Soviets too strong

[Person012345]

I've seen the AI beat russia as germany. If anywhere is overpowered, it's america. In one of said games, I saw germany eat france, beat russia into capitulation, get japan and spain on it's side (although japan wasn';t doing great in china), basically have everything go as right as it possibly could, but the moment the US enters the war it's over for them.

 

[melkor88]

They just are. They can hold up against 4 fronts like it isn't even a problem. Germany never does the damage it did in history, and the USSR is never at risk of falling in my games. I've seen pictures of people defeating them, but I'm sure that has more to do with a smart player knowing how to play Germany. I've never played the USSR, but every game is the same; they win, they convert half of Europe to communism. They need some sort of random, 50/50 events that support or hinder them a lot.

I just want to point out that historically, the Soviets did win the war (the Allies came 2nd, despite what most of us learn at school) and they did convert half of Europe to communism. So I don't see much issue with the Soviets being very strong and winning most games. The only issue I think there is, is that they are recover very fast from the German assault, and beat them too quickly.

And I don't think it takes an experienced German player to beat them, I beat them and the US on my first ever game on release. And you will do so every time as Germany.

 

[REDDQ]

Maybe Germany upon the completion of "War with the USSR" focus should get an event to start Barbarossa:

a) with declaration of war
b) with surprise attack

where latter should grant Germany some nice national modifier for combat stats... let's say up until 23rd of August 1942. Ofc player could go with "honorabru" option and get normal challenge.

 

[Faradaux]

The balance between an AI USSR and AI Germany is pretty good right now. Historically, the USSR did have the overall strategic advantage, even if the Japanese opened up the Siberian front.

As a German human player, the USSR is a cakewalk, even on Veteran Ironman. I beat them every time without going beyond Partial Mobilization. Strategy is simple:

1. Danzig for Slovakia
2. 48 Infantry divisions sent to Polish front (Poland will always join Axis upon USSR invasion) and you can hold up the Soviets indefinitely while taking very few losses
3. Capitulate Turkey, send 12 Mountain divisions to hold the Caucasus front
4. Naval invasion of Rostov, send half your mobile divisions to cut directly east, trapping the Soviets in the Caucasus and taking Stalingrad (usually without a real fight)
5. Naval invasion of Leningrad, send the other half of your panzers directly south towards Moscow, link up with your panzers already pushing north from Stalingrad.
6. Link up at Moscow, the entire Red Army is now encircled. You win, usually with less than 100K casualties.

 

[Opanashc]

Some of Ukraine welcomed the Nazis. They believed they were being liberated from Stalin.

They were the ones living in areas added to the Union in 1939.

 

[Ronski]

I have even seen Germany in this latest build pull divisions out of a half finished Norwegian campaign to ship them to Africa via the Channel. Those that survive the gauntlet have a pretty good chance of being shipped back to Norway a couple of weeks later. Not only are these transport missions probably the most idiotic thing the AI currently does, they also turn a winning campaign in Norway into a losing one.

I wonder why troop transport through sea is even possible when you don't have naval supremacy but at the same time the game refuses to let you send invasions through that same area.

 

[Dalwin]

I wonder why troop transport through sea is even possible when you don't have naval supremacy but at the same time the game refuses to let you send invasions through that same area.

You would get some ahistoric results if this were not allowed. The Axis did often send troops through the Med to Africa even though the Allies had naval superiority. The problem is not that it can be done. It is that the AI does so far too lightly and does not seem to really appreciate the risk.

 

[jura28]

I've seen the AI beat russia as germany. If anywhere is overpowered, it's america. In one of said games, I saw germany eat france, beat russia into capitulation, get japan and spain on it's side (although japan wasn';t doing great in china), basically have everything go as right as it possibly could, but the moment the US enters the war it's over for them.

Yeah, I've seen this as well. Germany even fully occupied Britain, but still got beaten by the US.

 

[War Emblem]

Just want to update - I started a game as Turkey based on this thread. I forced the surrender of the Soviets after taking Moscow and Leningrad. I'll have a more detailed write up in a thread about this but the Soviets are not too strong. In fact they created a rather epic East Front war spanning years. If anything, as I noted and now experienced as Turkey, they are probably a bit too weak.

 

[Ronski]

Just want to update - I started a game as Turkey based on this thread. I forced the surrender of the Soviets after taking Moscow and Leningrad. I'll have a more detailed write up in a thread about this but the Soviets are not too strong. In fact they created a rather epic East Front war spanning years. If anything, as I noted and now experienced as Turkey, they are probably a bit too weak.

I think the thread was more about AI Russia being able to beat AI Germany consistently. Surely a skilled played can capitulate soviet union as most countries.

 

[War Emblem]

The OP's comments were that the Soviets should be nerfed because they were able to hold off Germany, her allies and the Turkish human player on multiple fronts. My experiment was to demonstrate this is simply not true. I think your comment is correct that a skilled player can capitulate the Soviets as most countries which suggests the Soviets should actually receive a buff, not a nerf.

 

[Dalwin]

The OP's comments were that the Soviets should be nerfed because they were able to hold off Germany, her allies and the Turkish human player on multiple fronts. My experiment was to demonstrate this is simply not true. I think your comment is correct that a skilled player can capitulate the Soviets as most countries which suggests the Soviets should actually receive a buff, not a nerf.

Even more correct would be to say that you can force the Soviets to capitulate. Capitulation is something that someone does to themselves not to others. You conquer them and then they capitulate.

 

[Daliena]

And who cares how many Romanians and Hungarians they are fighting? The Soviets fought all those half dozen factions historically and whipped them all. They blew up the Romanian army which led to the Germans being encircled at Stalingrad. It is worth nothing that from my experience Hungary and Romania always over-perform in games.

Well now, that might be a little underestimating them.. In my first game as Italy, right after the tutorial, which despite my lacking grasp of time I'm sure was somewhere within this week, I was sitting around, watching Germany get it's butt whooped and figured that the USSR probably wouldn't leave me alone for long if I didn't intervene. I don't think I went Axis so I hadn't been automatically dragged into it, but I still smelled a threat so I started justifying.. And when it was done, a massive wave of Italian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Romanian troops swept in from the south through Romania and utterly -annihilated- the Soviet push, giving uncle Adolph time to get back on his feet and into the ring for us to work together to break into Russia.

 

[War Emblem]

I was speaking of their historical contribution. I agree in game they are much, much better than they were in real life. I don't think I have ever seen Romania play a bad game, usually they far, far over achieve.