Updated.
IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files
-
Ok, but what about not allowing naval and air units to blast away infantry, that seems pretty KISS to me.
And what about giving Italy its own victory conditions so that there is a little tension between the il duce and the fuhrer.
Play it the way its written first, THEN see how that could work.
Eliminating SB rules is not good, the defense now has fortifications and the offense needs that small advantage. Both sides need the ‘ying and yang’ to present these options add flavor.
-
So in other words i don’t want players to waste time trying it because its stupid, both physically and historically. Thats why i need the rule to make it more than physical, but to model the political reality of pre-Dec 1941.
Hum…Not sure if you realy understood the political reality of pre-dec 1941.
You just fix the a game as you see it.
You did’t give the oportunity to the player to change the curse of history.But the political reality is a result of the geography and the order of battle, so it seems like your overkilling it.
Exactly…Much like Japan was not ready to attack anybody till turn 4,
Ah…and what about China? A distraction? Japan army was rady to make war and got more experience than any other army. -
So in other words i don’t want players to waste time trying it because its stupid, both physically and historically. Thats why i need the rule to make it more than physical, but to model the political reality of pre-Dec 1941.
Hum…Not sure if you realy understood the political reality of pre-dec 1941.
You just fix the a game as you see it.
You did’t give the oportunity to the player to change the curse of history.No i didn’t give Adolf the A- bomb, or flying saucers either. I gave the game realistic potential and not whitewash a treatment of what is clearly possible with what is impossible.
But the political reality is a result of the geography and the order of battle, so it seems like your overkilling it.
Exactly…Much like Japan was not ready to attack anybody till turn 4,
Ah…and what about China? A distraction? Japan army was rady to make war and got more experience than any other army.Japan must fight with all she has against China for turns 1-2 and on turn 3 prepare for war with UK and USA…. historical.
Did you play the game? Did you read the rules? Did you notice where japan is economically on turn 1? Did you consider the set up?
If you want to change the rules and just let anybody do whatever they please, then why stop at Japan can’t attack russia till turn 4?
Give Adolf the Atomic weaponry in 1939, so you an satiate “the what if” and give him his UFO’s too.
Let USA start at war with japan in 1939 and Russia start at war in 1939 against Germany. Whats holding anything back?
Heck why not?
Add in Godzilla, because dinosaurs still live inside the earth… waiting to be released from volcanoes and earthquakes.
Sure why not?
Why not have USA and Germany team up to fight the world too?
Its possible…
It would be of great benefit to comment only after you play this version. This version is realistic and you can still do things you like, except they will prove to be poor moves.
Have Japan attack USA on turn 1
Have Germany attack Russia on G1
give everybody all tech at start.
Or just stop worrying about “japan cant attack Russia till turn 4” and play the game.
-
No i didn’t give Adolf the A- bomb, or flying saucers either. I gave the game realistic potential and not whitewash a treatment of what is clearly possible with what is impossible.
Ah Ok, so a Sino-Russia conflict before 1940 is impossible!
At the end of summer 1939, Japanese goverment thought about war against USSR.
There was some partisan for a north strike (USSR) and others for a south strike.
They choose the south as you know but let the player decide…with let see… rolling dice?Funny…
I like that when you make irony.
Yes I would like to play a game against you. :evil:
However I’m afraid that you makes angry when my Japanese infantries are going to bang you up near Moscow! -
No i didn’t give Adolf the A- bomb, or flying saucers either. I gave the game realistic potential and not whitewash a treatment of what is clearly possible with what is impossible.
Ah Ok, so a Sino-Russia conflict before 1940 is impossible!
At the end of summer 1939, Japanese goverment thought about war against USSR.
There was some partisan for a north strike (USSR) and others for a south strike.
They choose the south as you know but let the player decide…with let see… rolling dice?No correction they fought in the summer and japan… lost big time. In my game that already occurred:
“From May to September 1939 Japan and the Soviet Union fought a fierce, large-scale undeclared war on the Mongolian plains that ended with a decisive Soviet victory with two important results: Japan reoriented its strategic emphasis toward the south, leading to war with the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands; and Russia freed itself from the fear of fighting on two fronts, thus vitally affecting the course of the war with Germany.”
"From this incident, the Japanese Army learned that there were serious shortcomings in its armored units as well as in its tactics. Strenuous efforts were made thereafter to remodel equipment and build up tanks and firepower, however, these remained uncompleted by the outbreak of the pacific war in 1942 "
“Even without such an apoplectic outcome, if Japan had not lost so badly, they might well have been tempted for a rematch in 1941, just in time to join Hitler.”
My game provides this possibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
“Although this engagement is little-known in the West, it had profound implications on the conduct of World War II. It may be said to be the first decisive battle of World War II, because it determined that the two principal Axis Powers, Germany and Japan, would never geographically link up their areas of control through Russia. The defeat convinced the Imperial General Staff in Tokyo that the policy of the North Strike Group, favored by the army, which wanted to seize Siberia as far as Lake Baikal for its resources, was untenable. Instead the South Strike Group, favored by the navy, which wanted to seize the resources of Southeast Asia, especially the petroleum and mineral-rich Dutch East Indies, gained the ascendancy, leading directly to the attack on Pearl Harbor two and a half years later in December 1941. The Japanese would never make an offensive movement towards Russia again. In 1941, the two countries signed agreements respecting the borders of Mongolia and Manchukuo[25] and pledging neutrality towards each other.[26] They remained at peace until the Soviet conquest of Manchuria in August 1945, in the final weeks of the war.”Now since you didn’t find anything to attest to this claim that Japan was fully capable of attacking the Soviets a second time, we can assume these facts stand. Japan was in no position to engage for another attack anytime soon.
Thats why it’s not modeled in the game. History has proof of the non-aggression fact that they signed. I don’t understand why you argue about this, but not the idea that Russia can attack the Germans on R1, or US should be able to attack on US1?
I guess these are even more untenable concepts, but in reality a japanese attack against Russia is even more ridiculous on Sept 39.
-
IL can you explain marines and paratroopers to me I don’t understand.
-
Yea sure…
Pay 1 IPC for each ( do this during the build phase of the current turn), place token under these units to designate them
Airborne are just like OOB, both infantry and bomber start in same place, and fly and drop up to 2 spaces away from your friendly land unit. Bomber can also attack even if used in this manner.
AA guns roll on defense if any
Airborne attack at 2 and cant retreat and basically fight to the death.
After the turn is over they revert to normal infantry values
Marines are basically the same thing. Pay 1 IPC for each infantry you want to use and drop them off by transport
they attack at 2 and fight to the death
they revert to normal infantry on the following turn.
Thats it simple.
-
Thanks IL
-
I know perfectly the information that you wrote.
I don’t want to make debate I just expose the facts.
If you takes your information only on Wikipedia, i’m not surprise that you miss information.
In September, 1939, the Japanese high command was divided into two clan.
The officers of the land forces wished the affontement against the Soviet and had chosen the north strike.- they wanted their revenges after the defeat of august.
- Russia was the traditional enemy.
The navy wanted to attack in the South.
- They tought their navy was stronger than Royal Navy and US Navy.
- Put the hand on the oil in Asia.
- Cut the supplying of China by attacking Burma and Indo-China.
After a week of debates, Yosuke ( foreign secretaries) and the clan of the Imperial Navy won their point about the south strike and a cease of fire was signed September 15th, 1939.
The Imperial high command thus studied the plan for the north strike.
Yes, it was a risk.
Yes, red army had the advantage of the number.
Yes, the Japanese generals missed spirit of iniative.But Staline didn’t want the war with Japan because even if he had signed a pact with Germany, he didn’t trust Hitler. Stalin didn’t want to fight on two front because he knows tahnt his army was not ready for a total war.
In april 13th, 1941, Japan and the USSR signs a non-aggression pact but when Germany attacked the USSR in juner 1941, Imperial high command Imperial was again divided about the strategy has to follow…The North or the South?
The embargo of the oil by US goverment and Great Britain in august 1941 was going to seal the debate.
The Imperial staff had decided for a south strike.
Yes, an attack in the South was also very risky.
In fact, the Japanese strategy was to destroy US navy and Royal Navy in the pacfic in a short war to force the US goverment to negociate.
Their purpose was not to invade Washinton or Los Angeles!In the North, the strategy was not to invading all USSR territories or march over Moscow!
The goal was to force Staline to negociate as the victory of Japan over Russia in 1905. -
In September, 1939, the Japanese high command was divided into two clan.
The officers of the land forces wished the affontement against the Soviet and had chosen the north strike.- they wanted their revenges after the defeat of august.
- Russia was the traditional enemy.
The navy wanted to attack in the South.
- They tought their navy was stronger than Royal Navy and US Navy.
- Put the hand on the oil in Asia.
- Cut the supplying of China by attacking Burma and Indo-China.
After a week of debates, Yosuke ( foreign secretaries) and the clan of the Imperial Navy won their point about the south strike and a cease of fire was signed September 15th, 1939.
The Imperial high command thus studied the plan for the north strike.
Yes, it was a risk.
Yes, red army had the advantage of the number.
Yes, the Japanese generals missed spirit of iniative.But Staline didn’t want the war with Japan because even if he had signed a pact with Germany, he didn’t trust Hitler. Stalin didn’t want to fight on two front because he knows tahnt his army was not ready for a total war.
In april 13th, 1941, Japan and the USSR signs a non-aggression pact but when Germany attacked the USSR in juner 1941, Imperial high command Imperial was again divided about the strategy has to follow…The North or the South?
The embargo of the oil by US goverment and Great Britain in august 1941 was going to seal the debate.
The Imperial staff had decided for a south strike.
Yes, an attack in the South was also very risky.
In fact, the Japanese strategy was to destroy US navy and Royal Navy in the pacfic in a short war to force the US goverment to negociate.
Their purpose was not to invade Washinton or Los Angeles!In the North, the strategy was not to invading all USSR territories or march over Moscow!
The goal was to force Staline to negociate as the victory of Japan over Russia in 1905.And as i told you like 6 times already, this game starts AFTER the point of which they made this decision.
Like i didn’t cover the possibility that Hitler might have been assassinated before Sept 1st
Or that Hitler and Stalin didn’t conclude any treaty
Or that FDR was not elected president
Or that Japan didn’t get wiped out fighting Zhukov in the summer of 1939, and decided it was too risky
The truth is what you wrote is covered on wikpedia already.
And you still have not complained about the rules limiting the Russians to attack Germany until turn 3, or USA can’t attack the axis till turn 4. Why?
There are reasons why some things are not possible and why decisions were made otherwise. These decisions are based on very important influences and you completely missed the point regarding how Japan was influenced by their drubbing at the Mongolian border in the summer of 1939. This was the key factor over all others in their decision to avoid a repeat performance.
It exposed the total inadequacy of japanese logistics, which was is very poor shape and the very limited mechanization in their army. And Stalin only took this force away when his spy’s told him that Japan was committed to attack USA.
My game reflects the actual possibilities presented to its players. Japan was bogged down in China and not really making any headway. Russia on the other hand was much better prepared and defending in much better terrain.
In my game Japan can of course start her war against USA on turn 1, but that would also be stupid. The reason why this is allowed is because Japan didn’t undertake any discussions against fighting USA in 1939 before the start date. But relative to Soviet Union they did make these decisions and it was not to engage them because they were not prepared. The only other time they considered this again was near the end of 1941, which in my game allows them to attack.
So my game in only concerned with realistic possibility and not speculative ‘what if’ because anybody can extrapolate anything from the latter… including NAZI flying saucers, death rays, Godzilla, etc.
I don’t do Fantasy
-
IL, your making a strawman out of crusaderiv’s arguement.
Nazi spacecraft and godzilla is not what crusaderiv is talking about. From what has been said it seems there is plenty of evidence that the both the Soviets and the Japanese were concerned about war with each other before and throughout World War II. Crusaderivs complaint is that the four turn non-aggresion takes that tension away.
The invasion of Poland happened right after Nomonhan and with A&As time frame it is not unreasable to have Poland and Nomonhan happen on the same turn.
Perhaps you havnt playtested your game with out the four turn non-aggresion or perhaps it isnt good for gameplay, thats perfectly understandable its your game after all.
-
Then why stop there?
Why not argue to allow the Russians to attack Germany on R1
Why not argue to allow USA and UK to attack Japan on US1?
Why just argue for historical ‘what-if’ and only consider japan not being able to attack Russia before turn 4.
My argument is in all three cases their remains considerable historical reasons to support these rules to deny them based on historical facts. In most cases the influence that denies this is based on events that happened before Sept 1939
If you want any one of them, then you must include them all and consider a broken game to follow.
Even based on the setup, which is historical it is not even remotely possible for Japan to even be able to attack Russia before the second turn unless you like 1:3 odds. This is just like having Germany try invading Russia when France has not even been attacked. The possibility of this given the setup is also zero as it was historically.
ON J2 you could get close to a little less than 1:2 odds, and by turn J3 you would be ready for an attack. Once you attack Russia they double in income ( like from 20 to 38 IPC) while Japan is at 17.
Japan needs at least 1-3 turns to get enough IPC to get to close to 25. This will be at the expense of China and FIC.
If you play the game and make your own house rule and allow this, Japan will lose her game because on turn 4 USA enters no matter what Japan does. Japan cant fight a 3 front war in my game. IN my game if she does this they will lose like 101% of the time.
Thats why in addition to other historical facts that it is not allowed, because i don’t like players doing silly things and ruining the game with trying “glitches” to circumvent the system. My system in Global 1939 has considered all the possibilities of these personalities, because my play-test group has members who love nothing but finding glitches. One of them named Steve has this habit of starting invasions of every inconceivable manner, so knowing this my design process drew experience from this behavior.
-
The reasons for not allowing the allies to attack the axis from the very begining is that would throw off game balance and the western demcracies like the UK and US did not did not have the political support of there people to overtly start a long war.
In the Soviet-Japanese situation it would appear that the leaders of both sides had the political support to start a war with each other if they thought it was in there best interests. Perhaps allowing them to fight early is bad for balance, but from what you have said it seems that niether Japan nor the Soviets would want to attack each other anyways. Nobody is argueing that Japan attacking the Soviets would have historicaly been a good idea, were just suggesting that a non-aggresion rule is unnecessarily taking tension away that was historically there.
-
I have to agree with Empori. It seems IL making strong arguements as to why the rule is not needed. As far as someone gaming the system and figuring something out that was not caught, I don’t know, that reasoning doesn’t set well.
Although, I believe in rule are rules, I am finding it hard to understand if someone does not like that particular rule, then don’t play with it. Why waste your time arguing such a thing,
Unless you are at work like me just wasting time and are entertaining yourself until it is time to go home.
-
Why not argue to allow the Russians to attack Germany on R1
- Stalin didn’t have any interrest because he gains territory.
- Economic exchange.
- And yes, believe or not, Stalin plan the possibility but red army wasn’t prepare to make.
(Not before 1942).
Why not argue to allow USA and UK to attack Japan on US1?
- USA was not prepared to make war.
- Roosevelt knows that US citizen do not want the war.
- Churchill didn’t want to fight on two front.
Why just argue for historical ‘what-if’ and only consider japan not being able to attack Russia before turn 4.
Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and the other leaders of the world have make good and bad decision.
You have problem to understand that the decision was made by personal or political interest, conviction or simply by a feeling not only because with a good strategic move.
Japan didn’t start war with USSR in 1939 because 2 or 3 men vote against it.
A&A player must have the choice.
Live and die with your desicion.
Let see what the Japan players have guts. -
The reasons for not allowing the allies to attack the axis from the very begining is that would throw off game balance and the western demcracies like the UK and US did not did not have the political support of there people to overtly start a long war.
The reasons for not allowing the Japanese to attack the Soviets from the very beginning is that would throw off game balance and the Japanese high command did not did not have the political support of their people to overtly start a long war with the Russians after suffering a total defeat before the game starts.
In the Soviet-Japanese situation it would appear that the leaders of both sides had the political support to start a war with each other if they thought it was in there best interests. Perhaps allowing them to fight early is bad for balance, but from what you have said it seems that niether Japan nor the Soviets would want to attack each other anyways. Nobody is argueing that Japan attacking the Soviets would have historicaly been a good idea, were just suggesting that a non-aggresion rule is unnecessarily taking tension away that was historically there.
In the German-Soviet situation it would appear that the leaders of both sides had the political support to start a war with each other if they thought it was in there best interests. Perhaps allowing them to fight early is bad for balance, but from what you have said it seems that neither Germany nor the Soviets would want to attack each other anyways. Nobody is arguing that Germany attacking the Soviets would have historically been a good idea, were just suggesting that a non-aggression rule is unnecessarily taking tension away that was historically there.
-
Why not argue to allow the Japanese to attack Russia on J1?
- Japan suffered a huge defeat in the summer of 1939. They knew already they would even have a worse chance trying again
- The loses exposed the inadequacy of Japanese logistics
- The loses exposed the greater need for mechanization and modernization of the Japanese Kwangtung army in comparison to Soviet army tactics
- Japanese could not even use their advantage in night attacks because Zhukov was even more clever, in how he set up a picket line and used his superior artillery to cut the Japanese advance to pieces
- Japan was in a major war with China and her navy required fuel and it was easier to secure this at the expense of the Dutch, once Japan had built up her naval and secured a better hold in China.
Thats why its not allowed, just like the other ideas about Russia attacking Germany or USA attacking Japan on their first turns. Because i don’t give fantasy choices to players. I give them realistic choices.
-
@Imperious:
The reasons for not allowing the allies to attack the axis from the very begining is that would throw off game balance and the western demcracies like the UK and US did not did not have the political support of there people to overtly start a long war.
The reasons for not allowing the Japanese to attack the Soviets from the very beginning is that would throw off game balance and the Japanese high command did not did not have the political support of their people to overtly start a long war with the Russians after suffering a total defeat before the game starts.
In the Soviet-Japanese situation it would appear that the leaders of both sides had the political support to start a war with each other if they thought it was in there best interests. Perhaps allowing them to fight early is bad for balance, but from what you have said it seems that niether Japan nor the Soviets would want to attack each other anyways. Nobody is argueing that Japan attacking the Soviets would have historicaly been a good idea, were just suggesting that a non-aggresion rule is unnecessarily taking tension away that was historically there.
In the German-Soviet situation it would appear that the leaders of both sides had the political support to start a war with each other if they thought it was in there best interests. Perhaps allowing them to fight early is bad for balance, but from what you have said it seems that neither Germany nor the Soviets would want to attack each other anyways. Nobody is arguing that Germany attacking the Soviets would have historically been a good idea, were just suggesting that a non-aggression rule is unnecessarily taking tension away that was historically there.
lol, very good
but based on what we have been talking about, your first statement is counterfactual unless you have new evidence. And in regards to your second point I would experiment with allowing the Germans and Soviets to attack each other in 1939 or 1940. Otherwise the players will be certain of peace along those borders when historically peace wasnt certain.
-
your first statement is counter factual unless you have new evidence
Thats fine, then substitute the words “political support of their people” with “a consensus of both the army and the navy”
You can allow the second to occur and the result is Germany loses.
In any dimension ( even the 5th), if both France and Soviets attacked Germany along with UK and Poland in Sept 1939, Hitler would be finished in short order. Thats also what will happen in my game.
Soviets go to like 42 IPC
France 12
UK 25
Polandand Germany at 23 ( they no longer get 1 IPC from Russia)
so you got 69 vs 23, which is 3:1. So to allow this means you don’t have any game. What you have is “what-if Tyranny” ruining a great game.
-
Nazi spacecraft and godzilla is not what crusaderiv is talking about. From what has been said it seems there is plenty of evidence that the both the Soviets and the Japanese were concerned about war with each other before and throughout World War II. Crusaderivs complaint is that the four turn non-aggresion takes that tension away.
Glad to see that someone understand the point.
I’m not arguing IL rules.
I’m arguing the thinking that he used to make USSR-Japan rules. (Not the same).IL. You make a good job but you should stop to read ‘‘American version’’ of WW II and start to read others book. I’m 40 years old. I read WW II books since the age of 7 years.
English but also French and German books.
Since the German and USSR secret document are available on the net, we can learn a lot of thing so start to read man……I believe my comments were correct and especially not ridiculous. (Contrary has of what some people think).
Suggested Topics
