At which point should USSR change over from research to production?

[OxfordGuy3]

Assuming playing versus a human player, at which point (date) should the USSR stop investing in research and start buying units, assuming a "normal" game? The starting units (even with those added on the turn of invasion) don't look like enough to blunt the axis attack for long enough, and even Corps have quite a long production delay.

Also is it better purchase to fewer, but much stronger, Corps, or more numerous Garrisons, or a mix of both? Is it worth purchasing any HQs, tanks or air before the Axis invasion?

[GeneralJackDRipper]

I find it imperative for the USSR to invest as soon as possible in Infantry Weapons to obtain at least Lvl 1 before the Axis attacks. Always have a chit invested in that tech. Upgrading units to 1 or 2 will allow you to slow the Nazi advance before you are able to build up sufficient numbers to truly push back; ideally this coincides with reaching lvl 3 Infantry Weapons. I also find it important to invest in Armored Warfare (to allow for 2 attacks for Mech and Armored) and Advanced Tanks. It's scary seeing a small number of defenders but the early research is crucial to your ability to push back once your production starts to kick in. Garrisons are only useful for occupying towns where Partisans are likely to crop up. Otherwise they are just cannon fodder for Axis, hardly slowing their advances while essentially giving free experience to the Nazi troops.

[OxfordGuy3]

Yes, I do research as the USSR, more or less as you suggest, but are you saying you don't start building *anything* before the Axis invade and only do research?

[GeneralJackDRipper]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Yes, I do research as the USSR, more or less as you suggest, but are you saying you don't start building *anything* before the Axis invade and only do research?

More or less, correct, depending on when the Axis does invade. But assuming a "normal" timeline, the value of an extra corps unit pales to an early chit in one of those research categories, IMO. I have messed with the idea of building an extra engineers unit to fortify both Leningrad and Moscow, but again, that's at the expense of a research chit and several turns of progress in that category.

[OxfordGuy3]

Okay, thanks. Am a bit unsure how to place my (limited) starting forces (assuming PBEM play, not vs. AI) if not purchasing any new units before Barbarossa - do you have any tips? Perhaps you could PM me a screenshot of one recommended setup? I've not played the allies previously...

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Okay, thanks. Am a bit unsure how to place my (limited) starting forces (assuming PBEM play, not vs. AI) if not purchasing any new units before Barbarossa - do you have any tips? Perhaps you could PM me a screenshot of one recommended setup? I've not played the allies previously...

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?

Good questions. I would love to read some answers as well.

[Sugar]

The best terrain to defend is around Leningrad, with limited access to the city itself. The swamps need fortifications urgently, since they provide a malus against aerial attacks (but boni against all others), which can be diminished by upgrading the forts with Air Defence. I´d recommend to fortify the forrest to the south, as well as the railroad into Nowgorods direction, and all hexes near Leningrad and Volchow. To diminish the threat from the north I recommend a counterattack as soon as Finnland joins the Axis, with the finn. units at half strength after winterwar. It`s probably not possible to conquer Helsinki, but it keeps the retreatline open in case Leningrad falls. This measures are at least the best way to delay the Axis.

Moskau as well as Stalingrad are undefendable imho, but south of Rostow around Kropotkin and Armavir behind the river the terrain is also suitable to defend, or even counterattack if possible. The Axis can hardly attack Stalingrad, if their flanks are threatened. Both points Leningrad and south of Rostow force the Axis to spread their troops widely.

I usually defend a few cities (not towns) in a distance from the german border with corps at max, where Axis` supply drops the first time; trying to prevent them from being destroyed on LS and easily. I also try to evacuate them, if they lost their entrenchment, not giving german units an easy opportunity to gather experience.

I learnt in several PbEMs, that it`s nearly impossible to save some of the Alarm-units. This is consuming to many troops, which in doubt all are lost, with little behind them.

[OxfordGuy3]

Thanks, BTW what's "LS"?

For the units deployed on the turn of invasion, are you saying it's not worth placing other units in front to try to mask them from attack?

For the frontline fortresses (Brest etc.) should these be defended with Garrisons, Corps, or even Armies (perhaps for Brest, at least?). Should I leave an Army in Sebastopol, or just a Corps? Should I use Armies to hold key points (Smolensk, Odessa, Kiev etc.) in general, or hold them back for later?

[Sugar]

Thanks, BTW what's "LS"?

My pleasure. LS means Low Supply (below 5 supply), and this means that you're not able to rebuy them for 60% of the original costs and in half the time.

For the units deployed on the turn of invasion

They are what I called Alarm-units. Directly translated from german, but it seems it doesn`t fit well enough .

I don`t like the thought of sacrificing valuable troops like armies without doing any damage to the enemy in general, but in case of the SU you`ll need some of them to buy time; corps are easy to replace in a short time and usually - until the developement of Inf. 3 - not able to do damage to Axis` troops, except they are dug-in very well.

I find it very difficult to determine a good strategy for Russia, but at least they just need to survive without too many casualties until the turning point of the war.

[James Taylor]

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.

[Amadeus]

First I invest in Infantery then to new units.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.

Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up

[GeneralJackDRipper]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?

You receive an Engineer unit for free (I can't remember exactly when), so you could purchase a second and deploy one each at Moscow and Leningrad. I'm currently testing a strategy whereby I only use the one "free" engineer and had enough time to fortify the swaps to the south of Leningrad and operated that unit to Moscow to fortify the open terrain to the south and west of the city.

I have found that it is likely not worth fortifying forest, as you already get a defense bonus from the natural cover. See the topic covered in more detail here. Bill Runacre confirms the best usage of fortifications are in clear hexes.

Coinciding with this fortification strategy, I have pulled nearly all of my armies to these two locations (Leningrad and Moscow) and have placed them in the fortifications to max their entrenchments. I've left a few corps and the garrisons you get at the start of the game at a few strategic choke points (road/rail intersections), East of Leningrad and Moscow. I've been able in the past to defend Moscow with less than I have now, so I'm cautiously optimistic this strategy will work with a more organizes/concentrated defense. I've adapted this strategy from a few excellent posts by other members in the, "Defending Barbarossa" thread. I highly recommend the time to read through it. I found Hellraiser's post about delaying the German offensive to be most helpful in developing my strategy.

It is critical to maximize the Russian research on Infantry Weapons and Tank warfare (anything related to either) from as early as possible. I've even gone so far as to refund some of the initial research chits to buy a few more turns of research in these categories at the very beginning of the game. At the beginning of the historical start to Barbarossa, I've found it's entirely possible to be nearly at Lvl 2 Infantry weapons for the Russians. The German offensive is a race against time and it is blunted significantly once the Russians reach level two infantry weapons. The tides can turn when they get to 3. Remember, German Infantry weapons max out at level 2...

[OxfordGuy3]

I'd understood that, whilst not making a big change, there was still *some* advantage to fortifying forest hexes, maybe changing the target type?

BTW Level 3 Soviet Infantry tech is the same as Level 2 German tech

[GeneralJackDRipper]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy
BTW Level 3 Soviet Infantry tech is the same as Level 2 German tech

I think that's fair to say. I do find my combat odds are fairly even (depending on other factors of course) with lvl 3 soviets vs lvl 2 germans. Obviously the real advantage the Soviets have at the point in the game when they reach lvl 3 infantry weapons is the amount of manpower they have.

I've found that it takes lvl 2 infantry weaponry to slow the German advance.

[GeneralJackDRipper]

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

I'd understood that, whilst not making a big change, there was still *some* advantage to fortifying forest hexes, maybe changing the target type?

While there might be some advantage (I'm still not sure there is), Bill Runacre made the point that **in general** it's probably a better/more efficient use of the engineers to focus on fortifying clear hexes.

When I first began, I was a little surprised to find that engineers cannot fortify towns/cities' hexes. I guess the higher entrenchment bonuses offered by these hexes approximates the same thing though.

[James Taylor]

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.

Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up

[GeneralJackDRipper]

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances.

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.

Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: GeneralJackDRipper

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances.



Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up

GeneralJackDRipper, I think your last reply got a little lost in the formatting - as far as I can tell this is what you were trying to reply with?:

"The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances."

[James Taylor]

No prayer, GJDR? So they just melt away in the face of the Germans, not even requiring an attack?

Have you ever examined the CTVs of garrisons vs corps, soft and hard defense?