Russian balance

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: sveint

I just wanted to add that I think the other nations are fantastically well balanced, better than I've seen in any other game. Well done by Alvaro.

The UK vs Germany in the early game is a joy to play.

I agree.

I know a lot of players think that the US and UK are too strong too early, but I disagree. I think that in most games their total force size (land and air) is not any greater than historical. What is different is that most players tend to build more UK and US land units and less air units than historical. So the net effect is that both the US and the UK will have much stronger armies and much weaker air forces than historical. This is why they can invade with significant army strength in 41 and 42.

[Flaviusx]

The complaints about the UK being too strong stem from early invasions. Frankly, I don't really see this, not with the new BoA. And the cheap mech amphibs look like they are gone now, which makes early landing even harder. The trend for a while now has been more and more resitrctive. Landing craft costs keep going up and up both directly and in terms of requirements for mech and armor units.

It is always going to be possible for the UK to muster some kind of early landing ability, but it is going to come at the expense of important BoA needs. The UK needs merchants and escorts and lots of them and more shipbuilding capacity to boot. I don't sense any kind of superpower here. The allies have it much harder now than they used to. The USA, for its, part also has to focus on building more shipyards and merchants than used to be the case and the LC costs affect it as well.

I think the balance in the west is pretty much fine at present. That is not were the problem lies.

[stjeand]

My concern about the UK and US being overpowered is just that...a concern.

I don't see any sacrifice to the BOA and I can have the entire historical UK army available by 1941 easily.

As Harry stated in an email to me...that is because

1) UK does not bother with building many air units like they did in the war. They are just to understrengthed..Give me a armor almost every time.
2) UK does not bother with building any naval units since they do not have to do anything in the Pacific. In WPP they have a TON of ships being built. It will be REALLY interesting when both games are put together.

In WW2 the UK ONLY had 60 divisions that they ever created. Most players have that by 1941.
Germany on the other hand had over 300...and that was throughout the entire war. Not sure how long it takes to get there.


Right now the only defense Russia has is an Allied invasion earlier than historically.


FYI one other test I would love to see is...

No supply trucks in Russia.
From what I read the Germans lost thousands of trucks due to the Russian terrain. It would be interesting to leave all as is and just say...don't use trucks to see how far they can get.


Just have to find that good balance that Russia has a chance...and the US and the UK can't crush the Axis 2 years early.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

No 1 per turn during clear weather would be too much. Ideally rail repair would be reduced to 1 per turn during snow and rain and 0 during heavy rain and snow. This would be historical and would further deter the Axis from launching an early Barbarossa (ie before May 41). But I don't think this can be modified.

That is a good idea but I see snow twice. Do you mean?
. 2 per turn when clear
. 1 per turn when snow, rain and cold(?)
. 0 per turn when heavy rain and blizzard

Oops. I meant blizzard. I will edit my post.

Thinking of it, 0 per turn can be a problem with partisans. Just imagine in winter (blizzard / heavy rain) if your main supply rail line is cut by partisans and you can't repair it, your whole units will have to withdraw from prepared positions. This is not good.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e




That is a good idea but I see snow twice. Do you mean?
. 2 per turn when clear
. 1 per turn when snow, rain and cold(?)
. 0 per turn when heavy rain and blizzard

Oops. I meant blizzard. I will edit my post.

Thinking of it, 0 per turn can be a problem with partisans. Just imagine in winter (blizzard / heavy rain) if your main supply rail line is cut by partisans and you can't repair it, your whole units will have to withdraw from prepared positions. This is not good.

In my experience the Axis usually have multiple rail lines supplying the same rail head. I think I can count on one hand all of the times in all of my games that the partisans cutting a rail line has actually affected the Axis supply situation in Russia. Also the Axis don't have to get supply to the front line units, just to an HQ that is within 5 hexes of the front line unit (and all front line units should have an HQ within 5 hexes). There would have to be 3 consecutive turns of blizzard for this to have any significant effect. Finally, isn't one of the biggest complaints that the Russian Winter Offensive is a joke. Maybe this would give it a small chance of doing something.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana

In my experience the Axis usually have multiple rail lines supplying the same rail head. I think I can count on one hand all of the times in all of my games that the partisans cutting a rail line has actually affected the Axis supply situation in Russia. Also the Axis don't have to get supply to the front line units, just to an HQ that is within 5 hexes of the front line unit (and all front line units should have an HQ within 5 hexes). There would have to be 3 consecutive turns of blizzard for this to have any significant effect. Finally, isn't one of the biggest complaints that the Russian Winter Offensive is a joke. Maybe this would give it a small chance of doing something.

I'll give it a try but, for this, we need an engine update I think. Where is Alvaro? There are a lot of suggestions for improvement in this thread. In the end, it's up to him to decide.

[sveint]

And then Alvaro surprises us with somethink we didn't think of. I really like the garrison change. No more min-maxing panzer construction.

[stjeand]

ORIGINAL: sveint

And then Alvaro surprises us with somethink we didn't think of. I really like the garrison change. No more min-maxing panzer construction.

Yes but now the Russians lose what 500 PP?

That is a LOT...

This will slow the Germans but cost the Russians a lot too.

[Nirosi]

I tested for early production as I was afraid it might unbalance France now.

It is ok as Germany can still have 3 armors and 3 mechs. That should be fine.

Or it can still have the historical (or 1940 scenario) 4 armors and 2 mech but the 4th armor will not be available to fight that turn. So basically one turn late in reality.

It is quite ok for balance with the 3 and 3, but still annoying that an Allied player that wants to build from 1939 to have the 1940 OOB ready for May 10th 1940 can, but Germany can not anymore. [:(]

[Nirosi]

Yes but now the Russians lose what 500 PP?

Only if those units were to be ungarrisoned at one point. In the games I have seen, the garrisoned units are the forward sacrificial speedbumps that almost all die. USSR might not see much of a difference in PPs but those units will last a little longer possibly.

[Flaviusx]

This might cost the Germans a couple of panzer corps in 41. It's nice, but they are still able to throw in a dozen or more mobile corps especially if they include 2-3 Italian ones, as is usually the case.

I don't think it will change much. This won't affect the Soviets at all, of course, because they don't ungarrison their speed bumps.

Imo, it's not the answer I'm looking for here. Soviets are still going to get steamrolled.

This probably helps the Western Allies more than the Soviets. The Germans are going to be harder pressed to spare mobile units in other theaters. So it will be easier for the Allies to get a secondary front going on in North Africa or whatever. I mean, that's nice, but it won't stop Moscow from falling and the Soviets getting manhandled. The game is still entirely relying on the Western Allies to bail out the Soviets.

Call me when you fix the Russians.

[Harrybanana]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

I don't think it will change much. This won't affect the Soviets at all, of course, because they don't ungarrison their speed bumps.

Imo, it's not the answer I'm looking for here. Soviets are still going to get steamrolled.

It will help the Russians in a few ways:
1. The Germans won't have as many Armour ready for the beginning of the Battle of France.
2. The French garrisoned units (which now will be most of my French units) will gain +2 Anti-tank.
3. The combined effect of 1 and 2 will be more German casualties attacking France, which means less strength for Russia.
4. The Germans will have less Armour ready for the beginning of Barbarossa. Even just 1 or 2 could make a difference.
5. The Russian garrison units (which in my case will be some 60 large corps) will gain +2 anti-tank, which means more German Casualties.

By themselves each of these is only a minor help to the Russians. But perhaps combined they will be enough to make a difference. I agree that it was not the answer I was looking for either, but it might be enough.

[Flaviusx]

France can be steamrolled with just infantry corps spam. It really is not a problem. You don't actually have to build any panzers at all to do it. Stukas and landsers can manage it just fine. Not having to worry about shatters means you can pile as deep as you want. This may even be the optimal build now with the AT changes.

I am more curious how this +2 AT will play out in Russia than France. Rifle corps spam is definitely more attractive now. Indeed, +2 AT even makes the much despised Soviet reserves more useful now, if you are willing to garrison them.

It should still be more than possible for the Germans to muster 10 mobile corps for Barbarossa + 2-3 Italian ones. That's plenty. In fact, it may no longer be optimal to rely on mobile corps past that given the AT change.

[Nirosi]

In fact, it may no longer be optimal to rely on mobile corps past that given the AT change.

I actually meant to ask this a while ago. +2 or +3 AT seems to mean in game terms +2 or +2... guns. I assumed it is just a good defensive weapon as defensive guns fire first (compared to attacking guns) and also reduce the chances of retreat.
But nowhere does it say it is more effective against tanks (same for AT infs by the way).

I am really under the impression that they are simply better at defenses against all other enemy land units.

[Flaviusx]

They are better against all land units, but there is a cost effectiveness issue here now. It might not be worth it to lead with panzers quite so much and rely more on infantry to crack open a garrison on the front line and let them take the lumps for opening up a hole to exploit. So long as you can muster 4-1 or better to do the job. You will have to be more deliberate about using the mobile units or they will burn themselves out.

The panzers can drive up the odds but they will pay a price for it against garrisoned units.

Basically, infantry is more important now and you will want a more balanced force to deal with garrisons.

[stjeand]

Only if those units were to be ungarrisoned at one point. In the games I have seen, the garrisoned units are the forward sacrificial speedbumps that almost all die. USSR might not see much of a difference in PPs but those units will last a little longer possibly.

Are you sure?

If you used to get 25% PP returned when you garrisoned...and now get 14.5% that is less PP is it not?

In the past when they garrisoned a unit they would get 30PP...not they only get 17.

That is net change of 13...13 times 50 Inf Corps? 650PP...2 Armored units.

The Anti-tank might be a big problem overall...
If I remember they cause casualties prior to the attack so that could be big on those "close" battles.

Might cause more German armor losses...which in turn would cause more efficiency loss. That could slow them down considerably.

I will find out seen enough...

[Nirosi]

Ok I did not get that one gets less PP "on garrisoning". I thought is was the other way (spend more on degarrisoning). My bad.

[Harrybanana]

You don't get less PP for "garrisoning" a unit. If you used to get 25% than that was before I started playing the game. So long as I have played the game the Russians have always gotten 17 PPs (14.5%) for garrisoning a large corps that costs 120 PP. I believe this is what they get with the current version as well.

[Flaviusx]

It's like Harry sez. It has never been more than 17 PPs for garrisoning those units.

Playing around with the new change and it looks like, among other things, unit CV goes up by about 20%. This is invisible for the smaller units, but you will notice it for any unit with a 5 CV base and upwards.

Looking under the hood I am not entirely sure what this +2 antitank really means. The unit stats don't change. It's doing *something* but it might not be +2 to guns.

This might be a bigger deal than I initially thought. It does go a long ways to offset the experience nerf. You do have to eat the penalties associated with garrisoning a unit, but that's not so terrible, especially in static parts of the front.

[MagicMissile]

Another way and maybe an easy one to balance things is with oil. We have discussed it before but nothing has come out of it . But maybe the Germans got a bit too much oil? In the 1941 campaign they start with 250 in the 39 campaign I dont remember exactly but the storage is always 100% full when Barbarossa starts. I think it is something like 5-600 oil.

But now we have to see how 1.12 plays out first I guess.

/MM