xwormwood Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Why does Russia enter the war in early 1944 if neither India, China or Australia have surrendered? And why is it that an early Russian war entry does not damage the western Allies, as they have now more difficulties to fight war against Germany (with less russian on the european theater)? Why is bad allied warfare be rewarded with free troops and / or a new allies (russia)? As far as i know Stalin would have laughed if the Japanese had kicked the UK / US forces, he surely wouldn't have rushed to the rescue as long as Germany was alive. He would have taken more bits from europe, and after digesting it, he would have turned slowly east, with full strength. Not before Germany fell. He had absolutly no reason to do so. This early russian war entry sucks, if anyone is interested in my opinion. If russia joins early / before mid 1945 the pacific war, than the US and / or the UK should suffer for it, as they would have to do more fighting on the european theater (= less money and units for the pacific theater). Bill101, do you have had good historic reasons to make the russians this much war hungry in the pacific? What do you think about a punishement for bad play? If the UK gets free units in india while the Japanese advance there, shouldn't the USA lose the same amount of money / troops as a direct result? After all the USA would have to close the gaps on the european theater for the UK forces now fighting in India. Would be nice to hear some of your reason and thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin I Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 The Japanese and Russians clashed between WWI and WWII so there was no love lost. But, I've some sympathy with your point of view. Bill HAS tweaked Russian entry so in the first few games I usually lost because of this and in later games with later patches they have not entered. I do wonder if diplomacy should be scrapped for PTO. The minor players are not worth influencing, Russia is the only game in town. in a recent game with Baron I felt the need to invest in diplomacy (as Japan) because an allied strategy to convince Stalin is so catastrophic. Its a game balance issue too. One of the limitations of the Pacific war is that Japan starts at war with most major powers and also needs to work a bit too hard at keeping Russia out, if it did not need to put so many resources in here then strategic options open up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Hi Xwormwood Thanks for your post. I'd really need to know what's causing an early Soviet war entry to answer properly. If it's because the Japanese leave Manchuria empty then that's fine, it's their risk. But if it has other causes then they may need to be looked at, so if you could let me know what might be triggering it it would be very helpful. As Colin said we did make a few changes earlier on, and it may be that some more need to be made. I really don't mind the allies being able to use diplomacy to bring Stalin on board earlier than usual, providing it costs a lot to do so (that's where the expense you mentioned comes in). But if something else is triggering it, or there is a consensus that diplomacy is too cheap, then that'll be something for me to work on. In all my recent games the USSR has joined in the spring or summer of 1945, and Japan has been holding until either very late in 1945 () or into 1946 (). But it could be that mine and my opponents' strategies are significantly different from yours and your opponents, and if there's a loophole then we'll need to fill it. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for the answers, gentlemen. Bill, Manchuria wasn't empty, and i hadn't received the message to improve the defences (there is always one in the later game). If the allied ai used diplo chits, well, i don't know, as it is impossible to change the playing side, which i personaly consider a major letdown or mistake. The reasons are obvious and plenty, as you can't even end a game and get a look about what was going on on the other side, you just have to leave the game with no info at all. And you can't give the loosing AI your side, the winning side, while trying to win with the loosing side. But i wrote all this over and over here in the forum before, and all in absolut vain. Spoken in the wind. I have a saved game file if you are interested to take a look. January 6th, USSR at 85%, Manchurai always manned with troops. I think it is a good idea to remove the diplo out of this scenario. It might be a nice toy in a scenario beginning in the late 1920ies, early 1930ies. All in all Russia should attack if Japan gets weak, not the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 If you can send me a file it would be great, please send it to Bill@furysoftware.com Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts