I've just finished a solo Barbie scenario with Soviet operational win on 8 axis VPs. It was meant to be a campaign game but considering the position and relative forces it seems pointless to continue. Smolensk and Kiev both fell on August II which seemed ok, but very little further ground was gained. Smolensk was even lost once and then recaptured. At end September, the Soviet armies had 36 more steps than the Typhoon setup. The Germans were only down five steps vs eleven in the Typhoon setup, but this didn't seem a fair trade.
October I weather was forecast as rain with Rasputitsa starting immediately and lasting for four weeks.
The initial turns were rather scary for the Soviets with limited ability to place IDMs and Emergency Mobilization delayed until August. Because things seemed thin I abandoned Talinn, a position I have usually held for some time to the inconvenience of the axis in previous games.
I found the demobilization of early mech corps very useful and usually did so at the earliest opportunity. There were few counterattack opportunities in July and early August so losing the ZoCs in axis retreats was a non-issue. I quite liked the replacement small mechs once all the early mechs were gone.
Leading Strong had much more impact on the Soviets than Germans in 1941 - and I probably forgot about it a few times but not often enough to affect the result.
I will admit that in solo play I do better as Soviets than Axis. Somehow the Soviets always seem to know where the Germans want to go and they carefully attend to the defence.
My general impression is that there aren't enough losses, for either side. One of the charms of TitE is that the Soviet are able to counterattack often and sometimes effectively. I have a feeling, though, that it is a little too easy. All accounts one reads, even through to the end of the war, report very heavy Soviet losses on the attack. Getting away with a single step at worst is a bargain. I would be inclined to impose a further penalty, namely the loss of an additional step whatever the result of the combat. But this loss is temporary. The Soviet player chooses any participating step for the loss and then adds the cost of building that step to his resources. No permanent loss but it will take some time to recover, meanwhile the position on the map has degraded.
The Dev team is confident that the Summer of '41 is nearly fixed. Now we will be looking at late '41+, even as we remain interested in more playtest feedback, including the Summer of '41. You guys can house all you like, of course--as I have done for decades--but we will go with the simplest possibles ways to get good results. ETO will be much larger than TITE, so simplicity is sought wherever possible.
Tom, I guess you were using the new 8 RP spending limit. Since you are a good Soviet player, I recommend the SL at 7. As Germans, vs SL=7 against a good player, I have eliminated nearly 15 Steps vs 3.5 lost per turn through my Aug 3 turn. I had a poor beginning, including Rain, but Aug has been lucky. I only have 6 Objectives, but should enter Oct with 9+. I like Panzerblitz Assault now. In another game against Jeff and Alan, with my Soviets at SL=8, I am definitely ahead of the Typhoon RP's at the end of the Summer. I have had an edge with luck (as always against these poor guys), and have enjoyed my usual advantage of planning moves between live sessions (since I am not good in "real time"), and yet they have 9 Objectives, and are threatening more. Dnepropetrovsk will fall, Leningrad is in peril, Kharkov will likely fall in the Autumn, along with Orel. With the old SL=10, our game would be over, in that the Axis would have no chance. Less Soviet Steps, through new spending limits, is showing itself to be an elegant aid to a previously large Soviet edge in '41.
Curious how you took Odessa. Was an 8-4, a Corps, and Garrison there with the Battleship?
My restarted game reached end of September in slightly better shape for the Axis. Odessa was captured so a draw was gained but the front was pretty stagnant from late August onwards. Compared to the Typhoon scenario setup, the same number of Soviet armies were in play but 21 of them were at full strength. The Germans had just four step losses to repair, but had 8 EP and 7 PP left so were significantly stronger than the Typhoon setup as well. My guess is that the Axis would fail to gain another objective and thus formally lose at the end of the Typhoon scenario period.
The Germans struggled to get much further than Smolensk and Kiev. Each turn they would advance 3-4 hexes and then lose 1-3 in counterattacks. The front line was always backed up with a two step second line so deep penetrations were impossible.
I believe that enabling overruns against multi-step defenders was once discussed as a possible option. I think this would be a significant contribution to the balance issue. Giving Germans more oomph seems more interesting than simply reducing Soviet steps. It would also make the Panzer Blitz card useful rather than a waste of space. And it would increase casualties for both sides.
I have made posts in many places about the learning curves for each side. The Germans must maximize the damage they do long term to the Russian. Sometimes that means sidestepping strong positions and working to make pockets. A small pocket that is attacked can often cause additional losses with the retreats. Big pockets get harder with a more skilled Russian players. Sometimes the rolls are very friendly to the Germans and the armies on October I 1941 can be close to Typhoon starting levels but, it has been rare. If the German player has learned enough to do well, so have the Russians. I am not sure if that level should be the targeted goal but, if it is you, you can think about adding more handycapping to the list started in the Quickstart Article:
HANDICAPPING and PLAY BALANCE to help the Germans:
Decrease the per turn RP spending cap to 7 or even 6 PPs per turn.
Other changes that help the Germans:
Change Emergency Mobilization to just +3 PP per turn (or just +2PP)
Block the play for the Russians of the Great Patriotic War and other cards you think are too helpful to the Russians.
Early Rasputitsa is not helpful for the Germans but, even in the winter weather the Germans still can move forward. If you ever think you know how to play the Germans at 100%, your play of the Russians must also be at a high level. Load up the handycap tools and let others have a chance to improve their German tactics. The more people you play, the more new things you can learn.
Frank's economic system would not be changed so the historical connection would still be intact.
Your "tax" idea is a little more involved than I care for. But, before I continue, let me again give you credit for your weather variant, which inspired it's modification as Weather Forecasting, which is one of my favorite ETO changes.
Hear! Hear! And a sneak peek at a Decision in the West card (as currently conceived; this is still in raw conceptualization):
Tom, Your "tax" idea is a little more involved than I care for. But, before I continue, let me again give you credit for your weather variant, which inspired it's modification as Weather Forecasting, which is one of my favorite ETO changes. If the Soviets have several high-value Mechs, they will not want the Early Mech Replacements, though they will be more likely to attack with them, knowing they can fall back on Replacements. Otherwise, I would want those Replacements by Sep. This game is a lot more fun when there are incentives for the Russians to counterattack in mid-'41. I used to enjoy attacking with Gds Inf and getting BG's when getting an AP, ST or even AL. Now they are best used defensively, though effectively, especially when stacked with only Striped units. The Soviets usually pay full price for a Step loss, yet so often the Axis do also. Leading Strong is working well in mid-'41. I want to see its effect in late '41, when it will be harder to absorb Step losses with Tk Corps and Cav. I agree with Brian about the value of Cav, especially early on. Often it's difficult to choose between killing a Cav or an Inf, though I usually take out the Cav.
Cavs may be free for MP loss, but I find them critical to add a little "umph" to defense since they can actually move out a Axis ZOC. I find them valuable for that, and the above mentioned.
whereas the Soviet often had small cavalry , paras or the new mechs in combat and would have been delighted to throw the losses their way (and will do so with my experimental loss per Soviet attack).
Not following this statement here. When I am the Axis, and I get to choose which USSR unit to remove, I almost always choose the para or the Cav. Flipping an 8-4 or removing a 4-5-4 for a Corps doesn't do much when they plop right back.
Especially since "special" RPs occur only at the start of the month, the Soviet loses his ability to throw a small unit and get those extra 2 SPs. Para's have a nice MP hit, too. Cavs also can go to guards which in turn turn into armor units later.
So I typically hit those ... and as the Soviet player, I hate when they get hit.
At end September, the Soviet armies had 36 more steps than the Typhoon setup. The Germans were only down five steps vs eleven in the Typhoon setup, but this didn't seem a fair trade.
We've seen this swing in both directions, but yes, the Soviets are averaging high.
October I weather was forecast as rain with Rasputitsa starting immediately and lasting for four weeks.
We're removing Rain from July and August for better play-balance.
I found the demobilization of early mech corps very useful and usually did so at the earliest opportunity. There were few counterattack opportunities in July and early August so losing the ZoCs in axis retreats was a non-issue. I quite liked the replacement small mechs once all the early mechs were gone.
The historical storyboard is they're all demobilized by turn 2 or 3. We are trying to layout more "carrots" to induce that behavior.
Leading Strong had much more impact on the Soviets than Germans in 1941 - and I probably forgot about it a few times but not often enough to affect the result.
I find it is reasonably impactful to ALL sides ALL the time. It certainly makes the game play more as intended with the casualty/economic model designed.
I would be inclined to impose a further penalty, namely the loss of an additional step whatever the result of the combat. But this loss is temporary. The Soviet player chooses any participating step for the loss and then adds the cost of building that step to his resources. No permanent loss but it will take some time to recover, meanwhile the position on the map has degraded.
It is a law of economics that, if you tax something, you get less of it. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. I feel that proposal is more of a "tax" and will result in fewer counterattacks, which I don't think is a good direction to go.
I will have to think more on this.
Thanks for the great thoughts!!! -AE
Jay is busy at Prez Con and I cannot read the current rules as I can the original (I guess folks know I'm half-blind by now), but will weigh in anyway. Our latest rules RE Early Conversion (which I hope are present in the current rules) permits a choice of two of these three when a LOC is present, in addition to the Rifle Corps: +1/2 EP, +1/2 OP or an IDM on the spot. This , along with six new Small Heavies that can be purchased after all Early Mechs have been Converted, provide more incentive to Convert. I still leave a number of Mech around anyway. It's true we are allowing these Conversions NOT to occur until Oct 1, but without Mech units, the Leg-unit paralysis when beginning the Special Movement Step in an EZOC does not play correctly as a simulation, and it's boring.
For those of us who think the Russians have it too easy in '41, a lot of things will seem wrong until we find balance. A spending limit of 7 or even 6 should make a real difference. Is it enough, we'll see. If the Russians end up with too many EPs/OPs in '42, we can address that later, as playtests guide us. Meanwhile, I appreciate the playtest feedback you guys give.
Tom,
I don't think they need any more advantages like a white bolt, (or IDM, etc.).
Their main advantage is that they are either Heavy and/or Motorized. That ability in and of itself allows for them to be fire brigades and jump around the front as required, or block retreats with EZOCs.
Giving all these extra benefits seems overkill and as you mentioned, does not match the historical narrative. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Soviet Mech Corps keep getting made into these specialized units that have even more advantages than German Panzer units that had much more actual combat experience.
Brian
Tom, Your experience is somewhat similar to mine. It makes sense to me to give ground as Russians in a Campaign game, especially with the 8 spending limit, and build up. When you first play with out all those IDMs, it feels vulnerable. I have my hands full against Cohen. I am Germans on Aug 1, and he has a 7 spending limit, which is needed with good Russian players. He is a very good player, and uses Garrisons with single Corps at times in irritating places to slow the Germans and minimize Russian losses.
I found the demobilization of early mech corps very useful and usually did so at the earliest opportunity. There were few counterattack opportunities in July and early August so losing the ZoCs in axis retreats was a non-issue.
Exactly why I don't understand increasing the demobilization benefits for the Soviet!!! Things are hard enough.