Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, rkr1958, Happycat, Slitherine Core

BattlevonWar
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 am

Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by BattlevonWar » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:46 am

Russia in 3.0 GS is one hell of a Monster. I don't see how anyone could even dream of defeating this opponent except AI or poorly played. I think it might be more entertaining to thin her forces out some. Not saying that's not historical as the Germans arrived at the Gates of Moscow they had no idea that the Russians had them against the fence. Although there isn't much of a battle here as there is no chance of taking Moscow. I can see the force ratio is consistently about 2 vs 1 from the start of Barbarossa and then on just gets worse for the Germans. We need a window of opportunity for a little more challenge for the Russians.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Mar 22, 2014 1:25 pm

Then you probably need to improve your play as the Axis. Every time I play the Axis I manage to get Leningrad, to the gates of Moscow, Stalingrad and all the way to the Caucasus by the fall of 1942. That leaves me a lot of territory to give when the tide turns.

In GS v3.01 we have made some changes so Russia's rail cap is crippled for 8 turns after a Barbarossa. This is because they use the rail cap to send factories to the east.

Even more important is that unit XP now gives more stats so Germany should have better quality units when starting Barbarossa.

BattlevonWar
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by BattlevonWar » Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:20 pm

Stauffenberg, I am listening to your point of view. Perhaps you are one of the best players? That or played a few players that are not nearly as good as you are? I read through some AARs it doesn't seem possible in my opinion and in my first Allied Game ever in CEAW I am feeling no threats for a very finely played Axis. It's the first Winter and I am pushing into Ukraine and my units are 2 and 3 deep. I mean unless this guy can pull 10 Tank units/5 Divebomber Units extra... out of his bag he has no hope of taking Moscow. Leningrad with maybe a bunch of luck and air units but you really cannot fit enough units on the map to make that viable if The USSR defends it's territories as it should. I have lost near 1000 Russian Steps and feel no sweat at all as to defending The USSR, my first time should have been a loss, what if I played 10 or 20 games? My opponent shares my exact emotion...

P.S. 3 deep Russian defenses with 60% plus effectiveness on the size map you have is a pretty unstoppable force

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:32 am

Which units do you build? If you build hordes of corps and garrison units and ignore building up the techs, then you will struggle when the tide turns.

Remember that the Axis player will win the game unless you get Rome, Hamburg and Berlin.

The Germans can as easily defend behind a river line with a double defense line and keep the Russians at bay forever unless the Russians have mech, armor and air units to break through.

I've played the Allies against good Axis players and had no chance at all to hold far to the west in 1941. Most Axis players invade Russia in May 1941. If you put all your effort into it then you can hold Moscow, but you might lose Leningrad and maybe even Stalingrad.

Ok, I could have delayed the Axis by placing lots of stumbling blocks in his way. That means the Axis player can just finish off a lot of Russian units per turn. The key to victory for the Axis player is to kill enough units per turn so the Russians need to spend all their PP's into replacing the lost units. Offensive units and labs are expensive. If you dont' invest heavily in labs as Russia you will suffer later in the war.

I'm now in the Spring of 1943 as the Russians in a game against a good Axis player. The Axis units have more experience so my corps units get odds like 1:5 or even worse trying to attack German corps units. I got odds like 1:8 against German mech units. In order to get decent odds I need to soften up the targets with 2 airstrikes per hex. Then I can kill the defender if I attack from 3 sides.

So my offensive firepower is based upon having a large number of air units. Later I will get a lot of armor units too. Currently my armor units get terrible odds against the Germans because these units have very good antitank tech.

I simply can't see how it's possible to get a contiguous 2 or 3 hex deep defense line against the Axis in 1941 and still have built labs and offensive units. If you just build garrison units they you may do it. but those units can't be used to move into Germany.

If Russia is taking the losses you describe then their manpower level should be dropping so quality and survivability will suffer.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:36 am

Try being the Allies against e. g. Morris or Supermax and you will quickly change your mind. :)

richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by richardsd » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:58 am

BattlevonWar wrote:Stauffenberg, I am listening to your point of view. Perhaps you are one of the best players? That or played a few players that are not nearly as good as you are? I read through some AARs it doesn't seem possible in my opinion and in my first Allied Game ever in CEAW I am feeling no threats for a very finely played Axis. It's the first Winter and I am pushing into Ukraine and my units are 2 and 3 deep. I mean unless this guy can pull 10 Tank units/5 Divebomber Units extra... out of his bag he has no hope of taking Moscow. Leningrad with maybe a bunch of luck and air units but you really cannot fit enough units on the map to make that viable if The USSR defends it's territories as it should. I have lost near 1000 Russian Steps and feel no sweat at all as to defending The USSR, my first time should have been a loss, what if I played 10 or 20 games? My opponent shares my exact emotion...

P.S. 3 deep Russian defenses with 60% plus effectiveness on the size map you have is a pretty unstoppable force
define threat - Axis doesn't need to take Moscow to win, the game is a simulation fo WWII with options, teh weakness in the game engine is it does require a skilful Axis player to match an Allied player. Take a look at the AAR's with Morris as the Axis, or better still - play him :D

BattlevonWar
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by BattlevonWar » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:51 am

Stauffenberg and Richard,

I noted on my first two games both Axis and Allied how tough the Russians were. Although my Axis were very weak I only started with about 5 tank units/5 mechs if...and virtually no German Airpower which was all somewhere else...tons of Corps/Garrisons which did work early..got most of The Baltic/near Tula/captured Ukraine and my opponent was pretty conservative.. During the Winter he destroyed a good deal of my Axis Units. I didn't anticipate how weak I was but all this was expected during my first game.

I know if I could have added a good amount of Axis Units I could have pushed harder. Now in my Mirror game as myself as the Russians. I merely plastered the landscape with a ton of Russian Garrisons and blocked my opponent behind rivers wtih a ton more of high quality units. He had a real Barbarossa force and he got to Leningrad/close to Moscow Ukraine by '41... By 42 I was pushing him back in the South with ease... I had endured nearly 1000 steps of casualties and was building a ton of equipment. I could see how my forces would be diminished in '42 but the USA and UK were already able to ask the question where will I do a D-Day... I am not sure what would have happened as we resumed two new matches. Things will be very different and I will have a lot better idea... as far as I have been reading though even the what the Masters of the game write:

most believe the Axis cannot achieve a full victory, meanwhile a poor Allied opponent can do a lot more...They have the advantages in every area just about, I am reading nearly every 3.0 AAR ... seems the Transport and Tech limit are what are designed to curtail some of this massive Allied advantage too early to decide the game??? I hope this works out

richardsd
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 5:30 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by richardsd » Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:57 am

BattlevonWar wrote:Stauffenberg and Richard,

I noted on my first two games both Axis and Allied how tough the Russians were. Although my Axis were very weak I only started with about 5 tank units/5 mechs if...and virtually no German Airpower which was all somewhere else...tons of Corps/Garrisons which did work early..got most of The Baltic/near Tula/captured Ukraine and my opponent was pretty conservative.. During the Winter he destroyed a good deal of my Axis Units. I didn't anticipate how weak I was but all this was expected during my first game.

I know if I could have added a good amount of Axis Units I could have pushed harder. Now in my Mirror game as myself as the Russians. I merely plastered the landscape with a ton of Russian Garrisons and blocked my opponent behind rivers wtih a ton more of high quality units. He had a real Barbarossa force and he got to Leningrad/close to Moscow Ukraine by '41... By 42 I was pushing him back in the South with ease... I had endured nearly 1000 steps of casualties and was building a ton of equipment. I could see how my forces would be diminished in '42 but the USA and UK were already able to ask the question where will I do a D-Day... I am not sure what would have happened as we resumed two new matches. Things will be very different and I will have a lot better idea... as far as I have been reading though even the what the Masters of the game write:

most believe the Axis cannot achieve a full victory, meanwhile a poor Allied opponent can do a lot more...They have the advantages in every area just about, I am reading nearly every 3.0 AAR ... seems the Transport and Tech limit are what are designed to curtail some of this massive Allied advantage too early to decide the game??? I hope this works out

Ok, its good to learn by playing people and the AAR's help a lot. But it takes many games to reach a moderately good standard of play.

An experienced Axis player will decimate a newby Allied player. If they are mean they will push all the way to Omsk, if they are more generous they will stop Axis offensive operations to allow the newby to see how the Allies can build up and attack the Axis.

Keep playing its early days :)

Diplomaticus
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:10 pm

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Diplomaticus » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:09 pm

This debate has been going on in this forum in various ways for a very long time. Some of our elite players (Morris, Supermax) assert that the game has been made so 'historical' that now it's nearly impossible for Axis to pull off some of the fun and creative antics we used to see (for example, see Max's "America in Flames" AAR--an oldie but goodie). Other top players see it differently.

Be that as it may, there is very wide--almost universal--agreement that CEAW is less forgiving for Axis. That's not saying it's unbalanced, but just that an Axis player can't get away with making as many mistakes as an Allied one. Most of us believe that CEAW offers an equal chance for victory between opponents of equal ability. It's absolutely true that a veteran Axis player can pretty much have his way with an inexperienced Ally. But between two new players, I'd bet on the Allies, just because it's so easy to make an unrecoverable mistake as Axis.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Morris » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:40 am

Diplomaticus wrote: Most of us believe that CEAW offers an equal chance for victory between opponents of equal ability. It's absolutely true that a veteran Axis player can pretty much have his way with an inexperienced Ally. But between two new players, I'd bet on the Allies, just because it's so easy to make an unrecoverable mistake as Axis.
Yes , I do agree ! :) There is really no big room for Axis mistake !

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:09 pm

I can tell you about some Axis mistakes regarding Barbarossa.

I think a healthy attack force is about 6-7 each of armor and mech. 5-6 tactical bombers, 4-5 fighters and quite some corps units. Attack date is usually May 1941

Typical Axis mistakes:

1. Attacks for too long in 1941, usually until severe winter hits. That means the units are quite exhausted when the severe winter penalty hits.

When I play I usually set up a target area to hold when the severe winter hits. That is usually behind some rivers or in forest terrain. Make a nice and straight defense line and start manning it already in September so you can rest and repair and have units at max morale before the severe winter hits.

2. Attacks with too few air units. Usually I use tactical bombers to soften up the defenders. If you're going after corps and mech units you will take lots of damage unless the defender is softened up first. So if you instead build hordes or armor units then you will take lots of losses.

3. Doesn't repair units often enough. With the new XP rules it's quite important to repair units when they are at 7 steps and above. This way the units don't lose XP. XP gives bonuses to unit stats in GS v3.01 so the Axis player should maintain his XP bonus for as long as possible.

4. Doesn't build enough corps units to form a double defense line. Corps units are the bread and butter for the Germans. These units perform pretty well both on the offense and defense and don't burn oil. Mechs and armor units are nice and shiny, but you can't have too many of them.

5. Doesn't retreat in time during the severe winter. The main goal of the Axis player in the winter of 1941-1942 is to lose as few units as possible. So retreat BEFORE the Russian mech anc armor units are in the front line. Retreat so you have 2 hexes between your units and the Russian front line. That means the Russians can't engage your units. Fall back from e. g. the Donets line to the Dnepr / Desna line. The goal for the Axis in 1942 is to kill as many Russian units as possible. It doesn't matter if it happens east or west of the Donets line.

6. Think twice before extending east of Rostov. By doing so you extend your front line quite a bit and that makes it harder for a double defense line. Even worse is that you move into the supply level 3 zone so your movement allowance will suffer.

I usually put my air units on sentry during the winter to avoid losses. German bombers are nice to have to hit Russian spearheads. Try to withdraw them to the Baltic states, Finland, Eastern Poland or southern Russia to minimize the effect of the severe winter. Same with fighters if it's possible to have range to the front line German units.

Quite often I see Axis players engaged in heavy battles when the severe winter hits.- Then the efficiency drops to yellow and even orange (red for Axis minors). If you instead have these units fully rested they will be at maybe 60-65 after the severe winter hits.

I agree that playing the Axis is not easy. You need to know well how to combine your forces to kill Russian units without taking lots of step losses. In 1941 the Germans have air superiority in Russia. So I usually make sure every hex I attack is bombarded by at least one unit. Even fighters can be useful in airstrikes (particularly against Russian garrison units). When I attack I usually make sure I get enough units so my targets are killed. If the kill chance is low I rest the units instead and wait for the next turn. Don't give the Russians a chance to withdraw depleted units or repair them to full strength. If he must buy new units to replace lost ones it will be much more expensive for him.

Cybvep
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Cybvep » Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:38 pm

IMO the most important thing to remember is that for the Axis during the 1941-1942 period destroying units is what counts the most, not taking territory. As a rule of thumb, it's better to withdraw and lose some 1-PP cities than lose units. One corps costs 35 PPs. 1-PP city gives you 1x0,5xwareffort PPs per turn, so with 130% war effort - 0,65 PP per turn. Even if you lose several cities for 5-6 turns, that's not really a big deal. On the other hand, when you lose units, that will hurt. For example, 4 lost corps is 140 PPs. Therefore, unless there is some real strategic purpose of NOT withdrawing, I think that units > territory.

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Kragdob » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:23 pm

Diplomaticus wrote:CEAW is less forgiving for Axis. That's not saying it's unbalanced, but just that an Axis player can't get away with making as many mistakes as an Allied one.
Isn't 'less forgiving' a synonym for 'unbalanced'? :-D
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:20 am

You can never have a completely balanced game. Not even chess is balanced, but it's less unbalanced than most games. Having white is a small advantage.

Wargames have to deal with restraints like historical events, map layout, order of battle etc. So the Axis will be at a disadvantage compared to the Allies by just looking at the historical facts. The Axis are in the middle and faced with having to fight on several fronts at the same time. That can't be altered. The map is what it is.

If you want a pretty historical game then it should be virtually impossible to get to the Urals for the Axis.

To make the game interesting for both sides you make VICTORY CONDITIONS in a way so both sides feel they have an approximately 50% chance to win. E. g. in GS the Axis can lose the war, but still win the game if they surrender later than the real Germans.

So if you want a more "balanced" game then you can alter the victory conditions.

If the game is very unbalanced then it's impossible to achieve a historical progress. Then you need to alter the game rules, order of battle etc. I don't think GS is there yet. In GS the Axis often advance further east than the real Axis did.

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Morris » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:52 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:You can never have a completely balanced game. Not even chess is balanced, but it's less unbalanced than most games. Having white is a small advantage.

Wargames have to deal with restraints like historical events, map layout, order of battle etc. So the Axis will be at a disadvantage compared to the Allies by just looking at the historical facts. The Axis are in the middle and faced with having to fight on several fronts at the same time. That can't be altered. The map is what it is.

If you want a pretty historical game then it should be virtually impossible to get to the Urals for the Axis.

To make the game interesting for both sides you make VICTORY CONDITIONS in a way so both sides feel they have an approximately 50% chance to win. E. g. in GS the Axis can lose the war, but still win the game if they surrender later than the real Germans.

So if you want a more "balanced" game then you can alter the victory conditions.

If the game is very unbalanced then it's impossible to achieve a historical progress. Then you need to alter the game rules, order of battle etc. I don't think GS is there yet. In GS the Axis often advance further east than the real Axis did.
Yes , this game(3.0) is already quite balance for both sides ! I think there will be not anymore balance issue in the future . :)

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Kragdob » Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:28 pm

I agree but for me 3.01 is balanced. Experience changes are really great for Axis. Although smart Allied player can benefit from it too, especially in air.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

Peter Stauffenberg
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4708
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Oslo, Norway

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Peter Stauffenberg » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:48 am

Morris, have you tried GS v3.01? If yes what do you think about the changes to XP? That should help the Axis initially.

It's e. g. possible now to get tank buster tactical bombers if you get the XP to 50 (+1 ground attack) or 100 (+2 ground attack). So you can simulate Hans Ullrich Rudel now. :)

Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2276
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Morris » Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:41 am

Stauffenberg wrote:Morris, have you tried GS v3.01? If yes what do you think about the changes to XP? That should help the Axis initially.

It's e. g. possible now to get tank buster tactical bombers if you get the XP to 50 (+1 ground attack) or 100 (+2 ground attack). So you can simulate Hans Ullrich Rudel now. :)
Yes , I have experienced 3.01 once with Mr Kragdob & was defeated as Allies . I have no experience of playing Axis in 3.01 . But I found the change ,it is quite good ! Not only XP part but also the limited rail points of USSR after Barbarosa & the more oil to USSR in 1942 Barbarosa !

Anyway , It seems make the game engine coming to be perfect ! :)

Kragdob
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 678
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Poland

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by Kragdob » Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:50 pm

Stauffenberg wrote:Morris, have you tried GS v3.01? If yes what do you think about the changes to XP? That should help the Axis initially.

It's e. g. possible now to get tank buster tactical bombers if you get the XP to 50 (+1 ground attack) or 100 (+2 ground attack). So you can simulate Hans Ullrich Rudel now. :)
Exactly - In game with Morris I had 2 TACs with +1 ground and +1 AT (+50 XP) and I was able to kill UK tank in Iran in 3 turns just with air attacks (4-5 steps lost per turn).
Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

BattlevonWar
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:25 am

Re: Russia in 3.0GS is a Monster

Post by BattlevonWar » Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:39 pm

I noticed how the oil situation really constrains some of the Axis operations. That a lot of thought has to go into where you station your units. Especially if you have some sort of Axis Sub Strategy or North African Campaign combo. There doesn't seem much of an incentive to go all out in North Africa other than to bleed England out a bit and protect Italy from early surrender. I sort of prefer the old rule of more oil for Yugo/Greece as well. Right now between Partisans a mere 5% morale boost you're not getting enough for The Italians to even bother with the Balkans(the PPs don't matter that much with the Partisans.

The USSR is a little powerful if the Axis don't shred it up in 1941. This conservative approach with Barbarossa seems to backfire. So everyone has to jump on this May 1941 Bandwagon send in a bunch of mobiles deep and shred it up and kill a bunch of units and pray that the Western Allies don't close shop on Italy in 1942... I see where she can have about 8 tanks/10 mechs/6-7 Fighters-5-6 Tacs with fair tech by 1942 Winter offensive!

My my, that's off for me. There should be limitations on Allied Operations on Mainland Europe in '43 and limitations on Russian Tech if they get SO many units. The Axis can never field anything remotely close to the above figures. Not if you include she has to keep up the Allies slightly in check in the West or die there...

There is a lack of balance no, there is a perfection of strategies to make an imbalance yes. I think the Allies have the advantage, which is historical. The Axis are outproduced fast and I love this game. I should have bought it earlier. BTW: I betatested the original flash baby version of this with Johan in 2006, highly inspired by Strategic Command and Poker : ) ....... a little poker over chess, unpredictable things should happen we relive history but history can happen slightly different here or there. Thanks for all the insight and welcoming me to your community.

P.S. Subs are really fun, those floating bastards are almost impervious to death if you place them right!

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”