Jen,
I don’t understand your last paragraph. Could you explain how Russia will earn $70+ income and purchase a navy out of boredom?. Also, how will the Axis have no choice but to allow this?
Ireland: 3 IPC
Crete: 3 IPC
Sardinia: 3 IPC
Sicily: 3 IPC
Norway: 6 IPC
Finland: 5 IPC
Sweeden: 6 IPC
Moscow: 3 IPC
S. Ukraine: 2 IPC
N. Ukraine: 2 IPC
Rostov: 2 IPC
Caucasus: 2 IPC
Smolensk: 1 IPC
Karelia: 1 IPC
Novgorod: 2 IPC
Volgograd: 2 IPC
Belarus: 1 IPC
Bryansk: 1 IPC
Kazakh: 1 IPC
Tambov: 1 IPC
Vologda: 1 IPC
Arkhangelsk: 1 IPC
Total: 52 IPC in relatively easy to get and maintain territories.
Needed: 28 IPC
Turkey: 5 IPC
Baltic States: 1 IPC
E. Poland: 1 IPC
Romania: 6 IPC
Hungary: 6 IPC
Poland: 6 IPC
Greece: 5 IPC
Yugoslavia: 5 IPC
Bulgaria: 5 IPC
Albania: 4 IPC
S. Germany: 7 IPC
N. Italy: 7 IPC
Holland: 6 IPC
Denmark: 5 IPC
Portugal: 4 IPC
Spain: 5 IPC
Take your pick, in any case, eventually Russia is earning so much money that Germany cannot possibly beat it back at which point, the Russians start pushing the Japanese back and the Germans and hit the heartland of Europe. Once you get there you are making more money than the United States of America at which point, you get REALLY bored and start dropping Aircraft Carriers and Battleships in SZ 100 to start signalling your opponent it’s time to give up so you can play again.
I don’t get it, an experienced player playing Germany would spend G1 mopping up the British navy, France and strengthening their fleet while taking pro-axis neutrals along with Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Than in G2, they would purchase land units and move most of their existing land units toward the eastern front. During G3, they would purchase tanks and air units and have almost everything in their current arsenal in range to attack Russian territories. In G3, they would attack Russian territories within range including sea units as well as bomb their minor complexes. Seeing as the Soviet Union was neutral before their 4th turn and unable to “walk on” any of your above mentioned territories, I don’t see how they can accumulate all that wealth when a formidable German army is forcing them to retreat. I can see how Russia could than walk south and collect some Persian territories for the $3 NO per, however, the idea that Russia will be purchasing a transport and sending an Infantry to Ireland, through a straight in which they don’t own, or from a direction patrolled by German air units, seems more than “far fetched” to me (not that I am saying that was your idea, but Ireland is on your list, and why is Spain mentioned, is this really a reachable territory for the Russians in your games?). I can’t imagine a scenario in which Russia would be in a position to take even the most probable territories like Poland, Romania or even Norway and Finland (unless of course Germany leaves Russia alone on the eastern front, which IMO, wouldn’t qualify as the strategy of an experienced player). There is always Sealion granted, However, the risk and reward of such an operation in this game has been debated enough, and we all agree that with the absence of the NO for holding London, the extra AA casualties, along with the immediate response from Russia as well as the $3 Russian NO per territory, it’s obvious to most that the safe money is, to skip sealion. Which brings us back to the formidable German units on the Russian borders, as I am not worried about the Soviet Union claiming $3 per territory they will never control because they will be busy retreating in order to protect Moscow and the 2 other vital victory cities the axis need to win the game. If they want to take Turkey and turn all other strick neutrals to pro-axis, great. If they want to fight Germany on the border instead of pulling back, excellent (less ground to cover chasing them) and If they want to gain a few bucks walking in Persia, well than thats Italy’s problem. So unless I have missed something about the rules like, Russia can walk on neutral territories before they enter the war, or Germany must stay 2 territories away from the Russian front before Russia enters the war…. than I’m not worried, nor do I believe that the majority of the territories you listed (other than the one’s they already own to start the game) will ever be in Stalin’s hands.
Sweden easy to get? Apart from the dumbness of attacking true neutrals… how?
Also: how do you get Russians to Ireland, and anywhere in the med without them being intercepted even before they get sea-sick??
(and for the rest: i agree with grasshopper)
@special:
Sweden easy to get? Apart from the dumbness of attacking true neutrals… how?
Also: how do you get Russians to Ireland, and anywhere in the med without them being intercepted even before they get sea-sick??
(and for the rest: i agree with grasshopper)
USA/UK attack and clear Sweeden with airplanes. Russia walk infantry in. Done.
And it’s pretty simple to get a transport in SZ 127 and sail it down to the Med without losing it to the Germans. For one, they have to have something in range of it and that’s not going to happen too soon in the Alpha 3 rules. For another, the Allies can protect it just fine when it is in range of the Axis. The only “trick” is building the transport at the right time so you don’t risk allied flexibility.
Oh, and if you dont want to go SZ 127 route, how about allies clear Turkey, Russia take Turkey, Allies sail into SZ 100, Russia puts transport in Black Sea, then everyone moves out to take Med. Just for an alternate route.
Or even Russia puts infantry on American/British/Australian transport, lands troops whereever it wants, for a third route.
But all those things imply to be already pretty far in the game, and by then Russia should be under severe pressure from Germany, not having the money or freedom to build transports and go sailing around.
Your taking of (in this case) Sweden also implies that the Allies have already taken (and secured) Norway, unless they have a considerable carrier fleet closeby (if not all that air force can’t reach Sweden), and are willing to take expensive casualties in order to give Russia a few IPC’s bonus).
And the islands around Italy are protected by scramblers (and an italian fleet unless it has been killed off). As for Turkey, to be taken by Allied troops (not Russia) also means the game is somewhere in a further stage (and probably already having neutered Italy). If by then Russia is still strong, the Axis have lost already, and then those bonus IPC’s just help in rounding up the game.
Which would not be such a bad thing.
@special:
But all those things imply to be already pretty far in the game, and by then Russia should be under severe pressure from Germany, not having the money or freedom to build transports and go sailing around.
Exactly, if the German player allows you to build a fleet to protect your transports, than you might as well end the game because he sucks so bad.
If you assume that Germany is going to attack Russia G3, tell me your buys before and after this happens.
Jen,
I don’t think I will be using my British and American air units, to fly by and wipe out the standing army of a strict neutral, while losing valuable air units and putting neutral territories into enemy hands all over the world.
BTW, I wonder if its even legal to use just air units to attack and activate the standing army of a strict neutral, because you need land units to activate the standing armies of pro-neutrals.
It is legal to attack any enemy unit with just airpower if you so choose. You just cannot take the land, which is sort of the point.
Remember, you can load an infantry from S. Ukraine onto an American transport in the Black Sea just as easily as putting your own transport out there. After all, even with “under heavy pressure” from Germany, Russia should still have a large enough pay check to afford one guy to not be in Russia defending, especially if that ONE GUY is getting the Russians an unhistorically large amount of money for useless territories.
@Cmdr:
It is legal to attack any enemy unit with just airpower if you so choose. You just cannot take the land, which is sort of the point.
Remember, you can load an infantry from S. Ukraine onto an American transport in the Black Sea just as easily as putting your own transport out there. After all, even with “under heavy pressure” from Germany, Russia should still have a large enough pay check to afford one guy to not be in Russia defending, especially if that ONE GUY is getting the Russians an unhistorically large amount of money for useless territories.
Maybe it’s a game play NO instead of a Historical NO, any how, any Russian infantry that gets to a territory to make $3 will have a big target on their back. Have you had a chance to play the latest rules yet?
@Young:
@Cmdr:
It is legal to attack any enemy unit with just airpower if you so choose. You just cannot take the land, which is sort of the point.
Remember, you can load an infantry from S. Ukraine onto an American transport in the Black Sea just as easily as putting your own transport out there. After all, even with “under heavy pressure” from Germany, Russia should still have a large enough pay check to afford one guy to not be in Russia defending, especially if that ONE GUY is getting the Russians an unhistorically large amount of money for useless territories.
Maybe it’s a game play NO instead of a Historical NO, any how, any Russian infantry that gets to a territory to make $3 will have a big target on their back. Have you had a chance to play the latest rules yet?
Yes, and it was fun as hell having 60 IPC a round to spend with Russia. My allies did nothing but protect Russian equipment and keep Japan contained, Russia took Berlin and Rome.
If Germany is going Barbarossa, and is being smart about it, by the time America can even get a transport to SZ 100, Russia will not own Sukr. At all. This is getting to be a bit much Jen.
I agree that these new rule sets are very wonky - no airbase in Gib/Mal doesn’t make much sense to me - but not in the way you’re saying.
China is the only ally at war with Japan for first 3 rounds, how can they contain Japan?.
If what you are saying is true, you must be very depressed about the possibilities when playing the Axis, almost to the point of never playing Larry’s rules ever again.
Eh, this is not new, Jen has almost always said that the allies were very OP, especially with russia and japan containment. No offense Jen, luv ya! I do agree however about the change to this NO. Why would you need to give russia the bonus for controling those territories anyway? I say either simplify it down, orget rid of the +3 for every neutral/german terr in europe. If russia is getting them, axis would be in an almost unwinnable spot then.
You got a point there. If Russia has captured Bulgaria and Greece, then Germany is probably getting it’s butt kicked and Russia is not far from capturing Berlin. Still, I think it’s just the principle of Russia being able to attack Turkey or Sweeden and still get a 3 IPC bonus that just seems wrong.
I think this is an instance where Jen has grossly misinterpreted the meaning this NO. It dose blankly state the Soviets will get +3IPC for each axis or neutral territory in Europe (including Turkey) the Soviet Union occupies (and therefore owns). I dont think this is ment to allow the Soviets to run around gobbling up neutrals states and what not, I think its ment to cover the situation where the axis occupy yugoslavia, which isnt an aixs territory per se, and the soviets attack it and take it, should they(soviets) still get the 3IPC bonus. This rule clearly states that yes, in this instance, the Soviets would get 3IPC for occupying Yugoslavia, or greece, or Turkey (if the territory was taken over by the axis and the Soviets liberated it). The theme of the NO is “spread of communism” and that is certianly what the Soviets did in eastern Europe.
Using this NO to artifically beef up the Soviet economy is a convoluted abuse of this rule and I very much doubt that any people playing could accomplish this with out the express intent of achieving said goal from both players. In translation, you and your opponet arent playing seriously and are just goofing around for fun, which is fine, but it in no way, realistically, breaks the game. Its wrong to claim this breaks the game when if anything it really clears up a grey area quite nicely
Look the fix is really simple, in my opinion.
1) Russia gets 2 IPC NO for each German, Italian or Neutral Territory in Europe, Scandinavia and Turkey.
2) Exempted from the list are: Ireland, Crete, Sardinia and Sicily
3) Russia is a “rogue state” and may attack neutrals without converting all other true neutrals to pro-axis status.
Why 2 IPC instead of 3? Because we doubled the number of territories Russia gets an NO for.
Why exempt the islands? Because we don’t need to be encouraging the Russians to get these territories. For one, they’re impossible for the Axis to recover so it’s just free money for Russia, for another it’s ahistorical and lastly it’s in direct contradiction of the spirit of the game.
Why the rogue state status? Becuase while Russia was an ally, it wasn’t really an ally. We already have “special” rules that only apply to Russia, this gives another “special” rule. Essentially this gives the Russians the option to attack Sweeden, on their own, and not make S. America go Pro-Axis. Think of it as the British and Americans going down there and say “yea, those Russians are pricks, but we’re going to protect you, you don’t need Japan or Germany to protect you.” This also alleviates the thought that American and British aircraft clearing neutrals so Russia can walk in, while giving Russia the option to be a prick and not turn Spain pro-Axis right away.
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.
