Soviet Campaigns

[Double_Deuce]

I have taken part of the "German Biased" thread and started this one because I thought it needed a fresh start. I quoted Smersh (hope that was ok) to help get the thread rolling.


Smersh said:I guess your right,Mobhack. it could be the lack of very detailed battalion level information, but there are plenty of translated soviet materials, or at least enough information to estimate how battalions would have behaved during some of the more famous battles (most campaigns are probably not 100% historically accurate, but focus more on making it fun to play).


Some of it also has to do with access to topographic maps of the time period. Sure, large operational maps are OK for large unit locations and such BUT if you want to create accurate maps you really need access to detailed maps of the area of about 1:50000 scale. I'm not sure how many are out there and the ones that are have all the info in Russian.

Perhaps if we had some volunteer Russian translators to help out something may get worked on. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Smersh]

This is a good start:

If you have any maps at that scale, I can attempt to translate them.

I'm also getting in touch with dorrach who did the russian steel campign to see if he has any tips for designing for the soviet pov.

I was looking at some Operation 'little saturn'offensive info (took placearound the don/stalingrad area against the italion 8th army in december of 1942), . if we were to model this historically accurate, we would have to have a division sized force in a 2-3km sector. it also talks about 43 gun tubes per km (20 hexes). this is something that has to be addressed.

I'm sure there are plenty of maps of stalingrad at the right scale, a campign could focus on offensive operations to "liquidate" the 6th army stalingrad pocket. hard fighting for both sides here. could be interesting.

[Double_Deuce]

Smersh said:I was looking at some Operation 'little saturn'offensive info (took placearound the don/stalingrad area against the italion 8th army in december of 1942), . if we were to model this historically accurate, we would have to have a division sized force in a 2-3km sector. it also talks about 43 gun tubes per km (20 hexes). this is something that has to be addressed.


Might be hard to do at the SP level. Too many units can overburden the average player. For "playability" best to keep it as manageble as possible for the players. Right now I am looking at a Rifle Battalion as the core force even if that requires smaller maps of maybe 50x50.

Smersh said:I'm sure there are plenty of maps of stalingrad at the right scale, a campign could focus on offensive operations to "liquidate" the 6th army stalingrad pocket. hard fighting for both sides here. could be interesting.


True but . . most everyone that does East Front seems to do Stalingrad stuff. I'm looking at something other than Stalingrad. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Right now I am looking for some different areas and it may take a little time to get together what I need and settle on a particular area/unit, etc.

In any event, thanks for the offer to help translate. Tghis is just at the idea stage so far and will obviously need a lot of work but I think it is do-able.

[Mobhack]

Hmm - thinks - how about some Black Sea/Crimea operations, as then you have the opportunity for water-borne landings. On the Eastern Front, those were rare but did happen.

Cheers
Andy

[narwan]

From the Soviet perspective the fighting to reduce the Kuban bridgehead and the subsequent landings across the Kerch straight would allow for some very interesting scenario's indeed. Off course, it is related to the Stalingrad campaign... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[DRG]

Veliki Luki

Don

[Smersh]

thats one possibility, it could be interesting designing a campign around "the battle of crimea".

-like you said, water-borne landings (nothing like d-day of course, crimea much more shallow then the english channel http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)

-and the liberation, retaking of sevastapol could be interesting.

like double deuce said it could be some time before we narrow down to a particular area.

I think the limiting factor as the "german baised?" general consensus showed would be finding maps and information on the area. not to say certain areas would be "impossible".

[Smersh]

Double_Deuce said:

Smersh said:I was looking at some Operation 'little saturn'offensive info (took placearound the don/stalingrad area against the italion 8th army in december of 1942), . if we were to model this historically accurate, we would have to have a division sized force in a 2-3km sector. it also talks about 43 gun tubes per km (20 hexes). this is something that has to be addressed.


Might be hard to do at the SP level. Too many units can overburden the average player. For "playability" best to keep it as manageble as possible for the players. Right now I am looking at a Rifle Battalion as the core force even if that requires smaller maps of maybe 50x50.



that was my point some battles had very huge concentrations of particulary infantry, a 50x50 map would be around 2.5km, like I said in some instances, a whole division would be fighting in an area that big. although probably not all at once.

but, I agree that it should definetly be kept at a battalion level just for playabily reasons.

[Double_Deuce]

Not sure about others but when I do a campaign I try to concentrate on the telling of a story while still trying to keep the game fun for the player. By the time the campaign ends the player should have grown attached to his "men".

I like my campaigns to be based on history but not necessarily historically accurate, if that makes sense.

[Smersh]

good philosphy

[serg3d]

I'd love Crimea campain. Amphibious tanks in action !
About map - here is what I found on the net. They are not topographics, and not enough resolution, but something to start from.
clickable:
http://travel.kyiv.org/crimea/map/
another clickable
http://209.82.14.226/ua-maps/road-map/page-i08.html

[Smersh]

My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?

edit: are we talking about the crimea in 41 or 44? I personally would perfer 44. the early stages of the war, are always covered, alot less on the later stage. (heroes of the motherland, covers moscow battles in 41, russian steel mostly early war, ends in 43.)

[Double_Deuce]

Smersh said:
My school (university) library apprantly has a huge map collection. I'll give it a visit this week, and see what maps scans or copies I can make. I'm told they have historical maps too. I'll check out the crimea area, any other particular areas I should look into?


I would search for any topo's at 1:50000 scale and make a list on some paper. Then see what battle/historical info you can find on those areas. This way you can see what you have to work with and pick from that. Then the fun part begins . . .

[Smersh]

I havan't had a chance to check look at the maps yet, but here is some other info I found.

dealing with the invasion of manchuria in 45, this is also a something that isn't covered at all, and it could actually make use of the new Manchokou nation.

tactical level info (this includes alot of detailed maps, could be useful in map design)
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp
strategic level info
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

if people want to cover lesser known areas, and not focus on more famous battles: stalingrad, kursk. Then this I think is a good candidate. paratroopers were used extensively, could be interesting.

edit: here is another peice of info, on tactical defense, prior and during kursk. (it includes regimental and battalion defense diagrams)
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/glantz2.pdf

[Charles22]

Isn't the '45 Manchurian attack one of the USSR attacking Japanese units? Some might find that interesting, but it's sure a very lopsided battle. There the IJA had to put up with their worst nightmare, that is a nation who didn't care that much about losses, whom had some of the best tanks.

[Smersh]

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.

[Charles22]

Smersh said:

japanese and manchuko units.

when your playing as the german army attacking poland is that not also "lopsided"?

also both sides had nearly equal amount of men in the area: the combined japanese, manchuko armies where over 1 million men, and 1000 tank (yes, japanese ones), yes the tank forces were not equal, but a campign could focus on the infantry aspects, paratroop landing, limited tank breathrough.,since only one tank army operated during the campign in a relatevly isolated area. Not only that but the japanese defense was no push-over either.

I don't know what the comment about "who didn't care that much about losses" is about

But this is just one possibilty for a campign.



Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either. Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan? It's not even close. Poland is quite a bit stronger than it was in previous SPWW2's. Most of the Polish guns can now slice through the German armor, to say nothing of the extra effective 75mm HOW the Poles were using to destroy some of them. The Japanese basically have nothing to stop Soviet armor. Someone can build the game if they want, but I'm trying to tell you the game won't even be close if representing history in any way.

At least with Poland in that first battle I got only a marginal victory, but I had to walk on glass to keep from having tremendous losses. I guess if I knew in advance that the artillery I had would obliterate everything, and that none of it would counter-fire, I would have came out much better (I'm not saying the counter-fire is broken for Germany, but I sure had it firing in the previous version of SPWW2 [probably too much]).

As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions. Now, in reality, I don't think much of the USSR attitude towards the survivability of their men was "very" excessive, but you have to pit that attitude against the other Japanese opponents. The USA and Britain, for example, were VERY sensitive to losses, way too much so in my opinion. When the Japanese mindset was to hope that causing high losses would cause enemies to sue for peace, they couldn't hope for that with the USSR, because though the USSR was growing tired of the war, and the losses hurt, they just weren't as sensitive as the western powers to losses, which with those nations was all they could hope for. You couldn't hope the USSR populace would overthrow the government due to high losses in other words.

From the Russia at War book I have, the Japanese suffered 80,000 dead in Manchuria compared to 8,000 USSR dead, not even counting the losses due to captured equipment. That doesn't sound like a very good IJ army. Buy then the emporer had already surrendered to the allies and the IJA surrendered in Manchuria shortly after their own army command surrendered too.

In any event, I think I've presented a strong enough case of '45 Manchuria being a very lopsided battle, and since it was that then besides all the other reasons you've heard about lack of USSR scenarios, that is the main reason for not having that one. I mean, the thing was over in like 3 days, right? How could that be representative of a quality USSR battle? If I were doing 100 USSR scenarios, that wouldn't even make it. If I even bothered it would only be because of the uniqueness of the battle being so one-sided.

[Smersh]

I did say this was just one possibility, the amphibous operations, the paratrooper use, the interesting terrain features, etc. would make it a fun campign.



Oh come on Smersh, Japan was basically Poland in 1945; it's barely comparable and the Germans weren't with T34/85's and JS-III's either.


If you look at the materials I provided it shows that equipment was not the cause of the lopsidedness (I do agree that it was lopsided), but superior tactics and the same reasons why germany was successful in poland and france. Also I already pointed out the scenarios wouldn't be tank heavy, and this is historically possible to do.



Heck, I played Poland just a little while back and had just as many of my AFV's destroyed as he did (like 18 to 19). Think you can kill USSR armor at that rate as Japan?


how many historical campigns have u played with poland fighting germany in pitched tank to tank battles?


As far as "didn't care much about losses" the USSR histroy is rife with throwing men away as cannon-fodder, such as clearing minefields with penal battalions.


this has nothing to do with the manchurain operations, and lets not get into a big discussion over this. taking only 8,000 casualties out a force of 1.5 million men for the whole of manjuria isn't a example of not caring for lives, in comparison the USA lost 6,000 men out of a 30,000 man force on iwo jima.

I understand its not perfect charles22 but it is a possible possibility http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. however being the first red army campign, it should probably deal with a better known more famous aspect of the war. my personal feeling are something involving kursk or stalingrad, but I'll go along with group consensus.

[Charles22]

Smersh:
how many historical campigns have u played with poland fighting germany in pitched tank to tank battles?



This wasn't a pitched tank-to-tank battle. You need only look at the statistics for the prmiary Pole tanks to see they're at least the equal to the German ones, but, then, as I said, I think the Polish armor is too good here. I'm not sure if you're comparing the German/Polish actions of the previous SPWW2, this version, or history. I just wanted to point out that as far as AFV losses they playe dme even. There were maybe 18 Polish tanks total in my batlte, and I had between 35-40 tanks, but there never was much of a conflict between them if that means anything. I took most of my tank losses to 75mm HOW's and most of the rest from infantry or ATG's. I may had suffered one or two losses from the tanks. Their tanks were generally better (with the exception of somewhat inferior experience) but they just got in at me piecemeal against not only the tanks but somoe of my infatry as well. I'm trying to point out this is a better Polish opponent.

The real life Poles lasted a month, while the Japanese lasted I think it was 3 days agsinst the USSR. Sure the Japanese had consdierably different circumstances, but I see no evidence that Poland got off so poorly compared to the '45 Manchuria. Heck, Poland was even attacked by the Germans -and- the USSR, and still lasted longer.

To answer your question directly, though, quite a few times I've been in tank battles Poland through both this game's earlier versions and SPWAW. Poland is much better is this version.


this has nothing to do with the manchurain operations, and lets not get into a big discussion over this. taking only 8,000 casualties out a force of 1.5 million men for the whole of manjuria isn't a example of not caring for lives, in comparison the USA lost 6,000 men out of a 30,000 man force on iwo jima.

I understand its not perfect charles22 but it is a possible possibility . however being the first red army campign, it should probably deal with a better known more famous aspect of the war. my personal feeling are something involving kursk or stalingrad, but I'll go along with group consensus.



The USSR taking only 8,000 dead is NOT a statement on how little they cared for their men. Read it again. It was a statement on proving just how lopsided that operation was for the USSR and how bad that game would play if representing such results (8,000 dead compared to 80,000). Mentioning the cannon-fodder penal battalions WAS some of the proof that they cared little for their men. I was trying to make two seperate points. Japan knows that causing large losses to the USSR will not result in problems for the USSR government, as well as the USSR having VASTLY superior equipment it was an easy decision to surrender; that makes it a lousy battle. Why not Kursk for USSR battles? Why not Rostov? Why not Sevastopol? Why not the Caucasas? So many battles hugely better than against a far overmatched opponent. I won't bother you anymore about that.

As far as comparing the USA to the USSR, and then trying to switch that into the USA not caring for lives because, I guess, their ratio of loss is greater than the USSR Manchurian battles, only backs my point the more. Wasn't I saying how the USSR's caring less for their men worked as a strength against Japan? Read the strategy of Japan I discussed earlier. You give USA greater losses. Why? Because you can affect their government that way (see Vietnam for further proof). You didn't see IJ surredering to the USA or GB for that very reason. You surrender to the USSR in droves (somehow saving face was forgotten about) not only because inflicting losses on them has very little effect, but also because their army, or more specifically their tanks were at least twice as good in kind and number compared to the other allies. You want to see a greater indication of the extreme differences that Japan had towards the USA/GB and the USSR? Consider that not only were the kamekazis being thrown against the western allies, but that they also had every intention on defending their home islands as they did all those other islands, only far worse. They had 5,350 kamekazi planes stored away in "underground" airfields (I doubt all of them were underground) alongside alongside 5,350 in the standard military role (the US had 9,000 planes). They had 2,300,000 troops with 28,000 civilian volunteers, compared to 650,000 allied troops. The allies had 131 surface ships while IJ had 19 destroyers and 3,300 special kamikaze attack craft (probably PT boat sort of thing). They got all this extra things by denuding the Chinese Front a lot, so Japan was even weaker there than she had normally been. One of the primary reasons the USSR did so well other than what I mentioned, was because IJ were totally surprised that the USSR would attack them. The commander of the allied forces for Olympic was so overwhelmed by the destruction of the kamikaze aircraft (in FAR fewer numbers than an invasion of the IJ homeland would bring) that that made his mind up to not attack the mainland and hope the bomb would do the trick (the kamikazes sank 30 ships off Okinawa and damaged over a hundred more). From what I've come up with I doubt the allies had any idea just how many kamikaze aircraft were awaiting them in numbers should they invade, simply because that was part of the Japanese strategy, to not get very many shot down and useless and just send smaller raids instead, in order to give the appearance that their air force was beaten totally (though Okinawa was the largest attacks of the war - see here:


21 Oct44 Two planes with volunteers flew from the Philippines to attack US carriers.
23-26 Oct44. Off Leyte, 55 Kamikaze pilots, in the first planned mass suicide attacks of the war, coordinated with the IJN attack on Leyte Gulf, hit the escort carriers and sank the St. Lo (CVE-63) and damaged the large escorts Sangamon (CVE-26), Suwannee (CVE-27), Santee (CVE-29), and small escorts White Plains, Kalinin Bay, and Kitkun Bay. In all, 7 carriers were hit and 40 other types damaged; five ships were sunk, 23 heavily damaged, and 12 moderate damage.
25Mar45-21Jun45. Off Okinawa -- Ten "Kikusui", swarms of Kamikaze, up to 350 attackers at a time, 1,900 in total, damaged 250 ships with 34 destroyers and smaller ships sunk. Several ships were damaged so badly they were not repaired. One in seven of all naval causalities occurred off Okinawa.
3,500 naval planes and an additional 1,500 army planes are hidden on Kyushu for the "final battle" and just as many for orthodox use; once suicide planes were used up, the orthodox pilots would become Kamikazes. This is a number sufficient to sink or damage 1,000 ships of an invading fleet.



The above was pulled from here: http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

[Smersh]

ok, no manchuria campign then, but I would like to see what others say about this one. just to correct a few points, the fighting lasted a week, not 3 days (not a big difference but just of accuracy). don't put all the blame on the japanese tanks, its no small feat to attack an area the size of western europe, under horrible terrian and weather conditions.

I still think though, that the built up terrian and swampy terrian will make for interesting infantry fights. there was considerable fighting too, 80,000 men dying in one week is not a picnic. a similar campign I would point to that has a similar lopsidedness, but is still fun is the invasion of norway campign in spwaw.

my statement about the "not caring for lives" was saying that it had nothing to do with the manchurian campign. did u see penal battalions or "cannon-fodder" tactics?


Why not Kursk for USSR battles? Why not Rostov? Why not Sevastopol? Why not the Caucasas? So many battles hugely better than against a far overmatched opponent.



I agree.

[Charles22]

Okay.


my statement about the "not caring for lives" was saying that it had nothing to do with the manchurian campign. did u see penal battalions or "cannon-fodder" tactics?



Well, yes, I would imagine that there were no penal battalions used in that way there, but, you don't establish the enemy's attitude toward his own losses the hour he's attacking you. No, Japan doubtlessly knew about it from the USSR's treatment of their own people when fighting the Germans and so forth before that.

You just need look at the much earlier communist revolution to see the same attitude. Also Stalin's purging of the generals after that didn't exactly speak of warmth towards themselves. The persecution of the church wasn't exactly very brotherly either (which only came back because Stalin needed an angle to try to get people to feel like they had something worth defending). Many were perfectly happy to get anybody invading them, just as long as it rid them of the communist tyranny they faced. Unfortunately for them the invaders might be just as bad or worse.

[Smersh]

I think the japanese thought more about how they were defeated in 39 then about the politics of the USSR. and Also before the invasion Japan still played around with the idea of surrendering to the USSR, hoping for better treatment (consessions) then the USA would have offered. The biggist shock was not that their being invaded by an enemy who "doesn't care about lives" but that their plan A was down the drain.

again, lets not argue about this anymore it has nothing to do with soviet campigns. I do want to say, that those examples u mention are durign very depseprate times, of course if there was enough trained men available things would not have happened that way, and the purges are actions of a criminal with very limited justification.

again lets drop this whole subject, and move on to other possible campigns. other people can discuss the manchuria campign if they want.

[Charles22]

I think the japanese thought more about how they were defeated in 39 then about the politics of the USSR. and Also before the invasion Japan still played around with the idea of surrendering to the USSR, hoping for better treatment (consessions) then the USA would have offered. The biggist shock was not that their being invaded by an enemy who "doesn't care about lives" but that their plan A was down the drain.



I agree with a lot of that, but I can't help but notice the difference between their attitudes fighting the US and the USSR. Sure them getting beaten by the USSR before made them weary to some extent, and though there were a lot of bad things going on for them, to have the mindset they did, to always be the attacker and so forth, probably really broke their morale, what was left of it, when the myth was shattered by being attacked massively themselves on land.

Sure the US was taking it to them in small doses, despite them getting into mainland bomber range in so doing, but those were fairly minor losses in men and equipment if you look at it in that somewhat myopic way. I just think their attitude about saving face was fine and good when they faced nations that could at least be held at arm's length by dishing out heavy losses to those enemies, but when they fought the USSR it was an entirely different matter. The USSR, as far as Japan knew, was definitely into taking over land and subjugating it as many knew, and would later show to be more true. In my mind it's not so much their losing to the USSR that scares them, though that is a good sized reason, because if anything they were weaker and the USSR was stronger, but it had alot more to do with the USSR mindset; ruthless, and willing to take losses without blinking an eye. It also didn't help matters that the USSR was the third MAJOR nation ganging up on them. We could see that they planned to invade Siberia in '42, but the German failure in 12/41 made them drop that. In other words, they didn't think they could succeed against the USSR unless someone was aiding them. Frankly the whole attack at Pearl Harbor looks to me to have played to that same philosophy. The basic idea being, that as long as the Germans are going to be at war with that nation, then we will too, but they didn't want to be at war alone with another major nation. It would've been interesting to see what Japan would have done after Pearly Harbor if Hitler didn't honor the pact and didn't declare war on the USA.

I guess those are my last comments on Manchuria and the Japanese/USSR mindset.

[Smersh]

I just don't like the idea of "don't care for lives", of course they did, what else where they supposed to do surrender? They were fighting in a war of annhailation. you think people where okay with their fathers and sons dying? oh were the big scary soviet horde we don't care about lives. keep in mind 'enemy at the gates' is a movie.

those are my final comments. lets use this thread only for soviet campign related posts.

[Charles22]

No Smersh. I stated earlier that they had less regard, but not totally no regard for their men, then the western nations. I clarified that later, and if you think with all those examples of not caring a whole lot for the lives of their men, like throwing men massively at machine-gun posts, and all the other reasons I gave, there's nothing that can convince you.

The communists murdered close to as many people, a lot of after the war too, as the Nazis did, and as they were running the government during WWII. It's easy to say, that at least the communists had little regard for their people's lives (or technically less than the westerm powers [excepting Germany] did). I'm sure a lot of non-communists valued life far batter than many a western person did, simply because they saw how easily their relatives could be enslaved or murdered because of their government, but unfortunately they weren't the ones that were manning the NKVD and other such nice people to make sure they did as they were told.

Later.

[Double_Deuce]

Smersh said:
those are my final comments. lets use this thread only for soviet campign related posts.


I agree. The political debate needs to go somewhere else, another site or at least to another thread. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Were talking ideas and where to get information for Soviet related user campaigns.

On that note, what about the fighting around Leningrad?

[serg3d]

Double_Deuce said:
On that note, what about the fighting around Leningrad?


Mostly flat terrain with a lot of forests and swamps, not a best landscape for interesting battles. No landing operations too. Crimea as suggested, or Caucasus defence/offence - that's what I'd prefer.

[PatG]

Smersh said:
I havan't had a chance to check look at the maps yet, but here is some other info I found.

dealing with the invasion of manchuria in 45, this is also a something that isn't covered at all, and it could actually make use of the new Manchokou nation.

tactical level info (this includes alot of detailed maps, could be useful in map design)
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp
strategic level info
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
<snip>




I have been reading these and despite Charles22's valid observations there might be a Russian campaign buried in there.

[Smersh]

okay, I have checked the map repository.
They have a sporadic collection of maps at 1:50,000 scale of the western soviet union between I was told 1920-50.

Here are the locations I noted, that they have.

Crimea: -northern area around sevastapol, not the city itself
-Eastern area of the crimean peninsula, and the northern -crimean land bridge area. none anywhere else in the crimea.

Kursk:
-the city of kursk, and the near immediate area around the city.
-Belgorod area, Kharkov area also.
- Don river area, quite extensively.
Rostov:
-large part of the Rostov area
Ukraine:
-large part of southern ukraine, quite extensive but sporiadic.
Everything else:
again very spordiac everywhere else, almost nothing of the northern soviet union, no coverage of moscow, only some tiny areas of the leningrad district.

edit: I didn't check anything of manchuria, but in general china seemed to be covered well, from what I saw in passing.

[Charles22]

Oh, I wasn't saying that one couldn't do a campaign on '45 Manchuria, in fact I've seen some, but what I was saying is that it makes for a pretty poor one if you find some way to really reflect what happened. Fun for the USSR and pretty dismal for the Japanese.

[Smersh]

its a campign from the soviet POV, why would we make if fun for the japanese???

[serg3d]

Japanise practically had no tanks, and what they have was not on par with russians. They also had no proper AT guns. So to make campain challangeable you will have to fight hordes of infantry and cavalry. Probably wouldn't be fun.

[PatG]

Charles22 said:
Oh, I wasn't saying that one couldn't do a campaign on '45 Manchuria, in fact I've seen some, but what I was saying is that it makes for a pretty poor one if you find some way to really reflect what happened. Fun for the USSR and pretty dismal for the Japanese.



My apologies - I was working from the assumption that the player would be Russian and the AI Japanese. About the only way it would work with a Japanese player would be to create a whole series of delay actions with one or two defends.

If one did go for a Manchurian campaign, you would have to put some pretty tight turn limits on the Russian player.

[Charles22]

Smersh said:
its a campign from the soviet POV, why would we make if fun for the japanese???



I just keep thinking in terms of 'scenarios' when I see these scripted campaigns, as such I imagine that you could play either side. Besides, I was still talking from the point-of-view that the battles themselves were a bad mis-match, such that even the dominant side might not like it.

[Charles22]

I didn't understand that nobody could play the Japanese side. A bad game for the AI nonetheless.

[PatG]

serg3d said:
Japanise practically had no tanks, and what they have was not on par with russians. They also had no proper AT guns. So to make campain challangeable you will have to fight hordes of infantry and cavalry. Probably wouldn't be fun.



I would go with fairly light Japanese forces, much less than the normal points ratios, but limit the turns severely forcing the human player to properly think out a battle plan. The campaign was as much about superb Russian planning as Japanese weakness.

I suspect that it would be harder to balance than most campaigns. Good use of branching could make the campaign a real bear. If you don't go fast, the Japanese regain their balance, dig in and start working on your lines of communication...

The upside is that the Russian can use Shermans and old BT fast tanks. With three fronts each with different terrain you can pretty much pick your favourite ground - desert to mountain - it's all there.

[Smersh]

Again this is just one possibility, no one said "yes, we're definetly doing it on the manchurian offensive". and I would really like some of you to read some of the info I provided before making comments about the manchuria campign.

[Double_Deuce]

Were are mainly just focusing on what would be a good theme for a user created campaign using the Soviets (particularly one that hasn't been done). We could probably come up with several if we can manage to get good OOB, maps and other detailed data. Preferably early to mid war would be the best (IMHO). My particular intersts are;
The early fighting in Besserabia,
The fighting around Moscow (41/42),
The early fighting to retake the Kerch Penninsula (41/42) by amphib invasion,
The fighting to cutoff and take Leningrad.

[Smersh]

I don't have anything negative to say about those campign themes. but is there a reason why you prefer something in the early stages of the war? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

[Radetzky]

dear fellow gamers

following the proposals made by D_D,

1. i'd go for operation typhoon and the ensuing russian
counteroffensive in december '41, thus concentrating on
an early soviet offensive with fresh, properly equipped
troops. how about siberian ski troops as core elements?

2. whatever the outcome, i'd be glad to help you out on any
german translations and/or research needed

good gaming
jan

[Double_Deuce]

I like the earlier equipment, before the Soviets have loads of heavy tanks and it became more of a war of attrition where you just grind the Axis forces down. Not that they had it any easier facing Panthers and Tigers. I just prefer the period their backs were against the wall and the final outcome was in doubt (from a player perspective).

For me, commanding a company of JS's gets boring as the campaign wear's on. It becomes more a situation where you just pound the axis into submission as opposed to having to rely on recon, maneuver and sneakiness to beat them.

[Radetzky]

that's the point imho: putting the final outcome in doubt. we all now how the war went on after germany invaded russia,
but it's the vague possibility of "what if" that keeps a campaign game interesting. what if i can't hold these heights overlooking a vital crossing?
what if i fail breaking up that armoured assault? will moscow fall because of me?

[Smersh]

for me the early war period is already covered by at least 2 campigns for spwaw. Kursk on the other hand has not been covered from the soviet pov, and was also a battle where the outcome was in doubt. not only that but it could make for some very interesting tank engagements, and defensive battles.

edit: although I think the leningrad operations are also interesting material.

[PatG]

I rather enjoyed the Stug campaign. I like the Suchka so how about something similar based on the SU-76?

[Smersh]

They were definetly used extensively enough, and with rifle battalions to make something like that possible.

[Smersh]

a site pointed out by groszdix, that has alot of good maps.

(http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps.htm)