Some observations after a few Soviet and German games

[ToxicThug11]

I have played over seven games now, and I have six more ongoing. These are all 1941 Grand Campaigns.

I think Assault HQs are too strong. For the Soviets, you are able to concentrate your best leaders and artillery under an Assault front. This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

All of my games have ended in 1941. With one opponent declaring his situation hopeless.

I also noticed there is a tendency for players to stack all of their infantry under the Panzer assault HQs, which results in a silly situation where most of the infantry ends up being led by Panzer Groups.

I think there could be a few solutions to this that dont end up in overnerfing or overbuffing one side.

1. Soviets should only be allowed to make one Assault HQ in December 1941
2. Perhaps a reasonable nerf to Soviet AP points
3. Perhaps some minor buffs to the Axis minors to make them more formidable and to prevent the game being over 1941

I love the game and I am really enjoying it. Just wanted to share some observations.

[Zebtucker12]

Nice ideas there and Great first post [8D]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11

I have played over seven games now, and I have six more ongoing. These are all 1941 Grand Campaigns.

I think Assault HQs are too strong. For the Soviets, you are able to concentrate your best leaders and artillery under an Assault front. This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

All of my games have ended in 1941. With one opponent declaring his situation hopeless.

I also noticed there is a tendency for players to stack all of their infantry under the Panzer assault HQs, which results in a silly situation where most of the infantry ends up being led by Panzer Groups.

I think there could be a few solutions to this that dont end up in overnerfing or overbuffing one side.

1. Soviets should only be allowed to make one Assault HQ in December 1941
2. Perhaps a reasonable nerf to Soviet AP points
3. Perhaps some minor buffs to the Axis minors to make them more formidable and to prevent the game being over 1941

I love the game and I am really enjoying it. Just wanted to share some observations.

So, all Soviet nerfs and an Axis buff then. Got it.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11
This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

Huh.

Funny that.

Almost as if that's what happened in history!

[Firewire9452]

I think your point about games ending in 1941 really needs to be emphasized. I think the victory point allocations and victory point check system for wins/losses needs to be re-examined to give Axis players a real chance to win the game after 41 by holding back the Soviet offensive.

[Zebtucker12]

I would love to see a stronger Luftwaffe and soviet attacks not made worse but more costly in amount of dead and wounded even when they win .

[Zemke]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11

I have played over seven games now, and I have six more ongoing. These are all 1941 Grand Campaigns.

I think Assault HQs are too strong. For the Soviets, you are able to concentrate your best leaders and artillery under an Assault front. This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

All of my games have ended in 1941. With one opponent declaring his situation hopeless.

I also noticed there is a tendency for players to stack all of their infantry under the Panzer assault HQs, which results in a silly situation where most of the infantry ends up being led by Panzer Groups.

I think there could be a few solutions to this that dont end up in overnerfing or overbuffing one side.

1. Soviets should only be allowed to make one Assault HQ in December 1941
2. Perhaps a reasonable nerf to Soviet AP points
3. Perhaps some minor buffs to the Axis minors to make them more formidable and to prevent the game being over 1941

I love the game and I am really enjoying it. Just wanted to share some observations.

So, all Soviet nerfs and an Axis buff then. Got it.

I guess we can leave the game the way it is and you can play the against the German AI.

I am NOT an expect by any means with this game, but I can tell there is a problem when guys who play the Soviets come out and say, hey we have a problem.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11

I have played over seven games now, and I have six more ongoing. These are all 1941 Grand Campaigns.

I think Assault HQs are too strong. For the Soviets, you are able to concentrate your best leaders and artillery under an Assault front. This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

All of my games have ended in 1941. With one opponent declaring his situation hopeless.

I also noticed there is a tendency for players to stack all of their infantry under the Panzer assault HQs, which results in a silly situation where most of the infantry ends up being led by Panzer Groups.

I think there could be a few solutions to this that dont end up in overnerfing or overbuffing one side.

1. Soviets should only be allowed to make one Assault HQ in December 1941
2. Perhaps a reasonable nerf to Soviet AP points
3. Perhaps some minor buffs to the Axis minors to make them more formidable and to prevent the game being over 1941

I love the game and I am really enjoying it. Just wanted to share some observations.

So, all Soviet nerfs and an Axis buff then. Got it.

I guess we can leave the game the way it is and you can play the against the German AI.

I am NOT an expect by any means with this game, but I can tell there is a problem when guys who play the Soviets come out and say, hey we have a problem.

I know what I say "Stop trying to force Soviet players to play the way you want."

And you know what the benefit of playing the AI is? It doesn't come to the forums complaining about how the Soviets are played

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11
This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

Huh.

Funny that.

Almost as if that's what happened in history!

I know, right? I lost Lgrad in my last game. Didn't really care, but when I saw on the forums that the other player was fighting to force the Soviets to play the way he wanted. Something no rational player would do, I quit.

[AlbertN]

Aurelian - in that game you pretty much left Leningrad to be taken from my perspective. Germans advanced where the Soviets were retreating or leaving a relatively thin resistance.

Axis got to Rostov and Tambov too - and that was not because they won over Soviet resistance. The Soviets just retreated and retreated further. Coming Winter the Soviets had a quite integer army to hammer and maul away!

[rmeckman]

ORIGINAL: ToxicThug11

I have played over seven games now, and I have six more ongoing. These are all 1941 Grand Campaigns.

I think Assault HQs are too strong. For the Soviets, you are able to concentrate your best leaders and artillery under an Assault front. This results in a situation where it is near impossible to push Leningrad or Moscow, without unreasonable losses.

All of my games have ended in 1941. With one opponent declaring his situation hopeless.

I also noticed there is a tendency for players to stack all of their infantry under the Panzer assault HQs, which results in a silly situation where most of the infantry ends up being led by Panzer Groups.

I think there could be a few solutions to this that dont end up in overnerfing or overbuffing one side.

1. Soviets should only be allowed to make one Assault HQ in December 1941
2. Perhaps a reasonable nerf to Soviet AP points
3. Perhaps some minor buffs to the Axis minors to make them more formidable and to prevent the game being over 1941

I love the game and I am really enjoying it. Just wanted to share some observations.

I’m still perplexed about where all the additional command point capacity associated with Assault HQs is coming from. In 1941 a nominal Axis army with three corps has a command capacity of 27 for the army and 3*9 = 27 for the corps, for a total of 54 CPs. By designating this army as an Assault HQ, the capacity of the army jumps to 45 and the three corps combined get 36, for a total of 81 CPs. With the current rules, the Axis is able to create an army’s worth of command capacity (81-54 = 27 CPs) nearly instantaneously at the cost of a 10-admin-point memo from OKH. The numbers differ for the Soviets, but they also get “free” command capacity from assault HQs. Realistically, the main way either side could add command capacity to Assault HQs would be to strip it out of other HQs. The need to weaken other HQs when creating Assault HQs could be an interesting game dynamic.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

Aurelian - in that game you pretty much left Leningrad to be taken from my perspective. Germans advanced where the Soviets were retreating or leaving a relatively thin resistance.

Axis got to Rostov and Tambov too - and that was not because they won over Soviet resistance. The Soviets just retreated and retreated further. Coming Winter the Soviets had a quite integer army to hammer and maul away!

I'm well aware of that. I haven't complained about losing it. It's not the first time, and won't be the last. But reading about how you were fighting to force the Soviets to play the way you want is what I have issues with.