Biased play in Russia

[Welshwill]

When Russia is on the defencesive early in the war I try to defend the Urals, creating a mountain citadel and in the Caucasas, just below Stalingrad. The problem starts when I try to place additional forces, I get the message "unable to position units" or something along those lines. This should be rectified, as long as you have MPP to spend and territory under your control, you should still be able to deploy additional units.

[Hubert Cater]

This is true as long as you have territory under your control and as long as you can trace a line of friendly hexes to your capital to the areas you wish to produce units.

Hubert

[martin]

Are you saying that if Germany surrounds Moscow --Russia can't buy any new units?

If you capture an enemy's capital -- does it move or is the enemy precluded from making any more units?

[Immolator]

Surrounding Moscow may be a real problem for Russia if troops can no longer be placed after that event. In one of my PBEM games this is a real possibility and would ruin a long and bitter defense of the motherland. There should be an option for moving the capital to the Urals if Moscow is threatened with being surrounded. This would eliminate such a problem which I think is not realistic at all.

[Hubert Cater]

OK fair enough, let me think about it...

Hubert

[blackbellamy]

the capital supply rule leads to gamey play where you can surround the capital and not take it and the rest of country can't reinforce or build new units

the same happens when russia is cut in half - meaning if german forces drive through and capture the map edge hexes north of stalingrad and south of the urals - the russian player will be unable to build anything in stalingrad and south of it

imho the capital should not influence reinforcements and replacements at all - it makes for a nice victory condition but the capitals in ww2 did not serve as distribution center for replacements - historically in russia the soviets formed replacements wherever it was convenient - usually several hundred kilometers east of the front line, regardless of proximity to any population centers

[ August 16, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: blackbellamy ]

[Immolator]

The capital as supply center seems to work o. k. with smaller countries, but becomes a problem with Russia's large area. Perhaps units in Russia should trace a supply route to the east edge of the Russian map. Just a thought.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Immolator:

The capital as supply center seems to work o. k. with smaller countries, but becomes a problem with Russia's large area. Perhaps units in Russia should trace a supply route to the east edge of the Russian map. Just a thought.

Or maybe the game can be tweaked from what it is now: allow MPPs to continue to flow so long as one or more of the potential capitals can trace paths to the various resources. So the USSR would have Moscow, Leningrad, and the Urals as MPP trade routes. If one is cut-off, the others keep on going. I think this could have a similar effect as tracing it to the Urals, but may work better in the current engine? Same for England: they would get London and Manchester.

[Edit:] Is Stalingrad a potential capital in the game? If not, maybe Stalingrad should also be an MPP route to prevent the German player simply going south of Moscow and cutting off all 3 Capitals.

- Chris

[ August 18, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Randell Daigre]

Posted by Wolfe:

Is Stalingrad a potential capital in the game?

Yes. If you don't take the second capital in the Urals before taking Moscow (or quickly enough after taking Moscow) then the USSR gets a third capital in Stalingrad.