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
-
playing it combined will likely be too long of a game for normal humans to complete.
Why be normal? Normal is boring.
-
I heard some rumors that Triplea might go back up with purely user-made maps and scenarios, which is A-OK with me, I might even finally get an “A&A North Africa” or “Market Garden” out of it…. :mrgreen:
-
Maybe they can use IL’s maps, that would be awesome.
-
I think they did with AA50, but i am not sure what happened because i don’t use that program
-
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 correctNow, 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)
-
I don’t see why some people keep complaining about Japan attacking Russia.
Because its impossible. Its so impossible, its like making a rule that every Italian unit gets an automatic hit in combat.
Japan could never in any universe get farther into Russia than about 500 miles, but the game in like 85% of the time requires Japanese tanks and pieces to horde Moscow for the axis to win.
The question becomes why does the game support such a ridiculous set of ideas that require this to win? So for us the game actually forces players into a crazy set of objectives, so while you complain that the game should allow an anything goes format what you don’t see is that its modeling an exactly closed pattern of play that by the design forcing players to unite and coordinate perfectly the movements that lead to the same ridiculous procession.
The design should make each nation get its own national victory conditions, so for example the Japanese player can win by not even attacking Russia and Japan can just concentrate on its own program of conquest and the axis don’t need to cooperate. This means that Japan can still attack Russia, but it wont win victory, but of course it can help Germany out.
IN the allies corner the Soviets should have their own VC and the UK USA player competes with the Soviets to win by getting to Berlin first ( for example).
Its too simplistic to just make everybody coordinate for victory, adding an element that your playing for your nation to win individually is greater. The axis never really worked together they were only linked by the fact that they fought the same enemies, but at the same time they had totally different reasons for entering the war. Nothing was coordinated. The western allies coordinated, while the Soviets had completely different reasons to fight the war and wanted to export Communism. UK wanted to limit the Soviets and USA played peacemaker to preserve the status quo.
None of this is found in the VC for any AA game, so people complain that these games are always the same old “Japanese tanks rolling against Moscow” thing.
-
Amen, Imperious Leader!
-
First off I like to say…SgtBlitz you crack me up, those are some hilarious statements, and I can agree with your frustrations. :-D
Emperor_Taiki makes a very good point. :-)
Omega and johnnymar also make very good points. :-)
I second that Amen to IL. 8-)
One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:
So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.
-
@Imperious:
None of this is found in the VC for any AA game, so people complain that these games are always the same old “Japanese tanks rolling against Moscow” thing.
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.
One of the new adders for the AA50 that I really like that did kinda address the “unrealisticness” of ther game compared to real history is the addition of the victory cities. With them you do not actually have to attack all out everywhere, you can selectively attack the victory cities and win that way. It also shortens the game because it does not go until one side is gone. We beat the Axis in 41 set-up as the Allies because Japan went too far into Russia and the US and UK came in from below and took the victory cities in Asia and won before Japan could counter in time. Japan was pissed because they actually had way more troops but overlooked their rear defenses, thinking they were safe. :lol:
So Japan can be vulnerable if they over extend themselves into Russia. It is up to the Allies to read the strategy and counter to smarten Japan up.
Exactly. The only way Japan can usually threaten Russia is when the Allies let them do it. No new rules need to be written in order to prevent Japan from invading Moscow, your game play should do that.
-
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.
Suggested Topics
