Recent Posts
-
Players should be free to choose. But being forced to play too defensively and cautiously in every single game would be boring, and it wasn't politically feasible at that time.
Both offensive and defensive Russia should have their own pros and cons.
-
Historically, they had to launch major offensives due to political pressure from their allies.
This is the kind of question that comes up in many wargames, should a player be forced to replicate a bad historical strategy. The Brusilov offensive (1916) achieved some tactical success, but did little to take pressure off the French at Verdun and used up Russia's limited resources. The Kerensky offensive (1917) resulted in Russia's complete collapse.
By they way, my grandfather (Austrian army) was captured in the Brusilov offensive.
-
If Russia is still in the war by round 10 with roughly the same income it had at the beginning, I don't see how the Central Powers could realistically win. Giving Russian infantry weaker offensive power doesn't seem punishing enough to me. It would also limit Russia's strategic options. Historically, they had to launch major offensives due to political pressure from their allies.
I think Russia's role of "destroying as many Central Powers units as possible before its eventual collapse" sounds much more interesting than simply spamming infantry and waiting.
By 1917, Russia was struggling just to keep its troops on the front line, let alone mobilize new armies. I even think its income should be close to 0 by round 10 (August 1917), even if it hasn't lost a single territory. With a -2 income modifier that increases by 2 each round, Russia would be at -20 IPC by round 10, leaving it almost bankrupt.
-
attach it to itself. I didn't know you could do that. Or maybe I did and just forgot
Either way. I like it
Maybe so they aren't too low powered offensively, you could have Artillery still give them a +1 boost. If it plays the same as the other games that way.
So Attack 0 but if with Arty Attack 1 ?
Just a thought
Good Work here
