Is Communism the right choice for Soviet Union?

[Tomnoddy]

Re: - Infra

What's the best way to handle this? Just upgrade every province between the front and Moscow, or make narrow "highways" between Moscow and the front line?

I don't know whether I should just have built more mountain, and saved myself the research on INF, or go with INF/MTN/MOTO.

MTN come in very handy for 6 months of the year, when you can have a bit of a rampage. AT brigades are already researched as they are a prerequisite for TD, ARTY would mean another tech to research.

The drawbacks to MTN are high MP use compared to normal INF (hardly a worry for SOV) and low hard attack. You could get around that with AT brigades, but I just hate slowing them down. With ENG they become ersatz "marines", enable to force river crossings with no penalties. Thus force your way across a river in the winter then overrun the retreating divisions with your superior speed on snow.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Just upgrade every province between the front and Moscow, or make narrow "highways" between Moscow and the front line?

Narrow highways are the way to go.

The drawbacks to MTN are high MP use compared to normal INF (hardly a worry for SOV) and low hard attack. You could get around that with AT brigades, but I just hate slowing them down. With ENG they become ersatz "marines", enable to force river crossings with no penalties. Thus force your way across a river in the winter then overrun the retreating divisions with your superior speed on snow.

Eng is waysted on Mtn. Mtn needs Art für Firepower. Without Art speed is only 25% higher. But with art soft attack is quite exactly 50% higher.

 

[Tomnoddy]

But the main point of MTN is overrunning enemy units in winter. Speed is everything. I may go with a 50:50 mix, static corps with stuff that goes boom and some unencumbered guys to do the overrunning.

 

[Commander666]

Eng is waysted on Mtn. Mtn needs Art für Firepower. Without Art speed is only 25% higher. But with art soft attack is quite exactly 50% higher.

Quite disagree that ENG brigades is a waste for MTN troops. Firstly, it increases their defensiveness and toughness which is perfect compensation for their weaker qualities. But the real advantage is river crossings.

Tommoddy has the right idea - using MTN where they can best capitalize on their advantage. You are trying to use MTN like cannon fodder in a static line. You may just as well build INF if you want high soft attack. That 25% extra speed by not putting heavy brigades on MTN can be the critical one or two hour difference regarding getting an over run... or the retreating enemy escaping.

However, in frozen MTN should be used like the true "mobile forces" they then become compared to enemy INF. So why would one want to slow them down when there are other ways to support them so they will win the battle inspite of their general greater weakness?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

But the real advantage is river crossings.

Even without brigade Mtn is good at crossing rivers, the Eng advantage remains therefore mostly unused.

You are trying to use MTN like cannon fodder in a static line. You may just as well build INF if you want high soft attack.

Mtn-Art offers the better soft attack in many situations if compared to Inf-SpArt. So used on offensive Mtn has some advantages. Simply using Inf-SpArt in bigger numbers instead would still be superior, but in winter this needs big numbers.

That 25% extra speed by not putting heavy brigades on MTN can be the critical one or two hour difference regarding getting an over run... or the retreating enemy escaping.

Using Mtn-none is an option is speed is considered crucial. Using 7 Mtn-none would be better than using 6 Mtn-Eng.

 

[Commander666]

But all of your logic has not mentioned the beneficial effect of ENG brigades for improving MTN toughness and defensiveness.

Your implication seems to be that for the icd of 6 ENG brigades one can build an extra MTN instead. Probably true, but you use mathematical rationale applied to practical game conditions.

If I could build 7 MTN in same time I would because of course 7 is better than 6. That completely misses the point.

The point is I can build exactly as many MTN as I can - however the scheme or # of lines. But I can improve everyone of those MTN divisions by adding an ENG brigade in the same time. To use icd argument that a 7th MTN can be built instead of 6 ENG brigades is - in fact - a fallacy of time. The object is to build as many MTN as practical - probably with one line. But then get those divisions the best they can be. If adding brigades is icd ineffective, that matters not to the fact that I got the most MTN I could build in set time... and I can further improve them with ENG brigades.

icd comparisons is not always the true practical solution. As Germany last game I built no MTN and took over the MTN build from Austria. That gave me a specific set # of MTN by Barbarossa. I could not have built anymore because there was no spare IC to start another line. But I had no difficulty finding the little extra IC to get ENG brigades on them - and so got the fastest, toughest most defensive MTN possible limited to the identical same total number. Sometimes you can't just throw away "build time" to arrange icd calculations.

As Tommoddy said, "Speed is everything" for MTN. Speed in mountains, hills, frozen, snowing and blizzard - all the places every other unit gets heavy reduction.

EDIT: On a different matter, why is there not a huge reduction in speed for every unit crossing a river? HoI is the only game I know of that has this "free quirk". IMO that is where ENG brigades should have their true value applied - not just better attack value but elimination of "river crossing speed penalty" which does not exist in AoD. Back to brigades that we set at river crossings to function like bridges; or "bridge counters".

 

[Pang Bingxun]

But all of your logic has not mentioned the beneficial effect of ENG brigades for improving MTN toughness and defensiveness.

I did not mention it. But if comparing 7 Mtn-none with 6 Mtn-Eng it is relativly clear, that lower org losses by eng are compensated by taking less org damage due to the wider spread of damage delivered against the Mtn and due to higher total org of the 7 divs. One can argue whether this also applies to Strenght.

Your implication seems to be that for the icd of 6 ENG brigades one can build and extra MTN instead. Probably true, but you use mathematical rationale applied to practical game conditions.

I did not calculate icd but compared manpower 12 vs. manpower 14.5.

Sometimes you can't just throw away "build time" to arrange icd calculations.

Usually i can. Keeping some degree of flexibiliy can be essential. But i would probably prefer to use Mtn-Art if using Mtn at all.

 

[Commander666]

OK, that's fine. Tomoddy and I will just over run your MTN with ours! Of course, we will first need to figure out how to achieve a win with our much weaker MTN against your most strong MTN. But - if we ever do - and you start running backwards... for sure your MTN/ART are dead! Have a nice day.

 

[Emmanuel_M]

BTW, letting SU communist lets you play the game while lsitening to THIS !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178

 

[Autolykos]

Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7wjLIbMU2k
(I usually copy the MP3 into the music folder when playing USSR)

 

[Tomnoddy]

Well I just made an unexpected discovery.

Started a 1936 campaign as a Democratic USSR (oxymoron!) with the twist that i'd reject M-R and DoW Germany for invading Poland. Naturally this didn't do much to help Poland, they fell after a month, then it was my turn to receive a kicking, which I duly did, being very unready in 1939 for this sort of war, not to mention the fact that I declared war on THEM made half the world immediately join the Axis.

Yep, even with 200 relations, there is 0 chance of getting Poland into an Alliance.

However, the USA is quite willing to join the Comintern in 1940! I suppose we had governments of fairly close ideology, being Social Democrat and Social Liberal respectively. I'm also not sure how useful they really were. They did some bombing, more towards the end. They sent a lot of resources, cheap. That was good because I lost even more territory than historically, Moscow, Stalingrad and Gorky becoming front line provinces, Germany captured the Caucasus, Baku and almost annexed Iran. For a time I was living off my stockpiles! Blueprints, surprisingly, were not an issue. I was more advanced than them in land unit, industry and fighter tech. If I had the resources to build a bomber force or navy, that'd have been another matter.

Meantime, the Allies slug it out in North Africa, and in Italy. France seizes northern Italy then gets 5 of its own divisions destroyed in a German counterattack, thanks to retreating the wrong way. Italy also disposes of unwanted divisions by landing in Marseille and getting crushed by the counter offensive.

Still, for at least a year or so, Italy rules the roost, having the whole of north Africa and Suez to it's name. However, a disastrous naval battle off the coast of Alexandria wipes out a stack of 30 ships in a matter of hours. Why didn't they retreat? Also, the French raid on northern Italy seriously damages their economy. In the immediate aftermath, Italy was down to 40 IC, taking a long time to recover back to 50 or so (France still held Genoa and Turin), thus their African empire goes into a long retreat.

I finally turn things around on my own front in the winter of 1941, largely thanks to huge amounts of mountain INF and the AI overextending. Half their forces away supressing partisans didn't help. The Gorky counterattack is quickly followed up with an operation to recapture Batum, putting Axis Caucasus forces out of supply, then more operations to exploit the resulting gaps in the southern front. Germany surrenders in the winter of 1942. Italy actually manages to hold Venice and everything south of the River Po from the Entente forces till the fall of Germany, but USAF strategic bombing is taking a heavy toll, bringing them below 40 IC. DEBUGAI reveals that they've been unable to build any new units, barely keeping up with supplies and reinforcements the last two years. Still, it takes a Red army assault on Venice to precipitate the final collapse (I force a crossing of the River po then withdraw from Italy, leaving France to claim the entire mainland as its satellite).