The big bang Barbarossa

[Sombra]

Well just joking. Since the UDSSR knows what is at stake a forward defense would be suicide. No big battle at the beginning at Barbarossa anymore. Nope just careful maneuvering of the warfaring nations.

Suggestion: Please allow entrenchment of still neutal nations (for example 80%) . This would give you the possibility to take some forward positions and entrench. Your rusian troops wouldn´t not be slaughtered by default.

[Fartknock3r]

Really? i usually make a line at RMKO. Is that bad?

[hellraiser]

Against the AI anything is good

[Desert Dave]

Sombra, sombre:

Your rusian troops wouldn´t not be slaughtered by default.

De fault was not in - dem stars,

But... in dat crazy Josef Stalin!

JK, JK!

Yes, this "up-front posture"

Due to Comintern concerns,

Is another area of interest.

Don't know exactly what

Might happen next,

IF anything, but,

Various options have been considered.

[Fartknock3r]

True Hellraiser, but would that work against the human player? Or should i just garrison the RMKO cities with a corps and entrench my 2nd line?

[ April 24, 2006, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Fartknock3r ]

[hellraiser]

most probably not. Attack values are too high, troops are not entrenched - you would just lose them for nothing - just fall back and wait for supply and weather to slow axis down

[Exel]

Perhaps a good solution would be to limit neutral unit movement (action points) by half or even to 33% of normal. That way you could still do some relocating, but major unit movements would take longer or require MPP investments (operating).

Considering how things were in Russia in 1941, I really doubt that Stalin would have allowed the Red Army to take positions far from the border.

[Blashy]

Again this comes back to knowing history and having the benefit of hindsight.

We pull troops back because we know historically it was a bad idea. Stalin's Commanders knew of the impending attack and wished to be better prepared, Stalin thought it was nonsense.

In SC2, you're dictator supreme, it is you call, you don't make the same mistakes, good for you, you make some others, bad for you.

I don't see the use in punishing the players here for not following history AFTER the inital OOB of the first turn of the game. If we did, why play?

[Sombra]

@ Balshy you are the supreme dictator and I am the supreme general under the big dictator. Though why are there rules that Germany needs units near the border? Because the readiness of rusia goes up if not. Why not hte other way round? If there are no units in an attack position why should Rusia think they will be able to declare war? Or in game terms if there are no units near the border ..Rusian readiness stays lower?

[Edwin P.]

If you are going to put Russian units on the German border they should be able to Entrench, or Russia should have the option to attack Germany once Russian War Readiness is above 50%.

Example:

Russia DOW Germany = USA War Readiness Declines 50% to 75%.

Or more Russian units on border faster Russian war readiness increases, less the slower.

PS: The current system is better than the one in SC1.

[roman uk]

Sombra,

I think that is a very good point.

Pulling troops to leningrad-moscow-stalingrad/kharkov line is extremely gamey. even Stalin would of been overthrown for engifting such a vital area (population/industry/resources)without so much as a fight. The Russians did stand and fight and perished in huge numbers, thus slowing the german advance until the winter of 1941. The scorched earth practiced by the russians was brutal and directed, killing those thought 'unreliable' by the commisars. Giving time, not always successfully, of transfering industry east. I think historical games should not tie the player in to the same mistakes, but should also not remove the sense your are directing the war in a specific context, rather than on a game board.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by roman uk:

Sombra,

I think that is a very good point.

Pulling troops to leningrad-moscow-stalingrad/kharkov line is extremely gamey. even Stalin would of been overthrown for engifting such a vital area (population/industry/resources)without so much as a fight. The Russians did stand and fight and perished in huge numbers, thus slowing the german advance until the winter of 1941. The scorched earth practiced by the russians was brutal and directed, killing those thought 'unreliable' by the commisars. Giving time, not always successfully, of transfering industry east. I think historical games should not tie the player in to the same mistakes, but should also not remove the sense your are directing the war in a specific context, rather than on a game board.

Yep, thats more or less what I tried to say . I am supreme commander but I have to act with certain restrictions.

[SeaMonkey]

There has to be an incentive to compel the USSR player to deploy along the frontier.

That was one reason I suggested that every, well almost every tile should have an inherent MPP value. That's just one suggestion.

I like Edwin's idea of allowing Soviet deployments to entrench if they are on the border, perhaps within one tile.

Alternatively a diplomatic script is another incentive as Edwin suggests.

There needs to be some randomness to the deployment so that the eventual effects can't be assured at 100% accuracy.

[Liam]

I say this is the incentive, Partisans do not appear and Scorthed Earth do not appear in cities that do not have defenders? Accurate

Also Russians get a reduced price of replacing those initial frontline units...The Reds would then do it just to cost the Germans slow them.

Also the Ukraine and Baltic Region is Liberated instead of Scorched, the Russians do not care much about their comrades, not enough to even devote 1 corps

[Retributar]

I just had an idea!!!.

Now...we all know that COMRADE STALIN was not loved by all those he ruled over.

For example...in a hypothetical scenario...imagine what if the German's did not exercise their cruelty to all those whom they occupied?.

For example, when the German's entered the Ukraine, the Ukrainian's were overjoyed to see the German's expelling the Russian's...infact, despite German cruelty...something like ?-divisions or so of Ukrainian Cossack's joined and fought with the German Army![The Ukrainian's hated Russian Rule Over Them!].

Now what-if the German's did not exercise harshness, but, instead accepted the Ukrainian's and helped them and other neighboring entities, how much support could you imagine them getting?...to help defeat COMRADE STALIN???.

Might make for an interesting game-variant?.

[Blashy]

I think Liam has the best idea, simple.

No partisans if no unit is left on the cities and no Scorched earth as well.

[Edwin P.]

I like it too, as Blashy said; "simple." If city is not defended then no scorched earth and no partisans appear on it.

One more item to add to HC's long list of potential enhancements.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well my idea would be to have a morale and MPP hit

if too many Russians aren't within ~5 squares of the

border when war is declared (if that is doable)...

[SeaMonkey]

I'm with you Liam, good, simple and historically accurate.

I'm also partial to Retri's idea which could be scripted and is also historical. If certain forward tiles are not garrisoned on Axis DoW a % chance that Germany receives and extra corps or two.

[SMG42]

As another poster said, the USSR war entry should not go up past a 50% level if there is no frontline of troops. This would be illogical & gamey.

Two problems solved at once...

[roman uk]

Both good ideas:

1. no scorched earth and/or partisans if city captured w/o garrison.

2. USSR readiness is effected if no frontline troops.

I think the Soviet early losses of Barbarossa despite huge theatre (if not local) superiority in men and material (e.g.: 20,000 soviet tanks to 3000 wehrmacht tanks) are usually acreditted to:

1. the purge of the officer core

2. surprise- the organization and disposition of forces were not organized to face mobile war

3. loss of the near total air superiority to the luftwaffe despite masive numerical, if not qualitative, superiority

4. stalin's inflexibility of response, rather than foward disposition of forces

anyway of scripting into the game?

[Blashy]

I think no scorched earth to any of the 4 frontline cities and no partisans on those cities AND the swamps near the two cities would be enough to make any player man it with a corps on each city.

I always have 1 unit on each city, I've even had 1 army with full tech on them, they do a surprising job at causing alot of casualties if you have level 3 IW and level 2-3 AT . Even without HQ support.

[hellraiser]

"The Russians did stand and fight and perished in huge numbers, thus slowing the german advance until the winter of 1941..."

Well, yes and no. Leaving troops on forward positions it's an open invitation to be encircled nothing more. Russian intelligence most likely knew a lot about the Wehrmacht doctrine and equipment, in a way they knew what was about to hit them. Think that the russian intelligence was second to the british probably in WW2. Maintaining low trained troops on forward positions was a stupidity IMO.

Guys, Russia is protected by her sheer size - the blitzkrieg (the strategical aspects of the doctrine) is rendered useless because of the size of the territory.

Axis was superior in numbers when they launched Barbarossa (over 5 mio manpower), they had all the trumps - why fighting the enemy on his ground? You got to make good use of your country terrain and size - fall back to spots which can be protected well with less casualties, detect and defend the chokepoints (very important - this are the spots where you can really slow the attacker down), build up in the rear, train and strike when the time is ripe. Obviously the reds failed to do these things in 1941. What was the purpose to let 655,000 men to be encircled and captured in the battle of Kiew? I could only imagine the tactical possibilities if this force had been retreated in time and concentrated near Moscow in '41, for example. There are times and places when you must issue orders to defend or die - Kiew and other spots in '41 were obviously not the case.

About 2-3 months after the initial attack, the defender should be able to detect the major objectives of the attacker - careful management of reserve troops should give the attacker more than a challenge once they're concentrated and used at the defence of the said objective.

Nevertheless, there are moments in wars when 'defend or die' concept has to be pursued - Hitler's orders to defend at all cost in 1941 (the soviet offensive in front of Moscow) probably was one of the reasons the german front did not collapse so early (thing addmited by german generals themselves). The fact that he persisted giving this orders during the whole course of the war, was stupid, obviously and blamed by the same generals who acclaimed the resolution of the fuehrer from '41.

After all it is a matter of fighting the war on your terms rather on enemy's ones. Both sides (russians and germans) failed a lot of times at this, thanks to their rulers being unable to comprehend the basic principles of war. Maybe Stalin had some political reasons behind the 'defend or die' principle - fear of losing the grasp on certain parts of the USSR, who would feel adandoned (a poster pointed out very well this) - if Stalin had this excuse, Hitler had none, really.

[Sombra]

@Hellraiser: I simply assume we are working as generals under certain political contraints.

Right now our declaration of war would be: "We prepare for war with Germany withdrawing all troops far away from germany. Our strategy is to lure the enenmy into our heartland, by the way: Odessa, Minsk, Kiev, Riga are not important... I think any general would have been killed for treason for such a plan. Why should

Rusia go to war if they don´t want to attack Germany?

From game point of view you are totally right. Its sheer stupidity to try to defend forward positions as the game is right now.

Therefore I would like to see game constraints to force you to play in a more historic and relasitc way.

And I would like to see changes as entrenchment be possible for example up to 3-4 squares from the border before the war starts to give the player an incentive to try from time to time a forward defense. (No entrenchment allowed further away from the border to prevent fortifications far away from the border "gamey tactics" same argument as before "yeah we fight a war and intent to lose"

[Desert Dave]

Therefore I would like to see game constraints to force you to play in a more historic and relasitc way.

Got to agree with Sombra here.

You ARE playing WW-2 GS game after all.

I like "what-ifs" as much as the next guy,

BUT... not if it removes us too far

From historical imperative/reality.

I bet some solution will be found

Without resorting to "house rules."