Does the Soviet AI need help?

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Edit: A good way to possibly represent the massive manpower pools and faster than normal mobilization would be to make Soviet Corps free auto-builds. So if a Corp dies it automatically goes on the production track and perhaps make them arrive a turn or two early. Making the Corps slightly weaker than most countries Corps would help mitigate the free builds. The goal being to allow the soviets to throw cheap/weak defensive units in front of an attacker without gaining too much attack potential.

Jim

Hi Jim

Soviet Corps and Armies are inferior and cheaper than everyone else's. That's an interesting idea to make them quicker to build too, I'll give it some thought. Thanks. [:)]

Bill

[ILCK]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: ILCK

I saw the Soviet Winter in one video. Movement grinds to a halt and Germans units take actual damage as well. Not sure if there are readiness and morale penalties along with it.

Yes, unit morale and readiness take a hefty penalty too. [:)]

So you are saying this is .... bad? [;)]


Just as a hypothetical how do morale and readiness affect damage? Obviously lower will lower effectiveness but in practical terms is a unit at 50% readiness and 50% morale 50% as effective as a 100% in both counterpart?

[BillRunacre]

Yes, units with low morale and readiness will fare significantly worse in combat, with these %s being proportional to their fighting ability all other things being equal.

It is bad for the Axis, and a good time for the Red Army to consider counter-attacking, or it can just enjoy a break from the Axis onslaught to improve its defences.

[Hubert Cater]

The notion that the Soviet Union would be devoid of units at any time in the war is just silly. Between June-December 1941, the Soviets mobilized almost 10 million reservists and volunteers. They lost about 6 million in the same time period so they almost doubled the size of their at start forces in 5 months.

To clarify, and I'm also not disagreeing with the above, mine was just a commentary on the current in game situation explaining what might be happening for the AI.

However, in game terms, any lack of "on map" defenders after the initial Axis assault is really only temporary, and more of a functional abstraction representing the core loss of effective combat units in the short term. Their delayed re-appearance, as well as newer units, back into the game reflects the time needed for reorganization, restrengthening, and replacement of units back into the field. This abstracted disarray on the Soviet side (after the initial wave of the Axis assaults) also allows for the Axis to maintain their timelines, i.e. their blitzkrieg forward into Soviet territory as otherwise it would be very difficult to reach historical objectives by the end of 1941 at the current game turn lengths.

Essentially the Soviet manpower is still there, it is just in this game represented by not only units on the map, but also units being rebuilt and built and reflected in the delayed time it would take to get them back into the field. For example, many destroyed units can be bought back at reduced cost and at a reduced production time to reflect this.

That being said, there are ways to do it differently, however it would require probably 4 times as many turns in a year (if not more) as well as combat values adjustments and then there would be no way to have the overall game length play out in quite as an enjoyable and reasonable time frame. You would have increased unit concentrations, not necessarily a bad thing as this does eventually occur by war's end, but I doubt you'd have as much of the "tactical" feel that the game offers, and at this strategic level which many players seem to enjoy quite a bit as well. For example, that blitzkrieg re-creation feeling you get in game at the start of Barbarossa as you sweep through the USSR and so on.

Sometimes it is a careful balance, to get playability vs history just right, but I think you'll find that it plays out quite well overall.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Scook_99

Thank you for your insights to the AI, Hubert, there is a noticeable difference between this version and SC2. I was thinking about this...does the AI break down its actions by country, or as a group. Because, I was wondering if there is the ability to set the AI for each country individually? I would expect not, but just thought I would throw that out there to intrigue and terrorize your thoughts simultaneously.

Thank you and yes the AI can indeed be set for each major power and in fact is in many cases in game.

There are large portions of the AI where I simply let it assess the situation on its own, i.e. most land combat OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE planning is set this way outside of specific GUARD scripts that I run to hold certain areas for X number of turns under Y sets of conditions, but at other times we can fine tune specific behavior such as certain OFFENSIVE actions we'd like to see on land if needed.

However, outside of land combat, FLEET, TRANSPORT, AMPHIBIOUS, PURCHASE, RESEARCH and DIPLOMACY planning is much more specific and on a per major basis.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre
That's an interesting idea to make them quicker to build too, I'll give it some thought. Thanks. [:)]

There is plenty of historical justification for this. If my memory hasn't completely failed me I think they instituted a 2 year mandatory military service policy in either 1936 or 1938. So by wars start there were tens of millions of young Soviets that had already been through their two year service obligation and creating combat formations would be far faster than normal conscription for most nations since basic and advanced training courses weren't needed. A brief refresher period to get the new formation acclimated with itself would be all that was needed.

This is why the Soviets were able to grow their military so fast. Sure the militia units and some of the fresh conscripts needed regular training before they could be considered capable regulars, but they had millions of already trained reservists to draw from as well and I think it probably was a big help in saving Russia from utter collapse during the big defeats in 41 and 42.

Jim

[jjdenver]

One thing that I noticed while reading the Barbarossa AAR that's going up now is that it seems like the Axis don't take much attrition when attacking. Historically even unorganized Soviet formations that were encircled, pierced, and generally torn to pieces by the Wermacht in 1941 were able to inflict heavy losses on German units. This combined with the difficulty the Germans had while running their tanks across the SU on the offensive, led to German units bled white by late 1941. This happened again in 1942 and 1943. Even when winning the Germans took terrific losses.

I don't see this in the AAR. I think that a successful attacker seems to emerge mostly unscathed, maybe dropping 1 or 2 strength points occasionally. This seems to lead to a lot of problems simulating the war in the east as the attrition is extremely one-sided. This also I think snowballs by 1942 (and I'm guessing 1943 also) because German units build up more and more experience while Soviet units aren't able to do that. By end of 1942 historically the Soviets were able to aquit themselves quite well against German formations but I don't see this in the AAR. I think this lack of operational toll on the Germans doesn't "feel" right.

About the suggestion earlier that Soviet corps get immediately put back into production, perhaps as weaker units might only exacerbate this problem. The Soviets need to be able to inflict _casualties_ on the Wermacht, to grind it down as they did historically and cause the Germans to have lots of problems replacing those losses, to have to choose to rebuild/refit only parts of their army in Russia, to slow down as the year campaign season progresses and losses mount.

I think there needs to be a re-think of this area in the design because currently it seems the defender doesn't cause many losses. They can only cause losses when they counterattack - which just isn't historical.

My 2 cents from reading the AAR. I want to love this game but I'm worried.

[HyazinthvonStrachwitz]

[font="Times New Roman"]Hi jjdenver!

What you write about the German losses in my AAR is part of my strategy. It is possible to do panzer sweeps and encirclements in this game, but I usually advance without these things. There are a couple of reasons, and increasing losses are one of them. The engine allows to do these things, but they lead to the same developments as in RL: higher losses for the attacker.
There is one major reason why I have less losses than the Wehrmacht in RL: I concentrated my forces (no attack on Wjasma and Moskau in 1941), and I stopped at Orel. I always pay attention on supply and unit attrition, so if a unit drops below a certain strength, I refresh it. This is did not happen in RL. My advance in 1941 was not as far as in RL, but my troops were in better condition.
But the main reason for my low unit attrition is my attack doctrine. There are certain parts of the front line (Northern Finland, Smolensk, Orel) where I don't attack since months. I just use the Prepared Attack bonus to decimate enemy units. To be more precise: I only execute attack with own loss forecast zero. If the forecast is 1:4, I don't attack. So there are very few losses on these fronts.
The second reason is the use of Bombers on parts of the front where I attack. I designate some key units (usually tanks) and send my bombers first, and when my ground units attack, the Soviets are already at half strength.
I will post Turn 47 later today, and if you look at the German units around Stalingrad, you will see a couple of German ground units at strength 4 or 5. There are losses when attacking, but usually I was able to refresh these quickly. But it does not work at Stalingrad, because my bombers are too far away to execute my usual strategy.
One last point: you mentioned that the Soviets are able to fight back against the German units in late 1942. I think this is modeled when the Soviets get Infantry Weapons 3 which happened in Turn 46... they will more difficult to destroy.[/font]

[GavCol]

Likewise I'm worried by this. In previous SC games once a steamroller of tech and experience was built up it was nearly impossible to stop.
The Barbarossa AAR shows the same tendency with minimal attack losses and excellent supplies where has are.
The AAR has reached a tipping point due to this and that is despite the computer being handed support points in the set up.

Appreciate the focused attacks by hvs but no supply restrictions or attrition.

Worried on this front....rem that Kursk needed a supply concentration that took away from other fronts

Still a buyer but did want the agony of picking focal points
Thanks

[BPINisBACK]

I don't see the point.
As HvS has said he is advancing very slow. When i saw him playing i was wondering myself for the reason of that behaviour... As he has explained before, he could go really faster... but, as he said: that means less supplies, the HQ would be far behind his lines, the frontline would be very irregular... so, more losses.
All we have the RL in our mind...but this is game... Futhermore, a game between an experienced human and a machine... [:'(]
You can always watch the Paradox videos... There, he is advancing bit a bit... The games are completely different but in Paradox game, the reds seems to have a huge amy somewhere behind the lines waiting for the CA.
And, as Hubert said, the AAR from HvS and Paradox has been played with an early beta (if i am not wrong).
So, finally, of course that a experimented human can kick the "ass" of the computer!!! But, let's see what happend with Human with Human AAR. After them, it is always "easy" to adjust the game.
I will buy the game, for sure! [&o]

Excellent reports, BTW!!! [&o]

[jjdenver]

I hear that you are being methodical, careful, etc HVS. But still, there should be losses I think. Both side have tanks, artillery, guns - and the Soviets seem to be shooting mostly blanks. It's just frustrating to see very few losses on the screenshots when entire Soviet corps and armies are being eliminated. I don't think this models actual WW2 East Front - whether at a fast pace like 1941 or a slow pace like Kursk. Even in WW2 situations where there was a relateively well supplied, methodical attack: El Alamein, Kursk, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Bulge, etc - both sides took losses. It's unavoidable with relatively equal technology. Unless one side has jets, body armor, 20 year future superior AFV's, and guided missiles and the other doesn't, I don't see how the lack of losses can be justified in the design. Even in Poland the Germans took noticeable losses vs a vastly inferior foe.

[apec]

I also think that the loss ratio SU vs Axis ground units looks rather unrealistic, but the game looks quite balanced anyway.
Consider the figures of MPPs (losses vs incomes) posted by HvS in his AAR (see below for reference), they tell that SU is far from being defeated. On top of these figures one must add the fact that any Soviet unit replacement cost significantly less than the corresponding Axis unit. I may be wrong here but I think that overall the Axis is not winning the "war economy" in 1942, and HvS has played an excellent game so far (at least for my standards [:)] ).



" Putting this together, the Axis lost 7.596 MPPs and the Allied 15.766.
So the ratio is roughly 1:2. In 1941, the ratio was around 1:4.
It is quite obvious the Allies have learned to fight.

Let us also have look on the income per turn.

Germany: 880
Itals: 125

Axis: around 1.000


Soviet Union: 1.180
British Empire: 270
USA: 480

Allies: almost 2.000


So the Allies outproduce me.
I will not get to Moscow if I cannot change this. "

[GavCol]

The AAR has been brilliant but I was rooting for the computer (sorry hvs) with its mop advantage
Therefore it did remind me of the unstoppable juggernaut previous versions

However credit card out for tomorrow
Thanks all for putting.pushing forward a game I'd previously spent huge time on