Soviets, supply, and CCP

[Seminole]

I play almost exclusively head to head.

When playing the grand campaign I’ve only played the Soviet side so far.

I believe there is a developing consensus that in multiplayer the Soviets have an advantage.

It seems to stem from the ability to establish more than adequate supplies, and build up CPP.

I had two thoughts about addressing this, one much more radical than the other.

What if the Soviets were started with depots in most of their major cities, but the game only allowed building depots with an onboard rail unit in the hex? I think then Soviet logistics would see real strain through ‘41, and in time acquire the means to improve that situation and support advances. As it stands their units are almost always able to be bursting at the seams with supplies. I thought initially about a limit on the number of depots, but that seems way tricker to play test and have unintended consequences.

The other thought is that Soviet CPP generation needs a malus modifier through ‘41, and perhaps stepping down as the years progress. They seem very powerful, and I haven’t ever gotten to play into late game against a human.

[ncc1701e]

Well for CPP, I think the same is applying to 1944 and 1945 when USSR is on the move. You will have the same effect with Axis units slowing down the Red elite units.

I don’t think a malus based on a given year is appropriate. I would prefer to address the CPP issue by applying a % of loss based on the outcome of a given battle.

See here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4#p5013876

Logistics is another problem but I would fix CPP first. Once an offensive and a breakthrough is deadly and can capture plenty of depots, the logistics problem may be solved by itself.

Just my opinion.

[Beethoven1]

Regarding CPP, one part of the issue is that, honestly, Soviets don't really need the assault fronts in '41. Or at least don't really need 2.

However, if assault fronts were simply removed, that would have an undesirable consequence of discouraging Soviets from counterattacking (which would be totally ahistorical).

An ideal change would probably be for Soviets to not get assault fronts (or only to get one, maybe) in 1941 in order to slow down the Soviet CPP gain a bit, and for Soviets to have worse supply at least in '41, but for Soviets to not have the artificial artillery ammo/assault front thing (which is one of the main reasons to have assault fronts currently, and which was meant to simulate poor Soviet supply, but doesn't really work out like that, and also weirdly incentivizes Soviets to only or mostly use artillery just in certain fronts). My guess is this is judged infeasible, but that would be the ideal solution.



However, there is also another part. As I will explain below, the CPP mechanic has inherent asymmetric benefits towards the Soviet player when the Soviet player is defending, as compared to the benefits the Axis player can get while the Axis player is defending.

Well for CPP, I think the same is applying to 1944 and 1945 when USSR is on the move. You will have the same effect with Axis units slowing down the Red elite units.

I don't think this is actually quite true. The way CPP makes it work makes it asymmetric in favor of the Soviets. The reason for that is CPP gain is doubled if you are not bordering an enemy/enemy hex at the end of your turn. When Soviets are defending, that will usually be the case for a lot of Soviet units, because Soviet defense is defense in depth, so most Soviet units are not on the front line. But Axis defense is quite different from Soviet defense. Rather than defending with depth, Axis defends with strong points. So later on for Axis in 1944/45 (and also in winter 41-42), most Axis units are defending on the front line, and accordingly they gain CPP more slowly than Soviets do when Soviets are defending.

Moreover, since Axis has fewer units, when they are on the offensive in '41 etc, if you have an Axis Panzer that moves one hex behind the front line in order to gain CPP faster, then that often means (especially in the early part of '41) there is empty hex on the front at the start of the Soviet turn. Then the Soviet player can simply have a highly expendable NKVD/airborne/cavalry unit walk into that hex, which means Axis then has to attack that unit just to get back to where they started at the end of the last Axis turn. And in the process of attacking it, Axis loses CPP and also creates a combat delay etc.

[Seminole]

I was thinking something like a Soviet CPP growth modifier.
So they gain at the normal rate with this:
*.25 in 41
*.50 in 42
*.75 in 43
*1.0 in 44-45

The Soviets, if careful, can accrue some pretty extraordinary strength early. And I don’t mean in stalemating the Germans but in the counter attack.

I don’t have late game Soviet or Axis experience to comment on how CPP may be tweaked for them, I was the thinking by being normalized in the late game the Soviets should be awfully powerful.

On the supply side, I think part of the problem is that the Soviets can spam a depot network cheaply on an existing rail net and then lean on organic supply distribution to save trucks. The extra supply cost doesn’t seem to negate the benefits of short supply paths.

I think in my next Soviet campaign I’ll apply my own supply restriction with regard to depot placement early game and then try to follow own rail unit stipulation just to see how the supply situation shakes out in comparison to the campaigns I’ve had to so far.

[Seminole]

Regarding CPP, one part of the issue is that, honestly, Soviets don't really need the assault fronts in '41. Or at least don't really need 2.

However, if assault fronts were simply removed, that would have an undesirable consequence of discouraging Soviets from counterattacking (which would be totally ahistorical).

I have never even used them as the Soviet player.

[Beethoven1]

Regarding CPP, one part of the issue is that, honestly, Soviets don't really need the assault fronts in '41. Or at least don't really need 2.

However, if assault fronts were simply removed, that would have an undesirable consequence of discouraging Soviets from counterattacking (which would be totally ahistorical).

I have never even used them as the Soviet player.

You're missing out. But you are right, the fact that Soviets don't even really need assault fronts in '41 speaks to how powerful Soviets can be in '41. I myself actually only used 1 in my game against jubjub also (through turn 12), which was a mistake in terms of playing optimally, but I wanted to see if it could help me build forts (it doesn't really, Soviets build them too slowly in 1941 for it to make a difference).

[Beethoven1]

I was thinking something like a Soviet CPP growth modifier.
So they gain at the normal rate with this:
*.25 in 41
*.50 in 42
*.75 in 43
*1.0 in 44-45

The Soviets, if careful, can accrue some pretty extraordinary strength early. And I don’t mean in stalemating the Germans but in the counter attack.

I don’t have late game Soviet or Axis experience to comment on how CPP may be tweaked for them, I was the thinking by being normalized in the late game the Soviets should be awfully powerful.

I think we are all more or less in agreement that there is a problem involving Soviet CPP and supply, but figuring out the best solution raises some complexities.

There is always a feedback loop from any change to how players will react to it. Players may play differently in response. For example, as Soviets I normally defend fairly heavily on the land bridge and defend Smolensk. That is not necessarily because I think it is the best thing to do (though currently I don't think it is really a bad thing to do), but because currently it is viable, and it feels too gamey and ahistorical not to. If Soviets gained CPP slower, I might prefer to simply retreat further and start defending near Vyazma. Since that is further away, by the time Germany reached there, Soviets would have relatively more CPP.

There are some other possible issues - for example, if Soviets gained CPP more slowly in general as you are proposing, that would significantly hamper the winter offensive, which is not necessarily a good thing.

On the supply side, I think part of the problem is that the Soviets can spam a depot network cheaply on an existing rail net and then lean on organic supply distribution to save trucks. The extra supply cost doesn’t seem to negate the benefits of short supply paths.

I think in my next Soviet campaign I’ll apply my own supply restriction with regard to depot placement early game and then try to follow own rail unit stipulation just to see how the supply situation shakes out in comparison to the campaigns I’ve had to so far.

I think you are right that the fact that Soviets are falling back on their rail network/depots is part of what helps them to have good supply in '41. Also distance to NSS makes a big difference. The same is also true of Axis later in the game. If you try playing VTB for example, you can see in that Axis can get very good supply - perhaps unrealistically so. You can also see the same sort of thing to lesser degrees if you play other scenarios like StB and get far enough into late '43 or '44. Axis can, at least under those circumstances, put on supply priority 4, and I am not sure if the truck losses are enough to make that a bad idea (especially for units which are getting horse supply, but also for other units that are fairly close to depots). So the issues causing Soviet supply to be so good in '41 are not necessarily purely Soviet issues or purely '41 issues.