Global Game Setup

[oztea]

It would be better for a cold war game to start at or around korea, and tensions escalate in europe.

[Guest]

@idk_iam_swiss:

oh. but there were more russians. maybe that would be a fun way to play to continue the game. After the axis are defeated… Russia vs EVERYONE!

In a lot of games Russia gets eliminated first.

[Razor]

@idk_iam_swiss:

Russia would have won.

No, I dont think so.

At that time, Russia had been in war a very long time, and had lost 12 millions of the best men. At that time USA had mobilized 16 million men and had only lost 240 000 of them. The Allied oilfields was safe, and the Russian oilfields in Caucasus was in range of UK bombers in Persia. Also there was a lot of Polish, Baltic and Ukrainean insurgents that was fighting the Russians until 1950’s and they would have contributet to the allies effort. Also the Allied airplanes was better than the Russian, a fact proven in two separate dog-fights between US and Russian fighters over Berlin in april 1945, and later again proven during the Korean War.

My conclusion is the Allied would have won, and Stalin would propably move to Irktusk.
Happy ending.

[anderb]

i bet it would have taken the russians several more years to develop the a-bomb. they stole the technology from the us, wasn’t able to develop it themselves… a couple of a-bombs over moscow, stalingrad and so on i bet the russian bear wouuld have folded or found a new home in siberia. if that is not the case i would have no problems seeing that the allies would have draftet what was left of the germans and sent them on a operation barbarossa v2.0.

[Guest]

USA would have made short work out of Russia and probably should have. Patton had the right idea.

[Funcioneta]

Well, Stalin didn’t fear the nukes. After all, USA only had 2 at that time, and no ICBMs that time, so USA still had to launch the bombs. Good luck launching them in key places as Stalingrad or Moscow, soviets had much more planes than Japan when Hiro and Nagasaki, and you have to travel a long run. Maybe they could nuke Leningrad with some good spy work (confusing soviets about the place where the nuke is dropped), but that was of no use after how germans left the poor city

There were more problems: soviet land army had gross numerical advantage, T-series where far better than allied tanks and you can guess political ramifications in places where commies had some force as China, Greece, Italy and even France. You have to explain USA’s public opininio why attack a former allie that didn’t attack first, etc. No walk in the park, just more kills and not clear victory. Truman did well not attacking, Patton only wanted the glory

But as fantay scenario, 1947 is better after chinese civil war is done. Allies vs soviets and chineses, a fair 4 players scenario

[Guest]

USA would have established air superiority and then air supremacy in no time and then the bombs would have been raining in Russia.

[Razor]

@Brain:

USA would have established air superiority and then air supremacy in no time and then the bombs would have been raining in Russia.

Right, just like they did in Vietnam.

[Funcioneta]

@Razor:

@Brain:

USA would have established air superiority and then air supremacy in no time and then the bombs would have been raining in Russia.

Right, just like they did in Vietnam.

I think having air superiority over soviet union at late 40s was a bit more difficult than doing over Vietnam at late 60’s. I think you overestimate USA’s air potential at that late 40’s (or maybe you subestimate soviet air) and also forget in that scenario soviets would play in her homeland, and that gives advantage as did for brits in 1940

You see a USA’s easy victory. I see a sure carnage with an uncertain result. Attacking the soviets without provocation was not an option, and such attack would put the soviets as the offended and “good guys”. You don’t want give Stalin such propagandist weapon

[Guest]

Not only would USA have had air supremacy but they were fully mobilized in both the Atlantic and the Pacific and would have performed the ultimate pincer tactic on Russia.

[Razor]

@Brain:

Not only would USA have had air supremacy but they were fully mobilized in both the Atlantic and the Pacific and would have performed the ultimate pincer tactic on Russia.

Every time in history a major naval power has been up against a major land power, the land power will always win. Its all about logistics.

[SgtBlitz]

Woohoo let’s throw even more people into the meat grinder of war after two of the most horrible wars in all history.  I’m sure everyone back then would have been for it!

[Omega]

Historically, no country ever succeeded in conquering Russia…

[Imperious Leader]

Except for Germany in ww1

[Guest]

@Omega:

Historically, no country ever succeeded in conquering Russia…

Not because they couldn’t, but because they didn’t.

[Funcioneta]

@Imperious:

Except for Germany in ww1

Incorrect, Russia was not conquered (in fact Germany conquered less of them in WW1 than in WW2). Just Lenin did a pact with Germany (Brest-Litovsk peace if I remember well) because he had to fight with zarists while kaiser accepted because he has too much to do against UK and France. As much you can say a minor victory for Germany since Russia lost Poland and also Baltic States, never a conquest

The powers than were more close to conquest Russia were Mongols and France. But Russia was not a nation at XIIIth century (just a bunch of small powers as Moscovy, Kiev and Novgorod) and Napoleon had to retreat from Moscow and finally lost the war

It’s higly difficult any power could conquest the full USSR. As much, conquer so much that russians would want coup Stalin. But even then you would change Stalin for someone that easily could be undemocratic anyway (Putin is not Lincoln, you know). Few profit for such high price

[tarkonis]

Thread derailed…

Lets get back on topic.

A global game with different setups I think will require even more playtesting and therefore will reduce the amount of testing on the global game for 1940.

IMO a bad idea.

[Razor]

@General:

A global game with different setups I think will require even more playtesting and therefore will reduce the amount of testing on the global game for 1940.

IMO a bad idea.

Man, this aint the 1950’s. Larry just put the numbers in a pc and print out a balanced set-up. Then some of his buddies play a game and this is the testing. We are not talking rocket science here, buddy.

[Guest]

@Razor:

Man, this aint the 1950’s. Larry just put the numbers in a pc and print out a balanced set-up. Then some of his buddies play a game and this is the testing. We are not talking rocket science here, buddy.

Well hopefully they can use that same PC to create a computer version with a better AI.

[tarkonis]

@Razor:

@General:

A global game with different setups I think will require even more playtesting and therefore will reduce the amount of testing on the global game for 1940.

IMO a bad idea.

Man, this aint the 1950’s. Larry just put the numbers in a pc and print out a balanced set-up. Then some of his buddies play a game and this is the testing. We are not talking rocket science here, buddy.

And we recieve a poorly tested game…

What is the miraculous “computer program” you speak of…

There is no substitute for human players playing lots of games to see if the game plays one way or another.  For example… most games of AA50 playout KGF, where Japan rushes to moscow.  A computer is no substitute for the human mind.

Lets just test one scenario for the duration, and get it right so that the initial setup allows lots of possible routes to victory.