AshFall
Posts: 244
Joined: 4/16/2019 Status: offline
|
I've been testing out the 1942 "Case Blue" scenario a bit in hotseat due to upcoming matches in the ongoing tournament featuring the scenario. I can't help but feel that increasing Soviet infantry weapon tech to 2 at start is a mistake. I would love to hear from Taxman66 on the background and thought behind the change. Reasons behind my thinking: - The axis position is deceptively weak. A: Their tech is horrendously underdeveloped (AA 1, Tanks, Fighters, AT, ground attack weapons 2, Production 2 and industry 1 (!), Logistics 2 (!), Spying & Intelligence 1. They only start with a 1175 investment into tech. Compared to allied tech, where the UK has parity in weapons techs (!) except AT. Key is UK spying & intelligence at 2, ensuring upcoming teach advantages. The USSR has Advanced armor parity, though crucially lacking warfare, but starting out with production 3 and industry 2. The USSR starts nearly maxed out in tech investment. (Total axis start investment is 1575, allied is 4925 despite parity in many important techs). B: The USSR matches German income right out the gate. (860 to German 852, Western allies 394+352 is pure outproduction out the gate. This till get significantly worse as the USSR gets more industry tech. Even though Germany will make some gains in the USSR, taking many resources, this will be somewhat offset by allied diplomacy and/or strategic bombing. C: Italy is just dreadful. Their tech, income and general positioning is just... D: Axis positioning at start is downright awful in many places, commensurate with USSR awful positioning. The UK and USA have large armies ready to move when the Allies need it. E: Barring serious allied misplay NA is a lost cause. - The USSR can lose almost everything, up to and including Grozny, Stalingrad/Astrakhan, Moscow, Gorky and Leningrad and still win. Their economy with maxed convoys and Double chitted industry can take it. Note that offering an armistice upon the capture of Stalingrad, Moscow and Leningrad is optional, there is no reason to do so, especially in a tournament setting. - The major turning point of the eastern front is usually the USSR achieving infantry weapons 3, and to a lesser extent infantry weapons 2. With inf weapons 3 they have combat equal corps and armies at half cost. Now they start the scenario with shock armies with lvl 2 infantry weapons. This gives them cost equal armies with straight up better stats (10% extra demoralization, 4 base action points rather than 3) -that take one turn to build-. Inf weapons 3 will arrive mid/late 1943, coinciding with allied research times and buildups. My concern is that the change has taken a scenario that was admittedly rough for the Soviets but completely winnable for the allies and turned it into an absolute no win scenario for the axis. I can maybe see the AA 1 at start, that should be well enough if the USSR was really struggling and impossible to hang on with. Thoughts?
|