Agreed.
Stop the madness, and start the presses
-
That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. Was it Young Grasshopper that made the comment that the game should be Axis & Allies & Commintern? Historically, while Russia was technically an ally, it was just because they were also fighting Nazi Germany. “Enemy of my enemy…” The US and Britain sent a lot of supplies and weapons to Russia, but there was little or no collaboration otherwise. Plus, in those big meetings between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, Stalin was much more agreeable to their joint aims when the Germans were stomping the crap out of the Red Army and sitting 60 miles from Moscow. However, later on when the Russians were driving the Germans back west and the Western Allies took N. Africa and invaded Italy, Stalin started getting really cagey and less cooperative. The closer the war got to defeating Germany, the less cooperative Stalin was, which of course ultimitely led to the Cold War almost as soon as Germany surrendered.
So maybe there should be a different rule set for Russia and have it considered a “rogue” state. The idea of Russia attacking a strict neutral yet not turning all other strict neutrals Pro-Axis is brilliant. After all, Russia at that time was a brutal dictatorship and really only different from Germany and Italy in ideaology. I could see them rolling over some neutral state simply because it suited their own means.Of course, we could carry it a step further. Assuming Italy and Germany are defeated, we could take General Patton’s advice: Face them now while we got the Army over here to do it!
-
I have to admit, we’ve played games where Russia is allowed to make an alliance with Japan and may declare war on the United States and/or England once Berlin is captured.
-
I strongly disagree with these ideas. I dont think they improve game play at all but rather would add a slew of complicated and more confusing situations and need more rules to fix in the end. Instead of trying to completely change the core of the game and create a 3 sided war (because as soon as you make the Soviets their own alliance, you know you will have the Allies attacking the Soviets along side the Germans) lets keep things they way they have always been with the Allies (The US, UK and commonwealth, and the Soviet Union) fighting against their common enemies in the Axis (Germany, Italy, and Japan). If you want to create house rules for a scenario where the Soviets are a rogue state thats fine, but dont try and suggest these things should be included as offical rules. As you said there are already special rules for the Soviets, and they work fine as is.
Your “fix” is not a fix at all, it just adds more and over complicates things. It will make a game that is already full of complexity nigh unpenitrable to new players. You are attempting to “fix” something that only you have a problem with. I refuse to believe that you can turn the Soviet Union into a 60IPC economy by grabbing up places like Ireland and Sicily in a seriously played game. Yeah goofing around with friends and not playing seriously, you could probably do this, but it would take both players (axis and allies alike) working together. In a real game where people are actually playing to win, there is no way you can do this. If you’d stop trying to find ways to break the game you’d find it was actually quite balanced and flows very well. Of all the problems you have brought up with the game this is by far the most obscure and far fetched I have ever seen. -
My fix repairs the INSANITY of the new Russian NO.
The best option would be to rewind and get rid of the new NO altogether and restore it to how it was. At best, allow for Russia to get the NO for North and South Italy as well but that’s it. It’s stupid that they get 5 IPC for Greece, 5 IPC for Yugoslavia, 6 IPC for Sweeden, 5 IPC for Finland and 6 IPC for Bulgaria as it is. Adding 3 IPC for Ireland is just the icing on the insanity cake if you ask me.
If you want to give the Russians ridiculous amounts of income for making what would, in any other game, be some of the most boneheaded moves possible for the Russians, then you need to change the Neutral rules to protect neutrals from England and America by dissuading them NOT to attack any neutral at all (else they all immediately go Axis buffing Axis income and sprouting resistance groups around the world.)
-
Another idea to balance the new Soviet NO would be to give Germany a new NO of 2 or 3 IPCs for each Soviet territory they control. After all, Germany’s goal of “liebensraum” was to be found in the East.
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
-
Yes, but we’re still in the realm of nutso land. Why is a territory that freely joined the Nazi’s suddenly working twice as hard for the Communists? If anything, conquered territory should be worth less to the conquering nation, not more.
I’ll grant that the Russians should have objective money to keep from going under. Fine. But exclude the neutrals. If you are going to include the neutrals, then there needs to be some benefit to Germany for getting them, right? How about Germany gets +3 IPC for each Neutral territory in Europe (and Turkey) they control?
Or give them a free Minor complex, naval base and airbase in Norway.
Or give Germany 10 IPC for the complete control of France (France, W. France and S. France - and it must be German controlled, not Italian!)Or something to rebalance things. It’s just plain nuts that the Russians can be facing complete domination by the axis powers and still be collecting more than 40 IPC a round.
-
I think that this is a problem that you, and you alone, are having and you are having it because of the pirticular way in which you and your opponent(s) play Axis&Allies. Everyone plays things differently as everyone interperits things differently and these rules are written on paper, not carved in stone, so they are open to interpertation. I dont think this rule unbalances the game or makes one side drastically more powerful then another. Its a fairly minor mechanic in the grand scheme of things and I think you may be blowing the impact its has out of propotion. It was designed to clarify whether the +3IPC NO for the Soviets would apply to instances where Soviet forces in the game take over territories from the Germans that werent orignally German or pro-axis neutral; i.e. the Germans are in Yugoslavia and the Soviets attack them and take it over, would the +3IPC NO apply? This rules clarifies that yes, in fact, it dose, even though Yugoslavia was not an orignal Axis territory. Same thing for Turkey, its not an orignal Axis territory or even a friendly neutral like Yugoslavia, but the +3IPC NO still applies.
As Larry says, this is ment to depict one of the Soviets main objectives during the war, which was to establish a set of friendly satlite states around the Soviet union to act as buffer states in the event of another war. The +3IPC represnets the accomplishment of this and the increased sense of security it provided (perhapse making the Soviet people more productive if you need some kind of real world link for these things to makes sense to you) and the enhancment of nationl prestige by spreading the communist system around. Or you can look at it as the Soviets were setting up puppet regims and plundering the resources of these nations more then other countries in game would hence the additional IPC. It dosnt break the game and no one else seems to mind it.(and the insantiy comment was from a post in the other thread :-D )
-
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
-
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
-
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
Better to be a capitalist. (yes…… that was joke as well)
-
How about if we assume that the “propaganda value” of spreading communism to new territories wears off after 3 months (i.e. 1 turn). In other words, USSR gets a 3 IPC bonus the FIRST TIME they capture any axis or neutral territory on the Europe map (except Germany, which gets a 10 IPC bonus).
-
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
-
Not a huge fan of the “one time” NOs. It’s just another thing that has to be tracked.
If we limited the territories that Russia would qualify for this would be not so bad. Further, if we dropped the value to 2 IPC it wouldn’t be so bad. I am thinking of the following territories being 2 IPC NOs for Russia:
- Finland
- Norway
- Sweeden
- Turkey (since Larry very specifically wanted this in the list)
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Greece
- Albania
- Yugoslavia
- S. Germany
- Germany
- Poland
- Hungary
- Korea
- N. Italy
- S. Italy
This includes all the territory Russia really did conquer (the Eastern Blok States or behind the iron curtain territories) plus the scandinavian territories except Denmark and tosses in Italy and Korea for good measure, to represent how much better a general you, the player, are compared to your historical counter part.
-
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
Sure, go back to one of my first games against EM. The Russians had not only all the Balkans but also S. Germany and were threatening Berlin.
-
If Russia takes control of a strict neutral like Turkey for the sake of grabbing a few extra bucks, it’s all over for the allies. The axis powers would be running for every neutral territory, converting all their standing armies, and gobbling up all their territorial income. It would be bad business for any side to challenge a strict neutral, especially in early rounds.
-
Clyde85, you seem to be strongly defending this new, profitable NO for the Soviet Union. Why would someone fight so hard for something that benefits the Soviet Union? Me thinks you are starting to sound like a … COMMUNIST!
I pray, good sir, that that is ment to be a joke on your part and I have tragically misunderstood you.
Yes, it was just a joke. I am just goofing around. I don’t really think you or anyone else on the forum is really a communist. If we were, we probably wouldn’t be playing this game. It wouldn’t be considered productive for the state.
why?
-
@Young:
If Russia takes control of a strict neutral like Turkey for the sake of grabbing a few extra bucks, it’s all over for the allies. The axis powers would be running for every neutral territory, converting all their standing armies, and gobbling up all their territorial income. It would be bad business for any side to challenge a strict neutral, especially in early rounds.
I disagree. The allies routinely attack true neutrals in our games because most of the “standing armies” need to be activated navally for the axis. (Sweeden cannot be walked too, you have to amphib it since the allies almost always have Norway/Finland. S. America is just plain a lost cause for the Axis in our games. Turkey is sometimes gotten, but generally even by then the English have a strong army to counter it and the Americans and British started the whole thing by landing in Spain.)
Thing is, the allies can plan for the invasion of true neutrals and stage themselves accordingly. The axis cannot, the axis are land locked early or trapped in their theater in the case of Japan.
-
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.
-
I think this rule is great, and that Jen is simply rambling. There’s absolutely no way that the Russians could seize any of the Balkans when playing against a competent player. Unless she can back it up with purchases, or even a game (not against me, I don’t play online), her input is meaningless.
I agree with him 100%. In my games, Lenningrad usually falls with the opening of Barbarossa, and both players, Soviet and German, are fairly competent. See, now that sealion is harder, the Germans still purchase most of the same naval stuff but use it to keep the baltic and scandanavia.
It’s very similar in our games.
-
I’ve never played a game with a true neutral invaded. In most cases it’s not worth the risk of activating all the others and usually the units are better off hitting an enemy territory. That’s what seems to be the trend in my group anyway.
C
Suggested Topics
