Russian balance

[sveint]

Some good discussion here.

My personal feeling is the Soviets are too weak in 1941, but fine from 1942 onwards.

Only Alvaro can decide what, if anything, should be done.

[ncc1701e]

This is funny because I have exactly the opposite feeling. For me, Soviets are fine in 1941 but too weak in 1942.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

This is funny because I have exactly the opposite feeling. For me, Soviets are fine in 1941 but too weak in 1942.

And that's why we need these discussions.

[sveint]

If you look at harrybanana and mine AARs, you'll see we both carve through 41 Soviets as if they are butter. And I had a very poor start to my Axis game.

[Nirosi]

quote:

What does it mean? What is a 100% bonus?


My understanding is that you get the winter penalty attacks normally, and then double from there. So if you lose 50% (bliz), you get it back basically. But if you lose 35% (snow), then you end-up fighting at 130% of normal strength (100-35= 65x2=130).

But it would be nice if Alvaro can confirm this interpretation.

PS: This was my understanding for normal countries. But my understand, up to now anyway, is also that if the country is already winterized (as a country), then the unit with such a specialization on top would go 200% (of normal clear weather) during snow/blizzard. Sorry for the big jump in messages, but I needed to clarify my post.[:D]

[stjeand]

I believe it is 200%....BUT since the USSR has such low movement they rarely can even use that bonus. In snow / blizzard it normally takes all their movement to move next to the German unit...then with my normal luck the next turn is rain...OH yay for me.

[Nirosi]

believe it is 200%....BUT since the USSR has such low movement they rarely can even use that bonus. In snow / blizzard it normally takes all their movement to move next to the German unit...then with my normal luck the next turn is rain...OH yay for me

Often true sadly.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: sveint

If you look at harrybanana and mine AARs, you'll see we both carve through 41 Soviets as if they are butter. And I had a very poor start to my Axis game.

So I am happy to see how I have resisted to an April's Barbarossa better than you with another experience opponent.

To sum up, against a strong experience player, Russia don't have any chance.

The battle of Smolensk, Barbarossa derailed for Mr David Glantz, gone. 10th July to 10th September 1941. Two months of fighting around Smolensk. Two months so four game turns, gone? Battle of Soltsy? gone? Battle of Staraya Russa? gone?

The Russians fought hard in 1941 inflicting many losses on the Germans.

The Russian are weak because of two modifications imo. I have already highlighted them here:
fb.asp?m=4962490

First change:

Change Soviet default experience lowered from 35% to 30%

The Soviet are weaker at start so their units must wait longer to gain a decent experience.
Few problems to hold Leningrad, Moscow in 1941, normal?

For an April Barbarossa, all-in Russia, maybe. For a late June Barbarossa, I am not sure. In your game, 12 September 1941, you are at one hex of Moscow with a Barbarossa started on 06 June 1941. Something is wrong here. Warplan is not a simulation but... this is much to quick and this is against harrybanana. Just imagine a casual player.

Second change:

Change casualty to kill level by 7% (means less kills more effectiveness loss)

This one is the worst for 1942. Based land experience are increasing with combat. So, based experience are increasing over 1941. Now, here is the problem. Red army land units are acquiring experience with replacements coming at a better experience than what's in the unit.

A land unit at 30% experience receiving replacements at 33% experience will increase its experience.
The problem is, due to this change, Red army land units are losing less steps than before.

As such, they get less replacements with an increased based experience. An unit will wait longer to gain experience especially since it is losing less steps than before but effectiveness instead.

That's the way I understand the new behavior hence the balance issue.

[stjeand]

Don't know about you but the Red Army can ill afford repairing units...they need to be building an army every turn if possible because they just do not have enough armies, so rarely do I see a benefit with replacements.


The Allies have to take all the pressure off of the USSR...In Sveints game...if Tripoli falls it is likely Italy will fall shortly after.
He will have to pull back 10 or so corps to defend which may slow him down in Russia but will it be in time?

The Russians can lose Moscow and Leningrad...BUT it is how many armies they have left that really matters. If they can barely cover their lines they are in trouble...since the Germans will use armor to punch holes and surround pockets.

That was how Harry took out all my Russian armor. No more concentrating it for me...because there is always a weak spot in the Russian line.


BUT above was my complaint early on...

Russia needs to be stronger...
BUT if you make Russia stronger the problem is the Allies can still invade in mass in 1941 / 1942 which they could not in reality.
This is why I wondered if changing the rail repair to 2...would that slow the Germans down enough for the Russians to survive.

[michaelCLARADY]

ORIGINAL: PL1

95 MMs are a lot of MMs... The equivalent of 950 PP or 2 Hbombers 39 tech. I dont mind having choices (to attack or not), but there should be consequences. Just to push the conversation further and to put a trigger on events, the entry of the US seems to be a good one :
For Netherlands : Considering that Germany declared war on the US after PH, maybe an automatic declaration of war on Netherlands as well? Making the Netherlands a US or UK ally.
For Norway : Automatic cancelation of the Winter Convoy when the US enters the war (plus a trade with US of their rare resource/PP/MMs)?
For Greece : If Cairo and Tobruk is in Allied hands when and after the US enters the war, then Greece eithers becomes an Allies Ally or becomes a trade partner with US (rare resource/PPs/MMs)?

Not sure if they would have wanted to fight... but help maybe. Maybe after an event likely to shift the balance, they might have wanted to be part of the winning side.

None of that is needed. At the end of the game the Axis will be down a huge number of Victory Points. Also no war on Greece means a neutral Bulgaria.

[stjeand]

They will only be down a lot of VPs if they don't smash the USSR and take all their VPs...if they do it won't matter. Then they can take all those locations as they see fit.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Don't know about you but the Red Army can ill afford repairing units...they need to be building an army every turn if possible because they just do not have enough armies, so rarely do I see a benefit with replacements.

Right but with lend lease, you can repair a little.

ORIGINAL: stjeand

Russia needs to be stronger...
BUT if you make Russia stronger the problem is the Allies can still invade in mass in 1941 / 1942 which they could not in reality.

This is not because Russia is stronger or weaker that the Allies can invade in mass in 1941 / 1942. These are two separate issues.

I know Warplan is not a simulation. But Russia has supported the war alone in 1941 and in 1942 without an in mass invasion of Europe by the Allies.

But normally, with UK weaker now, 60 Landing ships for Armor/Mech, BoA to fight, Egypt to defend, the Allies should be occuped in 1941 and 1942.

[Flaviusx]

It appears the penny is finally dropping and people are understanding that the Soviets got way too nerfed in the last patch.

Just look at the AARs. Res ipsa loquitur.

The experience hit was too much. It was not at all necessary and the eastern front was balanced fine with the old 35% base. Now the Soviets just get curbstomped.

If and when this gets addressed I may go back to PBEM. In its present state the game is not playable. It's any auto Axis win if the German player knows what they are doing. They just bum rush the Soviets in 41 and it is game over.

[Flaviusx]

In this game experience is king.

Dropping the Soviet base from 35 to 30 is a 14% nerf across the board to their CVs. This is a much bigger deal than people seem to think, and when they are so low to begin with has an outsized effect. Furthermore, it is very possible for them to get into a doom loop thanks to bad experience gains in 41 and go into 42 below 40% experience.

The Soviets are so weak right now that the Germans can keep grinding even in inclement weather short of actual blizzard conditions or heavy rain. Unlucky cold weather turns in the 41-2 winter are devastating, too. It just snowballs from there.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

In this game experience is king.

Dropping the Soviet base from 35 to 30 is a 14% nerf across the board to their CVs. This is a much bigger deal than people seem to think, and when they are so low to begin with has an outsized effect. Furthermore, it is very possible for them to get into a doom loop thanks to bad experience gains in 41 and go into 42 below 40% experience.

The Soviets are so weak right now that the Germans can keep grinding even in inclement weather short of actual blizzard conditions or heavy rain. Unlucky cold weather turns in the 41-2 winter are devastating, too. It just snowballs from there.

Well, I don't think you have to convince me.

In the other game, Barbarossa started on May 9, 1941. Leningrad fell on August 15, 1941. The Germans were one hex away from Moscow on September 12, 1941... It's way too fast because there can be no resistance.

We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

[Harrybanana]

I reluctantly have to agree that the Russians are too weak. Skill is still the most important factor in determining who will win most games. But where the players are relatively equal, a good Axis player will beat a good Allied player every time (although a poor to moderate Allied player may beat a poor to moderate Axis player). I just don't think there is a way for a good Axis player to be stopped.

I think there are a number of reasons why the Germans are now stronger. But the biggest is probably that with the change in the shatter/no retreat rule it is no longer permanently losing units in France. Don't get me wrong, I love this Rule change, but this is one of the consequences of it.

However, if any changes are to be made (Alvaro's decision of course) than I agree with Sveint that the changes should be implemented gradually until play balance has been achieved. My personal opinion is that the changes should be made in the following order:

1. Change the rail repair rate to 2 hexes per turn from the existing 3. This may slow down not only the German advance in 41 and 42, but also the Russian advance from 43 on (if they survive). I don't believe this alone will be enough to help the Russians survive 41, but it is a good place to start.

2. Increase Russian starting experience back up to 35%. Alternatively, increase the rate at which experience is gained. This would help not only the Russians but all nations that start at less than 50%.

3. Increase the tech level of the Russian Reserve units to 41. Though I suppose a problem with this is what if the Germans invade in 1939 0r 40?

4. Give the Siberian units the Winterized specialty.

[sveint]

Another game, the Western Allies are doing really well and sending 135 resources per turn. Soviet experience is 48%. Yet I have no chance against mobile panzers. I really need at least 7 moves for my tanks.

[MagicMissile]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

I reluctantly have to agree that the Russians are too weak. Skill is still the most important factor in determining who will win most games. But where the players are relatively equal, a good Axis player will beat a good Allied player every time (although a poor to moderate Allied player may beat a poor to moderate Axis player). I just don't think there is a way for a good Axis player to be stopped.

I think there are a number of reasons why the Germans are now stronger. But the biggest is probably that with the change in the shatter/no retreat rule it is no longer permanently losing units in France. Don't get me wrong, I love this Rule change, but this is one of the consequences of it.

However, if any changes are to be made (Alvaro's decision of course) than I agree with Sveint that the changes should be implemented gradually until play balance has been achieved. My personal opinion is that the changes should be made in the following order:

1. Change the rail repair rate to 2 hexes per turn from the existing 3. This may slow down not only the German advance in 41 and 42, but also the Russian advance from 43 on (if they survive). I don't believe this alone will be enough to help the Russians survive 41, but it is a good place to start.

2. Increase Russian starting experience back up to 35%. Alternatively, increase the rate at which experience is gained. This would help not only the Russians but all nations that start at less than 50%.

3. Increase the tech level of the Russian Reserve units to 41. Though I suppose a problem with this is what if the Germans invade in 1939 0r 40?

4. Give the Siberian units the Winterized specialty.

I think those look like good ideas. I have from day one felt that the Western allies was a bit too strong and the Soviets a bit too weak.

Now with airunits nerfed and BoA a real thing I dont know if the Western Allies still are too strong but I think the Soviets are too weak and something should be done. The eternal question in wargaming [:)]. Between 2 players of equal skill and without any huge mistakes should the Germans ever be able to conquer the Soviets?


/MM

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile


Now with airunits nerfed and BoA a real thing I dont know if the Western Allies still are too strong but I think the Soviets are too weak and something should be done. The eternal question in wargaming [:)]. Between 2 players of equal skill and without any huge mistakes should the Germans ever be able to conquer the Soviets?


/MM

In my opinion no; not if the players have relatively equal skill and the Russian player does not make any huge mistakes. But they should have a reasonable chance of damaging the Soviets enough that the Axis can hold on long enough to win the game on VPs. That is the game I would love to play (for either side) where the game is in the balance until the last few turns. Unfortunately, every game I have played so far has really been decided by the fall of 42 or before.

[sveint]

ORIGINAL: MagicMissile

I have from day one felt that the Western allies was a bit too strong and the Soviets a bit too weak.

Pretty much sums up every WW2 wargame ever made.