In WW2 TripleA games, should the distance between Manchuria and Moscow be greater than the distance between Germany and Moscow?
Anyone else, playing games like Classic, Revised, v4, v5 or v6, ever felt that Manchuria should have been at least some more distant from Moscow (the Russia territory) than Germany is? Anyone else ever had the feeling that it was wrong for Japanese panzers from Manchuria to reach Moscow as fast as German panzers from Germany?
I took a look at all or most the main TripleA takes on World War 2, on the matter.
Real life distances:
So the distance between Moscow and Manchuria is over 3.7 times the distance between Moscow and Germany.
However, Hsinking-Moscow is 6,754 km if the part of the path which is within the same longitude as Mongolia goes south of Mongolia (meaning that we are going from Hsinking to Moscow through China).
In this case, the distance between Moscow and Manchuria is almost 4.2 times the distance between Moscow and Germany.
Game: land zones between Berlin and Moscow, land zones between Hsinking and Moscow
World War II Classic: 2, 2
World War II Revised: 3, 3
World War II v3: 3, 4 (but 5 north of Mongolia)
World War II v4: 3, 3
World War II v5: 3, 3 (but 4 north of Mongolia)
World War II v6: 2, 2
Europe - Alpha: 3, -
World War II Global 1940: 4, 6 (but 7 north of Mongolia)
WW2 Pact to Victory: 4, 7
Big World*: 4, 8
Big World 2*: 5, 8
Global War: 4, 5
Global War 2: 3, 7
Iron War**: 3, 9 (but 11 south of Mongolia)
Ultimate World: 5, 6
Total World War: 6, 8
World At War***: 7, 10
New World Order: 8, -
*I've considered Hsinking being in Chosen.
**I've considered Hsinking being in Hsinking even though the game gives Ryojun but not Hsinking as a capital of Japan (but this makes for a weird comparison: it would be like having a game in which the capital of Germany is in Koenigsberg instead of in Berlin).
***I've considered Hsinking being in Changchun despite the fact that this zone is clearly out of place.
As it can be seen from the data, considering that the distance is approximately the number of land zones in between plus one, "Iron War" (by @Frostion) is the game coming closer to real distances.
In this game, Hsinking-Moscow is 10/4=2.5 the Berlin-Moscow distance. Moreover, this is also the only game depicting the fact that going from Hsinking to Moscow is considerably shorter a route if you go around Mongolia to the north instead of to the south of it. The optimal path actually comprises going through the easternmost territory of Mongolia, which, again, is consistent with the real world shortest air-path at least.
An argument for keeping Manchuria close to Moscow may be that otherwise Japan is less impactful on Russia, so the Americans and others are driven always to go 100% Atlantic only on Germany (because it is more impactful than affecting a more distant Japan), leaving the Pacific and the Indian Oceans (likely about half of the map) completely or largely unused.
Is the Pacific doomed to see little or no warfare if Japan is relatively very far away from Moscow and the other Russian productive territories (beside making completely non-sensical situations like having an other capital in the middle of Siberia like in World At War)?
Schulz last edited by Schulz
"Russia" territory in vX series not only represent Moscow, it represent all the areas between Moscow and Ural Mountains
v3 actually proved that Manchuria-Moscow distance can be increased but in the expense of making Japan incredibly strong to keep game balance. It actually changed nothing since it is still amost always better to go Atlantic only as USA. Plus there is still no reason to not attack Russia and Japan and take almost all Siberia.
If there is a Hawaiian factory and Germany can be reasonably countered without USA (like in Big World or WaW), a Pacific war is a guarantee thing but expense of (unhistorically) lack of significant US presence in Europe. But we would still have no two ocean going USA. It is easy to make Pacific an active front, hardest thing is making the actual US approach in WWII (%80 Atlantic-%20 Pacific) is a good choice rather than going only Atlantic and Pacific.
I think the issue is actually based on having naval units too expensive compared to ground units and lack of more defense oriented sea units hence making a Pacific war worthless investment as USA.