Problem with initial Russian Forces?

[dgold07]

I am playing the '39 scenario as the Allies at normal setting. I built as much as I could as the Russian, while spending some on research. Besides 1 tank, I only built Inf armies and corps.

The Axis AI attacked in May or June '41 - cutting through my front armies like butter. I had even pulled back 2-4 hexes from the border, in defensible terrain.

By late November Leningrad is almost gone, I am barely holding on to Moscow, Sevastopol is going and Rostov has fallen.

I am starting to get Siberians, but they will barely help me hold Moscow.

The problem is that the initial Russian setup plus peacetime production does do not have enough initial units to both have some kind of a front line screen as well as have a few reserves to hold cities back from the border.

Replacing killed armies takes 4 turns (8 weeks) -which is too long. Perhaps replaced armies, as well as being cheaper (which they are), should be built faster (2-3 turns).

I fired up the Barbarossa scenario and the initial Russian forces are at least double what I could muster starting in Sept '39, plus the research points were almost double what I had managed to scrape together in my game.

Why such a difference in the Russian armed forces between the Barbarossa setup and the '39 forces plus the allowable builds '39-'41? I expected some differences, but not by a factor of 200%.

I am an old wargamer so I know how to play the Russians in defense.

Any ideas?

[Timskorn]

I've found that pooling your initial units in defensive positions near Moscow, and a smaller delaying force south near Kharkov and the mines is a better strategy than front-line defense.

The Russians have the advantage of full supply lines. The deeper the Germans go, the more vulnerable they become. Allowing them to grab a few early cities without much of a fight (sometimes I leave a Corp. in Minsk and Rostov for delay), might not seem smart, but it's OK to give up ground in Russia. You have a lot of it.

When the Russian winter hits, that's when you strike. This is the best time to hit the Germans. They lose strength and supply and their deadly air is grounded. Stretch their lines, cut them off where you can and take advantage of Russia's winter.

You need to delay the Germans as much as possible and sap as much MPP's from them as you can until your US and UK buddies can start doing enough damage to divert Axis forces away from Russia.

[Wolfpack]

Best thing for me has been to try and make sure to pull as much of my forces back as I can before they die. Rather than waste money to reinforce a unit that will only die next turn anyway, I'll operate them back. Do what you can to delay them, put corps in the forward cities early so they have time to settle in, then hold for a turn or two and pull back unless the Germans don't throw enough forces at you and you think you can hold a couple of turns longer. It's usually a bit easier to hold on longer in the south than it is in the north, aside from Leningrad.

If you keep your forces intact, pulling back and reinforcing, then when the winter hits, you'll have a nice sized force available to do as much counterattacking done as you can before the weather improves again.

[asgard]

Yeah don't hold on to any city until the germans approach the historical frontier: leningrad-moscow-kharkov.

To hold moscow is cake as long as you built the frontal fortification.

I however dont retreat the corps from riga or any of the earlier cities. Whats the point of retreating them? Reinforce them so they can delay the axis as approach to your porposed defensive line(leningrad-moscow-kharkov). I play very defensive in leningrad(simple dont attack just reinforce). In moscow I only attack when the odds are good(behind the fortification ofcourse). I put most of my forces in the south to contain the German expansion and to attack them there. They are the weakest in the south(using minor countries units). However their airpower is something youre going to have to figure out how to deal with.

My strategy for fall weiss is buy an HQ for soviets, 2 anti- air, one artillery, the rest is research and corps. One research I always try is anti-air. Put the HQ near leningrad but behind the river, put the anti air just south-east of leningrad and the artillery just behind that tiny lake south of leningrad and the HQ safely behind them. This will make leningrad a tough nut to crack. AI cant anyway. The other antiair I put in the south so when siberian reenforcements come I have 2 HQs and two antiwair in the south(if you plan to be more active on this part of the front). Works pretty well.

[Moonslayer]

All good advice above. The difference for me is that I usually defend the first cities with 2 corps. This slows down the surrounding of the city and could buy an extra turn or two of time... any delay is good as long as it doesn't cost too much in manpower. I also invade Finland pretty much as soon as Barbarossa starts. This achieves a couple of objectives: first, it stops Leningrad from being surrounded and also draws some attention from the German air and naval forces. An added advantage of taking Finland is it gives you a great spot to harass German troops from the sea and the air... not to mention valuable battle experience.

[Minty]

Dgold07, it sounds like your forces are still quite advanced. Supply is a critical in SC2 and west of Kharkov German supply is too strong. He'll make mincemeat out of you.

Pull back, delay him but be prepared to lose at least 4 or 5 cities without wiping out your whole forces. Then make a stand in 42/43 from deeper in Russia. Even losing Moscow is not a big deal, russia is a big place.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

If you can afford it (big if) try to invest in a few tanks, and hit his tanks (via the double attack) when they are a bit overextended. Even if you lose your tank in the counter-counterattack you are still ahead in the trade (lost experience for the Germans).

[dgold07]

I appreciate all the great defensive setup pointers, guys. This will help me a lot.

Perhaps I could here from the Developer and/or Scenario Developer about the huge discrepancy between the Russian forces in the Barbarossa scenario vs the maximum potential Russian start units + builds to June '41, starting with the '39 scenario.

Thanks.

[Hubert Cater]

dgold07,

The 41 campaign essentially tries to recreate the historical OOBs plus or minus a few units for the current scale of the game. Now as for why there might be a discrepency it is difficult to say as it would take quite a few games before you could definitely say for sure that there is a mismatch between the 41 campaign and what you might possibly achieve with the 39 scenario. For example, depending on your research developments you may have more Soviet MPPs available via IT research etc., as well as factors such as which countries the Germans have invaded and DoW upon as this has an affect on Soviet readiness which directly links to the number of MPPs received per turn.

[dgold07]

Thanks for the reply, Hubert.

What about reducing the time to build destroyed corps and armies by 1 or 2 turns?

This would help the Russians stop the Axis horde, and would simulate staff and some seasoned troops escaping to re-build old units - faster than building them from scratch.

[Hubert Cater]

dgold07,

They already are reduced in time, i.e. those with an asterik '*' beside the name are not only cheaper but will be built in IIRC 60% the normal build time.

[Philippe]

Does all of this mean that if you start with the 1939 scenario and it plays out pretty much the way WW II actually did, if you make the kind of decisions Stalin made (paranoia and purges?) you should end up with an order of battle that looks pretty much like the 1941 scenario ?

Real life was not optimized. If you play WW II over and over again at the strategic level you'll develop some pretty good tricks. But the real WW II was played by people who were playing for the first time, and often fumbling their way through the manual and the index as they went along. The historical outcome in any simulation game should always be possible, but shouldn't necessarily be any more likely than it was in reality at that time. Sometimes what really happened was a bit of a fluke, and making the judgement call on how to portay that fluke is a key part of the game designer's job.

Many of us play these games so that we can change history. But to really change history you need to be reassured that you can reproduce history if you want to. If you can't mirror history, you aren't really changing it when something else happens -- you're just a prisoner of the game system.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

That 60% can be changed too in the editor IIRC.

[Sombra]

---

[ November 28, 2007, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[arado234]

Philippe you make some good points but i dont think its possible to make a strategic game so historically accurate to actually be able to change history.There are way to many variables that if you could actually include them all it would make the game so long and complicated that it may take you six years or longer to play.

I think SC2 has done a very good job in trying to make the game playable and fun and still be somewhat of a history changer.

At the tactical level the board game SquadLeader and its various addons came the closest to being historically very accurate.The people who played it will know what im talking about.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

dgold07,

The 41 campaign essentially tries to recreate the historical OOBs plus or minus a few units for the current scale of the game. Now as for why there might be a discrepency it is difficult to say as it would take quite a few games before you could definitely say for sure that there is a mismatch between the 41 campaign and what you might possibly achieve with the 39 scenario. For example, depending on your research developments you may have more Soviet MPPs available via IT research etc., as well as factors such as which countries the Germans have invaded and DoW upon as this has an affect on Soviet readiness which directly links to the number of MPPs received per turn.

Hubert, as I pointed out in another thread, it is clear to me that the problem is not with the 39 scenario but with the 41 scenario, which is insanely biased in favor of the Russians.

Henri

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Henri,

Thanks for the feedback and of course sometimes these things are just a matter of perspective and different from player to player.

Have you tried the 41 campaign in a multiplayer game to see if you can come up with similar results favouring the Allies?

[Liam]

My usual Russian Layout by August 1941 for the USSR in a Vanilla SC2 Game.

3-4 Tanks, the 6 initial starting armies, usually no more armies right off. 12-14 Corps 1 possibly 2 HQs if my IT and Production Hits well. The 1st Fighter, plus an additional Bomber/Fighter depending on my mood.

The only difference in all this if I hit IW and AT well, I will build more Armies instead of more tanks, which will mean 4-5 fully upgraded Armies. On top of all this 1 Engineer working fortifying key positions...

Doesn't seem off to me

[Moonslayer]

Wow, Liam. I usually get half a dozen corps, the engineers and some tech chits. That's a lot of stuff! Never had enough for more tanks/HQs. Maybe I put too much into tech then.

Usually the starting forces seem perfectly adequate to me. When the income goes up after DOW then I start to afford better units. Usually by Winter '41 I am ready to start hitting back; prior to that it's just retreat, retreat, retreat.

[Liam]

Moonslayer the one thing may be if your opponent plays Axis slowly, that means lower USSR readiness and naturally less units. Though the aggressive Axis players out there will raise your Readiness-MPPs to build lots... So may just be that ...

Originally posted by Moonslayer:

Wow, Liam. I usually get half a dozen corps, the engineers and some tech chits. That's a lot of stuff! Never had enough for more tanks/HQs. Maybe I put too much into tech then.

Usually the starting forces seem perfectly adequate to me. When the income goes up after DOW then I start to afford better units. Usually by Winter '41 I am ready to start hitting back; prior to that it's just retreat, retreat, retreat.

[Moonslayer]

True... the axis MO has a large impact on the finances of the motherland. I play the AI almost exclusively which would certainly qualify as a 'slow player'

[Iron Ranger]

At first I thought Laims OOB seamed heavy but he makes a good point. It all depends on how high the USSR readness gets early in the game. Add in hes stating that Augest 41, well after the June in vasion so many units put in the Q during the winter of 40/41 are on the board.