Russia and Western Allies Balance

[ncali]

This is related to the "millions of Russians" forum. I still think the game tilts in favor of the Allies. But in thinking about it, I wonder if it isn't part that the Russians are too strong vis a vis the Western Allies. Thus, the games that are closer are the games where the Axis puts its whole weight against Russia - thereby knocking down their stronger opponent (and I think ahistorically stronger consdering the massive US production and significant British production in WWII). I know there is Supermax's conquest of America and some other examples out there, but that's an example of incredible success in the west. Historically, the Germans and Italians did fight in Libya/Egypt then sent significant reinforcements to Tunisia - suffering substantial loss there - and also maintained air forces to thwart Allied bombing. They also suffered some big defeats in Russia. Nevertheless, they made it to 1945. Anyway, I probably am not going to persuade anyone at this point, but I thought I'd mention it.

[trulster]

Sort of agree, I think in 44 and 45 the US production should be a lot higher. The production of ships and aircraft in the US dwarfed the rest in the last years of the war, in GC there is not a lot of US difference in production during the war.

[gerones]

Sort of agree, I think in 44 and 45 the US production should be a lot higher. The production of ships and aircraft in the US dwarfed the rest in the last years of the war, in GC there is not a lot of US difference in production during the war.

This is not correct in respect with the aircraft production.
Only the USSR produced more than 65.000 fighter planes and about 55.000 bombers. Germany produced about 55.000 fighters and more than 30.000 bombers and dive bombers. UK produced 35.000 fighters and about 40.000 bombers.
Certainly, USA was the country that produced more aircrafts in the war: 100.000 aircraft fighters and more than 80.000 bombers but for both Pacific and European scenarios. In other words, the USA deployed a more or less similar air force than the other major powers air forces in the european scenario.

Nothing to say about the overwhelming difference in respect with the naval production. In this case, I have to say that the USA probably produced more ships than all the other countries together. But here we would also have to specified that those naval production was mainly focussed to the Pacific scenario.

[ncali]

I'm not necessarily suggesting reducing Russia's economy, although I wouldn't rule it out enitrely. The US can be producing something like 70-80 PP's a turn in the late war (depending on industrial tech), while Russia cranks out 180-200 PP's (if they control a substantial part of Russia and depending on industrial tech). Having a disparity makes some sense considering Russia's ability to create (and replace) a huge ground army. I'd probably downgrade Russian tech (reducing starting organization to 0 might be interesting), reduce Russian lab capability, and increase the American economy to compensate for it. If Russia's forces were a bit more brittle throughout the game but the US was making 100 PP's later in the war (even without liberating anything), I think the game would be a bit more historical in terms of the relative strengths of Russia and the West.

[gerones]

I'm not necessarily suggesting reducing Russia's economy, although I wouldn't rule it out enitrely. The US can be producing something like 70-80 PP's a turn in the late war (depending on industrial tech), while Russia cranks out 180-200 PP's (if they control a substantial part of Russia and depending on industrial tech). Having a disparity makes some sense considering Russia's ability to create (and replace) a huge ground army. I'd probably downgrade Russian tech (reducing starting organization to 0 might be interesting), reduce Russian lab capability, and increase the American economy to compensate for it. If Russia's forces were a bit more brittle throughout the game but the US was making 100 PP's later in the war (even without liberating anything), I think the game would be a bit more historical in terms of the relative strengths of Russia and the West.

Russians can get lots of PP´s if they, as you have mentioned, control the main part of Russia. But let´s keep in mind that the germans until late 1942 were seizing the more important industrial zones of the USSR. And despite of this, the russians managed to build an huge army and to invest enough in new technologies. All in the USSR was dedicated to the war effort and the production of tanks, aircrafts, ammunition etc was simply awesome. For this reason, the size of the russian army by 1944 had nothing to do with the western allies armies and couldn´t be compared with any other army.
So in CEAW GS is historical that the allied player is able to build an huge russian army because this is what it really happened.

[trulster]

Since some changes already were made to Russia (more forward deployment+bigger DoW penalty) it should not be made even weaker. But yes, the US economy should see some upgrade in late-war.

[ncali]

Since some changes already were made to Russia (more forward deployment+bigger DoW penalty) it should not be made even weaker. But yes, the US economy should see some upgrade in late-war.

Perhaps these changes will help some. One thing I don't want to see is the Western Allies get even stronger, though, without any further change to Russia. So perhaps I should just sleeping dogs lie and see how the existing changes work out. From my experience with GS so far, the Allies are too strong as it is! To have the US economy increased (without much more substantial changes to Russia than have been made so far) would make them even stronger! And again, my focus isn't really the Russian economy. It's the troop quality.

[trulster]

Yeah, then again a realistic boost to the US economy will have a "delayed effect", everything they build will have to sail/fly a long way before having an impact on the Axis. Russia, directly on the frontline. If for balance, maybe the Brit convoys should be less massive later in the war, seems the US always will be a junior partner to the UK in GS, which does seem a bit off.

[joerock22]

Yeah, then again a realistic boost to the US economy will have a "delayed effect", everything they build will have to sail/fly a long way before having an impact on the Axis. Russia, directly on the frontline. If for balance, maybe the Brit convoys should be less massive later in the war, seems the US always will be a junior partner to the UK in GS, which does seem a bit off.

The Americans basically were a "junior partner" for the first couple years after they entered the war. Europe was their #2 theatre of operations, remember. The U.S. economy in CEAW only represents what they would have put toward fighting the Nazis, and I think it's fairly accurate. Alone, both Britain and the U.S. will have difficulty doing anything major, but if they work together, they can be very effective. In that respect, I think the way GS handles the U.S. and the U.K. is very historical.