America/Soviet Role

@oysteilo yea buying ships with the ussr is not a good idea

Yeah, well I meant if you want to be sure you don’t lose a playmate…

Yea, I suppose it’s unlikely for allied units to be trekking across Russia. Still it is a bit odd that in the same round a Russian fighter can land on a US carrier in the Atlantic but not in the Pacific.

I guess the rule is the way it is in the interest of simplicity. It did sort out the whole Russia going to war with Japan in order to take neutrals in Europe thing.

@jeffdestroyer:

if AB and NB stop the blitz, then there will be no blitzing in W. Europe.  All of the TT have something.

Except Holland

@Gargantua:

Where does your playgroup live? Maybe we can how and play a game?

We all live in Northwest Ohio… Toledo specifically. It seems that not many people on this site live near us, otherwise we’d love to expand our group. You are cordially invited if you ever pass through.

Well, it seems that Darth Maximus made an error. I agree that no transports means absolutely nothing. That is, it means America can do next to nothing with real meaning. I didn’t say we/I don’t build transports early with the US, we simply believe in defense first: more combat ships than transports. It isn’t impossible to fight America, they are fallible and you do have to exploit their mistakes. It just isn’t always easy to see.

It is hard to fight America due to distance and economics. Ultimately, there is no stopping them. You simply have to delay them. Yes, I am reiterating what you have said and what we have been discussing; delay is the only way.

One just has to be wise about it, not wasteful. And it isn’t an easy job if the Americans know what they are doing. If one’s aim in the game is to strike the Americans I find it typically to be a distraction and a diversion for the Axis, one they cannot routinely afford.

Japan SHOULD be able to go to war against the Soviet Union. That’s the nature of the game. It was also a serious option Japan considered for quite some time. Indeed, in the end they decided to go for the Southern option. It’s difficult to simulate both things in a game of the nature of A&A. One we want mutual attacks to be possible, Two neither of the two countries in question was eager to fight the other while already at war with Germany/Italy or the US/UK/France respectively…

Perhaps a negative NO would work or an IPC penalty (in the rulebook it’s explained that NOs represent a boost in morale and vigour (I suppose both in the military and as far as civilians/factory workers etc. are concerned). Hearing that your country is being attacked from both sides would probably have the opposite effect of an NO, so a negative one might work: -6 IPC if Japan is at war with the Western Allies and the USSR simultaneously and -6 if the USSR is at war with both Japan and Germany/ Italy. These negative SA’s only apply when you initiated the conflict with the Soviet Union or japan respectively. ( I agree the wording needs to be worked on, but I’m sure you get the idea). I’m certainly not for completely disallowing the possibility!

Secure Amur for a bombing base on Japan :mrgreen:

Bob has told me that he’s too busy to update his creation, and he has denied me permission to do it… so I it looks like these charts will remain obsolete.