I think that is exactly what Calvin was getting at. I know that I look forward to a bold Russian as I have always thought that a bold Russian is a dead Russian. (at least against Japan)
I think that is exactly what Calvin was getting at. I know that I look forward to a bold Russian as I have always thought that a bold Russian is a dead Russian. (at least against Japan)
I’d say it depends. In previous versions (revised & 1942) a bold Russian could actually make economic gains in the Pacific, and it could seriously harm Japan, but it was usually predicated on also sending russian units through china and india at the same time. However, in 1940G, a bold russian can only slow Japan, as it doesn’t give them any economic gain, and because reinforcements are so very far away, it can go pear shaped for them easily.
I haven’t played a global game yet, so so it’s all armchair engineering for me, but if I were Russia, I would look for an opening to move into Manchuria first, but only on R3 or so, when Japan had started the move south. Being aggressive before that seems to put Russia in a very vulnerable position, especially as it won’t get help until Japan gets the US into the war.
The one rule that troubles me is that by declaring war with Russia against Japan, it allows Russia to move through pro ally neutrals and into UK territories. I personally think that that isn’t in the spirit of the game, and Russia should only be allowed to control neutrals or move into ANY friendly (exception of China, as that’s only pacific side) after it’s at war with the European powers. Moving into a UK space would be seen as a hostile act by Germany, and Russia’s not supposed to be hostile to Germany yet.
I suppose that I should clarify by saying that I usually use the alpha set up. That many Japanese land forces up north and a bold Russian almost never bodes well for them.
Dose the alpha setup include the Soviets, or is it only for the stand alone pacific forces? Im thinking that if Japan gets a boost in manpower on the asian mainland, maybe the soviets should be getting some offensive units out in the far east, or maybe some more infantry?
Dose the alpha setup include the Soviets, or is it only for the stand alone pacific forces? Im thinking that if Japan gets a boost in manpower on the asian mainland, maybe the soviets should be getting some offensive units out in the far east, or maybe some more infantry?
Alpha is considered the new set up for Pacific and since you use the Pacific set up for global it is also used for Global. I am not sure that giving the soviets more troops is the answer though, we are trying to have a balanced game where either side can win…
something needs to be done cause we wind up witha very unbalanced soviet far east. Perhapse making the political rules for the Soviets say the cant attack ANY axis power until turn 4, might fix it.
I personally think that where the mix up is the fact the Soviet far east is so easy to conquer and yet worth so much. Personally I would have liked to have seen the Urals worth more and some of those territories in the far east worth nothing. Then there is more reason for the Japanese and Russians to make a peace treaty. The Urals was one of the main areas targeted for industrialization during the five year plans yet you can not even put a minor there. I understand why no territories are worth 3 except for Russia as they wanted no other major factories being placed but I still think that the far east is worth FAR to much money and that is why things become unbalanced in that region.
you make a very good point. Maybe increasing the value of one of the soviet far eastern tt to a 2 would help. say Novosbrisk is worth 2, that way the soviets could actually place a minor IC there, and reinforce their positions in the east. It would also represent the build up of industry in this region.
An interesting derivative of a Russian held Korea is that it denies the US player a Korean IC.
As Japan, simply letting the Russians hold Korea indefinitely would essentially eliminate the possibility of a US IC on mainland Asia (assuming that US strategy is still viable in Global).
The Japanese player can always choose to attack the Russians in Korea to reduce whatever stack is there - and/or - keep a sub or two in SZ6 to negate Russian income - and/or - launch their own attacks into Siberia to force the Russians to reduce their Korean garrison themselves.
The IPC loss to Japan (of 3) could easily be gained from other conquests, including Russia’s own original territories.
Sure, its kind of “gamey” to leave Korea (particularly if its empty) in Russian hands, but ultimately could be to their benefit if it deprives the US of an IC build later.
The obvious wrinkle here is if Russia is cleaning up in Europe, and therefore can spare 30 IPCS to build their own factory there. But any Japanese player should be able to see that move coming rounds in advance, and simply move to take Korea pre-emptively.
An interesting derivative of a Russian held Korea is that it denies the US player a Korean IC.
As Japan, simply letting the Russians hold Korea indefinitely would essentially eliminate the possibility of a US IC on mainland Asia (assuming that US strategy is still viable in Global).
The Japanese player can always choose to attack the Russians in Korea to reduce whatever stack is there - and/or - keep a sub or two in SZ6 to negate Russian income - and/or - launch their own attacks into Siberia to force the Russians to reduce their Korean garrison themselves.
The IPC loss to Japan (of 3) could easily be gained from other conquests, including Russia’s own original territories.
Sure, its kind of “gamey” to leave Korea (particularly if its empty) in Russian hands, but ultimately could be to their benefit if it deprives the US of an IC build later.
The obvious wrinkle here is if Russia is cleaning up in Europe, and therefore can spare 30 IPCS to build their own factory there. But any Japanese player should be able to see that move coming rounds in advance, and simply move to take Korea pre-emptively.
Or even better, take Korea after Russia builds the IC
I have always been able to hold the US from coming anywhere close to Korea with enough to actually hold it, then again I always build a minor IC in Manchuria on J1. If need be I upgrade it to a major but that is VERY rare.
All well and good - though I haven’t been as lucky. And from reading these forums, many others haven’t either. But again, those are all in the context of AAP40 and not Global. Not having had the benefit of playing a Global game yet, I can’t really say for sure whether the US Korean IC would even become a consistent strategy.
In any event, I was only pointing it out as a perhaps unforseen consequence of Russian expansion - one that could wind up being in Japan’s favor.
