@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
Poland
and 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
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.
In did, and my Masters in History and Philosophy from Stanford say otherwise.
:-o Ouah….I have to face the Jedi Kenobi and his Padawan. LOL.
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.
Wikipedia is not a good refence either…
In my 1939 A&A game, USSR play before Japan on the first turn.
So USSR had the advantage and USSR forces are stronger than japanse army.
Also I introduced the Siberian mount.
Russian tank and Japan tank cannot pass through.
So it’s not necessary to hinder the japanese player to try an attack against USSR.
For Germany: Hitler made all decisions.
For UK: Churhchill made all decisions.
For USSR: Staline made all decisions.
For Japan: Hiro Hito was a puppet.
Imperial general staff work for their own interest. Navy and Army.
Hiro Hito got the last word but he didn’t get all information to take a good decision.
We can say that he was manipulated in a way by his generals.
After the defeat of the Japan army in september 1939, Imperial Navy Lobby take the advantage and gain their point to go for a south strike.
So my point is…iJapan player is the chief commander so let him play.
So your argument now changes from “read a book… i don’t need to support my facts with online sources” to “hey just let the japanese guy play how he likes?”
You still have not posted ANYTHING to support your view.
My design is based on Historical data and offers play based on the realistic possibilities and outcomes. Everything in it is supported by relevant capabilities based on the military and political potentials.
It was possible for Stalin and Hitler being allies and carve up the middle east or FDR to have been replaced by Wendel Willkie, and even for Japan to attack the Soviet Union again after suffering a huge defeat and exposing their unprepared state. All this is possible but not plausible. You can design such items, but my design is not based on this form of speculation.
@Imperious:
and even for Japan to attack the Soviet Union again after suffering a huge defeat and exposing their unprepared state.
Again, IL, no one is saying that Japan should attack the Soviet Union, no one is saying that your game should reward that action.
However, if the Japanese player reprsents the army and navy leaders and the army and navy learders thought about a northern attack and then decided on the southern approach, then the player should also be able to do the same thing. With your four turn cease-fire that part of history is left out.
If its bad for play its bad for play, but i dont see how this non-aggresion rule adds realism.
My appeal is based on historical considerations. That example is the underlying reasons why Japan could not go to war against the Soviet Union on Sept 1939.
They were not prepared in any measurable manner till late 1941.
The facts back that up and the game allows only those plausible historical ideas to bear fruit and everything is designed to reflect that.
I don’t let players fulfill “fantasy lists” of every unimaginable idea that they hold firm as conviction since an early age.
Its fun to have Adolf dropping atomic bombs on New York and having thoughts of Japan perform circus acts and drive tanks to Moscow and many other strange things. But reality must at times prevail and the free for all must stop. I don’t design ‘candyland’ games.
The “what-if” peeps can just play OOB if they want fantasy games.
@Imperious:
Japan perform circus acts and drive tanks to Moscow and many other strange things.
So you beleave that in a game of axis and allies the only/best way to keep Japan from taking moscow is to have a rule that says they cant attack the first four turns?
You couldn’t give Japan less units to show that it is unprepared for a war with the Soviets? I thaught you already said that with the current setup a Japanese attack would be futile anyways?
only/best way to keep Japan from taking moscow is to have a rule that says they cant attack the first four turns?
No the solution was multifaceted:
Change to national victory conditions ( no reason to do this, you don’t win if you do)
Make set up based on historical data ( not enough pieces to make it possible)
Make territories based on historical data ( not enough economics to justify the expedition)
Add political rules that maintain existing political relationships that were historical ( respect pre-existing historical treaties and results of fighting that occurred before Sept 1939)
Add map features that make the distance insurmountabe based on given national capabilities ( make KISS the concept of terrain by imposing many territories representing the distance due to terrain type)
Right,
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations. So number 4 is redundant.
