USSR

[dhucul2011]

In latest build decided to go all out USSR with all units except some garrisons and the DAK in Africa. The USSR is too strong in 1941 and 1942. I was barely able to reach Riga, Smolensk and Rostov by Fall 1942 before hitting a wall.

It's extremely frustrating that surrounded Soviet units in cities are so tough to beat. It often takes several corps attacks even with a tac air.

I also noticed that the morale of the USSR barely drops during 1941 and 1942. I think their morale should drop significantly and then rebound again in 1943. This may help with the initial Axis attacks in 1941.

Intermediate level +50%

[xwormwood]

The USSR is indeed pretty strong. At least it was in 1.08 when I played against it on exp. level.
On the other hand the USSR should be strong, if played on on exp. level.
In 1943 I was finaly able to move toward Moscow. Leningrad fell, Smolensk was too, and than the Allied invasion in France delivered me a second front, which would have brough me down over time.
So maybe the AI has slightly too much money, and maybe not.
Btw.: I'm not sure if the USSR should have low morale during 1941. Bad leadership (because of Stalins "cleaning" the officer staff in the years before) maybe, but the Russian soldiers were a tough nut to crack for the germans.

[dhucul2011]

Too many MPPs may be the problem. I would suggest reducing the Soviet Mobilization bonus in the first two years. Have it ramp up in 1943.


Another thought, maybe max entrenchment in cities is too high? A max entrenchment reduction of 1 could make more historic axis moves in USSR in 1941 and 1942 as pockets won't hold out so long.

[TigerTC]

I think that the supply/isolated mechanics aren't fully replicating the massive encirclements and mass surrenders of 1941. Too many of my forces have to stay behind and mop up--meaning they lose momentum and take casualties.

[dhucul2011]

One good feature of CEAW was that out of supply units dropped one strength point per turn. This would be a nice addition.

[Mountaineer]

Too many MPPs may be the problem. I would suggest reducing the Soviet Mobilization bonus in the first two years. Have it ramp up in 1943.

It does seem very difficult to hit that first 6 months of success, the Soviets are matching the Germans very quickly and can put up a wall.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks everyone and I would need just a little more feedback to ensure we make the correct changes... if you can include the following that will help the most:

- Exact campaign you are playing, i.e. 1939, 1940, 1941?

- Difficulty settings, i.e. level and all bonus settings

The reason I ask is that some of this might be tied into scripts while it might also just be tied into general settings built into the campaign such as MPP collection or unit costs etc. Or a combination of both.

It is a challenge to get this campaign just right because it is such a balancing act when you reach that tipping point in the USSR, but we will do what we can to get it as close to "just right" as possible.

Hubert

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: dhucul
It's extremely frustrating that surrounded Soviet units in cities are so tough to beat. It often takes several corps attacks even with a tac air.

Their supply should only be 3 unless they are connected to a Supply source or Port, so I'm a little surprised it should be hard to conquer them?

[Ostwindflak]

As the Germans, bring artillery. In my games I have artillery units trailing behind my advance to help mop up surrounded units. It helps tremendously in reducing their morale, readiness, and entrenchment. After a couple arty bombardments, most early Soviet units will fold quickly and you can move on. Save the bombers for frontline duty.

[TheBattlefield]

I also think that the artillery is the key. (1939 Campaign)
Instead of making the Soviets weaker in the highest level , we could think about an additional artillery for the Rumanians or the Finns. Three buyable artillery units are rather scarce for the axis, particularly when in France or Italy a new front is opened.

[EdwinP]

One feature I would like to see in a future update is an option to purchase an industrial leader unit that would reduce the production time/reduce production cost/increase the build limits, etc. for a specific unit type. This leader unit would represent a government's focus on maximizing production for this specific type of unit.In WW2 Germany reduced the production time for submarines from months to weeks and the US reduced the production time for destroyers and aircraft by a comparable amount. The current game engine does not reflect this. Unlike research advances, the benefit from this industrial unit would be available immediately and apply to only one type of unit. This industrial leader unit would not be cheap and would have a build limit of 1. This would force the player to make a choice on which production track should receive priority.

The industrial leader's effectiveness in reducing production time would be impacted by a nation's industrial tech level. Example: With an Industrial leader that favors submarines and Industrial Tech Level 5 - production time for a submarine would be reduced to 2 months.

[Blond_Knight]

One feature I would like to see in a future update is an option to purchase an industrial leader unit that would reduce the production time/reduce production cost/increase the build limits, etc. for a specific unit type.

That's an interesting idea. Similar to what Vik did for DC:Barbarossa.

[Hairog]

There are real life examples. In Germany it could be Speer, in the US it would be the War Production Board. Or it could be multiple individuals ie. Boeing for US fighters, Ford for bombers, USSR ... Malenkov for planes.

[Ason]

ORIGINAL: BROJD

I think that the supply/isolated mechanics aren't fully replicating the massive encirclements and mass surrenders of 1941. Too many of my forces have to stay behind and mop up--meaning they lose momentum and take casualties.

Yes! I noticed this also. I really think there needs to be some change to the almost endless supply that cities and resources provides.

Imo a cut off unit that still holds a resource hex should have supply for 1 to 3 turns but should see its supply fall over time after those first turns.

It makes little sense to have to surround a cut off unit with 4 units in order to make its supply drop.

[Philippeatbay]

When I was still playing the Barbarossa scenario I noticed that to make encirclements work I would have to make sure the pocket didn't include a city, because next turn the troops in the pocket would be beefed up to full strength with reinforcements.

Perhaps it would make sense to put some kind of limitation on reinforcements to units that can only trace back to an isolated city. Given the scale of the game I can understand why an isolated Bialystok would be able to produce something from an emergency mobiliztion of workers despite being cut off from Stavka.

As things stand kiel und kessel tactics don't feel right. I shouldn't have an incentive to storm cities with my Panzers.

[Hairog]

Excellent observation and framing of the problem. Leningrad and Stalingrad were all cooked without a tiny corridor for supplies.

There was a small fortress I'm aware of (Malaya Zemlya) in Novorossiysk on the Black Sea that was surrounded but held out for 225 days and never was captured by the Germans.

[EdwinP]

It appears that no one is using Axis strategic bombers on the Eastern front.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: EdwinP

It appears that no one is using Axis strategic bombers on the Eastern front.

Agreed. I also tend to have maxed out my various artillery builds and even have my rail gun built for the initial thrust into USSR to quickly take down entrenched armies in cities. We should be certain that different strategies are tested before weakening the USSR opponent.

It might be helpful to include your attack strategy (major thrusts) or unit concentrations (i.e. Are Tanks builds maxed, are troops motorized for Blitz warfare etc etc.) Obviously this information is more relevant to 1939 scenario.

[Mithrilotter]

I am playing Allied on 0% Difficulty and Bonus +0. I held the Axis at the Narva, Pskov, Smolensk, Konotop, Dneprosetov and Nikolayeve line. It is July 1942 and the Soviets are more the attackers now. I shut down the Arctic Convoy as the UK needed the MPP's more. No MPP's have been sunk on the Arctic Convoy line during the entire game. Once U-Boats finally raided the line, I had just shut it down that turn.

In my opinion, the balance favors the Soviets. Lots of UK Convoy MPP's built a larger than normal Soviet Army. If the Germany Navy had been more agressive on the Arctic Convoy line, it could have been a different story. The AI used the U-Boats in just ones and twos on Atlantic and South Atlantic Convoy lines. I saw four U-Boats that were defensively patrolling the Norwegian coast and the Baltic. U-Boats were soon sunk. No German surface ships in the Baltic bothered my short bombarding Soviet ships or set up an ambush. German destroyers would go after my Soviet sub.

I noticed that the German surface ships in Western French ports were sitting ducks. I would have a HQ supported air force in England. A strategic bomber would bomb a town by a suspected port. This would do some damage to the town, reveal a surface ship and cause any Fighters to intercept. The Fighter would get mauled. I then sent my two TAC Bombers after the Fighter to destroy it. Once the air was clear, I would send two TAC Bombers and a Carrier after the surface ship, sinking it in one turn. When I play Axis, I always put a good AA gun by any important French target.

[EdwinP]

It would be useful if the AI editor could specify whether a garrison is a land unit, Anti-Air unit or an air unit; i.e. if AA unit is available base it here. If a maritime bomber is available base it in Norway to attack convoy routes and protect U-boats. If a Similarly, I wonder if the AI will purchase AA improvements only for cities in range of enemy air?

Likewise, a guard script for fighters on the Western front would be useful. Garrison Fighters close enough to guard France, but not too close to be targeted by British based tactical bombers.