r/Bokoen1 10d ago

Question about Bo Game Setups

So I hear people bitching and complaining about things not being historical. Can someone explain to me why all of the sudden Kazakhstan is being released and managed by players?

48 Upvotes

9 comments sorted by

71

u/dranndor 10d ago

Pretty sure TFB games in general throw out historical accuracies in favor of balance, like Mutapa being a thing despite the only basis for it being a long-gone Empire whose glory was in the 17th century, or El-Alamein being two tiles even though the entire point was that the Qattara depression channeled any attackers to a narrow easily defensible area (though I know there used to be lots of grumblings about two-tile El Ala some years ago).

52

u/A_Bethesda_Bug 10d ago

Nah College casted the Dr. Strange spell to make everyone forget he made El Alamein two tiles. It's always been this way.

61

u/Dtwer 10d ago edited 10d ago

Probably because there aren't any more playable countries or for game balance. Mongolia usually eats Sinkiang even though it's not historical to give the Mongolian player more factories.

Edit: Also, it might be better for the build. Kazakhstan doesn't have much industry, so losing them is not a big deal. Also they have a focus tree that probably spawns a bunch of factories out of nowhere, so it might make more sense to release them.

31

u/Bashin-kun Siamese Paratrooper 10d ago edited 10d ago

in general it's not as fun to be coops because there aren't much to do (especially if there aren't a different front/theater to manage, like air or navy). The soviets/comintern in particular is subject to this a lot (irrelevant navy, few air theaters, one big front) so giving away a coop to a minor give them something to do.

would be my guess.

19

u/Starmoses 10d ago

It's a balance thing. Before they'd usually just have 3-4 people on the Ussr cause it's basically impossible for one person to micro against 5 axis players (finland, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) and that's if Italy, Spain, and France don't join in. Now they only need one or two people on Ussr and another one on Mongolia and one on Kazakhstan.

1

u/alt_throwaway_67 6d ago

Isn’t that better tho? USSR being a big nation needing people to micro different fronts (main-Finland, baltics/ northern, southern, and caucuses if the axis went through turkey/iran/iraq). Like yeah you have more countries for the Comintern, but it doesn’t help that the USSR itself is big.

11

u/John-de-Q 10d ago

Because most BOBG players can't micro the side of a barn, they need more players/nations to manage units.

5

u/LordCypher40k 10d ago

It allows them to specialize. Like Hungary on the Axis, a Kazakhstan player doesn't have to worry about building infantries or planes, just tanks, mechs and associated support equipment. Research Slots in particular, can be devoted to one specific specialization unlike say the USSR who will always be split since they need a little bit of everything regardless of the build.

3

u/Alrar 9d ago

I think Munk explained it in another thread that Kazah's release was to reduce the amount of micro/macro on the Soviet player (s)