Question regarding PvP value of AoC Barbarossa scenario

[sokulsky]

I've decided to buy AoC for Barbarossa campaign, mostly to play it PvP via PBEM once I'll get a grasp of the game, but after reading through the official and some other AAR's I get the feeling that this scenario favours Soviet too much in multiplayer and seems to be balanced mostly for SP players.

In AAR's from MP it seems that it looks like that:

1941: Pretty historical, masses of soviet units get destroyed, GER player has a chance to achieve the historical outcome for Wermacht, but he has to be really good if his opponent knows well how to act and not repeat the soviet mistakes (Captain Hindsight pretty much makes it hard for GER)

1942 Spring: thanks to Captain Hindsight playing on SOV side, Spring of 1942 actually looks like Autumn of 1942 and instead of launching some effective push into Caucasus, GER player makes a limited push that gets crushed easily by the well prepared SOV player. Hardly a historical outcome as combat value of soviet units was still far below their GER counterparts and it hasn't really changed until 1943. Stop & amass tactic used by competent SOV players in AAR's wouldn't work IRL.

1942 Autumn: Ingame 1942 Autumn suddenly mutates into historical 1943 Autumn and Axis forces are desperately trying to stop the avalanche.

I've not seen Stalingrad played anywhere.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't look like a decent depiction of Barbarossa to me.

Could someone reassure me that there's enough space left for the effect of decisions for GER/Axis player to actually pull it off with some brilliant move against competent SOV player and capture Leningrad/Stalingrad/Moscow or is it rather "This guy knows he should pull back&amass, I hope I'll be able to survive until scenario end" kind of scenario?

[Strategiclayabout]

Hello sokulsky ,

- I can assure you of two things:

1) Germans have a clear chance.

2) Other campaigns than Barbarossa are absolutely worth a try.

- Given what you say for 1941-42 I think the main problem is you didn't destroy enough soviet forces in low supply. It's easy to roll over red units early but if you don't encircle them properly first they will come back quickly enough to bury your panzers under their mass.

- Stalin gets enough MPPs to buy back nearly everything you destroy in the first few turns thanks to the Great patriotic War effort. So playing the MPPs game isn't an advantage for Axis. That leaves two other options:

1) production delay

Regular tank units need 4 monthes to be produced or to come back if destroyed in low supply, only two if destroyed with good supply. Same goes for armies and divisions (with lower delay of course: 3/1,5 and 2/1).

2) force pool limit

Take light tanks: each unit you destroy is lost for Russians so you don't have to worry about encircling them an killing them on low supply (though they're easier to destroy like that).

- So if you just destroy starting soviet masses with frontal assaults you'll see them back at the end of summer. You NEED to delay them to create a temporary troops shortage for Stavka. With a widening front your panzers will still be able to find gaps to maneuver late in Summer/Autumn instead of running in enemy concentrations everywhere.

- Each unit you keep encircled in your back can't be bought back so you can delay their destruction a bit to weaken future Red Army offensives. Even more true for those pesky divisions as they don't look like much but when Stalin pops those cheap roadblocks non stop in front of you they can be very irritating.

- Think about late german encirlements at Kiev/Bryansk/Vyazma costing Stalin around 1,000,000 men. If you can replicate that you'll have another chance in 1942. Otherwise you'll face the dreaded "red unit triple line" before 43-44 and that view is quite demoralizing indeed .

- One last thing I want to say is to think a lot about how Axis allies units are used. They cost more to maintain and it's easy to be reckless with them despite their poor HQs. They can eat up a lot of MPPs before you even know it and decrease significantly your overall combat power if exposed too much.

I hope that will help .

[Big Al]

I've played wargames for over 30 years now so I have seen them come and go. One of my main focuses is deep thinking strategy and A.I. for the games I make. I've seen a lot of games come and go that offer no real significant critical analysis in their play.

It sounds like I'm tooting my own horn but I played over 20 test games myself with some very good opponents and I always ask for honest feedback. With one beta tester who is pretty brilliant at strategy even he kept learning new tactics each game we played. We tried every way to attack and defend finding loopholes in the game and balance issues. In there end I think we never discovered all the strategic possibilities.

Each game you play you will learn something which keeps the game fresh. The skill balance between 2 players isn't linear, its exponential in difference just like it is in chess or no limit holdem. A wrong strategic decision would affect a whole front line.

I posted some strategy tips in the AoC forum.

For the Germans think is dislodging a position and forcing a retreat more than "I gotta blow up X units" because if you force a retreat you remove their entrenchment and its a lot easier to destroy them. If they stay in the face of the line break you have some nasty encirclements.