Poland and Russian Readiness

[Reepicheep]

Am playing a game in which I failed to take Poland until about the eighth turn or so (three past the point at which Russian readiness climbs). I might have avoided the big increases- but a 0:3 odds attack on the Warsaw garrison wound up being 0:2; and I couldn't finish it off, take Warsaw (with my HQ), and perhaps get a good roll for surrender. About 10% was added to Russian readiness as a result. I then took Warsaw next turn, leaving Poland with two units- but they didn't surrender, adding about 10 more percentage points to Russian readiness (it's over 60 now). They finally surrendered next turn.

My point is that that is an enormous effect to be riding on a few random rolls so early in the game. I'm probably sunk. Granted, I shouldn't have been in that position- my mistake; but it seems unrealistic that it's possible for a player to be in such a position so early. I know that the feature was added to prevent players from not taking Warsaw and exploiting the result, but it seems to me that playing to keep a player from taking Poland to force them to get a readiness penalty is equally an exploit (and I've tried it myself; I'm not blaming anyone ).

I'd suggest (for SC2, perhaps) that Russian readiness should only increase if Warsaw is empty and still owned by the Polish by a certain point, or if by that certain point the Polish garrison is surrounded and cannot move off the hex (that prevents a possible exploit). That would indicate that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not being followed- which seems to me to be the only historical reason Russian readiness would increase at that point.

Since there is no similarly immediate readiness penalty if the Germans don't take France in a few weeks (or if they alternatively get bogged down badly), I don't see that there should be a readiness penalty simply because Germany didn't quite meet the historical timeline on Poland.

[ October 29, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]

[Edwin P.]

I like the current situation.

Its a gamble, do I risk sending forces west to face France and a possible low countries gambit or do I keep sufficient forces in the East to quickly crush the Poles and keep the Russians from getting over confident by watching the Polish resistance.

[Curry]

I know you are a good player - I am also in favor of keeping the Polish situation like it is. The allies need everything they can get. In fact I wish Poland was harder to take than it is. If it was you wouldnt have the axis so strong. But just my view and I certainly am not that good of a player.

By the way who are you playing??

[Reepicheep]

Terif. :eek:

Anyhow, I understand and agree that the Allies need help- but does it have to be unrealistic help? I don't think that the current Poland situation is realistic. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my main contention (along with the fact that random factors can have an immense- and unrealistic- effect if the battle in Poland gets close).

[Terif]

Yes, its against me .

But as you already said: you moved way too much forces to the west too early. I guess you wanted to get France more quickly...

I have to agree with Curry and Edwin:

If you have no penalty when you move everything west, then you can crush France much quicker and before Allies can put up a defence. How it is now, you have enough time to get Poland without penalty. Even if you take LC turn 2, Warsaw normally falls turn 3, latest turn 4. Then you still have 1-2 turns to hunt the remaining polish units down if necessary. Germany only gets a problem when they dont use enough forces in Poland.

[Bill101]

I think it's realistic, up to a point anyway. 8 turns is an awfully long time too. It's about how long the Poles hoped to be able to fight for if France launched an offensive in the west at the same time.

Early in 1939 Stalin was interested in an alliance with the west, but when the UK and France prevaricated and only sent some low level diplomats or military figures to see him, he decided to opt for an alliance with Hitler instead. He was an opportunist, and if Germany was stuck fighting a war on two fronts his actions might have changed.

Even though you might lose, it sounds like an interesting situation, and next time we play you can make up for this defeat against Terif.

[Piumarcobaleno]

If you speak of realism, well...

Russian HQ, seeing how bad german troops fare against polish forces (3 months into their attack, and poland still fights on) [6 or 7 game turns], decides to get their promised partition of Poland, PLUS something from germany itself. Stalin, reassured of the german weakness, clearly displayed in a so bad conducted Fall Weiss, orders his army to prepare for war (accepting a swift peace treaty from Finland and shifting his attention west).

[Reepicheep]

Sorry- still not convinced it's realistic, even if it has its good points.

When I got the 0:2 result instead of the predicted 0:3, it meant I was doomed to a 10% increase. Would there have been any difference in my army's strength had Poland fallen instead? No. The same units would have been there. Why would Russia have been interested enough to begin preparing for war? Poland was obviously doomed- Germany was simply being methodical instead of overwhelming. When Poland's last two units refused to surrender when Warsaw was occupied- dooming me to another 10% increase, would there have been any difference in my army's strength had it fallen instead? No. Again, why would Russia have been that interested? Poland was obviously doomed; Germany was not going to lose- there was just some scattered resistance to chase down.

The massive 20% jump in readiness doesn't seem realistic to me at all- even if it has its good points. A methodical assault on Poland as opposed to an overwhelming blitzkrieg shouldn't result in such a penalty- Germany would not be viewed as being weak. I would say only if it appeared Germany was struggling to take Poland- regardless of the time used- should Russian readiness increase in such a manner (exploits aside).

And to apply this to Germany's other overwhelming victory, do we want to define taking France a few turns or so after it fell historically as struggling? If the Poland rule is realistic, shouldn't there be a massive readiness increase there as well- even if Paris is about to fall?