Ok, so regardless of a factory or not, they can always rebuild to what they had originally. So if they started with 2 infantry and a tank, they can always build those assuming no more than the 2 infantry and a tank.
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 03:18:46 pm
Well Spain can waste 4 turns worth of income once at war saving for a minor factory…but as i said they can replace loses from their original force pool even if these are tanks or ships… In this case they don’t need a factory, but i guess they can buy one and it will only be used to place more Spanish units. So really their is no point to making a factory.The allies can take it over and build a factory. The only time to can build a factory in a neutral is to conquer it. If the other side takes it back, the factory is destroyed.
So if Spain is a German ally, US can invade and build a factory, then Germany can retake it and destroy the factory. Germany cant then build a factory for German units… it can however save up and build a spainish factory for spainish units… but that would be a dumb move.
Sorry, just seems odd to me. Why can they build without a factory and invade but not claim for their own?
Neutrals can only replace their own starting forces by using their IPC to do this. If invaded they are under control of the other side and play on that side and in some cases these neutrals can move outside their borders ( Spain, Turkey, Brazil).
You can conquer a neutral by occupying it and then build a factory and place your units. Of course your limited by the rules regarding factory builds.
I don’t see how this is ‘odd’. The only idea that is not consistent is they can only replace their starting forces and in some cases by saving up, that can be a tank or a ship and it can be built w/o a factory. The idea is to avoid glitches where the controlling player not only has the benefit of these forces, but can attempt to slap a factory and build his own forces. I stop these cheesy tricks dead is their tracks because they are not realistic. Neutrals only fight for themselves and rarely send their army to fight on faraway campaigns. They don’t build your own units and do not give you income so you can get fat. The only way to take their value is by invading them and defeating their army… then you get the money and can do what you like, but you can’t have the cake and eat it too. Thats why the rules are the way they are.
Also, when would they make a move? Would spain replace losses/move during any Axis Player’s turn?
Well spain would be a German ally, Mongolia would be a Soviet ally. Basically you go by who is closer. In case of a tie the allies can decide this.
Example: Persia if invaded can be either uk or USSR.
Norway is UK
Saudi is UK
Mongolia is Soviets or japan
South America is USA
Iceland can be UK unless USA just occupies them
etc…
The allies can decide who controls them if the distance is the same, but obviously if Argentina was invaded by Germany, it would be an American ally
Ok, it’s making more sense now, not quite sure what I was thinking earlier.
One last question. :)
In your example about US invading Spain, but Germany freeing it and that Germany couldn’t build a factory there as it’s now Spain’s again. Would a factory give Spain any possible benefit or are the neutrals ALWAYS limited to their initial starting forces?
If so, I can see why you mean a factory would be dumb, I think on some level I was assuming a factory would allow them to exceed their starting forces.
Thanks again.
In your example about US invading Spain, but Germany freeing it and that Germany couldn’t build a factory there as it’s now Spain’s again. Would a factory give Spain any possible benefit or are the neutrals ALWAYS limited to their initial starting forces?
Well as i said before they are always neutral, unless to conquer them by occupation, in which case you CAN build a factory and place your own units. Other than that if they are your allies, you dont collect the income and you cant do glitches where you build factory’s and place your units.
If so, I can see why you mean a factory would be dumb, I think on some level I was assuming a factory would allow them to exceed their starting forces.
Right. correct. no reason to buy a factory unless you conquer them
IL you say you will need 2 1942 and a p40 would one of each plus E40 work too. Also what do you use for tech units and bloc houses.
well 1 copy of AAe40 and AAp40 will work
or
1 AA42 and 1 AAp40, plus stukas from AAR and fighters from MB AA ( for Soviets)
@Imperious:
well 1 copy of AAe40 and AAp40 will work
or
1 AA42 and 1 AAp40, plus stukas from AAR and fighters from MB AA ( for Soviets)
Those are the tactical bombers, right?
yes.
So you need tactical bombers for Germany, Italy ans Russia, plus Mech for same.
You can use MB AA tanks for mech or table tactics, or paint some from AAP40 for them
Tactical bombers can come from MB AA fighters or bombers, or use stukas from AAR
Another thing is won’t you need all minor allies a different colour so you know which forces that each nation can replace.
Well not really. What you need is the total inventory of all 4 minor axis allies as an aggregate total for this purpose.
Remember, Germany can decide to take the IPC and buy and place its own pieces in her own factories. If Germany wants to place pieces in Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary she can take the total IPC from these and place one unit per nation using these pieces until they are all replaced.
The second option is better and more flexible. Note that these minor axis nations are different rules than neutrals. These are minor players that get activated on turn 3, but play on Germany’s turn as their ‘little friends’
I am not sure if I am looking at the newest map IL, but I have a major gripe.
How can the distance from Japan to the US be the same as the US to France. With a 6 foot map, and those spaces so big, I would have thought of all people you would have hated that idea. It just seems such a given. It was such a delight with I bought AAP40 and saw 5 spaces between Japan and US. (if you look at an actual round globe, and position it just right, you can barely see Japan on one side, and barely see the US on the other, and all you see is the ocean in between)
But to my horror, I realized if you leave Japan, and instead of going in a straight line, which is the shortest route to anywhere, but instead travel up north/east, to Alaska, then back down south/east, the US is only 4 spaces away. And with thier Naval base rule, in one turn you are 1 space away from the US. That is crazy.
Your thoughts.
Eddie
How can the distance from Japan to the US be the same as the US to France. With a 6 foot map, and those spaces so big, I would have thought of all people you would have hated that idea. It just seems such a given. It was such a delight with I bought AAP40 and saw 5 spaces between Japan and US. (if you look at an actual round globe, and position it just right, you can barely see Japan on one side, and barely see the US on the other, and all you see is the ocean in between)
But to my horror, I realized if you leave Japan, and instead of going in a straight line, which is the shortest route to anywhere, but instead travel up north/east, to Alaska, then back down south/east, the US is only 4 spaces away. And with thier Naval base rule, in one turn you are 1 space away from the US. That is crazy.
Sea zones based on AA50 map, Plus i made 2 changes. Also, a ship can travel in 4-6 months nearly around the world twice, so making more sea zones and not improving naval movement causes imbalance with the way Naval is configured in this game.
Then USA should only be 2 spaces away from France
The elite armies are a cool idea.
How about adding Port Moresby as a victory city in New Guinea, or does that just start off with a naval base?
Also, why is it important for the UK that Rome is under their control, wouldnt they be more conserned that the countries they fought to protect(Poland, France, Greece) are liberated and do come under soveit control. I have read losing Poland to the soviets was a major loss of face for the UK.
Also Italy should have vicotry conditions independent from Germany, if the axis win but Italy has no empire and Germany has taken over the war effort in the med, thats not really a victory for Italy.
Too make combat and shore bombardment more realistic I was thinking perhaps there would be rule where infantry cannot be taken as hits from naval bombardment and air units. What do you think? Its always been weird when air units mow down infantry stacks or naval units which only represent a few ships massacre infantry units which are like 100,000 men each.
Why are the Soviets and Japan not allowed to attack each other. If this is 1939 they should be able to have border conflicts like they did historicaly. The tensions on the Soviet-Japanese border factored into both nations strategies, it seems like the non-aggresion rule is trying to script history instead of puting the player in the shoes of historical leaders.
Also I like the lend lease rules, but how is this game going to simulate the US sub campaign against the Japanese?
Then USA should only be 2 spaces away from France
Its just like OOB AA50.
The elite armies are a cool idea.
The playtesters really like them too. It replaces the Generals with something with this new idea and adds flavor. It also makes people more comfortable playing with dice and not Low Luck, because you have a number of these higher rolls to win battles with.
How about adding Port Moresby as a victory city in New Guinea, or does that just start off with a naval base?
No naval ports in this game. I wanted actual battles to be the VC. Coral Sea was a dress rehearsal for cutting off Australia, by way of securing Port Moresby. The Port was not the goal, but Australia.
Also, why is it important for the UK that Rome is under their control, wouldnt they be more conserned that the countries they fought to protect(Poland, France, Greece) are liberated and do come under soveit control. I have read losing Poland to the soviets was a major loss of face for the UK.
UK always favored a Mediterranean Strategy and committed its resources as its part to topple Italy and Liberate France once it took the axis out of Africa. Part of her Victory is allies control france ( not Soviets) Also, UK is not in a position to take Berlin based on her position, but she does have reasonable prospects for taking out Italy. Taking Greece would supply an air base to bomb Italy once the Italian Navy is gone. Poland has no chance of help except from the Soviets. Each nation has its own sphere to operate.
Also Italy should have vicotry conditions independent from Germany, if the axis win but Italy has no empire and Germany has taken over the war effort in the med, thats not really a victory for Italy.
No way. Italy was only in the war so they can lay claims at the peace table and acquire territory concessions. Italy was entirely bound to Germany. Their is not way to have Italy win and Germany lose. They win or lose together and thats the point of their VC. They need to cooperate as they did historically.
Too make combat and shore bombardment more realistic I was thinking perhaps there would be rule where infantry cannot be taken as hits from naval bombardment and air units. What do you think? Its always been weird when air units mow down infantry stacks or naval units which only represent a few ships massacre infantry units which are like 100,000 men each.
Trying to keep this KISS here and not another reiteration of AARHE. Special rules made here are only added for fun factor and realism. That rule is just another layer of realism that is not fun to play. Complexity here is not the expense of flavor. it must have both and they must be connected.
Why are the Soviets and Japan not allowed to attack each other. If this is 1939 they should be able to have border conflicts like they did historicaly. The tensions on the Soviet-Japanese border factored into both nations strategies, it seems like the non-aggresion rule is trying to script history instead of puting the player in the shoes of historical leaders.
Because i despise JTDTM. Its the most insane thing i ever saw in a game. It adds nothing and it takes everything away from a vibrant Soviet build schedule. IN all the global games all they can build is mostly infantry because they always fight a 2 front war, when none ever existed. Its stupid as it is impossible. Japan could not even get a 100 miles inside Russia w/o bogging down. A repeat performance of 1939.
Also I like the lend lease rules, but how is this game going to simulate the US sub campaign against the Japanese?
Japan is weaker in this game, while Germany is the new Japan. If US wants to retake the oil islands, she can do this and cost Japan or build subs, or take islands and SBR Japan.
What i don’t want is this stupid notion that she can buy cheap subs to placate japan and do nothing in the Pacific. This is not more KJF or KGF… its balanced spending for Pacific and Atlantic. Do just one or the other and the other axis player will win.
This game is a bit of a race to win first. The allies fight as a team, but also must decide how much cooperation is too much in which case they may not win this race.
Historically the Soviets won the race.
IL do the other nations armies work the same as Russia’s and Germany’s
@Imperious:
Also Italy should have vicotry conditions independent from Germany, if the axis win but Italy has no empire and Germany has taken over the war effort in the med, thats not really a victory for Italy.
No way. Italy was only in the war so they can lay claims at the peace table and acquire territory concessions. Italy was entirely bound to Germany. Their is not way to have Italy win and Germany lose. They win or lose together and thats the point of their VC. They need to cooperate as they did historically.
While after Italy attaked France I find it hard to imagine that Germany would lose while Italy wins, however if the Germans had won its quite possible the Italians would lose, If Mussolini was not able to score any victories on his own or did not gain much territory that really isnt a win for Italy. I think historically Mussolini was jelous of Hitler’s 1940 success and was reluctant to have German troops fight his battles.
Too make combat and shore bombardment more realistic I was thinking perhaps there would be rule where infantry cannot be taken as hits from naval bombardment and air units. What do you think? Its always been weird when air units mow down infantry stacks or naval units which only represent a few ships massacre infantry units which are like 100,000 men each.
Trying to keep this KISS here and not another reiteration of AARHE. Special rules made here are only added for fun factor and realism. That rule is just another layer of realism that is not fun to play. Complexity here is not the expense of flavor. it must have both and they must be connected.
i dont see what isnt fun about this rule, its rather simple and it adds strategy. What this rule corrects isnt any less insane than the japanese taking moscow.
Why are the Soviets and Japan not allowed to attack each other. If this is 1939 they should be able to have border conflicts like they did historicaly. The tensions on the Soviet-Japanese border factored into both nations strategies, it seems like the non-aggresion rule is trying to script history instead of puting the player in the shoes of historical leaders.
Because i despise JTDTM. Its the most insane thing i ever saw in a game. It adds nothing and it takes everything away from a vibrant Soviet build schedule. IN all the global games all they can build is mostly infantry because they always fight a 2 front war, when none ever existed. Its stupid as it is impossible. Japan could not even get a 100 miles inside Russia w/o bogging down. A repeat performance of 1939.
by having a rule that simply states that Japan and the Soviets cant attack each, you have just switched out one unhistorical part of the game for another.
by having a rule that simply states that Japan and the Soviets cant attack each, you have just switched out one unhistorical part of the game for another.
well i guess you didn’t read the rules?
Non-Aggression Pact:
The Soviet Union and Japan have a special treaty in place. The Soviet player can never attack Japanese territories until Berlin falls. The Japanese player can attack the Soviets as early as turn 4.
Well first off the rules say Soviets can attack Japan once Berlin falls ( historical)
Second, Japan can try for the Soviets, but in this game they already fought that battle where Japan lost big. They can try again on turn 4, which is late 1941, but i have historical victory conditions in place, so Japan gains nothing from this except Vladivostok ( historical).
Third, the IPC are distributed historically, so the worthless folly of such an attack is soon apparent. Japan does not fight with Germany as a team ( also historical), while Italy does ( they had a large army in Russia in 1942 committed)
I thought it was obvious i was refering to the first three turns, and its still wierd and not accurate for there to be a magical wall for the first three turns and then it goes away for only one side on the fourth.
If the IPCs are accuarte and the attack across the Soviet-Japanese border is usually a mistake, then why have the restriction in the firstplace.
And you have done a nice job of adding tons of territories in siberia so why are you worried that Japan is going to take moscow?
I thought it was obvious i was refering to the first three turns, and its still wierd and not accurate for there to be a magical wall for the first three turns and then it goes away for only one side on the fourth.
Because it took this time for japan to recoup and even consider such an attack again ( Japanese army considered it, but realized it meant nothing for japans future as a world power).
Plus The Soviets have a nice sized army on that border. Japan could not even try it till turn 2.
If the IPCs are accuarte and the attack across the Soviet-Japanese border is usually a mistake, then why have the restriction in the firstplace.
To make it more historical and provide balance against glitches for ahistorical players playing like robots with calculators and perfectly coordinating German and Japanese movement and landing the Japanese air force in Caucasus and other places to glitch the game with even more ahistorical nonsense. This game is meant for 4 players or more and not 2 players treating 3 nations as one super nation.
And you have done a nice job of adding tons of territories in siberia so why are you worried that Japan is going to take moscow?
Because people will try anyway and id like to watch their plans fail miserably, trying old AAR strategies that don’t apply in this version. This game forces players to invent a new concept and not rehash old ideas based on design mistakes that broad-brush a bit too much historical realism away from actual capabilities. Artificially, at least the extra spaces represent the rugged terrain… and futility of attempting to move in that direction. Japan must concern itself with pacific, but it can try for Russia, but will lose. I keep this dream alive only long enough for players to understand the futility in this dream. China is much more in Japans grasp and it will take a long war to finish them off too.
