Soviets - build quality or quantity?

[gwgardner]

The result of my opponent's withdraw policy (October 1, '41):

[Michael T]

Looking at that screenie I see only 8 Pz Corp. That's not enough IMO.

[Chocolino]

Hard to see from this zoom - but the Russian front between Kursk and Kharkov seems to be a single line with some "2"s. That looks exploitable potentially.

The rest of the Russian setup looks very strong from a distance. But also depends on what hides in those unidentified units. But would like to know how they prioritized their build.

But you have also the Fins going for you with a direct threat on Leningrad.

[AlbertN]

Germany is very hamstrung on oil.
Maybe a couple more but still panzers are fuelsuckers.
Even with a full stock of fuel before Barbarossa (that personally I obtained only playing vs the AI as the AI plays lame) a dozen of panzers and the air unit devour it in 3-4 turns. (Speaking of starting with 800+ fuel before Barbarossa).

[Flaviusx]

You really want about a dozen mobile corps for Barbarossa, minimum. But it is hard to sustain more than that, or even that much.

Not only that, but the panzers are too dispersed, as is your air. As I mentioned above, in this situation, I would have focused on Leningrad. At least a half dozen corps up north and maybe 3 in the center and the south to push the Sovs back, with the bulk of your air support up north as well.

In the alternative, it is barely possible you might have taken Moscow with a focus on just that but if I have to choose here, I prefer Leningrad in 41 to Moscow. Moscow can be taken later. Leningrad is much harder to take later once the Soviet is well established up there. The entire belt of swamps in the north is a natural fort line and really hard to dislodge when fully upgraded rifle armies have a chance to dig in.

[gwgardner]

I have 500+ oil at present. Started with 700+. I believe the recent reduction of oil usage in air ops has very much lessened any German lack of oil in Barbarossa.

As for the number of armor, I had 9 armored corps at start. Just lost one in a most unwise advance with depleted armor south of Leningrad. I might note that this was the very first counter-attack my opponent undertook, and it was spot on.

I have no idea how one could get 12 armored corps by June '41. You guys are way beyond me in production point management.

[AlbertN]

It depends on losses, upgrades, etc.

I tend to mix panzers with panzergrens anyhow. I know at some point I may have to switch on the defensive and PanzerGrens have better Gun value than armour, and can operate to an extent also in fuel shortages whereas a Panzer is just unable to.

[James Taylor]

By June 41 there will be 13 Panzer and 5 Pz Grndr on the map for Germany(for Barbarossa) in my current game.

The idea being that there will be a number of them in reserve(resting for effectiveness gain) and then moving up into the battle zone using rail.

[gwgardner]

So you don't build infantry prior to Barbarossa? Or air?

[AlbertN]

Oh no I do build infantry. Just saying instead of having -only- panzers I mix panzers and panzergrenadiers. Infantry is required too and air as well.

But I am far from certain there is a 'perfect mix'.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I have 500+ oil at present. Started with 700+. I believe the recent reduction of oil usage in air ops has very much lessened any German lack of oil in Barbarossa.

As for the number of armor, I had 9 armored corps at start. Just lost one in a most unwise advance with depleted armor south of Leningrad. I might note that this was the very first counter-attack my opponent undertook, and it was spot on.

I have no idea how one could get 12 armored corps by June '41. You guys are way beyond me in production point management.

Some of this is going to be mech. 3-4 of them. They are a bit cheaper to build. Going pure armor here is going to be a stretch.

This is also with me giving subs a pass. That may or may not be a good idea anymore. But frankly, subs would have to be enormously more effective for me to be tempted. Like about 3-4 times as effective. I know the patch tweaked this and yet I am still skeptical that a sub investment is worth it.

[AlbertN]

I agree on Subs.
Germany simply does not have the economy to build subs in adequate amount.

In general I just build 0, use the starting 3 and that's it.
To the question: "Would you rather have an INF corp, or a Submarine" my answer would be the INF corp always.

I only found myself to produce submarines in the early single player games, simply because the AI is not strong and by '43 I was almost hitting the logistic cap. The only positive thing of ships is that their Logistic need is abysmal.
Others ships are entirely untouched. Their cost is excessive, not to talk of how long they take to come online and be thus useful.

[Journier]

ships are exorbitantly priced and timed sadly, makes it difficult to build any and think they will be of any use in the game.

Im also one that follows 0 subs build currently, 3 subs you get and i have to sink their value in convoys every 12-14 turns really but going for more just makes it impossible for me to build enough for a successful barbarossa. Need lot of infantry in barbarossa to wave attack and guard the back rails.