Chtr 7 Roadwarrior (GHC) vs Gundam1985 (SHC) 1,000,000 men in reserve and still on the offensive.

[RoadWarrior]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

My list of Balance issues go beyond the Logistic - that is not even at the top - but it is neither 'just Assault Soviet HQs' that oversimplifies it.

Here I feel RoadWarrior went where the logistics helped them - as per where ports assisted the insufficient railroads.
There is also the other component that to take Orel and then lose it during Winter nets to the Soviets a +6 too (That is why I am insisting VPs need rework, and certainly Bonus for premature conquest only for who has the initiative).

But mostly it's the Combat Capability of the Red Army that is exceedingly overwhelming. And I do not think it's just due to Assault HQ but also due to the sheer possibility of retreating and avoid engagements til they're ready for. (Which may be a consequence of the logistic Axis hamstring) paired up with the possibility of the Soviets to bomb railyards and the like with little to no opposition.

All good points.

After March 42 the logistics system is really broken. Historically it took months for the Russians to build up supplies for limited offensives.
Currently SHC can attack all along the front 50+ times a turn and never run out of gas or ammo.

The result is weaker German resistance with each passing turn, so CCP, logistics planes and really manpower (1,000,000 men in reserve) become a non-factor for the SHC.

How amazing unhistorical is 1,000,000 men in reserve and the SHC is attacking all along the front with the german army simply melting.

I fail to see how the devs can defend this?

IT IS VERY CLEAR 2.0 is a complete flop when compaired to 1.0

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior

....
I fail to see how the devs can defend this?

IT IS VERY CLEAR 2.0 is a complete flop when compaired to 1.0

usual reminder - keep it polite

and perhaps avoid too much hyperbole?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior
...

Loki don’t be so defensive and simply look at the results.

Gundam is basically mocking the whole system by having 1,000,000 men in reserve and still achieving an unhistorical great 41/42 winter. SHC does not need to defend Leningrad, black sea ports, planes or those 1,000,000 men. Just run at just the right speed, because of a poorly designed logistics system.

The current model is all about SHC running at the correct speed as Q-ball and I have talked about in PMs. It has zero to do with trucks and trains, player skills ect ect. If SHC runs at the correct speed you will get unhistorically low Russian loses and an unhistorical 41/42 winter SHC offensive which German army simply can’t recover from because it causes a feedback loop and than SHC is on a unhistorical offensive in 42. This running at just the right speed tactic is used because of special rules put on the Germans logistics system.

As AlbertN points out “ the issue is that hardly Germans can achieve historical results as of now - which should be the 'Average' of the game. How many Axis players get to Orel, Rostov, Kursk etcetera. And how many can also keep a good portion of these through the coming winter?”

This is all caused by special rules to the German logistics system. If the logistics system is so great why all the special rules that cause the game to be so unhistorical?

This will become more unhistorical and more boringly predictable as more and more AARs show players how to game the poor logistics model.

no body is being defensive, but I'd strongly suggest that its not the logistics system. I have a game to T12, I have 40 MP+ mobile units, 14+ infantry and can do very little with that asset.

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

play without that and you get the game we saw late in the beta, plenty of variation, plenty of instances of perfectly ok German players (like me) doing fine. I ran one test game into mid-42, did less well in the north, was running around the Caucasus, in other words the sort of situation you'd broadly expect to see.

You've done a good job so far of not being too Pelton like to raise no concerns ... thats something worth keeping up [;)]

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

My list of Balance issues go beyond the Logistic - that is not even at the top - but it is neither 'just Assault Soviet HQs' that oversimplifies it.

Here I feel RoadWarrior went where the logistics helped them - as per where ports assisted the insufficient railroads.
There is also the other component that to take Orel and then lose it during Winter nets to the Soviets a +6 too (That is why I am insisting VPs need rework, and certainly Bonus for premature conquest only for who has the initiative).

But mostly it's the Combat Capability of the Red Army that is exceedingly overwhelming. And I do not think it's just due to Assault HQ but also due to the sheer possibility of retreating and avoid engagements til they're ready for. (Which may be a consequence of the logistic Axis hamstring) paired up with the possibility of the Soviets to bomb railyards and the like with little to no opposition.

Edit: Adding up - there is no 'steep learning curve' or 'players must master the business' excuse. A single game takes hours of one's life. If the game feels wrong, players move on (At least I do at some point if I do not see proper changes) than to waste hours trying to master a system that is perceived as flawed.

again, in part no disagreement, I think its clear that we are not seeing what we expected, ie players sticking to WiTE1 approaches and it all coming apart. There was plenty of that in the beta as players from #1 tried to force the game onto those play concepts.

I can only report what I've seen (but have prob seen more than many on the forum), if Soviet players didn't use assault fronts before Dec 41 the game came out pretty well (both HtH and vs AI), with that there are too many advantages - and I think that links to the combat capacity point you make.

Bombing railyards is a red herring, as we've shown its the depots well back that are critical. An army HQ adds a big enough processing bonus to wipe out any harm from bombing

[AlbertN]

Loki - forgive me if I misunderstood how it works please correct me.

A HQ increases the Storage Capacity of a Depot - that is the sum of Railyard Size, Port Size and HQ Type.

That is not relevant to bombing the Railyard itself - that where it is of size 2 or more, adds to the capacity of mobilizing Freight around. (As per a virtual rolling stock presence)

Thus if let's say Minsk Railyard is bombed - and that is a big railyard - and from 100% goes down to 50% functionality (An abstraction); the Storage Capability drops from 60k + HQ to 30k + HQ, fine and fair!
But the rolling stock contribution to what can arrive here is halved!

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Loki - forgive me if I misunderstood how it works please correct me.

A HQ increases the Storage Capacity of a Depot - that is the sum of Railyard Size, Port Size and HQ Type.

That is not relevant to bombing the Railyard itself - that where it is of size 2 or more, adds to the capacity of mobilizing Freight around. (As per a virtual rolling stock presence)

Thus if let's say Minsk Railyard is bombed - and that is a big railyard - and from 100% goes down to 50% functionality (An abstraction); the Storage Capability drops from 60k + HQ to 30k + HQ, fine and fair!
But the rolling stock contribution to what can arrive here is halved!

the issue is that freight only uses depots within 30 hexes of where it entrains. So the question is how much freight entrains at Minsk? I'd suggest that at the period when its vulnerable next to none. That capacity is great later on when Minsk is well behind the lines, you use the approach of creating demand and prio #4 to build up stock and then release it by dropping priority to 3.

So unless the Soviet player is bombing Minsk when its 15+ hexes behind the front, the reduction of the railyard/rolling stock is not relevant

[AlbertN]

That proves my point though.

Yes it is 30 hexes - so Berlin (like a heart) pumps to Poland (supposedly nicely enough) and then there is the reliance on other Railyards to keep shuffling Freight onward.

If Minsk is kept under bombing for a few turns (let's say T1 to T3 not accounting for losses) it will delay the repairs, and thus make it less efficient for the subsequent build up when the front will move onward.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: loki100

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

Is it really the assault fronts? In my very first game (multiplayer game also), I played as Soviets and I didn't make a single assault front until winter (because I figured at that point having not played before that it was good to use AP to replace bad commanders first, and that would also let me build forts in the meantime).

AAR here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5012736

And nevertheless I was doing a lot better than historical. Granted the Germany player definitely made mistakes and was new to the game (as I was), but nevertheless I feel like it is worth mentioning that there is at least this one example where Soviets did absolutely fine and had way lower than historical losses despite not having assault HQs. As a side note, this also is a game where Germany routed a lot of Soviet units. From the game design that is supposed to be pretty good to do and the only viable option for Germany is not supposed to be that everything has to always be isolated and eliminated. But that didn't work, there were simply too many Soviets to keep routing them all (especially in the good defensive terrain in the north, but also elsewhere). And also this was without fortress cities working. I sacrificed 7 divisions in Odessa that instantly died before it was even isolated, and after that didn't use any fortress cities. That is supposed to help Soviets, but didn't and Soviets still did fine.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

That proves my point though.

Yes it is 30 hexes - so Berlin (like a heart) pumps to Poland (supposedly nicely enough) and then there is the reliance on other Railyards to keep shuffling Freight onward.

If Minsk is kept under bombing for a few turns (let's say T1 to T3 not accounting for losses) it will delay the repairs, and thus make it less efficient for the subsequent build up when the front will move onward.

it really doesn't prove your point - sorry to be so direct but you are misunderstanding.

there is a discussion in the manual in the player's notes as to how freight moves, how that interacts with railyards etc.

What happens is freight leaves the NSS with the 'trains' it needs, it really almost never uses intermediate railyards unless it ends up in a secondary depot (where units can't access it). Then it will re-entrain if that is how you have the system set up.

Now lets say you get Minsk connected on T3 and it gets bombed to the ground. A HQ will still allow it to process so that isn't too much of an issue. It is very very unlikely to send out freight to another depot - ie use its local railyard capacity, for some time. Odds on it takes in freight and feeds it straight out to AGC till you are near Smolensk, then it might start to retain some surplus. At a later stage you can release that surplus, but we're talking say T8+ before this kicks in

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: Beethoven1

ORIGINAL: loki100

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

Is it really the assault fronts? In my very first game (multiplayer game also), I played as Soviets and I didn't make a single assault front until winter (because I figured at that point having not played before that it was good to use AP to replace bad commanders first, and that would also let me build forts in the meantime).

AAR here: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5012736

And nevertheless I was doing a lot better than historical. Granted the Germany player definitely made mistakes and was new to the game (as I was), but nevertheless I feel like it is worth mentioning that there is at least this one example where Soviets did absolutely fine and had way lower than historical losses despite not having assault HQs. As a side note, this also is a game where Germany routed a lot of Soviet units. From the game design that is supposed to be pretty good to do and the only viable option for Germany is not supposed to be that everything has to always be isolated and eliminated. But that didn't work, there were simply too many Soviets to keep routing them all (especially in the good defensive terrain in the north, but also elsewhere). And also this was without fortress cities working. I sacrificed 7 divisions in Odessa that instantly died before it was even isolated, and after that didn't use any fortress cities. That is supposed to help Soviets, but didn't and Soviets still did fine.

I am personally convinced it is the Assault HQ. I have played both sides and say with first hand knowledge it is the cause. Many may disagree with me like many do but it will come around soon enough as always.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: RoadWarrior
...

Loki don’t be so defensive and simply look at the results.

Gundam is basically mocking the whole system by having 1,000,000 men in reserve and still achieving an unhistorical great 41/42 winter. SHC does not need to defend Leningrad, black sea ports, planes or those 1,000,000 men. Just run at just the right speed, because of a poorly designed logistics system.

The current model is all about SHC running at the correct speed as Q-ball and I have talked about in PMs. It has zero to do with trucks and trains, player skills ect ect. If SHC runs at the correct speed you will get unhistorically low Russian loses and an unhistorical 41/42 winter SHC offensive which German army simply can’t recover from because it causes a feedback loop and than SHC is on a unhistorical offensive in 42. This running at just the right speed tactic is used because of special rules put on the Germans logistics system.

As AlbertN points out “ the issue is that hardly Germans can achieve historical results as of now - which should be the 'Average' of the game. How many Axis players get to Orel, Rostov, Kursk etcetera. And how many can also keep a good portion of these through the coming winter?”

This is all caused by special rules to the German logistics system. If the logistics system is so great why all the special rules that cause the game to be so unhistorical?

This will become more unhistorical and more boringly predictable as more and more AARs show players how to game the poor logistics model.

no body is being defensive, but I'd strongly suggest that its not the logistics system. I have a game to T12, I have 40 MP+ mobile units, 14+ infantry and can do very little with that asset.

The issue lies in the Soviet use of assault fronts, that solves their command problems, gets most units under good commanders, avoids the problem of how to rest and refit when on a strategic retreat, plus the movement and combat capacity to inflict serious damage.

play without that and you get the game we saw late in the beta, plenty of variation, plenty of instances of perfectly ok German players (like me) doing fine. I ran one test game into mid-42, did less well in the north, was running around the Caucasus, in other words the sort of situation you'd broadly expect to see.

You've done a good job so far of not being too Pelton like to raise no concerns ... thats something worth keeping up [;)]

O.O last sentence!!! I have to agree. But yes, Assault HQ's are the problem and I have been bringing that up along with others. Need another look see for sure. Thank you all

[Q-Ball]

I will say that in my game vs. RW as Soviets, I did not use any Assault HQ until November of 1941. In other words, all through the retreat phase. Red Army was fine by the end. RW is a very good opponent and I made some mistakes, and yet I still have a large Red Army that is giving him trouble I think in December of '41....I think he's going to have to give up alot of ground.

I think there's more than the Assault HQ, but good place to start

If Soviets can just avoid getting tons of units pocketed, that's all you really need to have a really strong Red Army by winter and rest of way

[AlbertN]

I agree with Q Ball there.

That is why I was already trying to push for reasons to make the Soviets struggle and fight - VPs and not ensured Factory migrations.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I agree with Q Ball there.

That is why I was already trying to push for reasons to make the Soviets struggle and fight - VPs and not ensured Factory migrations.

Why should a Soviet player be hobbled to play the way you want? And in case you didn't know, in WiTE-1 the Axis made of point of hunting down factories. Which is why that was changed.

The factories got out, sometimes even under fire. And the Axis player should have better things to do than go on a factory hunt. IMHO anyway.

[SigUp]

I agree that it's not only the Assault HQs for the Soviets in 1941 that cause problems. It's part of the wider issue of what I feel is the game overstating Soviet command and control, which especially the further down one went the worse it became. In the game the Soviet player can essentially move the whole army as one coherent block as one desires. Attacks can be (fairly) well coordinated and I don't feel the losses are quite as bad as they sometimes were when the Red Army assaulted German lines. Supply can be managed accurately to units needing them through air drops. Yet this is not exactly what historically the Soviets were capable of in 1941.

So I think there needs to be a wider range of discussion on how to simulate the lack of proficiency in Soviet command and control in 1941 and deep into 1942. Just throwing some random ideas out there: Restricting assault HQ usage. Introduce some admin roll penalties that ease over time until mid 1942. Add a larger potential variance in amount of MP. Reduce MP needs of Soviet forces in 1941 and early 1942 for conducting deliberate attacks but at the same time introduce a casualty multiplier that depends on a successful admin roll (that is subjected to the admin roll penalties mentioned earlier).

[AlbertN]

@Aurelian

It is not about 'forcing the Soviet to play the way I want'.

It is about balancing the game so that the Axis side is not smashed in the teeth royally and brutally at player parity of skill or the like.

I do not know how many here play PvP - some are merry to play with the AI. One fine tunes the AI for their tastes with percentages. The AI is scripted not to attack for 4 turns, and the like, etc. Fine and fair.

Good grace I am not the only one perceiving the issue here - but a variety of players, so I am not a single singer but a part of a chorus.

[gundam1985]

The Red Army is weak in 1941, many Soviet player stop the game before T13. The game system is very complex so only few players can ruling battlefield. In other words, I think A level Axis player VS A level Soviet opponent can lead to Axis's victory in 1945. Don't try to simulated history because bothside players have more information than the generals of history. We know how to avoid the tragedy of the battle of Stalingrad, Smolensk in actual combat and so on. All AARs show different battlefront in map, there is no standard answer in reality.

[smokindave34]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I will say that in my game vs. RW as Soviets, I did not use any Assault HQ until November of 1941. In other words, all through the retreat phase. Red Army was fine by the end. RW is a very good opponent and I made some mistakes, and yet I still have a large Red Army that is giving him trouble I think in December of '41....I think he's going to have to give up alot of ground.

I think there's more than the Assault HQ, but good place to start

If Soviets can just avoid getting tons of units pocketed, that's all you really need to have a really strong Red Army by winter and rest of way

I would agree. I believe the logistics system is a huge improvement over WTIE1 (no more supplying 4 panzer armies from a singe rail line) and would not recommend any changes at this time. The size/strength of the Red Army appears to be the issue to me. A review of assault HQ seems like a good place to start.

I tend to think the VP system can be tweaked as well in an attempt to force more combat in '41. My only hesitation is that this change would attempt to force the Soviets to commit to some obvious mistakes (pockets) that were made by the Soviets however there would be no corresponding method to force the Axis to make the same foolish "mistakes" that were made in '44/45

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: gundam1985

The Red Army is weak in 1941, many Soviet player stop the game before T13.

This seems correct to me. It is definitely possible for the Soviets to collapse quickly in the early turns if the Axis player knows very well what they are doing and/or the Soviet player does not. In those cases, there have been games where the Soviets quickly surrender.

But if the Soviet player does know what they are doing and retreats and deploys units in a way that allows them to avoid excessive losses in the first few turns, it becomes very difficult for the Axis player to inflict historical Soviet losses if the Red Army is allowed in the early turns to reach a critical size/strength.

So the early turns are very high stakes and can have a substantial snowball effect. That is a major part of the overall balance issue, in my view.

[AlbertN]

@SmokingDave

As I suggested, VPs and Economics.

Make resources valuable for Germany late war, they may want to cling to them as long as possible.

Granular VP diffusion makes fights for localized Cities a matter of 'prestige'.
Not just the BIG names of Cities.