Soviet Guard Armor: Too soon, too many

[carlkay58]

The AP dumps were made to help the Soviets have the APs to build corps and other special units as they become available. I am not sure why the manpower dumps other than a few of them (such as Novemeber 41) reflect Stalin releasing built up reserves that were held far back from the front without the knowledge of the rest of the Soviet armed forces.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

I am curious for the justification of providing the Soviets the massive dumps of manpower and AP's at various points of the Grand campaign.

When you have a mobilization base of 14,000,000, it's not hard to imagine.

Halder himself wrote of how they smash a dozen divisions, and then they run into a dozen more.

By the end of June, 5,300,000 or so reservists were called up, with further waves in succession.

By Aug 31, the Red Army numbered 6,889,000. By Dec 31, an estimate of 8,000,000.

27 new armies during July and August.

After the war, General Blumentritt recalled the plan to destroy the Red Army before the Dnepr and Dvina. He posed a rhetorical question: "But what if armies, millions strong, had not yet even been mobilized and only parts of the Red Army were in western Russia?"

Operation Barbarossa and Germany's Defeat in the East-- David Stahel

German Strategy in the Age of Machine Warfare--- Michael Geyer

Operation Barbarossa-- David Glantz

Thunder in the East-- Evan Mawdsley

Colossus Reborn--David Glantz

When Titans Clashed--- Glantz and Jonathan House.

Von Rundstedt: The Soldier and the Man-- Gunther Blumentritt

[GibsonPete]

Aurelian;
I am aware of the underestimation of the Axis and the reported manpower base the Soviets had to draw upon. What I am trying to determine is why they chose these 'gifts' of manpower and AP's. Why not put the manpower in the pool to begin with or increase the AP build from 25 to 30 or 35. Why all at once? Why not give the player the flexibility to decide over time when it is used.

carlkay58:
Why should the Soviets get free AP's to 'supposedly' build corps sized units? Should they not have to decide how to use scarce resources as the Axis do. The Soviet player will use those AP's as they see fit and I suspect they will be used for things other than ski battalions.

I am simply seeking some understanding. I am not trying to change tings. I remember WITE and it's teething issues. So far I have observed nothing bad or game breaking. You both have provided some insight for that I thank you.

[carlkay58]

I do not pretend to understand these things - they are design decisions done by the game designer and Matrix games.

I do know that when the Soviets did not get them they had WAY too many APs and were able to perform massive command structure changes MUCH earlier than historical. By limiting the turn AP allowance downward and doing large AP awards when corps structures became available historically this was limited. If you think the Soviets can mount a good army too early already (spring 42 rather than spring 43) then you have not seen a 41 Soviet armed forces with only the best leaders at every level of command.

[Firewire9452]

I had a couple of reactions to the points in the thread:

(1) Has anyone seen data on average win rates or win rates for the top 10% of players? Usually it’s better to let this settle before making large changes.

(2) Is the Soviet army too strong too early, or are the axis too weak? Usually it’s more acceptable to buff one faction than to nerf a faction before people react more negatively to having something take on away.

(3) I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this thread came out at the M60/Dave game. People shouldn’t overreact. That was dave’s first game, iirc, and M60 is almost certainly a well above average player. It probably makes sense to see the outcome of the HLYA/M60 game at least.

(4) I don’t think the historical inaccuracy points are relevant, but I value gameplay over simulation accuracy.

(5) I wonder whether the issue is that CPP favors the Soviets as a system. Yes, it’s better for the offense than it is on defense, but it’s lost by moving and attacking, which the Germans have to do a lot more. The loss rate grows multiplicatively—half of what you have—and recovery requires slowing an advance. And a side with more units can more easily rest a larger portion of its force at a time. I wonder whether the Germans should have higher max CPP or higher CPP recovery in 41/42 and/or Soviets should have lower CPP caps in 41/42 to reflect the disorg of Soviet commands, the rebuilding of their officer corps, and the necessary learning necessary for how to prepare offensive operations. Or maybe Soviet morale should increase to 50 until later in 42. Or perhaps guards corps should have to be built as tank corps with 0 wins and then promotions have to be earned afterwards.

[AlbertN]

(4) I don’t think the historical inaccuracy points are relevant, but I value gameplay over simulation accuracy.

Agree on that. Fully.

(5) I wonder whether the issue is that CPP favors the Soviets as a system. Yes, it’s better for the offense than it is on defense, but it’s lost by moving and attacking, which the Germans have to do a lot more. The loss rate grows multiplicatively—half of what you have—and recovery requires slowing an advance. And a side with more units can more easily rest a larger portion of its force at a time. I wonder whether the Germans should have higher max CPP or higher CPP recovery in 41/42 and/or Soviets should have lower CPP caps in 41/42 to reflect the disorg of Soviet commands, the rebuilding of their officer corps, and the necessary learning necessary for how to prepare offensive operations. Or maybe Soviet morale should increase to 50 until later in 42. Or perhaps guards corps should have to be built as tank corps with 0 wins and then promotions have to be earned afterwards.

I explained that precisely in another thread inclusive of the math for German movements (if I understood the mechanics correctly).

From my perspective presently:

A) Soviet Assault FRONT should not be here in '41, and start '42. With 1 less than their max allocation in general.
B) Both Assault Armies / Fronts and subordinate units do not expand Command Capacity (To avoid the 'overloading' them. Putting other Armies / Fronts to skeleton structures)
C) CPP loss should not be a net 50% but proportional to the attack success or failure. (That may backfire later in '44 so needs some fine tuning)

But besides that there are also other Macro-Issues with the game that I perceive for the health of gameplay and balance. Given changes should be gradual and not too drastic. And it won't be a quick type of ordeal to find a somehow 'right' spot where both players can have a nice go '41 - end of '44 / end of '45 (I take historical path as average, and ... give or take +/- 6 months time as player skill / luck difference)

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452

(3) I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this thread came out at the M60/Dave game. People shouldn’t overreact. That was dave’s first game, iirc, and M60 is almost certainly a well above average player. It probably makes sense to see the outcome of the HLYA/M60 game at least.

It is a coincidence since I stumbled upon it by chance. I am not overreacting and how the game went has nothing to do with my point. My point is that the Soviets can raise elite units that simply werent there in those numbers at that time.

Even if this was a game between two beginner players, the problem would still be there.

ORIGINAL: Firewire9452


(4) I don’t think the historical inaccuracy points are relevant, but I value gameplay over simulation accuracy.

Having OOBs that are historicaly innacurate affects gameplay and balance. If the German player was able to add 10 elite SS Panzer Divisions in the East in the summer of 1942 I would have a problem with it too.

[M60A3TTS]

If an Axis player is going to play someone else as Soviet, it's always possible to agree to a house rule that says the Soviet player cannot build guards tank corps. Then the Soviet player has to build the corps to guards off the victories it gets as opposed to the brigade components. It won't prevent substantial numbers of guards corps over time but it will delay them. At least you would have that until such time the devs did something along the lines of what you ultimately are looking for.

[IanW]

Note that for the Soviets to have built this many guard tank corps ... they have already won.

The Nazis need to kick the door in, encircle the Red Army and destroy it.

Then they need to do this a second, and maybe a third time, as their estimates of the Red Army were somewhat off.

Aim for Moscow. Take it, encircling the Red Army.

If you can't do that, then I guess the campaign failed and they lost the war.

[Rosencrantus]

Just reviving this thread to voice some thoughts I have regarding guards status particularly in the StB campaign.

I normally despise it when one side says the other side is overpowered/broken without substantiation, but it is evidently clear that guards units are formed too quick. Just from counting the amount of guards rifle corps I can see on my turn (so not including any units hidden in FOW), I counted 37 guards rifle corps in June 1943. If Tyronec doesn't mind and is seeing this, I would politely ask him to please show how many guards rifle corps he has when he gets turn back or if he remembers.

At the start of the VtB scenario, which takes place all in way in 1945, the Soviet OOB starts with 38 guards rifle corps.

If I'm not mistaken, guards units are supposed to be the best units the Soviets have on hand, and it clearly shows. The Soviets historically focused their major offensives on one or two sectors of the front in the Summer of 1943 (Kursk and Donbass region) and that was after the Germans failed at Kursk.

Tyronec is able to launch consistent attacks on four sections of the front (Leningrad, Staraya Russa, Donbass Region, Kursk) with guards rifle corps leading them and it is leading me to having to divert substantially more units than I otherwise would have to than if weaker TOE units were doing them.

I originally thought I was going to be able to hold the game until mid 1945 historically, but if he is able to field so many strong units so early, I believe I'll only be able to last until perhaps late 1944.

This is made worse by the fact that the Soviets only have 5.18m men on the map when historically they had like what 6m? The far lower map men is offset by the fact that he has so much of that manpower in guards rifle corps and is allowing him to shatter my lines much easier than he otherwise could. If you want to know, I started the Summer with 3.4m Germans and am now around 3.22m. Soviets started Summer with around 5.35m

[Beethoven1]

Not necessarily in support of any particular view on this, but just as another data point, on turn 21 (April '43) of my StB game as Soviets, I have 30 Guards Rifle Corps. Most of these, however, I think were formed from the guards rifle divisions that you start off the scenario with. However, I have enough wins on a lot of units that I am now getting pretty regular Guards promotions each turn, e.g.:

[AlbertN]

Now maybe I am wrong but if I got it right 2 Guard Rifle Division + 1 Rifle Division = 1 Guard Rifle Corps.

If there is a strict sequential number and there are 138 Guard Rifle Divisions, does it mean there can be potentially almost 70 Guard Rifle Corps on the map? (Assuming all Divisions are used for the scope and purpose)

[Speedysteve]

My view is the opposite of this in my game with Loki. I struggle to get them....0 Guards Tk Cps, 0 Guards Mech Corps....mid August 1943....

[Speedysteve]

I've many eligible too but they just sit there. That Cavalry Division (52nd) has had over 10 wins for 2 months now......Giving up hoping for any Tank/Mech Corps ones TBH....

[Rosencrantus]

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

My view is the opposite of this in my game with Loki. I struggle to get them....0 Guards Tk Cps, 0 Guards Mech Corps....mid August 1943....

Yeah like I said above it applies particularly to StB. That scenario results in Axis being guaranteed to retreat and suffer heavy losses (and more defeats as a result) throughout winter 42-43. In a 41 game both players are a lot more cautious and you won't see as many guard conversions.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Now maybe I am wrong but if I got it right 2 Guard Rifle Division + 1 Rifle Division = 1 Guard Rifle Corps.

If there is a strict sequential number and there are 138 Guard Rifle Divisions, does it mean there can be potentially almost 70 Guard Rifle Corps on the map? (Assuming all Divisions are used for the scope and purpose)

In practice it is not going to be that many. What happens is you form a Guards Rifle Corps with 2 guards divisions and 1 regular division. However, then the Guards Rifle Corps gets enough wins that the 3rd (originally non-Guards) division gets promoted to be a Guards division also, so then you have a Guards Rifle Corps using up 3 of the Guards divisions slots rather than 2.

You can see an example of that in the screenshot I posted, with the 17th Rifle division, which was already within a Guards rifle corps, being promoted:



Also the 270th Rifle Division, which was already in a regular rifle corps, got promoted to Guards... but the rifle corps is still non-Guards unless one of the other 2 divisions in the rifle corps also gets promoted.

[Beethoven1]

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

My view is the opposite of this in my game with Loki. I struggle to get them....0 Guards Tk Cps, 0 Guards Mech Corps....mid August 1943....

Does the win percentage count towards guard status, or just the absolute number of battles won? One thing I notice in your commanders report screenshot is most of your units have a lot of losses as well as wins. Whereas in the StB scenario Soviets will get a lot of wins, because they start out on the offensive.

[Speedysteve]

From what I know it's purely based on win count. Not to do with win-loss ratio but it's one of those things in the laps of the gods with no certainty on....i.e it's not listed in the manual. That extra 5 NM is not insignificant so I'd love to know[;)]

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

My view is the opposite of this in my game with Loki. I struggle to get them....0 Guards Tk Cps, 0 Guards Mech Corps....mid August 1943....

That could probably be a bug caused by one of the changes that was implemented which pushed back the formation date for Guard Tank Corps. I suggest you post on the Tech Section and ask the devs about it as this seems wrong.

[xhoel]

@Rosencrantus: I just had a quick look at the AAR and you are right, there is an impressive amount of Guard Rifle Corps on the map. Seems excessive to me, especially considering the time period (summer 1943).

Taking a look at the VtB editor, there are 35 Gds Rifle Corps on map and 3 in the Soviet reserve for a total of 38 Guards Rifle Corps as you say. And this is in January 1945. That the Soviets can basically match that number 1.5 years before shows that the system is probably too lenient in the way these units are formed.