@monsieurmurdoch I am not sure how these house rules would interplay with 40 since the scope of warfare was so different. Hospitals and ambulance customization could. I hope you can find a 1914 game. Keep an eye out. And, I do have some plans for barb wire, trenches, etc. Thanks for the feedback!
Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty Rule…
-
@Der:
.
2) Japan got their butts handed to them when they skirmished with Russian units led by emerging superstar leader Georgy Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol (located along the Mongolian border) in 1939. This squashed any dreams Japan had of expansion into Russia and a treaty was signed. ÂYou got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
So basically, your proposal make it a scripted game, in the same way that some players want a Vichy France rule, because that happened in the real war, and it feels strange when your game take another direction than the history books. Then you must decide, do you want an historical correct simulation of WWII, or do you want to play a free game where everything can happen ?
-
@Der:
I really like your reasoning with the terrain - I’d say it would be a must to put in to improve realism.
The two problems it doesn’t solve are:
- Russia still loses over 20% of its income, while Japan gains more than 20%, even when Japan stops at the Urals. Enough IMO to really sway the results on the East Front and in the Pacific.
- Japan got their butts handed to them when they skirmished with Russian units led by emerging superstar leader Georgy Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol (located along the Mongolian border) in 1939. This squashed any dreams Japan had of expansion into Russia and a treaty was signed.
On IL’s AA50 map, including Evenki National Okrug, there is only for 5 IPCs of TTs on Soviet soil.
It is much accurate than Global on that one, Evenki eastern border is north of Mongolia.
And, that would meant Khazakh SSR and Novosibirk European side (as well as Urals) and both eastern borders becoming impassable to reach Chinghai, which western border would be on Urals down to Himalaya…However, you map has more details. We can see that Trans-Siberian is crossing Novosibursk.
Clearly, this TT is the key between West and East on your map.Do you see some issues DK, if it is played that way for China (Western border closed to land units), except for Novo as long as it is Soviet control and Soviet Novosibursk is close to the west for Japan?
10 IPCs, is it 30% of your Soviet Union starting income (37$)?
And it is also 25% of Japan income? (42$) -
You got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
Where did you get that information? I never read anything like that. Here’s some quotes from a history site:
http://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
“The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under Zhukov had combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour….Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.”
It also says that Japanese leadership banned air attacks because they were mad that a local commander earlier ordered an air raid on a Russian airfield without asking permission.
-
@Der:
You got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
Where did you get that information? I never read anything like that. Here’s some quotes from a history site:
http://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
“The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under Zhukov had combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour….Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.”
It also says that Japanese leadership banned air attacks because they were mad that a local commander earlier ordered an air raid on a Russian airfield without asking permission.
Do you believe in that propaganda ?
edit, ih by the way, did you know that Memoire 44 is releasing a new game, the battle of Khalkin Gol now as we speak ?
-
OK then I guess I’ll rephrase my statement to “For whatever reason, the Japanese did not want to attack Russia.”
Never played Memoir '44 but I’ve heard some good things about it - I’ll have to give it a try!
-
@Der:
OK then I guess I’ll rephrase my statement to “For whatever reason, the Japanese did not want to attack Russia.”
Oh, they should have, in the real war. Half of all Lend Lease from US to Russia went through the port of Vladivostok and with the Siberian railway to Moscow. All Japan had to do was blockade what is seazone 5 on our A&A map, and Germany would have taken Moscow. In real wars, tactics are nothing and a good supply line is everything. I figure Tojo and Hirohito didn’t love Hitlers racial speeches too much, being colored as they were, and at some point maybe they did not trust Hitlers promise to share the globe. Hitler did in fact backstab everyone he made a treaty with. But unfortunately, in our A&A there is no such thing as a Lend Lease route via seazone 5 and Amur, like there actually is in sz 125 and Archangel, so in our case Japan need to capture all the wasteland up to Moscow if they want to help Germany, and as you know, in the real world most of that terrain was impassable mountains and marshes. The easy fix, with no pencil or paint, is to houserule in a new NO bonus, like the one in Archangel. I know I would if I ever come to power, or anyone listened to me
edit, when come to think about it, I believe Hirohito denied to attack Russia for the same reason that Franco denied to attack Gibraltar and close the Med. When you are racist like Hitler its hard to get help from colored men. That idea opens up the possibility, that if Hitler got killed before 1939, would another German dictator, that was not a racist, get more help from Franco and Hirohito ? Pandoras box
-
Right Foxy.
50% port of Vladivostok
25% Persia
25% Archangel -
@Imperious:
Right Foxy.
50% port of Vladivostok
25% Persia
25% ArchangelYou are correct, sweetheart. You know, you really should start making WWII games, you would be a great game designer.
-
Realistically I think that makes much more sense than crossing Siberia or that mountain range like it was nothing and attacking Moscow without hardly breaking a sweat.
When it comes to terrain, nothing is impassable. The impassable just take more time to do. And it depends on the season too. In summer, marshes like the ones in Pripjat, Finland, Karelia and Sibir are really impassable, but in winter the ground get frozen and you can drive a Heavy Tank over the lakes and marshes like it was hard surface. Do you ever watch the Ice road Truckers on Discovery ? With mountains its the other way around. During summer its no problem to cross a mountain range, like here in Norway, or in Caucasus, or the Alps. But in winter, with blizzards and avalanches, snow and cold, the roads get closed even in 2017. Some heavy WWII games manage to include this, but at the cost of KISS.
The Rulebook including terrain and season would look like, you can only attack marsh terrain during winter, and you can only attack mountain terrain during summer. No blitz, and the defender get a huge modifier, like all defending infantry roll 4 or less as a hit. It is 4 seasons, so impassable terrain can only be attacked every 4 th Turn. A marsh is no good in fall or spring neither. Of course, the owner can non combat move through any territory as usual. Like in the Alps, you got the Brunner Pass, and you can drive trains and lorries trough it any time as long as it is friendly. But one load of TNT will close that pass for sure, and then you need climbers.
edit. In a game with terrain, we need units with different abilities. Desert rats dont perform as well as ski troops or mountain divisions in mountain terrain during winter and blizzards. In the battle of Narvik in 1940, and this was even in spring and early summer, if there are such a season this far north, the snow would reach 6 feet in may, but during winter these mountains are impassable. Well, the French and British troops did not bring winter gear, like warm clothes, ski or snow shoes or sun glasses, so after one week 65 percent of these troops were combat incompetent because of snow blind and frostbite, and they had to withdraw without firing one bullet against the Germans. The Germans were mountain division and had climbing gear, sun glasses and snow shoes, but lacked skies. They could move 3 miles every day on the snow, and had good firepower. The local Norwegians were ski troops, could move twice as long as the germans, like 6 or more miles every day, they lived here and nobody got snow blind or frostbite. Most of them were hunters too, and could snipe at the Germans from long distance.
So basically, in on a map with terrain, Tanks should do poor in mountains and marshes, general infantry keep their current values, and new units like mountain units should do superior, like move 2 attack on 3 and def on 4 or less, something like that. But in plain terrain, mountain troops dont perform better than regular infantry.
To keep it A&A, maybe any kind of elite units should cost 4 IPC ?
Inf cost 3, this is the base.
Mechanized cost 4, now you have to pay for trucks too.
Marines cost 4, you must pay for the extra landing crafts and training
Paratroopers cost 4, you must pay for the chute and training.
Mountains divisions cost 4, you must pay for ski, snow shoes, sun glasses, ice axes, climbing ropes, warm clothes, ski lessons and extra training.But the firepower is equal. All infantry units attack on 1 and defend on 2 or less. They all fight with rifles, and in some cases knifes. The difference is in the movement. Regular infantry walk on feet, Mech inf ride on trucks, Paras jump from a plane, Marines swim ashore and Mountain divisions arrive on ski. So far basic logics.
Maybe this is the kind of advanced game designer Larry Harris is working on at the moment, we never know -
Another factor is supply. One reason Siberia was so unattractive to Japan was that the territory was so poor it could not have supplied the occupying army - a logistical nightmare.
Its essentially the same reason Rome never made a concerted attempt to conquer Scotland; the cost of occupying it was way in excess of any benefit they may have derived.
-
Another factor is supply. One reason Siberia was so unattractive to Japan was that the territory was so poor it could not have supplied the occupying army - a logistical nightmare.
Its essentially the same reason Rome never made a concerted attempt to conquer Scotland; the cost of occupying it was way in excess of any benefit they may have derived.
OMG. You tell us that Sibir is so poor it could not have supplied tiny Japanese men, but 6 feet tall Russian men had no problems ? You are aware of the railway between Moscow and Vladivostok ? And you do know that Japan had that train technologi as well ? Even in mainland Japan they had trains, yes even trucks and cars some places, like in the big cities. I have this rule of thumb that says I can not smoke w e e d before I post. I wish others too could follow that rule, man
If you look at a map, Rome did occupy a lot of land. Britain is a long way from Rome, its even an island, or used to be an island before the tunnel, and the Romans sailed all that way to Britain and occupied most of it, except the tiny tiny part up north. If they refused to grab the last tiny part of that tiny island, would you say it was because of laziness, or because Scotland is a logistical nightmare ? My guess would be the Vikings from Norway used Scotland as a holiday resort, and the cost of building forts and walls to keep the Vikings out, would be way in excess of the possible income they would get from the local sheep business. Are we on the same page on this one, Flash ?
-
You are nitpicking about why Japan didn’t attack Russia and push for Moscow in WWII. It really doesn’t matter - the fact is they didn’t. Their leadership didn’t want to, for whatever reason!
This game uses forced rules in order to influence outcomes - that’s a fact.
From 1940 SE:
Special cases aside, Chinese units can be moved only into territories that have a Nationalist Chinese emblem.
Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.
The fighter cannot leave the territories that Chinese occupation is restricted to, even to attack and return.
The United States cannot declare war on Japan until the Collect Income phase of its third turn.
The Soviet Union may not declare war on any European Axis power before turn 4.
China can’t declare war on a European Axis power unless one of those powers first either declares war on China or moves units into a territory into which Chinese units are allowed to move.
When France falls, we are not allowed to make Vichy and free France.
Can we agree that Russia has always been the stepchild in this game? If it were totally accurate, the Axis would always lose, so the designers had to make one Allied country a weakling to balance it out. Since Westerners were the target market, Russia got the shaft.
All I’m proposing is at least have a rule that prevents the already weakened Russians from being attacked from two sides. Fact is, other than garrisoning the far East, the Russians only had to deal with European invaders.
If you are going to have a heart attack about losing your freedom to do what you want in the game, then the USA should also get to declare war on turn one, the Chinese should get to ride transports to invade Japan, and Italy should get to declare war on Germany in 1943.
-
@Der:
This game uses forced rules in order to influence outcomes - that’s a fact.
You are correct, this game do use forced rules, for some reasons I dont understand, to make it a scripted historical correct game. And I dont like that part of A&A.
And you can not fix bad rules with more bad rules. This game dont need more special rules. The only rational house rule would be the house rule that says, hey in this basement China can buy a stack of Tanks and drive them any place on the map, and China can put men on a Tranny and sail them any where, and the Chinese Fighter can sink Japanese ships with in range, if the Chinese player thinks this will benefit him. Chinese units should be equal to all the other units. This is A&A, not an historical correct educational simulation of WWII, but a game for kids age 12 with WWII as a theme. Period.
I also think the special, and derogatory rule, that deny Stalin to attack anyone before Turn 4, is derogatory. If we look at the map, Stalin has already attacked several nations, like Finland, the Baltic, Bessarabia, Eastern Poland, and so on, before this game start. Would Stalin accept a rule, written on paper, that said, no Stalin, you are not allowed to attack any more places the next year, but after 1 year of rest, you can start attacking again ? This special rule that deny Russia any more attacks until Turn 4 is so crazy I dont have words. It makes the game look lame.
Also USA should be allowed to attack anyone from Turn 1. Of course people will start whining, oh no, horror horror, that ruin the balance. Well ok then, let USA start with nothing, let US be free to attack anyone, but they have to buy all the stuff before they can do something. That is exactly how the real world works. Now that would be educational, not a rulebook that make the game scripted. The wars in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not scripted and we dont know what will happen there tomorrow. Any thing can happen there. But make a game based on WWII, and it need to be scripted, because people get bothered if they see Chines units on a Tranny moving to Japan, or they see Japanese Tanks driving to Moscow, because that did not happen in the real war.
IMHO, I figure the less special scripted rules, the better the game gets. And if you feel it gets unbalanced, use some bids. Bidding is the classic way to fix A&A balance from the first MB edition back in 1984. That is my 2 cent, thank you for listening
-
When you consider the vast distance that they would have had to cover. Add in the fact that there were no gas stations along the way. Add in the mountain ranges that they had to get through which would have been turned into shooting galleries for the Russians. Add in the fact that they would have no bullets left by the time they got there because they would have had to shoot every single animal they encountered along the way just to feed themselves. I could go on and on and on. It was impassable no matter what you say. Yes, if that was their only task during the war and the entire nation took part in this endeavour, they could have made it to Moscow and got their butts kicked by 1950. It would have been impossible to fight a war against the Chinese, Americans, British, and everyone else that they invaded and complete this task. No way in hell they could have pulled this off. Quit dreaming.
-
Who are you addressing, General ? The thread starter ?
-
No I’m replying to your comment, Narvik. It’s not realistic to say that the Japanese could have mounted a successful assault on Moscow through Siberia. No chance of success at all when you consider all of the variables. Zero chance. Could they have managed to get a small force there that didn’t need any supplies and were able to live off the land? Sure, if you gave them years to do it and they didn’t have to conquer Moscow at the end of their journey. Could they have marched a mechanized army there in 1940 and still manage to wage war against the against western allies? No way. Take a look at a satellite map and you’ll see what I mean. That’s not to say that they couldn’t have had some success against the Russians in Eastern Siberia and contributed to an Axis victory in the war. I think that you were right about that.
-
Bumped this one because I believe GHG did not read the end of my post on Tunguska being in Asia, east of Urals mounts. (He answered before I had fully written this post…
@Baron:It is the Ural Mountain Range so that’s why I had it border Urals. Also, I didn’t want to include Timguska in Asia because that doesn’t seal off China from Russia and the mountains do actually border Mongolia.
So, you cannot reach Timguska from Kansu, when you cross all China with japanese Tanks.
This border is close too, right?Looking on satellite map, I found that Tunguska is indeed in northern part of Mongolia and so on the Eastern part of Urals mounts!
The 1940 PTO Map is not depicting correctly this region.
From what I can understand, Tayshet, Irkutsk Oblast, is the node point from where the Trans-Siberian railroad cross the Urals. And it is not that far from Tunguska, Irkutsk Oblast, Russia (630 km).
And it is clearly on Eastern side of Urals.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Tunguska,+Irkutsk+Oblast,+Russia/Tayshet,+Irkutsk+Oblast,+Russia/@54.4255237,98.2251974,675159m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x5d065ef8ec34d23d:0xe840031772bcc92b!2m2!1d102.7931204!2d52.6463953!1m5!1m1!1s0x5ce06018905c8359:0xe04cb3fe8342dcd4!2m2!1d98.0105748!2d55.9321466
While Evenkiysky District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, is further north and still on the Eastern Side of Urals.
So to cut the Rails you need to capture Tunguska, from a real geographical POV!!!Now, in my mind it is simpler to consider that you close the Trans-Siberian when both TTs are captured by Japan. Meaning, you just have to follow the physical board map. If there is no more Russian units in PTO and Tunguska (and Evenkiyski) is Japanese controlled, Russia can no more reinforced the Pacific side of the map.
Is it the way you play it?
Really good idea about Urals, IMO, GHG, congrats!
DK, stopping Japan in China and east of Urals (and your own pretty well designed map makes clear where Trans-Siberian is crossing Soviet TT) does not seems to satisfy you. Why?
Japan committing northern Asia can no more directly move units further into European Soviet TTs.
It means it will take more time to divert these resources toward south and expect to take India, Persia and Caucasus. Soviet Union may loose up to 10 IPCs, including Novosibursk but it is a trade off for much more time before dealing with Japanese units in Khazak, Tambov, Vologda, Urals and other European Soviet TTs.
Why this change of pace is not enough for helping Russia according to your experience on your tabletop game and hybrid map?In that case, a few more Soviet Infantry east of Urals on setup will be enough deterrent on start to get a full round of income for these TTs until Russian player need them in the west. Then Japan may start invading, but most of its forces would already being committed elsewhere south: punching hole in China or India.
-
@Baron:
Why this change of pace is not enough for helping Russia according to your experience on your tabletop game and hybrid map?
Well, using the terrain blocking alone on my map, Japan could still take 10 away from Russia in the east. On the East front on my map, Karelia is pretty much indefensible so Germany will get that every time and be making 54 IPCs to Russia’s 28. How long can Russia hold out at that level of income?
I think I’m going to try what I’ve revised below with our group until I can finish a map that better represents the terrain issues…
· Japan historically chose the Southern Expansion Doctrine (Nanshin-Ron) for their war policy. Therefore, as long as at least 6 infantry and two tanks belonging to Russia guard the Soviet-Japanese border, Japan cannot break this pact until China or Moscow falls.
· Russia did not attack Japan until after VE Day. Therefore, as long as at least 6 infantry and two tanks belonging to Japan guard the Soviet-Japanese border, Russia cannot break this pact until Berlin and Rome fall.I know you hate it, Narvik, and I do respect your opinion about keeping options open. Believe it or not, I’ve done some really wild things with this game over the years. I remember years ago we used to even draw nations out of a hat for who was fighting who. We had Germany and Britain fighting the USA and Japan. It was no where close to historical!
I’m starting to realize that when you go off the tracks too far, you gain the novelty of it but you also lose the feeling of authenticity. Too far and you are not in WWII anymore - you might as well be playing someone’s dungeon fantasy game with elves and spells. For me, as with riding a bicycle, I find I have to find good balance in this game in order to fully enjoy it.
Shutting off that Russo-Japanese front would help Japan go in more historic directions, like China, India, and the Pacific, and help Russia be more of the bear it really was to the Germans and Italians.
-
I have listened to all 3 of you, General, Baron and K, and again, I tell you the real problem is the map.
The distance from Vladivostok to Moscow is 5 times longer than the distance from Berlin to Moscow, on a real map, or globe.
On our A&A map, from Berlin to Moscow is 5 spaces, and from Manchuria is 7 or 8, depending on the route. It should have been 25 or more to get it right. The Siberian Express, as some name it, favor a historical not correct Japanese Tank drive to Moscow. The only smooth way to solve this, is take a pencil and divide every Russian territory east of Moscow in two, so we get at least 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow. Then, the border between Russia and China should be impassable, since the Himalaya mountain range continue into the Hindu Kush mountains, and there are no way a Panzer Army could cross that range. Maybe mountain climbers, but not Tanks.
Now, if everybody in the A&A community do this, the sooner the better, and we start a wave, or a map revolution, in 3 or 4 years from now, the next global 3th edition will have 16 Siberian spaces printed on the official map. Trust me, we the players have more power than we know, but we must use it, and send a message to WOTC. Now, with 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow, and impassable terrain between Russia and China, we dont need a derogatory non aggression treaty rule. Every sane Japanese player will see that a Tank drive over that distance is a bad idea.
edit, and I hate this suggestion myself, but if you dont want to use a pencil, another solution could be a house rule that deny any attacking enemy land units to combat move more than 1 space in a turn on the Pacific part of Russia. On every Russian territory, starting from Timgusta to Sovjet Far East, all attacking land units can only combat move 1 space each Turn. And the same house rule let Russia non combat move all kind of units with the Siberian Railroad 2 spaces each turn.
-
Just make each territory count as 2 moves.
Suggested Topics
