Quote:
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.