jjdenver
Posts: 2247
Joined: 11/2/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft
I'm also thinking of having some "large" event type thingies in there. Like for example if the Germans can take Moscow before December then Japan attacks the Soviet Far East rather than doing Pearl Harbour. This would have the effect of a) reducing Soviet reinforcements and b) drastically reducing US Lend-Lease efforts.
Taking Moscow will not be a German win. I am thinking of making the line Archangelsk->Astrakhan a "major victory" and something like Leningrad->Moscow->Stalingrad a "minor victory". Or something ... VPs will not be used for this, but rather explicit checks on hex ownership. VPs will still figure though, as an influence on research and morale and stuff, as per Ostfront I.
Looks great so far. I have a couple comments about these notes:
1) I like the idea of spreading out production, in particular recruitment of infantry/militia across the USSR to give the USSR incentive to fight for every city. I'm not sure the VP's concept accomplishes it because as the Soviet player I will think: "vp's in 1941 are unimportant compared to my survival and I will probably crush Germany in '43 anyway if I do survive". It sounds like VP's will also figure into research which should help some.
2) One thing I really hope you can accomplish that GPW didn't accomplish is add some resilience to the Germans so that it's all or nothing in 1941 else they collapse and game ends in 1942. It would be great to figure out a way to let each country: USSR and Germany show their historical resilience. Germany was able to take a major defeat in winter of 41 and come out swinging in '42, then take a major defeat in winter of '42 and come out swinging in '43. In '44 if they hadn't gone for a Bulge in the west perhaps they could have done better in USSR as well. USSR had huge encirclement losses at Kiev, at Vyazma, and huge defeats and lost major cities but was always able to rely on vast reserves of manpower to the east and yet more production centers to the east to come back from what seemed like knockout situations.
3) I'm not sure that losing Moskva would have decreased lend lease or made the Japanese attack. I think it could be argued that lend lease might have even picked up out of western desperation to keep the USSR afloat. And the Japanese had their hands full by winter of '41 in China and fighting the U.S. I really doubt they'd want to commit to a war w/ the USSR. Also if you take the approach of piling more ill fortune on the USSR when Moskva falls what you are sort of doing is making an already imbalanced game (USSR is down Moskva production, recruitment, rail center, etc) into a more imbalanced game. Maybe if Moskva had fallen LL would have picked up and the Russians would have increased recruitment to the east in desperation. The Soviets always seemed to be able to call on further heroism when the hour was darkest. Witness Leningrad, Stalingrad, defense of Moskva by Zhukov after a huge defeat at Smolensk and then Vyazma. Recovery from a major defeat at Kharkov at the end of '42, etc, etc.
Just some thoughts. I'm really thankful you're doing this scenario - looks great. :)
< Message edited by jjdenver -- 9/2/2009 11:20:53 PM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
Ostfront II - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread