Slitherine

I don't think the Russians are too strong in 1941. I feel that the Germans are very tough at least until 1943. It's hard for the Russians to grab initiative and push the Germans further west if the Axis player plays well.

If we make Russia weaker then an experienced Axis players will roll over Russia and can be in Omsk in 1942. We don't want that. The main reason this doesn't happen now is because Russia can save most of the on map offensive units and keep it in the rear to break an armor based sprint eastwards in 1941. If the Russians lose most of these units at the front line in the first turns of Barbarossa then Germany can move at will in 1941 with no fear of counter attacks. They can bypass some cities like Kiev and mop them up later. The main goal is to rush for Rostov and Moscow and with good weather the Germans can even be in Maikop and Stalingrad.

Many of the front line Russian mech units aren't in the game because they were as you said annihilated quite early.

The Barbarossa setup is a compromise to make it work as a GAME. I've used maps from German book called Der Zweite Weltkrieg. This books shows the actual location of the different divisions and where the corps and army HQ's were located. The German data were naturally more accurate.

We also have to take into consideration that the size of a Russian army equals a German corps. So each Russian corps unit is an army sized unit. Each Russian garrison is considered to be a rifle corps. So mech and armor units should actually be mech and armor armies, but such units didn't appear until 1942. So we're stuck with mech corps and the size of these corps units is less than a German mech or armor corps. So you could think of each mech or armor unit on the map as being 2-3 Russian corps sized units. So 2 real war mech corps is one GS mech unit.

Here is some info about Russian "armies" actually being corps sized:

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

So Rusisan corps sized units were smaller than the equivalent German corps sized units.

Stauffenberg wrote:Here is some info about Russian "armies" actually being corps sized:

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

So Rusisan corps sized units were smaller than the equivalent German corps sized units.

About that almost mythical and too simple thought that in WW2 a soviet army was similar to a german/western allies corp I have to tell you that that was not correct in all cases. In fact, at the start of Barbarossa and after there were several russian army units that had the same size than a western army. Russian armies like 7th, 14th on the Leningrad district, 27th in the Baltic district or 13th (represented in GS) in the Western district were poorly manned and all of them had the same size of a german/western allies corp. But other russian armies were much more powerful than the ones mentioned above: e.g. 10th army in the Western district, 6th army in Kiev district or 9th army in Odessa district had the same or more number of men and divisions than a german/western allies army.

About the first phases of Barbarossa here you all have an interesting article of Bevin Alexander that have wrote many military history books:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ww ... rossa.aspx

This article show us that the russians were really in trouble to stop the germans on their way to Moscow and only a few circumstances and factors like weather or Siberian units mobilization allowed the russians to stop them. In GS we don´t see that the russians are in trouble at any moment to defend against the germans in 1941 but they are able to hold them and to prepare defensive positions with almost no chance for the german player to break through these defenses.

So I think that of the 9 mech corps deployed in Russia at the beginning of Barbarossa (all of them but the one in Baku) at least 3 should be deployed close to the border not only for historical OOB simulation but also for a little bit well-balanced eastern front scenario. Also, I think at least one fighter russian unit should be deployed in the border, for there was an huge air russian force over there in 1941 and there´s no one unit in GS. See this western air military district niehorster´s OOB: http://niehorster.orbat.com/012_ussr/41 ... n/air.html.

As you all can see in this western district russian air forces table only in Bialystok air base (polish border) there were more than 350 russian fighters of various types: Mig-3, I-16 (the one represented in CEAW-GS russian figter tech level 1), I-159 and SB.

I can't understand that you feel that the Germans have no chance to get anywhere in 1941. I feel that a well prepared Barbarossa can make life very hard for the Russians and in 1942 it's possible to break the Russian defenses. This is particularly true if the Russians decide to defend instead of retreating most of their units to safety.

Think what would have happened if the real Russians had retreated in 1941 instead of allowing millions of soldiers to be trapped by Axis pincer movements? The the real Germans would have been faced with a similar challenge as in GS.

We can't force the players to repeat the same mistakes as the real war generals did.

I fear that if we make Russia less powerful then great players like Supermax would crush Russia if he's the Axis and be in Omsk in 1942. Then everybody will start complaining about the Germans being too strong.

I have to repeat that GS is a GAME and not a simulator of the real war. We try to make things historical where it's possible, but sometimes we need to make rules or setups for effect and not accuracy.

We have to make a game balance that can survive until 1945. It's certainly possible to make the Russians so weak in 1941 that the Germans can be at the gate of Moscow late 1941, btut then the Russians won't stand a chance in 1942. I guess the real Russians produced more new units than in GS. So they recovered better than in GS. But if we simulate that kind of recovery then the Russians will become too powerful.

So the most important question is if GS works or not on the east front. Does both sides have a fair chance of winning? If the answer is no then we have something to fix, but so far I haven't seen any real evidence that so is the case.

Stauffenberg wrote:II fear that if we make Russia less powerful then great players like Supermax would crush Russia if he's the Axis and be in Omsk in 1942. Then everybody will start complaining about the Germans being too strong. that kind of recovery then the Russians will become too powerful.
.

All I know is that a friend and I have been playing each other since the days of 3rd reich. Since then, we have been searching for a worthy successor. We thought it might be GS, but although the rest of the game is great, but we just can't seem to do anything in Russia. We are equal players and both have the problem.

Our current games; Russians are on the offensive early 42. The Germans never crossed the dnepr and never got a sniff of Moscow. German manpower is int he yellow, and oil is dwindling. The rest of the game is about historical (no spain, turkey etc. stuff) Ok, so we are not the greatest players and probably make lots of mistakes, but the thing is that we are evenly matched. Sure players like Supermax would walk through russia against us, but he would also walk to berlin as the russians, so I don't think that is a fair measure of the game.

I would like to play someone who would be axis and show me what I'm doing wrong.

Yeah there probably hasn't been an AAR for GS with a 'normal' game (no Spain, Turkey, Sealion) yet, that has shown the Germans crushing the Soviets yet. But then who really wants to write an AAR of a 'normal' game

Stauffenberg wrote:So the most important question is if GS works or not on the east front. Does both sides have a fair chance of winning? If the answer is no then we have something to fix, but so far I haven't seen any real evidence that so is the case.

I think the answer is "no," but it's not so significant that a major overhaul is needed. It just seems to me from my experience so far that between two, evenly matched, opponents - that the Allies have the better chance of winning and this is most noticeable on the Eastern front. In particular, Russia in the '42-'43 period seems just a bit strong. Russia's strong economy seems realistic so perhaps it relates to their starting tech or labs. I'll be able to comment more later.

I think both Dave and Leridano are missing the point here, although both of them are trying to be helpful. Given the game mechanics Barbarossa can't happen exactly the way it did in reality, because IN THE GAME there isn't anyway for Russia to recover and have any chance of counter punching against the Axis before the surrender conditions are met.

What Stauffenberg is saying is that there should not be a guaranteed win for the Axis just for handling Barbarossa in the same way that they did in reality (although as pointed out, Leningrad rarely features as a major priority in CEAW so how 'realistic' those strategies are is open to debate). Who wants to play a game where there is one surefire way to win every time?

The Eastern front should be a long hard slog for the Axis in order to represent the drain on manpower and materiel resources it was in reality. If that means the Russian AI doesn't adhere strictly to the actual initial deployment and tactical doctrine used in 1941 then so be it..

It seems many good players do well with the Germans.

I'm e. g. playing against Joe (one of the few who has almost beaten Supermax). I'm the Axis and it's November 1942. I've taken Leningrad, got to the Svir and Volkhow rivers in the north. Tula, Voronezh and Rostov are all German controlled. I've made a double defense line along the Don and other rivers. I have lots of aircraft to stop any Russian winter counter attacks.

My oil at the moment is above 500 and manpower between 65-70 (so only -1 quality). The Allies have gotten nowhere in Libya and Torch hasn't started yet. So Italy is also quite strong. The downside is that Joe has almost won the battle of the Atlantic with hordes of bombers. So most of the convoys hit home. I expect him to land in France early so I'm building a strong reserve in the west.

Joe did only sporadic counter attacks in Russia during the first severe winter. That was because I stopped advancing before the bad weather struck and put German corps units along the entire front line. No armor, mech or Axis minor units were placed on the front. I made a straight defense line even if I could have moved further. When the severe winter struck it was very hard for Joe to find weak targets to attack. The Luftwaffe fended off the sporadic attacks and I only lost 2-3 units.

In 1942 I faced a strong Russian defense line in the south (triple line at first). I had crossed the Dnepr in 1941, but not taken Kharkov and Orel. In 1942 I just attacked along his front line and killed 5-6 corps units per turn plus some air losses until the Red airforce withdrew. When you repeat such losses for turn after turn then the Russians simply can't maintain such a line. Joe had to withdraw because he ran out of corps units in the south. He had mech units in the front and armor in the second line. If he hadn't retreated then he would have lost many mech and armor units.

I still haven't won this game and expect some Russian counter attacks in 1943 winter, but I dug in late September and have an efficiency in the 90's before the 25 efficiency losss from the severe winter. Most of my German units are upgraded (Tiger tanks, strong mechs and 5/4 strength infantry units instead of 4/3). So it will be a bloody affair for Joe to get rid of my front line. He can still do it because the western Allies can make so much noise so I can't reinforce the east. Time will tell, but this game shows the Germans can do pretty well. I had a shot at Stalingrad late 1942, but decided to not do it. I feared a trap and an early severe winter. So I could have repeated the true 1942 result if I wanted to. And I did better than the German generals by taking Leningrad.

In my game against Ronnie I did even better as the Germans and ended in 1945 with a front line from Leningrad to Tula to Kharkov to Rostov.

I think one reason so many Axis players struggle is because they're too greedy in 1941. Before Barbarossa they go after Spain and Egypt committing many units there that should have been used in Russia. Oil and manpower is burnt at an alarming rate.

When Barbarossa comes these Axis players attack and attack every turn with their units so they could grab as much terrain and kill as many Russians as possible. They didn't bother with attacking into October instead of stopping in good defensive terrain and rest properly before the severe winter efficiency loss (-35 in 1941). They even place Axis minor units on the front line. So when the severe winter begins then the Axis units drop down to orange (Germans) and red (Axis minors). The front line is not straight and the Russians have so many weaknesses to attack that the Axis get into real problems.

With many units lost in 1941 the Axis player won't become strong enough in 1942 to kill 5-6 Russian corps units per turn. This means they won't get far in 1942 and face a Russian steamroller in the 1943 winter offensive.

I've seen in many AAR's that the Axis players have attacked for too long in 1941 instead of thinking about where to defend for the winter. You have to set strategic goals and make sure you reach the line you have to hold to fend off counter attacks. If the enemy retreats and you can pursue then you have to abstain unless you get to the next good defensive line (usually behind rivers in the south). As long as the Axis units are in good defensive terrain then they won't have to fear so many counter attacks. If you have a double defense line in the south then you won't see your front line units retreat so they can be pursued and killed. With a straight line the Russians can only get 2 land attacks per hex.

I also see how many Axis players waste oil and manpower. They attack because they can and burn more oil than needed. E. g. they attack with quite depleted air and armor units inflicting less damage than needed. Instead they could have repaired the losses and attacked when the units punch harder. I often place my armor units in the second line and let my corps units do most of the hard work. I use armor when it's not certain that 2 infantry units can kill an enemy front line corps. I also release my armor if I can use them to destroy Russian mech or armor units. My typical way of attacking is. First send in a tac bomber to the target hex. Then a fighter or a second tac bomber if the hex is important to capture now. Then I use corps units to deplete the unit and a mech or maybe armor to completely destroy the defender. I then don't advance into the vacated hex. But repeat the process and let a corps unit move into the vacated hex and attack the next target hex.

I don't attack or move oil consuming units unless I have a reason to. I even let corps units rest unless I want to break through the enemy line. Attacking just because you get slightly better odds (5:3 for example) is a poor idea. My mantra is that if I can't kill the unit I attack then it's most often not worth attacking it. There are exceptions like in Libya or in areas you need to deplete dangerous units to reduce counter attack possibilities.

By being conservative you save oil and that means you can be a threat much longer. How many German players get into 1943 with more than 500 oil without having taking any oilfields? I do that regularly. Still my conquests at the time is not worse that other players. I don't get as far in 1941 that some, but I compensate for that in 1942 and later. Trying to beat a German player who has a decent amount of oil and manpower left is not easy. That means he can use the tac bombers and armor to counter attack any breakthroughs. That's really hard for the Russians.

The Russian armor units are very vulnerable to German tac bomber attacks so if the Germans have enough oil to use them then it's hard for the Russians to keep their armor close enough to the front line to be used offensively. I gladly send tac bombers after the Russian armor to inflict 3-4 step losse per strike.

It's not the tech levels that make the Russians formidable. They will through most of the war have inferior equipment to the Germans. It's only from 1944 and later they can hope to catch up with the Germans in some areas (like armor).

The Russians become formidable because the Germans get below 50 manpower and 200 oil. Then the Allied player only needs to keep up pressure every turn to force the Germans out of oil reserves. Then it's almost game over for the Germans. They can't respond to Russian breakthroughs and the Russian air force strike at will.

I also see that many Allied players fail to exploit the major Axis weakness, lack of oil. The Allies should do what they can to bombard the German industry and particularly rail cap cities and oilfields. E. g. sending strategic bombers to the Greek islands means they can reach Ploesti. Even if the bombers suffer losses from German fighters it means they can wear down the oil production there to 0. You bombard, repair, bombard, repair and so on. With 2 bombers it's easy to get the oilfield down to 0. The Germans burn oil sending fighters against the bombers so even that helps the Allies.

Another mistake the Axis player does is to upgrade units when the upgrade means a higher oil consumption. It might be better to have slightly less powerful units if they burn less oil. E. g. some tech 4-6 advances also increase the oil consumption. If you want the King Tiger panzers you have to accept a higher oil consumption. If you have an armor oil consumption of 5 instead of 3 it means you burn 10 oil instead of 6 when you move and attack a Russian unit. The odds with the King Tiger against the T-34 is 23:2 while the Pz IV would get odds of 15:3. What's best for the Germans? Inflict slightly less damage and save 4 oil or make as much damage as possible? You have similar considerations for fighters and tac bombers.

I am just curious, do you play most of your games with random research or normal research? I go for random if my opponent agrees since it is much more interesting. I have pushed for a less-random (but still somewhat random) option, but that is another matter. Anyway, I would think this would be a neutral option vis a vis Axis and Allies but it could have some effect on an individual game.

I always use normal research. I don't like random research the way it is. It's simply too random. When you can swing from 1, 8 or 15 progress in an area then it's too random.

This way you can't predict completely when you get a tech, but you know approximately that you will get the tech soon.

Should I change the random system to the system I described? On average you will get the same tech progress as with normal research, but you may be delayed a few turns with a particular tech or you may get it early. At least this means there is no use to plan ahead for when you will get certain techs. Now I do this constantly so I get most techs at the same time and can upgrade more efficiently.

Suggestion to alter the random research.

Right now the random research works like this. Basic research progress is 1 per turn. There is 1/10 change for 8 and 1/30 chance for 15. Over time this
means the progress will be about 2 per turn. The progress is multiplied by the number of labs and focus.

Normal research progress by 2 per turn and then multiplied by the number of labs and focus.

I’ve always felt that random research is too random and never use it. Sometimes you can have focus on a tech and still all the other areas get tech
bumps while your focused one gets behind.

What if we instead change random research to the following.

Progress for each tech each turn will be a random of the following.

40% = 1
30% = 2
15% = 3
10% = 4
5% = 5

This gives an average of 2.1 instead of 2 with the normal, but that’s ok because the chance of wasting more tech points if you e. g. get a 5
when you’re close to the next level is bigger.

Let’s have an example for artillery tech. It has a tech difficulty of 30. Let’s say the Germans have 3 labs and balanced research.
With normal research you get: 2 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 6,67 points

With the random research you get instead:
40%: 1 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 3,33 points
30%: 2 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 6,67 points
15%: 3 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 10 points
10%: 4 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 13,33 points
5%: 5 * 3 / 3 / 0,4 = 16,67 points

Here is another example. Let’s say Britain has 3 air labs and focus on dogfight. Tech difficulty is 25.

Normal research: 2 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 12

Random research:
40%: 1 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 6
30%: 2 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 12
15%: 3 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 18
10%: 4 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 24
5%: 5 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 30

I think that with such a random research system you can still have some variation, but the chance of getting better than the basic tech advance is much
better. In the old random research system you had a 10% chance to get 8 instead of 1 and 3% chance to get 15. You needed to get one of those
occasionally to not get far behind with the tech.

Stauffenberg wrote: Another mistake the Axis player does is to upgrade units when the upgrade means a higher oil consumption. It might be better to have slightly less powerful units if they burn less oil. E. g. some tech 4-6 advances also increase the oil consumption. If you want the King Tiger panzers you have to accept a higher oil consumption. If you have an armor oil consumption of 5 instead of 3 it means you burn 10 oil instead of 6 when you move and attack a Russian unit. The odds with the King Tiger against the T-34 is 23:2 while the Pz IV would get odds of 15:3. What's best for the Germans? Inflict slightly less damage and save 4 oil or make as much damage as possible? You have similar considerations for fighters and tac bombers.

I did not know that upgraded tanks use more oil. Is that true of other units, for example TAC air? Is there a chart so that I know when it will kick in? Many times, I upgrade a tank and the icon stays the same, I'm guessing that upgrade does not change oil consumption..

Due to cost, my Germans never really build more than about 11 labs, is that a mistake?
I also (probably) over react when manpower causes a -1, is that really a major hinder?

Thanx for the advice. From your writings, it would appear that you have much more success from tac air than we do. I only build about 3 tac, and about 4-5 fighters (1-2 in the west). Then usually a bomber in Norway. Our TAC air just does not do that much damage. In fact, most attacks seem to get less than the predicted results.

I have possible solutions, that if possible, could make everyone happy:

1) Have the russians start wtih very low readiness, I'm talking red units, then the German initial advance would be much faster. The biggest problem we have is duplicating German success in 1941. My Germans stop at the river for winter, then never really break that line the rest of the game.

2) Does GS support scripted events? If so, the Russians could start with a small army, then as the Germans approach Moscow/ Stalingrad, etc. Free Russian units are "triggered". There could also be a free Siberian reinforcement trigger to help the Russians.

We already changed the organization level values to give the Germans a bigger advantage. Russia has tech 1 (value 3) and Germany tech 3 (value 3 + 8 + 10 = 21). So Germany has 18 better efficiency from start of Barbarossa plus the addition of leaders. That's worth a lot.

One big problem with lowering the Russian tech levels is that then they will never catch up with the Germans and you get a late game problem. So we increased the difference between tech 1 and 3 organization without dropping the Russian tech level. This means the Russians can get organization much closer to the German if they put effort in general labs and organization. E. g. When Russian gets tech 3 organization then Germany will have tech 4 organization or maybe tech 5. Then the difference is reduced from 18 to 6+3 = 9. That's a significant difference. It means the Germans are much better early in the war, but the Russians catch up.

The Russians will always be at a disadvantage in the air unit 1944 (when the German dogfight tech has maxed out). Russian armor units will also be at a disadvantage until they get 4 armor labs from 1943. Then they can catch up the Germans.

Russia wins in the east mainly by using corps units and to some degree armor and mech. Air units will suffer horrible losses, but it's necessary to soften up the strong German units.

Germany can achieve historical results in 1941 if they use their armor and mech units aggressively and manage to pocket Russian units. That's very risky.

What's the main difference on the east front between GS and the real war? I believe it's how the Russians used their armies. In the real war they tried to defend close to the front and withdrew to the next river line to defend there as well. Each time the Germans broke through and pocketed many Russian units. Eventually the Russians had so few units left that they were in danger of losing Moscow. But despite being so mauled in 1941 they managed to launch a big 1941 offensive and recapture a lot of terrain near Moscow. In 1942 they didn't repeat the mistake of 1941 and fell back when Case Blue was launched. It was only when the Germans reached Stalingrad the Russians fought back in force.

In GS you see clever Russian players retreat their units further to the east. New units are placed in rear cites. This means the Germans won't fight many good Russian units in 1941 and instead they will simply move to the main Russian line going from Leningrad to Tula to Rostov or Stalino. This is probably what the real Russians should have done as well. This means the Russians will have many units in 1942 so the battles then will be a slugfest.

I don't see how we can change that. We can place more at start Russian units near the front line so they have to run instead of being railed to the main defense line. This means the Germans can decide to be very aggressive to get in contact with the front line units to avoid seeing be being railed to safety. That's the only thing I see we can change. If we weaken the Russian at start strength then we have a big problem in 1942 with a too strong Axis offensive. The Axis bite quite hard in GS and it's not easy being the Russians unless you know when to run and when to fight.

dave123 wrote:I did not know that upgraded tanks use more oil. Is that true of other units, for example TAC air? Is there a chart so that I know when it will kick in? Many times, I upgrade a tank and the icon stays the same, I'm guessing that upgrade does not change oil consumption..

Due to cost, my Germans never really build more than about 11 labs, is that a mistake?
I also (probably) over react when manpower causes a -1, is that really a major hinder?

Thanx for the advice. From your writings, it would appear that you have much more success from tac air than we do. I only build about 3 tac, and about 4-5 fighters (1-2 in the west). Then usually a bomber in Norway. Our TAC air just does not do that much damage. In fact, most attacks seem to get less than the predicted results.

I have possible solutions, that if possible, could make everyone happy:

1) Have the russians start wtih very low readiness, I'm talking red units, then the German initial advance would be much faster. The biggest problem we have is duplicating German success in 1941. My Germans stop at the river for winter, then never really break that line the rest of the game.

2) Does GS support scripted events? If so, the Russians could start with a small army, then as the Germans approach Moscow/ Stalingrad, etc. Free Russian units are "triggered". There could also be a free Siberian reinforcement trigger to help the Russians.

All oil consuming units (except BB's, DD's and subs) will get increased oil consumption with increased tech. Ronnie made such a chart, but I can't find it in the user manual. You can always see this yourself by going into the tech window within the game and look for the tech advances you get. If you see a barrel symbol then you know that it will increase the oil consumption of 1 for the units that will get the tech.

For example will Artillery level 4 increase the oil consumption of mech units by 1.
Blitzkrieg level 2 will increase the oil consumption of armor units by 1.
Armor level 2 and level 6 will each increase the oil consumption of armor units by 1
Tank destroyers level 4 will increase the oil consumption of armor units by 1.
So a tech 0 armor unit will burn 2 oil while a tech 6 armor unit will burn 6 oil. That means 4 oil vs 12 oil per turn when moving and attacking. It's a huge difference.

There is a similar way for increased oil consumption for air and CV units.

You can spot the increased pending oil consumption by looking at the unit name when you click on it. If it's white then the upgrade won't increase the oil. If it's brown then it will increase by 1,
if it's gold then it will increase by 2 and if it's yellow then it will increase by 3.

I usually build 13 labs for Germany (3 infantry, armor, air and general and 1 naval). A -1 quality is not a big deal. It's the next level with -1 quality and -1 survivability you should be afraid of. Still, I try to avoid falling below 75% manpower for as long as I can. But when it's unavoidable then I don't worry. I then build land units and do my best to not fall below 50%. Garrisons have poor quality and survivability so they're almost useless if you have below 50% manpower.

I have 6+ tac bombers when I launch Barbarossa. It's more important with tac bombers than fighters because the Russian airforce is too weak to engage you in force. You can then build the extra fighters during the autumn so they're placed in the east before the winter. The key to tac bombers is to get some high XP ones. Those can truly devastate a hex. The main reason to bombard a hex with tac bombers is NOT to kill steps, but to lower the efficiency of the unit. Usually I inflict 1-2 steps of damage and rarely 3-4. But the efficiency drops a lot due to shock factors from the tac bombers. So if you can get a 60+ efficiency Russian corps down to 30-35 with bombardment then your land units can easily force it to retreat and finish it off. So you use air units to soften up your targets. If you designate 1 tac bomber per hex and an extra fighter or tac bomber against cities then you should be able to attack and destroy 6+ hexes with air support. That will reduce the Axis step losses and make sure you can repeat the process next turn.
It's possible let the Russian lose 30 efficiency from the Barbarossa attack instead of just 20. That is a temporary penalty that will mean they can't do anything until the first winter. It may help some of the less strong players to get ok results.
We can have scripted events and do have it e. g. for US entry. Then Russia will get 8 reinforcments from Siberia. It's possible to have more of them, but the big problem is with Russian players who don't fight in the west meaning that the Germans won't kill many Russians in 1941. Having the Russians get their units from an event doesn't help with that fact.

What we need to have is a system where the Germans dare to engage the main Russian line in 1941 without fear of being crushed if the severe winter starts early. At the same time we want the Russians to be able to recover so they can inflict some damage during the first winter.

Stauffenberg wrote:Suggestion to alter the random research.

Right now the random research works like this. Basic research progress is 1 per turn. There is 1/10 change for 8 and 1/30 chance for 15. Over time this
means the progress will be about 2 per turn. The progress is multiplied by the number of labs and focus.

Normal research progress by 2 per turn and then multiplied by the number of labs and focus.

I’ve always felt that random research is too random and never use it. Sometimes you can have focus on a tech and still all the other areas get tech
bumps while your focused one gets behind.

What if we instead change random research to the following.

Progress for each tech each turn will be a random of the following.

40% = 1
30% = 2
15% = 3
10% = 4
5% = 5

This gives an average of 2.1 instead of 2 with the normal, but that’s ok because the chance of wasting more tech points if you e. g. get a 5
when you’re close to the next level is bigger.

Let’s have an example for artillery tech. It has a tech difficulty of 30. Let’s say the Germans have 3 labs and balanced research.
With normal research you get: 2 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 6,67 points

With the random research you get instead:
40%: 1 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 3,33 points
30%: 2 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 6,67 points
15%: 3 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 10 points
10%: 4 * 3 / 3 / 0,3 = 13,33 points
5%: 5 * 3 / 3 / 0,4 = 16,67 points

Here is another example. Let’s say Britain has 3 air labs and focus on dogfight. Tech difficulty is 25.

Normal research: 2 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 12

Random research:
40%: 1 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 6
30%: 2 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 12
15%: 3 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 18
10%: 4 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 24
5%: 5 * 3 / 2 / 0,25 = 30

I think that with such a random research system you can still have some variation, but the chance of getting better than the basic tech advance is much
better. In the old random research system you had a 10% chance to get 8 instead of 1 and 3% chance to get 15. You needed to get one of those
occasionally to not get far behind with the tech.

I like your idea for modifying the random research and think it would be a big improvement.