Attacking the USSR in 1.7.

[cpdeyoung]

Wow, this is not the USSR we have known. I will not go into any detail, as I don't want to spoil the surprises, but my experience thus far gives me a very strong feel for the actual course of events.

Anraz, to the degree you had anything to do with this, please accept my kudos!

Chuck

[Anraz]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Anraz, to the degree you had anything to do with this, please accept my kudos!

Chuck

Thank you, but I'm only a bit responsible

[cpdeyoung]

This is easily the most exciting game against the AI in the Soviet Union I have ever played.  I am having a ball.  This should have been a "2.0" release for all the differences.
 
Chuck

[gwgardner]

What are you seeing new in the Russian AI situation?

[cpdeyoung]

I don't want to post here, because it really is a fun surprise.

Have you ever seen the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment from "Fantasia". That gives you an idea of what you will see.

Chuck

[Magpius]

[von altair]

cpdeyoung wrote: "Wow, this is not the USSR we have known. I will not go into any detail, as I don't want to spoil the surprises, but my experience thus far gives me a very strong feel for the actual course of events. "

I am sorry but there is no any changes for Russian AI. They only increased amount and level
of siperian reinforcements and also some boost from events. But NO AI fixes. AI in this game
is average, not good or broken bad like it is in most other strategy games.

So please explain whats so good in this "1.7 russian AI"?

[cpdeyoung]

I am not sure you are right.
 
In my 1.7 game the AI is giving me a much stiffer fight than ever before.  It is not as good as it could be, and I could give it some "rules" which would make it even better, but I find it a much better opponent. It is very good at attacking when I have allowed units to be in a "no retreat" position.  It "appears" to be using relaxed rules for deployment, unless it is awesomely good at anticipating my intentions. It does exploit holes in a line, and flanks.  It just plays better at a tactical and operational level.   ...   and yes, this is mostly subjective opinion on my part.  It gave me a fun game.  Was your experience different?
 
It has given me the best solo experience that I have had in my play in both RtV and ToW, and I really enjoyed it.  I have worn it down, and it just made a big mistake which will probably allow me to finish it off sooner than I would have, but for a year it gave me a stiff battle.  I think it is a good incremental step toward an AI which will impress.
 
If the Allied air war could be reconsidered, and if some amphibious exploits were incorporated, and if the conservation of a "fleet in being" were a high priority, then I think I would be ready to work as hard as I have to against a human opponent.  Until that happens there is work to be done, but if I had played this game with a human as the Western Allies I think they would have been pleased with their Soviet AI partner.
 
Chuck

[Flaviusx]

Chuck, all they did so far as I can tell is change the AI's spending priorities. It no longer buys SMP to the moon. Instead, it buys units.
 
This has the effect of making the AI much much harder due solely to in game cheats which wildly inflate the AI USSR economy. In 1.6 this was kept in check by the AI's inefficient spending priorities. (It would buy 40+ SMP, diverting thousands of PPs from unit production.) The AI itself isn't playing any "smarter" as such. It's making better use of a grossly exaggerated economy.
 
Go F11 and switch to the USSR and see for yourself. If yours is like mine, it caps SMP spending at 6. And is running around with 250% WE and literally 200+ infantry corps, 50ish armor corps, etc. A human Soviet player can't come anywhere near this kind of production.
 
So far as human Soviet players go, I can safely say that 1.7 makes me want to declare war on the Axis on turn 1. You get a 20% morale hit from doing so...and a 100% benefit to your WE. You also get the shock effect out of the way while the Germans are busy in Poland. This is going to be a problem in pvp games. In 1.6 the Soviet player could keep his WE chugging along nicely by declaring war on minors while staying at peace with the Axis. Now, there's simply no reason to delay war with the Axis at all: the changes to WE from minors and the new shock effect both drive the USSR player to an immediate war with Germany. Peace with Germany isn't worth it at all.
 
I don't really like this patch very much. 1.6 seems more balanced.

[cpdeyoung]

Perhaps the effect of many more units is what I am seeing, but it worked for me.  I am going to beat the AI this time, and it feels like I accomplished something.  I did notice the vastly inflated WE and posted about it in Gary's AAR thread.
 
The experience I had was pleasant, but I know it represents events and "cheats" that will not be available to the human player of the Soviets.  This may be Ok.  The AI needs something to make up for the skillset of a human.  However I realize that the ideal would be to make the AI competitive on a level playing field.
 
Your observations about the Soviets attacking early are a rational response to the frontend loaded penalty.  There is indeed no good reason to wait, and I agree this is a big problem.  The Soviet DoW could be made diplomatically expensive till 1942, with adjustments if the Germans push them with attacks on the Baltic countries or Turkey, or dishonoring the Pact.
 
The game series RtV and into ToW 1.7 has undergone so many big changes.  In RtV the Soviets had one big event to consider, the winter of 1941-42.  They wanted the war with the Germans to start in the historical time frame, or perhaps a bit later.  Now the penalty comes with the war whenever it starts, and when it is over the Soviets can start their real war.  This changes the dynamic greatly.  In my 1.7 solo game I dishonored the pact and was nervous till I could take the West out and get to a War in the East.
 
The balance has shifted back and forth as the developers and community react to each other.  You may be right about the trend in 1.7, but I hope we can give it a good test before incremental balance mods being made.
 
Chuck

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

So far as human Soviet players go, I can safely say that 1.7 makes me want to declare war on the Axis on turn 1. You get a 20% morale hit from doing so...and a 100% benefit to your WE. You also get the shock effect out of the way while the Germans are busy in Poland. This is going to be a problem in pvp games ... Now, there's simply no reason to delay war with the Axis at all ...

Considering you're the Russian player in ETO, Flavio, this makes me somewhat concerned. [8|]

I must formulate a house rule to hammer you flat! [:)]

[Flaviusx]

Not gonna lie, Uxbridge. Unless you impose a house rule, I'm going to do it. Based on my 1.7 playtesting, it winds up pumping thousands of PPs into Soviet coffers compared to honoring the pact. Nor am I keen on lining up zero strength units in summer 1941 for the German to simply overrun.
 
1.7 broke the Eastern front imo.
 
 
 

[Uxbridge]

Rule coming up in a day or two.

Has to be something cunning. Not just a "can't do until ...". First there has to be a pre-condition for you to be allowed to attack. Then there must be a choice, a certain punishment for doing it. That way the German will have be cautious not to leave the east ungarded, because he can never be sure what to expect.

Tricky thing this; always were. Can't remember how many times we made house rules for it or debated the written rules in the games we played. Problem is that we know what is going to happen, that Germany and USSR will be at war at least from 1942 onwards. In reality, neither Stalin nor Hitler really knew for sure, even if one might say that the latter had a good hint.

I think that the rule, the allowance of attack, will have to be based on a number of for Stalin positive factors in going to war. At first he needs to have a firm political position (low SU). Secondly, the production must be running fairly good (WE). Thirdly, the armed forces must be better than in september 1939 and, finally, the research must be going ahead. The situation is so much better if all these things are going against Hitler and the more resistance he meets will also favor the possibility of a preemptive strike from USSR.

I figure something out.

[17russia]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Rule coming up in a day or two.

Has to be something cunning. Not just a "can't do until ...". First there has to be a pre-condition for you to be allowed to attack. Then there must be a choice, a certain punishment for doing it. That way the German will have be cautious not to leave the east ungarded, because he can never be sure what to expect.

Tricky thing this; always were. Can't remember how many times we made house rules for it or debated the written rules in the games we played. Problem is that we know what is going to happen, that Germany and USSR will be at war at least from 1942 onwards. In reality, neither Stalin nor Hitler really knew for sure, even if one might say that the latter had a good hint.

I think that the rule, the allowance of attack, will have to be based on a number of for Stalin positive factors in going to war. At first he needs to have a firm political position (low SU). Secondly, the production must be running fairly good (WE). Thirdly, the armed forces must be better than in september 1939 and, finally, the research must be going ahead. The situation is so much better if all these things are going against Hitler and the more resistance he meets will also favor the possibility of a preemptive strike from USSR.

I figure something out.

If the USSR had to have a certain ammount of DP to declair war on Germany that would fix an un-realistic USSR entry into the war in 1939. The winter war with the Finns would not be dependant on DP. Or just leave things the way they are and add in a 40 -50 percent damage hit to the civil unrest upon a DOW on the USSR's part that would bring the USSR into conflict with Germany (even through a DOW on Rumania). The USSR was unfit for any war until 1942 and that only after the Germans had "learned" them by fire & brimstone. The USSR - Japan war entry in 1945 was not popular, the Finn war went to crap, and even going back to the 1905 war with Japan was not great, neither was their WWI performance. Face it, through out history they have had problems being the aggressor in any war.

[cpdeyoung]

If the Germans honor all the provisions of the M/R pact, including keeping their hands off the Baltic states, then the Soviets would probably be more likely to slowly build their strength.  However with provocation such as the Germans taking Lithuania and half of Latvia the Soviets will be on knife's edge.  If the Germans go so far as to take all of Poland for themselves then they might have to go over the edge!
 
Some slightly inside humor here for 17Russia.
 
Chuck
 

[17russia]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

If the Germans honor all the provisions of the M/R pact, including keeping their hands off the Baltic states, then the Soviets would probably be more likely to slowly build their strength.  However with provocation such as the Germans taking Lithuania and half of Latvia the Soviets will be on knife's edge.  If the Germans go so far as to take all of Poland for themselves then they might have to go over the edge!

Some slightly inside humor here for 17Russia.

Chuck

Funny between us passing the pbem back and forth I never got the promp "Honor the Pact". Maybe a low down Commie attacked before that happened? Maybe we were already at war when I took a road trip into Lithuania. Just maybe Eva was not giving it up like she once did but Himmler told me about these two blonds just outside of Vilnius that needed a bottle of Tequila. Now two blonds in dire need of a bottle of Tequila trump any pact in my book.

Lots of maybe's here but I will say that in stabing Germany in the back that you won tickes for two to see Guns & Roses in concert in a one time showing in Beautiful Downtown Mogadishu.

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: 17russia

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Rule coming up in a day or two.

I figure something out.

If the USSR had to have a certain ammount of DP to declair war on Germany that would fix an un-realistic USSR entry into the war in 1939. The winter war with the Finns would not be dependant on DP. Or just leave things the way they are and add in a 40 -50 percent damage hit to the civil unrest upon a DOW on the USSR's part that would bring the USSR into conflict with Germany (even through a DOW on Rumania). The USSR was unfit for any war until 1942 and that only after the Germans had "learned" them by fire & brimstone. The USSR - Japan war entry in 1945 was not popular, the Finn war went to crap, and even going back to the 1905 war with Japan was not great, neither was their WWI performance. Face it, through out history they have had problems being the aggressor in any war.

This is what I decided for:

17. The Russian player may feel the temptation to attack Germany early. If so, Stalin must be reasonable convinced that he has the political backing for such a venture and he must also think that USSR have the military capability to wage such a war. The Russian player must therefore fulfill 3 provisions:

1. The combined total of tech levels artillery, armour and air must surpass that of Germany.
2. The USSR may not be at war with any other nation at the time the declaration of war against Germany is being made.
3. The social unrest, may not be higher than 20 %.

If these three condition can be met, USSR may declare war on Germany. There is more to it, however. Doing this means taking a great risk. Stalin may not be able to put the necessary will to fight into his people as if he was himself attacked by Germany. In addition, some major military set-back can easily mean the end of his reign as head of state of the USSR. Thus a Russian DoW against Germany will lead to the following changes:

1. The USSR upkeep cost will be raised to 6, which is the same as for Germany, to imply that although the armed forces will fight as before, the industrial output will be hampered by general lack of support among the workers.
2. The cities of Sevastopol, Stavropol and Vladimir will lose their VP values, dramatically moving the Russian "surrender line" westward. Thus Stalin must be sure that he can prevent Germany from moving too far into the interior of the USSR before he goes to war (basically, this means that Germany needs only to advance as far as Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, and take these cities, to conquer USSR).

(In the latest version of ETO, countries start with tech levels "1", with some exception)

[17russia]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: 17russia

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

Rule coming up in a day or two.

I figure something out.

If the USSR had to have a certain ammount of DP to declair war on Germany that would fix an un-realistic USSR entry into the war in 1939. The winter war with the Finns would not be dependant on DP. Or just leave things the way they are and add in a 40 -50 percent damage hit to the civil unrest upon a DOW on the USSR's part that would bring the USSR into conflict with Germany (even through a DOW on Rumania). The USSR was unfit for any war until 1942 and that only after the Germans had "learned" them by fire & brimstone. The USSR - Japan war entry in 1945 was not popular, the Finn war went to crap, and even going back to the 1905 war with Japan was not great, neither was their WWI performance. Face it, through out history they have had problems being the aggressor in any war.

This is what I decided for:

17. The Russian player may feel the temptation to attack Germany early. If so, Stalin must be reasonable convinced that he has the political backing for such a venture and he must also think that USSR have the military capability to wage such a war. The Russian player must therefore fulfill 3 provisions:

1. The combined total of tech levels artillery, armour and air must surpass that of Germany.
2. The USSR may not be at war with any other nation at the time the declaration of war against Germany is being made.
3. The social unrest, may not be higher than 20 %.

If these three condition can be met, USSR may declare war on Germany. There is more to it, however. Doing this means taking a great risk. Stalin may not be able to put the necessary will to fight into his people as if he was himself attacked by Germany. In addition, some major military set-back can easily mean the end of his reign as head of state of the USSR. Thus a Russian DoW against Germany will lead to the following changes:

1. The USSR upkeep cost will be raised to 6, which is the same as for Germany, to imply that although the armed forces will fight as before, the industrial output will be hampered by general lack of support among the workers.
2. The cities of Sevastopol, Stavropol and Vladimir will lose their VP values, dramatically moving the Russian "surrender line" westward. Thus Stalin must be sure that he can prevent Germany from moving too far into the interior of the USSR before he goes to war (basically, this means that Germany needs only to advance as far as Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, and take these cities, to conquer USSR).

(In the latest version of ETO, countries start with tech levels "1", with some exception)

I think adjusting the DP needed and a hit to social unrest might be the simple and easy way to go.

[cpdeyoung]

Funny between us passing the pbem back and forth I never got the promp "Honor the Pact".

 
When I got the turn and clicked on a hex in Eastern Poland and saw "Germany-Germany" I was shocked. I was so very uprepared for war. I did feel that I had to declare war because there is no sanction from the game against a breach of the pact, except in AI situations. If the Soviets let the Germans get away with dishonoring the pact they will be starting the war later with the Axis much closer to vital cities. The thought that your "choice" was not deliberate never occurred to me.
 
The inter-turn dialogs still are fraught with opportunities for confusion, and Stavka will be studying the consequences from a vantage point in Mogadishu.
 
Chuck

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: 17russia

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: 17russia




If the USSR had to have a certain ammount of DP to declair war on Germany that would fix an un-realistic USSR entry into the war in 1939. The winter war with the Finns would not be dependant on DP. Or just leave things the way they are and add in a 40 -50 percent damage hit to the civil unrest upon a DOW on the USSR's part that would bring the USSR into conflict with Germany (even through a DOW on Rumania). The USSR was unfit for any war until 1942 and that only after the Germans had "learned" them by fire & brimstone. The USSR - Japan war entry in 1945 was not popular, the Finn war went to crap, and even going back to the 1905 war with Japan was not great, neither was their WWI performance. Face it, through out history they have had problems being the aggressor in any war.

This is what I decided for, etc ...

I think adjusting the DP needed and a hit to social unrest might be the simple and easy way to go.

That's one way of doing it, but I do disagree a little. First, if we tie the possibility to declare war to a certain DP level, we're actually fixing it. We know (or can figure out) how long it will take for the USSR to reach there. It will take some of the tension out of the game and, in fact, this is were I may reconsider my point 1. for the provisions also.

SU doesn't work very well either, unless you're the Russian player. If the USSR declare war early and then sit back to wait out the chock effect, he can also wait out a lot of the SU effect. In time it will pass off entirely. I much rather see Stalin enter a road that may cause him much grief later, but only if his strategy doesn't pay off. If he enters war early, it's not impossible that the Germans quickly re-adjust their strategies and decides to hold the Western front while going for an early knock-out of the USSR. With a "surrender line" running from Leningrad to Stalingrad with Moscow in the centre, a German victory is far from impossible.