Matrix Games Forums

You attack RU stack 3 with a Blitz and get a */B. Would the AI shatter or retreat these units? (You had this as an assault in your right up, but you can still blitz attack forests there are just no offensive armor bonuses). The map now looks like this,

I would defend something like below. What would the Russian AI do? What would the German AI do to the new line?



RU stacks 4, 6, 9 and 10 swapped an ARM for an INF.

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom

Based on your feedback I think this is how you described your move.

Almost. I would split #11, leaving the hex due west of USSR #7 occupied. I would split #2 and occupy the hex NW of USSR #1.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Well, you'll know the results of your ground strikes before moving units and announcing attacks, so that should help the decision process. If you fail to flip any units in USSR #3, that attack might have to be called off (it would have a 37% chance of failing to retreat the defenders at +6 DRM). The attack on #4 has a sweet 73% chance of getting a breakthrough.

If things go as planned (which should be roughly 70% of the time), things will look rosy for the Germans. But not hopeless for the USSR. There will be no breakthrough against USSR #3 so the USSR units #2 and #8 can relocate to defend Moscow and the USSR armor work its way around to Tula and the forest due east of Tula.

If things don't work out (30%) then all the tactical bombers are gone and most of the reorganization capability too. I don't know how the 4 corps attacking USSR #4 advance but they have 3, 4, or 5 hexes they would like to hold and two of those hexes are on the wrong side of the river. No air support to help.

The trade off is between making this combination attack versus maneuvering. I am not convinced either way. However, I would hate to lose that 73% attack on the first impulse of this long turn and have no tactical air and little reorganiztion capacity remaining.

The chance of having both attacks work out well, is less than 70%. It is more in the range of 60-65%, even if you put a maximum of effort into it. But if you look at the benefit, you have removed forces USSR3 and 4 for the rest of the turn (killing all of force 3, and possibly killing 1-2 units in force 4, 4 units would be average), created a huge hole in the middle of the enemy front, surrounded force 1, making it hard for the russians to salvage those units, and made the russian front a lot longer (with very few units in it). If you manage to be quite certain about taking #3 (ie, you flipped a corps), and the attack on USSR#4 did not cause german flipping of casualties, I would leave the hex of USSR#4 empty, and set up 2 arm corps + 1 arm div in the hex east of force #4 hex, HQ A + mech div in the hex NE of USSR#4, and 1 ARM in the hex NW of USSR#4. By counterattackig, Russia would risk loosing all her armor.

Even when both attacks DONT go well for germany, they dont have to be in a bat situation. The attack on USSR#4 is a good attack in itself, with a low probabliity of flipping anything important, except the HQ

The attack on USSR4 is good in itself, regardless of the attack on USSR3. The probability of causing casualties is high, and the probability of flipping anything by the HQ is low. Even if only this attack succeeds, you have made significant progress towards Moscow.

The consquences of failing the attack on USSR 3 is low, too. If the attack fails, Bock, 3 inf corps 1 mot div and 1 mech div will be flipped. (The mot will probably die). These are not the most vital units for Germany. Even when the attack fails, russia is likely to take one casualty, the same as germany.

This series of attacks does expend all available tacs at once. which is it's main disadvantage, especially if Germany does not have some in reserve further back. Otoh, if the attacks succeed, Russia will be spread out so thin that follow up attack should not really need to flip units. (3 contact points attacks that are not across rivers get +9 for armor bonuses alone, and typically at least 4:1, for a total of +17 blitzes). The soviet player really has to choose whether to use his armor to provide a protective screen for stack 5,6 and 7, or to to position his armor so that they provide some protection for the hexes SW of moscow.

Forces 2 and 8 will only protect Moscow itself, not the surrounding hexes, so if USSR9 and 10 stay in the south, Moscow should fall pretty quickly. Alternatively, Germany should be able to reach Kursk by the end of the turn (provided the USSR doesnt pull any units north from the southern front.).

ORIGINAL: hakon
The chance of having both attacks work out well, is less than 70%. It is more in the range of 60-65%, even if you put a maximum of effort into it. But if you look at the benefit, you have removed forces USSR3 and 4 for the rest of the turn (killing all of force 3, and possibly killing 1-2 units in force 4, 4 units would be average), created a huge hole in the middle of the enemy front, surrounded force 1, making it hard for the russians to salvage those units, and made the russian front a lot longer (with very few units in it). If you manage to be quite certain about taking #3 (ie, you flipped a corps), and the attack on USSR#4 did not cause german flipping of casualties, I would leave the hex of USSR#4 empty, and set up 2 arm corps + 1 arm div in the hex east of force #4 hex, HQ A + mech div in the hex NE of USSR#4, and 1 ARM in the hex NW of USSR#4. By counterattackig, Russia would risk loosing all her armor.

Even when both attacks DONT go well for germany, they dont have to be in a bat situation. The attack on USSR#4 is a good attack in itself, with a low probabliity of flipping anything important, except the HQ

The attack on USSR4 is good in itself, regardless of the attack on USSR3. The probability of causing casualties is high, and the probability of flipping anything by the HQ is low. Even if only this attack succeeds, you have made significant progress towards Moscow.

The consquences of failing the attack on USSR 3 is low, too. If the attack fails, Bock, 3 inf corps 1 mot div and 1 mech div will be flipped. (The mot will probably die). These are not the most vital units for Germany. Even when the attack fails, russia is likely to take one casualty, the same as germany.

This series of attacks does expend all available tacs at once. which is it's main disadvantage, especially if Germany does not have some in reserve further back. Otoh, if the attacks succeed, Russia will be spread out so thin that follow up attack should not really need to flip units. (3 contact points attacks that are not across rivers get +9 for armor bonuses alone, and typically at least 4:1, for a total of +17 blitzes). The soviet player really has to choose whether to use his armor to provide a protective screen for stack 5,6 and 7, or to to position his armor so that they provide some protection for the hexes SW of moscow.

Forces 2 and 8 will only protect Moscow itself, not the surrounding hexes, so if USSR9 and 10 stay in the south, Moscow should fall pretty quickly. Alternatively, Germany should be able to reach Kursk by the end of the turn (provided the USSR doesnt pull any units north from the southern front.).

I am actually coming to like your attack more - and less. Flipping the HQs bothers me more that the loss of the tactical air. It looks like any German unit in Moscow will be out of supply.

But I am less than happy with the maneuvering I recommended. If the USSR commits all his armor, he can maintain the current frontline and make it contiguous. The two units in USSR stack #1 would flip, but splitting them and giving the one next to USSR #2 a friend from USSR #8 puts them back in supply and pretty strong defensively. The units in USSR #7 would pull back to the clear hex, but be face up. What results is the German player then has the same attack options that he had in his previous impulse - at least as far as odds are concerned. Arrgh.

What about my other posts?

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom

You attack RU stack 3 with a Blitz and get a */B. Would the AI shatter or retreat these units? (You had this as an assault in your right up, but you can still blitz attack forests there are just no offensive armor bonuses). The map now looks like this,

I had missed this (and your next post). I guess I was answering your previous as they were added to the list. Sorry, and thanks for reminding me.

My rule of thumb (which surprisingly might be the same thing the AIO uses, or at least my fingerprints are all over it) is to remove those suckers from the board rather than just rearrange them. The rare exception to that rule is if it looks like they can be overrun in the next impulse.

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom
I would defend something like below. What would the Russian AI do? What would the German AI do to the new line?

RU stacks 4, 6, 9 and 10 swapped an ARM for an INF.

1. What would the AIO do as the USSR player?

Preanalysis calculations of relative land unit strength reveals the USSR is somewhere between strongly defensive and desperate defense. Probably the latter given the proximity of the German units to Moscow and the non-contiguous USSR front line.

Choice #1 is always to do nothing. Post analysis reveals that gives the German the opportunity to isolate USSR stacks #1, 2, and 7, with good attacks possible against all three stacks. The hole in the USSR frontline (touching ZOCs but no actual units behind them) should be scored as a big blemish too. All of this doesn't rule this choice out entirely, just gives it a very bad score.

Choice #2 is to counterattack which gets an even worse score.

Choice #3 is to advance without attacking. The only units that can do that are in the USSR stacks #1 and #7. Since #1 is out of supply, that gives a bad score. Advancing #7 is a possibility. It depends on what it is using for both secondary and primary supply though. Probably won't work out well because the stack would have to split (to keep from being surrounded by German ZOCs) and then would be too weak/vulnerable. All of these possibilities get low evaluations.

Choice #4 is to reposition units to repair the current USSR front line. By repair I mean to get up close and personal with the Germans by occupying the three hexes next to the German stack #6. This can be done by reshuffling units along the front and committing the USSr stacks #8, 9, and 10. Concurrent with that USSR #7 should withdraw one hex due east. USSR stack #1 has only bad choices so stays put. If another face up unit could be spared, then it would split and a second unit join it NW of USSR #2. There several combinations of moves discussed here and the AIO would evaluate all of them and assign a numerical score for each.
------------
As an aside here, the AIO sees several different types of frontline in this example. In order of AIO preference they are:
A. Contiguously occupied hexes: USSR #4, 5, and 6.
B. Empty two hex ZOC: USSR #8.
C. Alternate hex with an empty middle hex that is vulnerable to occupation by enemy: USSR #1 and 2; USSR #6 and 7. There is actually a slight distinction between these in that the latter lets the occupying German stack (#9 in this case) break through. The former at least contains the advancing German stack (#3) within USSR ZOCs.
D. Every third hex: USSR #4 and 8.
E. Isolated unit: USSR #1

There are also two types of reserves.
F. Prevent breakthroughs: USSR #9.
G. Close reserve: USSR #10.
------------

Post analysis gives this a better score than the others examined so far. The weak points are due east of German stacks #4 and 5. USSR stack #7 is also equivalently weak but less important because it is farther from Moscow. That all the reserves have been committed is noted as a negative. That the USSR stacks next to German #6 are all in the clear with clear hexes behind them is also a big negative because of the possibility of breakthroughs. This was (and still is) the problem with USSR #4 that was exploited by Hakon.

Choice #5 is to withdraw to a new and better defensive line. What needs to be done first is to count the number of hexes running north to south that will make up the new front line. The best front line runs with the grain of the hex grid because it only provides the enemy with two hexes from which to attack. That could be done here along the line occupied by USSR #5, 4, and 8. The northern point would be 2 hexes NE of USSR #8 and the southern point would be due west of USSR #10. This lien would be 9 hexes long. regrettably all 10 USSR stacks can't get to it to occupy it. The compromise in the south would be to withdreaw #7 east and leave #6 in place. This line ia also 9 hexes long and 9 stacks are available for occupying it. An average strength per hex can be worked out. That can be adjusted by river and forest hexes to made the German attacks on each hex at the same odds. So, the two clear hexes between USSR #4 and 8 would be much stronger thatn the others and contain armor. Hexes north USR #8 could even be left empty at the present since the German nunits can't reach them in 1 impulse. That provides 1 stack for the reserve, probably split into the 2 hexes 2 hexes east of German #5 and #6 (to prevent breakthroughs). This should score well based on the damage the Germans can do as measured in CV losses for the USSR (net the German losses in CVs).

There are a lot of other possibilities here. Luckily the CPUs are fast and have a lot of memory, so the AIO can examine a lot of them. I do not expect the AIO to look farther ahead than "I move - you move - had bad/good is it now?". Farther than that is exhausting to even think about.

================================

2. What would the AIO do as the German player (given the above position).

I'll get to this later. Need to do other stuff right now.

2. What would the AIO do as the German player (given the above position).

Without going into the gory details the AIO would:

1. Advance three stacks (two of armor) next to USSR #8 and 10. (towards Moscow)

2. Isolate USSR #1 and 2 by advancing individual infantry corps (split German stacks #1, 2, and 3)
There is little or no danger of a counterattack in the north.

3. Attack USSR #7 with 2 stacks of armor but without air support of HQ support (+10 blitz)
Winning this attack traps USSR #6 in ZOCs.

4. Split German stack #11 to hold the hexes currently held by German stacks #8 and 5.
There is little danger of a counterattack across the river from a single hex (two stukas are still available for defense if needed)

5. Think about attacking #USSR 2 and #8 but hold back because of possible failure in those attacks.
It is too early in the turn for mop up operations, (USSR #1 and 2), with Moscow still beckoning in the distance.
#8 looks real attractive but there is no hurry and the +6 blitz in the forest could produce unpleasant results, especially attacking from only two hexes.

6. Assess the probable results as very good with the USSR down to 5 mobile stacks (#4, 5, 8, 9, and 10)

7. The HQs could be used in the next impulse if needed and the goal of reaching Moscow is sufficient glory. If we want to go beyond Moscow, then keeping the HQs face up for supply is crucial. There are some considerations here about rail lines for tracing supply (just looked it up - no problem) and I am unsure about the supply status of German stack #1.



What is driving the AIO logic is that it is strongly on the offensive (and gaining both in strength ratio and proximity to Moscow). Therefore it advances and is willing to split stacks. It has the same inner desire to kill the enemy that we all have (they deserve to die, they keep shooting at me!) but has a built-in hesitation to make mediocre attacks early in the turn. It thinks keeping a contiguous line is very important and it wants to cuddle up in the warm embrace of the enemy ZOCs. The holes in the USSR line are identified as a weakness it should exploit by threatening to go through them and isolating the USSR stacks.

I am actually less sure about how the AIO would respond if the USSR simply left a large hole in the line. There probably wouldn't be enough German units to keep a contiguous line.

Actually, the hex i recommended for leaving the HQ-A would just give supply to Moscow, in good weather. Germany would probably have another HQ at the front, if they are serious about going for Moscow, in which case supply should be OK.

Furthermore, I doubt that Germany has a realistic chance at taking out Moscow with the resources available without expending an offensive chit. And an OC could be used to reorganize HQ.

Anyway, the most important part in my opinion is to kill as much of the Russian army as possble, which means that you have to make som attacks. Just pushing forward without doing any attacks may give you more land, but USSR will be able to preserve most of his army. This means that the front may stagnate or even turn as early as summer of 42. And to be able to make good enough land attacks to actually kill units, you should try to get at least +12-+15 blitzes, which is often hard to accomplish without using HQ support. (Surrounding units is even better of course.)

I agree with Hakon that there's a need to destroy more Russian units.

There's a good case for retreating the Russian #3 stack rather than taking the B. It would be putting a flipped RU stack in the clear. Of course the RU AI could re-org the stack, but that would pin a leader somewhere. It could also encourage the RU in the clear hex directly behind the stack to prevent breakthrough. A RU stack in clear terrain would make a good groundstrike target on the path to Moscow.

Per your analysis of the RU defense.

1. Attacking RU stack #7 - It was my goal to draw GE ARM away from Moscow by sacrificing this stack. Regardless of the outcome of the attack two GE ARM stack are now more than five movement points from the clear hexes in front of Moscow. It also leave the GE player with the option of a breakthrough, but It's unlikely that it will be taken since the breakthrough hexes are forest. Since forest costs 2 MP for ARM they would flip (be disrupted). I'd do it, but I'm considered agressive.

2. Letting RU stacks 1 and 2 be isolated is also desirable (from the RU standpoint). The GE AI has two options 1) keep them isolated or 2) elimate them. Because of their irritating ZOC, option two is more likely. Typically the GE player will cut them out of supply and then ground strike. I would be happy if the GE player used their LND2 on these hexes rather than clear hexes nearer to Moscow. Assuming the GE player disrupts all units in the hex the defensive value of the hexes will be (1 + 3) * 2 = 8. This defensive value is only marginally worse than the ten they would be in the forest and it forces any attack to be an assault.

3. I'll send how I'd respond to a successful attack on #7 (assuming no breakthrough) and your continued maneuver. (By the way in retrospect I wouldn't have moved #7 in the clear. It was a mistake. I would probably have left it where it was, or fallen back into the swamp and flipped.)

A few questions,

On the next RU impulse the the turn can end on a zero. My expectation is that the Allies will start mini-passing so it could end on a one. How will the Foreign Relations AI make the decision to mini-pass?

If the Allies start mini-passing what impact does this have on the GE AI's aggressiveness?

What's the probability of the German's getting more than two more impulses? (Assumingmini-passes starting on impulse six the turn ending die rolls would be 1, 1, 3, 3, 5 respectively for impulses 6 through 10.) In my assessment there's no way for the GE to get to Moscow in 2 impulses.

How does the GE AI make the decision about hex control? (e.g. GE doesn't enter any swamp hexes because it disrupts the unit. At the end of the turn the RU player air transports a MTN unit to a swamp hex.)

Thanks for being patient! I'm starting to understand how the FM's will be able to effectively attack, but I still haven't wrapped my head around how to have an AI develop a solid defensive with so many variables.

Regards,

Barry

As for taking out isolated hexes in marchy terrain, I dont feel that there is any hurry about it. If they are out of supply, they cannot move, and eventually there will be winter, and the hexes can be blitzed. Also, moving any of those forces will force them to flip.

I tend to just bypass such forces in summer, while leaving a screening force arround them.

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom
I agree with Hakon that there's a need to destroy more Russian units.

There's a good case for retreating the Russian #3 stack rather than taking the B. It would be putting a flipped RU stack in the clear. Of course the RU AI could re-org the stack, but that would pin a leader somewhere. It could also encourage the RU in the clear hex directly behind the stack to prevent breakthrough. A RU stack in clear terrain would make a good groundstrike target on the path to Moscow.

...

A few questions,

On the next RU impulse the the turn can end on a zero. My expectation is that the Allies will start mini-passing so it could end on a one. How will the Foreign Relations AI make the decision to mini-pass?

If the Allies start mini-passing what impact does this have on the GE AI's aggressiveness?

What's the probability of the German's getting more than two more impulses? (Assumingmini-passes starting on impulse six the turn ending die rolls would be 1, 1, 3, 3, 5 respectively for impulses 6 through 10.) In my assessment there's no way for the GE to get to Moscow in 2 impulses.

How does the GE AI make the decision about hex control? (e.g. GE doesn't enter any swamp hexes because it disrupts the unit. At the end of the turn the RU player air transports a MTN unit to a swamp hex.)

Thanks for being patient! I'm starting to understand how the FM's will be able to effectively attack, but I still haven't wrapped my head around how to have an AI develop a solid defensive with so many variables.

We always want to destroy the enemy units. And I agree that there is a need to do so. But what are the trade offs? That is always the question. And it is one the good players disagree on frequently.

Mini-passing (new word for me - I picture this really short woman asking me up to her room) depends a lot on what is happening elsewhere. I expect the JCS for each major power to estimate the benefit (in CVs) of not passing versus passing for his major power and then the Foreign Liaisons working out the globally best combination. This is actually no different than coordinating naval, land, and combined actions - which in some instances is much harder. For example, the detriment (in CVs) of not doing a naval move can change if an ally does a naval move.

As the end of turn becomes more likely, then making lower attack odds becomes more attractive. Not so much to risk losing German units, but to risk having them disrupted and needing to use reorganization points.

Probability of continued success on end of turn rolls for the German = the product of the probabilities of each one failing to end the turn. To get to impulse 11 using the probabilities you posed that works out to .8 x .8 x .6 x .6 x .4 = .092, or about 9%. To get to impulse 9 it is 38% and to get to impulse 7 it is obviously 80%. I hadn't worked this out previously (WIF version 5 used 6 sided dice), so more aggressive use of resources earlier seems indicated. By resources I mean: tactical air, HQs, reorganization points, and accepting possible German units becoming disrupted and not reorganized during the turn.

Hex control is kind of weird. When playing over the board, it is kind of loosey-goosey; and in my experience the opponent rarely calls you on "you never entered that swamp hex so it's still controlled by me". Maybe your opponents are more hard core. In MWIF, the program keeps perfect track of all this stuff and presents the information visually to the player (the player can toggle it on or off whenever he wants). This means that both sides know exactly who 'controls' what. Now there are good rules about all the hexes in a country converting when it is conquered (e.g. Latvia) so due diligence is not needed for Poland and the Baltic States, but there are a lot of hexes in Russia proper, especailly to the north, that the Germans are probably never going to put a boot heel down in. Do the players worry about that? Should the AIO? I have been thinking to have the AIO march through all cities/ports and over all rail hexes. Is that enough? Or should there be one unit (preferably cavalry) whose sole purpose in life is to convert hexes?

ORIGINAL: hakon

As for taking out isolated hexes in marchy terrain, I dont feel that there is any hurry about it. If they are out of supply, they cannot move, and eventually there will be winter, and the hexes can be blitzed. Also, moving any of those forces will force them to flip.

I tend to just bypass such forces in summer, while leaving a screening force arround them.

I agree. A couple of caveats though. If the stack contains 2 USSR corps, then delegating 2 weak German corps to isolate them is ok. If the hex only has 1 USSR corps, then that is not such a good trade and it should be removed if possible.

Or should there be one unit (preferably cavalry) whose sole purpose in life is to convert hexes?

There should be, at least, some units need to do that.
In our group, we keep track of which hex are converted and which are not.
It is very important for partisans matter and for air transport behind the enemy lines.

Maybe your opponents are more hard core

We play with plexi-glass over the map and as hexes are conquered they are marked with an eraseable marker. And I've seen many players use the German CAV for the purpose you describe. It ends up marching through the Pripet swamps so that their supply lines are more secure.

Mini-passing (new word for me - I picture this really short woman asking me up to her room)

No, no, mini-passing is when you use a innuendo so that you have cover in case you miss read the flirt.

I hadn't worked this out previously (WIF version 5 used 6 sided dice), so more aggressive use of resources earlier seems indicated.

Does this mean this changes how you would have attacked on impulse 1? Is there a rule here? "If probability of turn ending is greater than Y% than attack with everything." That's from the German perspective and assumes they are offensive. It could be defined something like "If probablility of turn ending is greater than 59% than attack where +7 and greater modifier and losses will not compromise line" for an FM that is defensive.

ORIGINAL: buckyzoom

I hadn't worked this out previously (WIF version 5 used 6 sided dice), so more aggressive use of resources earlier seems indicated.

Does this mean this changes how you would have attacked on impulse 1? Is there a rule here? "If probability of turn ending is greater than Y% than attack with everything." That's from the German perspective and assumes they are offensive. It could be defined something like "If probablility of turn ending is greater than 59% than attack where +7 and greater modifier and losses will not compromise line" for an FM that is defensive.

Yes, that is where I am heading. A rule based decision process that takes time remaining until the end of turn, likely losses for both sides, lust for land, predicted weather (which we haven't discussed here), isolating units, vulnerability of supply lines, disruption and reorganization and [fill in whatever I have forgotten], shakes vigorously and rolls out a binary decision: attack or don't attack.

This discussion started with me trying to assess the value of a hex (lust for land in the above list). I can tied almost all of the rest into CV values (sometimes cleanly, sometimes with a lot of gooey stuff everywhere). The beauty of using CVs as the final measuring tool is that it lets the AIO (JCS in this case) relate land movement and attacks to strategic bombing and to naval movement and attacks. I've been making some progress on the naval CV values (NCVs) but they are not done yet. I am pretty happy with the air CVs except for how to convert them to land CVs (some ideas but nothing worth writing down yet). These posts are helping me figure out how to convert AT and ENG units into CVs, though that is still all in my head where it gets confused with my golf backswing and what's for dinner. I think it is turkey tonight.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes, that is where I am heading. A rule based decision process that takes time remaining until the end of turn, likely losses for both sides, lust for land, predicted weather (which we haven't discussed here), isolating units, vulnerability of supply lines, disruption and reorganization and [fill in whatever I have forgotten], shakes vigorously and rolls out a binary decision: attack or don't attack.

In 41 and 42, Germany should go for maximizing russian casualties, while keeping friendly casualties at a miniumum. If successfull, land gains will follow, though land gains should not be top priority. Later on, Germany should try to minimize own losses above all until a defensive line from Rumania to eastern prussia can be held.

Russia should give top priority to preserving her forces (as well as railing blue factories) in 41 and 42. Only Leningrad and Crimea should be made into hard points. The rest of the line should gradually be pulled back if neccessary. (even Moscow should be given up, if the Germans threaten with surrounding it.)

If the USSR can preserve most of their forces, they should be able to turn the tide from 43 and onwards. From that time, maximum priority should be given to killing as many german units as possible, while trying to take cheap (if not few) losses. At the last impulses of the turn, Russia should go for assaults rather than blitzes, as assaults give a much higher casualty rate for both sides. Everything down to +5 and +6 assaults are completely fine, unless it creates strong possibilities for counterattacks.

Taking back the USSR and eastern Polish territories will always be easy for Russia, regardless, because of all the space and clear hexes. Only hexes in Rumania, Western Poland, Hungary and Germany have value compared to actual units.

Note that the big difference between the German and the Russian offensives, is that the USSR actually can afford to take a lot of losses when attacking, while Germany cant afford this. On the other hand, Germany will be in a position to do a lot of +12 or better blitzes, which is a luxery that will rarely be available to the Russians, unless they burn an offensive chit.

As long as territory, enemy forces and friendly are independent parameters in the AI scoring model, this can probably be tweaked during playtesting.

ORIGINAL: hakon
In 41 and 42, Germany should go for maximizing russian casualties, while keeping friendly casualties at a miniumum. If successfull, land gains will follow, though land gains should not be top priority. Later on, Germany should try to minimize own losses above all until a defensive line from Rumania to eastern prussia can be held.

Russia should give top priority to preserving her forces (as well as railing blue factories) in 41 and 42. Only Leningrad and Crimea should be made into hard points. The rest of the line should gradually be pulled back if neccessary. (even Moscow should be given up, if the Germans threaten with surrounding it.)

If the USSR can preserve most of their forces, they should be able to turn the tide from 43 and onwards. From that time, maximum priority should be given to killing as many german units as possible, while trying to take cheap (if not few) losses. At the last impulses of the turn, Russia should go for assaults rather than blitzes, as assaults give a much higher casualty rate for both sides. Everything down to +5 and +6 assaults are completely fine, unless it creates strong possibilities for counterattacks.

Taking back the USSR and eastern Polish territories will always be easy for Russia, regardless, because of all the space and clear hexes. Only hexes in Rumania, Western Poland, Hungary and Germany have value compared to actual units.

Note that the big difference between the German and the Russian offensives, is that the USSR actually can afford to take a lot of losses when attacking, while Germany cant afford this. On the other hand, Germany will be in a position to do a lot of +12 or better blitzes, which is a luxery that will rarely be available to the Russians, unless they burn an offensive chit.

As long as territory, enemy forces and friendly are independent parameters in the AI scoring model, this can probably be tweaked during playtesting.

Excellent suggestions.

By Crimea I assume you mean holding the northern entrance to Crimea, and when that is lost, holding both Sevastopol and the far side of the Kersh Straits.

Territory still concerns me. I picture the human player (USSR) sending a stray unit off somewhere and the AIO sending a group of Germans after it because there are very good attack odds. Then the next impulse, the USSR sends another sacrificial lamb off somewhere else. This results in the AIO spending too much time eating small morsels and missing out on the push forward.

I actually give more value to territory than apparently most other players. If, as Germany, I can break through the USSR defensive line and advance freely behind it, then I can take away resources and rail lines from the USSR. This forces the reinforcements to come in much farther east and leaves the bypassed units out of supply. Killing USSR HQs or simply eliminating links to primary supply sources leaves the bypassed units without hope. This is more likely on the steppes than in the northern forests, of course. I also go after the USSR resources agressively, to deny them to the USSR and to use them for Germany.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Excellent suggestions.

By Crimea I assume you mean holding the northern entrance to Crimea, and when that is lost, holding both Sevastopol and the far side of the Kersh Straits.

Territory still concerns me. I picture the human player (USSR) sending a stray unit off somewhere and the AIO sending a group of Germans after it because there are very good attack odds. Then the next impulse, the USSR sends another sacrificial lamb off somewhere else. This results in the AIO spending too much time eating small morsels and missing out on the push forward.

I actually give more value to territory than apparently most other players. If, as Germany, I can break through the USSR defensive line and advance freely behind it, then I can take away resources and rail lines from the USSR. This forces the reinforcements to come in much farther east and leaves the bypassed units out of supply. Killing USSR HQs or simply eliminating links to primary supply sources leaves the bypassed units without hope. This is more likely on the steppes than in the northern forests, of course. I also go after the USSR resources agressively, to deny them to the USSR and to use them for Germany.

About Crimea: Yes, that is what I meant. You can even try to take back the first hex, if germany takes it, if you have some corps in the area.

Making the AIO robust vs sacrifices is a concern, obviously. It should be satisfied with +13 blitzes or +15 assaults in most cases, and use remaining units for other duties. Killing single units is usually very easy, though, if you can catch them outside of mountain/swamp terrain.

Breaking through the USSR defensive line is a good strategy for killing units. But if you treaten with breaking through in dangerous spots, a smart USSR player will retreat to a safer line asap. Even in russia there is enough rivers/cities/forest hexes etc to be able to stall germany quite effectively with a zoc defence. In order to use breakthroughs to kill units, you will often have to flip russian units. This is another reason for russia to constantly pull back in 41 and 42, as that will force you to spend your air missions on rebases instead of flipping russian units. This is why many players use italian air in russia.

Taking russian resources is nice, but not really that hurtfull to Russia (until you are able to take out caucasus, that is). By giving up european russia, the USSR looses almost as many red factory stacks as they loose resources, and the missing resources can often be made up by recieving resources from the UK. (Often through Persia). Loosing the army matters a lot more. If the army is conserved, Russia should be able to come back even if forced onto the Asian map, as long as they can keep the Caucasus/black sea area as well as the railroad to Archangel/Murmansk. And unless you kill a significant part of the Russian army, it is unlikely that you will come even that far.