RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games

RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

Message

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 12:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I think you are doing OK; not great, but not disastrous yet either. How close are you to 42 Heavy Armour tech? If you have maximized research you should be close by August 42. How many armour and mechanized do you have? How many have been destroyed? What is the situation in Africa? Where did the UK invade in the summer of 41? I have 42 Heavy Armor tech already. Just the units won't upgrade since I have too much casualties to replace. [image]local://upfiles/46661/E76A86C7427C49558951A78E94F6D5FB.jpg[/image] I see part of your problem here. It is very important for the Russians to choose either Assault or Anti-tank tech and then go with it. I know many people prefer anti-tank, but since most Russian units start with Assault tech this is the one I prefer to go with. If the 6 research points were taken out of Anti-tank then you could have 6 points in Assault (and 7 once you reach tech level 42), 7 in heavy armour, 6 in interceptors, and 7 in close support. You are better off with all your good Russian armies (40%+ experience) with 42 Assault tech then all of them with either 41 Assault or 41 Anti-tank. Also the production points you are expending to convert Assault armies to Anti-tank Armies could be better spent upgrading all your Armour and at least some Mechanized to 42 tech.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 12:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I think you are doing OK; not great, but not disastrous yet either. How close are you to 42 Heavy Armour tech? If you have maximized research you should be close by August 42. How many armour and mechanized do you have? How many have been destroyed? What is the situation in Africa? Where did the UK invade in the summer of 41? I have purchased three Tank corps in 1939. Right now, I have: . 5 armor corps on the map . 1 armor corps in the Deployment queue (it shatters last turn) . 12 mechanized corps [image]local://upfiles/46661/B6BD5755DA784752ACD35F670BD53E11.jpg[/image] If you still have 6 Armour and 12 Mechanized than the loss of Moscow is not that critical. Especially since I assume you will also be receiving the Siberians. The Red Airforce is looking pretty battered, but otherwise you are in good shape. The UK even has enough MS to send maximum LL to Russia, which I assume you are doing. Looking at the map he has not cut the Murmansk rail line so that is very good for you. When the US enters the War and they also maximize LL to Russia this will more than make up for the loss of Moscow. You didn't say where the UK invaded or how its offensive in Africa is doing. But looking at Force strength I assume the BOA has already been won by you.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 12:48:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stjeand Based on all the games I have played with the new version...the Soviets seem to be underpowered but the Allies seem to be over powered. So far the USSR just gets hammered over and over...until the Allies land somewhere early. They have to land early 42 or the war in Russia is close to over. I have not seen Moscow in Russian hands in any game by the end of 41. NOW not to say this is every game...but all I have played. I have seen others that did not go this way... I don't believe the Allies are overpowered and the Russians underpowered. What I do believe is that many Axis players are choosing the All In Russia strategy where they commit just about everything to Russia allowing the Western Allies to invade and attack at whim. I am pretty sure that Moscow will be in Russian hands at the end of 41 in our game.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 1:07:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana quote: ORIGINAL: stjeand Based on all the games I have played with the new version...the Soviets seem to be underpowered but the Allies seem to be over powered. So far the USSR just gets hammered over and over...until the Allies land somewhere early. They have to land early 42 or the war in Russia is close to over. I have not seen Moscow in Russian hands in any game by the end of 41. NOW not to say this is every game...but all I have played. I have seen others that did not go this way... I don't believe the Allies are overpowered and the Russians underpowered. What I do believe is that many Axis players are choosing the All In Russia strategy where they commit just about everything to Russia allowing the Western Allies to invade and attack at whim. I am pretty sure that Moscow will be in Russian hands at the end of 41 in our game. Well I don't think insanely overpowered just that the UK seems to be able to field a lot more units than historically and the USSR seems that they can not hold all that well. Moscow will be...just because you are not commiting as many forces as you state. Though my last turn might seal Russias fate. In 41 I think the Germans can do an all in, in Russia and not be concerned...just need defense in Africa and Italy. you opted on taking Vichy early...which I was not prepared for...will not happen again...I learn... And Norway which I get though not sure how useful over all...we will see though. In 42 they can NOT do an all in due to threat of invasion all over the place. Once 41 is winter the Germans could pull units out and spread them and ready for 42... But that is one way to play as you say. I wish my game as the Axis had gone better to start, which I have been able to address so here is to a next time.

Flaviusx -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 1:59:14 PM)
The historical Axis strategy was an all in to the east. The only real difference here is the start date. Most Germans will roll in starting in May as opposed to the end of June and it is not unusual to see an April start if the weather is good. Revert the experience nerf, please. And if you're going to keep the mech as is, then I'd also like to see the reserve armies come in at the current Soviet assault tech. 39 tech rifle armies coming in at 30% are very close to speed bumps. They only do reasonably well in swamps. In the open, they are dogmeat. As for the British, if they want to build up the amphibs they can do North Africa in 41, but it will cost them in the BoA. As is, they are going to be struggling in the Atlantic even without this early landing. 9 subs and the surface Kriegsmarine can basically wreak havoc in the Atlantic well into 42. They can cripple the UK economy for a very long time this way and you aren't going to see much lend lease to the Sovs until at least the USA enters the war (and the Americans now have to devote huge resources to shipbuilding cap and merchants, too.)

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 5:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx The historical Axis strategy was an all in to the east. The only real difference here is the start date. Most Germans will roll in starting in May as opposed to the end of June and it is not unusual to see an April start if the weather is good. I wouldn't say the historical Axis strategy was the Russia All In. For one thing their were no Italian units in the East until 42 I think and even then not the equivalent of 2 armour and a mechanized Corps (which is what I am seeing in most recent games). There was also a German Mechanized or Armour corps in North Africa along with air assets. North Africa also consumed replacements and supply trucks. The Germans also spent considerable production on U-Boats and the Tirpitz. quote: Revert the experience nerf, please. And if you're going to keep the mech as is, then I'd also like to see the reserve armies come in at the current Soviet assault tech. 39 tech rifle armies coming in at 30% are very close to speed bumps. They only do reasonably well in swamps. In the open, they are dogmeat. As for the British, if they want to build up the amphibs they can do North Africa in 41, but it will cost them in the BoA. As is, they are going to be struggling in the Atlantic even without this early landing. 9 subs and the surface Kriegsmarine can basically wreak havoc in the Atlantic well into 42. They can cripple the UK economy for a very long time this way and you aren't going to see much lend lease to the Sovs until at least the USA enters the war (and the Americans now have to devote huge resources to shipbuilding cap and merchants, too.) If the Germans build 6 subs and pay the production cost to continually repair 9 of them than they are not doing the Russia All In strategy. In this case the UK will be as weak as it was historically. Though I still say it is worth it for the UK to build some landing ships. What needs to be fixed IMHO is to give the UK more shipyards so they can build more MS, escorts and LS simultaneously. The same for the US.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 5:09:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stjeand I wish my game as the Axis had gone better to start, which I have been able to address so here is to a next time. We can start another game with you as the Axis if you want. I may change my tune if/when I ever play a game as the Allies where the Russians get in serious trouble.

Flaviusx -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 5:52:06 PM)
Germany can easily afford to build 6 subs, spare 1 panzer corps in NA, and still throw in a dozen or more mobile corps in the Soviet Union. That's an all in or near enough. The sub investment is very much worth it now and will keep the UK on the backfoot for 2 years. The allies will have to spend several multiple times the cost of those subs to deal with them. It is absolutely cost effective to do this, far more than building two extra mobile corps in lieu of the subs. Subs are dirt cheap compared to what it takes to deal with them. This also effectively shuts down lend lease until the Americans come in. Yes, the Italians can typically spare a couple mobile corps themselves to the East in addition to the above. (They do need to put something in Libya to hold down the British. A single mobile corps, 1-2 mountains corps, and a small German contingent will do the job.) This is fairly typical play now. Revert the experience nerf, please. I'm done with PBEM until the Sovs get this back.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 6:11:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana We can start another game with you as the Axis if you want. I may change my tune if/when I ever play a game as the Allies where the Russians get in serious trouble. Set up... You may be an anomaly... I think the issue is more with the average player than the very experienced. I have not played anyone that has been able to hold. BUT again not played you. Perhaps everyone is just not playing the USSR right. For me the main thing I notice is that the game is a year ahead of historical. IF the Allies don't invaded in 42 than the USSR is lost...and I mean a mainland invasion... Africa can fall in 42 to the Allies if is has too... The Allies have to take major pressure off the Russians. But we shall see. I have to not mess up and get through France.

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 6:42:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I see part of your problem here. It is very important for the Russians to choose either Assault or Anti-tank tech and then go with it. I know many people prefer anti-tank, but since most Russian units start with Assault tech this is the one I prefer to go with. If the 6 research points were taken out of Anti-tank then you could have 6 points in Assault (and 7 once you reach tech level 42), 7 in heavy armour, 6 in interceptors, and 7 in close support. You are better off with all your good Russian armies (40%+ experience) with 42 Assault tech then all of them with either 41 Assault or 41 Anti-tank. Also the production points you are expending to convert Assault armies to Anti-tank Armies could be better spent upgrading all your Armour and at least some Mechanized to 42 tech. Thanks for your advice Harrybanana as usual. I have learned a lot with you and your AAR. This thing is that, tech level 1941 or 1942, I am very far from armies at the 40%+ experience. I would be very pleased to just reach this level. So far, as I said, I am barely at 32% experience for my deployed rifle armies. My best armies are at 35%-34%: [image]local://upfiles/46661/DB6D377C669E4F4CBC3B676FBD4FF04C.jpg[/image]

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 6:52:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana If you still have 6 Armour and 12 Mechanized than the loss of Moscow is not that critical. Especially since I assume you will also be receiving the Siberians. The Red Airforce is looking pretty battered, but otherwise you are in good shape. The UK even has enough MS to send maximum LL to Russia, which I assume you are doing. Looking at the map he has not cut the Murmansk rail line so that is very good for you. When the US enters the War and they also maximize LL to Russia this will more than make up for the loss of Moscow. I was lucky and I put all the Finns out of supply the two-three first turns of Barbarossa with a Cavalry corps and a Paratrooper corps. So... [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana You didn't say where the UK invaded or how its offensive in Africa is doing. But looking at Force strength I assume the BOA has already been won by you. You are right. I think I am fine now with the BoA and I am trying to take Tobruk right now. [image]local://upfiles/46661/5A3D83168FE6474FB74AE94F5326C5A1.jpg[/image]

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 7:03:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flaviusx Germany can easily afford to build 6 subs, spare 1 panzer corps in NA, and still throw in a dozen or more mobile corps in the Soviet Union. That's an all in or near enough. The sub investment is very much worth it now and will keep the UK on the backfoot for 2 years. The allies will have to spend several multiple times the cost of those subs to deal with them. It is absolutely cost effective to do this, far more than building two extra mobile corps in lieu of the subs. Subs are dirt cheap compared to what it takes to deal with them. This also effectively shuts down lend lease until the Americans come in. Yes, the Italians can typically spare a couple mobile corps themselves to the East in addition to the above. (They do need to put something in Libya to hold down the British. A single mobile corps, 1-2 mountains corps, and a small German contingent will do the job.) This is fairly typical play now. Revert the experience nerf, please. I'm done with PBEM until the Sovs get this back. I agree. With the UK weaker, that is a good thing, I hope not to have anymore a second front opened in Europe in 1941. Remember, the Soviets were alone in 1941, 1942 to mid 1943 with Italy. They were helped with PP from USA/UK but still they have defeated the German army. They won the war in Europe for me. @Sillyflower, if you are reading, what do you think of our current game? I am the Axis in this one. Do you think I am a much better player because I am a much better player or because your Red Army is nice and gentle?

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/28/2021 8:45:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana What needs to be fixed IMHO is to give the UK more shipyards so they can build more MS, escorts and LS simultaneously. The same for the US. Well, here I disagree with you. On the Allies side, this is our role to build shipyards for UK, USA and Canada if you think there is a need. USA can build plenty of shipyards, escorts and MMs while they are still neutral. Once the UK shipyard bug will be solved, UK will have to build shipyards. Canada is there to build escorts, MMs or Infantry Division. Again, this is a choice for the Canadians. You want the Allies to perform D-Day in France in 1941. Fair enough. But, in that case, you will lose BoA. Shipyards will be fine once the UK shipyard bug will be fixed imo.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 3:32:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stjeand IF the Allies don't invaded in 42 than the USSR is lost...and I mean a mainland invasion... Africa can fall in 42 to the Allies if is has too... The Allies have to take major pressure off the Russians. I agree with you if the Axis perform a variation of the Russia All-In. Which I still maintain is not what they did historically. But if they don't perform a Russia All -In than I think Russia can survive without a major Allied invasion of Europe proper in 41 or 42. But I admit there is the possibility that I am wrong.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 3:38:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e This thing is that, tech level 1941 or 1942, I am very far from armies at the 40%+ experience. I would be very pleased to just reach this level. So far, as I said, I am barely at 32% experience for my deployed rifle armies. My best armies are at 35%-34%: You are right, my mistake. I meant to say that you want to have your highest experience armies with tech 42. All of my built armies are built with the highest tech available. The reserve armies that come on are left at 39 tech unless and until they gain experience to at least 35% (40% before the change) and hopefully better.

Harrybanana -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 3:51:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana What needs to be fixed IMHO is to give the UK more shipyards so they can build more MS, escorts and LS simultaneously. The same for the US. Well, here I disagree with you. On the Allies side, this is our role to build shipyards for UK, USA and Canada if you think there is a need. USA can build plenty of shipyards, escorts and MMs while they are still neutral. Once the UK shipyard bug will be solved, UK will have to build shipyards. Canada is there to build escorts, MMs or Infantry Division. Again, this is a choice for the Canadians. You want the Allies to perform D-Day in France in 1941. Fair enough. But, in that case, you will lose BoA. Shipyards will be fine once the UK shipyard bug will be fixed imo. Historically the UK did not just build MM and escorts; they also built BBs, CVs, etc. In the game there is no way they can do this because of the ahistorical reduced number of shipyards they start with. I don't want the Allies invading Europe in 41 unless the only units the Germans have garrisoning France are an infantry division in each port. If that is the case than I don't think the Axis player has any right to complain if the UK does in fact invade France.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 11:17:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I agree with you if the Axis perform a variation of the Russia All-In. Which I still maintain is not what they did historically. But if they don't perform a Russia All -In than I think Russia can survive without a major Allied invasion of Europe proper in 41 or 42. But I admit there is the possibility that I am wrong. Well here I will agree. But I have not seen anyone other than you not perform a Russia all in...or so it appears. I could be wrong here also. Though admittedly I am not a great Allied player...still have to figure out quite a few things because I do not play them all that often. My belief still seems to be that I would like the USSR a little stronger and the other Allies a little weaker to be more...historical. Though it would take a lot of testing to find the balance.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 11:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Harrybanana Historically the UK did not just build MM and escorts; they also built BBs, CVs, etc. In the game there is no way they can do this because of the ahistorical reduced number of shipyards they start with. I don't want the Allies invading Europe in 41 unless the only units the Germans have garrisoning France are an infantry division in each port. If that is the case than I don't think the Axis player has any right to complain if the UK does in fact invade France. I agree...but I think the issue is that the UK would not do that. The UK would not build BB and CVs, while useful I think that they are not what the UK needs. IF the UK gets more shipyards...then the "free" MS they receive from countries being attacked should be adjusted accordingly. i.e. Norway provides the UK 48 MS when attacked...IF I remember reading about Norwegian shipping they have 4.8 million tons of shipping. That is how Al comes up with the numbers... There is one huge issue with this... To ship to Africa takes multiple weeks. So 1 MS would in 1 turn travel to the Middle East / Suez...then it would take 1 MS during that time to travel back. Due to time constraints that means it takes 2 MS to move there and back in 1 turn. So in essence you require 2MS for each 1 point coming from those locations. This included the US and South America...and it is probably longer to travel to India / Australia...and it is definitely less to travel from the UK to the USSR. This would be very difficult to address game wise...so Al made a simple conversion. BUT this conversion gives the Allies a ton (no pun intended) more shipping than they had originally. I would say IF it was possible to address that...then giving the UK more shipyards would be fine with me. They would have to build more and more escorts and transports...while Germany will have to build more UBoats to keep up...IF the Axis is to keep pressure on the UK to build more shipping. BUT you would have to cut the received transports in half to make sense. What is interesting is...in WPP Alvaro decided to force the US, UK and Japan to build specific units...while likely reducing their PP to compensate. BUT that takes away choice... I suppose that could happen in the UK / Germany but that changes the game. Who here builds the Tirpitz or the Graf Zepplin? That would be a waste of resources as we all know. Instead Germany builds more Inf / Armor... In the Pacific if the Japanese focused on armies they could , perhaps beat China and that would free up a LOT of units elsewhere...Though probably to late to slow the US navy down. It is easily addressed in a mod if you wanted to test something like this.

CHINCHIN -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 2:20:24 PM)
The game does not take into account the ships lost during the invasion, Norway for example lost 116 ships, most of them merchant. I believe that the merchant marine of all the minor countries should be lowered taking into account this circumstance.

Nirosi -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 2:30:05 PM)
quote: Who here builds the Tirpitz I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling...

Nirosi -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 2:39:22 PM)
quote: To ship to Africa takes multiple weeks. So 1 MS would in 1 turn travel to the Middle East / Suez...then it would take 1 MS during that time to travel back. Due to time constraints that means it takes 2 MS to move there and back in 1 turn. So in essence you require 2MS for each 1 point coming from those locations. This included the US and South America...and it is probably longer to travel to India / Australia...and it is definitely less to travel from the UK to the USSR. This would be very difficult to address game wise...so Al made a simple conversion. You are right about that of course in the real individuel routes. But that is true for all MMs even the UK ones at start. However we do not know how it was handled in the design. For game purposes what counts is how many MMs did the UK have and was that sufficient to ensure a steady flow (and if yes what percentage of it). If the answer is yes, it then make sense to consider all other MMs (From Norway for example) at the same ratio since they will do the same job by eventually replacing the same amount of losses of UK's original MMs. Or to put in other way, they were probably calculated to represents an average of all routes.

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 4:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nirosi quote: Who here builds the Tirpitz I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling... This is funny because I have exactly the same understanding. The Tirpitz is coming with the Bismarck in 1940. Perhaps Warplan was originally designed with 1 ship and escorts. And later, it was changed to 2 ships plus escorts.

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 4:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stjeand My belief still seems to be that I would like the USSR a little stronger and the other Allies a little weaker to be more...historical. Though it would take a lot of testing to find the balance. The testing were already performed. I remember few posts from Flaviusx that leads to the introduction of a Soviet based experience at 35%. He is also at the origin of the idea of the Soviet infantry rifle corps conversion to half armies. The balance was quite nice with 35% for the Soviets imo. New players will be crushed with 30%. Old players too? I am still interested by the feedback of Sillyflower on our current game.

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 10:30:55 PM)
Since we are talking a lot about "going all in" in this thread. [:D] [image]local://upfiles/46661/B99DC52A453B48D4B3521A56DF590CC9.jpg[/image]

sveint -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/29/2021 10:55:33 PM)
I've started many games since I came back but none of them are at a point yet where I can decide if the Soviets are too weak. In the one game I've gotten far enough (and am playing the Allies), the Soviets seem fine.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/30/2021 4:29:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e New players will be crushed with 30%. Old players too? I am still interested by the feedback of Sillyflower on our current game. Wow...calling sillyflower old... Man you are in trouble now.

Nirosi -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (6/30/2021 5:04:25 PM)
quote: Wow...calling sillyflower old... Man you are in trouble now. Should we ask Alvaro to moderate the discussion or should we just take out the popcorn? [sm=00000613.gif]

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (7/1/2021 6:34:45 PM)
I think Alvaro is just counting the points to know if he is coming back to 35% or not. [:D]

ncc1701e -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (7/1/2021 7:14:17 PM)
I should say he is counting the Poker chips. This game, Warplan, is a game of numbers finally.

stjeand -> RE: Russian NM - A tale of 2 games (7/1/2021 8:13:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ncc1701e quote: ORIGINAL: Nirosi quote: Who here builds the Tirpitz I always assumed it was included in the Bismarck counter. The manual does say a battle squadron includes two such ships and some escorts (Just like the Littorio includes the Vittorio V. etc. etc.). Why the Tirpitz name is still in the build names is actually puzzling... This is funny because I have exactly the same understanding. The Tirpitz is coming with the Bismarck in 1940. Perhaps Warplan was originally designed with 1 ship and escorts. And later, it was changed to 2 ships plus escorts. Well lets examine this... Germany had: Deutschland (counter in game) Hannover, Schiesien (counter in game) Schleswig-Holstein So far so good...two ships per counter. Scharnhorst (counter in game) Gneisenau It continues well Bismarck (counter in game) Tirpitz (name in game) So yes it should be included with the Bismarck if the statement holds true. I suspect the name is there because it is probably the only other known name if they decided to build a battleship.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.3125