@monsieurmurdoch I am not sure how these house rules would interplay with 40 since the scope of warfare was so different. Hospitals and ambulance customization could. I hope you can find a 1914 game. Keep an eye out. And, I do have some plans for barb wire, trenches, etc. Thanks for the feedback!
IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files
-
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).
-
I don’t read versions of History, I read the facts and they don’t change depending on which nation wrote the narrative of what happened.
The only time this might have existed was under books published under the Soviet era.
Document your source that says Japan was going to attack Russia in Sept 1939 right after they just lost. Just go find this fact. You can’t because they didn’t consider this.
“This battle ( referring to Khalkhin Gol Campaign) had a big strategic impact on World War II. The drubbing that the Japanese received at Khalkhin Gol convinced them to change strategy and attack “softer” targets in the Pacific theater. When Germany attacked Russia in 1941, Japan refused to join in.”
-
Thats fine, then substitute the words “political support of their people” with “a consensus of both the army and the navy”
I told ya… you’re worng…_- 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_
Yes but you think all Imperial officers knows that fact?
No, Imperial high command thought that their army was invicible or at least superior to the red army. Imperial officers had a big problem, They underestimated their enemy!
Some Japanese officer didn’t want the war. (Yamamoto was the most known)
But the most influential officer succeeded to convince the others.
USSR or USA? It wasn’t an easy choice contrary has of what you think. -
I don’t read versions of History, I read the facts and they don’t change depending on which nation wrote the narrative of what happened.
Don’t agree at all.Document your source that says Japan was going to attack Russia in Sept 1939 right after they just lost. Just go find this fact. You can’t because they didn’t consider this.
Yes I can but you will not consider it because you still not believe it.At the end of October, 1941, Stalin was afraid of losing the war.
He was ready to consider an armistisce with Hitler and make territorial concessions.
He asked to Molotov to take steps with German.
Molotov met the Bulgarian foreign minister to serve as intermediary but this one refused.
He answered to Molotov that he was persuaded that USSR was going to win the war.
Stalin was surprised and found motivation to defend Moscow.
Did you know that? -
Document your source that says Japan was going to attack Russia in Sept 1939 right after they just lost. Just go find this fact. You can’t because they didn’t consider this.
You didn’t support your ideas with sources. I wonder why?
Now you post this? LOL
At the end of October, 1941, Stalin was afraid of losing the war.
He was ready to consider an armistisce with Hitler and make territorial concessions.
He asked to Molotov to take steps with German.
Molotov met the Bulgarian foreign minister to serve as intermediary but this one refused.
He answered to Molotov that he was persuaded that USSR was going to win the war.
Stalin was surprised and found motivation to defend Moscow.
Did you know that?everybody knows this but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I can post a Pizza recipe and it would have the same meaning as what you posted and relevance.
-
No, Imperial high command thought that their army was invincible or at least superior to the red army.
Yes that was the case until they actually fought them. Once they understood where they were in reality, japan made other plans and never spoke of this again until they felt they were ready for another try and that other try was not the following day. Sorry they are the facts.
The next time they considered this was late 1941. and dropped this idea because at that time they still were not ready. History has spoken on their real intentions because of what they actually did. I don’t represent everything possible because it leads to a broken game.
Just like Japan attacking on J1 in AAP40.
-
@Imperious:
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”
I thought the player was the leaders of the army and the navy.
And I am not convinced that allowing the Soviet player freedom to attack Germany would necessarily force or motivate them to attack Germany. For example, you have already started down the pack of individual victory. If the Soviets had different goals than the allies they may not want to attack Germany early. I think there are many ways that the Soviet attack could be discouraged besides errecting a quite unhistorical magic wall on the border. But maybe not, I think it should be tried. The Soviets did not attack Germany first for an actual reason, it wasnt because there was a magic wall that was selectivly permeable to panzers. Figure out what the actual reasons were and put it in your game.
-
Who cares just delete the rule you guys from the games that you play and stop bothering IL.
PS IL is this game balanced or does say Russia win every second time. -
Who cares just delete the rule you guys from the games that you play and stop bothering IL.
PS IL is this game balanced or does say Russia win every second time.No one is bothering IL, he obviously wants people to talk about his game. Asking questions about who the player represents, what are realsitic options, how a game replicates history and creates strategy are very important. Without asking these questions there is no AA50 or AAP40. A&A dies.
-
Who cares just delete the rule you guys from the games that you play and stop bothering IL.
I don’t care about the rules…I don’t bothering him…
He just take everything too much personnal. :evil:everybody knows this but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
I can post a Pizza recipe and it would have the same meaning as what you posted and relevance.
I know but if you known that fact, you should have seen the error.
It wasn’t the foreign minister but the bulgarian ambassador.
Anyway…You didn’t support your ideas with sources. I wonder why?
Now you post this? LOL
do like me…make research and read… 8-) -
do like me…make research and read…
In did, and my Masters in History and Philosophy from Stanford say otherwise.
But to find a common source for all concerned, i posted the facts and since you never tried this and since we can’t rely on what you or i say on the matter, we just trust the wisdom of online sources.
I already backed up my claims and you saying “hey just read a book” and not bother to bring one fragment of supporting documentation speaks volumes of your position.
This is spite of how many times you try to wiggle out of proving your points.
Suggested Topics
