So I have been doing some testing of my own... via hotseat gaming and I have a few things which I find... interesting.
So here are a few of the things I thought were, at least in my mind, strange.
First... the air campaign, turn 1.
As the Axis, I started the game by bombing the Odessa port and heavy manufacturing there. I got two strikes and then was told my bombers lacked range for further attacks. I then switched to attacking airfields and found I could attack airfields all over Russia and even those far more distant than Odessa.
Strangeness factor here? The game does not allow me to conduct a strategic bombing campaign even when I have the bombers (regardless of what it tells me) to do so.
Second... routing Soviets.
As the Axis, I started the game by routing every single front line Soviet unit and then some.
Strangeness factor here? Every routed unit landed on a rail hex. This is great for the Soviet player who does not have to march these folks out of harms way and can instead use his extensive rail net.
Third... routed Soviets and defense.
As the Soviets, on turn 1, I railed all the routed units to what I determined to be strategic sites where I needed to build defenses to stop the Axis juggernaut. Places like Leningrad.
Strangeness factor here? On turn 2 all the routed units had changed status to unready. I disembarked all these units from the train. By turn 3 with only 1 ready unit I had a fort of 1. Turn two a fort of 2. Turn 5 I had 3 ready units and on turn 6 I had a level 3 fort. Picture later.
I have noticed also that every unit, including tank units, except HQs and airfields, will build a level 1 fort in one week if not moved. These guys really know how to dig! Not so sure that is strange, but it is noteworthy.
Fourth... Forts.
In the game, as we all know, a unit will dig in and progressively make better forts. In one case I found that the fort level declined if a unit was not there to maintain it. I find that realistic. Does this happen across the board? Not sure... not tested.
What I find strange is... a fort increasing in level with no unit in the hex.
Fifth... Soviet rail capacity.
While folks have pointed out that the Soviets have a tremendous amount of rail, I must say it is a huge country and as such I don't find this a particularly compelling argument, though perhaps a more realistic interpretation would be starting with less capacity and building up as time goes. The Soviets, like the Axis, have a certain amount of rail capacity and one uses that capacity based on the weight of the unit you are moving. If you have enough capacity to move the unit, you may load it and move it where ever you choose.
Strangeness factor here? What I do find strange is that the Soviets are so darned organized when it comes to railing about troops. I should think a herd of routers would be a lot more difficult to load, move and unload. Yes, granted if you move a unit too far (not sure what the distance criteria is), you have to pay Strategic points to load, move and unload the unit. But in general, if you move a front line routed unit, say from the northern front line to Leningrad, you have no problem plopping him in a great strategic position and unloading them and it costs just the same... measured by weight only. I find that strange.
Now all these things which I find strange obviously are built into the game for a reason. I don't know if anything which I have "found" is significant. But I think folks should be more focused on what is going on during the campaign of 41 if they truly are looking for more game balance, IMHO.
Ah... a picture of my turn 1 attack and all the Soviet routed units on rail hexes.
