ORIGINAL: briantopp
8th: it does seem clear from the literature that 8-pz was slated to be redeployed to AGC and then was held back to deal with the pressure on AGN to which you refer. Thus the victory point penalty for deploying it. I think this is accurate chrome. But I like the idea of adding the 22-pz and 23-pz as additional theater option redeployments (perhaps with a slightly lighter VP penalty?) as a further game-balancing measure and to give the scenario more variability and more options.
Yes as TO would also be good but as said I think the HG Süd can handle their theater surely without them so a higher VP penalty doesn't seem appropriate.
ORIGINAL: briantopp
10th: arguably a determined Moscow-first strategy would have kept this unit in theater. Maybe the thing to do is charge a VP penalty for NOT withdrawing it -- and leave it up to the player through another theater option (say, a 5VP penalty for not withdrawing it -- "Rommel is very disappointed"). There is a similar issue with the luftwaffe which diverted a fair bit of its Russian front strength to the med during some of this scenario.
I like the idea for a VP penalty when not withdrawing it, question would be where to set the deadline, in April 42 when it was sent to France for R&R or in November 42 when it was sent to Africa?
ORIGINAL: briantopp
Artillery: it's kind of the same case here. A truly determined Moscow-first strategy means less priority on both Leningrad and Sevastopol. The proposal below to change the unit symbol and to make these units much more ponderous might fit. Again they could go into the "reserve" pool and perhaps be available in return for a small VP penalty, to charge the Axis player for not pursuing the other sieges.
The changes that sPzAbt653 proposes and the VP penalty for using them are both great ideas, I would go for it this way.
ORIGINAL: briantopp
I completed another run-through of this scenario last night. My conclusion is that the play balance in this build is weighed towards the Axis, and that the Soviets need to be buttressed especially from Dec.41 forward. What I'm thinking of doing is assigning more complete (i.e. closer to say 90%-95%) TO&Es to Soviet reinforcements, and gradually stepping up Soviet supply to reflect gradually more effective Soviet logistics. So the Soviet supply centres, which are 100-point centres, could go to say 120 in dec 41; to 140 in Dec. 42; and to perhaps 160 in Dec 43 -- roughly corresponding to the increasingly formidable historical Soviet winter offensives. Since you're doing a playthrough, how do you find the balance and do you think this might make the scenario more challenging?
Question should the Soviet be tuned up or the Axis tuned down.
Just from a quick look I would say that especially the units from Panzergruppe 2 have a much too high supply stock at the start considering that their offensive is already running.
I'm currently going thru the deployment and after that I'll check the reinforcements, just as small ahead info I can say that the 250(Spanish) shouldn't be in as they were most of the time off-map North of the Ilmensee and units that were busy in the backward area like the SS Cav. Brig. should maybe be in garrison mode till the Russian winter offensive to prohibit unrealistic frontline use.
I really wonder if those numbers are right, on the equipment list for the complete army in the east(22.6.1941) I see:
-22 divisions with French Pak
-10 divisions with less Pak than normal
-2 divisions with French Pak & without PzJ.Abt.
-9 divisions without PzJ.Abt.
So 41 division with foreign equipment and/or less than normal Pak amount.
Did some maybe go to Hungary, Romania or Italy?
