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.
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.
The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties. Japan decided that attacking Russia was suicidal and decided to instead go with the non-aggression pact latter in 1941. Thats why the military goals changed direction to a “southern strategy” after Russia exposed the futility of a “northern strategy”… That is why the rule exist in my game.
And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not ‘candyland’.
The rule makes sense period. The fact is the decision to attack south won. So that is how the game is played.
It represents what was at a specific time chosen to represent the best balance of play. If you started the game at the end of 1944 and kept it historically accurate with the political and strategic forces in place, the Allies would win every time. If you start it at 1939 and ignore only the political forces in place, the Axis loses every time as the USSR, France, Britain, and the US could all declare war on Germany in 1939.
The policital will to invade Japan on turn 1 when this game begins does not exist. A decision was made to go south and the game begins after that from what I understand. I understand that the arguement that the game was structure to make this a fools errand concludes that the rule is not necessary. I also understand that if by chance it has an unrealtic effect on the game if done demands that rule.
But for all of those arguing the need or sense for that rule, just do it. Who says you can’t. If you want to suppose that the decision to try north again won out, go ahead. Who is stopping you. If you want to suppose that FDR was able to muster support for war without Pearl Harbor, or the moment France was invaded, go ahead. Who is stopping you.
I do not agree however with the tone of IL or comparing the idea of Japan attacking Russian right away with giving Germany the A-bomb or flying saucers right away.
As a moderator, I am assuming part of his role is to moderate and to stay moderate and not go to extremes. It only encourage others to be more so. It is like the pastor of a church using foul language. It would only cause the flock to do it more often.
or flying saucers. I am not sure what is setting hi off
or 1940, Germany would have lost quickly.
@Imperious:
The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties.
pieces of paper
@Imperious:
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.
And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not ‘candyland’.
That is what i thought i was saying.
ill reinterate, no one is saying japan should attack the Soviets.
I am just saying that the non-agresion rule is redundant
should rules be redundant?
eddiem4145 i really dont see this as an arguement, I want to know ILs reasoning behind his rules. I have enjoy this discusion.
pieces of paper
That Japan stuck too the ENTIRE WAR. This shows the real intention of what they were thinking before and during the war.
Japan saw they had no hope to fight Russia again and decided to sign a piece of paper to ensure and reaffirm their word because it was in their best interest.
In terms of best interest:
@Imperious:
The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties.
pieces of paper
@Imperious:
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.
And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not ‘candyland’.
That is what i thought i was saying.
ill reinterate, no one is saying japan should attack the Soviets.
I am just saying that the non-agresion rule is redundant
should rules be redundant?eddiem4145 i really dont see this as an arguement, I want to know ILs reasoning behind his rules. I have enjoy this discusion.
You are being redundant!
Play the game the way it is designed, if you do not like it, do not play it!
I have to agree with IL that it is ridiculous for to Japan to March to Moscow.
Japan had to go south for the oil since they were cut-off.
Read some books other than Wikipedia people.
They were cut off by USA and allies in august 1941. (If i’m not wrong)
When I played Japan, I never try to march over moscow,anyway.
(It was not in the plan of Imperial army)
No in fact, this accomplishement goes to the German player. :-D
No serioulsy…
For a good USSR player, it will be easy to repulse any German offensive if everyting is quiet on the asian front.
The only other idea to add here is this:
The Soviets can’t move or relocate the Far East border force until starting turn 4, by which Stalin knew certainly ( by spys) as an indication that Japan had decided to attack USA. He can pull this force starting on that turn, but allow it to immediately enter Moscow ( modeling the railroads that were established between these points).
That would be historical too.
That is an awesome rule. That is perfect. Historical and accurate.
One idea about IL’s reasoning that makes sense that he has not to my knowledge expressed. I am a history buff. I read a lot and watch the History Channel and Military Channel. I have always had the sense that Japan, after 1939 did not want war with Russia. It needed the resources of the islands. Oil, rubber, ect… Without that it could not take out China much less Russia. The traditional axis and allies starts out with Japan having those resources. Once it got them, they might have decided to invade Russia. But why didn’t they. They spent huge resources attacking the US, when they could have assitted the Germans invading from the rear. Why didn’t they.
How about this. Germany was to Japan what Russia was to US. The enemy of my enemy. Nothing more. They wanted Germany to slam thier head against Japan while they grew stronger and stronger. So they hoped by attempting to take the entire Pacific. Invading Russia from the rear risked Hitler being successful and getting to Moscow first making him King of the Land. Like all dictators and thieves in an enemy of my enemy alliance, each tries to play it out so they end up on top.
Japan wanted the west to be in a protracted war while they prospered in an “Asia co-prosperity something or other”.
Just my take on all the facts and opinions on the facts I have heard throughout my time.
I meant Germany slamming thier heads against Russia
The Soviets can’t move or relocate the Far East border force until starting turn 4, by which Stalin knew certainly ( by spys) as an indication that Japan had decided to attack USA. He can pull this force starting on that turn, but allow it to immediately enter Moscow ( modeling the railroads that were established between these points).
Here’s what misses in my game rules.
A good espionage rule.
Sorge was probably the best.
And Staline didn’t make anything to save him!
@Imperious:
The only other idea to add here is this:
The Soviets can’t move or relocate the Far East border force until starting turn 4, by which Stalin knew certainly ( by spys) as an indication that Japan had decided to attack USA. He can pull this force starting on that turn, but allow it to immediately enter Moscow ( modeling the railroads that were established between these points).
That would be historical too.
Why is this rule nessisary if the game is already set-up to not reward Japan for attacking the Soviets?
I dont think what I am saying is that complicated or confusing, I am mean in 1942 it is not historical or at all likely for the Germans to invade Britian and the german command has allready canceled operation sealion, but in the AA50 1942 scenario there isnt a rule that says for the first four turns the Germans cant attack england with land units. Why? because the game already discourages that.
Likewise who cares which treaties or military plans the japanese goverment/military historically honored. The player is the leaders of the jap goverment/military.
or am I wrong?
Why is this rule necessary if the game is already set-up to not reward Japan for attacking the Soviets?
The rule is not necessary at all. However, if after playing the game you feel the allies are stronger then try it because it effects the allies and it is historical. Thats the type of solution that i find works best in balancing these games… draw on historical plausibility.
The pplayer is the leaders of the jap goverment/military.
Only after the start Date of Sept 1939. The arrangements are still in place.
these are the basic concepts that both make the game playable, historical relevant, and balanced.
I choose to address this in my design.
@Imperious:
- Martians don’t try to visit and stop the war
- Time machines are not allowed
wheres the fun in that! :lol:
idk IL, its your game if thats the way you want to have it. I think I will be playing AAG40.
In that game Larry has 18 infantry which do the same thing by other means as my own rule. He made Japan stay out by just giving Russia way too many pieces.
I just choose to make it more realistic, but i suppose adding 30 infantry might do the job too.
And i wish people just tried the game, then shooting down it because it does not allow candyland.
Hi IL
Sorry if i’m late but I found some of my books among boxes.
@Imperious:
And i wish people just tried the game, then shooting down it because it does not allow candyland.
Im sorry, i shouldnt have said that. I dont mean to shoot your game down, I only got so much cash though.
