Slitherine

I know there are a lot of subjects out there on this matter, but i would like to add my own little 2 cents.

I think that the Russians are just too strong in 1941 for the germans to have any major and serious success. It is too easy for the Soviet player to put up a double line of defensive troops behind the Dniepr. Typically, a german player that starts Barbarossa by june 22nd has no chance of knocking out russia or even winning the game for that matter.

In my opinion this need to be corrected because if not most players will tire of playing germany since the probabilities of destroying russia are very small. The only way to have a little chance against the Russian is to attack on the first turn of may, ride as hard as possible to the Dniepr, break the defensive line and destroy as many russians units as possible. Most players ive played against didnt do it, and i can only succeed doing that when i put 100% of the ressources in Russia, and even then... Its very easy to block a german offensive in 1941. Most player take their own damned time and only attack end of june, like historically. But when you do that, you cannot win. Again this comment is in the case of a PBEM game and playing with a decent opponent.

I believe that this fact is going to be the downfall of the GS mod in the sense that players will loose interest of playing a germany that has to be on the defensive in 1942. Also, the strong russian position negate any other possibilities of trying Spain, England or any creative strategies like in the Spanish Gambit bit. All you do when you decide to do this is 1- get stuck on the Dnieper, 2- play defense with germany from 42 and on 3- most likely loose the game.

Also relating to my Amerika in Flames game, i do not find it normal that i can muster all the ressources on the map, with industry LVL6 and only produce 200 per turn. From experience at this point in the war with the ressources theyve giot the Russians also produce 200 pp or close to it. So in essence this means that even if germany controls all of the Western world industrial production they cannot over-produce Russia??? This is highly un-logical.

Well thats my take on this... I am playing a game right now with Pete, one as Axis and another one as Allies. He is a pretty experienced guy. In my german game i totally trounced his defense, destroyed over 20 INF 20 GAR, i am positionned on a line running from Novgorod to Rostov and i even have Tambov... But then what? I STILL wasnt able to take Moscow the damned Russian player was able to muster still enough troops to put a double defensive line in the forest. I had 9 tanks, 10 motorized, 5 TAC, plenty infantry... But now i am still at a quandary , meaning that i am not sure that 1942 will be a good year to attack the Russian (i might take Moscow and overtake Stalingrad... Then what?

In the other game, Pete attacked me in June 22nd, so i was able to block him easily on the Dniepr, he didnt even cross the river line. Severe winter hit on october 20th, and i am in a full counter-attack with the Russians... I cannot loose this one.

So thats it, i dunno what to do, but i am unsure i want to play another game where the germans have no chance of destroying russia.

supermax,

Are you playing with the latest changes we've added to v1.04? I'm finding that this makes a big difference in how far I'm getting in my games. By the way, before these changes I still had two decisive losses as the allies and two major victories as the axis.

If you haven't played with these updates it would be interesting to get your take on them and how much they help you in 1941 and 1942.

See: viewtopic.php?p=136119#136119

3-12-2010
49. Increased the efficiency loss for Russian units when German DoW from 20 to 30. This value is not bad because the Russians will regain almost up to 15 efficiency if they do nothing on that turn. Even for units that move they would still regain 5. With the 30 efficiency loss it means most units just below 30 on turn one. These increase to 40-45 on the first Russian turn and drop 5 again when they move. The it repeats itself until the Russian units get max efficiency. So the extra 10 drop means it takes one extra turn to get to full efficiency. The main difference is that the Russians will be too weak on the first few turns of Barbarossa so the Germans can move as far as they can into Russian territory with little fear of retaliation. That is good. So people should NOT worry about the extra efficiency loss for the Russians. They will be just as strong for the first winter.
50. Moved several units closer to the front line. Now these units will have to run for their lives to survive. Some might even be caught if the Germans are bold. If efficiency loss hadn’t been reduced by 30 then the Russians could counter attack spearhead armor units with some sting. Now they can forget about that on the first few turns. So the mech units have little else to do except running for safety.
51. Moved the Russian fighter from Moscow to Leningrad. This is according to the OOB and it’s not so dangerous because Finland will always activate when Russia activates. If the Finnish are afraid of Russian fighter harassment they can always put the fighter on sentry until German fighters get within range. But the Finnish fighter can fight the Russian fighter and expect good results so why hide?
52. No tech changes were made for the Russians.

Interesting stuff, and I see where supermax is coming from, but I don't necessarily agree.

I think that the Russians are just too strong in 1941 for the germans to have any major and serious success. It is too easy for the Soviet player to put up a double line of defensive troops behind the Dniepr. Typically, a german player that starts Barbarossa by june 22nd has no chance of knocking out russia or even winning the game for that matter.

Attacking in May and going full-on blitz is only one way to do it. The other way is to invade in June and simply take what the Russians give you. Part of it depends on how you define major success. You can usually either kill a lot of Soviet troops or capture a lot of territory. Very rarely can you do both. One opponent I'm playing against defended at the Dniepr, and I inflicted heavy casualties on him but was unable to push any further. I repulsed the winter counterattacks and pushed further in 1942. I captured Moscow in 1943 and am preparing to defend it to the end. My opponent is very skilled and this game will go down to the wire. So defending too far to the west in 1941 is risky for the Russians. Another opponent I'm playing against chose to defend further east, and as a result I conquered lots of territory but inflicted few casualties on the Russians. I captured Moscow in 1942 and am still on the offensive. With GS, I think you have to limit your expecations of the 1941 campaign. You have to prepare yourself for 1942 and beyond, because those years can still see major Axis offensives. In another game I'm playing as the Allies, my opponent has pushed to the edges of Moscow and Stalingrad in 1942. I don't think he will take either city, but he still has some major offensive capability and I believe he will win the game.

I do agree, however, that it is nearly impossible to knock the Russians out of the war. That is how it should be. Hitler’s dream of pushing to Siberia and destroying the Soviet Union was pure folly, plain and simple. Once the Russian bear got rolling, it was unstoppable. GS represents this well. If the Germans let the momentum shift to the Soviets too early, it’s a guaranteed loss. 1941 is usually the last year the Germans can hope to mount a general offensive in the east. But many times I have launched limited offensives in 1942-43, aimed at key cities. That’s very historical; the German army was not advancing across the entire front in 1942-43; the made attacks in certain areas and had success for awhile before the Soviets finally seized the momentum and began pushing them back.

I guess what we have here is a difference in perspective. I don’t want the Germans to be able to destroy the Russians except in the most horrendously overmatched game (no offense to Ronnie, who lost Russia to me in the BJR mod, which was balanced quite differently. I am quite certain I would never be able to do it against him in GS). The victory conditions award the Axis player an ultimate victory for holding 4 capitals in May 1945. That’s any combination of Rome, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington, and Moscow. To me, fighting to the end to hold those capitals, even when a major or strategic Axis victory is assured, is very exciting. That’s the attraction of GS to me; nearly always having something to fight for in 1945, whether it’s trying to beat the clock as the Allies or hold onto what you’ve got as the Axis. I think that’s what makes it fun (among other things), and that’s what I see as the main attraction. That is why I will keep playing, and why I believe others will too.

joerock22 wrote:Interesting stuff, and I see where supermax is coming from, but I don't necessarily agree.

Attacking in May and going full-on blitz is only one way to do it. The other way is to invade in June and simply take what the Russians give you. Part of it depends on how you define major success. You can usually either kill a lot of Soviet troops or capture a lot of territory. Very rarely can you do both. One opponent I'm playing against defended at the Dniepr, and I inflicted heavy casualties on him but was unable to push any further. I repulsed the winter counterattacks and pushed further in 1942. I captured Moscow in 1943 and am preparing to defend it to the end. My opponent is very skilled and this game will go down to the wire. So defending too far to the west in 1941 is risky for the Russians. Another opponent I'm playing against chose to defend further east, and as a result I conquered lots of territory but inflicted few casualties on the Russians. I captured Moscow in 1942 and am still on the offensive. With GS, I think you have to limit your expecations of the 1941 campaign. You have to prepare yourself for 1942 and beyond, because those years can still see major Axis offensives. In another game I'm playing as the Allies, my opponent has pushed to the edges of Moscow and Stalingrad in 1942. I don't think he will take either city, but he still has some major offensive capability and I believe he will win the game.

I do agree, however, that it is nearly impossible to knock the Russians out of the war. That is how it should be. Hitler’s dream of pushing to Siberia and destroying the Soviet Union was pure folly, plain and simple. Once the Russian bear got rolling, it was unstoppable. GS represents this well. If the Germans let the momentum shift to the Soviets too early, it’s a guaranteed loss. 1941 is usually the last year the Germans can hope to mount a general offensive in the east. But many times I have launched limited offensives in 1942-43, aimed at key cities. That’s very historical; the German army was not advancing across the entire front in 1942-43; the made attacks in certain areas and had success for awhile before the Soviets finally seized the momentum and began pushing them back.

I guess what we have here is a difference in perspective. I don’t want the Germans to be able to destroy the Russians except in the most horrendously overmatched game (no offense to Ronnie, who lost Russia to me in the BJR mod, which was balanced quite differently. I am quite certain I would never be able to do it against him in GS). The victory conditions award the Axis player an ultimate victory for holding 4 capitals in May 1945. That’s any combination of Rome, Berlin, Paris, London, Washington, and Moscow. To me, fighting to the end to hold those capitals, even when a major or strategic Axis victory is assured, is very exciting. That’s the attraction of GS to me; nearly always having something to fight for in 1945, whether it’s trying to beat the clock as the Allies or hold onto what you’ve got as the Axis. I think that’s what makes it fun (among other things), and that’s what I see as the main attraction. That is why I will keep playing, and why I believe others will too.

I´m agree with this line of thoughts. For the axis player is almost impossible to knock out the russians but you can inflict them tremendous losses (both destroying units and conquering cities and resources) from which they never can really gain the initiative and this way you can as the axis be defending the Dnepr river line in e.g. late 1944.

And I´m agree too about 1942 can be as important as 1941 or even more important than 1941 in the eastern front and it depends much on how each player performs on those two years.

And, finally with the last changes included in the Red Army set up on the last GS update I think the eastern front scenario is accurate, balanced and chanllenging.

supermax wrote:Also, the strong russian position negate any other possibilities of trying Spain, England or any creative strategies like in the Spanish Gambit bit. All you do when you decide to do this is 1- get stuck on the Dnieper, 2- play defense with germany from 42 and on 3- most likely loose the game.

I agree with much of supermax's comments, but particularly with this one. I mentioned in the main forum that I feel the East-West balance appears off a bit. Enough so that the main viable strategy may end up being to be attack Russia with as much strength as possible and as soon as possible in every game. Historically, the Axis reinforced North Africa, spent time in the Balkans in early '41 before attacking Russia, committed substantial air forces in the West from '42 on, reinforced and lost a lot of forces in Tunisia, and then had Italy surrender in '43 requiring more German commitment there. Yet the Germans still made it to '45. (Also don't forget the disasters they suffered on the East Front such as Stalingrad and Kursk!) That does not seem possible in the mod.

I think that Supermax and Ncali are forgetting that the victory conditions of the vanilla game and GS are completely different. In GS you can win with Germany if you just manage to hold Berlin by May 1945. In the vanilla game you would lose as Germany if you held Berlin and either Paris or Rome. You got a draw if you help all these 3 capitals.

With the vanilla victory conditions then the Germans should have a chance to crush the Russians. But in GS the game would have been BROKEN if a good German player could get to Omsk and force a Russian surrender against an experienced Allied player. You should only be able to do that against a novice opponent.

I also think GS would have been broken if it was possible for the Germans to invade Britain and Spain, take Port Said and rush into Iraq without serious consequences to the east front preparations.

The Spanish gambit should only be done occasionally against a player who doesn't know how to defend against it. Sealion was a big gamble in the real war and the Germans decided to not do it. IF you do it in GS then you will probably take Britain, but you will have to prepare for a Russian bear that will like to move towards Berlin already in 1942. If you can do all these gambles as the Germans without consequence then the game would have been broken indeed.

I think that some people who are used to playing the vanilla game might have problems adapting to GS. They're used to attack with the Axis and when they run out of steam they've lost the game. So they expect to dominate the board for most of the game, at least through 1943. That works with the vanilla victory conditions.

In GS you're measure against how the REAL Germans did. So you're expected to be on the offensive through 1941 and partly in 1942. From 1943 till the end you're supposed to be on the defense trying to delay the time the Allies can take all the Axis capitals.

I can give you an example how I played against Joe as the Axis in GS. I took the usual countries in 1939-1940 (sitzkrieg in France) and went for Yugoslavia and Greece late 1940. Then I built all I could for Barbarossa and ignored Egypt / Spain. My subs sunk a lot of convoys so Joe built hordes of strategic bombers and DD's. Now he controls the Atlantic, but he's spent a lot of PP's on anti-sub units.

In 1941 I captured the usual cities. Joe tried to defend behind the Dnepr, but the Luftwaffe threat made him think twice. I had 6-7 tac bombers, 6 armor and 4 mech units. If he had decided to keep me behind the Dnepr then he would have succeeded, but at a terrible cost. He would have lost most of his mech force and even some armor too. The Russian airforce would have to run or be depleted as well.

I also made sure I timed my lab builds so I got upgrades for infantry, mech, armor and all air units just in time for the June 22nd attack. So ALL my German units were upgraded before the attack. I planned this so economically so I didn't buy a single unit before I got all the upgrades I needed. This way I only paid for upgrades to the units that started the game plus the air units built for France. I saved a lot of PP's doing that.

What I did differently from most players is that I ceased my attack late September 1941 and dug in where I was. It meant I failed to take Kharkov, Stalino and similar cities. So what did I gain. Because my units rested for some turns (except some attacks at overwhelming odds after air combat) they had pretty decent efficiency even after the severe winter penalty. I also made sure only strong German units where in the front line and no Axis minors. So Joe had no easy targets to pick at. All he could muster was to kill 3 Axis units in the Petrozavodsk area.

So my Germans survived the tough 1941 winter and could attack aggressively in 1942. Joe had a triple line in the south and it seemed impregnable. But I killed 5-6 Russian units per turn by sweeping the front line. I focused on attacks in the north and south first. Leningrad and Petrozavodsk fell. Soon after Novgord and Kalinin. Then I dug in behind the Svir and Volkhov rivers. I shifted my air units to the center and struck hard against Orel, Kharkov and Kursk. I captured Sevastopol and Kerch too with 2 tac bombers per hex per turn for some time.

Although I agree more generally with supermax, I wanted to make a more limited point. I don't see the Germans having too much of a chance to survive until 1945 if the game follows a fairly historical course in terms of commitment to Russia. In other words, if the Germans commit a bit to the West, such as North Africa and/or substantial air assets. They historically did these things (sending reinforcements to help out the Italians in Libya, to reinforce Tunisia after Operation Torch, and most significantly the air assets committed in the West). This could lead to a "one strategy" game where the only way to stand a chance is to invade Russia with everything as early as possible.

Since Joe lost on average 6 corps units per turn he could no longer maintain a triple line. Soon it became a double line and in the fall he had to use mech and armor to hold the line. Joe didn't want to lose these units and decided to retreat instead. So late in 1942 I could capture Voronezh and Rostov. I could even have taken Stalingrad, but decided against it because I dug in behind the newly captured river lines (Don river). I stopped attacking in time for the severe winter and had pretty decent efficiency when it happened. Joe launched some counter attacks and recaptured Voronezh. Twice I recaptured it and his offensive faded.

Soon I'm ready for my 1943 offensive in Russia. We're in April 1943 and the fair weather will come soon. I can't hope to capture a lot of terrain, but I can kill some units to fend off Russian attacks.

The Allies have not been silent and have control of the Atlantic except sporadic wolfpack attacks (but with terrible sub losses to strategic bombers all over the Atlantic). Still, he can't feel he has control yet and must escort his convoys and transports.

Portugal and Ireland are now Allied occupied, but Vichy is still neutral. Italian subs deflected an invasion attempt on Sicily and German air units deflected a similar invasion of Sardinia. Crete fell and the Allies are moving into Libya from 2 sides.

At the same time the Germans have built a very strong strategic reserve that can stop any landing in France or mainland Italy. Joe doesn't have air superiority in the Med so he can't land where he wants to.
'

It's still too early to tell the outcome of our game, but the Russians will struggle hard to force the Germans to retreat in the east. I have a double defense line and armor and mech in the reserve that with tac bomber support can crush any Russian breakthrough. I have super strong fighters so in fair weather the Russian fighters get horrible losses. But eventually the Russians will force a German retreat (probably in the 1943/1944 winter).

The Allies will get Libya in 1943 and can take the Med islands late 1943. Then they can land in mainland Italy in 1944 and try to get to Rome. They will probably land in France in 1944 and will get to the Siegfried line, but with my strong reserve I don't expect this to be easy.

My oil reserve is currently above 600 since I've not wasted oil with armor and air attacks unless I had to. My manpower is still very good (I'm between 50 and 75) so my new units only have -1 quality. This is because I didn't suffer hard during the Russian winter offensives.

Joe may still do something I haven't foreseen and win the game, but it will be close. The odds are that the Germans will win a minor or major victory. So I've managed to contain the according to some TOO strong Russians all the way till spring 1943 and I'm still so strong so a Russian offensive can be contained even in 1943. How is that possible if the game is too biased in favour of the Russians? Joe is no novice. He's one of the toughest opponents of all ot meet.

I won a strategic victory against Ronnie with the Axis. Then the end line in May 1945 were from Leningrad to Tula to Voronezh to Rostov. The Allies were killed many times at the french beaches and had only 1-2 beachheads when the game ended. Rome was still Italian etc.

So I claim that you can win with the Axis against able Allied opponents. You just have to rethink you playing strategy. The worst enemy of the Germans is the lack of oil and manpower. You lose with the Axis if you run out of oil too soon and drop below 50 manpower too early. That happens if you're too aggressive and attack everywhere all the time. When you move into Britain, Egypt and Spain you can win spectacular victories, but burn a lot of oil with no oilfields captured. So is it really worth the price?

I've not captured a single oilfield in any of my GS games (except against novices). Still I can have 600+ oil in the spring of 1943. How is that possible? One reason is that I rarely attack with my armor. I keep them in reserve as a threat and only release them to kill enemy mech or armor. As long as my armor force is in the second line then the Allied player can't destroy it. I also focus heavily on mech units. Those give extra firepower with much less oil consumption. I use mechs mainly to take cities or to finish off enemy mech or armor.

Still, this doesn't mean I can't be beat. I'm sure Joe has learned new tricks to play against me so he can win next time. That's the fascination of GS. You see another player who does things differently and you can then use this against your opponents. You invent some ideas to exploit your opponent weaknesses and get the upper hand. Now Joe knows how I play and next time I'm sure he has a "medicine" against it. So my job is to improve my strategy so his new efforts will fail.


The best players are unpredictable and you always have to work to improve your style. I'm sure every style can be beaten. You just have to make sure your opponent gets surprised so many times so he can't figure out the optimal play against you every time.

I think that people who like to attack with the Axis until you run out of steam should stick to the vanilla game. One weakness about the vanilla game is that many Axis players will fold the game once their offensive runs out of steam. They have nothing more to play for once the Allies take Paris or Rome. In GS you can play until you lose your final capital because you win if you manage to hold just one of them in May 1945.

How many games are seen to the end? I believe that you see more of them in GS than in the vanilla game. I also believe GS is more fun for both sides because they both get a chance to be offensive and defensive. In the vanilla game it's the Axis who does most of the attacking and the Allies the defending. Once the Axis can't attack anymore they simply give up. In GS you have to be good at both attacking and defending to win as the Axis. Not even I can hope to control most of the German captured hexes all the way till May 1945. You will see your empire crumble. So your job is to do the best you can to delay the collapse of your defensive lines. I think that's actually very fun. I prefer defending to attacking and I like to find good defense lines and make limited counter attacks. I can do plenty of that as the Axis in GS.

But I accept that the taste is different. Some people prefer the vanilla game and that's fair enough. There are enough people around for both games. So I don't believe what that an alleged too strong Russia will be the downfall of GS. Maybe it will be the downfall of HIS interest in GS, but that's a completely different story.

ncali wrote:Although I agree more generally with supermax, I wanted to make a more limited point. I don't see the Germans having too much of a chance to survive until 1945 if the game follows a fairly historical course in terms of commitment to Russia. In other words, if the Germans commit a bit to the West, such as North Africa and/or substantial air assets. They historically did these things (sending reinforcements to help out the Italians in Libya, to reinforce Tunisia after Operation Torch, and most significantly the air assets committed in the West). This could lead to a "one strategy" game where the only way to stand a chance is to invade Russia with everything as early as possible.

You can always do a limited attack in Russia in 1941 and get to the Dnepr line. It's just as hard for the Russians to break it as it's for the Germans. Instead you have broken Britain and can muster a strong defense in Russia for quite some time. Just make sure you have lots of fighters to shoot down Russian bombers and fighters. Invest in tech to never let the Russians catch your tech advantage. Target the Russian armor units with tac bombers if they move within range of your air units. Then they won't get anywhere until 1943 at the earliest.

I don't think you have to attack Russia early in 1941 to win as the Axis. If you play well and maybe get the oilfields in Iraq you can threaten the Russians from the south via Persia. Then you have a lot of oil and then you're dangerous indeed. But many Axis players get to Port Said, but fail to get to Iraq in force and stay there. Going after the side shows without taking any oil is suicide. All you get from Spain is to close Gibraltar. But you have to deal with a lot of Spanish partisans and a longer coastal defense line.

I haven't had a chance to play Joe again under the GS mod but I can say for certain it you feel that Russia is too strong then play a game as the allies against Borger or Neil. I had played Borger enough times before so I knew what his strategy would be and he still stopped me cold. Neil was more sneaky. It was like throwing a punch against a shadow. I could really never connect. I had strategic losses in both games. The best I managed was against Neil where the Russians in the north had moved into the Baltic states and the US/UK had a toe hold in the boot of Italy.

Well, all good comments, but my ultimate goal in every game is not to resist against the Russians, but crush them. I understand all those way of playing with saving forces, saving oil and all this and i can do all those things, but, really, whats the fun in defending with the germans? I will find a way of destroying those damned Russians.


I shall post a couple of screenshots from one of my games which i think i have a shot at destroying the Russians. Its the winter of 1941 and i am in Tambov, Rostov, Voronezh, Novgorod. Only Moscow resisted the main offensive that killed 20+ INf, 20+ GAR and many MECH. Now i have plenty options and the russian player doesnt have many units to cover all of them. I may even overlook Moscow entirely in the 1942 campaign, sending a powerful thrust into Siberia i am right at its doorstep anyway!

supermax wrote:Well, all good comments, but my ultimate goal in every game is not to resist against the Russians, but crush them. I understand all those way of playing with saving forces, saving oil and all this and i can do all those things, but, really, whats the fun in defending with the germans? I will find a way of destroying those damned Russians.

This all or nothing approach does have a certain fatalistic charm I must admit. However, using this strategy against an aggressive opponent that looks for counterattack possibilities I think you are in for some nasty surprises in mid-later war.

Well, boring it wont be

If this game is at all historically-based the Allies will always win the war when players of equal ability play. It is probably easy to mod the game so that Germany/Italy can try more exotic strategies. For instance, simply not allowing Russia to declare war until clear weather of 1942 would allow enough time for the Axis to try any number of alternatives.
As in HOI, it might be nice to allow an earlier game-start in 1938 as an option. This would allow initial the Axis to radically alter their force make-up, even building a more formidable navy if they wish. I think adding more options to the game would add interest to the game.

supermax wrote:
Also relating to my Amerika in Flames game, i do not find it normal that i can muster all the ressources on the map, with industry LVL6 and only produce 200 per turn. From experience at this point in the war with the ressources theyve giot the Russians also produce 200 pp or close to it. So in essence this means that even if germany controls all of the Western world industrial production they cannot over-produce Russia??? This is highly un-logical.

No one ever commented on this fact that is a little not possible in my opinion?

Also relating to my Amerika in Flames game, i do not find it normal that i can muster all the ressources on the map, with industry LVL6 and only produce 200 per turn. From experience at this point in the war with the ressources theyve giot the Russians also produce 200 pp or close to it. So in essence this means that even if germany controls all of the Western world industrial production they cannot over-produce Russia??? This is highly un-logical.

I'm not so sure it is. Yes you have England and France, but what are you getting from America? You've essentially only conquered part of the east coast, and the U.S. would never have surrendered in that situation. It is a HUGE country, filled with highly stubborn individuals. Any resources you think you should be getting from the conquered areas of the U.S. could be going into continuing your pacification of the region!

Well, all good comments, but my ultimate goal in every game is not to resist against the Russians, but crush them. I understand all those way of playing with saving forces, saving oil and all this and i can do all those things, but, really, whats the fun in defending with the germans? I will find a way of destroying those damned Russians.

That's fine, but GS is not designed to facilitate that. GS was designed with the historical outcome of the war as the default. In other words, two evenly matched players playing in an equally skilled manner should result in a draw, with the last Axis capital falling in May 1945 as it did historically. Victory conditions reward players for changing history in one way or another. In order to achieve this, the Russians have to be strong enough to turn back the tide in most situations as they did historically. I understand the desire to crush the Russians every game, but that is not consistent with the fundamental design of GS, and it is not about to change.