Warplan 2 wishlist

[StalnoyMonstr]

as well as Hungary and, for example, Finland.

[StalnoyMonstr]

Like Hungary and Finland. An online translator often gives the wrong result.

[AlvaroSousa]

Maybe I'll say something stupid and I don't understand how the program works, but I think you should "freeze" the USSR and the USA as well as Hungary and, for example, Finland. Then it would be possible to simulate the surprise attack of the Germans on the Russians. But I think you understand your game better than anyone)))

I didn't take your post as accusing me of anything. I was explaining the process.

I thought about that option as well. Commander War in Europe does that. The front line is frozen. Germany gets their super blitzkrieg. It is something on my list for WP2. But it has to make sense in a way that gives the Soviet player a choice. Not sure which way I will go.

As for freezing the USA in a global game, yes I see that as well. There are issues with that too. If I freeze the USA then Japan will just build a stack of CVs surpassing historical builds. If I also let the USA do this they might do the same. Or I could have the ship reinforcement for capital ships fixed until a certain point. Or have policy options within the game. The latter one would be very difficult to do as it would be hard to create something that isn't so obvious of a choice. This is why I don't have choice events in WarPlan like SC3. It is always a black or white decision.

I ask a lot of polling information as well on player's thoughts.

[Platoonist]

Gary Grigsby's--gotta have the name on it--World Divided game had a frozen region rule. The USA couldn't move any units beside supply and most resources had to be devoted to the consumer economy to keep them from building an uber-navy too quickly. The USSR could move shift only a very limited number of units in Europe and the Far East was completely locked. Seemed a bit gamey at the time, but I guess it's not sporting to be the recipient of a Barbarossa or Pearl Harbor attack without some fixed tank corps or anchored battleships offered up for immolation.

frozen regions.jpg (136.55 KiB) Viewed 1041 times

[generalfdog]

It's just me working on all this. I wear most of the hats.

There's nothing you can do. That's how you justify the fact that, as usual, cowardly Poles will run away in September of the 39th year?

Without lend lease USSR would have been in trouble! poles fought as good or better then early USSR did. Alvaro Russian hacker guy should maybe be blocked?

[StalnoyMonstr]

lend-lease provided a pitiful percentage of weapons compared to the production of the USSR. Lendlease is overrated. The Poles fought for 17 days and surrendered shamefully. The Red Army broke the back of the Wehrmacht.

[Bo Rearguard]

The Poles fought for 17 days and surrendered shamefully.

Having Stalin and the Red Army stab them in the back by making common cause with Hitler and invading from the east probably didn't help matters.

[StalnoyMonstr]

On September 17, 1939, the Polish government had already fled to Romania. The Red Army simply pushed back the border from which the Wehrmacht would begin its blitzkrieg in 1941. At that time, England, the USA and France were not against this. Who were certainly traitors at that time were England and France, who gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler as a result of the Munich agreement in 1938.

[FrancPeinovich]

Not sure if someone has already commented this, but Mechanized and Armored Corps should be able to be divided into 3 divisions in the same way as Infantry Corps in WarPlan Europe.

Of course, if I were designing a game like this, any sort of divisions could be merged into stacks of 2-6 to create unique battle groups with averaged stats and xp. But I understand that WarPlan is not a game about stacking counters.

Also, there need to be "large river" and "small river" categories for rivers. That way crossing the Dnieper is clearly different from crossing the Bug.

[stjeand]

I'm not accusing you of anything in any way. You are a wonderful specialist and created a very good game. I just want to convey my opinion that the game is not fully balanced. You, as the creator, have your opinion, and this is your opinion. I personally think that the USSR is underestimated in the game, and Italy and Romania are overestimated. According to the recollections of my grandfathers - front-line soldiers, Italians and Romanians, our Russian soldiers did not take them seriously. These were whipping boys.

While the game itself is not fully balanced per history, unless a game only allows players to do what happened in history that will always be the case.

A Axis player will not only build what they actually did in history...they will take that and modify it to their liking and better for the situation at hand.
A Axis player will not keep changing direction of its entire army as it rolls into Russia, never reaching their planned goal.
A Axis player will not fight the battle of Kursk as it was fought and so on.

And the same can be said for the Allies...
What if they invade Normandy in 1943? If they do how does that change the German drive into Russian and the losses that they will take?

The game is meant to be a historical simulation not historical recreation.

In the end will Russia destroy 80% of the German army?
Highly unlikely...but it will surely the be more than 50%...

[FrancPeinovich]

I will repeat once again, understand correctly, in 1942 the so-called Allies held back 1% of the Wehrmacht!!! 3 divisions out of 330 divisions!!! And how is it reflected in the game that the allies are not doing anything, as usual, as they are now in Israel, and the Russians are fighting? For the Jews?!

Most sane Russian nationalist

[StalnoyMonstr]

I'm not accusing you of anything in any way. You are a wonderful specialist and created a very good game. I just want to convey my opinion that the game is not fully balanced. You, as the creator, have your opinion, and this is your opinion. I personally think that the USSR is underestimated in the game, and Italy and Romania are overestimated. According to the recollections of my grandfathers - front-line soldiers, Italians and Romanians, our Russian soldiers did not take them seriously. These were whipping boys.

While the game itself is not fully balanced per history, unless a game only allows players to do what happened in history that will always be the case.

A Axis player will not only build what they actually did in history...they will take that and modify it to their liking and better for the situation at hand.
A Axis player will not keep changing direction of its entire army as it rolls into Russia, never reaching their planned goal.
A Axis player will not fight the battle of Kursk as it was fought and so on.

And the same can be said for the Allies...
What if they invade Normandy in 1943? If they do how does that change the German drive into Russian and the losses that they will take?

The game is meant to be a historical simulation not historical recreation.

In the end will Russia destroy 80% of the German army?
Highly unlikely...but it will surely the be more than 50%...

I absolutely agree with you, that’s why the game is wonderful, because it gives us a choice and doesn’t force us to follow the rails of history. It’s the variability in it that I and most players like.
But are you proposing to play football with one goal? If the German player does not make mistakes, then the Russian player does not make mistakes, right? If the Wehrmacht has no defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk, then the Red Army has no disasters at Bialystok, Uman, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Bryansk, Kerch, Kharkov, am I continuing your thought correctly? Then, other things being equal, with an equal level of players, the Red Army should have the ability, simultaneously with the landing of the Allies in France in the summer of 1944, to almost completely liberate the occupied territory of the USSR. Is this possible in the game now? Can the USSR now, almost alone, break the back of the Wehrmacht and all its minions from Eastern Europe by the summer of 1944?

[stjeand]

I absolutely agree with you, that’s why the game is wonderful, because it gives us a choice and doesn’t force us to follow the rails of history. It’s the variability in it that I and most players like.
But are you proposing to play football with one goal? If the German player does not make mistakes, then the Russian player does not make mistakes, right? If the Wehrmacht has no defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk, then the Red Army has no disasters at Bialystok, Uman, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Bryansk, Kerch, Kharkov, am I continuing your thought correctly? Then, other things being equal, with an equal level of players, the Red Army should have the ability, simultaneously with the landing of the Allies in France in the summer of 1944, to almost completely liberate the occupied territory of the USSR. Is this possible in the game now? Can the USSR now, almost alone, break the back of the Wehrmacht and all its minions from Eastern Europe by the summer of 1944?

Can they break the back alone?
It would be interesting to see. Never seen Russia try to go it completely alone.
I suspect not...

The next question would be...Well then is the game balanced?

Not historically, no.

Why?

Well without giving Germany a chance to win...it becomes a simulation rather than a game.
Who would play a game you can't win?
And then is it a game?
Game implies both sides can win.
Without both sides being able to win...it would not be much of a game.

Equal German Player vs Equal Allies / USSR Player...
Who will win?
Allies / USSR will...because they just have more, more PP and more units.
Can the USSR do it alone? I do not think so.



SO to answer your question...

Then, other things being equal, with an equal level of players, the Red Army should have the ability, simultaneously with the landing of the Allies in France in the summer of 1944, to almost completely liberate the occupied territory of the USSR. Is this possible in the game now? Can the USSR now, almost alone, break the back of the Wehrmacht and all its minions from Eastern Europe by the summer of 1944?

I would say yes.
It may not be in the historical manner...it is likely Germany will have to send more units south and west than they did historically...
But yes...the Allies will win every game with even players.

[StalnoyMonstr]

I absolutely agree with you, that’s why the game is wonderful, because it gives us a choice and doesn’t force us to follow the rails of history. It’s the variability in it that I and most players like.
But are you proposing to play football with one goal? If the German player does not make mistakes, then the Russian player does not make mistakes, right? If the Wehrmacht has no defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk, then the Red Army has no disasters at Bialystok, Uman, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Bryansk, Kerch, Kharkov, am I continuing your thought correctly? Then, other things being equal, with an equal level of players, the Red Army should have the ability, simultaneously with the landing of the Allies in France in the summer of 1944, to almost completely liberate the occupied territory of the USSR. Is this possible in the game now? Can the USSR now, almost alone, break the back of the Wehrmacht and all its minions from Eastern Europe by the summer of 1944?

Can they break the back alone?
It would be interesting to see. Never seen Russia try to go it completely alone.
I suspect not...

The next question would be...Well then is the game balanced?

Not historically, no.

Why?

Well without giving Germany a chance to win...it becomes a simulation rather than a game.
Who would play a game you can't win?
And then is it a game?
Game implies both sides can win.
Without both sides being able to win...it would not be much of a game.

Equal German Player vs Equal Allies / USSR Player...
Who will win?
Allies / USSR will...because they just have more, more PP and more units.
Can the USSR do it alone? I do not think so.



SO to answer your question...

Then, other things being equal, with an equal level of players, the Red Army should have the ability, simultaneously with the landing of the Allies in France in the summer of 1944, to almost completely liberate the occupied territory of the USSR. Is this possible in the game now? Can the USSR now, almost alone, break the back of the Wehrmacht and all its minions from Eastern Europe by the summer of 1944?

I would say yes.
It may not be in the historical manner...it is likely Germany will have to send more units south and west than they did historically...
But yes...the Allies will win every game with even players.

Then, perhaps, in order for the game to be interesting for everyone, but retain a little historicity, we need to make the players asymmetrical?
For example, the Western allies have cheaper and better combat characteristics aviation and navy. This should be so beneficial for the allied player that he would focus on them and carry out large-scale bombing of Europe, destroying industry and killing civilians, simultaneously destroying the Luftwaffe and fighting the Kriegsmarine. At the same time, landing on a coast guarded by enemy troops is allowed only in ideal weather, so that many factors coincide. So that the landing would be possible in an extremely rare number of moves per game year, and would cause heavy losses to the landing force. Increase its cost in landing ships. So that the allies really prepare for it for one or two years.
The Red Army has cheaper ground forces and better combat characteristics. Aviation, although numerous, suffers heavy losses from enemy fighters, if they are on the map. Then it will be profitable for the USSR to destroy the Wehrmacht on the ground.
Make Lend-Lease to England and the USSR more vulnerable to submarines if the route is not covered by anti-submarine defense ships.
Having such opponents, Germany will be forced to build numerous fighters and city air defense batteries in order to cover its industry and population in the west. Yes, I propose reducing the population of cities when they are successfully bombed by the Western allies. Germany will have to build fighters to cover the Wehrmacht from the numerous Russian attack aircraft in the east. Germany will have to build a large army, infantry - to fill the front in the east and guard the coast in the west. Build tanks to attack whenever possible. But remember that many tanks and planes mean a lot of oil consumption.
We need to figure out how to make it profitable for Germany to build the “Atlantic Wall”, I’m not an expert in games, but it would be a good solution.
And on the placement of units on the playing field. It would be great, it seems to me, to apply the same rule to tanks, mechanized infantry, cavalry and headquarters as to aviation - allow them to be present in the same hex along with regular infantry.
Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?
This is my opinion. But the game has a creator and creator, and everything will be done as he deems necessary. And that's your right, AlvaroSousa)))

English is not my native language...

[stjeand]

Then, perhaps, in order for the game to be interesting for everyone, but retain a little historicity, we need to make the players asymmetrical?
For example, the Western allies have cheaper and better combat characteristics aviation and navy. This should be so beneficial for the allied player that he would focus on them and carry out large-scale bombing of Europe, destroying industry and killing civilians, simultaneously destroying the Luftwaffe and fighting the Kriegsmarine. At the same time, landing on a coast guarded by enemy troops is allowed only in ideal weather, so that many factors coincide. So that the landing would be possible in an extremely rare number of moves per game year, and would cause heavy losses to the landing force. Increase its cost in landing ships. So that the allies really prepare for it for one or two years.
The Red Army has cheaper ground forces and better combat characteristics. Aviation, although numerous, suffers heavy losses from enemy fighters, if they are on the map. Then it will be profitable for the USSR to destroy the Wehrmacht on the ground.
Make Lend-Lease to England and the USSR more vulnerable to submarines if the route is not covered by anti-submarine defense ships.
Having such opponents, Germany will be forced to build numerous fighters and city air defense batteries in order to cover its industry and population in the west. Yes, I propose reducing the population of cities when they are successfully bombed by the Western allies. Germany will have to build fighters to cover the Wehrmacht from the numerous Russian attack aircraft in the east. Germany will have to build a large army, infantry - to fill the front in the east and guard the coast in the west. Build tanks to attack whenever possible. But remember that many tanks and planes mean a lot of oil consumption.
We need to figure out how to make it profitable for Germany to build the “Atlantic Wall”, I’m not an expert in games, but it would be a good solution.
And on the placement of units on the playing field. It would be great, it seems to me, to apply the same rule to tanks, mechanized infantry, cavalry and headquarters as to aviation - allow them to be present in the same hex along with regular infantry.
Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?
This is my opinion. But the game has a creator and creator, and everything will be done as he deems necessary. And that's your right, AlvaroSousa)))

English is not my native language...

Thank you for the thoughtful response and debate...I really enjoy these and think in the end it will definitely benefit the game.

One of the improvements I was hoping for the in next release was a larger map. It seems I am not in the majority here though. I love the new scenarios, being at division level. And with the larger map there are always gaps or weak points.
Not sure this will come true but time will tell.

I don't often play the Allies as much as I should...but playing the game I am at this time, the US HAVE to build air. They could just build tons of land units but air makes all the difference. Most players focus more on land...and as an Axis player I see this but have learned the power of air playing the Allies.

I do dislike coaxing a player to do certain things...having the freedom to decide is huge and makes the game. Though I would like countries to be "different" with their units.

Russia - Larger units which they have, +1 Artillery on the infantry over large corps in 43. A bit more mobility in the winter as their units were built to handle the winter while German units were not prepared for it. Mud season needs to exist. This is missing. I disagree with them having less artillery than the US/UK and Germans. That is completely false. They had crazy amounts of artillery.

Germany - Experience goes down over the years...so 70% through 41 and part of 42...when they start "losing" it should start to drop but that is difficult to design. Maybe 65% in 42, 60% in 43, 55% in 44 and 50% in 45 like others. Not sure this is modifiable though. German units were higher quality over quantity...
Perhaps adding factories would control this...they can only replace so much armor, something the Russians do not have an issue around.

US / UK - NO sure here...more generic at the moment. Perhaps less manpower which would keep them from building to many land units, though it does not allow them to build air either...unless you have their air take less manpower overall. An option.

NOW keep in mind you can make these changes yourself with the editor if you think this would more balance the game and test it. The testing is the most difficult part and extremely time consuming.
Sometimes you have to make concessions like just leaving the Western Allies and Germans overpowered and the USSR underpowered so that a good Russian play does not wipe the Germans out in 1942.

I have won the war in France before...even defeated the Germans by 43 with the Russians...But these are not common nor fun.
Fun is making the game last and being a close game.

More to come I am sure.

At the moment the game is fairly balanced though not historically balanced.

[ncc1701e]

USSR can't win without a massive amount of PP coming by lend lease from the Allies.
But, if the flow is opened, it will win in 1944 as long as it still have manpower.

And USSR manpower shortage can be a game killing issue if you are not managing it correctly.

[ncc1701e]

Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?

Absolutely, Moscow is much too close from the German border. See this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=377580

This is completely breaking the game balance. A workaround was then done to move the industry if Moscow is captured but, in fact, there is no more interest to capture it. Shame the map will never be solved but I can understand it is no more the time to invest in this game iteration.

[StalnoyMonstr]

Then, perhaps, in order for the game to be interesting for everyone, but retain a little historicity, we need to make the players asymmetrical?
For example, the Western allies have cheaper and better combat characteristics aviation and navy. This should be so beneficial for the allied player that he would focus on them and carry out large-scale bombing of Europe, destroying industry and killing civilians, simultaneously destroying the Luftwaffe and fighting the Kriegsmarine. At the same time, landing on a coast guarded by enemy troops is allowed only in ideal weather, so that many factors coincide. So that the landing would be possible in an extremely rare number of moves per game year, and would cause heavy losses to the landing force. Increase its cost in landing ships. So that the allies really prepare for it for one or two years.
The Red Army has cheaper ground forces and better combat characteristics. Aviation, although numerous, suffers heavy losses from enemy fighters, if they are on the map. Then it will be profitable for the USSR to destroy the Wehrmacht on the ground.
Make Lend-Lease to England and the USSR more vulnerable to submarines if the route is not covered by anti-submarine defense ships.
Having such opponents, Germany will be forced to build numerous fighters and city air defense batteries in order to cover its industry and population in the west. Yes, I propose reducing the population of cities when they are successfully bombed by the Western allies. Germany will have to build fighters to cover the Wehrmacht from the numerous Russian attack aircraft in the east. Germany will have to build a large army, infantry - to fill the front in the east and guard the coast in the west. Build tanks to attack whenever possible. But remember that many tanks and planes mean a lot of oil consumption.
We need to figure out how to make it profitable for Germany to build the “Atlantic Wall”, I’m not an expert in games, but it would be a good solution.
And on the placement of units on the playing field. It would be great, it seems to me, to apply the same rule to tanks, mechanized infantry, cavalry and headquarters as to aviation - allow them to be present in the same hex along with regular infantry.
Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?
This is my opinion. But the game has a creator and creator, and everything will be done as he deems necessary. And that's your right, AlvaroSousa)))

English is not my native language...

Thank you for the thoughtful response and debate...I really enjoy these and think in the end it will definitely benefit the game.

One of the improvements I was hoping for the in next release was a larger map. It seems I am not in the majority here though. I love the new scenarios, being at division level. And with the larger map there are always gaps or weak points.
Not sure this will come true but time will tell.

I don't often play the Allies as much as I should...but playing the game I am at this time, the US HAVE to build air. They could just build tons of land units but air makes all the difference. Most players focus more on land...and as an Axis player I see this but have learned the power of air playing the Allies.

I do dislike coaxing a player to do certain things...having the freedom to decide is huge and makes the game. Though I would like countries to be "different" with their units.

Russia - Larger units which they have, +1 Artillery on the infantry over large corps in 43. A bit more mobility in the winter as their units were built to handle the winter while German units were not prepared for it. Mud season needs to exist. This is missing. I disagree with them having less artillery than the US/UK and Germans. That is completely false. They had crazy amounts of artillery.

Germany - Experience goes down over the years...so 70% through 41 and part of 42...when they start "losing" it should start to drop but that is difficult to design. Maybe 65% in 42, 60% in 43, 55% in 44 and 50% in 45 like others. Not sure this is modifiable though. German units were higher quality over quantity...
Perhaps adding factories would control this...they can only replace so much armor, something the Russians do not have an issue around.

US / UK - NO sure here...more generic at the moment. Perhaps less manpower which would keep them from building to many land units, though it does not allow them to build air either...unless you have their air take less manpower overall. An option.

NOW keep in mind you can make these changes yourself with the editor if you think this would more balance the game and test it. The testing is the most difficult part and extremely time consuming.
Sometimes you have to make concessions like just leaving the Western Allies and Germans overpowered and the USSR underpowered so that a good Russian play does not wipe the Germans out in 1942.

I have won the war in France before...even defeated the Germans by 43 with the Russians...But these are not common nor fun.
Fun is making the game last and being a close game.

More to come I am sure.

At the moment the game is fairly balanced though not historically balanced.

I'm always happy to talk with an intelligent person)
For my taste, a divisional level card would also be preferable. But, as I understand it, the game was not created as a gaming monster, but as a relaxation for a person after a hard day at work, so that he could spend an hour in the evening making a game move in order to send it to a friend. The concept is unlikely to change.
If you give more freedom to the player, then why not, for more money, allow the German player to prepare the Wehrmacht for winter in advance? And this is not only warm clothes and shoes, but also steel stoves for dugouts, winter lubricant for weapons and equipment, winter fuel, winter horseshoes and blankets for horses, winter car tires and much, much more? Even the habit of cold weather and the moral readiness to endure frosts in the field are of great importance, but in Germany there is nowhere to find such people.
Since the game begins in 1939, in the style of “more freedom for the player”, playing for the USSR it would be possible to make a decision to refuse the construction of the Stalin Line, the Large Fleet of the USSR, and transport critical military industry enterprises to the east in advance...
The weakening of the experience of the troops of Germany (and all other countries) is built into the game; for this, after all, it is necessary to exhaust the human conscription contingent by more than 50%? Maybe this feature just doesn't work as it should?
The partisans in Belgium and Holland also amuse me))) Is this serious?! In these countries were there partisans who blew up railways, like the Belarusians and Russians, or took back their capital, like the Poles during the Warsaw Uprising, or basically liberated their country, like the Yugoslavs? However, when I carry out an offensive in the game, in 1940 for the Wehrmacht, they always try to harm me. This looks somewhat feigned... My opinion is that the partisans in these countries should be turned off, the population of the Benelux did not have the right way of life then to resist the Germans.
I looked through the game editor, and even tried to edit data in it, but without fanaticism. I don't have much free time, unfortunately.
Overall, the game has enormous potential even now. Alvaro Souza created almost a masterpiece))). In my opinion, now the main shortcomings of the game are the map, the loss of unspent people in the pool for conscription (when their number exceeds the maximum value) and the principle of one unit per hex.

[StalnoyMonstr]

Very important!!! The distance Brest-Gomel in reality is 500 kilometers, on the game map – 15 hexes. The Gomel-Moscow distance in reality is 570 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. The Brest-Krakow distance in reality is 340 kilometers, on the game map – 9 hexes. It's simply impossible to comprehend. This breaks the entire gameplay. In the second part, it would be nice to display real distances on the game map. Where are the endless expanses of Russia?

Absolutely, Moscow is much too close from the German border. See this thread:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&t=377580

This is completely breaking the game balance. A workaround was then done to move the industry if Moscow is captured but, in fact, there is no more interest to capture it. Shame the map will never be solved but I can understand it is no more the time to invest in this game iteration.

I think you are right in many ways, especially the topic you raised with errors on the game map. Your contribution here is invaluable, I was pleasantly surprised when I got acquainted with your opinion through the links on the forum.
However, in some particular issues, in my opinion, you do not fully assess the situation) And in real history there was an evacuation of industry, not always successful, but mostly successful. The evacuation, and the pre-started construction of “backup enterprises” in the Urals and Siberia, literally saved the USSR, and not Lend-Lease at all. But we must pay tribute - Lend-Lease saved many lives of Soviet people and brought victory closer! Honor and praise to the allies for this!
However, not everything is so simple. Basically, supplies were equal to a small share of the USSR’s own production; before the winter of 1941 there were none at all; until the winter of 1942, supplies were minimal. Moreover, for example, the British Empire received 3 times more supplies than the USSR, and as for the results of the impact on the Wehrmacht - judge for yourself who fought more, England or Russia...
In addition, the US government pretended not to see how American businesses were supplying Hitler. And this happened before the start of the war, and during the war, even when the United States officially entered the war with Germany. Supplies through Spain ceased only at the time of the Allied landings in Normandy.
And the USSR supplied “reverse Lend-Lease” to the USA with rare earth metals, gold and other raw materials.
So in the game it is necessary to arrange supplies to Germany through Spain from the United States and Venezuela of oil and products, even when the United States is at war with Germany. And from Russia - back to America, rare earth metals. This is the harsh truth.
It turns out that the Red Army was able to stop the Wehrmacht and defeat it near Moscow absolutely without Lend-Lease, and win at Stalingrad with minimal help from the allies. According to this, it is necessary to calculate Lend-Lease in the game. More help came, the Germans did not build submarines - well, the USSR in 1943 - in Berlin. There is no Lend-Lease at all - the USSR in 1946 in Berlin.
By the way, Mongolia, a friend of the USSR, with a population of 0.3% of the US population, supplied more products to Russia before 1943 than during the same time all allies combined, and at the same time absolutely free of charge. This is what help is...

[ncc1701e]

To clarify, when I say that USSR can't win without a massive amount of PP coming by lend lease from the Allies. This is my answer for this game in particular.

I have done several posts about the fact that USSR is not having the right level of production; that USSR can't win if it is trying to resist somewhere. In 1941, battles like Smolensk, Soltsy, Staraya Russa, Kiev, Moscow are just a suicide to perform because of encirclements. And with the map, there is not this operational depth that you would have expected. The new winter scenario is better however.