

[invernomuto]

Please not another Axis/Soviet bias discussion.
[:(]

[Michael T]

You gotta be kidding me Aurelian. One house rule that has since become and official rule. Gimme a break, thats simply ridiculous to claim that game was stacked.

[heliodorus04]

I am of the opinion that NKVD regiments are no major threat and no major problem. Bump them out of the way with hasty attacks, and forget about them. The lower the TOE, the greater the chance of disbanding, so one bump a turn and they'll be gone by turn 6 or so.

I'm much more offended by the flexibility of the September-41-to-December-41 empty of TOE infantry and tank brigades. Units with sub 33% TOE should be an automatic route if attacked and a very, very high chance to shatter. Units that are unready make great speed bumps for the Soviet. Defense by unready units is incredibly easy to exploit unrealistically, as Flavius himself notes. For the 1986 NATO defense to work best in Soviet 1941, you put your worst units forward as 'pickets' because when you destroy half of nothing, you destroy nothing. The shell retreats a hex and recovers to exactly the same level of defense (which is best desribed as a movement point/logistics leach of the Germans).

Michael, why are you still playing against human Soviets? The game is utterly stacked in their favor. No German points are acknowledged by the community because the community is basically comprised of Soviet-loving, history-torturing hypocrites. As 76mm said, only complain about things that are important (to them). Because we advocate improving German gameplay and competitive balance, we are heretics and apostates.

[hfarrish]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

No German points are acknowledged by the community because the community is basically comprised of Soviet-loving, history-torturing hypocrites. As 76mm said, only complain about things that are important (to them). Because we advocate improving German gameplay and competitive balance, we are heretics and apostates.

I shouldn't bother, but once again this ignores the huge changes made to gameplay since release that were inarguably designed to tilt the balance of the game away from the Soviet player, in particular the fort nerf and blizzard penalty reduction. At the risk of being a broken record, these changes on the whole were supported by Soviet players as improving gameplay despite worsening their position overall. With these changes Leningrad is routinely falling in August and the battle for Moscow occurs in September, and yet somehow it is Soviet players who are "history-torturing hypocrites."

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
As 76mm said, only complain about things that are important (to them). Because we advocate improving German gameplay and competitive balance, we are heretics and apostates.

Maybe my last post wasn't very clear, so I'll try again: if we are going to be subjected to endless whining about how the game is stacked in favor of the Sovs, at least make the subject of the whining something that really makes a difference to the game, rather than NKVD border regiments, which are irrelevant and which most Sov players could care less about.

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas
I entered into a game with Michael and agreeing to the conditions knowing full well what I did and the possible consequences. Moreover, a forward defense strategy has served me well against all other Axis opponents, and I would likely have used much the same methods even if we had no "no-runaway" agreement. Michael is using a god strategy and very strong playing skills to good effect against me, and I am learning from that. I will likely adapt my strategy in future games as a result. Learning from playing good opponents is the best way to improve your own skill.

Actually, your game is a gift from heavens But stick to the rule you accepted aka do not run away, resist until the very last moment (you know, the one moment when the panzer pincers are about to close the jaw and pocket 15 or 20 divisions)... when your forces will have been utterly annihilated and no one will be there to stop the Germans... some German players will have to shut up. Once for all [8D]

P.S.: did I say you must NOT run away? [:D]

[RCHarmon]

I thought it was a fight forward agreement. No Soviet running for the hills, but withdraws are allowed. Am I wrong in this belief.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: RCH

I thought it was a fight forward agreement. No Soviet running for the hills, but withdraws are allowed. Am I wrong in this belief.

No you are correct. TD is overstating things.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: heliodorus04

Michael, why are you still playing against human Soviets?

He hasn't lost a game yet. He hasn't even gotten to 1942 -- every game he has played has ended in a Soviet resignation in 1941. The Axis is perhaps not quite as broken as you believe.

[notenome]

Right now, from an Axis perspective, by far the most (and probably the only) truly unbalanced thing about the Soviet side in 41 is they're incredible logistical capability to move vast quantities of troops around. The fix for that, unfortunately, requires a fix to the air war, establishing long term Axis air superiority and greatly increasing the effect of interdiction, particularly on cavalry.

On the other hand, Axis logistics are incredibly overstated in 41.

My take from the game right now is that Axis are overperforming in 41 and underperforming from 43 onwards.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: notenome
My take from the game right now is that Axis are overperforming in 41 and underperforming from 43 onwards.

Yeah, I think this is pretty obvious, and there are no easy fixes.

[Flaviusx]

That's my read as well, Notenome. The real Axis problems occur later on in the war. But I personally think that right now the Axis has a significant edge in 1941, and getting past that hump as a Soviet right now is rough.

Against any kind of strong German player I will not play a 41 GC without random weather anymore. This is the only break on their logistics the game provides.

[Farfarer61]

Yeah, I'm happy as Axis with random weather, despite the mini-catastrophes it brings as it livens up the game and makes for variety. Both sides 'know' when their ass is saved my a weather roll, chuckle, and move on.

As for TOE 33 units routing, I think this would hurt the Axis later in the war, and would need to depend on morale and experience as well. Raw recruits in shell organizations,, OK, but veterans?

[carlkay58]

To attempt to return this thread make to its orginal meanings, here is my take on the subject.

Both sides benefit from regiments/brigades being over powered on the defense. I am currently playing as the Axis in a GC and I am not noticing much difference with the change either. I will also state that this is my first game as the Axis after five or six games as the Soviets, so I would think this is beyond the 'bias' charge.

Perhaps we should go back to the standards that were set in FitE/SE games and just say that non-divisional units should not have ZOCs. This would allow a brigade or regiment to block a strategic hex in a narrow spot but not slow down 30 miles of front. The Axis player could then just speed around ignore them.

[hfarrish]

I wouldn't have an issue with that assuming the same applied to German regiments - if you eliminate all the Soviet brigade abilities but keep the German's ability to spread 5 regiments across 200 miles of front and hold the line, it seems a bit odd.

[Michael T]

Perhaps we should go back to the standards that were set in FitE/SE games and just say that non-divisional units should not have ZOCs. This would allow a brigade or regiment to block a strategic hex in a narrow spot but not slow down 30 miles of front. The Axis player could then just speed around ignore them.

+1 I would agree to that. With a proviso that Axis Mech units *only*, break down in to 2 Kampfgruppe units and these would still have a zoc. But as for all other Regs/Brigs, including all other Axis ones. No zoc's.

[hfarrish]

Breakdown into 2 rather than 3 would have an impact...there probably could be agreement there (unless I am missing something smarter players might see).

[notenome]

On the one hand the double breakdown would help the Axis mech units to serve as fire brigades as they did from 42 winter onwards. On the other hand that would make them better at holding pockets, which wasn't the case. Mech kampfgruppe zocs don't make much sense, precisely because german armour doctrine was of force concentration. Strength was always to be concentrated, not dissipated.

[hfarrish]

Would the "better at holding pockets" outweigh having the third unit zoc as an additional pocketing unit?