The Soviet Union has no playability now

[jubjub]

Artillery and heavy artillery doesn't shoot in hasty attacks. Idk if it's a bug or not.

The low CV for artillery battalions is WAD. Since you are comparing hasty to deliberate attacks, the CV for the artillery will be halved in a hasty attack (when it doesn't fire). Maybe this is causing the engine to round down to 0.

[IDGBIA]

I loaded up the editor and you were right and I was wrong correct if a support unit is small enough it can be listed as a (0) while also firing and scoring a hit unlike what I said. I had to bump the number of guns up to 4 to even get it to score a hit since otherwise it doesn't prove anything one way or the other but I also made a comically large werfer battalion to be used at the same time as a comically large artillery battalion (edited 500 guns in the toe of each)

edited artillery elements containing 500 guns each not firing, the SFH and Nebewerfers but their corresponding units are not displaying as (0) Like I claimed so while its an extreme example it still shows I'm wrong on both counts in a technical sense

Also Beethoven has just informed me that Loki wrote the manual So I suppose I do now seem rather foolish running my mouth but I stand by the spirit of the initial claim that (0) indicates the arty provided very little or no impact on the battle shown with the only exception I can produce being from editing massive amounts of guns in but I am technically wrong

Generally the (0) seems to happen because the unit didn't fire but you can also achieve a (0) with units that did fire and achieve non (0) with units that don't fire this is somewhat besides the original point of weather or not German artillery is too powerful in 41 though

[GibsonPete]

IDGBIA;
A little passion mixed with a little foolishness is not a bad thing. There is a lot to discuss when it comes to this game. Sometimes the gamer is right and sometimes the developers are. That is what makes this game so good. When I examine events, I tend to not take at face value the reason given for an outcome. In some of the examples presented I do not know the status of happened previously, how many times has the attacker attacked, the defender defended, what is the fatigue of either side from movement or a previous retreat, actual supply status and leader ability checks passed or not, SU assigned verses participated and their status, the CPP of each side or Morale level of the attacker verse defender. These factors and others make a difference in the outcome. I do not know how many times I have been frustrated and foiled by a stubborn Soviet unit that should have been a pushover and gave me finger and giggled while I counted my dead. It is a humbling experience. It is a learning experience.

[IDGBIA]

Behold The Artillery Megazord, by attaching 5 units involved in an attack to a different hq each, Their combined powers of artillery and the Friendship of 6 possible support units per HQ even 3 guards corps turn to jellly before this mighty power of German organization. I don't think this is seriously applicable in a real game but I think you could certainly do 2 overlapping commands in each combat to try get 12 possible arty elements joining, and I am curious if for example on plains during summer soviet formations that are not 100% fresh (these corp are actually over 100% toe because of the 43 toe change)this can be used to cause so much disruption in a stack of 3 soviet corps that 90% of the corps routs directly into a POW camp

Just to be clear I have not edited TOE of anything here this is StB ran for a few turns to set this up

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: IDGBIA

Behold The Artillery Megazord, by attaching 5 units involved in an attack to a different hq each, Their combined powers of artillery and the Friendship of 6 possible support units per HQ even 3 guards corps turn to jellly before this mighty power of German organization. ...

again, what does this show of any real interest. Its near impossible in a real game for the Germans to get that sort of concentration, unless they really plan and prepare for it. If they are prepared to strip most of a sector to heavily use artillery in a narrow area, then yes there is a huge benefit ... and they are paying a price everywhere else?

The Soviets can readily (from late 42) get 1000+ gun barrages, for the Axis this is a massive localised commitment

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: Gam3r

I wonder why i can't reach 60% casualties to german units in '45 while losing 0 men...

Because even in 1945 German units will usually have morale at around 55-65 and similar experience. Moreover motorized German units will have morale of around 65-76 depending on unit type. Add to that good commanders that had all war to hone their craft and a LW that still can pack a punch.

Why you are comparing them to the Soviet forces at the start of Barbarossa is beyond me. The Soviets had nothing comparable neither in terms of morale or commanders at this point.

ORIGINAL: Gam3r

'45 is basically '41 reversed. but for some reason we dont get similar results.

It isnt.

In 1941 as the Soviets, a unit that gets beat up can be sent to the rear to recover and will do so. In 1945 as the Germans a beat up unit is pretty much gone. You are either forced to disband them, merge them or simply send them to the rear where they will need to sit for many turns until they can reach at least 40-50% TOE so that they gain ready status. This is not the same at all, so you comparing these two situations as if it is the same is simply disingenuous.

And the Germans take plenty of losses as it is. The Germans in 1945 dont have the same luxury that the Soviets have: infinite space to retreat and neither do they have the luxury of non stop reinforcements, very high manpower production or unit creation.

Here you have a few examples from 1945:




The unit lost only 60% of their men you will say and this is a bad thing or unfair to the Soviets according to you. Well this is what the units looks like after the battle:



1 ready Sturm Squad (-) left and 27 support squads. 0 ready TOE.













Unit directly after battle:



1 MG squad and 8 Support Squads. 0 TOE.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Let's be honest. German players won't make it to this stage if the game started in 1941. The German player is either winning a situation in 41-42 years, or admits defeat at the first major failure.

The comment about experienced German generals is simply ludicrous. The Soviets were probably just participating in another war, with some other Germans?
Probably, the German genius of the generals was so large that 6 years of war for them were twisted like space and time, but in fact, their experience turned out to be 4 times more than the Soviet one ... What can we say about the French. old men in the ranks of generals. Those in general should have immediately collapsed into a black hole.

You are disingenuous when you say that the Soviets have endless retreat space. The seizure of Moscow and the cutting of its railway tracks leads in fact to the collapse of the entire transport system of the game for the USSR. If it really so happens that after that the Germans will be able to cut off or take Baku, then the Soviet Union will not be capable of long resistance at all.

You cite the example of the catastrophe of individual regiments or initially beaten divisions. I gave examples of divisions that are considered very strong for the USSR for 41 years. TOE is close to 90% of the requirement, almost without damaged elements. Their fall from this state to a state of inoperability later occurs in 1-2 battles. After that, you either replenish them for a long time and stubbornly, taking them to the rear, or send them to the reserve.

Moreover, the point is not even that they cannot win, but that these seemingly strong divisions do not even damage the German troops. The losses of Germany with the actual lack of forces in the offensive are about 50-100 people and a couple of guns. In battle 16k Germans for 31k people of the USSR.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK


Let's be honest. German players won't make it to this stage if the game started in 1941. The German player is either winning a situation in 41-42 years, or admits defeat at the first major failure.

You do understand that players also play other campaigns right? StB and VtB come to mind. So this isnt an argument. And not all players will "admit defeat at the first major failure". Try to have a discussion in good faith.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The comment about experienced German generals is simply ludicrous. The Soviets were probably just participating in another war, with some other Germans?
Probably, the German genius of the generals was so large that 6 years of war for them were twisted like space and time, but in fact, their experience turned out to be 4 times more than the Soviet one ... What can we say about the French. old men in the ranks of generals. Those in general should have immediately collapsed into a black hole.

Are you being daft on purpose? Even the most hard core Soviet player will admit that German generals have better ratings than the Soviet ones and that is especially the case in 1941. What even is the point you are trying to make with these weird ramblings about French generals???

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

You are disingenuous when you say that the Soviets have endless retreat space. The seizure of Moscow and the cutting of its railway tracks leads in fact to the collapse of the entire transport system of the game for the USSR.

In how many games where the players are evenly matched has Moscow fallen? I cant say I have seen any but maybe that is just me. And they do have plenty of space to retreat too, which the Germans dont have. Once the war reaches Poland and with the Western Forces pressing on the other fronts, the Germans simply do not have the luxury of constant retreats.

Moreover, weather and good roads are very important in the Soviet Union and you can hold off a German push by blocking certain sectors. Cant really do the same in Germany, since the good road system means it will be a lot easier for you to move around as the Soviets and that weather plays less of a role.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

You cite the example of the catastrophe of individual regiments or initially beaten divisions. I gave examples of divisions that are considered very strong for the USSR for 41 years. TOE is close to 90% of the requirement, almost without damaged elements. Their fall from this state to a state of inoperability later occurs in 1-2 battles. After that, you either replenish them for a long time and stubbornly, taking them to the rear, or send them to the reserve.

The poster I replied to said that you cannot find these results for the Germans. I just showed you that you can. German full TOE divisions in 1945 can get mauled just as easily. TOE is not everything. Morale, experience, supplies, leadership, terrain, fort levels all play a role.

Moreover, I am not showing you "catastrophes of individual regiments". I am showing you normal battle results you get in 1945 with the Germans when playing a human player. I do not have divisions at 90% TOE, the Germans dont have that luxury and I cannot even commit full divisions to combat most of the time since I dont have the unit density for it.

The point is that the Soviets have the manpower to replenish their forces and even if they dont, they receive enough reinforcments that they can simply add fresh formations to the front without needing to refit said mauled divisions.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Moreover, the point is not even that they cannot win, but that these seemingly strong divisions do not even damage the German troops. The losses of Germany with the actual lack of forces in the offensive are about 50-100 people and a couple of guns. In battle 16k Germans for 31k people of the USSR.

Like I showed above, the same goes for the Soviets in the late war too, they inflict massive casualties on the Germans while only losing a dozen men. This swings both ways. And those losses slowly add up and the Germans get a lot of attrition from all the battles they get into. Death by a thousand cuts as the saying goes. By the time winter arrives you wont be seeing full strength German divisions anymore.

I can understand that you are frustrated that the Soviets do not play the way you want them to. If you want to discuss simple combat results we can do so, but the general claim you are making is simply not true. Plenty of players play the Soviets and do really well with the Soviet Army.

[ShaggyHiK]

We cannot talk about good Soviet generals through the prism of German generals.

In the USSR, there is not a single general with Model indicators.
In fact, if you give Vatutin or Rokossovsky to the German headquarters leading the assault on Moscow, you will very quickly want to change them to someone better.
But notice the reasoning about experienced generals you give on the basis that during the war the German generals received experience in military operations, since you admit such an argument, I conclude that you do not take into account the receipt of a similar experience in the USSR. And only German generals learned how to conduct hostilities in that war. The rest, as they started the war, did not get any further experience.

Moreover, note that you are arguing with two different people in your argumentation. I criticize your screenshots in relation to mine. If you give an example where the German division 90% TOE with support in the form of artillery regiments and / or AT regiments or similar support units does not inflict damage on the Soviet one. It will be very interesting for everyone to see this.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: xhoel

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK


Let's be honest. German players won't make it to this stage if the game started in 1941. The German player is either winning a situation in 41-42 years, or admits defeat at the first major failure.

You do understand that players also play other campaigns right? StB and VtB come to mind. So this isnt an argument. And not all players will "admit defeat at the first major failure". Try to have a discussion in good faith.

I agree with Xhoel here - there are a number of AARs from 1941 starts now into 1942 or 1943 with examples of the Axis player sticking with a game that is objectively lost. Partly because the Soviet player deserves the chance to set the operational tempo and partly because you learn a lot.

Now it is, depressingly, true that the bulk bail out around T15 if they can't get an early win but that is a separate problem

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The comment about experienced German generals is simply ludicrous. The Soviets were probably just participating in another war, with some other Germans?
Probably, the German genius of the generals was so large that 6 years of war for them were twisted like space and time, but in fact, their experience turned out to be 4 times more than the Soviet one ... What can we say about the French. old men in the ranks of generals. Those in general should have immediately collapsed into a black hole.

ORIGINAL: xhoel

Are you being daft on purpose? Even the most hard core Soviet player will admit that German generals have better ratings than the Soviet ones and that is especially the case in 1941. What even is the point you are trying to make with these weird ramblings about French generals???

....

but why use the phrase 'being daft'? or 'hard core'. Most of the community play the game, many from both sides (a mode highly recommended), really doesn't progress the debate?

[ShaggyHiK]

If we analyze the moves from a strategic point of view, then the German army almost does not suffer losses during hostilities organized by man. The basis of Germany's losses is logistic losses. Which almost do not depend on the actions of a person on the Soviet side and only partly depend on the actions of the German player himself. Of course, I am somewhat generalizing here. It is always possible to try to carry out a series of successful attacks for the USSR and inflict significant local losses on the German troops, but against the general background this will still be a fairly low level of losses.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

But notice the reasoning about experienced generals you give on the basis that during the war the German generals received experience in military operations, since you admit such an argument, I conclude that you do not take into account the receipt of a similar experience in the USSR. And only German generals learned how to conduct hostilities in that war. The rest, as they started the war, did not get any further experience.

True, I retract that. Ofc the Soviets also received plenty of experience from the war and the Soviet military improved a lot as time went by. I am simply saying that most German generals have better stats than the Soviets and that helps with battle rolls. Since you agree with me there and I already retracted my comment I feel like we can move on from this point.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK
Moreover, note that you are arguing with two different people in your argumentation. I criticize your screenshots in relation to mine. If you give an example where the German division 90% TOE with support in the form of artillery regiments and / or AT regiments or similar support units does not inflict damage on the Soviet one. It will be very interesting for everyone to see this.

I know. My initial argument was to Game3r not to you, but you replied to it so I replied to you as well. I cannot give you that example right now since like I said in 1945 the Germans simply do not have such units to commit. I am sure that I can find examples of "good" German units being heavily hit by the Soviets to the point of disintegration and with the Soviets taking very few losses in the process.

This is even more of a problem in the later war since the number difference plays a big role. A good German division, entrenched in a level 3 fort will be pounded to dust by a multitude of Soviet Rifle Corps and will be rendered combat incapable. I saw quite a few late war AARs while the game was going through development and I have seen the damage that the Soviet Army can do.

It is not as toothless as you say it is and can inflict some serious damage on the Germans.

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

If we analyze the moves from a strategic point of view, then the German army almost does not suffer losses during hostilities organized by man. The basis of Germany's losses is logistic losses. Which almost do not depend on the actions of a person on the Soviet side and only partly depend on the actions of the German player himself. Of course, I am somewhat generalizing here. It is always possible to try to carry out a series of successful attacks for the USSR and inflict significant local losses on the German troops, but against the general background this will still be a fairly low level of losses.

Cant say I agree with you. Like I said, every battle slowly drains the German forces and after 17 weeks of constant combat the German Divisions will be on the lower end of TOE. Couple that with the logistics system, the bad weather, the lack of depots and lower manpower and you will have a German Army that is vunerable to counterattacks.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: xhoel
Cant say I agree with you. Like I said, every battle slowly drains the German forces and after 17 weeks of constant combat the German Divisions will be on the lower end of TOE. Couple that with the logistics system, the bad weather, the lack of depots and lower manpower and you will have a German Army that is vunerable to counterattacks.

The German army is depleted to a lesser extent by the fighting and to a greater extent by the logistic phase, especially in the early stages. The culmination of this is the winter period.

[xhoel]

ORIGINAL: ShaggyHiK

The German army is depleted to a lesser extent by the fighting and to a greater extent by the logistic phase, especially in the early stages. The culmination of this is the winter period.

I think it is a combination of both and yes the culmination is reached during the first winter.

[IDGBIA]

The kind of concentration isn't actually that difficult to do at all. All you need is 3 corps with commanders with around 7-8 initiative (a reasonably common number for Germany as they have 49 leaders with these numbers) with 6 artillery units each or the possibility to receive 6 artillery units each which is not that hard as arty can teleport across the whole front in a turn from higher commands and Hqs can move up to 50mps (25 if you want to move them back where they started)

The ammo use is not that prohibitive either inf divisions seem to use around 100 ammo per deliberate attack while artillery battalions use 4 so 4x18 that's 72, still less than a single division for a huge effect

This is in heavy snow on average roads against a full toe and morale guards rifle corp and while it doesnt rout it still retreats inflicting very few casualties, the damage isnt very high either

and this is in Dec 42 after the first German morale drop

this is exaggerated from the general point of artillery being too strong but the main point being what is soviet supposed to do? you can have a level 3 fort on every tile all the way from Smolensk to Moscow. Terrain other than urban doesnt seem to stop the disruption so your only defense is to put enough men on each tile to not have them all disrupted and Germany outnumbers you on the front in the early war so if he decides to do this what do you do other than just accept that none of your men will ever fire a shot before losing the tile.

At the very least this contradicts the advice of having streamlined commands and limiting the number of hqs in each battle, why would you let a -6% malus bother you when you can get up to 6 more devastating artillery battalions in the combat

[AlbertN]

I am sorry but this is -1- battle of the whole front.
If the Germans want to concentrate their assets (and 18 Artillery SU are a LOT), and mixing troops from 3 AKs of the same Army too, etc.
It is not exactly something replicable all across the frontline.
That to me represents a point of effort.

Said that I think - and forwarded already - I favored the Admin Point cost to migrate SUs around and the like. But that is an abandoned design from WITE1.

On the other hand Soviets can teleport units from map to reserve and then from reserve to map without taking rail usage - ontop of being able to shuffle SU around in the same way as Germans.

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: IDGBIA

The kind of concentration isn't actually that difficult to do at all. All you need is 3 corps with commanders with around 7-8 initiative (a reasonably common number for Germany as they have 49 leaders with these numbers) with 6 artillery units each or the possibility to receive 6 artillery units each which is not that hard as arty can teleport across the whole front in a turn from higher commands and Hqs can move up to 50mps (25 if you want to move them back where they started) ...

well this isn't how the SU system works over a matter of turns - which I suspect you know. But you are using 590 guns in this attack, looking at a mid Feb 43 turn the Germans have 1,300 guns in their SUs so this concentrates something like 35% of them in the same battle.

Thats an impressive concentration that gets an impressive result

so what do we have, there is a massive reward for the axis player if they pull off a very specific allocation, they win one battle dramatically. In the meantime the rest of the front has limited artillery and is very vulnerable to a Soviet riposte

[jubjub]

what is soviet supposed to do?

Attack?

But really, the Soviets have so many options besides building lvl 3 forts and playing WWI sim. Why are you so hung up about singular Soviet defensive battles?

[IDGBIA]

Germany wont be able to do this on the whole front but soviet also wont have full toe 60 xp and morale Guard corps under some of their best leaders on the whole front either.

German artillery is just as powerful defensively as offensively so I don't feel attacking is an option it will only soften you up to rout next turn. Maybe there is something I'm missing so I would love to hear some of the other options soviet has because the only option I see right now is to hope Germany forgets he has 14 arty locked in a hq somewhere that he's not using or try dive cav behind him to hit his hqs and disrupt logistics

the 5 corp megazord is unrealistic but I think an intentional 3 corp overlap is very doable in an actual game infact I'm doing it in my 41 HVH game right now and getting good results with soviets being almost entirely disrupted and sometimes not even damaging or destroying a single element even on supposedly good terrain like heavy woods or swamps.

if you are for example trying to push towards Moscow then you probably will have 3 corp in a similar area with 6 artillery in each so why not intentionally overlap them even if its just 2 corp near each other with 3 arty in each because that's all you had for that area, if you're going to attack with 2 divisions why not intentionally overlap them to get the artillery support from both instead of just one. you could even split 1 divison into reigments and put it under 3 different nearby corp to get more guns. as I've previously said the ammo use per battalion is significantly lower than the use of a whole infantry division in a deliberate so the logistical strain isn't that great and again the artillery support can teleport and hqs can move 50MP the concentration can appear all in 1 turn for no ap cost.

[loki100]

I'm sorry but you are now not being very realistic in your claims.

The attack has something like 33% of the German artillery SUs, so feasibly the Germans could have 3 of them in a turn. In response, the rest of the front is dependent on organic divisional assets. So yes, artillery fires defensively - if its there.

And no artillery support does not move around as you are claiming to try and make your argument work.

All you're showing is the game engine rightly rewards an axis player who constructs an extreme allocation of their assets.