Soviet Strategy

[chuckfourth]

Hello
I have begun reading the AARs ect but can anyone answer this question please?
In WITE2 is it a workable strategy for the soviet player to retreat and keep his units intact or does he have try to hold his ground? are maybe both possible?

[devoncop]

Given the sudden death conditions and bonuses for taking cities ahead of historical dates it seems a mass retreat by the Soviets would end the game very early

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: chuckfourth

Hello
I have begun reading the AARs ect but can anyone answer this question please?
In WITE2 is it a workable strategy for the soviet player to retreat and keep his units intact or does he have try to hold his ground? are maybe both possible?

suggest reading post #12 in this thread - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4941282

[juv95hrn]

Slowing down the Axis seems a real possibility in WITE2, unlike WITE1, where (vs. a human opponent) you mostly "fed" the Axis losses when you defended, barely slowing him down. This change is probably what excites me the most with the upgrade to WITE2! I really hope it turns out well with the balance of falling back, giving up ground and sacrificing troops to slow down the Axis advance. Primarily in 1941-42 I suppose. But this is the time span where most pvp-games are taking place.

[CapAndGown]

I really hope there is a way, in the editor, to get rid of sudden death endings. I very much want a bitter end scenario.

[ranknfile]

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown

I really hope there is a way, in the editor, to get rid of sudden death endings. I very much want a bitter end scenario.

I certainly would not mind if this feature could be turned off. That said, I probably would not do so. I like the way it forces the player to play. Of course, that is assuming the developers tweeked everything so it functions correctly.

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown

I really hope there is a way, in the editor, to get rid of sudden death endings. I very much want a bitter end scenario.

Yes you can modify it in editor

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown

I really hope there is a way, in the editor, to get rid of sudden death endings. I very much want a bitter end scenario.

its worth being realistic as to what this means. If the axis player triggers this in late 1941 or (more plausibly) 1942 they have done exceptionally well compared to the historical progress and I'd really doubt there is much left for the Soviet player.

The December 1944 auto-axis win is built into the gameplay, it encourages risk taking and adds a light touch external 'political' outcome.

FWIW I don't think that the Soviet side will get many auto wins. The only target pt that is feasible is the April 45 one (again assuming an even contest).

So we are down to:

a) late 42 a better than history German player should have a decent chance - time to overextend and take a risk?
b) late 44, this could be quite important in a tense game, the Soviet player may fail (vs the HWM test), again really adds a nice external politically drive layer to game play
c) April/May 45 a Soviet player may get a win either via Berlin or the automatic conditions

I'd honestly suggest the other win pts simply would put a one sided game out of its misery, and maybe give the losing player a neat exit point? I'd say the same about the German auto-defeat outcomes in late 1941 - that just puts a natural end to an utterly lost game while the 1942 one stops an ultra-defensive German strategy

As I've noted in the alpha AAR, the HWM test has a real effect on decision making and creates some nice uncertainties that a more linear Berlin or not victory condition would miss out on

Roger

[Phoenix100]

Maybe slightly OT, but since you're here, Loki - can the Ai give you a good game as Soviet? I mean with the AI controlling the Axis.

[loki100]

yes - here's the evidence - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4941282

I am about 4 weeks ahead of the historical end date and whether it finishes early or on time rather depends on how the weather plays out in the final turns

So it will run you across the map in 1941, it makes a big strategic decision for 1942, it handles the transitions of attack-defend pretty well, its aware of flanks, it will encircle and it handles the mid/end game pretty well. Given the complexity of WiTE2 that is good in my books.

Also the Soviet AI is good both for 1941 and the mid/late war

[Phoenix100]

Great thanks. Can't wait to try it!

[Light4bettor]

I'm only speculating here, but the new victory system introduced in this game may force the German player to overextend his/her offensives (e.g., in order to gain victory points to help preserve initiative etc..) much as happened in the Winter of 41 and 42. So, as was historically the case, the Soviet player may find opportunities to exploit a depleted, fatigued,and/or overextended portion of the German/Axis forces with well timed and placed attacks. (attacks which the Soviet player may forced to do anyway because the aforementioned victory system works both ways).

So while that is not technically a strategy, knowing that a player may likely be forced to overextend themselves at certain points could be an advantage strategically. (I think that is part of the intent of the new victory system, to apply pressures to players that were similar to what their historical counterparts were dealing with). But I may be wrong.

[loki100]

Basically I'd agree but this can be linked to the OP's question.

if the Soviet player runs away in June-August, they will surrender all the VP (location and timing) that they need to create that tension on the Axis player later in the year. Ideally the Soviets want the Germans to have to attack in November in some desperation to match the 1941 VP conditions, what you really don't want is them to be able to leisurely cherry pick their targets and commitment.

In 1942, I think the German player can aim for one of two things. An automatic win (feasible, esp if they are sitting on a mound of time bonuses) or to push the HWM to a level that creates a problem for the Soviets in turn.

If by 1944 the Soviets are having to hunt the VP to match the HWM that gives the Axis player quite a safety net, if the Soviets can do structured controlled offensives things can get bad very quickly.

So neither side, at any stage can just focus on one set of decision criteria. Not least over the VP 'game' is the actual to and fro of the actual game, offensives, attempts to get your opponent off balance, to win the process of building up and so on.

[CapAndGown]

I am sure that much thought has been put into the victory system here, and I am sure it will work for many/most players, but I am still not a fan.

This idea of "political" objectives is really about GAME objectives. Its not like capturing a bunch of cities was going to make Stalin so sad he gave up. Forcing the German player to "stretch themselves" in 1941 assumes that German player must play like OKH and go for the one year campaign or bust. What about coming to the realization in late August that just kicking in the door was not going to be enough to bring the whole system crashing down and readjusting to try for a 2 year campaign instead?

Objectives should be gauged by their value to the war effort and not to how happy or sad they make either Hitler or Stalin. Objectives should be valuable because they are important resource/manufacturing/manpower/communications centers. Although I don't believe there was anything the Germans could have done to win the war once the Soviet populace was aware of Hitler's plans for them, I would still like to see the Germans acting to try to destroy the Soviet capacity for making war. In this case, victory in game terms becomes: how long can the Germans stave off defeat compare to historically?

[loki100]

well as with Robert's post above, its perfectly feasible to take the provided 1941 GC and disable all the VP rules in the editor. You then have a custom scenario you can use and share.

Beyond that, its a matter of judgement as to what matters/doesn't, but if you take the VP set of Soviet targets (to the point where you are in with a chance of actually winning), you'll have dismantled the Soviet industrial effort as well (apart from all the stuff in Siberia and so on).

Its always been a key part of the GG series that the player has near full agency in their choices. The game design intent is to provide a framework that is as realistic as possible but not to step in and force a particular game play style.

In my personal opinion (and that is all this is), WiTE2 does a better job at locating the roles of the Axis and Soviet players. In #1 they are sort of a guddle of Hitler/Stalin, their respective high commands and, of course, all the way down the command chain. I think the new game (& the VP system has been designed within it as an integral part) makes this a bit clearer - you are the OKH/Stavka. And there is this small bit of having to deal with somewhat external demands on your activities.

You'll find this all over the design. A lot has been abstracted, the whole Soviet factory evacuation routines you can basically ignore, you have to deal with the consequence of disrupted production but have no real agency. Equally, while the Soviet player has a degree of choice about which units to order to be built, they have much less control over the production of the component parts.

Roger

[GloriousRuse]

It is a balancing act (isn't it always) that is far different from WitE1. In 1, the difference between Win-1 and Lose+1 was none. The Germans either crushed the Soviets utterly or fought to hold Berlin, and the Soviets fought to avoid losing by 1 point and then take Berlin, with nothing in between mattering. That is no longer the case.

The first major cut is 700 VP in October. The only way the Germans are getting there is a dramatic curb stomp that probably involves Moscow, or if the Soviets just run. So at the extreme edge, the Soviets will have to fight at some point to stop a very early loss. Conversely, if they try to bitter end every inch the Red Army is probably going to be annihilated and then the Germans will walk over the remaining miles practically unopposed.

The next major cut is 750 VP in '42. Unlike the 700, this is very much doable. Historically the Germans got 694, but as there are 20 historical target cities, each of which could go up to 3 points better than history, it is entirely possible to win by recreating history, just faster. More likely, a reasonably fast '41 with a couple extra cities the Germans never took, and that's the game. If you ran away (or got beaten flat) to the point where extra cities are at risk in '42, then the game is at risk.

Add in to that the new winter rules are more accurate. The Russians don't suddenly become heroes - German units that are extended away from their supply base and caught unprepared collapse in tatters, while those happily wintering on top of a major depot with pre-dug fortifications do just fine. If you run away until Mud Season, your winter offense may be a horrible and pointless blood letting that doesn't shift the front at all.

The flip is that German progress is tied distinctly to Russian strength. Basically, every 300k the Russians manage to grow will make German progress geometrically more difficult. At 2.5M its pure slaughter. Under 3M, the Germans are an onrushing tide who can at best be delayed in key sectors. By 3.3M parts of the front are starting to shut down or become impractical. By 3.7M entire axes are becoming infeasible. By 4M, entire army groups. By 5M, its a last desperate drive at best.

But if the price of growing to 3.3M is giving up all of '41, the Germans won't need to do much to get a win. Oh, and of course the Germans are aware of all this and are working to kill you.

[CapAndGown]

ORIGINAL: loki100

You'll find this all over the design. A lot has been abstracted, the whole Soviet factory evacuation routines you can basically ignore, you have to deal with the consequence of disrupted production but have no real agency. Equally, while the Soviet player has a degree of choice about which units to order to be built, they have much less control over the production of the component parts.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I dislike the new factory management system as well. I think it should be a perfectly viable strategy (and in this case it really is strategic, not operational) to try to deprive the Russians of the manufacturing centers. Personally, I think Hitler had it right and Halder had it wrong. Moscow, while important was not as important as the Ukraine with its vast resources and manufacturing base. Yes, most of it got away, but it was a valid target.

I guess my biggest complaint here is that the Soviet has absolutely zero control over his manufacturing base. This makes no sense: I can set the altitude of every squadron on the front but I can't decide to stop producing some crappy plane like the U-2VS that is gobbling down valuable resources that might be better spent on making bullets? I am not asking to be able to shift production from one type of output to another. I am not asking the turn a T-60 factory into an IL-2 factory. But I would like the ability to either have a factory produce or not. Otherwise, if all I get is the end product, why have the factories in the game AT ALL??? Just give me the end product, either tanks, planes, fuel, bullets, rations. With zero ability for the German or Russian player to effect the production system it should just be taken out of the game altogether as irrelevant. Which brings me back to my objections to the VP system that focuses on game objectives rather than strategic objectives.

Right now in my Soviet game I am starting to run into issues will supply. At least in that game I have the ability to turn off a factory by evacing it. That way I don't end up spending all my supply on T-34s that I don't have a use for at the moment and can concentrate on producing bullets and entrenching tools instead.

Which bring up something about WitE1 that I would like to see fixed before the game is completely abandoned and I hope does not show up in WitE2. In WitE1 rail capacity is determined by the number of railyards you control. So as the Germans capture more and more railyards, your rail capacity goes down and down and down. In other words, your ROLLING STOCK apparently doesn't roll at all and just sits there waiting to be captured. This is the exact opposite of what happened. As the Germans captured more and more territory their rolling stock did not increase to meet this new extension of the number of miles it needed to service, meaning turn around time was constantly decreasing. Meanwhile, as the Soviets lost territory the number of miles their rolling stock (which, surprise, they did evacuate) had to service went down, which meant they had more rolling stock per mile, meaning faster turn around times.

I sincerely doubt this will be a problem in WitE2, but it is glaring design error in WitE1 and should be fixed before the is game is dropped altogether.

[821Bobo]

Moscow, while important was not as important as the Ukraine with its vast resources and manufacturing base. Yes, most of it got away, but it was a valid target.

Moscow was for Soviets more important than Ukraine. Not because it was capital city but because it was rail hub. Losing Moscow would essentially split Soviet Union in half. It is plausible to assume it would result in collapse of war effort.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: CapAndGown

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I dislike the new factory management system as well. I think it should be a perfectly viable strategy (and in this case it really is strategic, not operational) to try to deprive the Russians of the manufacturing centers. Personally, I think Hitler had it right and Halder had it wrong. Moscow, while important was not as important as the Ukraine with its vast resources and manufacturing base. Yes, most of it got away, but it was a valid target.

This is consistent with the VP system - the resources/industrial locations are in the same place as the VPs. In very rough terms you consider where the RL axis were at the beginning of Summer 1942 and how it fits with the current VP system they were essentially choosing (assuming a successful campaign) between getting 60 points in one go for taking Moscow or getting 30 points from Stalingrad plus 10 each for Maikop/Grozney/Baku.

In terms of targeting un-evacuated factories as in WITE1 I'm not sure this ever really told us anything given that it was only possible to systematically get ahead of the evacuation schedule in this way if there was a large difference in player ability.

I guess my biggest complaint here is that the Soviet has absolutely zero control over his manufacturing base. This makes no sense: I can set the altitude of every squadron on the front but I can't decide to stop producing some crappy plane like the U-2VS that is gobbling down valuable resources that might be better spent on making bullets? I am not asking to be able to shift production from one type of output to another. I am not asking the turn a T-60 factory into an IL-2 factory. But I would like the ability to either have a factory produce or not. Otherwise, if all I get is the end product, why have the factories in the game AT ALL??? Just give me the end product, either tanks, planes, fuel, bullets, rations. With zero ability for the German or Russian player to effect the production system it should just be taken out of the game altogether as irrelevant. Which brings me back to my objections to the VP system that focuses on game objectives rather than strategic objectives.

I think that argument is pretty well trodden in terms of the overall game concept and where the player 'sits' in terms of the notional game-world. It is a game design decision that some things will be out of the players hands and be handled sub-optimally. I'd suggest that this is fairly consistent with history.

In terms of having the production system in place in the first place I can kind of see where you are coming from but I imagine the Devs/players that have played the game first game may be able to give some insight.

Right now in my Soviet game I am starting to run into issues will supply. At least in that game I have the ability to turn off a factory by evacing it. That way I don't end up spending all my supply on T-34s that I don't have a use for at the moment and can concentrate on producing bullets and entrenching tools instead.

I think this follows on from the previous point. If the intended design is that the player does not have input into production/supply but players find a way to circumvent that intention/game the system by manipulating the game mechanics then I don't think there is really cause for complaint if that exploit is removed as a consequence of a change to the mechanics.

[TheFerret]

It sounds like you can plan for a two-year campaign as the Germans, though, right? If I'm reading the screens in the AARs right, if the Axis secures a line of Tallinn-Pskov-Smolensk-Kiev-Don River objectives, all with a +3 bonus for capturing on time, they'll (barely) meet their Jan '42 525VP high water mark requirement. That seems like a pretty forgiving 1941 minimum.