Panzer Division = SUPER MAN

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: SparkleyTits

Well if I may I would say that isn't an issue of balance and more a design choice on allowing players to have more creative control over their forces as that kind of thing works the same for both sides

Later into the game Soviets can pour every single available mobile & armour element they have into one point which was never done by the USSR, that can & does create havoc for Axis too but it's up to the players to adapt to those kind of choices in a game like this while the mechanics under the hood are where the balancing should/would/could/does occur

As a German fanboy .. "That would be so gamey .." [:'(]
(Gamey is all in the eye of the beholder -- except for suicide paradrops [;)] )

[SparkleyTits]

Haha you bugger [:D]

Of course I am happy about all gamey tactics aslong as not used against me [:D]

[morvael]

I guess proper logistics system in wite 2 will reduce the ability to put all the ammo and fuel guzzlers in one place as they will choke the rail lines in the area. Not so in wite 1.

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nada

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: elloboloco

If you want to balance the game why not stop the gamey and a-historical use of 2nd panzer army units in the south to create a pocket all the way to the Romanian border. Read any accounts of the fighting on Army Group South's front and it is full of the fierce fighting in this sector. It took the Germans a few days just to break through the frontier defenses. The battle of Brody (look it up) held up the German advance from June 26th to June 30th. Many historians consider this the largest tank battle of the war. In addition, German battle reports speak of early summer rain's turning the roads into quagmires. My point is, the game would be much more balanced if the Russians were able to save some of the units that are just written off on the first German move before the Soviet has a chance to do anything. While large battles of encirclement happened in the center, the first in the South did not happen until 15 July to 8 August at the battle of Uman. Where the 6th and 12th armies were captured anyhow. Sorry about rambling on. It has always bothered me that the Germans are able to make that move.

I tell you what, how about a game where I play the Germans and I don't attack in the South at all the first turn with Army Group South. Only Army Group North and Center for the first turn. Heck, I wont even do aircraft bombing for the first turn to save you all the lost aircraft. That way you can save all the units you want from the South move them where you want plus have your 100% complement of Aircraft for the Soviets. I will start turn 1 with 0 Soviet aircraft killed. I will even make it even more crazy by saying I won't do a penetration in the south more than 10 hexes on the 2nd turn. Nanananana lets make it I can't make a pocket in the south on the 2nd turn. Forget the penetration more than 10 hexes and make a pocket on the 2nd tuyrn. Lets go even better, lets just say I can only do attacks on the 1st line of defense of the Soviets without penetrating that line for turn 2 & 3 in the south.. Yeah, I like that one better. That should be an interesting and challenging game for you as the Soviets. How about that? Interested?

I somehow imagine Wyatt Earp lecturing a young gunslinger "I tell you what son .. I will tie one of my arms behind my back and draw from the other side .. you up to the challenge .. " or maybe Doc Holiday .. "you're a daisy if you do" ..

[DeletedUser1769703214]

Nada

[GamesaurusRex]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Thinking about this:

I think that would certainly help matters. At the current 45 NM used for 41-42, Russian ability to attack is only possible during the "extreme blizzard" and using the "1-1=2-1" setting... and even with those settings, the only unit that actually can develop sufficient CV and MP at such a low morale level to be really useful is the Calvalry Division stuffed with Sappers and a Ski battalion... so you are limited to how ever many of those you build.

Even this short period of attack possibility vanishes after the special rules allowance expires and the Russian is relegated once again to avoiding combat until he can produce Corps level troops. It's just no contest until then.

[thedoctorking]

I have done successful attacks with the USSR on non-blizzard turns and not using the Soviet attack advantage rule.

And Sparkleytits is doing them against me in our current game. Indeed, he's successfully attacking in the clear weather of June/July 1942.

[BrianG]

50 morale is way to soon if jan 1 42. I like as is for morale. One must husband good Russian troops.

If these units build quickly to 50 experience, 42 would never look like the real 42.

[thedoctorking]

I don't think the Soviets need to be buffed any more.

[SparkleyTits]

I do think EvK's post about getting morale over 80-85 is incredibly valid and my biggest worry for Axis tbh

Making sure you managed wins/losses to sustain morale and then wintering those troops would become much more important to get troops to stay at those important levels
However naturally to get those win/lose ratios you would have to limit your objectives in 41 and then garrisoning over winter would likely become downsized with the changes as Soviets would need higher body counts to stop disasters

I do like the idea of Soviets getting more morale to start with though to be honest I think it would help a lot of the playerbase to grow as them
I think as a whole it would help a lot of players to move out of their comfort zone and learn more aggresive styles as Soviets but I do agree with BrianG if you are aggresively minded anyways you can train the troops up sufficiently enough with or without +1

I think if you changed the morale alone without other tweaks to compensate Soviets would become dominant and I do think it would change the flow of the game quite drastically especially in 1942

[morvael]

Well, I want to remove morale changes for battles in which no ground changes ownership, and Soviets will not get extra losses for failed attacks in the period 6/41-8/41. All in order to promote aggressive style and increase battle losses (not by increasing losses in individual battle, but by increasing the number of battles).

[SparkleyTits]

That sounds like a really nice addition!

Would allow both sides to be aggresive and still allow all level of players to build crack troops through experimenting without the threat of downward spiralling their forces
German manpower could become a bigger bottleneck as it would naturally be drained earlier in the war but that could be solved afterwards easily enough once playtested properly

I do worry about proportion of forces that could ZOC flip for 2mp though as that brings a lot of threat in 42 for Axis

Just wanna say thanks for all this continued work on the game you guys it really is an exemplary beast and even though we can sometimes moan a lot it is only because we all love it so much [:D]
Thanks!

[Denniss]

Maybe tie some morale changes to game options so with mild winter or no attack/defense bonus for soviets the german NM is slightly lowered and/or soviet increased by the same amount (of ~2 points per non-default option). This NM change would be active as long as the changed options would be active ingame - AFAIR mild winter is to counter 41-early 42 blizzards only but I might be in error here.

[Stelteck]

Is the german manpower production ok ?

In my multiplayer game i tried to attack like a mad man as soviet in 1943 and did not succeed in causing enough looses to the german to prevent them from growing, with all german production and new units coming.

It is possible to attrit the german by isolating and destroying units, but by direct combat looses i'am not sûre. (Most of these looses will return from disabled pool also).

[SparkleyTits]

From what I can tell EXP is key to tipping Axis manpower losses over the edge in Soviet favour

So the earlier you get selected troops trained up and use them as your manpower hammers the sooner you can equalise manpower ratios then when used in concert with disruption, SU, air, fatigue etc etc you can start to drain nicely
Another pseudo way of drawing Axis manpower is to hit there minors as hard as you can with your crack troops (The loss ratios are brilliant here) then Axis are needed to stifle the bleeding in that sector with the low replacements minors get meaning less manpower in critical areas for Soviet favour

I imagine though there is one variable that I do not know enough to comment on properly which is manpower centres
I would imagine manpower centres would dictate how early or late you could effectively start draining but hopefully there are other boffins that can give us more answers here [:)]

[GamesaurusRex]

I've played the Russian side of the Grand Campaign now repeatedly for five years versus Wheat (who is an expert level Panzer Baller) through all patches since 1.07.

I am fortunate enough to have time to pursue this "hobby"and I was fortunate enough to be personally advised by the likes of Flavius, Pelton, and others about the numerous quirks of the game that the Russian could use to improve unit strength.
After all of that, I have come to a conclusion.

CONCLUSION: Don't play the Russian side... unless the German player has no clue what the game is about.

[SparkleyTits]

That statement might be just a tad lopsided buddy [:D]

My take on the whole balance debate is that if you look at the trend from AAR's of which player wins as which nation the pattern is that comparatively the more experienced a player the higher chance of them winning as either team

[VigaBrand]

ORIGINAL: morvael

Well, I want to remove morale changes for battles in which no ground changes ownership, and Soviets will not get extra losses for failed attacks in the period 6/41-8/41. All in order to promote aggressive style and increase battle losses (not by increasing losses in individual battle, but by increasing the number of battles).

That is a very nice idea. I had the same one. No moral losses for failed attacks. This could lead to more attrition.

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: GamesaurusRex

I've played the Russian side of the Grand Campaign now repeatedly for five years versus Wheat (who is an expert level Panzer Baller) through all patches since 1.07.

I am fortunate enough to have time to pursue this "hobby"and I was fortunate enough to be personally advised by the likes of Flavius, Pelton, and others about the numerous quirks of the game that the Russian could use to improve unit strength.
After all of that, I have come to a conclusion.

CONCLUSION: Don't play the Russian side... unless the German player has no clue what the game is about.

Hmmm bad logic

Look at SmokingDave vs. BrianG AAR ..

The problem is that the Soviets require nuance and attention to details. Not many players want to devote what it takes to play the Soviets. ST is an excellent player and "makes a lot of lemonade from lemons" ..
There are different games although .. so for example, the sudden death has a mantra that I might suggest is different from a bitter end game.

I am playing Germans in 2 games. 2x3 and 8MP.