I think some people already pointed out how “historicity (does this word exists?)” can restraint a game playability. Think of it that way : German infantries were not the same as Russian infantries. Should a game take into account this? (I’m not talking computer game, where this can be easily done, but boardgame). I believe not, because it will make the game too heavy ; the game being very heavy as it stands now.
Historically, the Allied won the war. But for a boardgame to be fun, especially with AA, both side can win. Already in its design, the idea of historical accuracy is flawed. Historical elementers serve as a base for this game. But once the base is installed, everything else doesn’t have to be historically correct
Now, you would want Japan to not attack Russia. The fact that Russia’s northern territories are worth so little should deter Japan, in his early rounds at least, to invade seriously Russia. If Japan do spend too much ressources in the early rounds against northern Russia, I’m pretty sure the rest of Asia will punish Japan swiftly. Japan can only attack seriously Russia when having ICs (in AA50) in India, Burma, FIC and/or Manchuria/SUM, etc. But by then, that means Japan has already accomplised more than what she did historically.
I don’t see why some people keep complaining about Japan attacking Russia. This is a game where WWII is being “redone” We do it our way. Plus, like I explained earlier, Japan doesn’t have much to gain in the northern parts of Russia. A bunch of 1ipc territories. Asia is where all money is for her. Look, Harry even made a rule for USA in war and not in war. This is very interesting and add a little historical flavor to the game. But let’s not get into historical details that can ruin the game. (Like, no Axis nation should ever drop troops in America because none of them ever did. Or other stupid rules in the like)
