Balance Thread

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Yes, armies can be split in two.

However, they cannot be built in smaller increments. Again, I miss this flexibility a lot with the Soviets, whereas with the other nations I often build divisions to be later merged into corps. The Soviets don't have this kind of production granularity. They have to buy in big chunks or not at all and this effectively means 1 rifle army per turn.

Sometimes I'd like to buy less than that and divert production to replacements. But I am forced by the lack of flexibility to almost always buy a rifle army. The Soviet is locked into a really inflexible production scheme compared to the other major powers.

Completely agree with you. I hope to have this flexibility to buy small armies after Russia is at war.
So that, I can buy a small army and invest in few replacements within the same turn.

[AlvaroSousa]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

But they are all 20 at full strength and by the time Barbarossa starts they will be at 20. I wonder if this is a little too good for the Soviets. You can literally build one such corps every turn for two years.

That's a lot of armies. You wouldn't even have to build more of them. Just set production to reinforcements.

I think it would be better if they converted to small armies regardless, and force the Soviet to merge them into full armies.

You are right. That will destroy the entire production mechanism.

[ncc1701e]

I am all in for two modifications:
1. The terrain and river addition on the Russian map
2. The addition of the possibility to buy small armies for Russian production flexibility

I am a little worried on the corps automatic upgrade to be too much in favor of Russia. Lowering the price of Soviet infantry corps was done to avoid the Soviet runaway strategy and oblige the Russian player to fight on the borders. It works well now and there are good fightings from the beginning of Barbarossa whatever the date.

I still think the corps to army automatic upgrade is a good idea. But, perhaps we can lower its impact by starting it only when the first reserve armies can be deployed. Like this, the bulk of the infantry corps have normally been reduced by 1/3 if not 1/2. If it is only 30% chance, some corps will continue to be killed anyway.

But, starting winter 1941, you should have an event that is converting all the remaining infantry corps to small armies saying the reorganisation has been done successfully.

After all, this is a circular, of July 15th, 1941, that has directed several changes to Red Army force structure, including the elimination of rifle corps headquarters and subordination of rifle divisions directly to rifle army headquarters.

Now few questions on the conversion of infantry corps to infantry small army:
1. Do you keep the entrenchement level of the corps after conversion?
2. Do you keep the experience/efficiency levels of the corps after conversion?
3. Do you keep the strength level of the corps after conversion (if < 18)?
4. I assume that the conversion can only be done if the corps is in supply

Allowing people to wonder if it is worth upgrading few corps to 1941 tech will also lower the number of corps on the map. They are no longer to be thrown in the trash.

[ncc1701e]

Double post.

[battlevonwar]

Was watching TIK(who is quite the little Historian about the Eastern Front his Stalingrad Series is enlightening) He quotes several of the foremost Eastern Front Writers of today. i.e. Glantz

Apparently the smaller divisions were superior. The Italians did the same. The Germans adopted the smaller divisions for lots of reasons the Russians fielded totally opposite Divisional/Corp/Army Compositions cause of their leadership issues. (not the purges but just a lack of leadership) The Germans did not have this issue but the Italians had the same issue as the Russians. I suppose after around Stalingrad the Russians began to make up the difference.


For many reasons smaller Divisions were superior(I suppose logistics, supply, speed? I can go back and quote but another may have a study of WW2 Army Composition and can chime in if not?)

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


'43 was also the year that German inf xx and xxx got smaller (and again in '44) but I suppose that's too much to hope for...............

[battlevonwar]

michaelCLARADY,

Tyronec, -2 Axis for me, +1 Axis for me
Alvaro, +1 Axis +1 Allied
Almeron, -1 Axis +1 Axis
Sveint -1 Axis
SillyFlo,+1 Axis
Hadros* +2 +1 Allied
Magic M -1 Allied -1 Axis(only man I've not beaten)
Flavius +2 Axis

I didn't think I would lose the Allies vs MagicMissile. The patch was recent and I had a division both on the Maginot and Metz he took which destroyed that game :/ he also taught me a lot about the game since a year ago!

*Hadros was learning so I resigned a game vs him... where I felt too far ahead. Unfortunately he fell victim to my Barbarossa Smash ... This is all the games I remember!

[battlevonwar]

The new map you made looks disgusting for the Axis and I like it. Also I like the fact you added so many ways for the Axis to defend later on. Something else I would like you take into account...

At the beginning of Barbarossa the Axis outnumbered the Russians(myth that's it the other way around) there was never a shortage of men sent East by the Axis till Kursk. (maybe arrival date and distribution)

I think if any place where the Axis should be a bit hurt is their oil supply. But now I think you have forced the use of more Tacs, Tanks, Mechs with this composition and possibly Airborne Troops as breaking those Rivers gets expensive! For both sides! (Russians started off with a shortage of oil at the front itself)

[AlvaroSousa]

WPE (WarPlan Europe as I am referring to it now) is meant to be played to the last turn. Very tough to blow out the Russians. Possible but tough.

Right now I am in a game with Hadros where he botched the Axis some and I will get to see how it fairs vs the Russians for better balancing. But in all my games with him I noticed where the large exploits were on the map. Originally this is how the Russian front was designed. I took out some terrain and rivers for balancing. But with players doing a min-max strategy going all out in Russia ignoring the Allies it was too much of a blow out.

in WiF you can do an all out Barbarossa and usually if it succeeds it cripples the Russians but doesn't KO them. They don't have the strength to get back to Germany.

I do like the auto upgrade but I have to cost calculate this. Usually I just use all the corps, set them to no reinforcement, as speed bumps, then sell them where they are nothing any more. Maybe this will be fine then because I am not taking full advantage.

Technically I should not allow the Russians to build any tank corps till 1942. But the last time I did this with Assault on Communism the entire forum revolted.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: battlevonwar

Was watching TIK(who is quite the little Historian about the Eastern Front his Stalingrad Series is enlightening) He quotes several of the foremost Eastern Front Writers of today. i.e. Glantz

Apparently the smaller divisions were superior. The Italians did the same. The Germans adopted the smaller divisions for lots of reasons the Russians fielded totally opposite Divisional/Corp/Army Compositions cause of their leadership issues. (not the purges but just a lack of leadership) The Germans did not have this issue but the Italians had the same issue as the Russians. I suppose after around Stalingrad the Russians began to make up the difference.


For many reasons smaller Divisions were superior(I suppose logistics, supply, speed? I can go back and quote but another may have a study of WW2 Army Composition and can chime in if not?)

ORIGINAL: sillyflower


'43 was also the year that German inf xx and xxx got smaller (and again in '44) but I suppose that's too much to hope for...............

The smaller divs were not superior, though no doubt easier to control for an inexperienced commander and staff. The change was made simply because of a lack of manpower, similar to the halving of the tanks in pz divs before Barbarossa when Hitler decided to double the no. of pz xx. The problem with the smaller inf xx was the significant, and disproportionate, reduction in front-line infantry who are the chaps who get by far the most casualties. This meant that the smaller division was far more fragile than the '41 model.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

Map Changes based on terrain. I put extra river lines where some smaller ones met up.

Add some more terrain in spots making it slightly denser.

I wonder if this is possible to add on the map, the city of Vyazma between Smolensk and Moscow?
It will add one more defensive terrain.

&#1074;&#1103;&#1079;&#1100;&#1084;&#1072; on the below map.

[ago1000]

That bottom map looks so cool.

[battlevonwar]

SillyFlower, from what I understand that may not be the case at all. At least depending on the year... The smaller divisions used by the Germans were used elsewhere in North Africa vs the British(where the British were overloaded with Armor in one Division) these failed very bad against the German Infantry/Anti-Tank/Armor Divisions/Support Units that were smaller... The Germans would used combined arms and the Allies would not successfully for awhile longer(or they would learn about it by this point and in '42-'43 they would know how to cope with the Germans). It was never called Blitzrkieg by the Germans by the way. We get a lot of our information from German Generals which is sometimes false(they want to blame others for their failures and wrote most of the history for Western Readers on the Eastern Front). These divisions had more support units and the Germans obviously learned quicker than the Allies.

On the Eastern Front the Divisions got smaller but more numerous in 1942 and the Manpower devoted to the Eastern Front increased meaning they could of had the same size Divisions as 1941 they opted not to. The Allies Massed Armor both Russians and UK which took heavy losses. I will link you to the youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3RGtIpjvvw I believe this fella has it right.

So in reality German Manpower could use a Buff in Game if you listen to this fellow and his resources are quite impeccable all quoted.

At Dubno the largest tank battle in reality in history this reflects that massive Tank Corps or Tank Armies were not a good thing(Brits had the same tactics in North Africa vs Rommel early on)

[sillyflower]

In N Africa the British were still doing cavalry charges with unsupported tanks (mainly armed with the 2 pdr gun which did not fire HE!) until Montgomery put a stop to that, although the practice was sometimes repeated by 1st Army coming from the west.

As to inf xx strength in the east, there may have been more of them but again many were under-strength. Under-strength always means a shortage of front-line combat troops. A lot of the extra manpower was needed in the rear areas and the quality of the fighting troops generally went down due to loss of veterans, and large numbers of 'ethnic' Germans who were all that keen. I will try to dig out my references.

The real cut in inf xx size was in '43 not '42.

I totally agree with your critique of the '41 russian armour.

[AlvaroSousa]

I will remind everyone this is a balance thread not a history debate thread.

So far this is what I have done to balance a 1941 more toward the USSR and a 1942 more toward Germany and late war a bit slower
Map added terrain and rivers
USSR default experience 35% -> 30% .... I will note all their forming units already come in at 30%
USSR corps now auto upgrade to armies ..... the 30% change should balance this out
USSR armor/mech operation points increase moved back 6 months to allow Germany to have fun in 1942.
USSR armies get 5 free ice cream trucks divisions to raise their morale during those sad times in 1941

[kennonlightfoot]

Russians protest getting ice cream trucks. They want good Russian Vodka trucks. Ice cream is for sissies.[;)]

[ago1000]

ORIGINAL: kennonlightfoot

Russians protest getting ice cream trucks. They want good Russian Vodka trucks. Ice cream is for sissies.[;)]

Unless there is Vodka in the trucks to make a White Russian.

[ncc1701e]

No possibility to buy small armies for Russia?

[ncc1701e]

Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.

[AlvaroSousa]

Adding small armies is a big task. Also you can buy a full army and split it.

Allies 1943 not sure yet. I am still evaluating this situation. Is it over commitment in Russia, under commitment to the BotA, or over commitment to everything else?

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Another question, what are you planning for "the Western Allies are too strong in 1943"?

Quite honestly, the UK has too much production too early. This plus the fact that now Germany has to face Netherlands, Belgium, France at the same time.
The United Kingdom starts with 158 PP, it is bigger than the USSR with 135 PP.

Understood UK needs to buy ships but they are not suffering enough from U-Boats. In John Ellis' book (page 280), UK had invested in:
1939: 22 destroyers, 5 escorts
1940: 27 destroyers, 109 escorts
1941: 39 destroyers, 87 escorts
1942: 73 destroyers, 71 escorts
1943: 37 destroyers, 79 escorts
1944: 31 destroyers, 55 escorts
1945: 13 destroyers, 7 escorts

Who honestly is buying DD groups to pursue the U-Boats? Me, as Allies player, never.

And, I have plenty to buy tanks, mechanized, airborne units in 1941..
UK production is too strong too early imo.

I'm not disputing your argument, but bear in mind some of those destroyer builds would probably be considered to be part of the Escort Pool in the game, as would solely be on convoy duty