How to organize Red Army on Jun 22

[Encircled]

Mehring, Its all my airbases, and none of them are in swamps

Just had to have another turn without any recon at all, and my opponent has pulled a nice move. I'm not sure Recon would have given me a chance to stop it, but its going to be a game killer unless it sorts itself out.

[Mehring]

Can you post some screenies of the recce units' and their airbases? What you're describing is a new one for me but Russian air is strange in my experience, limited to 1941. I frequently get air units not available to fly missions even if I try to stage from their own base. Interdiction is often conducted only by fighters- pointless- while other missions bombers go out unescorted. An attempt to make it historical? Dunno.

[Encircled]

No selection possible of recon, even with the air base highlighted.

[Mehring]

Sorry, can't tell much from that, I need to see the details of recon unit in the airbase screen. No guarantees then, either. I think only 67 of 104 planes at the base are available to fly though. Might have something to do with it.

[Mynok]

What does it say when you try to run a recon mission, Encircled? I'll admit I've not much experience with the Soviets, but does it say none are available, even with 0% travel time?  That sounds like a question for the tech support forum to me.

I've not played a GC against a human yet (coming...I still need to work on my Axis tactics [:'(]), but against me, the AI does recon every turn without fail.

[Encircled]

It doesn't say anything

The screen is blank, with no indication of range, even when I know I have aircraft available.

I'll try dropping the % available to fly to 5% and see what happens (I'm already at 20%)

[Encircled]

Arrrrrrrghhhhhh!

Still not working

I've sent every single recon plane I have got back to the reserve in the hope that this issue clears itself up, and if that doesn't work, then its to the tech issues forum.

[Mehring]

Why don't you find out how many recons are available to fly?

[Berkut]

When building SUs, I generally put 2xof the smaller construction units and a RR unit in each Army. But considering that they all cost the same, why mess with the smaller ones at all?

Also, which of the 6 different artillery formations do people use? I tend to just use whatever is available, again typically three per army.

Any reason to attach combat support to the Fronts? Construction units?

What about sappers? AT units?

[ComradeP]

Also, which of the 6 different artillery formations do people use? I tend to just use whatever is available, again typically three per army.

As previously posted, I'd say the 41b corps artillery and the (available from August) army artillery regiment are the most useful, because they use good guns (well, the 41b corps artillery regiment uses regular 152 howitzers, but it upgrades to the army artillery regiment and thus the ML-20). 12 extra 76mm's and 24 extra 122mm's that the Germans will probably damage or destroy with counterbattery fire are not too problematic for the Axis. However, the ML-20 has a much better range than the regular 105mm and 150mm German howitzers, so the danger of counterbattery fire is less.

You need to be careful with actually forming artillery units, as you only have an X amount of armament points to spend. Later in the game, you can probably disband most if not all support artillery regiments except for rocket units and ones using the ML-20 (because it remains a useful gun), because you have on-map artillery units.

Any reason to attach combat support to the Fronts? Construction units?

No in both cases, at least initially. Later on, you might want to attach some RR repair brigades to the fronts to repair rail lines (construction units attached to armies will generally also help out with building fortifications).

What about sappers? AT units?

I don't form/build AT units, I consider them to be a waste of resources. Sapper regiments are useful, you could park a number of them in STAVKA so they can train up and be assigned to corps later on. I'm reluctant to assign sapper regiments to army HQ's. I'd rather have only artillery in there in terms of combat support units.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: Encircled

It doesn't say anything

The screen is blank, with no indication of range, even when I know I have aircraft available.

I'll try dropping the % available to fly to 5% and see what happens (I'm already at 20%)

Did you left click on the airbase with the recon a/c you want to fly? That overrides the AI algorithm and sometimes gives a more satisfactory answer that the "Sorry, nothing available right now" that the AI often gives.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Also, which of the 6 different artillery formations do people use? I tend to just use whatever is available, again typically three per army.

As previously posted, I'd say the 41b corps artillery and the (available from August) army artillery regiment are the most useful, because they use good guns (well, the 41b corps artillery regiment uses regular 152 howitzers, but it upgrades to the army artillery regiment and thus the ML-20). 12 extra 76mm's and 24 extra 122mm's that the Germans will probably damage or destroy with counterbattery fire are not too problematic for the Axis. However, the ML-20 has a much better range than the regular 105mm and 150mm German howitzers, so the danger of counterbattery fire is less.

OK, but is it not the case that 76's and 122's that are never used are by definition exactly as "not too problematic"?

I mean, artillery that is sitting in storage cannot possibly me more useful, can it?

You need to be careful with actually forming artillery units, as you only have an X amount of armament points to spend. Later in the game, you can probably disband most if not all support artillery regiments except for rocket units and ones using the ML-20 (because it remains a useful gun), because you have on-map artillery units.

So if I should not form units, then certainly using the units that are already formed is better than doing nothing with them, right?

I guess what I am trying to get at is forming the discussion more around choices, rather than just evaluating how useful units are in a vacuum. Are the 76/122 units so useless that they are better off just ignoring, and leaving your units without artillery (since forming new artillery is not a great idea necessarily either early in the war)?

Any reason to attach combat support to the Fronts? Construction units?

No in both cases, at least initially. Later on, you might want to attach some RR repair brigades to the fronts to repair rail lines (construction units attached to armies will generally also help out with building fortifications).

What about sappers? AT units?

I don't form/build AT units, I consider them to be a waste of resources. Sapper regiments are useful, you could park a number of them in STAVKA so they can train up and be assigned to corps later on. I'm reluctant to assign sapper regiments to army HQ's. I'd rather have only artillery in there in terms of combat support units.

Why? A waste of what resources - what is the key resource that needs to be saved such that one should not form AT units? I hate to belabor the obvious, but my guys are getting their asses kicked by German armor - surely some AT guns might help a little! And since I seem to have plenty of AP points, why should I not spend some of them on better AT defense?

[karonagames]

And since I seem to have plenty of AP points, why should I not spend some of them on better AT defense?

Absolutely, everyone can spend APs however they want. There is no right or wrong way to build the Soviet Army. I like sappers, AA and AT in my HQs, but did they make the difference in keeping my opponent out of Leningrad, Moscow etc.?

In many cases, players, regardless of whether they are testers or not have pet theories that are simply that -theories. I try to test mine out, but it is not always possible to measure the results.

The Soviets definitely need to get the best "bang for the buck" with AP expenditure, because good axis players will be trying to force the soviets to spend APs they don't want to spend.

[Mynok]

You could see how AT guns fare in combat by slowing down the combat replay and seeing how much damage they do to armor. I did this once and was astonished at how much damage mortars do.

[karonagames]

I did this once and was astonished at how much damage mortars do.

I just did this in a 1944 test, and could not believe how damage 120mm mortars were doing to the soviets.

I am running more tests to see if there is an issue with this.

[ComradeP]

OK, but is it not the case that 76's and 122's that are never used are by definition exactly as "not too problematic"?

I mean, artillery that is sitting in storage cannot possibly me more useful, can it?

The 76mm's and 122mm's are also used by regular on-map units, they don't add any unique firepower to a battle. ML-20's add long range firepower to a battle that the majority of the Soviet light/medium calibre guns lack. The A-19's also a good gun, though, but many units that include 122mm's are either small, or also include 76mm's, 107mm's or weaker 152mm's.

Are the 76/122 units so useless that they are better off just ignoring, and leaving your units without artillery (since forming new artillery is not a great idea necessarily either early in the war)?

They're not useless at all, all I'm trying to say is that if you're going to form some artillery units, form good ones using good guns as those are more useful.

Why? A waste of what resources - what is the key resource that needs to be saved such that one should not form AT units? I hate to belabor the obvious, but my guys are getting their asses kicked by German armor - surely some AT guns might help a little! And since I seem to have plenty of AP points, why should I not spend some of them on better AT defense?

You should generally compare combat support unit TOE's to that of corps, as you'll probably be attaching units to those at some point and up until that time they'll be in HQ's, so you want support unit types that give you the most bang for your armament points spend on them. I've looked at the AT units and MG artillery battalions and they just don't bring a lot to the table that isn't already in, say, a Rifle corps. Attaching 3 sapper regiments to every Rifle corps, and a mix of sapper, Tank and SU regiments to mobile corps is in my opinion the best way to allocate support units to corps.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I did this once and was astonished at how much damage mortars do.

I just did this in a 1944 test, and could not believe how damage 120mm mortars were doing to the soviets.

I am running more tests to see if there is an issue with this.

Mine was a 41 battle, German attack and it was the Soviet 120's that were tearing me up....so maybe the 120s need looking at? They fire at two ranges, unlike the smaller ones. That's part of their power I think.

[ComradeP]

Mine was a 41 battle, German attack and it was the Soviet 120's that were tearing me up....so maybe the 120s need looking at? They fire at two ranges, unlike the smaller ones. That's part of their power I think.

Mortars should, relatively speaking, cause more casualties in a battle than gun-based artillery. There are more mortars than regular artillery guns present in TOE's, mortars fire faster and deal good damage.

I don't have a problem with mortars being lethal, they should be.

[Mynok]

I don't necessarily either...just providing more data for BA.

[Klydon]

Everything I have ever heard about 120mm mortars is that whoever was on the receiving side of them hated them with a passion. Very nasty weapon. The Germans really liked them when they captured them from the Russians and while they were considered "artillery units" in the Russian army, they were "infantry support" in the German army.