Playing Soviet Union and START decisions (?)

[Commander666]

AFAIK all AIs only have a 1-2 hour delay in attacking whereas, as you say, humans have a 6 hour delay. I'm not too fussed by it as the AI needs all the help it can get - the bigger issue in this is that the AI performs nonsensical counter-attacks far too often.

I really agree with what you say - which is why I took on so many handicaps playing as SU. Well, I thought I was taking on handicap by avoiding the Purge and getting 50 dissent. But I have also fortified the Far East and have at least Militia on every border from Turkey to China plus some in Russia's interior just because I like how it looks.

Regarding your "bigger issue" I wondering if we discussing same. I mentioned the fantastic ability of AI to use a single division to counter attack a whole army of mine (let's say about 24 divisions). That, IMO, is not a nonsensical attack because it is enjoying amazing success in delaying my advance. It is another of the several amazing things I have become aware of with playing against the German AI.

Now, I certainly agree with you that the length of time such a single division can last and maintain its attack against two dozen of mine (even with my bombers interdicting it) is - take your pick: 1) nonsensical, 2) amazing, 3) unbelievable, 4) excellent tactic ?

PS: One more post and I having party!

 

[postfux]

Enjoy your Party

 

[Titan79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation

That (and parts of the above discussion) made me laugh out hard as it reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_wtd1RLj7U

 

[stevep]

Commander666

Not checked in for a while but interesting on how things have developed. Think I can confirm what other have said from my own experience. I've always refused the purge and it never seems to have affected the signing of the M-R Pact. I presume that as people say Austria staying an independent but allied state makes the difference but never seen it happen to me.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is an event, think early 39, where you have to decide whether or not to sack the foreign minister. If you don't and Molotov doesn't take over that role then the MR pact doesn't occur.

I have once before had the Germans not attack in 41, because I was told I was probably too strong. Although the extra information about the exact proportion is interesting to know. They did however attack in 42 so interesting that they didn't in you're case.

I tend to prefer avoiding the purge less to keep the officers than to avoid the further lowering of Soviet org maximum. If you do accept the purge I think it drops to something like 16 or 18% for Infantry. Which means they break very readily. It can be increased I think by events but that involves losing a lot of territory I believe, so I prefer accepting the purge.

^ was the historical symbol for a "power of" back in the early days of calculators, showing my age here.

I think, if you go for a minimal line you can probably hold with about 120 modern [i.e. 39 or 41] Inf Divs, along with some mobile reserves. This is working on a 9 province line from Baltic to Black sea, with an independent Lithuania. I would much rather have a larger forces but might be interesting if you want to give it a try. Normally wait until mid-late 39 to start construction then do about 9-12 lines of Inf with brigades.

I'm surprised you go for the no IC construction programme as it leaves you very short of IC. I normally have about 9-10 lines running up until about the war, which with industrial research means I have about 450-500 IC by the time the storm hits.

If you ever play a game where the Germans do attack you you could find the fortifications something of a liability. Not if their pretty high, say 8-10, as they seem to be pretty much immune to enemy attacks and the Germans are suffering about 10-1 or better losses rates. However about 3-4 seem to be trashed within hours of the initial attack. Which if you hold the province can be a pain as repeated attacks mean you're continually renewing them, a very expensive process. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent for provinces of the switch with units which prevents them being upgraded.

I've always found the problem that with a won battle to drive the enemy from a province you then have to get a lot of forces there rapidly to hold it. Quite often you can get some Arm/Mot units getting there quickly and getting trashed or the German quick units get there and the battle is renewed with them as the defenders. Sounds like this is deliberate to make up for an AI that can't handle the complexity of the game but can be bloody frustrating at times.

Anyway, will keep an eye out to see how things go. How is you're exchange rate going? I normally manage to get about 2-1 loss rates in my favour, at least while on the defensive then after about a year the Germans start running low on manpower. Attacking is more difficult until they finally break. Generally have about 3000+ manpower when the big build starts and be close to zero by the time Germany breaks. Could be tougher for you on the offensive before the Germans are broken manpower wise. Much of this goes with the initial build-up and you have built a lot more than me, so do you have much reserve.

Steve

 

[Pang Bingxun]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is an event, think early 39, where you have to decide whether or not to sack the foreign minister. If you don't and Molotov doesn't take over that role then the MR pact doesn't occur.

It has not been mentioned because it is of no relevence to the event. The ministers are not relevant for the event despite the name of the event might one make think so.

I've always found the problem that with a won battle to drive the enemy from a province you then have to get a lot of forces there rapidly to hold it. Quite often you can get some Arm/Mot units getting there quickly and getting trashed or the German quick units get there and the battle is renewed with them as the defenders. Sounds like this is deliberate to make up for an AI that can't handle the complexity of the game but can be bloody frustrating at times.

The proper trick here is to not use the first chance that presents itself. It is best to repeat "attack without movement" for some time. This will drag Strength, Org and also Experience into your favour, while the enemy will have to fight under more and more disfavourable circumstances. After some attack waves enemy Org and Strenght will be low while you had time to regain org and strenght. Then you can risk to move on. Moving on too early has the further downside of lowering your ESE, so it must not happen too early. Some sort of aggressice defensive is often good choice. Playing germany with its huge Org advantage is the exception from this general rule.

 

[Commander666]

I've always refused the purge and it never seems to have affected the signing of the M-R Pact. Austria staying an independent but allied state makes the difference but never seen it happen to me. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is an event, think early 39, where you have to decide whether or not to sack the foreign minister. If you don't and Molotov doesn't take over that role then the MR pact doesn't occur.

I found your comments very interesting. Yes, I agree with Pang that the differences was the lack of Anschluss that resulted in Austria being Axis partner and so then all changed. But I don't remember getting that foreign minister event. Checking my game I see that Molotov is not in my government in 1939 (or 1941). I must have got the event as you say, and wrongly chosen "no effect for now" instead of switching him.

Well, if the consequences of that is true as you say, then there is the reason why no MR pact. I mean, as you point out, how can there be a MR pact without Molotov?

But in my case with no Anschluss = Austria being in Axis there is another reason why no MR pact happened. I think that change in history is the reason why the Checks refused annexation of Sudentenland That then started war, which Poland joined with the result that no Poland remained anymore long before MR Pact can occur. So seems there's 2 ways to avoid MR pact, but avoiding purge isn't one of them.

I tend to prefer avoiding the purge less to keep the officers than to avoid the further lowering of Soviet org maximum. If you do accept the purge I think it drops to something like 16 or 18% for Infantry. Which means they break very readily. It can be increased I think by events but that involves losing a lot of territory I believe, so I prefer accepting the purge.

That is all true except I don't follow last point ( involves losing a lot of territory) cause I not sure what you mean (doubt I got those events as all my normal events went AWHOL). While the leaders that are eliminated with purge is annoying, the ORG loss probably is more serious. But I now thinking doing purge may be less of an evil than dealing with the 50% dissent. On account of that dissent reduction I did not reach my target of full standing army via rushed slider moves. Had I done so I would greatly have sped my upgrading (which was a severe problem as I could not upgrade the ARM divisions) and I would have had 8-10% higher ORG on account of full Standing Army than the mid-slider position I attained - meaning the net ORG loss from doing purge would have been much less by time June 1941 comes.

Additionally, avoiding purge dropped Hawk Lobby two moves towards Dove Lobby so greatly increasing unit production and time.

I'm surprised you go for the no IC construction programme as it leaves you very short of IC. I normally have about 9-10 lines running up until about the war, which with industrial research means I have about 450-500 IC by the time the storm hits.

Well, I'm surprised by your IC and another mentioned he had about 350. I only had 255 IC come June/41. No wonder I could not upgrade those ARM but did get all else to modern standard by then and was on par with German INF, MOT, INT, FTR, CAS, TAC and ESC/FTR. I did play that game to take on handicap... but since have gotten rather unhappy about the whole game. Disbanding all the INF and then building Militia to control partisan uprisings that never will occur because of purge dissent was the first "this is all nuts" feeling I got. Next, all the messed up events and extra DOW dissent because I had no events for taking the Baltic States. And I never got a single "Gearing up for war" event. I finally trashed the game in 1942.

If you ever play a game where the Germans do attack you you could find the fortifications something of a liability.

Well, playing a game like that was my hope (but with some handicap as I easily stopped Wehrmacht earlier on v1.07) Instead I got no DOW from Germany, and all messed up on my side making for a game I really didn't enjoy. So I started over and will change much. Yes, I now thinking factories instead of land forts better but would build only a few in some provinces that are first to reach 150% infra.

In my new game I did not disband ALL my start INF - only the 52 infantry divisions needing reinforcement and kept the 48 good ones. Come 1939 I can calculate the exact icd cost of building 1939 INF and also the precise cost of upgrading the 1918 INF (to be started when INF-39 tech achieved). I think I will be able to get much more precise figures accurate to current slider moves which is really better than the estimates that can be calculated at START with slider at full Drafted Army. Will need to work in the supply cost for feeding the start INF. Whatever, actual upgrading in 1939 will be much less if at full Standing Army than the start estimates can get. Besides, I need INF before 1939 because I don't like empty borders or interior. It makes for a silly set up, IMO. And even 1918 infantry gotten at start must be cheaper just supplying them with Logistics Expert than building Militia and supplying them.

Anyway, will keep an eye out to see how things go. Steve

Sounds good. So basically, I wasn't really pleased with this game (even Franco losing maybe was not a good start although I indeed was happy about it). Anyway, this next game hopefully goes better with normal events. So I guess I better not take all of Finland? Darn!. Oh well, I can still use the opportunity to better train my best remaining leaders more than I did - especially the air force. I figure a couple months using my INT and FTR with Superior Tacticians doing interdiction and ground attack on the Finns will have no effect on the Finns but may just help me better duel later with the Luftwaffe aces.

So now it's party time!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

In my new game I did not disband ALL my start INF - only the 52 infantry divisions needing reinforcement and kept the 48 good ones.

You should do it the other way around. Having Divisions below strenght is favourable unless they are supposed to join battle. Maintenance costs are proportional to strenght.

And even 1918 infantry gotten at start must be cheaper just supplying them with Logistics Expert than building Militia and supplying them.

Without havng checked the figures i would doubt it. Militia is really cheap.

 

[Commander666]

A comment and 3 Questions

In my new game things so far went very historical. This time Roosevelt got elected; and Franco won. Economically the Republicans losing is quite a blow to SU. Now need to find new buyer for all the oil they were getting. Anyway, I am relieved that game is following history. But I have a comment about the Intervention event for SU. It reads, "Supply stockpile changed by 3000" which was fine as I had budgeted for that. But it also reads, "Oil stockpile increased by -200". While that makes no sense (and I expected to lose 200 oil), I actually lost 600 oil.

Anyway, on with building my SU to withstand the coming Wehrmacht onslaught which I expect most likely will happen this game. Just need to check if the following are correct:

1) Upgrading is quicker with higher infra and independent of ESE, correct?
2) ORG regain is quicker with higher infra but also a function of ESE, correct? Same for reinforcement. (Simple YES or NO appreciated).
3) Lastly I thought I should try building some factories and maybe change my aversion to spending IC that way. I mean, for the icd of 4 factories I can get approximately 2 ARM divisions. What might better protect me - 4 extra IC forever once factories are built; or 2 extra ARM divisions during the war?

Anyway, I ran into an uncertainty putting down the factory builds because I clearly remember Pang mentioning "high infra first followed by factories". Right, Pang? However, it seems that everywhere I put new factory they all take identical time to construct ( ~11.5 months) in spite of less or more infra in that province; and same time regardless if urban, plains or even mountain terrain. What gives?

I was looking for provinces with highest infra and best terrain for quickest building. But as there actually seems to be no difference, now I have no guideline to follow. So what are good Russian provinces to build them in? Far from where the Germans will strike seems like first rule. But as more factories only raise IC (and not increase resource extraction, right?) seems there is no guide to build them except "away from the front line". Or is some of the foregoing flawed? Thanks!

If factories actually always construct in same time (excluding slider/minister changes) then why would one not build them from start to get most benefit before war starts? If not waiting to first raise infra, then factory building does make much more sense. I am building all the start infra (plus more for frontline airports, Leningrad for ship upgrading/repair speed, and a couple very low infra provinces that have nothing but are needed to up the ESE at end of supply trace). I could easily think of 5 infra projects whose increased resources really are not needed at all, and 2 factories instead for the same 10 IC appropriated would certainly be better. But I was under wrong impression that factories will build faster in higher infra - so then I felt there was no real time left after their construction to capitalize on their investment to have built them. With armor divisions no commander ever has that problem.

EDIT: Why I always shunned factory construction.

Using rough figures, if it takes a year to build factory that costs 5 IC - and that raises your IC by 1 - then it seems logical it takes next 5 years with IC increased by 1 to pay for that factory. Return on investment would be mid-1941 as they build a bit less than a year. Still, it seems too late to capitalise on the higher IC gotten considering the lost IC to invest in them.

INFRA construction comparatively is much better, IMO. If done where factories exist, it also raises IC (slightly). But it greatly helps your army with better ESE, faster ORG regain/reinforcement and can be very useful to avail of accelerated upgrading. But mostly more infra in resource rich provinces also pays for itself quickly simply by having more resources to trade for more dollars/supplies coming in. So I always (until now) maintained that the best way to get more factories was thru conquest. But now my mind is more open to relooking at constructing them.

 

[Commander666]

Without havng checked the figures i would doubt it. Militia is really cheap.

I did look at the figures. If baselined to equivalent soft attack value you need five Militia to get what one INF gives. But the 6 MIL consume 25% more supplies while also demanding more leaders (or leader unfavourably promoted). Militia have their purpose for being very fast to turn out. So I did them when I suddenly got 50% dissent. Sadly no partisans ever appeared to learn if one MIL supported by 4 TACs could even win.

You should do it the other way around. Having Divisions below strenght is favourable unless they are supposed to join battle. Maintenance costs are proportional to strenght.

OK, maybe makes sense to keep the low strength units instead to reduce supply costs. But they just look so awful.

However, I can't believe you because checking SU starting infantry at 100% strength, 80%, or 60% they all say their daily supply consumption identical (0.7/day). So I saved myself considerable MP and IC to not reinforce the 52 low strength ones I disbanded, I trust. And I have an army Stalin is proud of!

PS: And comparing "at start" MOT with 30% strength and another at 100% strength, they too have identical supply usage (1.2/day) according to game info.

Maybe the units need about 1% strength only to get a supply reduction?

 

[Pang Bingxun]

1) Upgrading is quicker with higher infra and independent of ESE, correct?

The speed is proportional to ESE. Infra may need extra checking.

2) ORG regain is quicker with higher infra but also a function of ESE, correct? Same for reinforcement.

Org Regain is proportional to Infra and ESE. Reinforcement is proportional to ESE.

3) Lastly I thought I should try building some factories and maybe change my aversion to spending IC that way. I mean, for the icd of 4 factories I can get approximately 2 ARM divisions. What might better protect me - 4 extra IC forever once factories are built; or 2 extra ARM divisions during the war?

Factory building needs 5 x 360 x 0.8 icd = 1440 icd. At 200% infra having 15 factories instead of 14 factories will increase base ic by 1.677 and effective ic by ~1.4 times that number. So after approximatly 614 days you have regained the costs. That is very fast, but it does not include the costs for getting Infra up to 200%. Still the conclusion would be to put no icd into military before late 1938 at the earliest.

Anyway, I ran into an uncertainty putting down the factory builds because I clearly remember Pang mentioning "high infra first followed by factories". Right, Pang?

False. There might be such cases, but they would be the exception, not the rule. The rule is that you need to build both. Only build build factories where Infra will be 200% soon and whereever there will be much factries build Infra up to 200%. Due to concentration bonus i would advise to have factries at the top of the building queue, followed by the infra in high ic provinces, followed by infra in high resources provinces followed by other infra followed by everything even less urgent.

However, it seems that everywhere I put new factory they all take identical time to construct ( ~11.5 months) in spite of less or more infra in that province; and same time regardless if urban, plains or even mountain terrain. What gives?

Only Infra depends on terrain.

But as more factories only raise IC (and not increase resource extraction, right?) seems there is no guide to build them except "away from the front line".

30 factories increase resource output by 30%. This is why i build faxctories in the 5 best provinces: Moscow, the 3 provinces with 40 rares and the province with 62(?) metal near the border.

INFRA construction comparatively is much better, IMO. If done where factories exist, it also raises IC (slightly). But it greatly helps your army with better ESE, faster ORG regain/reinforcement and can be very useful to avail of accelerated upgrading. But mostly more infra in resource rich provinces also pays for itself quickly simply by having more resources to trade for more dollars/supplies coming in. So I always (until now) maintained that the best way to get more factories was thru conquest. But now my mind is more open to relooking at constructing them.

If you compare return with investment Infra is only better if factories are soon to be high. 7 factories is said to be the threshold for plains and urban. But it depends a lot on circumstances.

I did look at the figures. If baselined to equivalent soft attack value you need six Militia to get what one INF gives.

I compared per division. Militia are not meant to deliver soft attack. They are cannon fodder.

However, I can't believe you because checking SU start units at 100% strength, 80%, or 60% they all say their daily supply consumption identical (0.7/day). So I saved myself considerable MP and IC to not reinforce the 52 low strength ones I disbanded, I trust. And I have an army Stalin is proud of!

PS: And comparing "at start" MOT with 30% strength and another at 100% strength, they too have same supply usage (1.2/day).

Maybe the units need about 1% strength only to get a supply reduction?

The actual consumption is proportional to strenght. Softattack etc. are proportional to strenght, too.

 

[Commander666]

Sorry, just got this post correct now. Had to run and didn't realize I published it uncompleted.

The actual consumption is proportional to strenght.

So what are you saying here? The figures given in game on the units are not true? According to those figures, supply consumed daily does NOT change with strength.

Militia are not meant to deliver soft attack. They are cannon fodder.

Anything can be (and often is) cannon fodder. I think you not appreciating Militia's true value - fastest constructing unit. That can be helpful in a crises. But I also like the fact that - if short on INF - they will give you early warning placed on your border. They might also be used to protect airports from airborne attack - not that they would win but only hold until something a fast unit reaches them to assist, thereby preventing the airbase captured (if it had been empty) and not tying up a real INF to do same job. If AI placed a few MIL it would sure lessen the many amphibs I do far behind enemy lines (such as Danzig only to destroy the airport). With a cheap MIL there, reinforcements would reach it before I could land thereby creating a major battle - which I have no intention of doing if my front line not close. But as a raid to disrupt the Luftwaffe it works great. Finally, Militia can be extremely useful to make leader changes with the Militia taking all the ORG loss.

[Upgrading] The speed is proportional to ESE. Infra may need extra checking.

Well, as higher infra = higher ESE usually I guess its same thing. But thanks for the clarification. You right. I just checked the ship's brigade upgrading at Leningrad and Sevastopol which are identical rate. Both ports got same ESE but Leningrad's infra is 20% higher. But because of the low infra marsh between Leningrad and Moscow, Leningrad is not realising its full potential. I do increase infra in places like that because it seems that the ideal ESE reduction along any supply trace is -1 per additional province. If a drop of 10 there is place where building infra can have major improvement to the end of supply trace. Actually, last game and this I played the early years mostly on the supply map mode and it has been very informative.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

So what are you saying here? The figures given in game on the units are not true? According to those figures, supply consumed daily does NOT change with strength.

The figures shown in the units stats refer to 100% strenght. 2 divisions at 50% strenght consume as much as 1 divisions at 100% strenght. If you attach a logistic wizard actual consumption changes, but not the one shown in units stats.

Anything can be (and often is) cannon fodder. I think you not appreciating Militia's true value

I think i do. Militia can slow down the enemies advance by sucking up the enemies soft attack, they are cannon fodder. But at the same time they donnot not deliever much soft attack which is somewhat unique.

 

[Commander666]

The figures shown in the units stats refer to 100% strenght. 2 divisions at 50% strenght consume as much as 1 divisions at 100% strenght. If you attach a logistic wizard actual consumption changes, but not the one shown in units stats .

OK, good point. Thanks. Well, with no unit construction for first 2-3 years - or any reinforcement until units needed - what to do with the IC sliders? Think I'll start over again and disband the other half of the starting infantry (the full strength units) and especially not reinforce those very low strength Lt ARM divisions. Seems I should just build up supply and money stockpile while only building infra and IC until 1938 while tech rushing to avoid as much upgrading as possible.

The big problem with this kind of approach of "let's delay reinforcing cause it saves supplies; let's not build any units until next tech achieved cause that really saves supplies and upgrading; and let's not upgrade anything we got on map until later also (more savings) is that one may not get the timing right and find themselves starting war with a lot of units missing and much not upgraded - but having enormous supply and $ stockpiles - neither of which will delay the Wehrmacht.

Anyway, I not sure why the idea exists that SU is the easiest country to play. I finding it the hardest (and Germany the easiest) but guess that's just difference in where I practised.

The many SU start infra builds take careful management I think. What you said about build IC where infra will be 200% and build infra to 200% where IC is high is good rule. It really all needs to go on a road map of sorts.

I also realize I was doing mistake by building from start extra infra in the front line airports and some naval bases for reasons of raising ESE. While the idea has merit, the extra infra has very little effect on increasing ESE unless the supply trace to there increases appropriately also. So, a single 40% infra marsh between Moscow and Leningrad can make increasing Leningrad infra almost pointless. In fact, Leningrad's ESE will rise faster by first getting the swamp up to standard and then the whole line improving with Leningrad. But with just 4 new infra placements Leningrad is not better than Sevastopol which has had none because the route to Sevastopol is so much better than the route to Leningrad only in the fact there is no single bad province along the way. The routes to Murmansk and Balta suffer same way because each have severe speed bumps.

I think it worthwhile to get these low infra "speed bumps" built up in the early years because eventually one will want to run a green looking supply trace onwards such as into Manchuria or across Persia but then it will be too late to start trying to extend good ESE out that far if one has to first upgrade the Russian lands. But all in all, including the route going East there is risk of getting overly INFRA enthusiastic.

Actually, having studied this now carefully for 2 games as SU I have come to the conclusion that the greatest province-to-province reduction in ESE is happening 2-3 provinces from Moscow. This occurs because of the high infra in Moscow creating spill over. But the point the spill over stops creates a very large ESE drop. If one carefully studies the ESE along any supply trace (and builds infra selectively along the route to get real increase felt at end of supply trace) it becomes obvious that the point to improve first is wherever the greatest drop in ESE occurs.

Of course, all this planning is affected by any other selected province also being increased with infra only for resource reasons. It acts like an ESE pumper along the route getting ESE up again and giving its own limited spill over. Hence, the decision how to best map out not just for greater resources but to get best ESE to places like airports (that will then benefit sharply with added infra) is complex and interrelated while all in a state of flux as any certain province is climbing to 200% infra.

Naturally, there must come a time to switch IC to maximum army building and get all that late upgrading done too. Seems that really needs another written up detailed plan so it will work. And whatever the exact plan, it will rely on many parallel builds just to reach the number of units wanted in so short a time. This does come with a high cost of extra retoolings for needing more than 1 line. And multiple lines are the fastest way to insure that one finds themselves out of available IC. Not great if one has several steps of obsolescence that also need upgrading then, plus finally reinforcing all the units left purposefully under strength. Seems it might be very easy to over extend one's IC capacity with the only relief being the stockpiles accumulated and the higher than normal IC realized.

Well, seems it is a good exercise to try to get best possible.

 

[stevep]

Pang

It has not been mentioned because it is of no relevence to the event. The ministers are not relevant for the event despite the name of the event might one make think so.

Interesting. How sure are you of that because I know one time when the M-R Pact wasn't offered by Germany and the only difference I'm aware of was that I hadn't dropped the former Foreign Minister?

The proper trick here is to not use the first chance that presents itself. It is best to repeat "attack without movement" for some time. This will drag Strength, Org and also Experience into your favour, while the enemy will have to fight under more and more disfavourable circumstances. After some attack waves enemy Org and Strenght will be low while you had time to regain org and strenght. Then you can risk to move on. Moving on too early has the further downside of lowering your ESE, so it must not happen too early. Some sort of aggressice defensive is often good choice. Playing germany with its huge Org advantage is the exception from this general rule.

Not sure what you mean here by attack without movement? Do you mean you can have all the units 'supporting attack' without any attacking? Or that after winning the battle you stop anyone moving into the province, wait for the Germans [in this case] to occupy it again and hit them with a new attack? Or something different.

Steve

 

[stevep]

I found your comments very interesting. Yes, I agree with Pang that the differences was the lack of Anschluss that resulted in Austria being Axis partner and so then all changed. But I don't remember getting that foreign minister event. Checking my game I see that Molotov is not in my government in 1939 (or 1941). I must have got the event as you say, and wrongly chosen "no effect for now" instead of switching him.

Well, if the consequences of that is true as you say, then there is the reason why no MR pact. I mean, as you point out, how can there be a MR pact without Molotov?

But in my case with no Anschluss = Austria being in Axis there is another reason why no MR pact happened. I think that change in history is the reason why the Checks refused annexation of Sudentenland That then started war, which Poland joined with the result that no Poland remained anymore long before MR Pact can occur. So seems there's 2 ways to avoid MR pact, but avoiding purge isn't one of them.

I agree that I think the main problem was the no Anschluss. Just that I found once before I didn't change minister and realised later on no M-R option was delivered. It might be that because the game had gone so differently you didn't get the option at all It doesn't seem to have any other influence and as you see Pang doesn't think it affects that so not sure what if anything is affected by this. Other than a different minister which for the Soviets and the Foreign Ministry is pretty much irrelevant as they have very little change of affecting anything other than by the Red Army.

That is all true except I don't follow last point ( involves losing a lot of territory) cause I not sure what you mean (doubt I got those events as all my normal events went AWHOL). While the leaders that are eliminated with purge is annoying, the ORG loss probably is more serious. But I now thinking doing purge may be less of an evil than dealing with the 50% dissent. On account of that dissent reduction I did not reach my target of full standing army via rushed slider moves. Had I done so I would greatly have sped my upgrading (which was a severe problem as I could not upgrade the ARM divisions) and I would have had 8-10% higher ORG on account of full Standing Army than the mid-slider position I attained - meaning the net ORG loss from doing purge would have been much less by time June 1941 comes.

Additionally, avoiding purge dropped Hawk Lobby two moves towards Dove Lobby so greatly increasing unit production and time.

I was told in the past, a couple of years back, that there are events that regain the lost org but that it related to numbers of provinces lost. Never actually lost much territory other than a buffer region I normally give up anyway and never accepted the purge so can't tell you any more about it.

There are other factors that affect org. A number of military doctrines, although their set up pretty much that you can't get most of them until ~late 42 - mid 43. Also as you say moving to standing army, which I've never done that much in the past having all my resources committed to the Intervention and Hawk sliders and fighting off the purge effects. You could well be right that doing the historical purge is the better option. Think I will try it next time after I've finished my current game. As you say you get a triple hit because there's the dissent, which needs a lot of cash to clear, the big hit in production, which especially if you're not building IC probably hurts more, and the two slider moves towards Dove lobby, which not only need reserving but hit any production until their cleared.

Well, I'm surprised by your IC and another mentioned he had about 350. I only had 255 IC come June/41. No wonder I could not upgrade those ARM but did get all else to modern standard by then and was on par with German INF, MOT, INT, FTR, CAS, TAC and ESC/FTR. I did play that game to take on handicap... but since have gotten rather unhappy about the whole game. Disbanding all the INF and then building Militia to control partisan uprisings that never will occur because of purge dissent was the first "this is all nuts" feeling I got. Next, all the messed up events and extra DOW dissent because I had no events for taking the Baltic States. And I never got a single "Gearing up for war" event. I finally trashed the game in 1942.

Well I like to have the industrial muscle to be able to do a lot more. Also it can be an effective way of using some of the surplus resources I normally have in the 1936-39 period before I go into mas re-armament. Even in my current game, in which I spent a lot on the Spanish republicans, which backfired as it meant the Nationalists amongs my enemies and an Axis occupied Spain and might have been instrumental in the fall of Britain and also a lot on fortifications that have never seen use I was building up sizeable reserves of cash and supplies which helped in the early fighting.

I don't know if there is an event for taking the Baltic's? Partly I normally invade Estonia and Latvia and keep Lithuania neutral but even recently when I didn't do that I never saw any event. East Poland and Bessarabia you definitely get things for with the M-R Pact but think you need to attack the Baltic's as nothing seems to happen automatically.

Well, playing a game like that was my hope (but with some handicap as I easily stopped Wehrmacht earlier on v1.07) Instead I got no DOW from Germany, and all messed up on my side making for a game I really didn't enjoy. So I started over and will change much. Yes, I now thinking factories instead of land forts better but would build only a few in some provinces that are first to reach 150% infra.

In my new game I did not disband ALL my start INF - only the 52 infantry divisions needing reinforcement and kept the 48 good ones. Come 1939 I can calculate the exact icd cost of building 1939 INF and also the precise cost of upgrading the 1918 INF (to be started when INF-39 tech achieved). I think I will be able to get much more precise figures accurate to current slider moves which is really better than the estimates that can be calculated at START with slider at full Drafted Army. Will need to work in the supply cost for feeding the start INF. Whatever, actual upgrading in 1939 will be much less if at full Standing Army than the start estimates can get. Besides, I need INF before 1939 because I don't like empty borders or interior. It makes for a silly set up, IMO. And even 1918 infantry gotten at start must be cheaper just supplying them with Logistics Expert than building Militia and supplying them.

Sounds good. So basically, I wasn't really pleased with this game (even Franco losing maybe was not a good start although I indeed was happy about it). Anyway, this next game hopefully goes better with normal events. So I guess I better not take all of Finland? Darn!. Oh well, I can still use the opportunity to better train my best remaining leaders more than I did - especially the air force. I figure a couple months using my INT and FTR with Superior Tacticians doing interdiction and ground attack on the Finns will have no effect on the Finns but may just help me better duel later with the Luftwaffe aces.

So now it's party time!

Anyway, be interesting to see how it goes. Good look comrade.

Steve

 

[Commander666]

The figures shown in the units stats refer to 100% strenght. 2 divisions at 50% strenght consume as much as 1 divisions at 100% strenght. If you attach a logistic wizard actual consumption changes, but not the one shown in units stats .

OK, good point. Thanks. Well, with no unit construction for first 2-3 years - or any reinforcement until units needed - what to do with the IC sliders? Think I'll start over again and disband the other half of the starting infantry (the full strength units) and especially not reinforce those very low strength Lt ARM divisions. Seems I should just build up supply and money stockpile while only building infra and IC until 1938 while tech rushing to avoid as much upgrading as possible.

The big problem with this kind of approach of "let's delay reinforcing cause it saves supplies; let's not build any units until next tech achieved cause that really saves supplies and upgrading; and let's not upgrade anything we got on map until later also (more savings) is that one may not get the timing right and find themselves starting war with a lot of units missing and much not upgraded - but having enormous supply and $ stockpiles - neither of which will delay the Wehrmacht.

Anyway, I not sure why the idea exists that SU is the easiest country to play. I finding it the hardest (and Germany the easiest) but guess that's just difference in where I practised.

The many SU start infra builds take careful management I think. What you said about build IC where infra will be 200% and build infra to 200% where IC is high is good rule. It really all needs to go on a road map of sorts.

I also realize I was doing mistake by building from start extra infra in the front line airports and some naval bases for reasons of raising ESE. While the idea has merit, the extra infra has very little effect on increasing ESE unless the supply trace to there increases appropriately also. So, a single 40% infra marsh between Moscow and Leningrad can make increasing Leningrad infra almost pointless. In fact, Leningrad's ESE will rise faster by first getting the swamp up to standard and then the whole line improving with Leningrad. But with just 4 new infra placements Leningrad is not better than Sevastopol which has had none because the route to Sevastopol is so much better than the route to Leningrad only in the fact there is no single bad province along the way. The routes to Murmansk and Balta suffer same way because each have severe speed bumps.

I think it worthwhile to get these low infra "speed bumps" built up in the early years because eventually one will want to run a green looking supply trace onwards such as into Manchuria or across Persia but then it will be too late to start trying to extend good ESE out that far if one has to first upgrade the Russian lands. But all in all, including the route going East there is risk of getting overly INFRA enthusiastic.

Actually, having studied this now carefully for 2 games as SU I have come to the conclusion that the greatest province-to-province reduction in ESE is happening 2-3 provinces from Moscow. This occurs because of the high infra in Moscow creating spill over. But the point the spill over stops creates a very large ESE drop. If one carefully studies the ESE along any supply trace (and builds infra selectively along the route to get real increase felt at end of supply trace) it becomes obvious that the point to improve first is wherever the greatest drop in ESE occurs.

Of course, all this planning is affected by any other selected province also being increased with infra only for resource reasons. It acts like an ESE pumper along the route getting ESE up again and giving its own limited spill over. Hence, the decision how to best map out not just for greater resources but to get best ESE to places like airports (that will then benefit sharply with added infra) is complex and interrelated while all in a state of flux as any certain province is climbing to 200% infra.

Naturally, there must come a time to switch IC to maximum army building and get all that late upgrading done too. Seems that really needs another written up detailed plan so it will work. And whatever the exact plan, it will rely on many parallel builds just to reach the number of units wanted in so short a time. This does come with a high cost of extra retoolings for needing more than 1 line. And multiple lines are the fastest way to insure that one finds themselves out of available IC. Not great if one has several steps of obsolescence that also need upgrading then, plus finally reinforcing all the units left purposefully under strength. Seems it might be very easy to over extend one's IC capacity with the only relief being the stockpiles accumulated and the higher than normal IC realized.

Well, seems it is a good exercise to try to get best possible.

 

[Commander666]

Only build build factories where Infra will be 200% soon and whereever there will be much factries build Infra up to 200%.

Having hard time applying this advice to Russia. Checking I note Moscow infra will reach 195% May 2, 1942. I think I would not be worried about starting factory construction then.

I think the time estimate will improve as more laid down infra has its effect and as certain political changes are made. So let's say that target is reached a year earlier. There still is no point starting factory construction as Barbarossa starts.


So, seems to me that your requirements just are not realistic for Russia who starts with 60% infra most places.

Going on your other earlier statement that factory pays for itself in 2 years - and assuming I want factory profiting at least by start 1941 - the factory must complete beginning 1939 (pays for itself next 2 years) so it must start construction early 1938.

According to the infra builds, by March 1938 there can be only 8 new infra constructed in Moscow and therefore the best Moscow can be is 110% when factory must be constructed (takes us to Feb 1939) so factory has ~2 years to pay for its construction cost (takes us to early 1941) so there actually is some net IC value before war starts. If the war is long (meaning that factory will really be appreciated then as total IC higher) there's also risk the factory can be lost right? So I'd rather figure on this scheme gives effective increased IC early enough to help me build or upgrade something so I win quickly... or it seems like a questionable diversion of IC.

7 factories is said to be the threshold for plains and urban.

Can you please explain this more. Those three high rares provinces you suggest for factory building are very IC poor. Two of them have zero factories. I would have thought building more factories should occur in the 5 provinces that already have most factories for concentration effect. The idea is most IC gain and not any more rares or metal as the infra building took care of that. So why you starting to build factories where there are none? It all doesn't fit with "wait until infra will be 200% soon", "one year to build factory and two to pay for itself" and a war in 1941 best I can foresee.

Why not just build the new factories at start for couple years because come 1939 - given all the postponed reinforcement, delayed upgrading and unit building at latest possible time - every infra and factory will get wiped off the build queue anyway I think just to play "catch up on army construction."

PS: I had these posts in wrong order (fixed now). Late here. Just one more quick reply.

 

[Commander666]

I don't know if there is an event for taking the Baltic's? Partly I normally invade Estonia and Latvia and keep Lithuania neutral but even recently when I didn't do that I never saw any event. East Poland and Bessarabia you definitely get things for with the M-R Pact but think you need to attack the Baltic's as nothing seems to happen automatically.



Anyway, be interesting to see how it goes. Good look comrade.

Steve

Thanks! I don't know about the Baltic States if that has events or not cause I only played it on v1.07 before. I do remember playing Germany on v1.08 and seeing what results SU gets. For the SU AI sometimes one country (usually Estonia) will cede while the other usually not. What happens with Lithuania I can't remember. As Germany I sometimes race SU to take it once they start messing with it just to be a jerk!

 

[stevep]

The speed is proportional to ESE. Infra may need extra checking.



Org Regain is proportional to Infra and ESE. Reinforcement is proportional to ESE.



Factory building needs 5 x 360 x 0.8 icd = 1440 icd. At 200% infra having 15 factories instead of 14 factories will increase base ic by 1.677 and effective ic by ~1.4 times that number. So after approximatly 614 days you have regained the costs. That is very fast, but it does not include the costs for getting Infra up to 200%. Still the conclusion would be to put no icd into military before late 1938 at the earliest.



30 factories increase resource output by 30%. This is why i build faxctories in the 5 best provinces: Moscow, the 3 provinces with 40 rares and the province with 62(?) metal near the border.



If you compare return with investment Infra is only better if factories are soon to be high. 7 factories is said to be the threshold for plains and urban. But it depends a lot on circumstances.

Pang

Interesting and useful info. Knew some of this but good to have it clarified and never realised factors boosted resource production. That means I need to think again where I put my IC production. Had been going where IC was already high and coupling that with boosting infra to 200%. However given that you can run into deficit on energy and sometimes on metals that could be useful.

Isn't there a down side here that those 4 provinces, Krivoy Rog - 56 metal 2IC, Molotov 33 rares, 20 metal, 2I, Aktyubinsk 32 rare, 0IC & Zhambyl, 30 metal and 0IC will produce less IC boost from the high infra until the number of ICs reach 7 or higher, so you get more resources but less IC compared to building at places with existing high IC values?

Steve

 

[Pang Bingxun]

OK, good point. Thanks. Well, with no unit construction for first 2-3 years - or any reinforcement until units needed - what to do with the IC sliders? Think I'll start over again and disband the other half of the starting infantry (the full strength units) and especially not reinforce those very low strength Lt ARM divisions. Seems I should just build up supply and money stockpile while only building infra and IC until 1938 while tech rushing to avoid as much upgrading as possible.

The deal is to use all ic available with 1936 tools in Mid 1936 for factories and Infra for economic reasons. Later a few more infra provinces are added for reasons of ESE, uprading and Org regain. Building up Money(Supplies get cheaper later on) starts in something like mid 1937 and gets temporarily reduced by not purging in 1938. There will be little enough money to have it used up by june 1941.
In 1941 many production lines must run out to free up lots of ic for supplies and money and the regular reinforcements for what the germans did. The reinforcement of the starting units however is extremely cheap if compared to Upgrading. And upgrading is cheap compared to building up an army.

I also realize I was doing mistake by building from start extra infra in the front line airports and some naval bases for reasons of raising ESE. While the idea has merit, the extra infra has very little effect on increasing ESE unless the supply trace to there increases appropriately also. So, a single 40% infra marsh between Moscow and Leningrad can make increasing Leningrad infra almost pointless. In fact, Leningrad's ESE will rise faster by first getting the swamp up to standard and then the whole line improving with Leningrad. But with just 4 new infra placements Leningrad is not better than Sevastopol which has had none because the route to Sevastopol is so much better than the route to Leningrad only in the fact there is no single bad province along the way. The routes to Murmansk and Balta suffer same way because each have severe speed bumps.

It can be a good choice to ignore the swamp and build up 2 forest provinces instead. That is slightly more expensive, but it is done way faster.

Naturally, there must come a time to switch IC to maximum army building and get all that late upgrading done too. Seems that really needs another written up detailed plan so it will work. And whatever the exact plan, it will rely on many parallel builds just to reach the number of units wanted in so short a time. This does come with a high cost of extra retoolings for needing more than 1 line.

Something like 900 days are used for each line, so retooling will make up for less than 10% if the icd. Retooling is not the relevant concern. Gearing bonus is. Maximum gearing bonus gets up to between 32.4 % and 39.6% depending on slider setting. With Infantry you can achieve 7 units done fairly early, so gearing bonus would not be an argument against the late build up. In case of armoured divisions things are a bit different.

Not great if one has several steps of obsolescence that also need upgrading then, plus finally reinforcing all the units left purposefully under strength.

The upgrading will not be the big bottleneck. Actually i think a about it as a hidden reserve. If necassary some upgrading can be delayed a bit further as not all units might need to be 100% up to the newest specs.

Interesting. How sure are you of that because I know one time when the M-R Pact wasn't offered by Germany and the only difference I'm aware of was that I hadn't dropped the former Foreign Minister?

Take a look at event 2050 in db\events\germany.txt. Basically the only condition for the event is that there is no highly ahistoric set of wars or alliances. It will always trigger unless you seriosly mess up.

Not sure what you mean here by attack without movement? Do you mean you can have all the units 'supporting attack' without any attacking? Or that after winning the battle you stop anyone moving into the province, wait for the Germans [in this case] to occupy it again and hit them with a new attack? Or something different.

Strictly speaking there is no attack without movement, only movement is attack. But what i mean is to stop movement in time, so your units stay where they are. Using support attack can be a comfortable tool to achieve that, but there is nothing special about it.

Having hard time applying this advice to Russia. Checking I note Moscow infra will reach 195% May 2, 1942. I think I would not be worried about starting factory construction then.

I think the time estimate will improve as more laid down infra has its effect and as certain political changes are made. So let's say that target is reached a year earlier. There still is no point starting factory construction as Barbarossa starts.

So, seems to me that your requirements just are not realistic for Russia who starts with 60% infra most places.

That would seem to depend on the used definition of soon. Using triple acceleration for Infra and factories it works fine for me, Moscow and Baku would than be at 200% in 1939. You should start factories on day one where you will start to build up Infra at a serios pace not much later. Regarding infraacceleration there is an extra thread: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ion-Accelerated-production-for-infrastructure

Can you please explain this more.

7 factories is said to be the threshold where the ratio of return/investment are equal for factories and infra. Above that Infra would be the more cost efficient way to increase ic. I donnot operate much by that rule of thumb.

Those three high rares provinces you suggest for factory building are very IC poor.

They will not be for long if using accelerated factory construction. Also selling excessive resources will create money and thus save icd.

I would have thought building more factories should occur in the 5 provinces that already have most factories for concentration effect. The idea is most IC gain and not any more rares or metal as the infra building took care of that.

The idea is to max out resources in the long run. You may not share this idea.

So why you starting to build factories where there are none? It all doesn't fit with "wait until infra will be 200% soon",

I never stated factories should wait. On the contrary, everything else is below factories in the building queue. All lines of factoris start at day one with triple acceleration. All provinces that will have high ic will start infra construction early on, too.

Thanks! I don't know about the Baltic States if that has events or not cause I only played it on v1.07 before. I do remember playing Germany on v1.08 and seeing what results SU gets. For the SU AI sometimes one country (usually Estonia) will cede while the other usually not. What happens with Lithuania I can't remember. As Germany I sometimes race SU to take it once they start messing with it just to be a jerk!

That happens via the diplomatic option demand territory, not via event. Simply declaring war against them is a good option, too.

Isn't there a down side here that those 4 provinces, Krivoy Rog - 56 metal 2IC, Molotov 33 rares, 20 metal, 2I, Aktyubinsk 32 rare, 0IC & Zhambyl, 30 metal and 0IC will produce less IC boost from the high infra until the number of ICs reach 7 or higher, so you get more resources but less IC compared to building at places with existing high IC values?

There are such downsides. But i donnot like the rule of thumb of those 7 factories anyway.