ORIGINAL: Aurelian
ORIGINAL: Joch1955
As others have said, if the issue is that the Russian player does not stand and fight, I would think the easiest way to force that would be by adjusting victory conditions. The Axis player already get higher points if they capture a city faster than the Axis did historically. Perhaps the bonus should be increased so there is an incentive to stay and fight.
No. Just no. Unless in the same time period you're going to force the Axis to act like they did. You know, no Leningrad or Moscow taking for starters. Or attacking no matter how worn out the panzers are.
I think there is a balance with this. You don't want the victory system 'railroading' players but at the same time I think it is appropriate for it to be used to manage the 'flow' of the campaign to ensure that it is fun for both players.
For me the victory system needs to give meaningful choices in 1941 to both players.
So the Axis player should have the choice of being ambitious with their attacks in late summer/the snow turns and giving themselves the chance of winning the game in 41 or 42, or being more cautious in the expectation of trying to win the game in 43/44.
Similarly the Soviet player should be faced with the choice of either fighting forward, which if done skillfully could potentially win them the game in 41/42 or retreating quicker with the aim of winning in 43/44.
If the game is balanced you then potentially get (balanced in terms of which side wins) outcomes along the lines of
Aggressive Axis vs Aggressive Soviet - games ending in late 41/early 42
Cautious Axis vs Aggressive Soviet - games ending in late 42/early 43
Aggressive Axis vs Defensive Soviet - games ending in late 42/early 43
Cautious Axis vs Defensive Soviet - games ending in late 44.
