ORIGINAL: chaos45
I read Brians vents.....I think the issue comes from losing Moscow and how much of the rest of the soviet union he has lost. It seems his issues are all tied to his ability to re-supply due to massive rail loss.
Its why I mentioned historically the soviets would probably have just surrendered or economically collapsed if it had lost the territory it has this game.
Its why in general short of bad German play once the soviets lose historical in the south + Leningrad + Moscow in 1941 they should just give up....as the losses are to high long term for the soviets to really stay in the game vs good German play. The compounding losses from all that is massive....esp once you also realize you wont be able to hold the south in 1942 so will result in even more manpower and economic losses.
The way the game plays at current if you lose more than historical in 1941 the game is over as the soviets...Its to big a long term snowball loss effect for the long term game.
The only thing that might fix it is if more manpower, and the rail points re-locate when locations are captured.
It also seems maybe the new rail system needs some tweaking, but im not sure how much as losing Moscow and most of European Russia should cost the soviet economy a lot--thus be a negative for the Soviet player long term.
Keep fighting the good fight Chaos, I'm with you there in spirit.
