The Soviet Union has no playability now

[Sir.Arnold]

At present, the Soviet Union has no playability. No matter how you fight, even if you are not surrounded on a large scale, Germany can cause 3 million casualties to you in September 41.

Even in the winter of 41, the German artillery can still magically Disrupted more than 50%-90% of your troops in any weather and terrain except urban

Even if you destroy 2 million Axis forces in the winter of 41, Once 42 summer comes, even if your troops are full and equipped, the CV is twice that of the offensive troops, You will still be magically Disrupted by German artillery by more than 50%-90% and lose the battle, except in urban terrain (Rough, swamp, heavy woods still will be Disrupted), even if you are in Level 3 fortress (It was just that there were not so many Disrupted, but the artillery efficiency was still higher than Soviet Union )

The Soviet artillery, no matter how many, could only suppress the German army by less than 20%

I won't play Soviet Union until adjust artillery

I like this game, but now I've decided to play only the German army. At present, the Soviet game experience is that Germany carries out delibrate attack on you. No matter whether your troops are fully equipped or not, no matter you are a level 2-3 fortress, unless you defend in urban terrain, you will lose, Yes, it often happens that the CV of the Soviet Union decreases by 50%-90%

some "magically" Disrupted and CV decreases, Just Turn 47

[Sir.Arnold]

[Sir.Arnold]

The rest is here, change txt to zip

[Dreamslayer]

Can the ground element being disrupted twice per battle?
On the 2nd screenshot Soviet side have 3870 elements total and during the battle was disrupted 3891.

[AlbertN]

I am playing HvH and my Soviet opponent has some bastions I can hardly dislodge or need to invest them with massive forces as Germans.

But in '42 Germany should be able to gain ground and Soviet forces are not exactly great, or supposed to be great, in May '42.

[jubjub]

Can the ground element being disrupted twice per battle?

Yes.

[ShaggyHiK]

The German tank attack on the move is too strong, technically it implies a quick attack without using the overwhelming force of artillery and some kind of assault actions, but in the game the tank division uses all its forces in battle at full capabilities, while the defender has even large forces directly in battle sees well if 1/5 of the forces involved. What is striking is the inadequate deferentiation of strike capabilities, not only does the Soviet artillery not shoot, moreover, it is not even in battle.
This gives rise to situations when Soviet troops have, for example, 10k people 200 guns, against 15 thousand people 150 guns and 150 tanks, and in fact, only 2 thousand people and a dozen mortars are involved in the battle of the defender, excluding any heavy weapons. At the same time, the attacker uses in battle almost the full range of forces and means that he has at his disposal, including the heavy one.
After the defender's forces participating in the battle lose the battle, the calculation of the retreat begins. When a Soviet division loses 99.9% of all the forces that it basically has, even if they did not technically participate in the battle.

[ShaggyHiK]

To combat such attacks, anti-tank brigades need to be withdrawn from the map to headquarters, creating many anti-tank regiments. Strengthening the tank-dangerous directions with anti-tank guns and commanders with high initiative.
Also covering such armies with Il-2 aircraft.

It will be even better if the Soviet tank and motorized divisions are brought together into one army, using it as a tank, under a tank commander, inflicting counter-strikes into the Wehrmacht's tank divisions, knocking out German tank divisions, reducing their actual potential in battle.
And in defense they are actively using on the second and third lines in the reserve status.

[DeletedUser44]

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

even if you are not surrounded on a large scale, Germany can cause 3 million casualties to you in September 41.

Is this the total losses from June through Sept 1941? Or just for the 1 month of Sept 1941? I didn't see anything about your total losses.

A commonly referenced data source for losses of roughly the same period is 2.8 million.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... viet_Union

(but it has been challenged as under-counting Soviet losses, which some claim were actually higher)

----

Having a hard time understanding the losses and rather 3.1 million is excessive or not? If it is just for the one month of Sept 1941, then YES, it is excessive.

But if it is cumulative (June thru Sept), I don't think that would be completely unreasonable.

----
Battles (May 1942)

One battle image is of the hex (198,151) - which is just 3 hexes East of Minsk? MINSK?

Which means you pushed the Germans back to nearly Minsk during Winter of 41-42? And you are complaining?

(206, 160) - 4 Hexes West of Gomel?
(206, 161)

(215, 194) - 5 Hexes West of Odessa?

------

Looks you thoroughly thrashed Germany in your winter offensive. You effectively have the game won.

No play-ability? Seriously?

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

------

Looks you thoroughly thrashed Germany in your winter offensive. You effectively have the game won.

No play-ability? Seriously?

I am guessing the majority of this game was played pre the latest beta patch.

What I am not guessing at is any game started under the new beta patch is a waste of time for the Russians.

[DeletedUser44]

Maybe that is what is going on.

Maybe he is trying to say Soviets have no playability based on a couple of turns at the onset of the German 1942 offensive? That is quite a stretch.

Whatever was done to artillery, I can almost guarantee, it is going to cut both ways.... just like the AFVs do.

The information provided is really sketchy. Even combat reports show none of the weapon details on what is really causing the disruptions.

[Speedysteve]

It's hard to give a specific response to this game or scenario without having a much fuller view BUT my 2P on macro game motions:

If we assume that the historical result of WW2 is 'the norm' then on average 1941 and 1942 should see the Soviets 'struggling', inefficient, poorly led (with some notable exceptions), huge NM and experience disparities meaning they'll lose most battles, high losses in most battles (same through the war to be fair), able to counter-attack with success at times and just trying to survive in as best a shape as possible.

If you can get to 1943 then the Soviets should win on average once the re-organised formations can be utilised en masse, NM and experience level disparity begins to narrow, the grinding of the Axis begins to take effect etc etc.

This, at the macro level, is how I see the average game to be. They'll always be exceptions based on player skill level differences. There'll always be things at the micro level that may need to be tweaked/ammended but I (personally) think if most games follow the above then that's the historical norm. Naturally VP levels are set to allow some game prospect of the Axis winning which is fair enough as it's a simulation of the war. My 2P[:)]

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I am playing HvH and my Soviet opponent has some bastions I can hardly dislodge or need to invest them with massive forces as Germans.

But in '42 Germany should be able to gain ground and Soviet forces are not exactly great, or supposed to be great, in May '42.

This can not explain why Germany can magically Disrupted 50%-90% of the Soviet army in the game. In reality, the reason why the Soviet army lost again and again in 41-42 years is related to the command mistakes at the level of Stalin and the front army, and the lack of equipment and personnel, which I avoided

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II

ORIGINAL: Sir.Arnold

even if you are not surrounded on a large scale, Germany can cause 3 million casualties to you in September 41.

Is this the total losses from June through Sept 1941? Or just for the 1 month of Sept 1941? I didn't see anything about your total losses.

A commonly referenced data source for losses of roughly the same period is 2.8 million.

https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... viet_Union

(but it has been challenged as under-counting Soviet losses, which some claim were actually higher)

----

Having a hard time understanding the losses and rather 3.1 million is excessive or not? If it is just for the one month of Sept 1941, then YES, it is excessive.

But if it is cumulative (June thru Sept), I don't think that would be completely unreasonable.

----
Battles (May 1942)

One battle image is of the hex (198,151) - which is just 3 hexes East of Minsk? MINSK?

Which means you pushed the Germans back to nearly Minsk during Winter of 41-42? And you are complaining?

(206, 160) - 4 Hexes West of Gomel?
(206, 161)

(215, 194) - 5 Hexes West of Odessa?

------

Looks you thoroughly thrashed Germany in your winter offensive. You effectively have the game won.

No play-ability? Seriously?

Because the Germans mistakenly drove their troops into the heavy woods and swamps in the autumn of 41, they were cut off by our cavalry and mechanized troops.

Is this the total losses from June through Sep 1941

However, I was not surrounded by 600000 troops like Kiev in history. In fact, I did not encircle and annihilate more than 50000 troops except the first Western front. The German army directly attacked you and caused 3 million losses

This is absurd

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

I am playing HvH and my Soviet opponent has some bastions I can hardly dislodge or need to invest them with massive forces as Germans.

But in '42 Germany should be able to gain ground and Soviet forces are not exactly great, or supposed to be great, in May '42.

My troops are 100% toe, and have good generals and terrain, artillery, or level 3 fortress. It is not a lack of equipment and personnel in reality

Why do you always think that in history, the Soviet army will collapse in 41-42 years because the German army is too strong, not because the Soviet Army lacks equipment and personnel, and serious strategic command mistakes

I mean, the reasons for these problems are largely related to Stalin and senior generals, and Soviet players can be avoided to a large extent

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The German tank attack on the move is too strong, technically it implies a quick attack without using the overwhelming force of artillery and some kind of assault actions, but in the game the tank division uses all its forces in battle at full capabilities, while the defender has even large forces directly in battle sees well if 1/5 of the forces involved. What is striking is the inadequate deferentiation of strike capabilities, not only does the Soviet artillery not shoot, moreover, it is not even in battle.
This gives rise to situations when Soviet troops have, for example, 10k people 200 guns, against 15 thousand people 150 guns and 150 tanks, and in fact, only 2 thousand people and a dozen mortars are involved in the battle of the defender, excluding any heavy weapons. At the same time, the attacker uses in battle almost the full range of forces and means that he has at his disposal, including the heavy one.
After the defender's forces participating in the battle lose the battle, the calculation of the retreat begins. When a Soviet division loses 99.9% of all the forces that it basically has, even if they did not technically participate in the battle.

This is the case. It has happened many times in the current version. I've had enough

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: Speedysteve

It's hard to give a specific response to this game or scenario without having a much fuller view BUT my 2P on macro game motions:

If we assume that the historical result of WW2 is 'the norm' then on average 1941 and 1942 should see the Soviets 'struggling', inefficient, poorly led (with some notable exceptions), huge NM and experience disparities meaning they'll lose most battles, high losses in most battles (same through the war to be fair), able to counter-attack with success at times and just trying to survive in as best a shape as possible.

If you can get to 1943 then the Soviets should win on average once the re-organised formations can be utilised en masse, NM and experience level disparity begins to narrow, the grinding of the Axis begins to take effect etc etc.

This, at the macro level, is how I see the average game to be. They'll always be exceptions based on player skill level differences. There'll always be things at the micro level that may need to be tweaked/ammended but I (personally) think if most games follow the above then that's the historical norm. Naturally VP levels are set to allow some game prospect of the Axis winning which is fair enough as it's a simulation of the war. My 2P[:)]

My troops are 100% toe, and have good generals and terrain, artillery, or level 3 fortress. It is not a lack of equipment and personnel in reality

Why do you guys always think that in history, the Soviet army will collapse in 41-42 years because the German army is too strong, not because the Soviet Army lacks equipment and personnel, and serious strategic command mistakes

In reality, the vast majority of Soviet divisions in 41-42 had only about 50% toe, At the same time, Stalin and senior generals misjudged the situation, resulting in improper strategic command, That's why the Soviet Army collapsed in 41-42, Soviet players can be avoided to a large extent

German army is not God of the battlefield

In reality, 43 Kursk, When the Germans encountered the Soviets with sufficient equipment, sufficient personnel, level 3 fortresses and good generals, they failed, and they failed completely

[DesertedFox]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II



Whatever was done to artillery, I can almost guarantee, it is going to cut both ways.... just like the AFVs do.

It's doesn't matter if it cuts both ways when come Nov 41 the Germans occupy Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and are way east of Rostov.

Unless there is some kind of chance that the Russians can discover the atom bomb it is game over because they have basically lost the game from logistics alone if they lose just Moscow (NSS), let alone all the others thrown in for good measure.

[AlbertN]

The Soviets seems okay in my game in 42. Started with the 'arty' patch. Just Soviets had to fight and defend ground and tradeoff manpower for space. They cannot anymore just run run run like before and then stop Germans at dead point. But I assume it is perspective. And no I have not managed to gain Moscow. Nor Leningrad. Voronez yes but lost it in winter 41. Rostov yes and kept through. Good grace I and I assume my opponent are having good fun.

[Sir.Arnold]

ORIGINAL: AlbertN

The Soviets seems okay in my game in 42. Started with the 'arty' patch. Just Soviets had to fight and defend ground and tradeoff manpower for space. They cannot anymore just run run run like before and then stop Germans at dead point. But I assume it is perspective. And no I have not managed to gain Moscow. Nor Leningrad. Voronez yes but lost it in winter 41. Rostov yes and kept through. Good grace I and I assume my opponent are having good fun.

So I'm going to play only the German army now. It's not fair at all

And I don’t like the production team "teach" people how to play, especially this kind of wargame