The Initial Russian front line is bad for the game.

[zappsweden]

The initial russian frontline sure does not look like a front line to me. Armies combined with gaps, what a joke.

The sterotype initial setup of russian units enables the Axis player to practice opening turns and eventually become expert at surrounding or killing half of russia in just one turn.

THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH i.e we have 2 "turn one scenarios"

1) Axis surrounds odessa, pours through the northern river and surrounds or kills all other armies, leaving them on supply level 0. Also, Axis makes naval landings near Leningrad and attacks the ship plus attacks the other ship with his 3 naval units.

result: This scenario forces UK and USA to make DESPERATE immature landings in France, Norway, Belgium or somewhere else to buy Russia time. A good axis player lets the allies land then wears them out.

2) Axis screws up and russia escapes with some CRUCIAL armies and is able to stabilize a strong front line further back in Russia.

result: Russia can establish a strong front line somewhere plus continuosly delay Axis advance. UK and USA can build up a strong force and strike after a couple of build up turns.

WHAT IF:

Russia had their initial setup pulled back just one square to hinder the surrounding. That would be great and be playable for all those who do not feel like practising combinations just to be able to win. WE DO NOT WANT THE FIRST TURN TO BE DECEISIVE FOR THE WHOLE RUSSIA WAR, DO WE?

[ January 31, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[JerseyJohn]

In the actual war Odessa was surrounded by land, supplied by sea and put up a hard resistence till the 16th of October.

The Russian ships at Lenningrad were docked and used as heavy artillery.

Neither of which can be done in SC.

The worst thing about the poor initial placement of Soviet units is those who play frequently can play specifically to crush it in the opening weeks. Looks like either the Soviet defense needs to be changed, or a random neutral OB created specifically for Russia -- the U. S. doesn't need it and Italy is a seperate OB problem that is more easily solved.

Assuming the Soviet frontier armies will be crushed at the start, perhaps the answer is to assign 1000 or so MPPs to the USSR at the start, enabling them to create either four armies or eight corps to delay the onslaught.

[ January 31, 2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[John DiFool]

Design decisions... If, as a game designer, you

believe in giving the player total and complete

control of his forces, then letting the Russians

be stuck with the hopelessly flawed historical

border defense we have in the game is being

inconsistent [sorry Hubert! ]. In SC2 neutral

majors really should be active, which would avoid

this sort of thing (which also afflicts the

Italians).

John DiFool

[SeaWolf_48]

The Russians were not ready for June 22, it was a supprise to them, their airforce was destroyed in a few days, and the German PanzerBlitz cut thru them like a hot knife thru butter.

However, I think that their troops were distributed better than in SC's openning for the Ruskies. Jersey is right that they rebounded after about four months with green troops over the 1200 mile front. The Russian winter saved their butts, we all know about that winter and what it did to the Germans. Again, do we care about historic applications, or the mechanics of the game.

[HankWWIIOnline]

Yeah...but we ALL know Germany will be attacking Russia, unlike their historical counterparts. I guess forcing the player to always stay historical works if you want the same outcome everytime.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by HankWWIIOnline:

I guess forcing the player to always stay historical works if you want the same outcome everytime.

Well said.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The key to the defense of Russia, is in the establishment of a second defensive line. The best you can hope for the first line (one on the border), it to save some of them. But don't sweat it if you don't. However, do not waste your Guard Tank armies. You need to conserve them for later use. Same with your air... don't lose it (even if it means you don't use them).

Your second line is built with newly purchased Corps. You need to take advantage of the terrain, because you won't have enough Corps to make a continuous north south line. But that should be your goal... this line is based at Kiev. Good Axis player will punch thru, you need forces behind the lines to plug that gap and reestablish the line.

Since the battle with Russia is the critical point, everything before then is based on this. From the Allied viewpoint, you need to keep Axis units away from Russia. So you need to kill them or pin them on the Western Front.

The only Russian units you would be purchasing are the Corps. No Armies, no Air, no Armor, no HQ. Your HQ are your cities. However, assuming you can, it is critical to have a Army garrison in Lenigrad and Moscow. The sooner the better (since you want them entrenched as much as possible). Attrition warfare. Slug it out, WWI style. The Germans can outmanuever you, so don't let them do it. When you are ready for a counter offensive, then, and only then should you think about purchasing Armies (maybe even Armor, if you have done really well).

Thanks,

Barry

[JerseyJohn]

I have two main problems with the Soviet Front of this game and they both involve the Russian Winter.

It isn't just a WW II issue; three would be conquerers (Charles XII, Napoeon & Hitler) were virtually destroyed by it and numerous others who might have invaded Russia didn't primarily due to the distances and the severe winters.

In the game the Germans never lose momentum. Sure, it becomes more difficult for them to bring up new units, but that's just a normal tactical issue. Every Russian winter should give the Russians a five month reprieve and the first one actually cost Germany tens of thousands of casualties completely on it's own.

I like the way Russian Winter is handled in COS, where the Axis units furthest east are effected most severely. Snow, combined with mud, are key factors this game is badly in need of.

We aren't talking about being forced to repeat history, we're talking about a major facet of reality that has been totally ommited!

If weather won't be a factor then something else needs to be incorporated to simulate the effects. As it is German units operate in Russia the same way in each season. In reality they could do little more than defend during the snow and mud months, even in the southern areas like Stalingrad.

[ February 01, 2003, 04:20 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

You do have a point, that the combat effects of weather are not represented here. I wonder though, if it is possible to simulate weather in SC without a major revision to the software. You have any ideas on how to represent the weather effects in combat, within the current context of SC? Would something as simple as adding a combat bonus to the Russian units in the winter months be sufficient?

Thanks,

Barry

[Piumarcobaleno]

Well, just like partisans can hinder axis supplies, maybe russian winter could make axis' readiness in russia drop: that way axis troops would not attack (low readiness, high losses), and russian troops could take the momentum, or even sit in and entrench. Maybe it could last 3 turns, during the first and the third it could strip say 30 readiness, and up to 50 in the second.. Or maybe divide russia in sectors, from west to east, and in these russian winter turns the most westward sector could have a -10 read. for axis'troops, and an increasing -10 par every sector going north-east.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka & Mr. P.

Good ideas all around. Of course I'd rather have weather but if the methods you propose were adapted it would be close enough.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ok, someone should nominate a method as the suggestion of choice, let everyone else take a poke at making it better, then once a good method has been hashed out, suggest it to Hubert.

Remember, we are talking about SC, and we are trying to make a simple change that doesn't require alot of software changes or added units. More elaborate methods belong more in a discussion of SC II.

[SeaMonkey]

Definitely go with Mr. P's suggestions, this is exactly what I'd hoped for from the "Russia Devastated" thread, only both sides should suffer % readiness reduction and lower supply could reduce action points, simulating the effects of Russian winter. Since the game has been extended, these 3 turns per year shouldn't impact the game detrimentally. The initial placement of the Red Army's frontier forces works well by simulating the historical blitz of the Germans (RB is to Smolensk in 2 turns), but the inactive period in the winter will give them time to recover. Another effect is that now the Axis will have to start their Barbarossa with an abundance of good weather turns ahead as historically was the case. These effects (reduced readiness and supply) could also be activated randomly (scarce one turn events)to simulate instances of bad weather throughout the year, possibly grounding aircraft for a turn, disallowing spotting, etc.

[Liam]

If you want a Russian oriented Front War<as it should be anyways> That's were most the Great Battles happened in Europe. Then you should withdrawl the capabilities of the Allies to prematurely land in France and then throw in about 8 to 12 corps in for the Russians which was fairly accurate. They were cut to shreds...but it is true there isn't enough to cut to shreds. Though the Russian goes with a Fin Gambit and the Ally uses French Delay tactics to win the War rather than decided it in Russia solely. Which would make this into a BOB game instead of Barbarossa Game which it should be. Small chance of taking Britian, quite a decent chance of taking Russia... Give Russia 3 or 4 cities she doesn't have BTW... Help Supply and Defense

[KDG]

I was just reading the SC user manual and came across the following:

"There will be a 15% chance of partisan activity during Axis occupation of the USSR. Partisan activity consists of the creation of partisan

units somewhere behind Axis lines within the USSR. This percentage increases to 75% during winter occupation months".

First, does this increase really happen in the Winter. If so, we have some options to make the winter more miserable for the Germans.

We could

A) Make all turns 2 weeks a piece. Thus instead of just 3 winter turns, we would have 6.5 winter turns, thus twice as many turns at 75% chance of partison activity.

or

Keep the weeks as they are, but change the pct to 90%, almost guarenteeing 3 partison units per Winter.

This would make life a bit more hectic for the Germans during the Winter, much like real life. This should also be in the realm of the existing programming.

[Night]

I made a topic about this yesterday explaining how my game was going terribly because the Axis were simply crushing the Russin's. But let's not forget that in real life... this happened. It isn't suppost to be an easy fight for Russia and they were damn close to losing it no matter what anyone say's. The German's were basicly at Moscow and were close to taking Stalingrad, etc. The farther into Russia the German's push in-game, the harder it is for them to keep up. Around the time they reach Moscow, if you have played as best you could and just simply stalled as much as possible, they begin to run outta steam. In some cases, like mine, it take's some good start. to get yourself outta the hole but if you start the game getting ready to fight in Russia it is a little easy. Obviously you can do nothing with Russia it self but you can start to tie up and kill more German troops and keep as much as possible from the Russin front. It is basicly the best way to win that front of the war, tie up unit's somewhere else.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Night

Comparing what happend in real life to what happens in SC when it comes to East Front combat is misleading. The Russians don't have the same advantages and disadvantages (nor do the Germans) that occurred in real life. So expecting combat to flow as it did historically doesn't work.

If the Axis follow a "historical" path, when Russia enters the war, the Axis are at a MPP disadvantage. Allies outproduce them. Axis have to kill the Allied units faster than they can replace them. At the same time, they cannot afford to lose alot of units, otherwise its a phyrric (?) victory. If this occurs AND the Axis is gaining territory (ie new MPPs), then the Allies have lost.

If the Axis grab every neutral they can ("ahistorical"), depending on how they accomplish it, once Russia enters, they may be near parity, but never exceed the Allies (unless they've eliminated UK AND have not lost alot of units doing it). Then its back to the attrition war, seeing who can kill the most units AND increase MPP production faster than the other.

Everything you've described, covers the above. Thats why its critical to keep Russia out of the conflict as long as possible, and bleed the Axis as much as possible before Russia comes in.

My point is, that yes, you are correct, it is not an easy fight. But for different reasons than the historical ones.

[Liam]

I know but the US's industrial wealth is also misrepresented. So is the D-day Situation<being that the Allies would have had to wait a long time to gather in order to perform a real invasion...the cost of morale and men if they were to have lost in Normandy would've been huge on those Westerners> Though the Winter was harsh on German's in 41, it only stemmed the tide. Allowed the Russians to retake Rostov in the South and some territory in the North. The Germans held up more or less!

It gave the Russians precious time however to regroup, what the Russian had then was time to rethink and wait! Then Hitler blundered and went South...

[zappsweden]

On the German-Russia border, Axis place his border adjacent units like this (starting in the north stretching south).

corps

army

corps

army

army

fast (corps or tank)

army

army

fast

...

...

...

all the way down to rumania. When axis attack russia he attacks with the armies and then push the corps and tanks around the russians. If executed properly most of russian armies (including Odessa) is surrounded on turn 1, leaving Russia with a 50% loss of units in just 2 turns

[ February 07, 2003, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

Why could not the russian border armies split to corps (hence making a proper front line) like Hubert did with Italy before in a patch?

[ February 06, 2003, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Night]

That actually isn't a bad idea zapps. But honestly I think it only need's a little refining. If you do it to much then the opisite will whind up happening and Russia will be nearly impossible to beat. The starting unit's might need slight adjustment, but let's not go crazy and make the German opening move a suicide march...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Whats wrong with the loss of the units on the border? Russia has more than enough MPP's to buy replacement Corps. Isn't that kinda the point? Even if you line units up one on top of another, all the Germans have to do is pick a unit to hit with air, eliminate that unit, then pour panzers/corps thru to encircle the other units.

[Wachtmeister]

Agree with Shaka. The Russian initial set-up is indeed unfavorable, but SC Allied players do not muddle about in confusion for weeks like the historical Russian High Command(STAVKA)did. Stalin himself went into shock and became non-functional for something like 10 days.

In WWII, the Wehrmacht took Riga, Minsk, and Smolensk, threatened Leningrad, and surrounded Kiev + Odessa, all by mid-Aug '41. In SC this feat is difficult against the AI, and next to impossible against a human opponent.

[JerseyJohn]

Same Posting is copied to KDG's Forum on the Russian Winter, which I hadn't yet seen when this was posted. In any case, it's applicable to both topics.

If a provision is made for weather would it be within the framework of variable turns or consitent turn legnth?

I'd recommend keeping the variable turn legnth as it reflects hard weather across the entire map. Unfortunately this isn't relevant in North Africa or southernmost Spain and Italy, but that's a minor trade off.

Winter weather, whatever system is adapted to reflect it, should, from the German viewpoint, have increasing severity for units as they move farther east and north in Russia.

I see no problem with units in severe winter areas having a forced inactivity for several consecutive turns. It's even historical. It would allow the Soviets to regroup shattered units (instead of losing them in subsequent combat) and would also force the Axis to plan their offensives for warm weather months. Further, it would put a premium on planning the initial drive to utilize as many warm weather months as possible knowing the Russian Mud and Winter will slow things down, then stop the offensive altogether.

I think Clash of Steel handled the weather perfectly. If we had something along those lines in this game it would be a megaleap in the right direction.

[ February 07, 2003, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[nonsuch]

This is one of those situations where there is always a clash between historical feel and play balance. There is clearly a problem with the fixed deployment in the game but that probably goes for all the scenarios. It has been tackled in numerous ways in board wargaming. Whilst I favour a free deployment of units prior to invasion (as in AH russian campaign), this still allows the (Soviet) to work out an optimum placement of troops.

As far as the winter situation is concerned a tweak on the supply rules can fix this but that isn't really the answer. The Soviets suffered from the cold just as much as the germans - they were not all siberian guard divisions decked out in helly hansen's finest! Their big advantage was that in their supply lines (and their numbers)

Many games have adressed this in a simple fashion - for instance if an Axis Unit is not adjacent to a city, movement and combat strength are halved. This seems fine to me. After all it wasn't the shortages that screwed them up it was the inability to get them to the front. As for the suggestion that the Axis shouls lose strength simply because of the winter - I can;t go along with it. We are in charge not Hitler. Whether they should lose experience to reflect morale loss from retreating - well that is another issue!