RE: Cheeze strategies (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan >> WarPlan Open Beta Versions



Message

Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 4:40:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky



You don't want to disband the starting Soviet infantry. Much better to put them all on garrison and get back a couple thousand points that way. Also make sure they don't upgrade by turning off refit for them. You want them on the front line to die to slow the german advance. (and to prevent them from going to war too early)


Heh.

Here's a dirty trick: you can do both these things.

Garrison them first. Disband them later. Two bites at the apple. I suppose I probably shouldn't be telling this because it may not be intended and I guess there goes that dirty trick.



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 4:43:07 PM)

Well, I think the only way to know if the Red army is not too strong with this modification is to test. Is it possible to create another 1941 scenario with this modification? I do not see a "Save As" option in the editor.



Chilperic -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 5:03:19 PM)

Soviet cavalry divisions were mobile forces and generally fared better in 1941. But they had a Achill kneel : they lacked artillery and so were very weak in defense.



Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 5:11:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chilperic

Soviet cavalry divisions were mobile forces and generally fared better in 1941. But they had a Achill kneel : they lacked artillery and so were very weak in defense.


This doesn't really show up in game terms.

Both cavalry corps and infantry corps have the same artillery ratings. The only difference between their combat stats is the cavalry has better firepower and no AA. They both get the same benefits from assault tech (or AT tech if you want to go that route.)

The really big disparity between the two types of formations is economic.

The rifle corps is fully 50% more expensive.

It's a dud. I doubt anybody even builds them for that reason alone. They might actually be worth building if they were priced the same as the cav corps.



Cad908 -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 5:27:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LiquidSky
You don't want to disband the starting Soviet infantry. Much better to put them all on garrison and get back a couple thousand points that way. Also make sure they don't upgrade by turning off refit for them. You want them on the front line to die to slow the german advance. (and to prevent them from going to war too early)

I think the other dimension to this question that is being overlooked is manpower.

WarPlan has a rather curious approach to manpower in that players receive an allotment each turn for use in building new units and reinforcing existing armies. However, manpower is subject to a stockpile cap - iirc for the USSR it is 1,400 – so your are presented with a use them or lose them scenario.

This game mechanism is totally at odds with how forces were mobilized in WWII. From the USSR's perspective, Tschadenko reported to Stalin in September 1942, that the USSR had approximately 31,500,000 manpower resources at the commencement of Barbarossa. As there were roughly 4,200,000 men in the peacetime forces, about 27,000,000 men were available as “trained” reserves available for recruitment. The reason the Red Army survived the disasters of 1941 was it could mobilize those manpower pools and throw them at the Germans. Equipping the new armies presented a dilemma for Stavka as large segments of the arms industry was being transferred to Siberia. WarPlan “gives” the Soviet player 25 Rifle Armies as “free” reinforcements after the USSR has been attacked. This accounts for only 900 manpower points and to me seriously under represents Soviet potential.

A more elegant approach would be to have each of the powers begin the game with a pool of manpower which would be augmented each year by “drafts” based on the home country population points remaining under its control. As this pool is consumed by the player, they would be presented with a couple of issues. First, a malus to production would begin representing the removal of skilled manpower out of industry. Second, national experience would decline if losses require the drafting of older / younger / physically challenged recruits. This need not require much, if any, micromanagement by the player. While this approach is not feasible for current iteration of WarPlan, I do hope the Alvaro considers changing manpower in future releases.

From a gameplay perspective, I have adopted Flavius’ solution by spamming Calvary Corps financed by disbanding the starting USSR Rife Corps after the Finish War event ends. Also, I try to keep the manpower stockpile below 100% so as to not waste my incoming manpower. This also has the bonus of “flipping” 20% experience manpower to 35% experience units. I view these Calvary Corps a both useful to slow the German attack and also as manpower holding buckets as I will “flip” them later on as the USSR national experience climbs to 45% or 50%. Yes, it is a lot of micromanagement, but I feel its is forced on the Soviet player by the game system.

quote:

ORIGINAL : sillyflower

I agree with Alvaro's point that the game needs balance above all else


I suppose it really depends on what is meant by balance here. Alvaro described his game this way:

quote:


WarPlan is an incredibly accurate World War II simulation engine. It is a balance of realism and playability incorporating the best from 50 years of World War II board wargaming. Play a recreated World War II in every detail, thanks to the engine flexibility and database.


I see “accurate” along with a balance of “realism” and “playability”. There are apparently serious issues with the design as Alvaro is repeatedly trying to force the Soviet player to fight forward. He recently sped up German rail building and it has essentially removed the very real supply issues faced by the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa. I have yet to see an AAR where the German army is in anywhere near the historical condition of December 1941 or anything resembling the Soviet counterstroke of that same month. So what do we mean by accurate or realistic? Is a further nerf to the USSR the answer?

-Rob



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/3/2020 6:56:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

The really big disparity between the two types of formations is economic.

The rifle corps is fully 50% more expensive.

It's a dud. I doubt anybody even builds them for that reason alone. They might actually be worth building if they were priced the same as the cav corps.


It is the same for every country in the game. Cavalry corps is 120 production points and Infantry Large corps is 180 production points. Except there is something strange here.

Infantry Large corps is 30 manpower points and 30 logistics points for every country except Soviet Union.

Infantry Large corps for Soviet Union is 20 manpower points and 20 logistics points for a cost of 180 production points.

In all other countries, UK, USA, France, this is the definition of an Infantry Small corps with 20 manpower points and 20 logistics points for a cost of 120 production points.

I do not understand what is justifying this additional cost.

Given its attributes, an Infantry Large corps for Soviet Union should cost 120 production points not 180 production points.

Is it to avoid a gamey ant tactic?



Chilperic -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 6:25:12 AM)

In my opinion, the cavalry should be weakened in defense to avoid this massive replacement trick.

But more generally, the difficulty is that the Soviet fallback strategy is the correct strategy. The plan developed in the 1930s was to let the invader go to Smolensk and counter attack at that time; because the supply difficulties for the Germans had been correctly anticipated.

However, the great prudence of the game towards political factors prevents us from simulating the constraints that politics exerts on pure military strategy. Beyond his character, Stalin had 1000 good reasons for wanting to avoid an invasion, starting with the possibility of an independent Ukraine and a collapse of the regime. Hiler condemned himself for wanting to wage a war of annihilation of the Slavs which left them no other choice than to support the Stalinist regime. IT IS THIS WEIGHT OF POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS THAT IS MISSING IN WARPLAN.

That's not to say it's a bad game. It's a very good one with its caveat. I don' t want another HOI , even if I would applause a bit more care about political constraints.



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 10:08:51 AM)

I've done a bit more analysis since my last post on the cost:benefit ratio of scrapping inf xxx and replacing them with cav xxx.

At the start of '39 scenario, there are 38 inf xxx all morale 20. Assuming you buy cav at '39 tech, you gain 76 combat points (CV of 3 vs CV of 1 for inf) at a net cost of 1140 production points and no extra manpower cost. To. These 38 cav xxx give you a solid defence line from L'grad to Odessa (31 hexes) with a reserve of 7 more in reserve. If you buy 1 cav xxx per turn for a year after the Finnish war ending, you can make the whole line 2 cav xxx deep! I'm not sure where all the horses would come from without destroying soviet agriculture

Re the argument that the inf xxx should be given higher morale, this does happen in the '40 and '41 scenarios. In '40, only 20 inf xxx still have morale of 20. Their morrale is back down to 20 in the '41 scenario, but there are new units with morale of 30 and some suprisingly of 40.

I am confused[sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif].



Chilperic -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 10:34:31 AM)

From June to December 41 Soviet army formed 82 cavalry divisions alone. Divisions were reduced in size , stripped of artillery and tanks but yet they formed about the equivalent of 27 cavalry corps.



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 12:00:41 PM)

So, it is impossible to start in '39 and to replicate the starting russian army in the later years. So what is the answer to the problems raised in this thread? I start by trying to consider some.

1 If I was playing as axis (which I don't like doing in any game like this) then I would quit if I faced 2 columns of cav xxx from north to south either of strength 3, or 4 if upgraded, as being too gamey and absurd. My Soviets would not do it either because I would expect any opponent to do the same absent agreement before the game starts. It might enable me to give MT a run for his money though...........

2 Just giving USSR the '41 start army in '39 and and not allowing any changes/new units before say June 20 '41 or when Barbarossa starts: whichever earlier. In otherwords, treat USSR like a neutral minor for this purpose. That seems to be as fun as actually living there at the time. A variant could be to allow the units to move. Research and upgrading would need to be allowed for balance. Games starting in '40 or '41 both start with '39 tech as there is no research until the scenario starts.

3 Prevent soviet disbands before say May '41 or earlier if USSR attacked earlier.

To be continued



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 12:09:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

If you buy 1 cav xxx per turn for a year after the Finnish war ending, you can make the whole line 2 cav xxx deep! I'm not sure where all the horses would come from without destroying soviet agriculture


We need a horsepower variable in addition of manpower. Just kidding... [:D]



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 12:24:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower
So what is the answer to the problems raised in this thread?


Good question what is the summary of all this?
1. Reduce all Red army units move by 1 operation point
2. Garrison all Red army units the first turn of the invasion
3. Reduce cost of infantry large corps to 120
4. Increase the botton experience of Red army units to 30%

Anything else I have missed?



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 12:58:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chilperic

From June to December 41 Soviet army formed 82 cavalry divisions alone. Divisions were reduced in size , stripped of artillery and tanks but yet they formed about the equivalent of 27 cavalry corps.


Agreed, but it was in wartime and taking so many horses did severely damage soviet agriculture



Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 1:30:58 PM)

The 1940 scenario is far superior for the Sovs than 1939. Hardly any disbands necessary at all. I have a build order for that one, too, and it scraps maybe a dozen rifle corps. I keep all the others. The 2 and 3 point ones are acceptable. You park the junk ones in ports, and what's left over gets scrapped, and that's not much. And past that the mech forces the Soviets with are much stronger than in the 39 scenario. And, no, this doesn't make sense. You cannot actually build this sort of army they have in the 40 scenario if you start in 1939. Working forward from the 40 scenario I end up with a better Red Army in 1941 than the 39 start.

I still don't build any fresh rifle corps, though. They are simply not cost effective.



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 1:32:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

So, it is impossible to start in '39 and to replicate the starting russian army in the later years. So what is the answer to the problems raised in this thread? I start by trying to consider some.

1 If I was playing as axis (which I don't like doing in any game like this) then I would quit if I faced 2 columns of cav xxx from north to south either of strength 3, or 4 if upgraded, as being too gamey and absurd. My Soviets would not do it either because I would expect any opponent to do the same absent agreement before the game starts. It might enable me to give MT a run for his money though...........

2 Just giving USSR the '41 start army in '39 and and not allowing any changes/new units before say June 20 '41 or when Barbarossa starts: whichever earlier. In otherwords, treat USSR like a neutral minor for this purpose. That seems to be as fun as actually living there at the time. A variant could be to allow the units to move. Research and upgrading would need to be allowed for balance. Games starting in '40 or '41 both start with '39 tech as there is no research until the scenario starts.

3 Prevent soviet disbands before say May '41 or earlier if USSR attacked earlier.

To be continued



I an now free to continue :)

I do like ncc's suggestion of russian army all being in garrison mode at the start, but without -1 OP on top. It would also reduce the attractiveness of starting Barbarossa in bad weather.

Not so sure about the utility of cheaper inf XXX (though that makes sense if cost is supposed to reflect utility) as it's still better value to buy a cav xxx for the same cost. I support the change as being sensible, although it does not help solve the problem(s) that I have identified.

Same for increasing experience from 25 to 30 which just adds 20% to army combat power which may unbalance things. Might work though if the 30% limit also applied to new builds before Barbarossa starts. Base of 35% + the current incremental increase for new units as soon as war starts.

The only solution that I can see to pre-Barbarossa unit spam other than a tedious 'lockdown' is for prewar production points to be greatly curtailed and a lump sum given when Barbarossa starts or May '42 to replace the earlier reduction.





Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 1:34:58 PM)

You guys keep trying to nerf the Red Army. This is amazing to me.

The 39 scenario Red Army needs some love. It's not up to scratch. The whole point of my optimizations is to deal with this.



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 1:51:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You guys keep trying to nerf the Red Army. This is amazing to me.

The 39 scenario Red Army needs some love. It's not up to scratch. The whole point of my optimizations is to deal with this.


Remember I only play as allies so I'm not trying make my life easier. I agree with your point, but trying to be reasonable about it.

I'm very happy to play your axis any time Flavius if you won't object to my Russians being cheesy [sm=duel.gif]



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:11:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sillyflower

I do like ncc's suggestion of russian army all being in garrison mode at the start, but without -1 OP on top. It would also reduce the attractiveness of starting Barbarossa in bad weather.


To clarify, the idea is from LiquidSky:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4788541



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:13:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

You guys keep trying to nerf the Red Army. This is amazing to me.

The 39 scenario Red Army needs some love. It's not up to scratch. The whole point of my optimizations is to deal with this.


Points 3 and 4 are indeed for you, don't you agree?
quote:

3. Reduce cost of infantry large corps to 120
4. Increase the botton experience of Red army units to 30%



Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:21:37 PM)

Sillyflower, check the AARs. I've put it in my time as the Axis.

I think the Axis in this game are easy mode. I have found the Allies far more challenging.



sillyflower -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:25:52 PM)

I doubt neither your ability or experience.
Is that a 'no' then?



Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:29:40 PM)

Nah, I'm looking to find ways to win as the allies nowadays.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:45:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

It is very much a micromanagement thing, I have had to sit down and hotplay this build a half dozen times to squeeze out the maximum benefit.

The key is this: every disbanded rifle corps yields 90 resources. For 120 you get a cav corps. So it is close to a straight swap. But the cavalry is 3-4 times as strong due to the massive difference in experience. Once you take into account upgrades, it's almost an even swap, because each level of upgrades for a rifle corps cost 18 production, versus 12 for the cav corps. (This is the other problem with rifle corps. They are way cost ineffective. 180 points base cost.)

You can save up to 6000 build points via disbands and per turn production by March of 1940 when the Finnish war ends and you do the swap. So it's not just a swap, there is for real additional production here. But it means you no longer have ant units even on the front line. Rather than useless speed bumps, 4 point cavalry corps can put up a bit of a fight. And they have nice mobility. They're also pretty great in the marshes.

You can keep building more of them after March of 1940. Or throw in some mech and mountain. You do have to set points aside to upgrade and reinforce the starting mech and HQs. I am honestly debating whether it is even worth doing this for 20% experience mech. The ones that start off understrength are ok, because replacements increase their experience. The full strength mech corps at 20% are close to junk. 150 point disband will yield you a cavalry corps with equal raw strength and 30 points in surplus production.


I did notice the gimmick with the Finland modification. I actually thought I removed it in one of the betas. I will double check.

Disbanding the initial corps should not be cost effective. I'll run the math again



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 3:54:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Nah, I'm looking to find ways to win as the allies nowadays.


I am in two games currently. In both the Axis are winning. I have played 8 games myself to test balance and find issues.

Now I understand what you mean. I will investigate. I think I actually forgot to lower the cost for the Soviet starting Corps thus why they are so not cost effective.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 6:01:17 PM)

Ok so this is what I did. This will delay beta to official for 1 week. I have to test this myself.

All Cavalry are now 3-1-2 firepower, guns, artillery
Soviet large corps are now 120pp, 3-2-2 (vs 4-2-2 Armies which haven't changed
Removal of the +10% finnish gain... all Soviet new units are at 35% experience starting

The current 20% experience units stay where they are.

This should remove micromanaging min-maxxing which is currently required to maximize defense.

What this should do is make it cost effective to build the large corps but also allow the choice of the USSR on how to spend it's money balancing force size with saving money. I tend to agree the game slightly favors the Axis at the moment. It is balanced but the Axis seem easier to play. The Allies really need good resource/unit management in building the right quantities of naval, air, and land forces to achieve victory. Personally I find this a real challenge and quite fun.

I will be uploading the new beta sometime today.



Flaviusx -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 6:21:02 PM)

I can live with this. Thanks, Alvaro.



PanzerMike -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 9:05:52 PM)

Is there any incentive then to attack Finland as the USSR? The AI event will still trigger and some territory is gained, but that's all then isn't it? And for a human player? What does he benefit?

For the record, I have hardly played the Allies, so maybe this is a dumb question.



ncc1701e -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 9:51:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Soviet large corps are now 120pp, 3-2-2 (vs 4-2-2 Armies which haven't changed


Great, now aligned to other countries in term of production cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa

Removal of the +10% finnish gain... all Soviet new units are at 35% experience starting


Or, reduce the Finnish gain to 10% and all Soviet new units are at 30% experience until the even is firing.
That way, you will have Infantry Large corps at 20%, 30% and, after Finnish war, at 35%.




AlvaroSousa -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/4/2020 11:01:44 PM)

I just took out the +10%. That's a gamey mechanism and Flavious was right. If you do know you just wait with the production. if you don't know... Well then you screw yourself.

So the decision is removed from an absolute number and placed as a strategy. Will the Axis attack in 1941 or 1942? Should I hold my PPs to build 1942 armies? Or buy the corps? How many should I buy? How much should I save for armies? How many should I defend up front with?

Those are the strategic thoughts I want players to consider. Not 4 X 9 X .27 = X and 4 X 7 X .2 = Y thus Y is less than X so sell all this buy all that.... blek. That's gimmicky and min-maxxing.

Now that I understood Flavious's request correctly I saw what he was seeing when I worked the math.




Franciscus -> RE: Cheeze strategies (5/5/2020 4:23:58 PM)

Hi

Is a new beta patch still going to released before the official one ?

Regards



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375