At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> The War Room



Message

OxfordGuy3 -> At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/12/2017 12:27:18 PM)

Assuming playing versus a human player, at which point (date) should the USSR stop investing in research and start buying units, assuming a "normal" game? The starting units (even with those added on the turn of invasion) don't look like enough to blunt the axis attack for long enough, and even Corps have quite a long production delay.

Also is it better purchase to fewer, but much stronger, Corps, or more numerous Garrisons, or a mix of both? Is it worth purchasing any HQs, tanks or air before the Axis invasion?



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/12/2017 3:53:19 PM)

I find it imperative for the USSR to invest as soon as possible in Infantry Weapons to obtain at least Lvl 1 before the Axis attacks. Always have a chit invested in that tech. Upgrading units to 1 or 2 will allow you to slow the Nazi advance before you are able to build up sufficient numbers to truly push back; ideally this coincides with reaching lvl 3 Infantry Weapons. I also find it important to invest in Armored Warfare (to allow for 2 attacks for Mech and Armored) and Advanced Tanks. It's scary seeing a small number of defenders but the early research is crucial to your ability to push back once your production starts to kick in. Garrisons are only useful for occupying towns where Partisans are likely to crop up. Otherwise they are just cannon fodder for Axis, hardly slowing their advances while essentially giving free experience to the Nazi troops.



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/12/2017 4:09:10 PM)

Yes, I do research as the USSR, more or less as you suggest, but are you saying you don't start building *anything* before the Axis invade and only do research?



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/13/2017 3:19:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Yes, I do research as the USSR, more or less as you suggest, but are you saying you don't start building *anything* before the Axis invade and only do research?



More or less, correct, depending on when the Axis does invade. But assuming a "normal" timeline, the value of an extra corps unit pales to an early chit in one of those research categories, IMO. I have messed with the idea of building an extra engineers unit to fortify both Leningrad and Moscow, but again, that's at the expense of a research chit and several turns of progress in that category.



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/13/2017 3:44:56 PM)

Okay, thanks. Am a bit unsure how to place my (limited) starting forces (assuming PBEM play, not vs. AI) if not purchasing any new units before Barbarossa - do you have any tips? Perhaps you could PM me a screenshot of one recommended setup? I've not played the allies previously...

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?



Harrybanana -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/16/2017 5:04:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Okay, thanks. Am a bit unsure how to place my (limited) starting forces (assuming PBEM play, not vs. AI) if not purchasing any new units before Barbarossa - do you have any tips? Perhaps you could PM me a screenshot of one recommended setup? I've not played the allies previously...

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?



Good questions. I would love to read some answers as well.



Sugar -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/16/2017 10:08:18 AM)

The best terrain to defend is around Leningrad, with limited access to the city itself. The swamps need fortifications urgently, since they provide a malus against aerial attacks (but boni against all others), which can be diminished by upgrading the forts with Air Defence. IŽd recommend to fortify the forrest to the south, as well as the railroad into Nowgorods direction, and all hexes near Leningrad and Volchow. To diminish the threat from the north I recommend a counterattack as soon as Finnland joins the Axis, with the finn. units at half strength after winterwar. It`s probably not possible to conquer Helsinki, but it keeps the retreatline open in case Leningrad falls. This measures are at least the best way to delay the Axis.

Moskau as well as Stalingrad are undefendable imho, but south of Rostow around Kropotkin and Armavir behind the river the terrain is also suitable to defend, or even counterattack if possible. The Axis can hardly attack Stalingrad, if their flanks are threatened. Both points Leningrad and south of Rostow force the Axis to spread their troops widely.

I usually defend a few cities (not towns) in a distance from the german border with corps at max, where Axis` supply drops the first time; trying to prevent them from being destroyed on LS and easily. I also try to evacuate them, if they lost their entrenchment, not giving german units an easy opportunity to gather experience.

I learnt in several PbEMs, that it`s nearly impossible to save some of the Alarm-units. This is consuming to many troops, which in doubt all are lost, with little behind them.



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/16/2017 10:40:48 AM)

Thanks, BTW what's "LS"?

For the units deployed on the turn of invasion, are you saying it's not worth placing other units in front to try to mask them from attack?

For the frontline fortresses (Brest etc.) should these be defended with Garrisons, Corps, or even Armies (perhaps for Brest, at least?). Should I leave an Army in Sebastopol, or just a Corps? Should I use Armies to hold key points (Smolensk, Odessa, Kiev etc.) in general, or hold them back for later?



Sugar -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/16/2017 2:36:37 PM)

quote:

Thanks, BTW what's "LS"?


My pleasure. LS means Low Supply (below 5 supply), and this means that you're not able to rebuy them for 60% of the original costs and in half the time.

quote:

For the units deployed on the turn of invasion
They are what I called Alarm-units. Directly translated from german, but it seems it doesn`t fit well enough :).

I don`t like the thought of sacrificing valuable troops like armies without doing any damage to the enemy in general, but in case of the SU you`ll need some of them to buy time; corps are easy to replace in a short time and usually - until the developement of Inf. 3 - not able to do damage to Axis` troops, except they are dug-in very well.

I find it very difficult to determine a good strategy for Russia, but at least they just need to survive without too many casualties until the turning point of the war.




James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/16/2017 8:21:39 PM)

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.




Amadeus -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/17/2017 7:07:55 AM)

First I invest in Infantery then to new units.



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 11:53:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.




Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 1:36:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Btw would one option for the Engineers be to at least partially fortify both Leningrad *and* Moscow, by operationally moving them?



You receive an Engineer unit for free (I can't remember exactly when), so you could purchase a second and deploy one each at Moscow and Leningrad. I'm currently testing a strategy whereby I only use the one "free" engineer and had enough time to fortify the swaps to the south of Leningrad and operated that unit to Moscow to fortify the open terrain to the south and west of the city.

I have found that it is likely not worth fortifying forest, as you already get a defense bonus from the natural cover. See the topic covered in more detail here. Bill Runacre confirms the best usage of fortifications are in clear hexes.

Coinciding with this fortification strategy, I have pulled nearly all of my armies to these two locations (Leningrad and Moscow) and have placed them in the fortifications to max their entrenchments. I've left a few corps and the garrisons you get at the start of the game at a few strategic choke points (road/rail intersections), East of Leningrad and Moscow. I've been able in the past to defend Moscow with less than I have now, so I'm cautiously optimistic this strategy will work with a more organizes/concentrated defense. I've adapted this strategy from a few excellent posts by other members in the, "Defending Barbarossa" thread. I highly recommend the time to read through it. I found Hellraiser's post about delaying the German offensive to be most helpful in developing my strategy.

It is critical to maximize the Russian research on Infantry Weapons and Tank warfare (anything related to either) from as early as possible. I've even gone so far as to refund some of the initial research chits to buy a few more turns of research in these categories at the very beginning of the game. At the beginning of the historical start to Barbarossa, I've found it's entirely possible to be nearly at Lvl 2 Infantry weapons for the Russians. The German offensive is a race against time and it is blunted significantly once the Russians reach level two infantry weapons. The tides can turn when they get to 3. Remember, German Infantry weapons max out at level 2...



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 2:18:30 PM)

I'd understood that, whilst not making a big change, there was still *some* advantage to fortifying forest hexes, maybe changing the target type?

BTW Level 3 Soviet Infantry tech is the same as Level 2 German tech



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 3:17:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy
BTW Level 3 Soviet Infantry tech is the same as Level 2 German tech


I think that's fair to say. I do find my combat odds are fairly even (depending on other factors of course) with lvl 3 soviets vs lvl 2 germans. Obviously the real advantage the Soviets have at the point in the game when they reach lvl 3 infantry weapons is the amount of manpower they have.

I've found that it takes lvl 2 infantry weaponry to slow the German advance.



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 3:20:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

I'd understood that, whilst not making a big change, there was still *some* advantage to fortifying forest hexes, maybe changing the target type?



While there might be some advantage (I'm still not sure there is), Bill Runacre made the point that **in general** it's probably a better/more efficient use of the engineers to focus on fortifying clear hexes.

When I first began, I was a little surprised to find that engineers cannot fortify towns/cities' hexes. I guess the higher entrenchment bonuses offered by these hexes approximates the same thing though.



James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 4:07:14 PM)

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.
quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.




Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up





GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 4:30:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.
quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.




Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up







OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 4:59:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GeneralJackDRipper


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Plenty of time to get IW and AA. I want most of those garrisons deployed in the choke points with a goodly number in the Q, ready to thwart the Axis avenue of advance.

The garrisons are cheap, no tech first time around, then about the same with IW & AA upgrades as the cycle of rejuvenation starts.

With the new supply rules the Germans can be stopped every time.
quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I don't do any investment into research until I've bought every garrison.




Really? Seems a bit wasteful to buy lots of Garrisons early on, that only have a production delay of one month, when you could be investing in research and let that build up







GeneralJackDRipper, I think your last reply got a little lost in the formatting - as far as I can tell this is what you were trying to reply with?:

"The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances."



James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 5:24:50 PM)

No prayer, GJDR? So they just melt away in the face of the Germans, not even requiring an attack?

Have you ever examined the CTVs of garrisons vs corps, soft and hard defense?



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 7:50:20 PM)

Yes apologies, formatting tripped me up there.

James Taylor, it doesn't take Fire and Rain to destroy a garrison.

No, they don't just disappear, but I don't believe you get enough of a benefit in slowing down the Germans for their cost, even for as cheap as they are. I'd much rather have my research cranking away for the first several turns than station Garrisons that will get wiped out in 1-2 turns by German corps units. They're not even worth the attention from the German Armies/Armor -- I would likely send them right past, knowing my opponent's tech is behind and the garrisons won't hold out for more than a turn with minimal attention.

Garrisons will also provide great opportunity to provide easy experience to German units as they get mopped up, allowing Germans to reinforce select units to Elite levels, if desired.

I'm sorry but I couldn't figure out what CTV stood for. I'm also always willing to learn more about the game so if I've underestimated the garrison units, please enlighten me!


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

No prayer, GJDR? So they just melt away in the face of the Germans, not even requiring an attack?

Have you ever examined the CTVs of garrisons vs corps, soft and hard defense?

quote:

The Garrisons don't have a prayer of even slowing down the German advance. I think they're a waste of your resources, frankly. Corps are the cheapest, minimally useful unit. The only use I've found for garrison units is plugging Partisan hotspots when playing as the Germans. They're useless in nearly all other circumstances.



James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 8:54:17 PM)

A fair point about the experience accumulation, but experience is easily eroded, especially later under low supply conditions.

CTV = combat target value. Look at the hard defense of garrison vs corps, it is 1. That is what they use as a defense against infantry attack, the same for both.

Further, the corps has 0 for tank defense, while a garrison has 1, that's what they use against a Panzer attack.

Now, knowing that the Red Army is going to be on the defense early in the game, the corps attack values(which are greater than garrisons) will be of little value until the USSR makes the transition to the offensive. So, which one gives you the most "bang for the buck"?

There are some other useful purposes for garrisons later in the game when things get a little more spread out, but early, they're great speed bumps.



James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/18/2017 8:59:12 PM)

Ohh, and GJDR, they don't get wiped out in one or two turns. They're like the energizer bunny, they keep going and coming as they are cycled through the build Q at lower cost than they were first bought at.[:)]



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/19/2017 10:50:52 AM)

Garrisons do only have max 5 Strength (unless have experience and elite reinforcements), which makes them considerably more vulnerable



OxfordGuy3 -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/19/2017 10:53:50 AM)

Btw do Garrisons and Corps always use hard defense versus Infantry (and Mech - or do they count as Light Tank?) or does it depend on terrain (e.g. whether in a town/city/forest)? This side of things is a bit opaque to me - where can I find this information?



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/19/2017 1:53:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

A fair point about the experience accumulation, but experience is easily eroded, especially later under low supply conditions.

CTV = combat target value. Look at the hard defense of garrison vs corps, it is 1. That is what they use as a defense against infantry attack, the same for both.

Further, the corps has 0 for tank defense, while a garrison has 1, that's what they use against a Panzer attack.

Now, knowing that the Red Army is going to be on the defense early in the game, the corps attack values(which are greater than garrisons) will be of little value until the USSR makes the transition to the offensive. So, which one gives you the most "bang for the buck"?

There are some other useful purposes for garrisons later in the game when things get a little more spread out, but early, they're great speed bumps.



Interesting information about the CTV and tank defense. Though that really just confirms my strategy of blowing by them with my panzers and letting my corps clean them up once they're in low supply so they can't be rebuilt faster/cheaper.

Also aren't the benefits in CTV for the garrisons over the corps units mitigated by their halved strength values of 5 (6 in some cases) versus 10 for corps? So corps units should be able to last a few turns longer than a Garrison unit, thereby providing a "better speedbump".

I could be convinced to save corps units until the Soviets can begin their counter-offensive, but I think their first priority should be to slow the German advance.

I would be interested in playing against a "Garrison defense" to see how effective it is first-hand. Any interest in a PBEM game?



James Taylor -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/21/2017 3:03:25 AM)

Not what I would consider as a "Garrison defense" as other units are basically the front holders, garrisons are just kind of a filler.

I'm a bit busy with games right now and hurricane damage, but later, when things kind of gel more with SC, I'll be up for a game if you wish.

I usually play within my little group so I don't have much time for outside endeavors.

It was just a comment to catalyze a little thought, an opinion of what has worked in the past and you know what they're worth (opinions, that is).[;)]



GeneralJackDRipper -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/21/2017 3:10:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

Not what I would consider as a "Garrison defense" as other units are basically the front holders, garrisons are just kind of a filler.

I'm a bit busy with games right now and hurricane damage, but later, when things kind of gel more with SC, I'll be up for a game if you wish.

I usually play within my little group so I don't have much time for outside endeavors.

It was just a comment to catalyze a little thought, an opinion of what has worked in the past and you know what they're worth (opinions, that is).[;)]


Sorry to hear you got hit by the hurricane. Hopefully you and yours got out safe! Best of luck with the cleanup.



BillRunacre -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/21/2017 2:35:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor

I'm a bit busy with games right now and hurricane damage, but later, when things kind of gel more with SC, I'll be up for a game if you wish.



I hope the damage wasn't too bad and you can get it fixed quickly. [:)]

Bill



BillRunacre -> RE: At which point should USSR change over from research to production? (9/21/2017 2:38:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: oxford_guy

Btw do Garrisons and Corps always use hard defense versus Infantry (and Mech - or do they count as Light Tank?) or does it depend on terrain (e.g. whether in a town/city/forest)? This side of things is a bit opaque to me - where can I find this information?


Hi

All units when attacked use their defense value that is the same as the attacker's target type, without exception.

So if attacked by a Hard unit, they will use their Hard defense value.

Bill



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6400146