Mark Stevens
Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
Another thing that I've realised is that in an Eastern Crusade game the Axis can choose the Pre-War builds and the Soviets will be no different than normal (since their '1930s' extra forces are triggered by the Axis P-WBs TO).
The original intention was that the Red Army be stronger in the event of an Eastern Crusade game, as Stalin realises that the extension of the Maginot Line is likely to lead to the Germans moving East from the start. But as soon as the Axis player sees (turn 2) that the Allies have extended the Maginot Line he knows that the Soviet Army will be larger, so he may as well - in fact he's mad not to - take the P-WBs.
Two easy solutions: (i) add yet another group of Soviet '1930s' mobile reinforcements triggered (only) by the Axis Eastern Crusade TO (ii) my preference - if the Axis choose the Eastern Crusade TO, assume that the Stalin Line was extended in response to the French extending the Maginot Line, i.e. place more Stalin Line forts along the flanks of the existing, unfinished, fortifications. If the Axis choose the P-WBs they'll then face both a larger Red Army AND a better Stalin Line. If they don't choose the P-WBs the Red Army won't be any larger, but the forts will still be there.
I know that it would be even more interesting to allow the Allies to extend the Stalin Line anyway, Eastern Crusade or not, but that in turn means that there would have to be some compensation for the Axis in the event of a 'normal' game. Although TOAW III allows a lot more events, so this is perfectly possible, the structure of the scenario would become even more complex, i.e. more chance of errors creeping into it. I'm finding it difficult enough to take into consideration the different ramifications of adding the Baltic States' forces, although I still think that's a worthwhile addition (see the other thread).
Welcome comments. :shock:
The original intention was that the Red Army be stronger in the event of an Eastern Crusade game, as Stalin realises that the extension of the Maginot Line is likely to lead to the Germans moving East from the start. But as soon as the Axis player sees (turn 2) that the Allies have extended the Maginot Line he knows that the Soviet Army will be larger, so he may as well - in fact he's mad not to - take the P-WBs.
Two easy solutions: (i) add yet another group of Soviet '1930s' mobile reinforcements triggered (only) by the Axis Eastern Crusade TO (ii) my preference - if the Axis choose the Eastern Crusade TO, assume that the Stalin Line was extended in response to the French extending the Maginot Line, i.e. place more Stalin Line forts along the flanks of the existing, unfinished, fortifications. If the Axis choose the P-WBs they'll then face both a larger Red Army AND a better Stalin Line. If they don't choose the P-WBs the Red Army won't be any larger, but the forts will still be there.
I know that it would be even more interesting to allow the Allies to extend the Stalin Line anyway, Eastern Crusade or not, but that in turn means that there would have to be some compensation for the Axis in the event of a 'normal' game. Although TOAW III allows a lot more events, so this is perfectly possible, the structure of the scenario would become even more complex, i.e. more chance of errors creeping into it. I'm finding it difficult enough to take into consideration the different ramifications of adding the Baltic States' forces, although I still think that's a worthwhile addition (see the other thread).
Welcome comments. :shock: