more territories in eastern USSR

[WanderingHead]

This must have come up sometime ... but could there be more territories in eastern USSR?

Instead of making "two move" borders, just make 4 times (2^2 for area) as many territories.

Right now, it takes infantry 8 turns (2 years) to march from Paris to Moscow. It takes infantry 7 turns (1 3/4 years) to march from Vladivostok to Moscow. Look at a globe, and V->M should take about 2.5x as long as P->M (or more, really, considering the rough terrain and lack of development).

Yes, tanks and planes are slowed by the two-move borders, but a slog against defending forces moves as fast as infantry, one space per turn.

It seems like adding more zones would be a simple and realistic way to incorporate the ultimate futility of an actual Japanese invasion of the eastern USSR. There is a huge amount of "rough" terrain there, and it would have taken the Japanese forever to get to the Urals if they tried and the Russians contested every mile.

[5cats]

Hummm, I tend to agree. It sure would make that rail link important, eh?
However perhaps there's some game mechanics issues, with too many provinces or AI quirks or something. But it's true that lots of empty provinces to capture would make things less appealing for Japanese attack.
Perhaps the upcomming optional rule of an extra supply for crossing 2 move borders will also 'slow down' Japan.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, the double supply for movement and a change to Russia starting setup in the East makes it tougher on Japan. How much tougher remains to be seen. Paying double supply to attack hurts when you havent taken the SRI and your econ is putting along at 15 or so.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Right now, it takes infantry 8 turns (2 years) to march from Paris to Moscow.

Some space-time distortions are inevitable with the game with such scale. Napoleon's Grande Armee started its 1812 invasion of Russia from "Western Poland" territory in June and captured Moscow in September and we all know they didn't have panzers.

Losing additional supply point to move across double movement border seems as a step in the right direction.


Drax

[Traveler]

Actually, all that empty land is either dense forest or tundra/swamp. It's irrelevent when considering who would have controle of the trans-siberian rail.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Traveler

Actually, all that empty land is either dense forest or tundra/swamp. It's irrelevent when considering who would have controle of the trans-siberian rail.

Really that (dense forest or tundra/swamp) is my point. It is relevant how many territories must be traversed, and how many sections of rail must be prepared.

I don't know why it would cost more to repair every 100 miles of rail in the steppes of western Russia than every 100 miles of rail in the wilds of eastern Russia.

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer

Some space-time distortions are inevitable with the game with such scale.

Of course, but adding eastern USSR territories would obviously not at all detract or be in conflict with the existing game play. Really, it's main effect on game play would be to make a Japanese incursion significantly less effective, and similarly to make Russian reconquest significantly more difficult (if the Japanese were initially wildly successfull).

I'm no history/military/geography expert, but I think that if the Japanese were to have invaded eastern USSR they obviously would have taken the extremes (Vladivostok), but would have had a hell of a time getting to the Urals. Adding map territories seems like the most obvious and realistic way to capture this.

I really don't mean to be offensive ('cause I really like this game and think that on the whole the developers did a great job), but it seems like the existing map is a by-product of laziness, like "the eastern USSR won't really matter, so let's just whip out a few zones and be done with it." This impression seems to be backed up by the fact that G+J teaming up on the USSR was addressed late in development and is still being adjusted.

Somehow it just really bugs me that the game effectively portrays the Vladivostok->Moscow distance as less than the Paris->Moscow distance.

[Joel Billings]

No so much laziness as a definite desire to keep down the number of areas on the map. Maybe a mistake, but the new fuel rules should help to alleviate the problem. We aren't planning on any map changes. That will have to wait for World at War II. [:)]

The one map change I wish I had made in hindsight would be to make all (or at least some) of the borders of the Black Sea 2MP borders, thus preventing paradrops against the Caucasus far away. Don't let that happen to you. For modders, this is easy to do in the data files but the graphics won't reflect it.