I know this is all speculation but these are my thoughts. I don’t really know what the Russian army strength was in 1940 so I am going to use aa50 41 as my main guessing stick. If Russia is or probably going to have a decent infantry and artillery start. My guess there is enough Units that Germany would really have to think about going east on turn 1 with a good France player ready to capitalize on any German mistakes. To the point Russia will probably be just strong enough that there is no way Germany could leave enough units behind to defend against a french attack. I dont think that Russia will that with much of an airforce, but Russia may start with a fighter. I think a good Russian first turn buy would probably be two tac bombers and some land units. Depending on how much money Russia will get tanks to work with the tac bombers. Depending on how many territories there are bombers may be the other choice. In honor of tradition there will be the russian sub that everyone forgets to move everyone now and again. Then since all the major territories on pac40 are the same ipc wise caucaus will prbably still be 4. I saw on another thread the cauc will have a minor ic. I find that is very likely, but I think Russia may need to upgrade that to a major ic so the russians can stop japan once that break through India. I had more I was thinking of but I can’t remember it at this time.
Well, speaking of Russia…
Everyone is getting crazy with Canada (which shouldn’t happen before we crush USA tomorrow :-D), but nobody is talking about Russia.
They had in fact quite a fleet (including a few battleships in the Baltic) and not only the usual sub (which has been quite a hero in a lot of our games).
They had a lot of airplanes, some of them of great quality. But something like half of them were burn during the end of june 1941.
They had, of course, a lot of soldiers. With good weapons and using more ammo than any other soldier in the war. They had an incredible artillery, from the beginning but of course even more at the end. And they had more tanks and often of better quality than the Germans.
All this being said… we just do not know which kind of political stance they’ll be in. Oh yes, they ‘betrayed’ Western Democracies with the non-agression Pact of August 1940, but still they knew, more than anybody else, that war would come eventualy. So I guess they’ll be at peace. Will there be any DoW? I don’t think so. I think they will simply make the game so it would be foolish for Germany to attack them too early, and stupid of them to do the same.
Now, I think they should have a large army. With modern material (which means tanks and maybe a few fighters/tacticals, but no mech inf). I think that what has changed in this new version is that, with more planes at the beginning (if they continue as they had with AAP40) and the possibility to organize ‘Blitzkrieg’ with a combination of units, it will maybe be foolish to stack inb front of an incoming assault. And then, you could give Russia some material, because they will lose it the minute ths same material, with some insane combination bonuses, attack them.
Don’t forget what they said about France: its army will be large, but still completely unable to repel the Furor Germanica. Maybe will it be the same with the Russians.
The main problem for russia in the 1940 set up is the vast distance they have to travel to the front. Producton centers in moscow, stalingrad, and lenningrad will be multiple turns worth of movement to the front. I expect to see only limited infantry on the border for russia, and a strong presence on the border with finland.
I would like to see russia’s capital territory be a 5/10 like the US switch to wartime. And a National advantage dependent upon both the US and UK being at war with Germany, and holding archangel.
A transport in the black sea, and a cruiser, sub and transport in the north sea.
Id really like to see a strong presence on the manchurian border, as Stalin really feared Japans involvement there. It was stalins decision in '41 to pull the siberian devisons to moscow when the germans were only 40 miles away. That move, likeley saved the soviet seat of power from falling. Before the US was in the war this would have been a cripling blow to the soviet union.
Id like to see a rule that, if moscow falls, russia continues to operate, precisely as china does. Collect income, purchase infantry, place them anywhere.
And VERY importantly, remember, Finland, Hungary, and Romania, will be Axis neutral, meaning a G1 attack on russia is an imposibility. The two powers will only officaly border eachother in poland. Russia will be able to attack the axis neutrals, but thats foolish.
I suspect Russia will be a pretty fun power to play.
I suspect Russia will be a pretty fun power to play.
The Eastern front is where all the action is.
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 '41
Those 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?
