Weaken Russian Economy

[Ruanek]

Contrary to the subject, I don’t want to weaken the total Russian economy.  But from my experience and what I’ve read (particularly in the Huge Russian Stack of Infantry Problem thread) Germany really has trouble taking out Russia.  Moscow is a minimum of four moves away from Germany’s starting eastern front, and Germany generally isn’t in a good position to attack for the first couple of turns anyway.  This gives Russia generally at least 5 or 6 turns to build up its defenses.  It can easily have several dozen infantry in Moscow by the time the Germans can attack it.  Even if Russia follows a different strategy it is still hard for Germany to beat it quickly.

I know that if Russia does this, Germany can circle around and take the rest of Russia.  But that doesn’t help them meet their victory city requirement, and for the Axis especially time is of the essence and fortifying Moscow makes it that much harder to take it before American intervention diverts German attention.

My suggestion, therefore, is that the Russian economy be weakened when not at war.  They, like the US, start out neutral and don’t see a need to operate under full military capacity until later.  The Non-Aggression Pact between Germany and Russia exemplifies this, and there’s evidence to suggest that Stalin wasn’t prepared for the German attack.  So it makes some sense from a historical perspective.

I don’t really know how much money Russia should lose when not at war, because I’m not too great at balancing things.  But I’d suggest something around 10-12 IPCs.

Perhaps to balance it out if that’s too much of a disadvantage, the USA could be allowed to transfer money to Russia when they’re both at war and the Allies have achieved some form of naval supremacy in the Atlantic (perhaps 5 IPCs a turn, with 5 more if there’s no Axis presence in the Atlantic).  This would show the importance of the USA’s economic aid and the power of U-boat interdiction.

[Xandax]

I don’t think the issue with AAG40 is that Germany can’t take Russia “fast enough” or “without difficulty”.
The issue is that Axis really have to move fast because otherwise USA becomes too much of a factor.

I don’t want it to be easier to take Russia even if Russia turtles all troops into Moscow - it would make for a much more one-strategy type game making Barbarossa the only choice the Axis have and making it way too fast.

This games issue is the massive economy the USA can get going and the undivided focus they can have. That is very difficult competing with for Axis and means that the Allied basically can go all out defensive and win once USA becomes “big enough”.
The issue with the turtle strategy therefore isn’t that it makes it too difficult to take the capitals/cities - but that it is viable due to the size of the USA economy.

If the USA economy had been less of a factor, turtleing would not be as viable a strategy because the huge stack would be whittled away over time. It is just that the “time” isn’t there to do so.

So if making alterations - I’d rather treat the cause and not the symptom.

[Ruanek]

I intended this to be a balancing suggestion for A&A, not a house rule.  Can it be moved back?

@Xandax:

I don’t think the issue with AAG40 is that Germany can’t take Russia “fast enough” or “without difficulty”.
The issue is that Axis really have to move fast because otherwise USA becomes too much of a factor.

I don’t want it to be easier to take Russia even if Russia turtles all troops into Moscow - it would make for a much more one-strategy type game making Barbarossa the only choice the Axis have and making it way too fast.

This games issue is the massive economy the USA can get going and the undivided focus they can have. That is very difficult competing with for Axis and means that the Allied basically can go all out defensive and win once USA becomes “big enough”.
The issue with the turtle strategy therefore isn’t that it makes it too difficult to take the capitals/cities - but that it is viable due to the size of the USA economy.

If the USA economy had been less of a factor, turtleing would not be as viable a strategy because the huge stack would be whittled away over time. It is just that the “time” isn’t there to do so.

So if making alterations - I’d rather treat the cause and not the symptom.

Well, the only country that can really turtle is Russia.  And if you weaken the US economy you make it harder to contain Japan in the Pacific.  I don’t think the US economy is going to get that much of a downgrade.  And the whole point of this was to serve as an alternative to other balancing suggestions.

[Pvt.Ryan]

Funny  Ifind this interesting. It truly acts just like the real war. But hey thats just me.

[Ruanek]

@Pvt.Ryan:

Funny  Ifind this interesting. It truly acts just like the real war. But hey thats just me.

That’s the point.:)  Two countries start out not at war: the USA and Russia.  Logically both of them should get an IPC boost when at war due to their shifting to a war economy.  But Russia can do well with its economy already, so to replicate the wartime boost its peacetime economy should be a bit weaker.  And that makes it harder for Russia to turtle.

Another idea I had was to make the USA automatically enter the war later (turn 4 or 5) unless attacked or London falls.  Same for Russia, though that’s not as much of an issue because Germany needs to attack Russia anyway.  But it doesn’t make sense for them to enter the war so early, especially Russia (who wanted to stay out of the war altogether).  Something like that, though, would have bigger ramifications and would thus be harder to balance.

Doing something to make the USA have to build a bit of a navy in that Atlantic could help, too (divert a bit of attention from Japan, let Germany do a bit of convoy raiding, especially if this weakened the USA’s lend-lease economy help to Russia described above).  Like maybe giving Germany 1 free sub per turn in the Baltic as long as the Axis controls France and the USA is in the war or something similar.  That, also, is harder to balance, because it’s giving free units.

Maybe I should have named this thread “Balance Suggestions”.:)

[Xandax]

@Ruanek:

Well, the only country that can really turtle is Russia.  And if you weaken the US economy you make it harder to contain Japan in the Pacific.  I don’t think the US economy is going to get that much of a downgrade.  And the whole point of this was to serve as an alternative to other balancing suggestions.

Well - the UK can turtle easily if Germany goes to Russia, and But the issue is that if you make Russia easier to take, you remove the incitement for Germany to go for London making London impossible to take.
Having both London and Russia as potential targets right off the bat means you have choices to make and the allies have to react to either move. Making Russia easier to take, means there’s very little reason to go London before taking out Russia. That would mean a more simple and closed game.

Having tweaks to USA (for example) is IMO a much more valid balancing structure as it helps both Pacific map and Europe map and provides a more open game.

[Ruanek]

Well, right now it seems like London isn’t hard to take.