Russian balance

[stjeand]

The problem with winterization for the USSR in 41 is...their units just can't move to fight. When snow is falling it usually takes all their movement to move into a ZOC. Then the Germans know what is there so just move back or move in bigger units to hold the ground since their armor has twice the movement.

NOW if Winterization included a movement bonus...maybe...but there seem to be so few "snowy" turns...just is not worth it unless it is free.

As for the Mech...yes they are not overly cost effective. Armies will win out almost always...until they gain movement.
BUT mech will retreat less...if you need a spot to hold and hold firm. Not a lot less due to less tanks but at least some.

[Flaviusx]

A garrisoned rifle army will hold ground as well as, if not better, than the early mech and have a higher defensive CV to boot. The mech is just that bad. Even a 39 reserve rifle army in garrison mode will have a defensive CV of 6. Once you start producing regular rifle armies these are clearly superior in defense to the mech you start with in garrison mode.

Back when the mech flipped over to their grown up selves in early 42 it was worth keeping them. Now? Forget it. Trash the lot. October 1942 is a long ways off and you are better off building them from scratch at that point at a higher experience level than trying to preserve the ones you start with and somehow getting them blooded and topped off and upgrading them. You will get better service from the simple Red Army rifleman.

[stjeand]

Actually it should now...here are the stats...

Infantry Str 20 Exp 30% Attack 3 Defense 3 (1940 Assault tech)

Firearms 3, Guns 2+2(garrison), Artillary 3, Tanks 0, AA 1, Def 4

Mech Str 30 Exp 20% (1940 Heavy Armor tech)

Firearms 4, Guns 2, Artillery 3, Tanks 3, AA 2, Def 7



Army has 2 more guns due to garrison.
Mech has 1 more firearm and 3 tanks. 3 Tanks will give -9% retreat if attacked by armor. 0% if attack by inf.

Overall they are "close"...

Main differences are:

1) Mech has 5 movement and 30 strength as well as 3 more defense.
2) Infantry costs 47 less PP once in Garrison mode.
3) Infantry costs less to move on rail than the Mech


Not sure which would be best...but I think I am leaning toward the infantry due to cost...but it would be nice to have the quicker movement early.

IF the unit lives then rather have the mech...but suspect that wont be the case.

[MagicMissile]

I agree with everything about the weather. I hope WP2 makes fighting in the winter turns easier. Historically quite a lot happened during winter turns which seem impossible to replicate in the game. Also make the game more active. As is now May-Sep active rest of the year pretty dead, NA excepted of course.

/MM

[Nirosi]

3 Tanks will give -9% retreat if attacked by armor.

Actually, according to the manual, guns also reduce the chances one retreats. In defense, they actually both give -6% retreat chance.

So mechs would get a -30% vs -24% for the garrisoned inf. (infs that are also much cheaper too).

However (thinking out loud here) not sure 100% it is a obvious choice to scrap all those mechs. The ones with 10 strength (for example) only will bring a minimal amount of PPs back (50 I believe) but can be transformed into full ones for only 120 PPs instead of 300 (39 tech) for a new one (and it will still have almost 50sx; 47 or so I think).

Since one needs garrisons in the Black sea ports (and Archangel), why not use them for that (and other almost impregnable hexes that must still be occupied and where the already 30 steps one, even 1939, can do ok) and wait for the right time to repair?

So to make it simple: the 10 steps ones bring little PPs and the 30 steps one will each be replaced by about a little more than 1.5 infs corps each (taking the garrison saving into account too). Will the extra 10XP of infs be worth the -1 gun/tank factors and the -4 defense (and I believe the immediate gain of +2 gun/tank in January 1942)? Not 100% sure, could be a long term waste of PPs helping the Germans. [&:]

I can see having a few more infs on map, but by scrapping 290 steps of mechs, one gets 315 steps of infs. (I included an extra 25% - twice - since they will be garrisoned and allowed for more to be bought). So only a little more and the one already at 20+ strength will be much stronger in defense (7vs4) and also (if I understand the rules correctly) retreat less.

I agree that upgrading them and repairing them before 1942 is a waste, but scrapping them might actually also be a waste.

[Flaviusx]

Guys, forget all this micro stuff. Look at the on map macro combat values.

Your 41 heavy armor tech mech might be at 5-6 CV. Your 41 tech rifle army in garrison mode is going to be rocking 8-9 CV on defense, even at low to mid 30s experience. And then you have to consider that mech is about 50% more expensive to produce, maintain, and upgrade. This is not a close call.

Even a mere 39 reserve rifle army at 30% experience is at 6 CV in garrison mode.

The Germans are going to have a more difficult time generating the necessary raw combat odds against a regular rifle army and even the reserves can give a good account of themselves now. And that's in clear. In any kind of terrain feature the rifle armies get that much more difficult.

The rifle armies rolling out of the production line get the benefit of whatever your present experience level is at. Your mech armies are going to be well below 30% and some of them down to 20% and are going to have to take some hard knocks first and get blooded and then you have to spend precious production to inefficiently top them off. I'd sooner feed that production into a reserve rifle army and get better value.

This game is all about two things: managing production, and experience. This micro stuff is not very important.

[Flaviusx]

For 120 PPs I'd rather just buy a rifle corps than top off a mech corps that will be sitting on a port in the Black Sea doing nothing and gaining no experience and by the time you are able to put this guy in the front line to get him blooded (after October 1942) you will be able to simply outright purchase a brand new mech corps at or near 50% experience.

That guy vacationing in the Black Sea will be at 27% or whatever.

Scrapping the mech corps gives me 50 PP, plus another 120 in PPs not lost on opportunity costs in topping off these mech troops working on their Black Sea tans, and on top of that I don't have to spend 30 PPs a pop to tech them up to get even better tans.

And the cheap rifle corps can be garrisoned to return another 17 PPs.

Again, from the economic standpoint this is not a close call. That mech corps is a luxury item. It's not cost effective. You are always going to be better off simply purchasing one from scratch down the line. October 1942 is a long time to be working on a tan. There's a war going on here.

[stjeand]

All I wanted to do was explain the differences as I saw them. Mech retreat less for sure...and move twice as fast.
Speed matters especially with the many German breakthroughs that happen. So keeping a few in reserve is never bad.
That is personal preference. I have to play around with just tons of inf to see if there are just so many they are basically breakthrough plugs.

Building? OH no don't build any. In fact I know many build armor but given that you can build 3 corps for 1 armor...I suspect that is also a mistake but that is another debate.

But the defenses will now have to be tested.

[Nirosi]

Mech retreat less for sure...and move twice as fast.

I agree that this also important.

The already fulls mech are tougher to call (and could vary also with how much infs one need which depends also on the Axis OOB and skill). But I can see both sides.

But the weak ones at only 10 strength, I still believe it would be a waste. If one waits only 8 months or so (let's say march 1942 when Soviet XP should often be 50 or close and Mechs get their extra CV), then for a mere 120 PPs, it can be full repaired and still have an experience of 40. This unit seems to me more effective in defense for the same price.

The Soviets can build easily 15 more corps or so than the named ones just normally (and still keep ~1400-1500 PPs in reserve by Spring 1941). Should be enough to do ok without scrapping at least those 4 (I believe) that will just be replaced by ~ 2 infs (or ~4 counting the future opportunity cost) that will be much weaker in a few months. Not sure if the Soviets are that desperate in 1941 anymore.

However, repairing them before 1942 is most probably a bad idea. Those 120 PPs are indeed better for an extra infs early on for sure.

[Flaviusx]

I'd rather build a fresh unit with an experience of 50 than babysit a mech cadre until October of 42. And it is not just 120 pps. It is also 30 x tech level. All this to get a unit which 20% weaker than a newly raised formation and you are going to have to find a way to bloody it up just so it can get to experience cap. I just don't get this. I'll trash that cadre every time, collect the 50 pps and avoid all the opportunity costs. Opportunity cost is a thing.

Imo, the Soviets have to ruthless about trashing formations generally. It's not just this mech. There will come a point in the war when you have to start disbanding rifle formations that are hopelessly behind in experience and feeding the manpower and production into newly raised units. The freshly raised formations can replace the out of date "veterans" on the front line.

Due to the peculiariaties of the game system, this is the most efficient way to get your army up to the experience cap. The Soviets constantly have to prune away formations that are obsolete and have no real opportunity of ever getting up to speed from the experience standpoint.

[Nirosi]

Hi Flaviusx,

I can understand the opportunity cost but more for the lost steps to train (which I admit is hard to evaluate as it can vary from little to huge). For the tech advancement, whether one waits to upgrade in 1942 or builds in 1942, the tech cost will eventually be the same, and in the same year. And a January 1942 mech is not a bad unit at all. Seems to me that by waiting only 8 months or so, one gets a much better defensive value for its PPs to repair (the 10 steps ones at least) than to scrap. I'll try to test defensive effectiveness more thoroughly when I have time.

This of course would be false if the Soviets need to scrap the bottom of the barrel for infs prior to Barbarossa, but my intuition for now is that for most games, with the actually changes, they will not be that pressured anymore. Of course again, it depends on temperature, skills, OOB, strategies (I think most Soviets did not run away enough, I included; not sure how necessary that is anymore however)...

However, one thing I did not yet take into account is that if the corps (build from scrapping the mecchs) do survive and transform into 1/2 armies, then the PPs cost starts to be more interesting for the infs. as you can save on future builds maybe.

I also see, of course, the need to sometime disband units. But it depends what the Soviet wants most: PPs or time. You example of disbanding an XP lagger is the most efficient for time but will cost more PPs (sometimes very little more, sometimes almost double). Another way is simply to send it into combat. Low XP steps will die and be replaced with 50Xp steps and survivors steps will even improve (sometime very fast), and the unit will even do stuff to the enemy meanwhile instead of been in the queue.

But yes, I agree and I can see how for really big laggers that did not see combat yet, or very little combat (XP still in the 20s for example; or have no opportunity as you say [crowded front I assume?]) the PPs cost will not be that much more to disband indeed once taken into account losses necessary to improve and the 50% PPs you get back for disbanding. I've done it to.

I do not think there is any absolute answer to a game with so many variables. I depends so much of context, the players strategy and also the... opponent.

[stjeand]

I will take your word with that Flaviusx...I have yet to see the Soviets survive long enough to actually prune any units.
I always need ever single unit no matter what shape it is in...

HOPEFULLY with the changes it is now possible.

[Nirosi]

I always need ever single unit no matter what shape it is in...

Indeed, when one has big holes in the front, sometime the situations decides for you[8|]

[Flaviusx]

Truth be told, I might save 3 of the cadre mech for a special purpose. NOT for ports. I have a better place for them. But I only need 3 of them for this. The others go in the scrap pile. And those mech may indeed get enough experience doing this to make them worth the bother.

[ncc1701e]

I am a little worried about German army in the East when it will change to garrison mode. With few fire brigades, I am wondering if Soviets will be strong enough to go to Berlin.

[Flaviusx]

It can get a little rough. The Soviets will have to be willing to pay a stiff butcher's bill and take their lumps. I'm okay with this. For a while now it seems to me the game is biased towards the offense. The garrison rule restores the balance and you just cannot roll the opposition anymore once you get the initiative.

Between garrisoned infantry and panzer corps working as fire brigades and the luftwaffe, Big Red is going to take a while to get a head of steam. But now that means games may go the distance instead of a decision happening either in 41 (for the Germans) or more rarely in 43 for the allies. Not a whole lot of games make it to 45. It usually ends up being a blowout for one or the other side. I'm happy that's going to change.

[sveint]

I've now got a game where the Soviets are "stuck" at 37%. I haven't done anything drastically different from other games, and yet this will surely be a loss. I think experience progression needs to be reviewed.

[CHINCHIN]

The rate of increase of the Russian experience is good. Keep in mind that if you it's below 50% of manpower, the experience decreases.

[Flaviusx]

Yeah, like I said, getting experience for the Sovs is kind of an issue now, especially with liberal use of garrison mode.

I think the game favors experience gains from attacks over defense, btw. Not sure of this, but it feels like it. The Sovs tend to get more experience when they do attacks rather than merely defend.

My present solution to this problem is to farm experience in Finland. This is the one place I think it is worth saving the early mech for. 3-4 of them, anyways. They can actually make some difference up here unless the Germans heavily reinforce it. The Soviets cav is also useful up here. They are too weak to do much of anything in the main front, but in Finland they can go kind of nuts.

[stjeand]

I usually send a German mech north to keep the Russians from messing around too much. That prevents most of their ski trips.