Ideas about the NOs

[ItIsILeClerc]

A&A is a game of thr… balance  :roll:

The NOs and the military positions cannot reflect history, because the balance of the game would be ruined.

A historical simulation in this game would mean Russia producing like triple the infantry it can now (although during the first year or so, the infantry must have its attack and defense values halved).
America should have at least double the income it has now, the RN should be a monster at start, Japan should have much more infantry but have way less airplanes, China should have more areas to retreat into, and the list goes on.

My point is: the game is reasonably balanced right now. If you want to redesign the NOs, you should at least maintain the current income levels or increase the levels of all Major Powers or else the balance is disturbed into a point where one side always wins and the other side never stands a chance.

The fact that Russia can get income from otherwise worthless area’s is balanced by the fact that the Axis can completely ‘bird-cage’ Russia in its own Motherland, which is also ridiculous. I mean… Japan, crossing all of China with a massive army to also threaten Moscow?
Even more ridiculous: while doing so, Japan can still perfectly defend against the USA if the latter choose to go for a Germany-first strategy.

Russia receiving income from worthless areas could be seen as a way to make up for the fact that they do not receive lend lease via Persia once Archangelsk is taken by the Germans.

[captainwalker]

Yeah I know it’s for balance. It’s just kind of comical having Russian mechs/tanks in Tobruk or Somali.

[Razor]

@ItIsILeClerc:

A&A is a game of thr… balance  :roll:

The NOs and the military positions cannot reflect history, because the balance of the game would be ruined.

.

…and that is because the Axis and Allies community invented thr… bidding.  :-D A one time disbursement of extra cash or units so you can balance the game after your liking

[Razor]

@captain:

I  do think the NO’s you’ve suggested are more realistic than the current ones for Russia. The NO’s for Russia having control of Italian territories in Africa aren’t even remotely close to being historically accurate.

Thank you sir, I love your opinion. I do believe the game can be fair balanced with NOs that is based on reality and not fantasy. And Russia getting 3 IPC for every African colony it liberated, and turned into a workers socialist paradise, is one NO we could be without. And I bet the game would still be balanced. I want Russia to get more Lend Lease NOs for Alpha 2.4 edition. I love the 5 IPC they got by controlling sz 125 and Archangelsk, but they should also get Lend Lease through Persia and Sovjet Far East. I am also a fan of the Patriotic War No they had in the AA Europa 1999 edition, where UK and USA could land a fighter on Sovjet territory with a factory, and that fighter would turn into a Russian fighter next turn. That mechanic was close to being historically accurate, and did not act as a free lunch, as most NOs do.

I believe in trade. Germany give one artillery to Russia and get 5 IPC in return as long as they are friends. USA land a fighter on Russian territory, and later it turn into a Russian fighter, and that benefits both Russia and USA. Russia get more fighting power, and USA get dollars into action faster. And the Axis cant complain that NO is a free lunch

[CWO Marc]

@Razor:

To that you can add all the native population in the colonies, yes even Canadians and Aussies wanted to govern themselves, so did the Indies, the Africans and so on. Add to that 12 million African slaves, and a lot of minor nations that was bullied by the Brits.

I’d just like to point out that Canada and Australia (and New Zealand, and South Africa, and Eire and [with some qualifications] Newfoundland) had been self-governing Dominions since 1931, when the Statute of Westminster granted them legislative independence for most practical purposes.  I’d even argue that the Canada stopped being a “colony” since at least the time of Confederation (1867), if not longer, and that the term “native population” has unfortunate overtones that should have consigned it to the historical trash can around the time when Queen Victoria died.

As an amusing footnote: a friend of mine in Britain once told me that she and her husband were having a dinner party at which two of the guests were her elderly mother-in-law and a Canadian expatriate who’d been living in Britain for many years.  At one point, the Canadian expatriate said something which offended my friend’s mother-in-law, who hissed in exasperation and exclaimed, “You people from the colonies!”

[ghr2]

@Razor:

@rjpeters70:

Yeah, that’s part of the reason why Churchill (asides from being a staunch anti-bolshevik) had no patience for the Soviet argument that they were the ones bearing the brunt of the fighting against Hitler, and that they therefore should receive some extra compensation:�  Because they were supplying the raw materials necessary for the Germans to conquer France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway, and that the Soviets would have been more than happy to see the British Empire destroyed…

Basically I startet this thread to analyze how the games rules models WWII history. But your off topic statement is so far fetched it cant be ignored.

First, the workers of Sovjet Union were not the only that would be happy to see the British Empire destroyed. Also president F.D.Roosevelt and the capitalist businessmen of USA wanted the protectionist colonial powers Britain and France to be destroyed so they could open a free world marked, with free trade. And correct me if I am wrong, but after the war all great suppressing racist colonial powers did get destroyed, but you cant blame the commies in Russia for that. You must blame the capitalist Yankees.

So both socialist workers and capitalist Yankees wanted the British Empire to die. To that you can add all the native population in the colonies, yes even Canadians and Aussies wanted to govern themselves, so did the Indies, the Africans and so on. Add to that 12 million African slaves, and a lot of minor nations that was bullied by the Brits.

As to who helped build up the German military, it was not the Russians. That trade agreement was made after the war had begun, and had no effect on the fighting in 1939 and 40. The Russians was forced to agree to it because they feared Britain and France would make a new Munich treaty against Russia the same way they did to Tchecoslovakia in 1938. After all both vice president Truman and Churchill did say in public before the war, that it would be nice if commies and nazies killed each other. Not just talk, since they gave a lot of resources to Germany in order to keep Russians out of Europe. But the main contributor to Nazi Germany was neutral Sweden. Hitler got 40 % of his steel from Sweden, starting just after WWI and not ending before Germany lost in 1945. It was so much steel that Hitler could build a Tirpitz battleship every day. And that steel was paid for with US dollars, delivered by Prescott Bush, on behalf of a US bank. So shout up.

And about who was bearing the brunt, I belive 85 % of the germans was killed in the Eastern front. USA only lost 250 000 men, so the main burden was not there. Actually USA become the richest country in the world after WWII, making good profit on the war, so again, just shout up.

Shout up?

[WILD BILL]

Hey you guys keep it down, too much shouting up going on in this thread

BTW I do like Razors thoughts on tweaking the NO to give Russia something in return based on the trades. IDK, because you would probably need to tweak their starting units to accommodate (cut some art/mech). They don’t start the game with much punch though, only a couple art, mech and tanks so you would have to remove some to give them an art or mech each turn for balance which could hurt them if Germany attacks earlier.

[Razor]

That is correct, Wild Bill, the game need to be balanced. What I want is the right feeling, both Germany and Russia should feel they benefit from this treaty

[ghr2]

@ShadowHAwk:

@Razor:

That is correct, Wild Bill, the game need to be balanced. What I want is the right feeling, both Germany and Russia should feel they benefit from this treaty

The game is already unbalanced in favor for the allies in 2nd edition. You want to give them even more money so germany and japan have no chance of winning at all.
If anything the axis need some extra NO’s or some of the easy captures should be worth more money.
Maby remove the mongolia rule from the game and make it its own true neutral.

I respectfully disagree sir, I believe that the Axis have the edge in 2nd edition.

[WILD BILL]

@ShadowHAwk:

@Razor:

That is correct, Wild Bill, the game need to be balanced. What I want is the right feeling, both Germany and Russia should feel they benefit from this treaty

The game is already unbalanced in favor for the allies in 2nd edition. You want to give them even more money so germany and japan have no chance of winning at all.
If anything the axis need some extra NO’s or some of the easy captures should be worth more money.
Maby remove the mongolia rule from the game and make it its own true neutral.

That’s funny, because from what I hear the online community normally gives the Allies a bid of 8-12 ipcs.