War in the East

[PDH]

Play the AI several times.

[The Brain]

Play the fool straight away.

[Berkut]

Play a couple turns against the AI just to get the mechanics down.

[Drakken]

Began to read the manual, from what I see the counter system isn't that different from TOAW3 and WITP.

It's gonna take a while, though. I suspect the physical copy won't have a physical manual. 

Also, what are the usual house rules so that the Soviet player doesn't become a juggernaut as soon as the blizzard goes away in 1942? Reading the Matrix forum, I read several players "complaining" that the Soviet player becomes virtually unplacatable in 1942, mainly because the USSR gains reinforcements too fast during the Winter of 1941 and most players would be more... conservative with their manpower pool than Stalin was.

As I don't know if the complainers are Nazi-SS fan-jugends or not, I inquire.

[szmik]

The complainers are poor players. But from what I can tell playing Axis is very hard and mistakes will cost you, even against average Soviet player. As Soviet you can lose both Leningrad and Moscow and still win without much problem, the only question is how long it would take.

Look into AARs, there're some juggernaught Axis players.

[PDH]

The basic complaint now about 1942 is not just that the Soviets are too strong in 1942 (they should be far stronger, especially if they don't waste too much in the winter - no player does a Kharkov 1942), but rather that the entrenching rules favor very deep carpets of units that become almost impossible to break.

I have played and won a GC against a human, I have also been stalemated in 1942.  One game I am playing now I fully expect 1943 to be a "pull back" year as the Germans, after a trench warfare 1942.

[Drakken]

So are these "complaints" dealt with house rules, or players usually rely on the competency of their opponents?

By comparison I'm beginning a WITP game with TGL in the end of the week, and there's at least 8 house rules at start.

[szmik]

Just tone down Soviet entrenchment rate in game options at start.    The only reasonable house rule imho is that of no/limited sea invasions by Soviets.

Still it's like fighting ants. Start a game against AI and you'll soon get the feel of it. AI is actually good at making deep carpets, especially when covering important cities.

[Berkut]

So are these "complaints" dealt with house rules, or players usually rely on the competency of their opponents?

By comparison I'm beginning a WITP game with TGL in the end of the week, and there's at least 8 house rules at start.

What are they?

[Drakken]

1. CAP/Sweep altititude limited to the 2nd highest manuever band of the aircraft being used.
2. No unrealistic first turn invasions by the Japanese (i.e. no Mersing Gambit).
3. The Allies will not create any new Task Forces on Turn 1, but can move existing Task Forces anywhere they please.
4. No strategic bombing until 1944.
5. Pay PPs for units crossing national borders (i.e. I would need to change HQs for my Manchukuo units if I want to use them in China).
6. No Allied aircraft or ground units in Soviet territory and vice versa (China is fine though!).
7. No invasions on non-dot or base hexes.
8. No paradrops using fragments (the whole unit must be involved).
9. Limit to one Port strike by the Japanese on December 7th (So I either hit Pearl, or pick another port such as Manila, but not both).
10. No unrealistic resizing of aircraft groups (45 fighters was the largest unit the Japanese operated in the field -"Hikō Sentai" Air Combat Group-), so obviously I wouldn't make any of my units larger than that. The Allied player isn't able to resize his air units as large right away I don't think, but it would be very gamey for either of us to take one squadron, use it to fill the entire carrier, and then keep all of the extra squadrons for training or other purposes. Equally gamey would be to fill the carrier to capacity using only one air group, and then split that air group so only a fragment is on the carrier, but the rest of the air group is used for training or combat purposes elsewhere. You may have seen in my AAR against CC that I resize float planes with CS-class cruisers, but that only brings them up to about 28 planes, and many of them must be bought with PPs to unrestrict them.

They all make sense to me, and of course it's Admiral Edition, latest beta patch.

[Drakken]

The basic complaint now about 1942 is not just that the Soviets are too strong in 1942 (they should be far stronger, especially if they don't waste too much in the winter - no player does a Kharkov 1942), but rather that the entrenching rules favor very deep carpets of units that become almost impossible to break.

I saw your AAR against Capt. Flam and some pictures of so-called very deep carpet of units. I looked at the salients there and immediately saw weaknesses I could exploit for a breakthrough. And I focused only on spotting hexes with low fortifications and low Defensive CVs.



So I am wondering if most of the people complaining about this so-called "deep carpets of units" are just too inexperienced to see potential holes to punch in, or too lazy or risk-averse to exploit these.

[szmik]

Problem is why he would want to punch a hole there   To kill some more Russians and what else? There're no manpower centers or industry worth the effort.

Moreover Axis just don't have enough counters to spread frontline too much.

[The Minsky Moment]

Problem is why he would want to punch a hole there   To kill some more Russians and what else? There're no manpower centers or industry worth the effort.

So the problem is that the USSR is defending Moscow strongly in 42?  But isn't that what they actually did?

Moreover Axis just don't have enough counters to spread frontline too much.

Also a problem I recall casually from the histories.

[PDH]

Not so much Moscow being defended by huge rings of fortifications, but the entire front being fortified 100 miles deep.

[Drakken]

I'm fairly certain 2by3 and testers is having a look at this to limit this in the future. My contention is that even with the current issue, weaknesses can be found in the front and plans can be made, but just like in real 1942, it's a huge gamble and the Axis player has to be creative.

What I see on the forums, however, is the some complaining that the Germans in 1942 should still be able to throw the Russians around like a dummy, without realizing that going for Crimea was possible because Stalin spent so many resources walling up around Moscow at the detriment of others sectors, like the Caucasus.

But I speak in total inexperience. Maybe when I play the Axis and face full walled-up Commie line that makes it look like it's 1914 post-Schlieffen all over again, I'll speak differently.

In the meantime, house rules can be proposed and agreed upon to curtail the issue. Since you, Berk, and szmik are much, much more knowledgeable about the current balance of the game than I am, maybe you can already interject some ideas.

For instance, what was the depth of Soviet fortification efforts historically that could be made within weeks or months to make a makeshift defence line. If I pull a number out of my ass and say about 20-30 miles deep (feel free to correct me on that for the real numbers), that means it would be reasonable to limit the depth to two hexes deep max, if everything else is peachy. After all, it took almost two years of building the Molotov Line for it to be almost a 80 miles deep, and it was still unfinished when Barbarossa started.