Interesting, vonLettow… I never played original Europe…
Cow, you’re absolutely right. It does not have to have logic and rationale backing it up. Gameplay purposes is good enough reason.
It’s hard not to wonder about things like that, because in some ways Axis and Allies games are very true to history. It teases me to want more. Sometimes when something really ridiculous happens in a game (or every single game :-P) it just kind of… spoils it sometimes.
In RPG gaming terms, it ruins “immersion”… You’re getting all into it and it’s really cool, and then something crazy happens, and it’s just like, oh please. Some people like me just don’t like it when the rules cause some of this immersion breaking ridiculousness, like Russia getting 3 IPC’s per turn for controlling Italian Somaliland… :roll: Think about it… the CAPITAL territory is worth 3 IPC’s!!
But again, you’re absolutely right. We tend to forget that it’s a game and it’s about fun and gameplay, not a historical re-enactment… Sometimes we’re hoping for both at the same time - fun game and fairly historical - but I fully realize that’s never been the purpose of A&A - that is, to be realistic historically…
Dude it is called magic. Magic explains everything.
I agree that Axis and Allies wasnt meant to be historicly accurate, as the Soviet Union would be able to take on and defeat the Germans (with very minimal support from the rest of the allies.
Also the sheer Industral strength of the United States would render anything the Japanese done irrelevant.
Historical accuracy wouldn’t make for a very enjoyable game for the Axis.
Why didn’t he just add to that, that you roll 2 dice and if it comes up with the number of the month you are currently in, that you can’t collect as well? <sarcasm></sarcasm>
I believe this was almost considered, until someone pointed out that more intelligent players would opt to play Russia during the winter, and avoid Russia during the summer. This was countered with the fact that Russians should benefit by being in the winter….
but honestly, making a silly National Objective (like controlling Somoliland nets Russia +3 PUs) is bullshit
if the concern is balance, there are other ways to balance it much better (ie: make other objectives, and make more sensible objectives, or give more money and/or more troops, etc etc)
I view this national objective as a mistake that they are too lazy to fix because fixing it would require more rounds of balancing (meaning months of work)
It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.
@Cow:
It is not BS, Russia gets to hop on the imperialism train… make everyone happy through propaganda.
disguised as the spread of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Veqryn is right; other more sensible NOs could have been made up that would at least feel more historically accurate. For example Russia’s NOs could go like this:
5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls in mainland Europe or Iraq. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.
5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 80 is free of Axis warships or has an allied warship in it, Persia and Northwest Persia are controlled by the Soviet Union, and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
The first NO is just silly. They should make the no allied powers present on russia a seperate NO.
How about 10 ipc for not being at war with germany instead of 10 for taking berlin?
You can nerf the 2nd NO if you add an NO and replace the berlin one that will never ever happen (and if it does you won the game anyway).
Hey Cow,
You mentioned earlier that if Germany pulls off a Sealion, Japan will likely win in the Pacific because the US will spend too much in the Atlantic trying to liberate London. Well, what if the US doesn’t do that? What if the US keeps spending the majority of it’s income in the Pacific and proceeds to pound Japan out of existence?
I remember one game where Germany took London and the Allies ended up winning that game and never liberated London. There were German units in the UK right up to the fall of Berlin.
E z, convoy usa with germany. Italy go middle east and stuff. russia income will always be in the 30s, easy to just drop 10 inf a turn and put the rest in naval for convoying usa. Eventually italy be a real power.
Like if usa got nothin in the atlantic you still got boats n oceans, just force usa to do something.
I seen one game where germany dropped 20 units on australia.
What about a Soviet NO such as 3 or 5 ipc each for soviet control of leningrad and stalingrad. Theme Not one step back. However any additional Ipc bonus would make the game very predicable I.e Germany would have to do barbarossa every time, in my opinion.
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=6149&start=3176
Kreighund confirms that in the reprint, the 0 IPC Italian territory NO has been changed. So maybe only 6 IPC’s of bonus in Africa for Russia now.
Really? I saw at the above stated part of the thread that someone (“mantlefan”) expressed his hope for the editing of the NOs just after Krieghund’s confirmation. Krieghund did not answer to that. Or was it in one of the 397 pages of the thread before?
Looked again -
posts are backwards from the way I have them on this site. I was reading in the wrong order, so never mind.
dJensen is sending me an advance copy of the new rulebooks so that I can make lists of all the changes so that he can post them. We’ll know everything for sure, soon.
w/e russia sucks in global, we should all make it suck more. GG
Maybe we should just forget russia existed and make an axis and allies game without it.
Hey Cow,
You mentioned earlier that if Germany pulls off a Sealion, Japan will likely win in the Pacific because the US will spend too much in the Atlantic trying to liberate London. Well, what if the US doesn’t do that? What if the US keeps spending the majority of it’s income in the Pacific and proceeds to pound Japan out of existence?
I remember one game where Germany took London and the Allies ended up winning that game and never liberated London. There were German units in the UK right up to the fall of Berlin.
I see this a lot as well on TripleA. Russia can hold out for quite a while while collecting the big bucks with the NO. Especially if Germany is blowing tons of IPCs to convoy USA when USA can spend 1 turn to send a few DD and a bunnch of planes. UK can have an aggressive UK1 and slap italy hard in 96, 97, and (if Lowluck) tobruk, sending only 1 ftr and 1 bmb from UK. If that tempts sealion, all the better. UK can easily keep italy away from Iraq long enough for Russia to get it (assuming G3 sealion).
Cow, If Germany is blowing a ton of money on subs to convoy the USA (How many subs are necessary on average to convoy the USA out of 32 IPC? 16?), how does that affect other areas of the map?
Don’t forget this allegedly fabulous German navy costs IPCs, and those are IPCs that are needed to push russia back too.
If I am USA I rejoice if the Germans are so close. When someone suggests going all Japan, that doesn’t mean they have to keep doing so once Germany tosses it’s navy at the americans.
The pacific victory tends to come in under 10 rounds. The timing of your moves is critical. You can threaten USA with existing naval no problem (after london takedown on g3 you have a ton of transports) and carriers for your existing aircraft.
All of a sudden USA has to dump a bunch of stuff in the atlantic. From gibraltar you can easily raid the middle east and end the Russian NO.
Russia can send mech to Asia to compensate for germany troubling USA (since it cost you way less money fighting on your half of europe than it does for russia, it is more efficient to trouble japan who has logistics issues getting units to Asia).
The timing of what you do is important.
Also it is not hard to push russia out out of originally germany/italian/pro axis spots post sea lion, unless you lost all your armor or something.
~
In any case USA is not going to want to just let you cross gibralatar with that giant fleet… take middle east head over to the pacific and get wild like that. Like I said, I seen 20 units in australia once… it was hilarious.
I can’t see Germany fighting the USSR if they take London (Loose a bunch of ground forces and some planes) and the move their fleet down to Gibraltar (fully loaded to threaten USA) and still winning their fights against the USSR in eastern Europe and Finland/Scandinavia.
Doesn’t seem very likeley.
I can’t see Germany fighting the USSR if they take London (Loose a bunch of ground forces and some planes) and the move their fleet down to Gibraltar (fully loaded to threaten USA) and still winning their fights against the USSR in eastern Europe and Finland/Scandinavia.
Doesn’t seem very likeley.
I would agree on this
it is easy to push russia out, he is closer to your 2 major industrials. In one turn with the london cash flow you can make enough units to kick him out.
I don’t know Cow. We can try it out, but if you’ve got 20 units in Australia, that means you spent close to 20 on Sealion, built 20 to send to Australia AND had plenty of money to build and fight the Russians? How did you keep the Nordic countries? What about the Balkans?
Seems like all this talk of Russia sucking in Global might just be a weak opponent. :-D Any Russian worth their guff would have you pinned to the wall if you flew off with all your planes and an extra 20 guys…
