Axis Players Think Tank

[Ketza]

I am not an Axis fanboy. I enjoy the game as either side I have 3 pbems going two as Soviet. I only have time for one AAR which I chose to use my Axis game. I am finding it much easier to play the Soviets and I can look forward to (according to the AArs and posts) the Axis army being severly impacted through no action of my own of which they cant seemingly do nothing to stop it.

Playing as the Soviets seems much more forgiving if you make some mistakes.

Just my 2 cents from the experience I have had so far.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Great thread I am learing a lot about the winter impact on the German army. I dont have much to add that has already been said except it seems to me the Soviet player can change history by running to avoid casualties but the axis player can seemingly do nothing to stave them off. The seems to be a very lopsided approach.

This solution seems to be a political/strategic point system of some type linked with territory ownage. Both sides need some type of reward for actually holding different areas of the map other then the resource/industry factor. Strategic/political points that could impact raising extra troops on the part of the Soviet or spending points t as the Axis to prevent troop withdrawals. Just some suggestions.

Sigh.

Running away is a pure novice Soviet move that only works on novice Axis players. No political stuff needed here. We just need more Axis players who figure out how to punish the runaway...and more Soviets who figure out how to stand and fight.

Prediction: within a few weeks or months we're going to get people complaining about Soviet counterattacks and walls and carpet defenses.

I agree. And as I said before, I did run away. Turn 7 and my PBEM opponent is a hex or two from Leningrad. Need to learn when to fight and when not to.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

I am not an Axis fanboy. I enjoy the game as either side I have 3 pbems going two as Soviet. I only have time for one AAR which I chose to use my Axis game. I am finding it much easier to play the Soviets and I can look forward to (according to the AArs and posts) the Axis army being severly impacted through no action of my own of which they cant seemingly do nothing to stop it.

Well this game has plenty of rules that "player can do nothing to stop". How about extra frustrating limited Soviet MP rule? It's as if Sov units are cripples, sometimes the enemy encircles me not due to his tactical prowess, but simply due to my units being severely impaired and MP-decimated. Do I complain? No.

One German cavalry units "emits" a ZOC so strong it effectivelly closes off my tank units simply by WALKING through some hexes (enemy hexes require so many MPs they are nigh on impassable. Do I complain? No. (For the record, this post is not complaining about the game itself, it's complaining about whiners.)

Playing as the Soviets seems much more forgiving if you make some mistakes.

That's correct, and that's how it should be. That's the difference between two sides. Which does not necessarilly mean Soviets are easier to play. It's just their untrained hordes are more numerous, and playing them is more forgiving than leading elite units in what was basically a "one shot" operation.

[2ndACR]

Check your morale Oleg, that and fuel will hamper you. My Romanians do good to get 3 hexes without resistance.

[randallw]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Sigh.

Running away is a pure novice Soviet move that only works on novice Axis players. No political stuff needed here. We just need more Axis players who figure out how to punish the runaway...and more Soviets who figure out how to stand and fight.

Prediction: within a few weeks or months we're going to get people complaining about Soviet counterattacks and walls and carpet defenses.

Would it be wrong to believe that much of what people are unhappy about, you feel these things will be worked out through more playing experience ( and do not need coding/rules adjustments )?

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Check your morale Oleg, that and fuel will hamper you. My Romanians do good to get 3 hexes without resistance.

I know it will I'm OK with anything I went through so far, every humiliating defeat, every anti-Soviet rule, every unit being trampled on by the German hob nailed boot [:D]

My time will come.

So far I haven't seen anything really problematic with the game, except for heavily one sided whining on the forum [;)] Knock on wood, hope to stay that way.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: randallw

Would it be wrong to believe that much of what people are unhappy about, you feel these things will be worked out through more playing experience ( and do not need coding/rules adjustments )?

I think the game has its issues and kinks. I know the developers and testers are discussing many ways to improve it.

But a number of things being raised on these boards are non issues. The runaway is one of them. This is exactly wrong. Some of the testers feel indeed that the game is possibly too rewarding of an aggressive Soviet forward defense.

I have seen thus far only 1 Soviet player who is beginning to understand how to really do this. When more and more Soviet players start doing the same...this runaway talk is going to disappear very quickly and be replaced by new and considerably more accurate concerns.

[2ndACR]

I would like to see pocketed units CV decrease a little slower in versus human games. I can see a CV 1 if no supplies left, but to have 40%+ supplies in a unit and it still plummets the next turn. That pocket should have lasted longer. That was 20 divisions. Big ones too.

Wait until the Blizzard and then watch me whine when my CV plummets the next turn. LOL


Oh and the turn is ready.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
But a number of things being raised on these boards are non issues. The runaway is one of them. This is exactly wrong. Some of the testers feel indeed that the game is possibly too rewarding of an aggressive Soviet forward defense.

I have seen thus far only 1 Soviet player who is beginning to understand how to really do this. When more and more Soviet players start doing the same...this runaway talk is going to disappear very quickly and be replaced by new and considerably more accurate concerns.

Flavius, thank gods for a brilliant and reasonable beta/dev team. I've been active in some betas myself, some for GG games, but you guys are the best beta/support team I've seen, probably ever. And boy do you have a patience with all sorts of posts [&o] LOL

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Great thread I am learing a lot about the winter impact on the German army. I dont have much to add that has already been said except it seems to me the Soviet player can change history by running to avoid casualties but the axis player can seemingly do nothing to stave them off. The seems to be a very lopsided approach.

This solution seems to be a political/strategic point system of some type linked with territory ownage. Both sides need some type of reward for actually holding different areas of the map other then the resource/industry factor. Strategic/political points that could impact raising extra troops on the part of the Soviet or spending points t as the Axis to prevent troop withdrawals. Just some suggestions.

If the soviets run away they are giving up manpower production cities. I'd imagine you will be sad come 42 if you lose a lot of big cities. I lost leningrad but managad to keep kursk and kharkov and rostov so come 42 i'm 1.1 million over historical right now on my infantry count. That's even with losing almost 5 million before winter.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Check your morale Oleg, that and fuel will hamper you. My Romanians do good to get 3 hexes without resistance.

I know it will I'm OK with anything I went through so far, every humiliating defeat, every anti-Soviet rule, every unit being trampled on by the German hob nailed boot [:D]

My time will come.

So far I haven't seen anything really problematic with the game, except for heavily one sided whining on the forum [;)] Knock on wood, hope to stay that way.

Well there is what you call "whining" (ie constructive criticism) and then there are people who post inflammatory things (ie calling people "whiners"). People like myself who are balanced comment on things on both ends. 1) Working on being more realistic with german winter when a player preps more then happened in history. 2) Being more realistic with soviet units being encircled and suddenly on their turn losing all their CV even though it is the same turn as when you got encircled.
Those are two of the biggest things i dislike with how they were implemented. Instead of quietly sucking it up and dealing with it like you. I and others choose to discuss it so something might be done to make it better.

I want a game that is going to be fun to play on either side. I've played both sides and see issues with both sides.

You're entitled to your thoughts on anyone but is calling someone a whiner really going to do anything productive for the forums?

I also agree the soviet run away thing is silly. You will see if you retreat too quickly you're really only shooting yourself in the foot and helping the germans have a much better 42 offensive.

[abulbulian]

Well these types of meaningless and non-objective comments by Oleg Mastruko doesn't surprise me. He has offered nothing constructive IMO to date and I believe by now is just being ignored by the people that will be making the decisions on future changes. They are looking for data and not somebody just name calling others 'axis fanboys' or 'whiners' who have significant data that shows some adjustments are needed for play balance as intended.

I'll be glad to see when other axis players get to blizzard and through to spring 42 what kind of shape they are in.

[8|]

[notenome]

Crazy idea just poped into my mind. Has anyone tried lowering Axis Max TOE to 50% for all units during the winter (except mountain divs)? Your units can't hold a line anyways, and the atrittion is the real killer, so setting Max TOE lower should significantly reduce casualties (and therefore experience loss). Then when the blizzards are gone you can bump the TOE back up and have your experienced landsers who wintered at home filter back to their units. You'll loose more territory but this is Russia, land is cheap.

[abulbulian]

Yeah, but do we know for sure that units in the manpower pool retain exp? Also, you still lose moral like crazy because the sov player can keep attack you ... with hasty attack as I found out and still win. So how far do you march back?

Also, the setting of the TOE to 50% doesn't seems to be a slow process even for units on rail in my experience.

So not sure this would work very well...but you could try it.

[2ndACR]

Easy guys, let us not start a flame war, that will not solve anything. I am sitting at Turn 24 right now, just waiting for the turn to come back.

I second the "I will wait until I confirm I won't take a huge exp hit first". I am going to compare my turn 25 TOE upgrades with turn 24 and see what I see.

[karonagames]

We are starting to pick up some worthwhile data, and we are picking up hints on things that might need to be looked at. The post-blizzard figures we are seeing all show that the Axis manpower numbers are recovering well - no one has been below the 3 million that the Germans start the 1942 campaign, but we now need to look at combat effectiveness, experience and morale levels, to see how much variance there is.

It also looks like Axis inability to capture key manpower centres is allowing the Red Army to recruit large numbers of additional men - the recruitment multiplier in 1941 is quite high.

So it looks like the challenge for the Axis Player remains reducing Red Army strength, while capturing the Manpower centres to prevent them recovering their strength. This then leads to the ability to get Kharkov and the Donbas cities before the blizzard, and still be able to put a decent defence together. Personally I am finding this very hard to do, and am having to send many more Panzers divisions south than were there historically, this in turn means I can't get close to Tula and Voronezh.

Keep the info coming.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak
It also looks like Axis inability to capture key manpower centres is allowing the Red Army to recruit large numbers of additional men - the recruitment multiplier in 1941 is quite high.

So IOWs you are saying it is more important to stay focused on taking major cities rather than inflicting lots of casualties early because down the line it doesn't matter how many casualties you inflict as the Axis, if the Soviets hold lots of cities they will recover and overwhelm no matter how many you whack in 1941.

Sounds like the Axis should spend minimum time on the south and focus everything he can get his hands on in taking Leningrad and Moscow.

[karonagames]

Broadly speaking, if I got Leningrad, but didn't get the southern cities then the numbers would be about level, so the challenge definitely is to get more than the historical achievement i.e. Moscow/Leningrad in addition to Kharkov and the Donbas. I also found that allocating the resources to get Leningrad meant they where not available to help the Push in the South, so there is a real balancing act for Axis players to work out.

Personally, I am tending towards a much more southern strategy, having seen the potential power of a bridgehead in the Kuban and the better weather in that sector means you can get a head start in 1942 for a drive on Baku, but I need to check out the supply situation down there to see how many units the Kuban can support..

[colberki]

I also say it's too early to say game is unbalanced either way. The HQ build up option is a powerful option if used correctly could pocket lots of cocky Soviets. Few of us have played enough, then play without basic mistakes and finally play well. Let's keep sharing data and experiences. My own observation is the Axis side seems to need better play to be still with a long term chance of avoiding defeat written on the wall by May 1942

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: colberki

I also say it's too early to say game is unbalanced either way. The HQ build up option is a powerful option if used correctly could pocket lots of cocky Soviets. Few of us have played enough, then play without basic mistakes and finally play well. Let's keep sharing data and experiences. My own observation is the Axis side seems to need better play to be still with a long term chance of avoiding defeat written on the wall by May 1942

That’s true I got very high unnecessary casualties as playing Axis on my first game because I didn’t realize that you could manually repair most important rail lines faster with those repair units that what automatic system do. Not using faster manual rail repair at all caused that deeper I got inside soviet union less supplied my troops where and I had to fight supplies very low witch made me suffer pretty big casualties in the long run. It really has huge impact if there is even one rail line coming intact pretty close or none at all.

Playing Soviets tolerate more errors than playing Axis.