@regularkid, @WindowWasher
Two points:
#1 – I am not sure why there is a concern about Russia. One of the things I like about this PtV map, versus the OOB map, is Moscow is further away from German territory which means the ability for Germany to steamroll Moscow is pretty much removed. However, the counter to that is Russia is further from Germany too if Germany decides to go for Sealion.
Accounting for two things a) Germany does a 50% Naval build on G1 to set the groundwork for Sealion and b) removing ground losses for France/Yugoslavia and ground units targeted for Sealion there are still 36 German ground units within 2 spaces of the Russian border. At the end of R1 there are also 36 Russian ground units within 2 spaces of the German border. The bulk of the Russian units coming from Moscow are 5 Turns away from the border. Germany, starting on Turn 3, the same Turn they take London, are dropping in up to 20 units a Turn via Germany and Western Germany. Russia has at most 16 and 10 of those are much farther away. Therefore, Germany should easily be able to hold the Russians at the border as long as they have a money advantage. This does not take into consideration the discrepancy between German air power over Russian air power.
Assuming Germany has all of their original territory plus Finland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, France, Normandy, Southern France, London and Scotland; Germany is collecting $65 without a single Russian territory under German control. That allows them to build up to 60 slow moving ground units no problem. Russia with all of its original territory would be collecting $55 which would make it difficult to build 16 units unless all but 2-3 were slow movers. How does that allow Russia to put pressure on Germany? Add in the German mobile navy force being able to strike at Leningrad and it seems pretty certain to me that Germany is the one that would be able to grab more money by at a minimum trading Russian territory. This does not include anything Italy may bring to the table which should be plenty considering with no UK the Med will fall into Italian hands.
#2 – It is fairly obvious that this game was built to be a long-term money game. Which I appreciate and enjoy very much. One concern with any long-term money game is the possibility of a scripted Rush ending that long-term money game. The example I will give you is the original Pacific game. That was a Victory Points based game to win however there was also a “take a capital” component of victory. The VP game was exciting, strategic, even and fun between two players of comparable skill level. However, the take a capital part of the game ended up being detrimental to the game as a far less skilled player could use a “scripted” plan to try an India Crush and take India. And frankly there was almost nothing the Allied player could do about it. A highly skilled player may be able to take the scripted India Crush down from 60-65% to hopefully 45-50% but the less skilled player could still win a good portion of the time even when in a VP game they would never win. Over time to overcome that India Crush there was $15 added to the India money so they could place 5 more infantry down in defense to lower that India Crush possible chance of success into the teens or lower.
So, when you say “It is only an 82% chance of taking London” I go WHAT? So, any person, fresh off the boat, could have an 82% chance of taking London and very likely winning! That does not seem like a good plan to me if you want to have a long-term strategy game.
