version question

[big ed]

I was looking at the AARs and noticed that the Baltic states have troops. I have the stock CD version of TAOW III. My EA has no troops in the Baltic States. Is there another version that I have missed?

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Last time I looked (that was when we started the game), the version we are playing was the one on the TOAW3 disk. Or maybe that means, the one from the latest patch? In any case, my opponent DOES have troops in the Baltic states, and they are presently giving half of the red army a good run for their money. :angry:

 

[Mark Stevens]

Strange, they show up on my version of the TOAW III CD, but they were a later addition if you've got an older one.

The Soviets should perhaps avoid fighting them, as we've got them automatically disappearing after the Fall of France because following that their governments, despairing of western support, were bullied into allowing in the Red Army and they were annexed. They'd already been obliged to accept Russian bases on their soil in 1939, so no real defence was possible.

If you play the 'Eastern Crusade' version it's a different story - we assume they'd have been forced to join Germany.

 

[Heldenkaiser]

The Soviets should perhaps avoid fighting them, as we've got them automatically disappearing after the Fall of France ...

I may be completely naive of course, but at the moment I am still hoping to avoid a fall of France, yet at the same time I am not prepared to give the Axis an autobahn to Leningrad.

But seriously, I have my doubts whether the armies of the Baltic states are not too strong in the present version. They are giving a considerable portion of the Red Army (nearly the same number of corps as subdued Finland within less than a dozen turns) quite a hard time taking over their country. Maybe I was naive there too but seeing how they easily collapsed historically I would have expected something nearer a Soviet walkover. :shy:

Oh, and related question, just curious why Kovno was chosen as the capital for all? It's very close to the border both of East Prussia and of Soviet-occupied Poland, and not very defensible. Of course I failed to consider that before I chose to invade via Narva, taking the longest instead of the shortest way to victory, but I won't make that mistake more than once ... next time I play, I'll just push three armies straight into Kovno and end the affair within two weeks. Wouldn't Riga be both more important historically, more centrally located, farer from the borders regardless of who invades, and a lot more defensible, than Kovno? Just wondering. :shy:

 

[big ed]

thanks for the input. Maybe I screwed up the update /patch. I'll try to repatch. If that doesn't work maybe a re-install?

 

[Veers]

Your best bet is to download the one from the sticky thread with the latest version.

 

[Mark Stevens]

I know that we mustn't take Wikipedia as the Gospel, but...

"The Soviet troops allocated for possible military actions against the Baltic states numbered 435,000 troops, around 8,000 guns and mortars, over 3,000 tanks, over 500 armoured cars"

This was in case they resisted - even in 1940 - and with sizeable Soviet bases already established in all three countries.

I've taken their armies from what information I could find, the individual units are accurate, but maybe I was too generous and paper strengths don't represent reality on the ground.

They collapsed historically because of a political loss of nerve immediately following the Fall of France, when all Europe was in a state of shock. The performance of the Baltic States units formed by the Germans suggests that they were no less brave and determined than any others: it isn't hard to imagine that they - like the Finns - would have made some effort against the Red Army if they had fought earlier.

The point about Kovno/Riga is fair enough, perhaps something Veers could think about if we ever update this scenario. Or, as you suggest, leaving it as Kovno may allow the Red Army to achieve a quick victory if that's what you believe would have happened. Ideally, with all the new Events, separately iconed forces and capitals (and surrenders) for each of the three countries? That way the USSR could cover Leningrad by taking Estonia, maybe Latvia and leaving Lithuania alone (although the latter would then have been guaranteed to have joined the Germans for 'Barbarossa', willingly or otherwise).

 

[Heldenkaiser]

The point about Kovno/Riga is fair enough, perhaps something Veers could think about if we ever update this scenario. Or, as you suggest, leaving it as Kovno may allow the Red Army to achieve a quick victory if that's what you believe would have happened. Ideally, with all the new Events, separately iconed forces and capitals (and surrenders) for each of the three countries?

Thanks for the reply again. Really, I don't pretend to know more about either WW2 or good scenario design (certainly not the latter :shy than either of you, so I suppose it's fine the way it is. These were three comparatively populous minor states (according to a quick and dirty search, about 5.5 million combined in 1939, a good deal more than Finland (4 million in 1940) which resisted the Red Army quite effectively, and not that much less than the Netherlands or Belgium (over 8 million each in 1940) who afterall did give the Wehrmacht some trouble for a while. So in an actual invasion, rather than the historical circumstances you describe, they should have been able to put up some fight ... though maybe not quite as effectively as they seem to be able to do now, according to my limited experience.

If you want them to be able to resist effectively, moving the common capital to Riga would maybe be a good solution to prevent a quick Russian victory by taking Kovno. Separate forces and capitals would probably make it easier to take out one country quickly (especially Estonia), but more difficult to bag them all by occupying a single capital, so maybe yes, that might be a solution?

Not saying that anything needs fixing though. This is my first game of EA and I was really just wondering.