Matrix Games Forums

You have to consider the units that you start with in siberia (corps, tank, cavalry, and special forces). Most have extra experience (.5). That, combined with the 2 armies, heavy tanks, and aircraft you get are supposed to represent the siberian troops

ORIGINAL: Christolos

I'm still wondering why the Russian forces in Siberia, which are badly needed to defend against Barbarossa, are so few in number relative to what is available (albeit later) in SC war in Europe.

Any thoughts anyone?

C

They're going to be a little bit better/bigger in the forthcoming patch.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre


They're going to be a little bit better/bigger in the forthcoming patch.

Da! Everything is bigger in Siberia. [:D]

ORIGINAL: HamburgerMeat

You have to consider the units that you start with in siberia (corps, tank, cavalry, and special forces). Most have extra experience (.5). That, combined with the 2 armies, heavy tanks, and aircraft you get are supposed to represent the siberian troops

Thanks HamburgerMeat.

So you are saying the rest of the Siberian forces are in the production queue, right?

Cheers,

C

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

ORIGINAL: Christolos

I'm still wondering why the Russian forces in Siberia, which are badly needed to defend against Barbarossa, are so few in number relative to what is available (albeit later) in SC war in Europe.

Any thoughts anyone?

C

They're going to be a little bit better/bigger in the forthcoming patch.

Thanks Bill.

I'm sure we all hope this doesn't tip the balance in favor of the Allies, but I agree that the Siberians coming to the rescue should perhaps have a slightly bigger effect than it has right now. Exactly how much bigger, will have to be carefully determined. It will also give the Russians more options, like maybe keeping some of them in the far East to fend off Japanese intentions.

Right now it seems that experienced Allied players can easily hold out in Russia against less experienced Axis players, and experienced Axis players can easily roll over Russia against less experienced Allied players, so it would be very interesting to see what happens when experienced Axis players play against experienced Allied players, with the forthcoming patch. Right now, from looking at the discussions, it seems that the game is fairly balanced when two very experienced players (or perhaps even equal level players for that matter) slog it out, so that would be the real test.

C

I'm very happy to hear there will be some improvements. Would it also be possible to look at the starting positions in China? Maybe move a Chinese HQ south. And to me it seems Japan has more territory (and experience! those are some super elite units) than anything I've ever seen on a historical map.

ORIGINAL: sveint

I'm very happy to hear there will be some improvements. Would it also be possible to look at the starting positions in China? Maybe move a Chinese HQ south. And to me it seems Japan has more territory (and experience! those are some super elite units) than anything I've ever seen on a historical map.

I too in favor of having a Chinese HQ in the Southern China, at least historically in 1939 Chinese have at least two major military headquarters that conducted major offensives in southern China (Xue Yue near Changsha, and Bai Chongxi near Nanning).

However, in terms of territory, the game is actually in favor of China. When German advancing into Poland in September 1939, Japanese forces already occupied Paotow, Yanku, and Chengchow in northern China, and even already fought several small fights with the Communist China. China at that time had massive losses of territory in the north. But as in game, all these places are still in the Chinese hands.
Maybe these unhistorical territories of China is because of gameplay reasons, the northern Chinese theater is more balanced in game as for now. Without Yanku and Chengchow, the in-game Japanese forces can easily advance into Sian and attack Chongqing from north (although historically due to geographical and logistical reasons they cannot).
I personally thought that the in game China has control over Tibet and Xinjiang (historically the KMT government did not have control over them) is due to similar gameplay reasons, which is understandable, or you will have China collapse after the fall of Chongqing rather than moving the capital further west and tie down a lot of Japanese forces.

(Also, the name of the city of Yanku at that time is actually Taiyuan, the same as the modern name.)

Well the game engine cannot possibly handle the Chinese theatre, reality was often that Japan controlled the cities, but not the countryside.

You'd need some new sort of partisan activity to represent that, it'd be too much work. Also the communists were active earlier, it's really hard to represent at this scale.

Certainly. The Chinese theater is very complicated in terms of who controls where and who can move into where; I think the current in-game representation of territory is in general already fine, and provides a chance to strike back against Japanese.

Still it would be very nice if the HQ position can have some changes, it is strange to me that half of your front line don't have any HQ behind it.

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
They're going to be a little bit better/bigger in the forthcoming patch.

Maybe have these additional units come in a little later too. Historically the Siberian units were operationally moved in as rail capacity opened up... so staggering their mobilization from july until December could work to balance things (more units overall, but they show up later).

ORIGINAL: lwarmonger

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre
They're going to be a little bit better/bigger in the forthcoming patch.

Maybe have these additional units come in a little later too. Historically the Siberian units were operationally moved in as rail capacity opened up... so staggering their mobilization from july until December could work to balance things (more units overall, but they show up later).

Not having zhukov come in until later will be a pretty big deal. Unless we get a hefty amount of siberians, losing early access to those 2 extra armies, hq, and heavy tank will be debilitating. I might even call it more nerf than buff.

As the game is right now, I think that the USSR has just enough in 41 to prevent a total collapse (as in total collapse of all three fronts, though an experienced axis can usually get at least 1 of the 3 major cities). Getting rid of the siberians spawning during the invasion will require allied players to buy an additional HQ at the very least, and probably a few shock armies, seriously hurting research efforts

Personally Id rather have those units come earlier than have to wait an additonal 6+ months for two extra armies or something. (Though now thinking about it, it would make for an interesting DE to pick between some reinforcements now or more later)

You don't have to do without Zhukov, if he's available as HQ you can replace an existing HQ with Zhukov, the Siberians will then get the next highest HQ.

True, though you still would want to buy another HQ to have enough of your corps/armies covered in time for barbaossa

I'm not a WaW wizard by any means, but I have (tried) to defend the USSR in over 20 other wargames, with various outcomes. Although I love this game, the eastern front is seriously skewed, IMO. I mean, when this, from experienced players, is among the advices for making the Soviets survive the Axis onslaught, it says it all, IMO: "Have India buy 2 diplo chits on the Soviets in 1939".
Seems to me defending USSR in this game takes extreme measures, albeit USSR historically prevailed even with "seriously bad play".
In all 4 PBEM games I've played so far, USSR is totally helpless against a committed Axis player.

ORIGINAL: Calaf

I'm not a WaW wizard by any means, but I have (tried) to defend the USSR in over 20 other wargames, with various outcomes. Although I love this game, the eastern front is seriously skewed, IMO. I mean, when this, from experienced players, is among the advices for making the Soviets survive the Axis onslaught, it says it all, IMO: "Have India buy 2 diplo chits on the Soviets in 1939".
Seems to me defending USSR in this game takes extreme measures, albeit USSR historically prevailed even with "seriously bad play".
In all 4 PBEM games I've played so far, USSR is totally helpless against a committed Axis player.

Yes it is not a realistic portrayal, as the soviets should be able to handle the germans by themselves. With two equally skilled players, the germans will eventually beat the USSR if the western allies do nothing. Still, this game is not aiming for historical accuracy, but something closer to 50:50 balance. If the USSR could beat germany by itself with equally skilled players, then the axis would almost always lose.


The goal is to hold on long enough for the US to join the war. With the US in the war, the allies have the chance to stop axis expansion. If the axis stop moving forward and the USSR is still in the game, it is pretty much game over.


As stated before, the allies are harder to play. Hoping for USSR/USA diplomacy is not necessary however. If you'd like I can show you a game as how I play the allies

If you'd like I can show you a game as how I play the allies

Please do. Unless really one's experienced, playing as Allies is really though. Any help is appreciated.

PM me a game and I will join.

Or do you mean you'd like an AAR or youtube video?

I assume that there will be multiple people interested in this topic (me included)... so if there will be an AAR post on the Allied strategies and tactics, much appreciated.

I'm too busy at the moment but I'd love to do a full Allied AAR sometime

Looks like Cpuncher is willing to play in the AAR. I will mostly be focusing on the eastern front as that's where people seem to have the most trouble