Soviet Campaigns

[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]

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.

[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.