Of course it can. It makes no difference that originally it was a neutral territory. Its current status is a territory of the United States and therefore, with an IPC value of two,it can be a location where a minor industrial complex can be placed.
Just Keep Churning Em Out, WoTC, Hasbro
-
If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?
-
@Brain:
If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?
well, Brain Damaged, historical dosnt mean scripted or narative, it means that all the historical factors save strategic leadership(this is reperesented by the player) are as they were in history in a way that confronts players with the same or similar decisions as were their historical counterparts.
-
That only happens when the Allies try the same old “Kill Germany first” thing. If something as ahistorical as Japan invading Moscow is happening in your games it’s probably because you’re doing something that is equally ahistorical, like ignoring the Pacific.
In order for the axis to win as a team even though they were not “a team” , the Japanese need to attack the Russians. If you play games where Japan captures UK or Eastern USA instead it becomes even more silly. The game should be two separate games with UK USA and Soviets against Germany/ Italy, and UK USA against Japan. Everything relating to victory to each side to be regulated to these concerns and to something that has to do with these localities and the situation. It should not become scripted patterns of play where you go after just Germany or just Japan and do the minimum on the front where you exert no pressure.
It should be a balanced (somewhat) need to fight both and to deny both their own victory conditions. Thet way you get warfare all over the map and not just a concentrated thing on one side.
-
definitely, it has to be fighting on all fronts. Victory conditions should keep the allies from simply throwing everything at say, Europe, because the Japanese would be able to reach their victory conditions and the allies lose, axis wins, and specifically japan player is ultimate winner.
-
@Brain:
If history is such a big concern to some of you then why play the game, Axis lose Allies win, any other outcome would be ahistorical and we couldn’t have that now could we?
well, Brain Damaged, historical dosnt mean scripted or narative, it means that all the historical factors save strategic leadership(this is reperesented by the player) are as they were in history in a way that confronts players with the same or similar decisions as were their historical counterparts.
It looks like you want to play games that are more advanced.
-
@Imperious:
That only happens when the Allies try the same old “Kill Germany first” thing. If something as ahistorical as Japan invading Moscow is happening in your games it’s probably because you’re doing something that is equally ahistorical, like ignoring the Pacific.
In order for the axis to win as a team even though they were not “a team” , the Japanese need to attack the Russians. If you play games where Japan captures UK or Eastern USA instead it becomes even more silly. The game should be two separate games with UK USA and Soviets against Germany/ Italy, and UK USA against Japan. Everything relating to victory to each side to be regulated to these concerns and to something that has to do with these localities and the situation. It should not become scripted patterns of play where you go after just Germany or just Japan and do the minimum on the front where you exert no pressure.
It should be a balanced (somewhat) need to fight both and to deny both their own victory conditions. Thet way you get warfare all over the map and not just a concentrated thing on one side.
+1
I agree. The reason you see America go either ALL against Germany, or ALL against Japan is because it is allowed to because it is a world game. The game really does need to be split up into two separate games in order to play out more historically. -
The game really does need to be split up into two separate games in order to play out more historically.
Its not really “historical” i appeal that the status quo is SCRIPTED GAME, where you cant win unless you play that way. Rather the game should be open ended allowing for japan and just win with its own VC that have nothing to do with Russia.
Its almost impossible for a game to exist where neither japan and Russia fight it out for either team to win. This is limiting. Its limiting to have Japanese tank factories running to Moscow because the axis cant win any other way. Germany can nearly never win unless Japan starts causing problems for Russia. Why? Because both of their victory conditions are scripted together like a chain. On top of that USA can get away from basically ignoring one front for the other, and while Russia MUST fight a two front war…while at the same time none of this actually happened, while in AA you cannot get games where IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
This is a closed system. A closed scripted design.
-
The problem isn’t one of making the game “more historical,” but into a game about World War II in some way. The fact is, in WWII, the Japanese and Russians were not at war, while in Axis and Allies, if you are playing to win, Japan will likely conquer much of Russia. This didn’t happen in WWII solely because of a piece of paper, but rather because Japan would not have been able to conquer Russia.
Yes, give the players options. But why make the BEST option also one that would have been 100% impossible in WWII?
I’m all for abstractions, such as all units costing the same and functioning the same for each nation, units not representing real world units in a 1:1 ratio, etc. By all means, give the player an option to invade Russia as Japan- but make it so that, like in the real war, this course of action proves to be extremely difficult- NOT the best strategy.
Same thing goes for America and Britain completely ignoring Japan. That would have been absolutely insane, yet in A&A, it’s the best thing the Allies can do. Just imagine it… “Well, we got Berlin. Yeah, Japan owns the entire world outside of North America and Europe, but we have Berlin!”
Maybe we need an altered “Economic Victory” option. If any one Axis power gets 20 IPC more than they started out with, automatic victory for that Axis power and loss for the Allies (and perhaps the other Axis power, if played by separate players). Or with victory cities, give Japan and Germany their own unique targets. If one Axis power gets their targets, they win.
-
Why don’t you guys just make a house rule that Japan cant attack Russia and lets move on!
-
I limit my games too 7 turns and then who ever has the most vicotry cities wins, or the game is a draw if each have 9 or in continues until someone has more.
This forces the allies to contribute to both theaters or otherwise Japan usauly gets too many VCs. It also makes the game more historical with locations like midway and the soloman inlands becoming imporant battlefeilds. This one change to the vicotry conditions helps imporve hisotrical accuaracy alot.
Limiting Japan to not being able to attack Russia isnt going to make the pacfic more important or add to realism, if anything it just takes away a legitimate option that the Japanese command considered
-
In regards to balancing the Pacific vs Atlantic in the new global game the Anzac could be the key. Balance would be achieved if the Anzac & UK are still separate units (they have different colors) but are both controlled by the UK and allowed to take their turn as one nation. In games that the Orange Godzila is allowed to run ramped the UK has no presence in the pacific. No IC in India or Australia. In AA40 Global I hope there is at least a minor IC in these countries at set-up, and maybe even one in Africa. This would help keep the UK fighting for her commonwealth tt as she wouldn’t want to just hand over those IC’s to Japan. I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so. Also by allowing the UK to use both units at once would be cool!
PS. I started a new tread in AA40P to discuss balance of the two oceans in the global game.
-
@WILD:
Balance would be achieved if the Anzac & UK are still separate units (they have different colors) but are both controlled by the UK and allowed to take their turn as one nation.
:?, that would not change anything at all that is how it noramlly is. Allow australia to take their turn with the US, that is fairly hisotrical and that would defently encourage the US to invest in the pacifc. With the UK controlling austrilia they mainly let if die or beg the US to send some fighters towards it.
-
Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.
-
@Brain:
Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.
that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,
the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general
-
@Brain:
Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.
that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,
the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general
Heh, guess I’m a troll, any threads I make invariably devolve into discussions involving historical accuracy or gameplay mechanics… OR…
OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!! No wonder WoTC has such an easy time shoving 4023423908 box editions of Axis and Allies down your throats. Apparently you LIVE for the next variant/edition. Which usually doesn’t fix ANYTHING, cause you’d need something with the complexity of Hearts of Iron to please the historical fanboys, something like Squad Leader to please the tactical base, and something simple like RISK to please the strategic masterminds. AXIS AND ALLIES DOESN’T EVEN REMOTELY COVER ALL THOSE BASES. SO YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY, OK? JUST ENJOY THE GAME FOR WHAT IT IS. Play something else that is more suited to what you’re interested in, TONS of different WWII video/board games out there… (which IS part of the original point I’ve been making, video game programs simplify the HELL out of this discussion).
As for Japan threatening Moscow… IF Japan had headed WEST instead of EAST in its plunge for world domination, there were MANY 2nd 3rd world semi-industrialized post-colonial countries RIPE for nationalization/liberation from the Allied powers. LOTS of countries were pissed off at being colonial powers.
IF Japan had liberated/nationalized Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East AND kicked the British out of Africa it would have possessed all the oil, gas, rubber AND probably pissed off colonial manpower the Axis would have EVER needed. Russia would definitely have been fighting on two fronts in the Caucaus. Would America have joined the war IF Japan hadn’t pulled a Pearl Harbor?
With America’s standing as a neutral power in 1941 (! even up to the last minute before Pearl Harbor !) I don’t think so.
-
Emperor, I don’t think you read all my remarks.
@WILD:I also hope that by keeping them separate will force the UK to spend the ipc’s generated by the Anzac in Australia, or at least get a large Commonwealth NO that is earmarked for the Commonwealth IC’s. The key is forcing the UK to spend $ in both oceans, but giving it enough money to do so.
If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game. There could also be a NO for commonwealth linked to it. Money talks.
Also it sounds like there will be an IC in some of the commonwealth tt. What stops the UK from investing in those areas is they have to first buy the IC only to see Japan target it. Now that that decision will be made for them I think the UK will invest $ down under (maybe forced to by rule).
I am wondering when/how Anzac will take its turn in the global game.
1)Two separate nations (like Germ & Italy)
2)Separate but together (like US & China)
3)All together, Anzac & Uk separate units but attack/def as one power.
Although the US had command of the pacific the Anzac was still part of the UK commonwealth. However if the Anzac were given option#3 it would be cool if they could give up there part with the UK and attack w/US later in that round. Kind like a joint strike.
I think the allies will try to get the most out of their minor powers Anzac, China and even the French.
I also agree the oob should dictate balance in each theater, not a house rule. -
If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game.
If they dont keep them in the game then Japan would spend the money so I fail to see your point.
-
@Brain:
If by rule the $ earned by Anzac had to be spent there. It would behoove the UK to and the US to to keep them in the game.
If they dont keep them in the game then Japan would spend the money so I fail to see your point.
My bad! I read that wrong. I agree with you 100%
-
@Brain:
Well then you could always make a house rule that forces the United States to invest money in both theaters of the war.
that is cop out rule that treats the symtoms but not the disease,
the victory conditions need to be changed and the game needs to be more historical in general
Heh, guess I’m a troll, any threads I make invariably devolve into discussions involving historical accuracy or gameplay mechanics… OR…
OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!! No wonder WoTC has such an easy time shoving 4023423908 box editions of Axis and Allies down your throats. Apparently you LIVE for the next variant/edition. Which usually doesn’t fix ANYTHING, cause you’d need something with the complexity of Hearts of Iron to please the historical fanboys, something like Squad Leader to please the tactical base, and something simple like RISK to please the strategic masterminds. AXIS AND ALLIES DOESN’T EVEN REMOTELY COVER ALL THOSE BASES. SO YOU WILL NEVER BE HAPPY, OK? JUST ENJOY THE GAME FOR WHAT IT IS. Play something else that is more suited to what you’re interested in, TONS of different WWII video/board games out there… (which IS part of the original point I’ve been making, video game programs simplify the HELL out of this discussion).
As for Japan threatening Moscow… IF Japan had headed WEST instead of EAST in its plunge for world domination, there were MANY 2nd 3rd world semi-industrialized post-colonial countries RIPE for nationalization/liberation from the Allied powers. LOTS of countries were pissed off at being colonial powers.
IF Japan had liberated/nationalized Southeast Asia, India and the Middle East AND kicked the British out of Africa it would have possessed all the oil, gas, rubber AND probably pissed off colonial manpower the Axis would have EVER needed. Russia would definitely have been fighting on two fronts in the Caucaus. Would America have joined the war IF Japan hadn’t pulled a Pearl Harbor?
With America’s standing as a neutral power in 1941 (! even up to the last minute before Pearl Harbor !) I don’t think so.
SgtBlitz, I have been very please with every A&A game I have bought, I finish a face to face game of AA50(best one) at least twice a month. So it dosnt follow that I think A&A is horrible because i have many suggestions for improvement. If you think classic is the greatest game ever then what is your problem?
Also, A&A is very historical in a number of respects and with simple additional rules it a very resonable representation of the war and your simplistic explanation of why A&A is unhistroical or why certain powers joined the war shows a negligible lack of respect for the complex nature of history.
-
OMG YOU GUYS ARE A BUNCH OF NERDS!!!
SgtBlitz,
I understand that you are upset by the closure of TripleA and Wizards of the Coast.
And you make some great points, but when you start of by insulting people they tend to not here the rest of your message. Try to be a little more constructive in your critique and realize that none of us are perfect but as a team we can accomplish much.
Suggested Topics
