not in 183 games, the fall of moscow means the writing is on the wall. germanys bonuses need to be reduced from 5 to 3 (except norway) imo to prevent an unstoppable income flop, and bm air interception rules can prevent the easy suffocation of russia. these two changes make the game a bit more fair
Russia
-
attack finland round 1, it’s axis neutral
so they’ll have some troops there, but i don’t think they’ll have much on the borders
but i do guess that amur (Siberia in pacific game) will have quite a stack -
What is everyone’s thoughts on a national objective for Russia to hold Vladivostok in Amur?
-
I would suspect a siberian railway on some sorts to be put in to make it viable to stall Japan in the global game. I really do think this will be the greatest game they will have ever come out with, even able to usurp anniversary edition from the top spot.
-
I dont think we would see a siberian railway, it would have been printed on the map like the burma road was.
Vladivostok is perhaps victory city calibre, but not national objective calibre.
Stalin was prepared to ceede sibieria to the japanese if worse came to worse and they invaded too in '41Those regions of russia are unimportant to the agenda of the soviet government, their only value is as a trade route with the US. The national objective should be contingent on the US and UK being in the war, to simulate Germany’s desire to keep the US out of the war as long as possible, and the desire to knock the UK out of the war.
-
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
-
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Larry Harris does :-D
-
@Brain:
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Larry Harris does :-D
lol
-
I want to see, most of all, a ban on UK and US units in Russia (except, with Russian permission, for aircraft to land after attacking G/I). Otherwise the game will be ALL ABOUT the Eastern Front.
Rail movement is essential in my opinion, but it won’t happen 'till the next version.
Another huge problem is this:
Hitler would never have attacked the USSR if he’d known how big it’s armed forces really were.
Therefore, for game purposes, Russia is usually massively under strength, both in units and income. Problem with THIS is that it then becomes the obvious target for Axis aggression, at the expense of all other fronts.
-
i agree, i would like almost all russian men in siberia to repersent the russo-japanese tensions and very few in the west.
-
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Germany is easy. Its just like AAP40. Germany will attack first. Or if it does not, by a certain turn, USSR can attack.
Japan-USSR would be more interesting, since that didnt happen until 1945. But I doubt there will be a 8-10 round limit before Japan can attack.
-
In the game Russia is the main objective for Japan.
-
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Germany is easy. Its just like AAP40. Germany will attack first. Or if it does not, by a certain turn, USSR can attack.
Japan-USSR would be more interesting, since that didnt happen until 1945. But I doubt there will be a 8-10 round limit before Japan can attack.
Why shouldn’t the USSR be allowed to attack from R1 if Germany stalls? They may have also signed the Non-Agression pact, but they weren’t just sitting back and waiting for the other side to make the first move like the US was. I read somewhere that the USSR had plans to invade Romania just a few weeks after Barbarossa began (not sure as to the accuracy of this).
If anyone knows more about the USSR prior to Barbarossa , please correct me, but from what I know, the USSR would have attacked Germany if they ever saw a strategic advantage.
-
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Germany is easy. Its just like AAP40. Germany will attack first. Or if it does not, by a certain turn, USSR can attack.
Japan-USSR would be more interesting, since that didnt happen until 1945. But I doubt there will be a 8-10 round limit before Japan can attack.
Why shouldn’t the USSR be allowed to attack from R1 if Germany stalls? They may have also signed the Non-Agression pact, but they weren’t just sitting back and waiting for the other side to make the first move like the US was. I read somewhere that the USSR had plans to invade Romania just a few weeks after Barbarossa began (not sure as to the accuracy of this).
If anyone knows more about the USSR prior to Barbarossa , please correct me, but from what I know, the USSR would have attacked Germany if they ever saw a strategic advantage.
Well, the game balance is not based upon USSR being able to attack at will. Besides, in 1940, Russia was NOT remotely prepared for Germany. They were embarrassed by Finland, and Stalin had purged his senior commanders. For balance, and historical reasons, a USSR attack R1 is not feasible.
-
If anyone knows more about the USSR prior to Barbarossa , please correct me, but from what I know, the USSR would have attacked Germany if they ever saw a strategic advantage.
Agreed.
So now it’s just a question of how will WOTC model the fact that in 1940 the USSR never saw that pre-requisite strategic advantage#498
-
The USSR did have a plan to attack Germany. This was largely because they believed in fighting on enemy soil. It wasn’t put into action because Stalin was paranoid about starting a war with Germany. When the generals got wind of the Barbarossa plan they urged Stalin to attack first, but he dismissed the warnings as British plotting.
The main reason the Soviets did so badly in the face of the German attack was that their entire philosophy AND preparations were to fight an aggressive war; they were not prepared for, or ready to adapt to, a defensive operation.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/16/6/Bishop22.html
http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/signal-1aug1941.htm
One problem game designers have to deal with is the difference between a country during peacetime and on a war footing.
Neutral countries of course have small defence forces; but these don’t increase every turn as the nation spends money; they have reached the maximum level the country can reasonably afford to spend on maintaining and upgrading defence.
Likewise, every major power should have limits on military spending in peacetime viz:
A limit on income spent per year. This will be considerably less than the wartime total.
A maximum peacetime establishment in units, probably divided by army, navy, air force. They can upgrade say a destroyer to a cruiser, but not increase total units (or “tonnage”?)
A maximum number of units maintained in wartime, determined by IPC levels; i.e. a country cannot withdraw to defend its capital with a huge force unless it controls a considerable “hinterland” income to support these forces.
So, how to reflect the fact that the Soviets had a relatively low output of units while restraining them from just attacking first turn to wind their economy up to maximum? What is their incentive NOT to attack, when they know (unlike Stalin) that the Germans will attack them eventually in any case?
-
maybe make a NO to not attack germany??
-
One problem game designers have to deal with is the difference between a country during peacetime and on a war footing.
Neutral countries of course have small defence forces; but these don’t increase every turn as the nation spends money; they have reached the maximum level the country can reasonably afford to spend on maintaining and upgrading defence.
Likewise, every major power should have limits on military spending in peacetime viz:
A limit on income spent per year. This will be considerably less than the wartime total.
A maximum peacetime establishment in units, probably divided by army, navy, air force. They can upgrade say a destroyer to a cruiser, but not increase total units (or “tonnage”?)
A maximum number of units maintained in wartime, determined by IPC levels; i.e. a country cannot withdraw to defend its capital with a huge force unless it controls a considerable “hinterland” income to support these forces.
So, how to reflect the fact that the Soviets had a relatively low output of units while restraining them from just attacking first turn to wind their economy up to maximum? What is their incentive NOT to attack, when they know (unlike Stalin) that the Germans will attack them eventually in any case?
I dunno. I’m trying to multi-task but from somewhere “stack limit” is echoing in my skull after reading this.
What about forcing them to disperse their forces while at peace? You know garrisoned in their home towns not mobilized at the borders….
#503
-
good idea. how bout this every TT has to have 2+ men.
-
@i:
good idea. how bout this every TT has to have 2+ men.
not bad if we really want to divide a peacetime force do the number of units divided by the number of territories then whatever that number is make that your all your TT that are worth points need that many units
-
Or you simply place most of their modern troops (artillery, mech if they have any, tanks) in Moscow, at 3-4 territories from the border. And then, they cannot physically attack Germany before turn 3. Even more if you divide their numerous infantry in many places. And if you do not give them a lot of tanks, then they would be foolish to attack, because Germany should have, by then, crush France and push a good part of its army in Poland to defend.
Suggested Topics
