Unfreeze the Soviets please

[sveint]

I have been thinking about auto-victory, game balance and FUN... and suddenly it hit me: It is not fun to play a dictator (Stalin) without any authority over your troops!

So what if we unfroze Soviet? Yes, yes the Soviet player will move units around and (ahistorically) prepare for a war: but wouldn't it be more fun? It'd keep the Axis players on their toes, giving them a true historical feeling of a menace from this large communist country. If Germany went for a Med strategy, Soviet could invade. Japan looks weak on the ground in China? Soviet could invade.

I think this would make the game more fun.

[sveint]

Before anyone disagrees, what I want is an option that can be checked/unchecked before a game is started.

[pyrhic]

I dont think SU should be able to attack, but i'd like to see them have some mobility within their borders....something like 1/4 rail capacity. Enough so you could move some troops around, but not enough to kill the game. I agree though, watching the game as the russians can be horrible, waiting, waiting, watching the troop buildup and then....you're in pieces with not enough resources or factories left to do anything...

[Willy Liao]

What's horrible is conquering western & central USSR, then taking one territory at a time from the eastern USSR as the Germans with no hope of USSR counterattack, because there is no rule for unfreezing the entire Eastern USSR upon *German attack* if Japan has not declared war on the USSR. Why does the entire Eastern USSR zone unfreeze if Japan attacks it but not if Germany attacks it? Oversight of the game design, I'd assume. I don't know if this was specifically addressed in the new patch.

[5cats]

I'd think letting Russia adjust their troops would make it nearly impossible to invade them.
However, forcing the Germans to keep more troops on the borders, or risk Russian attack sounds good
This would slow down the "ignore Russia" tactic, a bone of contention for some. How about 4 on the border (outside Rumania) in 40, 6-8 in 41 and 8-10 in 42, or else the Russians could either A) move some troops or B) attack 1-2 turns early.
That'd liven up the Russian play

[aletoledo]

What's horrible is conquering western & central USSR, then taking one territory at a time from the eastern USSR as the Germans with no hope of USSR counterattack, because there is no rule for unfreezing the entire Eastern USSR upon *German attack* if Japan has not declared war on the USSR. Why does the entire Eastern USSR zone unfreeze if Japan attacks it but not if Germany attacks it? Oversight of the game design, I'd assume. I don't know if this was specifically addressed in the new patch.

once western USSR is unfrozen you can move troops out of the eastern portion by rail. theres only one factory there, so its not think there are a lot of options even if it was unfrozen and units could move tactically.

I'd think letting Russia adjust their troops would make it nearly impossible to invade them.

I agree, if I was russia I'd put everything into kiev and see how well the germans would do then.

I think unfreezing russia before germany has a chance to prepare isn't fair. unless germans would start with a lot more tanks and men to defend against russian attacks. otherwise all the germans would do every game is defend against russia from 1940 onward.

[pyrhic]

thats why i suggested the one quarter rail capacity...that'd allow you to move a unit here or there, but not too many. At least it would deter those irkutsk and caucausus attacks somewhat...

[aletoledo]

but it wouldn't just deter attacks, it would essentially make them impossible. 1/4th rail means 15 points per turn for the western regions of russia. by the time germany can attack in say fall of 1940 (which has to be the ealiest of any real attack), I can have moved 9 infantry into kiev. thats all it would take to repulse a german attack, since that quadruples the current land units. I saw someone post that they were able to repulse the initial german attack in kiev by simply producing miltia there every turn, safety in numbers.

[VI66_slith]

Concerning Russian movement, historically Russia didn't prepare for a German attack. The garrisons were weak and, unlike their enemy, Russian armor was deployed incorrectly and had little if any radio capability. Let's also not forget that Uncle Joe purged his officer corps, effectively leaving untried leaders and fanatical commissars to keep the men steady. So for the most part, Russia sealed her own fate for the opening stages of the war. I believe her being frozen represents this beautifully.

[pyrhic]

I could be wrong, but i think the western areas only have 1 rail, not double...

point taken though

[Uncle_Joe]

This sounds like something that a mod should take care of. As far as the regular game is concerned, unfreezing the Russians would just throw the whole thing out of whack.

At some point there have to be some decision as to what direction the game MUST take. Otherwise you end up with a game set in the 1940s rather than a game about WW2. The game ensures that the historical Allies will fight the historical Axis and not that Russia joins Germany or US attacks UK. The same thing is being done with the 'freezing' of Russia...its making the game happen in at least some vaguely historical way.

That said, I know a lot of other Grand Strategy titles allow Russia more freedom, but with a price tag. Usually Russia doesnt get their huge boost to production/manpower/units/resolve unless Germany is the aggressor. An interesting alternative would be to allow Russia to declare war and unfreeze, (paying some amount of supply...maybe 15?) but if they do so, they dont get the free militia (or perhaps its halved), and they dont get the 'at war' multiplier for their factories right away either.

This would force Germany to stay on her toes and not be totally involved in neutral grabbing while still allowing the game to progress down the historical track if Russia wants all the free goodies associated with 'The Great Patriotic War' against the Nazi invaders.

But at any rate, as I said, this is all in the realm of modding. I just dont think anything even remotely close to something this radical would be added to the 'official' game at this late date.

[willgamer]

UJ said:

The game ensures that the historical Allies will fight the historical Axis

As long as the Axis can win an AV without attacking the USSR, it does not ensure that at all. [:(]

Sveint said:

It is not fun to play a dictator (Stalin) without any authority over your troops!

That's essentially the same statement as the "I shouldn't be forced to play Hitler" line that's used to support the Axis avoiding attacking the USSR yet earning an AV.

Sveint's proposal is eminently logical given the current system. It can be rationally extended to all the powers, e.g. how about Roosevelt firing up that USA industry a little early.

UJ:

Otherwise you end up with a game set in the 1940s rather than a game about WW2.

Agreed. But what we have now is a game that's neither. It's mostly a game about WWII with AV rules that allow said war to be dodged.

S:

Before anyone disagrees, what I want is an option that can be checked/unchecked before a game is started.

Why not! The game can support both views. Just eliminate the current ambiguity of WWII vs. 1940's era.

[pyrhic]

So for the most part, Russia sealed her own fate for the opening stages of the war. I believe her being frozen represents this beautifully.

unfortunately the game can feature bombers and paratroops taking the caucausus(and 20% of russian resources), not to mention irkutsk, valdivostok and the much of the far east on round 1. On the very first attack axis can cripple the SU and leave her with resources for less than 20PP.

[tacticon]

What if AV was set to 70 and Axis has to take either Moscow or London?

[James Ward]

I don't understand why all of russia is frozen. At least the areas around Moscow should be able to move.

[Uncle_Joe]

Unfortunately the game can feature bombers and paratroops taking the caucausus(and 20% of russian resources), not to mention irkutsk, valdivostok and the much of the far east on round 1. On the very first attack axis can cripple the SU and leave her with resources for less than 20PP.

Yes, this is the type of thing I find silly too. I havent had actually seen it done in a game yet, but I have no doubt that it can be done. But the cost to do it might be a little on the high side (5 Bombers and 5 Paras are costly, but very possible). I'd have to look at it a little more carefully to see what the actual odds of success here are.

Note that Irkutsk wont fall that easily anymore with the new patch. Perhaps a similar move with the Caucasus might eventually be necessary.

[pyrhic]

no, caucausus could fall to one paratroop. Aletoledo convinced me of the virtue of good/massive tac bombers...and the loss of the caucausus alone would be devastating, since at that point the SU will be outproducing her resources it'd be like taking 6 factories away...

[hakon]

I dont think caucasus is that critical on barbarossa, since russia will have saved resources, and the allies can (if they still hold iraq, send lend lease through persia. 60 supply for repairs still hurts badly, of course.

I think a paradrop on central siberia hurts much worse, since it effectively kills all forces in irkutsk and vladivostok. (If Japan has enough forces to take these areas.)

In my modded game vs Marcel, I took all of these areas during summer of 41. In this game, I tried to anticipate what the patch would bring, and put extra forces in irkutsk and central siberia. It still wasnt enough.

I think the obvious solution to the paradrop exploits is to increase movement cost across some borders (mongolia) or split the black sea into 2 sea zones.

Allowing strategic movement of 1/6 normal (ie 1 unit, usually) when not at war, could also solve some problems. Note that russia would not be able to pull the armour out of poland and kiev. Of course, this would be a tremendous help for russia.