Yes but the rest of Ireland saw germany for what it was. IRA was a small part of possible pro-german attitude.
Mongolia would make a big advantage for Japan as a launching point into Russia, perhaps if you split it into 2 so that it would cost the same amount of movements to get to Yakut, placing 1 infantry on the Manchurian border.
WE cant make map changes like that… of course we can but the variant is made to be played with the existing map. No territories are to be altered or people will say its too different from what you are used to play. Id sooner make Mongolia have more forces or become impassible like Himalayans.
um no I thought we were thinking of reducing Mongolia’s military to 0 INF…
I think “Gen AlexanderPatch” sugguested that Mongolia’s military is too small.
anyone know about Mongolia?
actually why didn’t Japan just go through Mongolia in WWII?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mongolian_Army
the reason was because it was pro soviet during WWII… Check this out… I say give it 1 Infantry, Pro Soviet…
GG
Okay so GG is right. But we should increase it to 2 INF, because if not the once Japan captures it and then it would march unopposed all the way to Moscow.
Not if there is some kind of Non Aggression Treaty in place… Remember this place is Pro Soviet, i.e. Soviet Territory… Plus considering the amount of men they had that is an accurate Representation… My way of Handling it?
Non Aggression Treaty
If Mongolia is invaded Russians place 3 Siberian Shock Troops and a tank there for free.
GG
@Guerrilla:
Non Aggression Treaty
If Mongolia is invaded Russians place 3 Siberian Shock Troops and a tank there for free.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
“…However, Soviet Red Army troops in Mongolia amounted to little more than instructors for the native army…”
Yes but if it “was” invaded…
Lets just keep it at 2 inf and also impose a movement of 1 into mongolia due to poor terrain… that way tanks are at least stuck.
If you guys want we can add extra forces from Soviet stocks we can do something like OOB has under soviet-jap non aggression
Good Idea, but don’t you think we should do that to several territories?
GG
Nah. Some of them aren’t that crucial as Mongolia
well it does not hurt to hear him out… what do you think? currently movement restrictions to Mongolia, Himalayans, Sahara, possibly sinkaing-- due to desert, also alaska, argentina, switzerland, finland due to frozen/mountain conditions?
currently Himalayans is still out of bounce, unless other Neutrals
you guys thinking of changing that?
Non Aggression Treaty
If Mongolia is invaded Russians place 3 Siberian Shock Troops and a tank there for free
a rule to artificially place forces in the territory when its attacked is unrealistic
a treaty is just a diplomatic thing
Okay so GG is right. But we should increase it to 2 INF, because if not the once Japan captures it and then it would march unopposed all the way to Moscow.
the right tool should be used for the right job
putting 2 INF there is unrealistic
I prefer the terrain modelling solution
How about this.
The allies would not have violated any neutralities, therefor, only the axis can. But, if the axis do violate neutrality, then the ally that liberates it would controll it(signifying that the neutral country would join arms against the aggressors) until once again taken over by the Axis.
The Sahara and Himalayas were geographically impassible, however, the other countries were a political thing.
No I think that my “non-aggression-treaty” is valid… Japan and Russia Maintained troops on the borders, just in case… If the Neutrality is Violated doesn’t it seem logical that those “troops” appear, albeit out of “nowhere”? They are in “reserve”… Otherwise what “stopped” Japan from taking it? Then I would suggest the mountains as Imp is talking about Therefore making it impossible to violate it…
GG
When a countries neutral status is violated, there would be some resistance met. People of the country would fight t back to some extent. So yes, that does seem logical to me.
Mongolia should be 2 or 3 territories signifying the rough terrain, or tanks can only move 1 space, we could say that the Himalayas may be passed over by aircraft or infantry. Infantry should get a movement penalty to move through as to difficult terrain, but Sahara would be too difficult to pass.
What do you think about the Allies not being able to violate neutral countries and what happens when the Axis do in my earlier post?
A good idea, I think that if you look earlier in the “posts” you will find something to that effect…
OOB Impassible territories should in every case be able to be flown over.
Allies should be able to invade neutrals : precedent- US invaded Azores which was previously under Spains control. UK seized Iraq when it had a pro axis leader in power but was still neutral. UK also seized Iceland from Denmark and USA/UK seized Greenland from Denmark, UK seized Madagascar from Vichy France, UK attacked Dakar which was also Vichy. There are more cases.
Soviets also tried to attack Finland and also occupied part of Rumania and took over the independent Baltic states as well as eastern poland. They had semi control of Mongolia as a satellite nation.
ON the Mongolia situation: It can be included as a semi-restrictive territory due largely for its inhospitable terrain features. Ideas:1) only x amount of units can pass into or out per turn ( this idea can be used for Sahara as well) 2) all movement is at the rate of one per turn ( no blitz with tanks) 3) completely make it impassible like the Himalayans
If you look at any map of mongolia you will notice that it has mountains along the whole Russian Border which we would call Novorbisk and Evenki National Okrug, making it technically giving it the same effect as the Himalayas, and a desert to cross first… To my understanding they didn’t really have “roads” going over those mountains, or atleast nothing that would have carried an army or tanks… So I would make it impassable, make it simple… The same reason the Japanese didn’t invade, and the Russians didn’t commit forces to guard it…
GG
