USSR

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: Philippe at bay

When I was still playing the Barbarossa scenario I noticed that to make encirclements work I would have to make sure the pocket didn't include a city, because next turn the troops in the pocket would be beefed up to full strength with reinforcements.

Perhaps it would make sense to put some kind of limitation on reinforcements to units that can only trace back to an isolated city. Given the scale of the game I can understand why an isolated Bialystok would be able to produce something from an emergency mobiliztion of workers despite being cut off from Stavka.

As things stand kiel und kessel tactics don't feel right. I shouldn't have an incentive to storm cities with my Panzers.

This feature is already in place, so it may be then that we have a bug because any isolated resource, unless it is an Industrial Center or Primary Supply Center, shouldn't provide sufficient supply to any friendly units to reinforce to full strength unless a HQ is present.

Even then, if the HQ is at low strength then it still may not suffice.

Can you please check and report what the supply status of these isolated cities is where units are reinforcing to full strength, and which ones they are?

[dhucul2011]

One thing that needs to be fixed is the morale of the USSR.

On intermediate I have captured Smolensk, Leningrad and Rostov and the USSR national morale is still at 105%. Most of their units are hovering around 101-105% morale while mine are about 60-70% morale.

Adjusting this properly may make a big change in how strong the USSR is.

[BillRunacre]

For them to be over 100% they must have received some boost, possibly from the USA joining the Allies?

This will distort the situation as it overrides a certain amount of loss on the Eastern Front.

[dhucul2011]

Yes, the USA joined. Considering the gains I have made in the USSR is it realistic to have over 100% morale though?

[BillRunacre]

I know what you're saying. It might be a bit tricky because if we reduce the boost from the USA entering the war then it will have to be compensated for over a longer period. I'll have a think. [:)]

[TheBattlefield]

I have also been surprised every time when the moral of the Russians goes vertically by the roof at war entry of the Americans. And this happens in the first year of war where the red army is more than only under pressure and also still the winter event approaches for the Axis powers. If I surely remember there is a second "the Russians are glad because the war in the east still continues" moral push. I suppose, this event is bound to a time and variable condition and could look also a little bit arranged with a war course unfavorable for the red army.

May the moral push not be graded during the following years? Starting sometime after the winter event and at the beginning of a possible counteroffensive? Perhaps, local-engaged, as a realistic reward for held positions,(alternative)capital and/or recaptured places with prestige at a defined time?

[BillRunacre]

We do have a number of boosts for resupplying the USSR's National Morale, so I'll look at those and see which ones can be increased, or new ones added that would make her NM graph look a bit more realistic.

[sPzAbt653]

As I recall, the USSR surrendered in my last game when their morale hit 60%. So maybe when their morale is at 100$ or higher, it is a little bit misleading.

[sPzAbt653]

It's extremely frustrating that surrounded Soviet units in cities are so tough to beat.

I had the same thoughts and posted about it some time ago. I got some advice that helped, but more helpful was when I played as the Soviets against the computer Axis. I saw how the computer cut thru my cities like butter by cutting their rail lines and then using the Strategic Bomber unit.

I don't quite get the 'four unit surround' rule, but in the above case it is not necessary and therefore becomes a non-issue.

One other thing worth a repeat mention is that I still think the Soviet Resource Values are too high for the period when they first enter. I think I have seen other resources start low and go higher over time. Would it be reasonable to have Soviet Resources start low and then raise each turn after they are at war ? .

[sPzAbt653]

Here is an extreme case - Murmansk, cut off from the rest of the world for about a year now, but the corps reinforces to '6' each turn, and the town never goes below '3'. The Pocket Battleship blasts the port to '0' each turn, one of the German corps seems to take a hit with each attack, and the recently arrived Tac also takes a few hits. I am currently moving another corps to the area, and if that doesn't work then I will finally move the German Strategic Bomber unit there. [The German Rail Guns also do a fine job of reducing resources, although I think that giving them 3 shots is a bit generous].

In this case I think the rules work well. Murmansk was a very difficult area to operate in for the Axis, and should require some effort to capture. Also, if I had moved four corps to the area initially, the Soviet unit would have only lasted maybe two turns.

[Philippeatbay]

I played the older version of the Barbarossa up to October '41, and am about to start over again with the new version.

Apart from the possible (because I haven't played the new version yet) issue of isolated towns re-supplying themselves too much, my biggest gripe is the unrealistic unit density on the Soviet side. By late summer '41 (in the old version) I was having trouble finding Soviet units to kill, apart from the few that were clustered around the obvious objectives.

I'm currently wondering if all of the program kicks in completely the first time you run it. Things were and/or weren't happening on that run-through that aren't and/or are happening now.

The (lack of) Soviet unit density issue is a real game breaker. For most people this won't be the first game they've played that touches on the Eastern Front, so they'll have certain expectations. Having the Eastern Front degenerate into a bug hunt for increasingly scarce Soviet units is not a good thing. What you want to see is a thick line of not very strong or capable units that become strong and capable over time and turn into a juggernaut. I really don't like the fact that there seem to be more troops on both sides in North Africa than in the central theater of the Eastern Front (i.e. Army Group Center). I keep looking for the horde of conscripts, but there doesn't seem to be one.

Hopefully some of this will get addressed in this and future scenario fixes.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

more helpful was when I played as the Soviets against the computer Axis. I saw how the computer cut thru my cities like butter by cutting their rail lines and then using the Strategic Bomber unit.

Yes, that's the way to do it, cut off their supply connections and then hit them in the following turn! [:)]

I don't quite get the 'four unit surround' rule, but in the above case it is not necessary and therefore becomes a non-issue.

We're now experimenting with it being a "two unit surround" rule.

[BillRunacre]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

The Pocket Battleship blasts the port to '0' each turn, one of the German corps seems to take a hit with each attack

There's no need to actually attack the port, as the presence of a naval unit of yours adjacent to an enemy port will prevent that port from providing supply to enemy land forces.

[dhucul2011]

Hi Bill:

A few thoughts on the USSR.

1. Your idea of a two unit surround is a good one. I have four Hungarian corps and an army with an HQ attacking Pinsk and it has held out for two years!
2. Consider reducing the Soviet Mobilization bonus slightly in 1941-1942 but adding it back in 1943 and onwards.
3. Consider adding NM reductions for the loss of Stalingrad, Smolensk and Leningrad just like the one for Moscow. (Right now I think it's just Axis NM that goes up with these cities?)
4. Let the USSR have divisions. They are cheaper and would fill out the Soviet front lines somewhat.

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: Bill Runacre

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
The Pocket Battleship blasts the port to '0' each turn, one of the German corps seems to take a hit with each attack

There's no need to actually attack the port, as the presence of a naval unit of yours adjacent to an enemy port will prevent that port from providing supply to enemy land forces.

I had known that, but if I blast it to '0' with the naval unit it also provides no supply to the land unit, and then I can move that same naval unit off to raid the Arkhangel convoy, on the same turn. That unit can go back and forth for five turns before it has to return to Petsamo port to resupply [and at some point it has gotten iced in there and stuck until winter ends, lol].