Thanks, thats what i thought. Although i had some daughts about Yugoslavia.

@larrymarx:

@kcdzim:

I’d prefer a solution were russia is required abide the cease fire regardless of war in europe , but allow Japan to break it whenever they please (which still doesn’t cause war with the other axis powers).  Russia just has to make sure it will be costly for Japan, which is precisely what they did with the far east forces.

How about doing this but also allowing Russia to break the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact if Japan chooses to attack early?

The game already favors the allies.  Allowing Russia to preemptively strike isn’t helpful for balance on the Europe side.  However, barring russia from attacking japan first, under any circumstance, probably means Japan won’t bother with russia at all with no need to garrison and will focus on china first, while positioning for the J3 assault which matches far more closely the way AAP40 plays (where russia isn’t available to attack, and won’t attack Japan).

the 18 infantry already is pretty good about giving Japan pause on J1.  J2, it becomes more feasable, but even then Russia can back away and just leave the shorelines open, giving up minimal value.  I just don’t buy that Russia needs more freedom to attack.  While Stalin was of the mind of striking when either axis was vulnerable, the player is NOT the Stalin, and some safeguards like restricted declarations have to be in place so that the game can be balanced.  Otherwise it’s not 1940, it’s 1942.

In my perfect world:

A) Russia cannot attack or enter ORIGINAL UK or US territories ever.  Russia just shouldn’t be in India.  or the UK.  They can take Persia, they can take neutrals, and they can conquer ORIGINAL axis territories to their hearts content.  And even though it’s unlikely, they can help in France.  Frankly, if Russia is in position to take a european french territory, the game is either over, or has gone pearshaped, but this way they can get a token Syria.

B)UK & US units cannot enter ORIGINAL Russian territories ever.  If they do, they are removed (thus cannot defend), a marker takes their place, and Russia has the option to purchase that equiv unit during their purchase phase at half price rounded up (this is lend lease/pilot internment).

C) Russia can attack & control any neutral it pleases at start of game.  No neutral is friendly to Russia - they will all be combat moves, and they will always defend, even if Pro Ally.  Unless strict neutrals are changed to affect regions (unlikely), same rules as OOB for strict neutrals.

D) Russia cannot attack Japan until Berlin falls or Japan declares war on them.  They cannot enter China until at war with Japan (historically, they were still aiding china after the Cease fire in '39, but stopped after the Pact in 41.  However, since the Tigers weren’t in China until 41 (essentially taking over for the russian air group), the single fighter can be abstracted to be considered the Russian air group at the beginning of the game

E) OOB political rules for Italy/Germany.

You misunderstand my post - there are only ever four powers, with the neutrals acting just like OOB, but with different alignments.

It really should be:

1939- June 1941 Four Power game (Allies[UK & F], Axis[G & I], USSR, Japan)

Becomes three power game after June 1941 (i.e. USSR joins the Allies)

Becomes two power game after December 1941 (Japan joins the Axis)

It’s reasonable to assume that the USA only ever joins the Allies, and that (before June 1940) Italy only ever joins the Axis.  The position of China is tricky, since we don’t want to exclude the possibility of an Allied/Japanese alliance, but where does that leave China - a neutral that the other powers (i.e. not Japan) can send aid to without it being a DOW on Japan?

i think it is a great idea larry.

it helps balance the game by making it easier for axis to win and it has the added benefit of helping to reduce all usa cash being diverted against one axis power.

for those worrying about realism, there is plenty to worry about, but this is just as realistic as any other rule.

I’ve been thinking about this topic and I came up with a rule for France’s surrender that’s fairly simple and would give some extra options for the Axis. Here it is:

Puppet States

When the capital of any minor power is captured, the invading player may elect to establish the conquered power as a puppet state instead of incorporating the territory into its own. The “minor powers” are France, Italy and Australia.

When a minor power becomes a puppet state, it switches sides and joins the opposing alliance. It immediately regains control of all territory previously conquered by its former enemies and returns control of all territory it has conquered to its former enemies. It loses all money in its treasury. This money is not plundered and may not be spent by any power. The puppet state retains control of all of its units in land belonging to it or its former enemies. If it has units stationed in territory that belongs to a former ally, such units are absorbed by the former ally and become units of the same type belonging to the appropriate power. If any former allies have units in the puppet state’s territory, those units become invading units and the resulting battles are fought immediately in a special combat round. These units may not retreat unless they are air units. Naval units grouped with newly hostile navies are treated as new purchases deployed into hostile waters.

After this process has been completed, the puppet state now operates normally except it has switched to the opposing side and the player who established the puppet state now controls it. If a former ally of the puppet state is able to take its capital territory, the capital is considered conquered and not liberated. The former ally has the option of repeating the puppet state process and returning the power to its original alliance, in which case the original player controlling that power now regains control of it. The puppet state option does not go away and may be repeated indefinitely by the two alliances as they conquer and reconquer the capital territory of the minor power.

Because the capital territory never switches control during a puppet state conversion, major factories are not reduced to minor factories. National objectives still apply for the puppet state. When reading these rules, replace any instances of the term “Allies” or “Allied” with “Axis” and vice versa. The only exception to this is France’s national objective. The one-time bonus of four infantry is never available to Axis powers when they conquer or liberate Paris and is awarded to France even if being converted back into an Ally through the puppet state process.

It just occurred to me that it’s possible, if very unlikely, for a literal draw to occur, meaning a situation in which neither side has the ability to win according to the game’s rules.

If every capital in the game is taken by the opposing alliance, then no one has won but all sides have lost the ability to continue producing units. China doesn’t matter because their units are incapable of achieving Allied victory conditions due to ACME walls. If this occurs and all existing land units are destroyed or isolated due to loss of transports, then no side could possibly win because no side could conquer any new territory. Such a game would undoubtedly be a thing of legend.

Got pretty lucky on dice for China.  They are down to 5 Inf co-defending with 3 UK Inf and 2 UK Tanks on the last hold before an easy march to India.  Plan is to hit India on an amphip assault next turn.  Should be possible if the dice go my way.

I agree with the Axis, especially Japan controlling the flow of the game right from the beginning.

However England and India are my favorite in this one. In it and overmatched right from the beginning, I love it when both are the crippling thorn in the Axis rear.

Been checking the FAQ and it seems to say that Iceland is indeed part of Europe.

@Flashman:

I was thinking of adding a “Persian Corridor” around here along the lines of the Burma Road.  Being able to use the Caspian would be vital in this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

In our game, the US player moved 4-5 ftr from Persia to Moscow, and inconsciously he remade the history :-)

It’s a fine strategy for the US to take Persia for himself and build there a minor complex to send reinforcements in Russia, and it’s historically accurate.

@the:

:-D Thanks Calvin, I was looking at the thread AAG40 Setup Pictures (Larry’s Alpha setup) topic 20511.0 it was started by you .

I see. Why is it hard to figure out? I used no chips and it’s not like in Europe where you can’t tell how many inf are in one German tt as opposed to another

@Krieghund:

Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!

i will glad to see it in the next faq, because this “new” Japan is a bit weak. i think this new NO is a good point between historical accuracy and balancing. I hope that will be approved by LH.

well i might have exaggerated my experience.
i have not played nova or bulge. but i have read many peoples opinions that they are unbalanced.

with my experience of euro40 and global40(with alpha) allies have advantage.

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

@calvinhobbesliker:

@gamerman01:

@special:

If i remember correct, even a lone AA stops a blitz

Or a lone minor complex, or a lone major complex, or a lone naval base, or a lone air base……  :-)

All of those have to be lone.

Whaaaa??  It’s not like you can blitz through a territory with a complex, air base, and naval base.  Your comment makes no sense.

I meant that you can’t have a naval base that’s not “lone”(similar for others) since you can’t have more than one naval base in a territory

Dude, “lone” means that’s the only thing in the territory!

I was using the definition that lone naval base means it’s the only naval base in the territory. Thus, every naval base is lone

@Krieghund:

This should probably be addressed in the FAQ, as the intent was that those general rules should apply.

Should definitely!  :-)

Well you admit to Bad Play on the part of U.K. so the case is closed.  Regardless of what had to go right for the Germans.

And no, resources don’t HAVE to be built to deal with the Japanese Navy, but the reality is 100% of the USA’s income is going into the atlantic, thereby relieving NO pressure on Germany.

A Jap navy with transports off the east coast of the U.S. or threatening australia however, would divert that 100%.  Sending a useless navy to South America was a poor decision in this game. Hinsight or not.

A transport must be escorted for its entire move in order to be exempt from sub attacks.  In case 1, the battleship escorts both transports to sea zone B, then leaves one at its destination and continues with the other to sea zone C.

In case 2, the transport going to C is not escorted because it made part of its move without the battleship.  They were not traveling together, therefore they are separate groups.  They just happened to be in sea zone B at the same time.

In order for a warship to be considered an escort, it must be dedicated to that task, not just be in the same sea zone.  This dedication is indicated by the fact that the warship accompanied the transport for the transport’s entire move.

Loved the Video… Great job!

G5 is possible, but not with a G1 attack.

Japan can occupie russian terretories behind china in G4 and take 4 IPCs from the far east, without leaving too much planes in Japan/Mandschuria.

Sea Lion is not an option. Russia grows too big.

You are right! A combined attack on Russia is my favourite solution, too.

G5 or G6 for capturing Moskau is realistic.

We call this tactic “Panzerwalze”. :-D

Ok, I looked everywhere but the dialog box.  Shame on me……thanx…Krieghund…I had a brain cramp.