Strategic bombing

[Michael T]

On the face of it, 30% extra losses for a hold order doesn't seem enough.

[Flaviusx]

It's a heavy enough penalty, imo. And it obviously it adds up over time since literally every combat in the Eastern Front is against units with hold orders. (This is true on my side as well.)

I do think the hold order is a little too good in this game and maybe shouldn't have quite so high a chance to prevent retreats. But I don't feel quite as strongly about this as before seeing how the attrition involved adds up over time. Frankly, it's giving me an entirely different idea of how to run the Eastern Front in PBEM when I get a chance to do this myself. Hold orders should be used sparingly. Mech should be used sparingly in the front lines. The Soviets should be willing to give up more ground early on and create opportunities for maneuver later. And I am also thinking about maybe saving up advancements until the 1941 winter and going all in on winterization with the Sovs. Find a good section of the front and drop a half dozen such advancements on it, choosing the Siberians first for this. But this only works if the Germans are stretched to begin with. So...give them some room to run.

I also think the Soviet needs to defend forward early on with a bunch of trash infantry and build no mech at all. Probably not until the first winter when you have 40+ experience on new builds.

[Michael T]

No one really want's to play WWI in the East. 1941 and 1942 should be about maneuver. If hold is turning it in to static warfare it needs to change. Just telling someone to hold shouldn't mean it's automatically effective. I would be inclined to only make such orders effective at low odds. Say 3:1 or less. Once odds get above 3:1 hold makes no difference, but you still incur the extra loss. That way it will encourage the order to be used in a sensible manner.

[Flaviusx]

Player choice.

I am okay with that choice. I think I've proven it's not necessarily a good choice. I wouldn't make it myself based on the results. A slight nerf to hold is in order perhaps, but the player should have the choice to use it as much as they want, or do a runaway, or whatever. So long as there is a price to pay for it. There clearly is.

Also, I am having fun doing the Eastern Front in the way I am doing it. I'm running my German army in...a Soviet way.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
Some of this is due to the heavy use of the hold order which is increasing Soviet losses.

I never generally used the hold order in Russia (except for major cities) until 1943 when Moscow was only 4 hexes from the Germans. The attrition is due to lopsided casualties. Were you losing at least the same level of manpower as I you'd have been forced to ease up to recover occasionally. But you might lose 4 while I lose 12 in a 3-1 retreat result. This adds up fast.

Jim

[Flaviusx]

Fair enough, it seemed like you were using more than that because I can hardly ever get a retreat until a unit is worn down below 50% even at high odds.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Fair enough, it seemed like you were using more than that because I can hardly ever get a retreat until a unit is worn down below 50% even at high odds.

Initially I was afraid to use it because of fear my expensive mechs would die in droves. Once manpower revealed itself to be on a steady decline I decided giving up turf was better than taking high losses so made the decision to never use it if possible except to hold a production city. Only when you got close to Moscow did I decide the Soviets were going down anyway might as well make it as tough as possible.

Jim

[AlbertN]

The 12 in the 3-1 though is mostly due to planes, more than land forces. Once planes run out of actions the losses for the defender drastically drop.
Or at least that's my experience.
But at the same time I doubt airplanes alter much damage from infantry to panzers or mechs.