Thank goodness. This might even get me playing the game again. I had pretty much given up on it.

With the Western Allies now tuned down and the Soviets getting back some of their lost mobility the game is looking the best it has been for a very long time.

Ideally we'd also get the old 35% base ...

Adding more armies is not the answer. And these Zoc games going into 1942 mean that you are going to get hustled all the way back to the Volga. Look, we don't have to guess here. For 6 months the game had earlier mech upgrapes and the slightly higher efficiency rating -- and it was fine. The ...

Glad to hear the Western Allies have been taken down a peg or two. That did need to happen.

Zoc defenses do not work, especially if the German has airborne. And in 1942 you are up against the wall in Moscow anyways, and if you play the Zoc game you are going to be pushed pack to the Volga.

Air raids are not especially profitable until bombers tech up to 44 and have escorts. The Germans ...

The eastern front was balanced at Russian experience of 35% and with their mech improving from early 1942 rather than late 1942. It was absolutely fine.

Once Alvaro changed this, many moons ago, he broke the game and it never recovered from this. He's done a bunch of minor tweeks in the meantime ...

<t> It's not realistic, but it will only work once and can be easily prevented. The Allied player has to invade Syria immediately after France surrenders and before the Axis can act here. In one turn Syria can be knocked out and the ports occupied. Small corps on each of these ports will be ...

Thanks for clarifying, Nirosi, and yeah that is odd.

That was in response to another post, Harry, not yours.

But if you set planes to ground support and conduct attacks, op points are expended. So where is this op point going? Down a black hole? Not saying you are wrong, but it is very strange.

<t> Nice cherrypicking. But, no, doesn't change the argument. At the bird's eye view the relevant statistic is GDP. And LL did not account for anything like 30-40% of Soviet GDP in wartime. You can of course find this or that part of the Soviet economy where the allies disproportionately contributed ...

<t> Harry I don't really like how the game handles the economics of the Soviet Union at all, so...<br/>
<br/>
If it was up to me I'd do several things: increasing Soviet production substantially. Maybe by as much as a third. And place limits on what each possible LL route can carry, and you'd have ...

<t> The strat *is* pretty good, but I don't see how YueJin doesn't get hustled back to the Volga or beyond by the end of the summer. <br/>
<br/>
The big difference here is maybe he saves enough armor to keep Russia in the game when they go from zero to hero from Sept on. But he is already risking ...

<t> The USA is oddly light on merchants.<br/>
<br/>
You can probably trash their merchant fleet, too, once it starts trying to ship stuff to the Sovs.<br/>
<br/>
Your opponent has seemingly completely ignored the BoA. I bet he didn't even bulk up on shipyards. The USA is rich, but 99 merchants ...

<t> You are knocking on Ivanov's door and have Voronezh. A panzer raid from these locations would sever the remaining rail connections to Moscow. So I don't see how he recovers from that, armor or no. In fact, if you get some lucky cold weather turns, he might not even make it far into 1942. <br ...

<t> This is going as I expected. The strat is clever, but imo does not really fix fundamental problems. <br/>
<br/>
If the Sovs actually got their armor boost early in 42 the way they used to, different story. That would keep them in the game in 42 with all that armor running around and actually ...

<t> I think the Sovs might be able to hold on to Moscow here. But imo they will fold in 42 even with that. The north is pretty bad and the Axis ought to be able to cut LL. Britain is a spent force; these early landings definitely help the Sovs short term, but there is no follow up and they have ...

<t> I am very doubtful that merely junking the airforce by itself will resolve this, but in any event I see the challenge has been laid down and accepted and we will find out soon enough. It *will* help some, no doubt.<br/>
<br/>
The point, imo, is moot. Because even if true, if this is the only ...

<t> You are doing about as well as can be reasonably expected in the current ruleset. The only thing I question is not putting armies into the queue from the getgo. Even doing one a turn.<br/>
<br/>
You're on a good pace on gaining experience, if nothing else.<br/>
<br/>
I don't see how Moscow ...

3 only if we are just talking about the 20% junk rifle corps. I personally would not garrison literally every rifle corps. (I've tried this and didn't like it.)

AGC has all of 2 panzer corps by my count. It is underesourced.

<t> I think you just sold me on this idea of keeping the front line entirely mobile. There are real advantages to doing this. Worth losing 3 rifle corps? I say yes.<br/>
<br/>
You are doing surprisingly well on the experience front. Averaging +1 experience/turn on both the ground and the air, but ...