Are cities used mainly to determine replacements?

[Vinnie O]

I've considered making a number of changes to cities in WiR in order to get the sum of the city populations to come closer to the populations of the countries. Romania is particularly cheated this way.

The Russians, of course, get an arbitrarily large population, which is perhaps needed to allow for the kind of wholesale dragooning of "recruits" that Stalin pulled off.

If I significantly change the population of the cities, does this screw up something ELSE? Such as production?

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Vinnie O:
I've considered making a number of changes to cities in WiR in order to get the sum of the city populations to come closer to the populations of the countries. Romania is particularly cheated this way.

The Russians, of course, get an arbitrarily large population, which is perhaps needed to allow for the kind of wholesale dragooning of "recruits" that Stalin pulled off.

If I significantly change the population of the cities, does this screw up something ELSE? Such as production?

I don't think it will effect anything game-wise. One thing, out of many, that isn't published in the game is that there is some kind of population multiplier also, where the Soviets get something like 10 squads per population point in 1941, dropping down to something like 2 in 1944/1945. Meanwhile the Axis get 1 or 2 to start, climbing to 3 in 1943, then down to 2 again, or something like that.

In the next version infantry replacements will be significantly lower in 1941 for the Soviets, although they still shouldn't run out based on our playtesting.


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

[Vinnie O]

Um, I'd hold off on changing the Russian multiplier.

The Russians took something over 30 MILLION casualties between June 1941 and May 1945. These are distributed about evenly over the quarter years. The Red Army is also slightly LARGER in 1945 than in 1945, indicating that the Russians were pulling in about the same number of recruits in 1945 that they were in the Fall of 1941.

I've typed some numbers from the Russian archives into a spreadsheet to try and understand what was going on. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing the actual numbers. I'll send you a copy (if I can find the file.)

I'm not sure what would have happened if the Russians had lost the Moscow metro area as a recruiting base. There really weren't a lot of men in siberia. Losing Moscow would be like the US losing the New York metro area. The word "crippling" comes to mind ...

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Vinnie O:
Um, I'd hold off on changing the Russian multiplier.

The Russians took something over 30 MILLION casualties between June 1941 and May 1945. These are distributed about evenly over the quarter years. The Red Army is also slightly LARGER in 1945 than in 1945, indicating that the Russians were pulling in about the same number of recruits in 1945 that they were in the Fall of 1941.

I've typed some numbers from the Russian archives into a spreadsheet to try and understand what was going on. I wouldn't have believed it without seeing the actual numbers. I'll send you a copy (if I can find the file.)

I'm not sure what would have happened if the Russians had lost the Moscow metro area as a recruiting base. There really weren't a lot of men in siberia. Losing Moscow would be like the US losing the New York metro area. The word "crippling" comes to mind ...

Yeah, it was amazing how many men (and women in combat) that the Soviets threw into battle, along with the millions of civilians lost. Don't worry about the replacement squads, by spring of 1942 I was still able to get up to 27,000 squads in our playtesting, so it does still grow quite large, just not as fast as in the old game where it was always at the max 30k by fall.

I would like to see the numbers you have.

Thanks


------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi