Historical Setting

[Michael T]

Could Cameron or Vic please shed some more light on this option please.

I like the idea of variable setup. But what other differences are there between historical and non historical?

I like the idea of some variation but not too much. I want to play Barbarossa not Star Wars.

So some detail on the actual differences would be helpful before committing to a non historical setting.

[lancer]

Hi Michael,

The randomisation of the initial Soviet set-up isn't something that is going to create a way out non-historical outcome.

Each Army has a choice of two or three set-up configurations within their zone of operations.

Going non-historical gives you a varied combination of set-ups as each army makes it's choice independent of the others (not entirely as a measure of cooperation is required to maintain a coherent defensive line).

The main 'swing' armies that can change a lot are the ones to the rear. They've been given more scope but they are still within the bounds of what's reasonable.

At some point not to far down the track we'll offer a free set-up option for both sides but this will have limits on it to prevent any craziness.

Cheers,
Cameron

[Michael T]

At some point not to far down the track we'll offer a free set-up option for both sides but this will have limits on it to prevent any craziness

Now that I really like [:)]

Bring it on ASAP [&o][&o]

[Michael T]

Just to confirm Cameron.

Historical setting or not only effects the setup and the has the option for Rumania and Finland politics?

Nothing else?

[nukkxx5058]

At some point not to far down the track we'll offer a free set-up option for both sides but this will have limits on it to prevent any craziness

Wow ! Fantastic ! [&o]

[dhhd]

Has anyone made any observations for whether it makes things easier or harder for either player?

[Michael T]

Looking at all the various setups that can occur, I would certainly say the non historical setting favors the Soviet player.