Russian economics

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Russian economics

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> Russian economics

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Russian economics - 4/17/2011 7:53:58 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

There have been some interesting posts and such about where the Germans should put their main effort(s) and what should be the main targets of the 1941 campaign.

I think most have Leningrad as a target since it has tangible benefits in releasing the Finns, which help tremendously with the first winter and also allow the Germans to redeploy at least 1 army to other parts of the line.

Moscow seems to have taken a back seat for most since there are no additional benefits in taking it other than the dislocation of industry, etc. In addition, because there are so many re-enforcements that appear in the immediate area, even a determined drive will meet stiff resistance on the land bridge area and continuing forward.

The south typically gets early attention simply because there are a ton of Russian units that start there and the more you can put out of action in the first couple of turns, the better. If you don't do it, the attack in the south is going nowhere very fast at all with bad results later on in the campaign.

Now, looking at all this from an economic stand point of view is a bit harder because it isn't very clear what can be done to cripple/slow down the Russian economy beyond capturing oil. Getting to Baku is not happening in 1941 and likely not to happen given Russian competent play, so I don't know that it can even be brought up for discussion. That leaves manpower, heavy industry, armaments, and resources as the other legs of the Russian economy.

I have divided up my study into thirds. The north third is basically west of Moscow and north of Torzhok. Center zone includes Torzhok to just north of Kiev and includes Moscow and west. South includes Kiev and south and west of Moscow (Note, this means Stalino is not included in the south initial area, but more on that later).

First off, you can disregard ever putting a meaningful dent in Russian manpower. They start with 3836. Couple with the fact that even if you have a surrounded Russian city, they still get to escape, it makes it very hard to "cripple" the manpower. While I did not count the tiny villages (north has little in the way of village population with center and south having a fair amount), I did add up all the cities in each area. North has 100, center 267 and south 217. This is about 15.2% or so, but again, a lot of it leaves and migrates elsewhere, so it isn't even that much.

Heavy industry: Russians start with 236 total. The only industry in the north is Leningrad with 8 points. Center has 31 with greater Moscow at 9 and the south with 33 with the biggest chunk being a 5. Both the center and south have over 13% each. Add it all together and you get around 30%. At 10k a wack to move, it is hard to get it all moved. Part of the issue for the center is that the majority of the industry there is within 10 hexes of Moscow. Only Minsk and Mogilev (total of 7) are under any real early threat. The industry in the south has a lot of it west of the river or right on the river.

Armaments: This (in my thinking) is one of the weak points of the Russian economy that if you get enough of it out of action, it will have an immediate and absolute effect on the Russian army. Without armaments, it will be difficult for the Russians to build all those guns they need to blow up the Axis with and it will also be harder to take advantage of the manpower they have to replace losses (IE, make rifles). The Russians start with 370 points. Greater Leningrad has 15 for 4% of the pie. The Greater Moscow area has 20 while the center area has a total of 50 for a 13.51% share. The south has D town and Kharkov at 16 and 15 as its two leaders while the entire area has 63 for a 17% share; significantly more than the center. Should you also include the Stalino area, Rostov, and Voroshilovgrad (just outside of our southern boundry), another 56 are located in this tiny area, which represents another 15% of the armaments industry. Taking north, center and south will be around 34.5%. Include Stalino, Rostov, and Voroshilovgrad and you are very close to 50%. At 6k a wack, they are easier to move than heavy industry. Like heavy industry, most of the center armaments are within 10 of Moscow while in the south, they are spread pretty evenly with most on or west of the river.

Resources: 196 to start with. The only area that offers resources is the south with 18 or roughly 9%. Resources are few and far between to get and much of the bigger producers are off map, so being able to harm the Russian economy in a meaningful way through capturing resources seems to be something that isn't going to happen.

Now, while I have presented a lot of numbers and made it sound in terms that the Russians can't move anything by rail, we all know they can and that most games feature very little getting run over by the Germans (About the only given is Minsk). In reality, the Russians can afford to move around 8 HI and 8 armaments each turn and they also have other factories to worry about, like the KV factory in Leningrad and the T34 factory in Kharkov being two of the huge factories they want to get moved out should those areas be directly threaten. Moscow and Leningrad have some other industry that need to be moved as well. The 8 HI and 8 armaments represent 128k of rail cap. This means that some troops coming in from the east will be walking and while some essential troop movements can take place, the Russians moving mass amounts of troops around is likely going to pay for not moving industry.

To me, grinding all this stuff out just sort of confirms my thought that the Germans need to make their main effort in the south. I still think Leningrad is a legit target to free up the Finns and to act as an anchor for the German left flank. While threatening Leningrad (and north) doesn't do much in terms of the war on the economy, there is some pressure there since the Russian must pay attention to it and getting the 8 HI, 15 armaments, the KV factory and some of the other stuff out of there will occupy a fair amount of rail cap. It could also make for an interesting situation should the Germans consider screening Leningrad and doing a "Marcks plan" with a strong drive in the center and south.

I also think this is a good point for the Russians in that if they have to choose between armaments and HI, I think you save the armaments first because more of it is at risk.

Post #: 1

RE: Russian economics - 4/17/2011 8:16:04 PM

Panama

Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline

Historically the Soviets moved the industry east and on the return trip hauled troops to the west. Not sure if or how this is represented.

_____________________________

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 2

RE: Russian economics - 4/17/2011 10:00:07 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

Great post.

The game is designed so that if the soviet player evacuates 50% of his factories before being overun by the Germans, then he will hit historical production.

Even with the large rail cost, I dont see this as being particularly difficult. Most arriving soviet units in the crucial first 17 turns are understrength or complete shells, which are very cheap to move. So the chances of catching any significant industry against a competent Soviet player IMO are slim.

I would imagine most games would see more than 50% of factories evacuated, meaning greater than historical soviet production.

As it stands, I would still say the benefits FAR outweigh the benefits of anywhere else, given that the Finns as good as represent an entire new German Army, especially during the crucial first winter.

I'm not saying this is necessarily how it should be, just how it is.

(in reply to Panama)

Post #: 3

RE: Russian economics - 4/18/2011 12:16:47 AM

Ridgeway

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

One lesson I just learned as Russians (first PBEM) is to RTFM....

A couple of times I had <10,000 rail points at the end of a turn, and decided to evac a small amount of a given AFV/Air factory, to get a head start on the next turn. I did not realize that doing so flushes the remainder of the factory. D'oh! I am now on 50% T-34s because I evac'd a small amount of the Kharkov factory. D'oh!! I am sure that the Saratov repair personnel will get that expanded any time now.....

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 4

RE: Russian economics - 4/18/2011 2:14:49 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

Good summary Klydon! The depressing thing is that it basically confirms my feeling, that there really isn't much the Axis can do to hurt the Soviet war economy.

In my experience of playing the Soviets in 41 against human opponents (twice), as far as I can remember the only factory that was lost and couldn't be evacuated was the Minsk factory. I would guess a competent Soviet player against a competent Axis will be able to save at least 80-90% of industry. That would then give the Soviets far more production than historically!

(in reply to Ridgeway)

Post #: 5

RE: Russian economics - 4/18/2011 2:41:37 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Just loaded the 42 scenario to check what they had compared to what they start with for giggles:

HI: 217 (down from 236) 92% of at start
Armaments: 339 (down from 370) 92% of at start
Resources: 160 (down from 196) 82% of at start
Oil: 128 (no change)
Fuel: 149 (no change)
Manpower: 2663 (down from 3836) 69% of at start

Bit surprised the manpower is down that much. Either that or I don't understand the "migration" messages correctly, etc.

Also surprised resources are down that much as well, although I don't think it is a big issue for the Russian economy. (IE, its not a choke point).

Ran a couple of turns. The resource centers are producing 160k a turn. The first turn, industry used 95k and said 8 centers didn't have enough so not sure if something had an issue or what. Either way, there are enough resource centers to supply the HI and then some.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 6

RE: Russian economics - 4/18/2011 3:01:04 PM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

I would imagine most games would see more than 50% of factories evacuated, meaning greater than historical soviet production.

This doesn't add up then. What the Soviets have in the 1942 scenario should be "historical". I don't know offhand how much of Soviet industry starts in the "threatened area" but it should logically take a much better than 50% evacuation rate to see a total production of the proportions in the 1942 scenario. Squatter, where does the 50% figure come from?

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 7

RE: Russian economics - 4/20/2011 12:33:14 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

He's probably misinterpreting

quote:

2. To maintain historical production figures the Soviet player
needs to move at least half of the capacity of the factories being
relocated.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 8

RE: Russian economics - 4/20/2011 3:45:38 PM

gids

Posts: 369
Joined: 12/2/2010
Status: offline

i am playing a GC now ,and my opponent went totally for leningrad and he got it alright,south he stopped at KIEV,thing is i almost didnt Have to move anything of my industry,a,d i succeeded to move some industry from leningrad but lit like 70% it there now ,how bad is he in problems?
-frontline goes almost like this odessa -kiev smolensk and then a bit up at leningrad its DEc 1941

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 9

RE: Russian economics - 4/21/2011 10:37:37 PM

Pillar

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline

this is awesome, thanks

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 10

RE: Russian economics - 4/21/2011 11:42:10 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

I'm playing my first GC'41 as Soviet against a pretty competent German opponent.

He's threatening Moscow for real and it's Turn 11.
He also started threatening Leningrad about turn 7 (but it might hold because I came 1 hex from cutting off his entire AGN with crappy divisions that managed to survive in his rear and flanks - though they all died the next turn).
In the south, he only got across the Dnepr at Kiev on T9 in force.

So I'm facing a simultaneous pressured attack on Moscow/Orel and/or Moscow/Rzhev, while also having to pace how quickly he will get to Kharkov and the Donets region.

That is the only thing thus far that's put any real pressure on my rail capacity. And that's because Moscow is stacked with factories - were it not for the threat to Moscow, I wouldn't be worried about any industry being captured.

A couple of points from the Soviet perspective and questions from same.

* Armaments are the choke point in 41. You have plenty of manpower, but you need to convert it to rifle squads. That takes armament points. As Soviet, I put all arty SUs on 50% TOE so that I can have maximum rifles made for maximum rifle squads.

* I agree that Baku can't be taken against competent Soviet play. Better to capture the needed population centers than fight in easily defensible terrain.

* Specific equipment-type factory locations are always vulnerable, because to move them by rail, you destroy anything you don't take with you (in terms of production capacity). So the Soviet has to decide how much he's willing to lose of an equipment-type. It is my understanding that you generally want to save 50%+1 capacity unit so the damage incurred in moving a factory can be repaired/rebuilt and production can re-commence.

* Given the point above, I think the Axis perspective in this thread might turn its attention to what's possible and helpful to take in terms of strategic equipment factory types. These are often the most expensive to move given that partial moves result in destroyed capacity.

* In addition, I think you should consider what is simultaneously possible to threaten. If unpressured, the Soviet rail capacity is perfectly adequate to save virtually all factories that are important over the 17 turns of 1941 blitzkrieg. Moreover, a Leningrad focus relieves pressure on Soviet industry considerations (which is an ironic and appropriate strategic tradeoff). If you emphasize Leningrad, you're not as likely to cause problems in the South or Center to production.

Soviet Points:
1) (Most Important) ALWAYS rail your reinforcements to the front before you move factories. Competent German play is pretty amazing, and with a few good morale and initiative checks, Moscow can fall. Against a good German, plugging holes in the line is more important than armament points, even.

2) Know that specific factories shut down and you don't need to move them (I have no idea which ones/when, but hopefully somebody does - I know the manual talks about the Moscow Mig3 factory shutting down in December 41, so no need to move it). You're not going to need T50s and lots of other crappy tanks and planes, so let their factories stay put till the Germans overrun them.

3) Vehicles aren't usually a problem in 1941 if you're playing your game right (disband unneeded ABs). I don't prioritize these.

4) For non-equipment-type factories (i.e., armaments, heavy industry, vehicles), spread your rail capacity around as needed. You don't need to move everything all at once. Prioritize armament factories over HI, especially as the Axis move further east. Armaments = filling your TOE, which is essential to getting Held results.

One final question for veterans of the SU GC'41.
If I'm going to lose Moscow between now and Mud, but I think, given low overall casualties, I might make a real charge at recapturing it in Blizzard, should I move the factories or should I let them be captured and re-take them damaged? How much damage would they take being fought over and captured versus the approximate 50% damage they take when being moved by rail?

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders

(in reply to Pillar)

Post #: 11

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 12:11:53 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

I don't think it is enough to look at what can be pressured as a group;

What MUST be taken into consideration is how fast you can do it and this is why Moscow drops off my radar a bit in 1941 as a German. Helio mentions that Moscow is being threaten, but its turn 11. That means he has had 9 turns worth of rail to move stuff out, which is a fair amount. My point is that the Axis can put heat on industry in both Leningrad and in the south far before turn 11. I guess a good question for Helio is how much of what from where has he moved so far (although he may not be able to do that since his game is on going). Leningrad itself also has a lot of stuff to move and probably holds the second most important factory (the KV1 factory) with the Kharkov T34 factory being the most important. The light tank factories do need to be checked because some do shut down while others convert to T34 production. Finally, one thing that is working for Helio since the Germans are attacking in the direction of Moscow is that there are a ton of re-enforcements that come in around Moscow, so it is easier to build up the lines there.

If he doesn't get moving in the south, its going to be bad news. Doesn't sound like he is really threatening anything yet if it is turn 11 already and he has not breached the river.

I totally disagree on the vehicle factories. They are absolutely a huge bottle neck for the Russians later on and will directly affect how well Russians can supply themselves away from their rail heads and also will be a determining factor in how many tank and mech formations they can support later on.

I really don't know first hand on losing Moscow and then regaining it, but overall, I would say it is likely not a good move from the standpoint of view that the Germans taking it will cause issues and when you take it back, it will take further losses.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 12

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 5:15:02 AM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

Alright, well stop me if this is thread-jacking, but since he asked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Klydon

What MUST be taken into consideration is how fast you can do it and this is why Moscow drops off my radar a bit in 1941 as a German. Helio mentions that Moscow is being threaten, but its turn 11. That means he has had 9 turns worth of rail to move stuff out, which is a fair amount. My point is that the Axis can put heat on industry in both Leningrad and in the south far before turn 11. I guess a good question for Helio is how much of what from where has he moved so far (although he may not be able to do that since his game is on going).

I moved most/all of Leningrad's industries of all moveable type early. It was threatened early. I didn't know some obsolete tank industries convert to T-34s. It would be good to know how to find this stuff out. The soviet admini-game is quite taxing as it is. At the time, not much was threatened elsewhere, and the Soviets get a pretty early lead on moving stuff in the south. Plus, and as the OP said, there's not much in the north except Leningrad, so it's an easy early priority.

Even going into T-11, I've been fine moving everything from the South in phases as I predicted whether he'd cross at Kiev or Dnepr-...osk (almost neither ;) ). Everything. But I held the South well, and this particular Axis player has given AGC more panzers (or so I hope...), thus the big thrust he's got going in the center.

The problem appears to me that I'm going to run into a bottleneck (if the German supply line doesn't start slowing him down soon) in my rail capacity moving Kharkov, the Donets region, and Moscow if I'm forced to move it all over the next 6 turns. I don't know if you can even maximize Moscow's evacuation alone in less than 3 turns, maybe even 4.

I think the bigger issue in light of the economic bent of the original thread, and I think it's a good one for discussion and review, is knowing which Factories produce what/when they convert/if they stop producing. There are factories listed that aren't even producing equipment, like the C-47 clone near Moscow.

Also, while I'm statistically oriented, I don't know where to look for every benchmark of my army. I should read more AARs, I'm sure, but I can't do THAT much more work on WitE than I do on preparing for finals in 3 weeks.

Right now I'm trying every turn to measure how much manpower I have, and how many rifle squads. Trying to see how Armament + Manpower converts to bodies in flimsy emplacements with 5 bullets to every other man. At some point when I'm fairly sure Stalin isn't going to be taken alive, I'll start measuring my guns in the field. I've been on my heels since I overheard STAVKA command asking the Smolensk commander "They're on WHICH side of the Dnepr?" (in early July).

Maybe this is on a WitEwiki page somewhere, but if it's not, it would be a good project, and I'd volunteer, right after finals in 3 weeks...

I'm starting to get the idea that I'm one of the few Soviet players poor enough to lose Moscow, LOL. Oh well! (and for the record, I required my Soviet side to take a 10 hit in Morale, Admin, and Fortification, because I thought Soviets were 'easy' - needless to say I'm missing Oleg right about now). Oh well, it's an interesting data set to accumulate. I should start making an AAR. Right after finals.

_____________________________

(in reply to Klydon)

Post #: 13

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 9:11:50 AM

von Beanie

Posts: 295
Joined: 6/3/2002
From: Oak Hills, S. California
Status: offline

The key to German strategy should be to seriously threaten Leningrad, Moscow AND the southern regions (Kharkov and Stalino). It is easy to threaten Leningrad, and most players also make a major effort in the south. None of my opponents have seriously threatened Moscow. In my opinion that is a mistake, since there's a load of industry there that I never have to worry about evacuating.

Klydon's analysis of the factory locations is excellent, but he fails to recognize how pressed the Soviets get with factory evacuations and trying to save them if multiple locations are threatened. There are only so many troops to defend adequately the factory locations, and if the Moscow front is mostly ignored by the German player, it isn't difficult for the Soviets to send the excess units to help defend the other fronts. This is aided by the massive citizen (Moscow) help building fortifications on this front that provide some assurance that this front can be defended with fewer units. Moreover, Soviet rail capacity usually drops to about 100K by late July, exactly when more is needed to get reinforcements to the front and also save the factories. If multiple locations are threatened the Soviets WILL lose industry simply because they can't evacuate very much since the 1.03 upgrade.

From the Soviet perspective, the ideal German strategy is probably to drive between Leningrad and Moscow, threatening them both as long as possible, and also between Moscow and Kharkov, threatening both of those too. The Soviet player will be forced to decide which ONE he wants to save, and I suspect it will be Moscow simply because it has the most industry. There simply aren't enough Soviet units to create a decent checkerboard defense in front of all three, and anything less than that will result in huge losses via encirclements against a competent axis player.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 14

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 10:35:19 AM

Tarhunnas

Posts: 3152
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

One final question for veterans of the SU GC'41.
If I'm going to lose Moscow between now and Mud, but I think, given low overall casualties, I might make a real charge at recapturing it in Blizzard, should I move the factories or should I let them be captured and re-take them damaged? How much damage would they take being fought over and captured versus the approximate 50% damage they take when being moved by rail?

As far as I know, all factories left are destroyed when the Axis take the city. But I really haven't seen this happen, as I don't think I have lost any industry, or maybe I just forgot to look.

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 15

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 2:08:34 PM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

Actually, threatening multiple locations that make the Russians decide what to evacuate is why I favor a Southern campaign. The approaches to the Moscow area are somewhat easy to defend against as most Axis attacks come from the west or south west. A pack of panzers sitting on the river halfway between Kiev and D-Town have all sorts of areas they can threaten that will drive a Russian player nuts in trying to decide what to defend and what to evacuate.

Not sure why your rail cap is so low von Beanie. In my test game, the Russians still have well north of 100k rail. It is turn 7 and the front line shows the Germans within a couple of hexes of Leningrad with the line going straight south. The Russians still hold Veliki-Luki but the Germans have a salient on the land bridge. From there, it goes along the river to just above Kiev where the Germans have broken through, captured Kiev and established a bridgehead over the river between Kiev and D-Town. Odessa has fallen as well and the Germans are advancing into the bend.

Now, in my particular test game, I have pretty much starved a lot of the troop movements (use about 10k or less a turn) to try to move as much industry as I could. I have lost some industry (got break throughs, etc) but not a lot. I do have a real mess right now as I have Axis units within 10 hexes of D-Town, Z-Town, Kharkov, etc. Not a lot has been moved out of those three cities.

One thing I have learned is you can move a lot of infantry around with 10k rail cap. Trying to move armor/mech is another matter. Leningrad area has gotten massive re-enforcements and it has slowed down the Germans big time.

*Edit*

One way to tell on factories if they covert over is to check the production screen and click on the current stuff that is in production. In that window, it will tell you when it converts over to another model. If there is no listing, then when production ends, the factory closes down (See the Mig-3 factories for an example of a shut down and the KV1 factory for an example of production that continues).

< Message edited by Klydon -- 4/22/2011 2:11:10 PM >

(in reply to von Beanie)

Post #: 16

RE: Russian economics - 4/22/2011 2:17:25 PM

cpt flam

Posts: 2352
Joined: 1/16/2011
From: caen - France
Status: offline

all you can have back is manpower & rail (from what i have see)
for the factories in the production pool clicking on an item will tell you upgrade with date if available
from memori T50 turn to T34

_____________________________

(in reply to Tarhunnas)

Post #: 17

RE: Russian economics - 4/23/2011 9:14:48 PM

Pillar

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline

Here's a hypothetical to consider, if you feel like analyzing the German side too:

If the German player destroys the frontier army and captures a line from Leningrad to Kiev, and then holds firm a defensive line from that point forward indefinitely,
a) what will the output numbers be comparatively throughout the war
... b) (easy once you have "a") how many tanks does the German player need on the turn he establishes the line to keep par with the Russians until January 1946, if possible.� What is the maximum time he could keep par with the Russians assuming losses are 0 for both sides after the line is established?

< Message edited by Pillar -- 4/23/2011 9:15:09 PM >

(in reply to cpt flam)

Post #: 18

RE: Russian economics - 4/23/2011 9:44:29 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

Some good analysis in here.

Playing against my fellow tester JAMiAM with me as SU my thoughts on this:

Obviously every Fac is crucial to a certain extent but the only real crucial ones that are threatened are LG KV1 and Khakov T34. Armaments are also very important and Vehicles also (as alluded to above you may not need them as much now but from 43 onwards they're crucial).

JAMiAM has conducted a very skilful offensive against me and I've constantly felt under pressure to balance the evac of Facs and bringing up troops. It's been a real finely cut thing with many units marching to the west. The toughest part for the SU can be when pressure is applied on multiple areas of industry at once. If that happens it will be physically impossible to evac all of the industry in time. You have to choose. Luckily you can afford to lose some!

In summary against a skilful Axis opponent it is a fine and tough balance to be able to rail out what you must and bring in what you need.

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Pillar)

Post #: 19

RE: Russian economics - 4/24/2011 1:58:20 AM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

He's probably misinterpreting
quote:

2. To maintain historical production figures the Soviet player
needs to move at least half of the capacity of the factories being
relocated.

Yes, that's what I'm quoting.

If I'm misinterpreting, could you translate for me?

Seems to me to say that the Soviet player needs to evacuate half of those factories that would otherwise be overun to hit the historical production rate?

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 20

RE: Russian economics - 4/25/2011 5:30:03 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

Bump ComP?

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 21

RE: Russian economics - 4/25/2011 9:10:32 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

He's probably misinterpreting
quote:

2. To maintain historical production figures the Soviet player
needs to move at least half of the capacity of the factories being
relocated.

Yes, that's what I'm quoting.

If I'm misinterpreting, could you translate for me?

Seems to me to say that the Soviet player needs to evacuate half of those factories that would otherwise be overun to hit the historical production rate?

What it's saying is that you have to move half or more of your production if you want to stay at historical production. It doesn't say anything about being overrun, or in danger of such.

2. To maintain historical production figures the Soviet player
needs to move at least half of the capacity of the factories being
relocated. For example, in Leningrad there is a KV-1 factory
that begins the 1941-45 campaign scenario with a size of 29.
KV-1 factories have an expansion rate of one. The factory in
Leningrad was historically moved in mid-August 1941, which
at an expansion rate of one, should be up to a size of about 32.
The only other KV-1 factory is in Chelyabinsk, which initially
has a size of zero. Relocating the Leningrad KV-1 factory in
mid-August 1941 will result in a sharp drop in KV-1 production
as the evacuated factory cannot produce or expand until it has
been repaired. In order to maintain historical output, at least
half of the initial factory�s capacity (16 or greater) will need to
be moved from Leningrad.

< Message edited by Aurelian -- 4/25/2011 9:12:37 PM >

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 22

RE: Russian economics - 4/25/2011 10:33:26 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

???

"Factories being relocated" are being relocated because they are in danger of overrun. I have no idea what point you're trying to make Aurelian.

Am I being really stupid here?

Because everything you guys post from the manual just seems to reiterate what I am saying:

As the Soviet player, you only need to move 50% of any threatened industry to reproduce historical production rates. Ergo, if you move more than 50%, then Soviet production will be higher than historical.

What am I misinterpreting, exactly.

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 23

RE: Russian economics - 4/25/2011 11:39:57 PM

heliodorus04

Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline

The sentence "you only need to move 50% of threatened industry" is misleading.

The Soviets need to maintain 50% of starting factories to preserve historical production.

On one level, this means you can let half your production facilities fall into enemy hands and be fine (assuming you never move anything else).

On the strategic level, though, these two sentences aren't capturing the issue of strategic trade-offs.

Every time you move a factory, it gets damaged by a randomized amount (within certain limits, which are in the manual, and I think the probabilistic average was somewhere around 50-67% damaged when moving; it's in the manual).
So moving on from this point:

Every factory captured is permanently destroyed. Those directly and permanently contributed toward the drop in production toward the idealized 50%. Easy to calculate.

Now let's look at damaged factories. They have a repair rate (which I forget) per turn, and IIRC it's somewhere around 1 to 3 points of repair.

Now we're into the realm of 'much harder to calculate the NET drop in production'

A factory with more than 50% damage can NOT produce.
A factory with 50% damage or less has a probability distribution for whether it will produce 0 to full possible capacity (I recall an older thread about these probabilities, which I'm not even going to bother to 'search for' (thanks Matrix!), and that probability is checked each turn.

So a factory with 50% damage on some turns will produce 0, and some turns will produce full capacity, and mostly it will be in between those two values.
Meanwhile that factory repairs each turn, changing (increasing) the probability that it will produce higher numbers of whatever.

So as the Soviet, you have to understand that production varies based on damage to factories, and the sooner you move factories, the sooner they start to repair, and the higher the cumulative total of (whatever) it will produce.

Moving factories is going to contribute to that 50% loss of production issue. But in fairness, I would doubt that a moved factory has any chance, over the course of a 225 turn game, of producing less than 50% of its historical production. It would have to incur major damage during the move, and then the repair rate would have to be 1 per turn, and then it would have to fail most of the probability checks when damage is less than 50 thus producing little or nothing. Law of averages seems to me to indicate moved factories will easily produce 50% of their capacity or more over the course of a game.

_____________________________

(in reply to squatter)

Post #: 24

RE: Russian economics - 4/26/2011 5:27:21 AM

76mm

Posts: 4688
Joined: 5/2/2004
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline

I'm rather confused myself...so it looks like the Sovs need to move at least 50% of their industry to reach 100% of historical production levels. So does that mean that if they move 100% of their industry, they will achieve 200% of historical production levels?!

(in reply to heliodorus04)

Post #: 25

RE: Russian economics - 4/26/2011 8:17:55 PM

squatter

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm rather confused myself...so it looks like the Sovs need to move at least 50% of their industry to reach 100% of historical production levels. So does that mean that if they move 100% of their industry, they will achieve 200% of historical production levels?!

Something like what I've been wondering all along.

< Message edited by squatter -- 4/28/2011 8:57:16 AM >

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 26

RE: Russian economics - 4/26/2011 9:10:21 PM

hfarrish

Posts: 734
Joined: 1/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Here's a hypothetical to consider, if you feel like analyzing the German side too:

If the German player destroys the frontier army and captures a line from Leningrad to Kiev, and then holds firm a defensive line from that point forward indefinitely,
a) what will the output numbers be comparatively throughout the war
... b) (easy once you have "a") how many tanks does the German player need on the turn he establishes the line to keep par with the Russians until January 1946, if possible.� What is the maximum time he could keep par with the Russians assuming losses are 0 for both sides after the line is established?

Based on current game structure and the exponential strength growth of the Soviet army, this will not happen under any circumstances. German players need to knock the Soviets out of the war or seriously maul them by the end of 42 or they are doomed. The Soviets will simply stack artillery against the impenetrable line, blast you out, and then you will be chased all the way to Berlin in short order.

(in reply to Pillar)

Post #: 27

RE: Russian economics - 4/27/2011 10:56:49 PM

sillyflower

Posts: 3509
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Back in Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 76mm

I'm rather confused myself...so it looks like the Sovs need to move at least 50% of their industry to reach 100% of historical production levels. So does that mean that if they move 100% of their industry, they will achieve 200% of historical production levels?!

I don't think so because factories all have a max size so if you move part of non HI/arms they will grow to same max size however many were railed out - though obviously the fewer you rail the longer it will take. In other words assuming you move the same factories as historical (non HI/Arms) you will and up at 100% historical production. You can't get more than historical other than in the short term perhaps.

For HI/arms you have to move exactly the same amount of factories to get 100% historical. As these factories never grow you can end up long term with higher or lower than historical depending on how how high historical losses of these factories there were. I suppose you can tell by checking your July '42 production against start levels for '42 GC which Pavel probably calculated to the last ton of supplies.

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

(in reply to 76mm)

Post #: 28

RE: Russian economics - 4/30/2011 1:44:05 AM

Pillar

Posts: 61
Joined: 4/21/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hfarrish

quote:

Here's a hypothetical to consider, if you feel like analyzing the German side too:

If the German player destroys the frontier army and captures a line from Leningrad to Kiev, and then holds firm a defensive line from that point forward indefinitely,
a) what will the output numbers be comparatively throughout the war
... b) (easy once you have "a") how many tanks does the German player need on the turn he establishes the line to keep par with the Russians until January 1946, if possible.� What is the maximum time he could keep par with the Russians assuming losses are 0 for both sides after the line is established?

Based on current game structure and the exponential strength growth of the Soviet army, this will not happen under any circumstances. German players need to knock the Soviets out of the war or seriously maul them by the end of 42 or they are doomed. The Soviets will simply stack artillery against the impenetrable line, blast you out, and then you will be chased all the way to Berlin in short order.

Hmm.

My thought was that you could take Leningrad, release the Finns (hounds) and then bomb the hell out of Kharkov from behind the Dnepr. Then pocket and destroy any offensives and, if things go well, hit the Caucasus later. If they don't go so well, just continue to hold that line and destroy penetrations.

There is something odd if all they need to do is stack artillery to break and unanchor a whole line. That didn't work out so well in WW1. If they send armor through they should be pretty vulnerable to counterattack.

But I haven't run the numbers on any of this.

< Message edited by Pillar -- 4/30/2011 1:46:05 AM >

(in reply to hfarrish)

Post #: 29

RE: Russian economics - 4/30/2011 4:27:57 AM

Klydon

Posts: 2251
Joined: 11/28/2010
Status: offline

The issue in your argument is you assume the Russians need to break through someplace and try to pocket Axis forces. The Russians get a pile of artillery together and get a nasty concentration of power in infantry corps, they can simply roll up to the line and drop the hammer. The Germans may kill 8-10K of Russians in that attack (maybe 10% tops of the Russian force), but in turn will absolutely get blasted for 4-5k in casualties and most of their artillery destroyed. That sounds like heavy losses to the Russians, except you just killed off roughly 1/2 a German infantry division in that attack. Do it say 6 times in a turn and you are killing a corps of German infantry a turn and they can't take those types of losses.

(in reply to Pillar)

Post #: 30