A question about current state of balance and tactic

[kg_1007]

Do I understand that to mean that if you are surrounded but you have an airfield in your pocket, you are more survivable? I have not noticed this against the AI..as the German against a Soviet AI, the airfields fall in the pocket easily or simply run away, and as a Soviet against a German AI it seems the same.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: kg_1007

Do I understand that to mean that if you are surrounded but you have an airfield in your pocket, you are more survivable? I have not noticed this against the AI..as the German against a Soviet AI, the airfields fall in the pocket easily or simply run away, and as a Soviet against a German AI it seems the same.

Yes, you are in beachhead supply. But you need to fly in a certain amount of supply IIRC.

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123

I read these " balance " posts and wonder if some of the "everything is OK with the Germans posters" have even played the German side. I have started 12 GC's and won 4 as the Germans. Only 2 of the 12 games have gotten into 42. I have not yet tried a game as the Russians. If I have learned anything, the quality on the opposing Russian player is the #1 factor in deciding the game. I do not believe the German has a chance against a quality Russian player. By chance I mean the danmage and penetration in 41 to make it an interesting game. With the rail repair reduced to 3/4 hexes per turn and the the better players understanding how to maximize the use of reserves, I find it almost impossible to make enough progress in the South to scare the Bear! I believe I have played some excellent player in my last few games based on their posts and AAR's I have read. I am able to get Leningrad, get close to Moscow but really struggle to get even close to the Karkov/Stalino/Kursk line. To me it is pointless to play on if the penetration into Russian doesen't cause enough damage and gain enough space. I haven't used muling but have used the Lvov gambit. Love the game and will keep trying to fingure out " how to get to Rostov"! I just don't see it happening.

I believe I'm playing you now.

I don't consider myself a particularly competent Soviet player although I post a bit. I have really only played 2 x 1941 GCs against PBEM/online players and have been beaten badly each time, well before 1942. Mostly I play the 1943 GC against FTF players locally, and that's about my level.

I have played against one player who uses mules and I lost Leningrad on turn 4, Moscow on turn 7, and Rostov on turn 12, well before I had a chance to put together a defensive line or get a significant amount of the industry out. So it certainly can be done -- I'm glad to see the muling tactic go away.

I think that muleing makes the game a lay down win for the Germans, based on that one experience.

In response to that probably the balance needs to be to reduce the number of VPs the Germans need to have at the end of the game to be able to win, but that's something the devs are probably already looking at.

Del

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In response to that probably the balance needs to be to reduce the number of VPs the Germans need to have at the end of the game to be able to win, but that's something the devs are probably already looking at.

Del

There is an alternate campaign that does that.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

but what is the "fort nerf"?

When the game came out, it was much easier to build level 3, 4 and 5 forts, resulting huge, deep, belts of fortifications stretching from the Baltic to the Black Seas and, in most cases, stalemate and trench warfare beginning in 1942.

One of the patches made it much more difficult to build forts beyond level 2, and since such forts are almost worthless, the utility of building forts is much reduced.

I'd like to add that you can only build 1 lvl per turn now. Previously, you could build multiple.
In addition, supply was worked into the equation and the effects are noticeable.
I'm also finding that as the Soviet I cannot build forts in just captured hexes (even with supply, movement, and plenty of digging power available).
Lastly, even with FZ as the Soviet it's VERY hard to get to level 4 as the FZ have very few sappers in the TOE.

On a simular topic, fort degrading was very much accelerated and non-combat units cannot be used these days to keep forts from degrading creating real problems to digin in depth for the Sovs.
In fact, brigades alone during mud have a hard time keeping up a lvl 2.

I wouldn't say forts lvl 2 are useless but they have nowhere the impact of a lvl 4.

As I have said before, many of the things being hashed over now have been hashed over MANY times in the past and a lot has already been done by the devs to fine-tune these things. That is why many of the first hour find it so absurd that these same topics are once again a source of such debate and that some deliberately pretend nothing has been done previously. I don't envy you for being a new guy on these forums. The amount of disinformation to serve a personal end is breathtaking.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

As I have said before, many of the things being hashed over now have been hashed over MANY times in the past and a lot has already been done by the devs to fine-tune these things. That is why many of the first hour find it so absurd that these same topics are once again a source of such debate and that some deliberately pretend nothing has been done previously. I don't envy you for being a new guy on these forums. The amount of disinformation to serve a personal end is breathtaking.

+1 Well put! It would be much more helpful to others, especially new playes, if there was a more balanced tone and less of taking opportunities to grind personal pet peeves.

[Jimbo123]

@ del

Yes we are playing and I would think you qualify as a hasrt retreat player. ( avoid lables ). Its the first week of Sept and I am close to taking Leningrad, solid progress in the center and in front of Moscow and have just hit a brick wall in the South again in front of Karkov with supplies several turns away. My last game was against Hooper ( amazing Player ) and I still have Russian reserve divs pouring out of my computer. I can't seem to crack the South even with the Lvov move. You can attest to my non use of muling. I love the game and would like to become a better player that can give a solid game to the Russian. I have to be missing something in my play if other players can give the russian such problems. I can't seem to keep the pace of opps in the South to do the damage I believe necessary.

I actually chose the Germans because I like defending which is what the Germans do for most of the game. I just can't get there and it is frustrating!!!! The game is amazing and the support making it better has been outstanding in my opinion. It's funny, I learned a lot in my Hooper game esp with regard to Reserves. I'm all set to try them out and I find myself in a game against a totally different style. Winning or losing is not at the top of the list when I play. Quality of play is and I seem to be be stagnant in my improvement.

Now back to chipping bricks!

Jimbo

[delatbabel]

ORIGINAL: Jimbo123
Yes we are playing and I would think you qualify as a hasrt retreat player. ( avoid lables ). Its the first week of Sept and I am close to taking Leningrad, solid progress in the center and in front of Moscow and have just hit a brick wall in the South again in front of Karkov with supplies several turns away. My last game was against Hooper ( amazing Player ) and I still have Russian reserve divs pouring out of my computer. I can't seem to crack the South even with the Lvov move. You can attest to my non use of muling. I love the game and would like to become a better player that can give a solid game to the Russian. I have to be missing something in my play if other players can give the russian such problems. I can't seem to keep the pace of opps in the South to do the damage I believe necessary.

I didn't use to be a retreat player, I used to be a forward defensive player. I then played one game where I had about 3/4 of my front surrounded on about turn 4 or 5 and now I get the hell out as fast as I can. I stop retreating once I have enough units to form a line and a second line, which is why you're now seeing defenses around Kharkov. You haven't hit my Moscow defenses yet but you'll find them soon enough.

Muling is what makes all the difference. As I said in another post I have an opponent who now believes he can take Leningrad on turn 3 with mules which is scary. He's yet to demonstrate it but he did take Leningrad from me on turn 4 which is bad enough.

If anything I'd say you've now committed too much armour and SS motorised to the north. You will take Leningrad (but find it mostly empty) and probably Moscow, but unless you move some of that armour south you won't make much more headway in the Ukraine. That's probably the difference you're seeing between yourself and other players. You can't really take D-town, Z-town, or Kh-town with a frontal assault, you need to get your armour organised to encircle, which is how you nearly had me trapped in Kiev and forced me to pull out early. The same applied to Kharkov and you'd take it easily.

You only have so much armour, though, and you can't use it everywhere. You have to decide what you want, which is probably based on what has worked for you in the past.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

As I said in another post I have an opponent who now believes he can take Leningrad on turn 3 with mules which is scary. He's yet to demonstrate it but he did take Leningrad from me on turn 4 which is bad enough.

There's really only one way to make Leningrad a fight against a good Axis player determined to take it: send all the reserve armies north of the Kiev on turn 1 to the Pskov-Vitebsk area. All of them.

Yes, this means the center will be swiss cheese covered by remnants of Western Front. But so be it.

[von altair]

I was away for a week and came back here to read this and... wow just another thread
hijacked by the same people who just want to argue about EVERYTHING with anyone who
says a word.

Thanks to all of you who had something constructive to say about topic issue.

I still want to repeat my question:

Has anyone - ever - won the game against "runnaway" soviet tactic?

If answer is no, what we should think about it?

[hfarrish]

Not trying to be annoying, but have we seen an AAR where the Soviet "runaway" tactic has been successful? There's a lot of talk about how it is a can't-fail strategy, but I have yet to see it. How are we defining "runaway"? If that means running to the Dnepr, then I guess so, but that's hardly some kind of crazy move and I doubt you'd ever stop it. If running away means running even farther than that, my experience is as a Soviet (and I am not a "runner" by the second definition) is that you may set yourself up to lose outright, and you are definitely setting yourself up to never come close to taking Berlin.

As a contrast - forts were obviously a humongous problem in making the game unplayable in '42. This was dealt with (arguably overly harshly for '41) but it was clear for everyone to see in every single AAR. This runaway problem seems to just be wisps and whispers...

By "win" are we defining win as a win in '45 or an outright, conquer the SU and end the game win?

BTW I tend to think stregthening the Soviets in '41 combined with some of the C&C reduction changes that have been suggested and a revision of the VP system to reward holding territory past historical would be the best way to deal with this supposed problem, to the extent it actually exists. Furthermore, currently if a Soviet player gets pocketed anything like the historical Red Army, its goodnight, primarily b/c the German logisical model is insanely overgenerous and the isolation mode means pockets immediately are destroyed. I think most Soviet players would prefer to fight forward (defined as not abandoning cities and not falling back 5-6 hexes at the sign of the panzers, not wholesale "running" way back to the east, which I perceive to be the complaint) from minute one. Running away every time the panzers show up is not fun for anyone, but the game as currently constructed makes not doing this an exercise in futility.

[hfarrish]

Also - went back to your original post. If you are taking Leningrad on turn 11 and at Kharkov and Stalino (including industry) at turn 10, what more do you want? Seriously? I have to restate what others have said many times - the game as currently structured means that Leningrad always falls to a decent German, Moscow usually falls, and Rostov is a dicey proposition for the Soviet to hold...and the game is still problematic for the German?

As noted before, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but having played this game a lot I just fail to understand where all this comes from...

[Michael T]

@von altair: I have won several games against the runaway. But that was with either unlimited range HQBU, doubled up Rail engineers and/or Muling. All three mechanisms are now nerfed. I theorise, under the next patch, that a competent Russian who uses run away wisely will ultimately prevail. Thats is my opinion. I will test it by playing each side as time permits.

So in short, as far as my personal experince goes, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree. The unknown for me is how this new brigade/reg rule will influence things. I can't form an opinion on that till I test it.

[hfarrish]

In all seriousness, and I respect Michael T who is obviously an amazing player, what are we defining as the "runaway"? I don't think we can have this discussion without that fact...

[Michael T]

In all seriousness, and I respect Michael T who is obviously an amazing player, what are we defining as the "runaway"? I don't think we can have this discussion without that fact...

Very true. But it will probably ignite a whole new debate....

[76mm]

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

[NavalNewZ]

.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

ORIGINAL: 76mm

, the run away could be defeated previously. Now I doubt it. Of course all the Russian players disagree.

Well it is hard to disagree when it is completely unclear what we are talking about--both what is a runaway and what it means to defeat it?

I would think that giving up all that territory would make it difficult to take Berlin in time to win as Sov, but I doubt that enough games have reached that stage to draw any firm conclusions.

This "runaway", aka trading space for time doesn't win. How do I know that? Because I did it in three games. And I lost in three games.

I would say that it baffles me why some Axis players want to force Stalin's political decision to fight on Russian players. Especially as way back in 2010 it was stated that A: Political decisions are not in the game. (something that one would think would make Axis players happy. Laying seige to Leningrad instead fo taking it was a political decision after all.) And B: The players would not be forced to replicate Hitler's/Stalin's blunders. (Another thing that one would think would make Axis players happy.)

But it doesn't baffle me.

And it doesn't make Soviet players happy?
Perhaps you should try to at least "sound" impartial?
What you are saying I interpret as: neither side is forced to make the same errors as were made historically. I'm all for.
In the same breath you mention that Germany can't win because they didn't win historically. Hmmm, you notice the contradiction?

[Jimbo123]

Since this is my first time being up against a retreat strategy I think that loss of early chances to increase moral thru easy wins will be what I feel the most. Only on turn 13.

Jimbo