AI for MWiF - USSR

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I think it is very rare for Finland to stay neutral during the whole game so splitting the Helsinki WP must be a rare thing. It has NEVER happened in one of our games.

Anyone here played a game where Finland was neutral at the end of the game?

I think we had it once, but the Russian Dowed Finland to have the whole objective. But am not sure.

[composer99]

I know we discussed USSR defence vs. 1941 Barb attack to some degree at the start of this thread.
 
I would like to take a little time to look at USSR build plans.
 
It seems to me that the USSR has two basic pre-war (1939-41) build plans: the Stuff Plan and the Rear Defence Plan.
 
The Stuff Plan
In this build plan, USSR is aiming to stuff the border through 1941 and prevent a German attack during that year.
 
The USSR's priority is to build out to maximize garrison. Therefore, the USSR should build out all units with a 2:1 ratio of bp to garrison value first, and proceed on with less efficient units as these run out.
 
The priority for builds is:
HQs (these always get first priority no matter how inefficient they are for garrison)
GARR, MTN, CAV, cav divisions, pilots (for the planes in reserve; 6 pilots in total) >> 2:1 bp-to-garrison
MECH >> 2.5:1 bp-to-garrison
ARM, INF >> 3:1 bp-to-garrison
MOT, inf/mot divisions, FTR + pilots, LND2 + pilots >> 4:1 bp-to-garrison
PARA, LND3 + pilots >> 5:1 bp-to-garrison
 
If the USSR succeeds in stuffing the border through 1941, it should convert to a Rear Defence Plan for 1942 as the Germans will almost certainly be able to break the pact in 1942 if they try.
 
The Rear Defence Plan
In this build plan, the USSR is not risking the stuff, and deploys some speedbumps in the border zone to delay the initial German offensive while the main body of the Red Army deploys in a mobile front. The main Red Army forces generally run away from the advancing Germans, save for hero cities along the main front and strong pockets along the perimeters (Leningrad & the Crimea, mostly).
 
While the build plan can be more flexible than for stuffing, it seems to me that a good priority order should be:
HQs
ARM, MECH
INF, GARR
FTR + pilots, CAV
mot, arm, mech, artillery divisions
inf, cav divisions
LND + pilots
 
Variants
Variant 1: In 1940, if the USSR wants to knock over Persia (and maybe also Iraq), the USSR may consider building a PARA corps (or div) to assist. A div might work because it gives the +1 to the combat roll while not being as expensive. The corps could be used to prevent Japanese from taking all the oil from Persia. The USSR might also build an ATR so its precious LND4s can be used to ground strike or ground support surprise attacks (it doesn't need an extra pilot, though, one of the ones for the FTR will do nicely).
 
Justification: While building PARA and/or ATR takes away from the build efficiency (especially of a stuff strategy), the extra production gained from Persian & Iraqi oil should make up the difference by the winter.
 
Variant 2: In either build plan, if it becomes apparent that Germany is not going to pursue a 1941 Barbarossa attack, the USSR can switch builds to attack Japan (if that is part of the USSR strategic plan). This means emphasising more mobile units (4-moving INF & 6-moving ARM/MECH) and more airpower (mainly FTR as the USSR starts with plenty of bombers for the 39-41 period).
 
Variant 3: In either build plan, if it becomes apparent that Germany is not going to pursue a 1941 Barbarossa attack, the USSR can build some subs to fight German or Japanese convoys.
 
Variant 4: If the USSR has attacked Persia & Iraq, it might consider building convoys to put in the Caspian Sea to ship the oil across to Siberia if an Axis invasion threatens to cut the rail lines. The extra production from the Persian & Iraqi oil would make up for the 3-4 convoy points built.
 
 
In the mid-war period (1941-42 whether the USSR is at war or not), the USSR has two basic build plans as well: Germany Stuffs or Barbarossa (1941 or 1942 sub-plans). As noted above, in 1941 if the USSR has managed to stuff the border it should convert to a Rear Defence plan for 1942.
 
Germany Stuffs
This is for the scenario where Germany not only does not attack the USSR but tries to stuff the pact vs. the USSR.
 
The reality is that from 1941 on the USSR does not get piles of cheap land units to build to max out its garrison. So it is a good idea for USSR to get active somehow (vs. Japan or Italy). This is because the USSR must build enough garrison-efficient units through 1941-42 to break the pact vs. Germany in addition to the units it needs to go on the offensive.
 
The USSR priority list therefore seems to be as follows (with some flexibility):
HQs
ARM, MECH
GARR, MIL, eng divisions
INF, arm & mech divisions, FTR & pilots
artillery divisions, LND & pilots
mot & inf divisions, PARA (corps & divs) & ATR
 
The USSR also needs to start collecting offensive chits for the 1943 campaign; making sure that it will not fatally compromise garrison when it starts putting the build points aside.
 
Barbarossa (1941)
The USSR needs cheap land units constantly flowing to throw in front of the Germans and slow them down. It also needs to build some air power and strong units to build up in preparation for any major winter counter-attacks or (by late 1942) in preparation for the big turn-around.
 
Build priorities are:
HQs
ARM, MECH
INF, CAV, MIL
FTR & LND = pilots
blitz, artillery & eng divisions
Other corps & divisions
 
Barbarossa (1942) (This is also a "subset" of the 1941 defence)
The USSR by now probably has enough speed bumps if Germany is starting Barb in 1942 or if it has not taken too many losses in 1941. It should focus on building up forces near the expected "stop line" in preparation for the counter-offensive.
 
Priorities are:
HQ
ARM, MECH
INF, MOT
FTR & LND + pilots
Blitz, artillery & eng divisions
PARA corps & div & ATR
Other corps & divisions
 
Setting aside build points in 1942 (especially if lend-lease is forthcoming from the West) for offensive chits is a must.
 
 
By the late game (1943-1945) the USSR should be solidly on the attack on all fronts (or building up for attacks on secondary fronts like Finland or the Far East). There is pretty much one build strategy: Hulk Smash!
 
Hulk Smash!
There is nothing elegant about what the USSR must do: blow away large quantities of Axis war materiel, preferably in USSR before it gets to the Vistula & Dneiper defence lines.
 
Build priority is:
HQs
FTR & LND + pilots
Offensve chits
Replacing land unit losses (of good land units, anyway)
 
In 1943 the USSR should insist on piles of LL from the Allies to guarantee that it can afford the expensive aircraft & o-chit toys needed to crush the Wehrmacht.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Thanks.

[npilgaard]

ORIGINAL: composer99
I would like to take a little time to look at USSR build plans.

Looks good.

ORIGINAL: composer99
Variant 2: In either build plan, if it becomes apparent that Germany is not going to pursue a 1941 Barbarossa attack, the USSR can switch builds to attack Japan (if that is part of the USSR strategic plan). This means emphasising more mobile units (4-moving INF

Or, if Japan commit heavily in China the USSR can do a very early attack on Japan (before Germany has revealed whether to do a '41 Barbarossa) - beginning of '40. This aims at the war can be over relatively quickly, and the build focus can be on the units needed vs. Germany. In this case build the fast inf and other quickly build units - and repair subs damaged by the Japanese.
An early attack against Japan requires that the Japanese are unprepared - otherwise the war can drag out, and the cost in casualties won't be worth it.

ORIGINAL: composer99
The reality is that from 1941 on the USSR does not get piles of cheap land units to build to max out its garrison. So it is a good idea for USSR to get active somehow (vs. Japan or Italy). This is because the USSR must build enough garrison-efficient units through 1941-42 to break the pact vs. Germany in addition to the units it needs to go on the offensive.

With the Annual rules additions Japan can force a peace by giving up Manchuria.
It comes by a heavy price for Japan, but if USSR is at war only with Japan all reserve units and MILs are removed from the board, devastating the USSR garrison value.
So if Japan are willing to do this it may greatly help Germany - in the short term at least - it will likely prevent Japan from SoW USSR during the first critical years of Barbarossa, though.

ORIGINAL: composer99
In 1943 the USSR should insist on piles of LL from the Allies to guarantee that it can afford the expensive aircraft & o-chit toys needed to crush the Wehrmacht.

Depending on how heavily the AIO plays individual victory (don't recall if this has been discussed) then the allies maybe won't give much LL (or maybe nothing at all) at the later stages of the war, when USSR has survived the German main attack - especially if USSR is in a astrong position.
But you are right - she should insist on LL anyway [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: composer99
I would like to take a little time to look at USSR build plans.

Looks good.

ORIGINAL: composer99
Variant 2: In either build plan, if it becomes apparent that Germany is not going to pursue a 1941 Barbarossa attack, the USSR can switch builds to attack Japan (if that is part of the USSR strategic plan). This means emphasising more mobile units (4-moving INF

Or, if Japan commit heavily in China the USSR can do a very early attack on Japan (before Germany has revealed whether to do a '41 Barbarossa) - beginning of '40. This aims at the war can be over relatively quickly, and the build focus can be on the units needed vs. Germany. In this case build the fast inf and other quickly build units - and repair subs damaged by the Japanese.
An early attack against Japan requires that the Japanese are unprepared - otherwise the war can drag out, and the cost in casualties won't be worth it.

ORIGINAL: composer99
The reality is that from 1941 on the USSR does not get piles of cheap land units to build to max out its garrison. So it is a good idea for USSR to get active somehow (vs. Japan or Italy). This is because the USSR must build enough garrison-efficient units through 1941-42 to break the pact vs. Germany in addition to the units it needs to go on the offensive.

With the Annual rules additions Japan can force a peace by giving up Manchuria.
It comes by a heavy price for Japan, but if USSR is at war only with Japan all reserve units and MILs are removed from the board, devastating the USSR garrison value.
So if Japan are willing to do this it may greatly help Germany - in the short term at least - it will likely prevent Japan from SoW USSR during the first critical years of Barbarossa, though.

ORIGINAL: composer99
In 1943 the USSR should insist on piles of LL from the Allies to guarantee that it can afford the expensive aircraft & o-chit toys needed to crush the Wehrmacht.

Depending on how heavily the AIO plays individual victory (don't recall if this has been discussed) then the allies maybe won't give much LL (or maybe nothing at all) at the later stages of the war, when USSR has survived the German main attack - especially if USSR is in a astrong position.
But you are right - she should insist on LL anyway [:)]

The AIO will have each major power make separate decisions but then the major powers will negotiate, seeking to optimize for their side.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: npilgaard

ORIGINAL: composer99
The reality is that from 1941 on the USSR does not get piles of cheap land units to build to max out its garrison. So it is a good idea for USSR to get active somehow (vs. Japan or Italy). This is because the USSR must build enough garrison-efficient units through 1941-42 to break the pact vs. Germany in addition to the units it needs to go on the offensive.

With the Annual rules additions Japan can force a peace by giving up Manchuria.
It comes by a heavy price for Japan, but if USSR is at war only with Japan all reserve units and MILs are removed from the board, devastating the USSR garrison value.
So if Japan are willing to do this it may greatly help Germany - in the short term at least - it will likely prevent Japan from SoW USSR during the first critical years of Barbarossa, though.

When I wrote this note I was thinking of the USSR DoWing Japan (or Italy) to build MIL so it could break the pact vs. Germany, rather than hold the pact vs. Germany. In general the USA will not appreciate a USSR DoW on either major power before 1942 unless it saves either China or the USSR.

If Germany is trying to stuff vs. USSR, the USSR won't really have the force to fight the Germans until mid to late 1942 anyway, but becoming active in late 41 or early 42 is a good way to get the garrison. But as you note, going to war vs. Japan has its pitfalls if the Japanese surrender.

[composer99]

Another thought for the USSR: convoy placement and/or builds.
 
There are, as far as I can see, two good places to put USSR convoys: the Caspian Sea (to help ship oil to Siberia after the rail line has been cut in an invasion for reorg/production purposes) and the Arctic to reduce the load for Allied cps for lend-lease shipping (admittedly not by much, but every little bit helps).
 
In general the USSR should not be in the business of building convoy points, but maybe building 1-4 over the course of an entire game would not be inconceivable.
 
Anyone else have any thoughts?

[quiritus]

if persia in urss-occupied same points to ship the two persian oil near Kuwait City (if in the new map are not rail conneted as in the WIFFE map) when Urss not active

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: composer99

Another thought for the USSR: convoy placement and/or builds.

There are, as far as I can see, two good places to put USSR convoys: the Caspian Sea (to help ship oil to Siberia after the rail line has been cut in an invasion for reorg/production purposes) and the Arctic to reduce the load for Allied cps for lend-lease shipping (admittedly not by much, but every little bit helps).

In general the USSR should not be in the business of building convoy points, but maybe building 1-4 over the course of an entire game would not be inconceivable.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

Both those you cited are first choice for me too for placement of Russian CP.
Also, 1 CP for the Black Sea and another for the Baltic can come handy when trying to supply Russians on the shores of both seas.

[composer99]

One trick that I did with the USSR convoys in the game I am playing now here in Ottawa is to have a few of them redeploy around Africa (courtesy of CW territories) and then sit in the Persian Gulf shipping the oil that is off the rail lines so I could save it/use it in the USSR.
 
I believe one of the errata in the Annual specifies that you may no longer use convoys to ship resources on behalf of non-cooperating neutral powers, so you can't use CW shipping for that oil early on until the USSR is in the war.

[composer99]

Based on an observation my German opponent made, the USSR's best chance at stuffing is when the Germans align Rumania early (the no-Bessarabia gambit), as the Red Army can now do border garrison duty in the Baltic States and in Ukraine, safely out of reach of German forces (assuming some speedbumps are up on the border). Also, the USSR's reinforcement locations are in close proximity to its border region.
 
By contrast, if the Germans do not align Rumania early, the USSR has to deploy its army in Eastern Poland, and if the Germans then align the Balkan states early in 41, the USSR may find it is at serious risk of getting encircled. It is also difficult for the USSR to deploy its forces into Eastern Poland due to the increased distance from reinforcement points and the limits of neutral combined actions.
 
So stufffing is a good counter-move to the German no-Bessarabia gambit. By contrast, if the Germans allow the Bessarabia claim and do not align Rumania early, the USSR is in a slightly better position if it employs a rear defence, but a much poorer position if it attempts a stuff (which is also more likely to fail with the extra Axis minor corps).

[sajbalk]

But the USSR cannot have its CP's base in CW countries while it is neutral. If the USSR is not neutral, then the CW will use its own CP's to get the resources to the USSR.

Which scenario fits the Ottawa game?

[composer99]

Oops. Something to fix next game.
 
The scenario that best fits the Ottawa game is that Steve (predictably) aligned Rumania on Axis impulse 3 in S/O 1939. So I stuffed the border in the Ukraine and the Baltics.
 
To make things worse for him, he got tied up finishing off Yugoslavia in late 1940, so I got to declare war on Germany in Jan/Feb 1941 (on the other hand, this may have been slightly deliberate on his part as perhaps he figured a sub-optimal Barbarossa is better than any kind of Sealion).

[composer99]

I've been looking a bit at how the USSR can defend itself from German attack from a deployment perspective.

Conclusion #1: Karelia cannot be defended adequately with the MWiF scale to keep the rail line to Murmansk open for two impulses.

The problem is that the Finns just need to ZoC the rail line at any one spot to shut down railing factories to Murmansk. As the USSR does not know in advance where this will be, the commitment of units required to keep the rail line open is just too great.

The image below shows three possible deployments:

(1) A probable minimal deployment to Karelia (red with brown border), designed to hold the cities. There will be enough time to rail two factories Archangel before the Finns or Germans cut the line, but Murmansk will be isolated immediately, especially if the USSR did not claim the Finnish borderlands. As Murmansk is still useful to ship bps into, the USSR tries to hold it.

(2) A deployment designed to keep the rail line open to Murmansk long enough for one impulse (orange with brown border plus the minimal deployment above).

(3) A deployment designed to keep the rail line open to Murmansk long enough for two impulses (maybe more) (tan with brown border plus the deployments above, save the unit with the tan X).



As you can see, beyond the minimal deployment, the USSR requires too many corps to keep the rail line to Murmansk open.

[composer99]

Here is a possible alternative deployment. Aside from the static defence near Murmansk (to keep the city from falling), the USSR deploys an HQ (Timoshenko, probably) and a few cheap corps to go after any enterprising Finns.

While this is probably better than the static defences above, it is probably still too great a commitment to be workable.

As such, the minimal defence proposed above (possibly even sans the corps in Archangel) is probably the best approach. Maybe throw in a corps in the swamps near Murmansk to slow down a large-scale Finnish advance.

[micheljq]

I did look at the scandinavian map, but the resolution of the map I have from the forum is not that great. I do not see the hexes's borders very well. Can you provide a screenshot where we see more of Finland? I believe the finns will have to commit their HQ in the region so their troops are not out of supply if they want to cut the Mourmansk railway?

[composer99]

Supply is not required to cut the railway. All the Finns have to do is ZoC it or control a hex on the rail. Do they care if the unit flips upon moving? Or even if it never flips up? Probably not. Cutting the rail line to Murmansk (which is the best Karelian city to send factories to) for the first summer of Barb (or longer) is worth throwing away an infantry corps or ski division if the Finns are not going to commit to attacking Murmansk itself.

In particular, if the USSR has not claimed the Finnish Borderlands, all they have to do is set up a corps in the hex marked Salla, and the rail line is cut thanks to its ZoC (and good luck rooting it out).

If the USSR has claimed the Borderlands (and is sitting on the Salla hex), it's a little bit harder for the Finns to do the job, but without comprehensive Soviet coverage, the Finns still only need 1 unit, deployed somewhere along the border, to threaten cutting the line.

Edit: It therefore appears, if the Soviets are serious about defending the rail line to Murmansk, that they must claim the Finnish borderlands and sit on the Salla hex.

[micheljq]

I don't know if I can discuss on this thread, if not let me know, another could be open. I merely discuss for the fun of it, and because I really like the MWiF scandinavian map for what I see.

I agree it is easy to cut the line. But if the fins send a unit this way the soviet can cut his supply easily and later destroy it. But when Barbarossa goes on, the soviets may have better things to do. Unfortunately they may have to use Archangel port, not useable in winter weather. But if we look at the map, if the germans want to get there they have a lot of travel to do!

Historically the germans & finns did an operation on this front, the germans had 150000 troops for this operation in 1941. They did attack on Mourmansk and also another attack south of Lake Imandra I believe, but they were stop by soviet divisions (one tank division was there), supplies issues, and rough terrain. By the end of 1943 365000 german troops were in Norway, a lot of them engaged on the Mourmansk front. I wonder how much units it represents in WiF.

ORIGINAL: composer99

Supply is not required to cut the railway. All the Finns have to do is ZoC it or control a hex on the rail. Do they care if the unit flips upon moving? Or even if it never flips up? Probably not. Cutting the rail line to Murmansk (which is the best Karelian city to send factories to) for the first summer of Barb (or longer) is worth throwing away an infantry corps or ski division if the Finns are not going to commit to attacking Murmansk itself.

In particular, if the USSR has not claimed the Finnish Borderlands, all they have to do is set up a corps in the hex marked Salla, and the rail line is cut thanks to its ZoC (and good luck rooting it out).

If the USSR has claimed the Borderlands (and is sitting on the Salla hex), it's a little bit harder for the Finns to do the job, but without comprehensive Soviet coverage, the Finns still only need 1 unit, deployed somewhere along the border, to threaten cutting the line.

Edit: It therefore appears, if the Soviets are serious about defending the rail line to Murmansk, that they must claim the Finnish borderlands and sit on the Salla hex.

[brian brian]

Even with the Pacific scale paper Scandinavia map this is a difficult problem for the Soviets. I like that angle to the game...it was a theater of the war that mattered to the outcome in certain ways. The key question is supply...who will commit some logistic assets up there to get things done? If the Finns don't have Mannerheim nearby their raider type units can be rather vulnerable to counter-attacks. In MWiF I think this theater will be perfect for deploying additional Russian Cavalry divisions.

The Soviets have a slight advantage in being able to use sea supply at certain points. Some day I would like to see this go away in the winter, but that is not part of the game currently.

On thing I like to do for the Soviets is use their LND-4s on this front, where it is unlikely the Axis will be able to have much FTR cover.

[micheljq]

I really like the scandinavian map too. I am tired of playing on off map boxes for Scandinavia. I really like the size of Siberia and China too.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Even with the Pacific scale paper Scandinavia map this is a difficult problem for the Soviets. I like that angle to the game...it was a theater of the war that mattered to the outcome in certain ways. The key question is supply...who will commit some logistic assets up there to get things done? If the Finns don't have Mannerheim nearby their raider type units can be rather vulnerable to counter-attacks. In MWiF I think this theater will be perfect for deploying additional Russian Cavalry divisions.

The Soviets have a slight advantage in being able to use sea supply at certain points. Some day I would like to see this go away in the winter, but that is not part of the game currently.

On thing I like to do for the Soviets is use their LND-4s on this front, where it is unlikely the Axis will be able to have much FTR cover.