Matrix Games Forums

I played a lot of War in Europe, both the board version and the computer version by Decision Games. Similar to War in the Pacific, to win as Germany is really hard, if not impossible against a compent human player. So to play both of these games it is more about the journey versus a 'win'. Very Zen like don't you think [:D]

So for my question, how balanced are the sides? Of players of equal skill, will the Allies win 90% of the time or do both sides have a more even chance in WiF?

Oddly enough on the other forums about WiF, a subjective consensus has emerged among the European players that the Allies win more often, while in North America, the opposite point of view is often expressed. Even then, my guess would be the claims are for proportions like 60-40 or 70-30.

Also, you can bid for sides in WiF, right?

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

I played a lot of War in Europe, both the board version and the computer version by Decision Games. Similar to War in the Pacific, to win as Germany is really hard, if not impossible against a compent human player. So to play both of these games it is more about the journey versus a 'win'. Very Zen like don't you think [:D]

So for my question, how balanced are the sides? Of players of equal skill, will the Allies win 90% of the time or do both sides have a more even chance in WiF?

warspite1

Don't worry - this is not WITP-AE or WITE. This fun game can be won by either side. Although having said that I found that when I was the Axis, the Allies always seemed to win, and when I was the Allies, guess what? The Axis always won... crazy dice I guess [;)]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Also, you can bid for sides in WiF, right?

Yes - good point. However, many times we've played without bidding and just used the historical objectives. Especially in two-player games.

The journey is more fun than the destination.

with the many die rolls and mistakes ..

it is really impossible to say how balanced the game is.

but I would say 50/50 ...

but it depends on how long the game last, as the allied production will overpower the axis.

but I have seen the allies simply give up the game.

There are a lot of versions of the rules, and a lot of optional rules in all of those versions.

When it comes down to it, this game is Germany vs Russia with a lot of spectators. Sure there is a Pacific campaign, there is a war for control of the Mediterranean, and there is a campaign in China but in the end, if Germany beats Russia then the axis will win the game but if Russia beats Germany then the allies will win the game and there's not a huge amount that America and Japan can do to influence that.

Against that, if you look at the map, there are quite a few victory points in the middle east, and southern and central Asia. It's possible for the Axis to gain a foothold there however if Germany gets beaten badly by Russia it will only be a thin foothold and if Russia is beaten by Germany then there's a chance for a much larger slice depending on Commonwealth or USA activity.

I assume that MWIF is based on version 7 of the WiF rules, however version 8 is around (if you are at any of the WiFCons you will be playing with version 8). In general I would say that version 7 is slightly balanced in favour of Russia beating Germany, and version 8 is somewhat in favour of Germany beating Russia (Russian builds are reduced in version 8 which has a significant impact). It's also easier in version 8 for Germany to molest the Atlantic convoys which can cut off vital build points for Russia. However since I think we're playing with version 7 I will limit my comments to that version.

(Also remember I have not played MWIF, it's not been released and I'm not on the beta team, I'm talking from the point of being a regular WiF player).

If you add in options such as territorials, oil (significantly), "in the presence of the enemy", "limited overseas supply" then these tend to bring the game balance towards the allies. If you leave those options out, the game balance shifts back in favour of the axis.

Divisions can shift the balance either way, but they are generally in favour of the axis. Adding in the Planes in Flames counters moves the game in favour of the axis (Germany benefits from this more than any other power).

The Convoys in Flames counters (especially the various ASW counters) move the game in favour of the allies, somewhat significantly because they can be used to protect the Murmansk route.

In general, however, I would say that the game is reasonably well balanced. The axis will not win the war, but that's not required to win the game -- they just need to hold a specific minimum number of victory cities when the game ends to hold on for a game win. A reasonably competent axis team with a well thought out strategy should, in general, be able to do that about 40% of the time I feel against reasonably competent opposition. However this is a game that relies heavily on the skill and experience of the players -- there are some tried and tested strategies that seem to work more often than not, and some tried, tested and failed strategies that shouldn't be contemplated but are there as traps for the unwary (such as Germany failing to declare war on Russia at all, or investing too heavily in an African campaign).

If the players' skill levels aren't balanced, you can add in some options to rebalance it a bit. In the board game we sometimes do this by adding some extra resources or factories in certain locations on the map, or perhaps adding a few extra starting counters, but I'm not sure if that's going to be possible with MWIF. Generally speaking, though, you can add in some of the allied-favouring options to move the balance back towards the allies, or the axis-favouring options to move the balance back towards the axis.

Some of my suggestions to move the balance back to the allies include:

* Limited Overseas Supply -- this makes it really hard for Italy to hold supply in North Africa, and makes it hard for Japan to hold supply anywhere. It doesn't impact the allies much.
* Territorials -- these little buggers can pop up in all sorts of odd places and start making African or Asian campaigns a bit harder.
* Convoys in Flames / ASW counters -- especially if the allied player hasn't got the experience to manage his convoy routes properly, these things can help.
* Oil. I don't know how the oil rule in MWIF works, the one in rules version 7 was very fiddly but quite effective at limiting axis air and sea power late in the war (when all of the axis powers start to run out of oil). Germany in particular starts to have an oil problem after losing Rumania and that can make it hard to keep the Luftwaffe in the air. Harry messed with the oil rule significantly in version 8 and made the rule less fiddly but I don't think that the simplified oil rule has the same effect (I prefer the old oil rule).
* Factory destruction (strategic bombing can put quite a few German factories out of action later in the war).

Suggestions to move the balance back to the axis include:
* Not having the above rules, in particular Convoys in Flames and Oil.
* Divisions -- these add a fair bit of chrome to the game.
* Planes in Flames.
* O points generally are in favour of the axis a bit.
* Use version 8 of the rules! In particular the new builds chart helps Germany a lot.

Not sure if your post reads the way it is supposed to come across but....

Germany vs Russia is important - as it should be; it was in the actual war, but just as in the actual war, the actions and choices that the "spectators" make can greatly affect that Russo-German war e.g. when it starts, how much effort the Germans can put into the Eastern Front, do they get help or hindrance from Italy, when do the Americans enter etc etc

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Not sure if your post reads the way it is supposed to come across but....

Germany vs Russia is important - as it should be; it was in the actual war, but just as in the actual war, the actions and choices that the "spectators" make can greatly affect that Russo-German war e.g. when it starts, how much effort the Germans can put into the Eastern Front, do they get help or hindrance from Italy, when do the Americans enter etc etc

More or less, and depending on what options you play, probably rather less than more.

Failing some major tactical disasters or a series of extremely unlikely die rolls, there's not a lot to stop Germany knocking over Poland fairly quickly. The same can be said to a lesser extent for France -- the CW can risk a moderate (say 2 HQ) commitment to France, but without the CW and France being able to cooperate early in the game there is not enough on the ground in France to stop Germany.

Given that, Germany should be in a position to launch Barbarossa in May/June 1941. Having played through this several times now, I believe that not doing so is a critical mistake -- 1940 is too early and too easy to stop, and 1942 is too late, you're giving the Russian industry time enough to gear up to put up a decent defence. I don't believe there's much the allies can do, or the axis can exacerbate, to get the USA into the war as early as May/June 41 and so for the early part of the war at least Russia will be fighting without much assistance from the other allies. The main thing that the CW can do at this stage is to mess with the Luftwaffe, but in reality the VVS is so limited that only a small proportion of the Luftwaffe is required to deal with it at this stage of the war. Germany have other options too of course, they can go for the Mediterranean, they can launch an assault on Gibraltar via Spain, but I think that experienced players will find that these strategies aren't as effective as a full commitment Barbarossa in 1941.

I don't think that there's a whole lot that the allies can do to influence when Barbarossa starts, and given that it's likely to start in 1941, there is nothing that the Americans can do to influence the outcome of the German summer campaign -- they are still putting down CV hulls at that stage. That is really where the game is won and lost, and it comes down to the relative skills of the Russian and German players to a great extent.

In the game there is not as much scope to get convoys through to Murmansk as there was in the real war, and the v8 rules help the German subs quite a bit and so it's a losing proposition for the allies even trying to do it especially in the winter months. It's not usually possible to set up a Vladivostok convoy early either with the Japanese being active, and the Persian convoy is too far to go with the way that CPs work in the game. So although it's possible for the allies to provide some game aid to the Russian player, it doesn't tend to be material aid. Building lend lease planes is not difficult and shipping them to Murmansk is often easier than trying to get the convoy lines through, so that's one option. Another is, as I mentioned, to commence a bombing campaign to mess with the Luftwaffe, and this is often quite effective especially if the allies can bring enough air force over to hit Italy as well as Germany. However that all starts to happen in mid to late 1942 and the game is often won or lost by that stage.

The v8 rules greatly increase the USA build points towards the end of the war. I haven't seen a v8 campaign played to the end but I think it's too late -- if Russia is conquered or nearly conquered by then, it's not possible to get the build points to anywhere useful, and if Russia is winning the war then the build points won't be of much use (however I tend to send some anyway because Russian O points are more effective on the ground in crushing Germany than USA O points will be, and the USA has plenty of O points anyway). The main issue being that keeping Russia alive through 1941 and 1942 is critical to the outcome of the war and the USA aren't geared up enough in that time frame to have a significant effect on whether that happens or not.

Fair enough. I only played the 5th Edition so maybe things have changed. Certainly in the version I played there was never a feeling that there was little I could do as the Allies but wait for Barbarossa and pray to the dice god. Equally as the Axis I don't ever recall not worrying about game play up to the launch of Barbarossa as that was the only thing that mattered.

Maybe the subsequent editions have got the balance all to cock?

Nice informative comments by Delatbabel. Like Warspite1, I have played the game on the table up to version 5.
 
Between my own experience (limited) and reading other accounts, etc it seems player moral is as important as anything else. Often the game could still go either way or one side is on the losing end, but the opponent's moral cracks and they surrender without taking the game all the way to the end. (I suspect we will see that a lot on any on line games simply because players don't want to invest the time in what they view as a losing cause to determine what could have happen).
 
I am guessing a lot of people who decide to purchase will be like Warspite1 and myself and that is they may have experience with WiF, but have not played the latest versions or don't have all the expansions that will be included in the game, etc. These elements will add a new learning curve to the game.

ORIGINAL: Klydon

Nice informative comments by Delatbabel. Like Warspite1, I have played the game on the table up to version 5.

Between my own experience (limited) and reading other accounts, etc it seems player moral is as important as anything else. Often the game could still go either way or one side is on the losing end, but the opponent's moral cracks and they surrender without taking the game all the way to the end. (I suspect we will see that a lot on any on line games simply because players don't want to invest the time in what they view as a losing cause to determine what could have happen).

I am guessing a lot of people who decide to purchase will be like Warspite1 and myself and that is they may have experience with WiF, but have not played the latest versions or don't have all the expansions that will be included in the game, etc. These elements will add a new learning curve to the game.

warspite1

Yes - and really looking forward to it.

Mostly agree with delatabel's analysis. That being said, there are a few points I disagree on.


1) I actually think Coif helps the axis, not the allies. Sure, the ASW are nice, but if you have to divide up between regular convoys and tankers, you lose a lot of flexibility. And the CX are mean, mean units. They can go anywhere, are almost impossible to intercept, and force the CW to split up to guard convoys that are usually out of range, like the guys around the coast of africa, or anyone doing a lift from Australia to Canada. And of course, those ships and planes sent to guard the fringe convoy routes means a lower density of ships guarding the main route in the Atlantic.

2) I'm not convinced of the primacy of the 1941 barb. A 1940 barb is easily possible if the Soviets aren't super careful, or are going too hard after a secondary objective like Finland, Persia, or Manchuria. And if you can pull it off, I find that an attack in M/J 40 is more likely to succeed than one in M/J 41; the far lower unit density means that you can go really, really fast.

Similarly, the 1942 med-barb is quite powerful. If you've got Gibraltar and Suez, Italy is essentially completely secure. Convoy raiding gets 3 times as bad, and it really slows down the potential allied counter-stroke; which means fewer units needed in the west to guard against it and more weight to be thrown at the USSR.

That being said, I don't think I've ever conquered the Soviets with a 42 barb, just beaten them up and held on.


3) I think you're overlooking what at least happens to me in a lot of games. The Germans come knocking in 41,and while they don't conquer the USSR, they hurt the Soviets badly enough that without help, a soviet counterattack isn't really possible. Too many factories lost, and if Leningrad falls in the winter of either 41 or 42, no city bonuses. The Soviets are too big and their army is intact enough that the advance slows to a crawl, but if the Germans don't attack, and say they overrun 5 factories over the course of the war, it can be really, really hard for the Soviets ever to get enough oomph to drive the Germans back to Berlin.


And then of course, what the US and CW are doing can be massively important.


4)ITPOE does help the allies in the Atlantic. But I've generally found that the person who benefits most from it is the Japanese player. Without it, it's too easy to just keep sending suicide subs and cruisers into the China sea, even as early as late 42, and sure, 80% of the time they just get swatted away, but sooner or later you get a good search roll, and the Japanese can't afford hits to that convoy artery.



One last note to OP; it takes a LOT of time, but if you have two players with nothing better to do, the most balanced way you can play is what my Dad and I called a "supermatch". Agree to a set of optional rules. Play continues until the Axis are completely defeated. Then switch sides, so that in the two matches, you've each played the Allies once and the Axis once. Whomever wins the war faster with the allies wins.


Of course, most of us don't have hundreds of hours to kill that way, so I don't know how practical it is.


Best wishes to all
Ur_Vile_Wedge

I'm no expert on WiF, but isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to call the US, CW and Japan "spectators"? If the war proceeds historically, Japan will seize Singapore, Batavia, Rabaul, Truk, and other strategic objectives. It will also be ensconced in China. The Russians don't (directly) fight to get this stuff back; the USA and CW and China do.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I'm no expert on WiF, but isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to call the US, CW and Japan "spectators"? If the war proceeds historically, Japan will seize Singapore, Batavia, Rabaul, Truk, and other strategic objectives. It will also be ensconced in China. The Russians don't (directly) fight to get this stuff back; the USA and CW and China do.

I think I agree on the analysis made. That is, if you look at where the war is decided. If Germany can cripple the USSR in such a way that the Russian Bear will take a lot of time to come back, they have won the game. It is as simple as that.

Actually the argument of the war depending mostly on Germany versus the USSR strikes me as somewhat simplistic.

The same could be said of China versus Japan. If Japan crushes China in early 1941, then it can attack the USSR which makes Germany's task so much easier - perhaps even a cakewalk.

But if Japan tries a lot of poor attacks, losing units and letting China take the initiative, with partisan units running around in their rear areas, Japan can be very poorly prepared for the US entry in 1941, leaving the Pacific and Indian Oceans very quiet lakes for the Allies to move resources and units around in at their leisure. Then even if Germany wallops the USSR all the way to Lake Bakal, the Allies will crush Japan in 1943. Italy will fall in 1944, and we will see what we shall see in 1945. Most likely Germany holds Europe as far east as the Urals, but not much else. The victory counts for each side? I'm not sure.

I think the game can be lost by almost any major power which plays markedly poorer than their primary opponent on the other side:
- France being overrun by Germany without putting up much resistance.
- Germany failing to take out France until 1941.
- The Commonwealth losing the Med, or having its convoy pipelines fractured, or permitting Great Britain to be successfully invaded, or losing India.
- The US building foolishly while a neutral so that it has the wrong units on the wrong US seaboard when it enters the war.
- The US handling its entry markers stupidly, so its ability to declare war is delayed by a year or more.
- The USSR being too aggressive early in the war, or building stupidly, leaving itself open to easy conquest by Germany.
-
-
-

There are many ways to lose. Conversely, playing markedly better than your primary opponent does not assure you of winning. WIF has that in common with chess: you have to play better than your opponent for a long time in order to win. The better your opponent, the longer it takes to win.

These types of discussions are the most fascinating to me. Not only is there a system to master, but so many varying techniques and plans. I can fuddle my way through Barbarossa, the program ensures that, but the broader scope of the larger scenarios are just so massive that it amazes me that the game was ever made and that strategies were formed. Maybe one day...

In terms of 5th edition vs final edition: I don't think that the balance in Final is any worse than the balance in 5th. 5th edition with experienced players tended to go a bit pro-axis, especially if PiF was added in (Germany has this massive air force at the end which can make their lines hard to crack). Final is probably a little pro allies but the balance is quite close so a few optional rules or a critical mistake made by either side can swing the game.

"I actually think Coif helps the axis, not the allies." -- sorry I should have been more explicit there. I think that the extra combat units in CoiF help the allies more than the axis, sure the CX are nasty little pains in the butt but when it comes down to the primary convoy route, the transatlantic route, the ASWs make it very easy for the allies to protect the entire route and the extra subs that the Germans get (and the CX units) aren't enough to swing it back. Sure, having to split convoy routes between regular convoys and tankers is a pain for the allies (and the Japanese) but the overall effect of the extra combat units is to make the game a bit more pro allied. Usually when we play with Convoys in Flames we add in the extra combat units but don't use tankers.

"That being said, I don't think I've ever conquered the Soviets with a 42 barb, just beaten them up and held on."

Having played the Soviets against 4 1942 Barbarossas, and not having lost either Kiev or Dnepropetrovsk in any one of the 4, I can say that on average I don't think that the 1942 Barbarossa is very powerful at all compared to the 41. I have been pushed off the European map completely in a 1941 Barbarossa (with v8 rules which make it easier for the Germans, especially with the uber-powerful O points, and on that occasion we were playing without oil rules).

"Actually the argument of the war depending mostly on Germany versus the USSR strikes me as somewhat simplistic. The same could be said of China versus Japan."

Umm, no. Nonsense. The game is not won or lost by China vs Japan. It's possible for Japan to conquer China (and this happens quite regularly in v8) and for the allies to win the game, and it's possible for Japan to pull out of China and have the axis win the game. In no way shape or form is the Japan vs China conflict critical to the outcome of the game. The Germany vs Russia conflict is critical to the outcome of the game.

Even if Japan conquers China, Japan can't inflict much damage on Russia, and certainly can't cripple Russia as you suggest. There are no supply routes from northern China across into Russia, it's all desert terrain with no rail lines and you need an HQ in every hex to trace supply across it. Japan can take out Vladivostok and some resource hexes, but there's a choke point where the Russians can hold the Japanese up with 2 or 3 units and an HQ and the Japanese can't supply around it so go no further.

In fact I would say it is a critical mistake, in the face of a strong USA, for the Japanese army to get involved that far north in Asia. There are no victory cities in the frozen wastes of eastern Siberia. The Japanese army is limited in size and needs to be hanging around the important cities in the Pacific and SE Asia to ensure a win. Otherwise you'll find yourself with a strong foothold in Asia but no home country.

(Actually this raises a point -- I have seen a Japanese player deliberately allow Japan to be conquered towards the end of the game, because this makes Manchuria the Japan home country. It's much easier to supply to the Japanese army sitting in victory cities in mainland Asia from Manchuria than it is from Japan, especially if you're playing with limited overseas supply because the USA by that stage is all about sinking those convoy points. Manchuria and Korea start the game as Japanese aligned minors and are therefore eligible to become the primary supply sources for the Japanese player if the Japan home country is conquered. A trap for the unwary -- take out Manchuria and Korea first, then think about conquering Japan.)

"But if Japan tries a lot of poor attacks, losing units and letting China take the initiative, with partisan units running around in their rear areas, Japan can be very poorly prepared for the US entry in 1941, leaving the Pacific and Indian Oceans very quiet lakes for the Allies to move resources and units around in at their leisure. Then even if Germany wallops the USSR all the way to Lake Bakal, the Allies will crush Japan in 1943. Italy will fall in 1944, and we will see what we shall see in 1945. Most likely Germany holds Europe as far east as the Urals, but not much else. The victory counts for each side? I'm not sure."

If Germany holds Europe as far as the Urals, and Japan and Italy are conquered at the end of the game, that is an axis victory. Count the victory cities. The axis don't actually need to hold that many, and there are enough in Europe to go way over the necessary thresshold for an axis win.

Well Said delatbabel

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

In terms of 5th edition vs final edition: I don't think that the balance in Final is any worse than the balance in 5th. 5th edition with experienced players tended to go a bit pro-axis, especially if PiF was added in (Germany has this massive air force at the end which can make their lines hard to crack). Final is probably a little pro allies but the balance is quite close so a few optional rules or a critical mistake made by either side can swing the game.

"I actually think Coif helps the axis, not the allies." -- sorry I should have been more explicit there. I think that the extra combat units in CoiF help the allies more than the axis, sure the CX are nasty little pains in the butt but when it comes down to the primary convoy route, the transatlantic route, the ASWs make it very easy for the allies to protect the entire route and the extra subs that the Germans get (and the CX units) aren't enough to swing it back. Sure, having to split convoy routes between regular convoys and tankers is a pain for the allies (and the Japanese) but the overall effect of the extra combat units is to make the game a bit more pro allied. Usually when we play with Convoys in Flames we add in the extra combat units but don't use tankers.

"That being said, I don't think I've ever conquered the Soviets with a 42 barb, just beaten them up and held on."

Having played the Soviets against 4 1942 Barbarossas, and not having lost either Kiev or Dnepropetrovsk in any one of the 4, I can say that on average I don't think that the 1942 Barbarossa is very powerful at all compared to the 41. I have been pushed off the European map completely in a 1941 Barbarossa (with v8 rules which make it easier for the Germans, especially with the uber-powerful O points, and on that occasion we were playing without oil rules).

"Actually the argument of the war depending mostly on Germany versus the USSR strikes me as somewhat simplistic. The same could be said of China versus Japan."

Umm, no. Nonsense. The game is not won or lost by China vs Japan. It's possible for Japan to conquer China (and this happens quite regularly in v8) and for the allies to win the game, and it's possible for Japan to pull out of China and have the axis win the game. In no way shape or form is the Japan vs China conflict critical to the outcome of the game. The Germany vs Russia conflict is critical to the outcome of the game.

Even if Japan conquers China, Japan can't inflict much damage on Russia, and certainly can't cripple Russia as you suggest. There are no supply routes from northern China across into Russia, it's all desert terrain with no rail lines and you need an HQ in every hex to trace supply across it. Japan can take out Vladivostok and some resource hexes, but there's a choke point where the Russians can hold the Japanese up with 2 or 3 units and an HQ and the Japanese can't supply around it so go no further.

In fact I would say it is a critical mistake, in the face of a strong USA, for the Japanese army to get involved that far north in Asia. There are no victory cities in the frozen wastes of eastern Siberia. The Japanese army is limited in size and needs to be hanging around the important cities in the Pacific and SE Asia to ensure a win. Otherwise you'll find yourself with a strong foothold in Asia but no home country.

(Actually this raises a point -- I have seen a Japanese player deliberately allow Japan to be conquered towards the end of the game, because this makes Manchuria the Japan home country. It's much easier to supply to the Japanese army sitting in victory cities in mainland Asia from Manchuria than it is from Japan, especially if you're playing with limited overseas supply because the USA by that stage is all about sinking those convoy points. Manchuria and Korea start the game as Japanese aligned minors and are therefore eligible to become the primary supply sources for the Japanese player if the Japan home country is conquered. A trap for the unwary -- take out Manchuria and Korea first, then think about conquering Japan.)

"But if Japan tries a lot of poor attacks, losing units and letting China take the initiative, with partisan units running around in their rear areas, Japan can be very poorly prepared for the US entry in 1941, leaving the Pacific and Indian Oceans very quiet lakes for the Allies to move resources and units around in at their leisure. Then even if Germany wallops the USSR all the way to Lake Bakal, the Allies will crush Japan in 1943. Italy will fall in 1944, and we will see what we shall see in 1945. Most likely Germany holds Europe as far east as the Urals, but not much else. The victory counts for each side? I'm not sure."

If Germany holds Europe as far as the Urals, and Japan and Italy are conquered at the end of the game, that is an axis victory. Count the victory cities. The axis don't actually need to hold that many, and there are enough in Europe to go way over the necessary thresshold for an axis win.

Then perhaps the unified scale map does make a difference in that regard. [Rats! I can't get the server to let me upload a file!] Holding off the US and the Commonwealth from a new home country in Manchuria/Korea doesn't look all that easy to me - especially if Japan has zero reinforcements arriving.

Yes, there are many lovely places for the USSR to place blocking units along the Trans-Siberian rail line, but if China is out of the war, Japan can afford to put an HQ (or two) along with a dozen other units to slog their way west. The USSR can't really afford to be reinforcing that area every turn with 2 or 3 units when Germany is pushing them hard in the west. Sure, Japan's attacks are nothing compared with what Germany does, but the USSR doesn't enjoy a two front war any more than Germany does.

Conversely, if Japan has no presence in China, the Chinese can still attack them through Manchuria. Good defensive terrain for Japan, but China can make a lot of poor attacks every turn if it has all its resources and factories functioning. Meanwhile the USSR has zero worries in the east and puts all its effort into fighting Germany.

Going back to chess as an analogy, a strong king-side attack with pseudo sacrifices makes for a glorious victory, but if the attack bogs down into a locked position, then capturing a pawn on the queen-side can be the difference between winning and losing the game.