@Brain:
If Russia is eliminated early, then Germany would have only one front to contend with.
And if Russia holds off a German offensive because Germany does not have French IPCs and has to defend from both the French and British, then Germany is f***ed.
@Imperious:
I want not only neutrals to declare war, but allow rules for Godzilla and other monsters to have the ability to start destroying the players armies. This is only consistent with historical reality.
Giant cats have defeated many an army in the other Axis and Allies games I’ve played.
Neutrals should be able to declare war. After all, this board game has the player taking on the role of the leadership of the world at the time. Why shouldn’t Switzerland be able to declare war on China? Or Mongolia launch a full scale invasion of Canada while they aren’t looking?
And what about breaking political alliances? What if I, as the role of Winston Churchill, decide my people need more living space and declare war on ANZAC so that I can send all the convicts of my country to wreak havoc on the kangaroo populations while I sit back on my lounge chair in the United Kingdom watching as my ally Benito Moussilini masses up his forces in my homeland to defend me from a Soviet invasion since I decided to do an all Canada build out of fear of Mongolian aggression?
Or you simply place most of their modern troops (artillery, mech if they have any, tanks) in Moscow, at 3-4 territories from the border. And then, they cannot physically attack Germany before turn 3. Even more if you divide their numerous infantry in many places. And if you do not give them a lot of tanks, then they would be foolish to attack, because Germany should have, by then, crush France and push a good part of its army in Poland to defend.
Relax all you guys. This is it. No rules needed.
(Also, not having a factory at the border + a peacetime income, like US, is key to making this balanced and historical.)
That would only prevent a full scale invasion by the Soviet Union. It would not prevent small territory swaps for IPCs where you send a ftr and inf against one inf. Declarations of War would be pointless if there isn’t some national objective tied to it. The fact that USSR and Germany are at peace from the start should be represented by something more than just that the USSR lacks the capability for a full scale attack.
Maybe, but I think it would be in Italy’s best interest to take the African territories rather than just attacking their convoys, so I doubt they would go sub heavy, unless the allies clearly win in Africa, and even then they’d probably just help Germany in the USSR. Maybe they’d make a few subs, but I doubt they’d go sub heavy.
Why not just have an NO that kicks in only if Germany (or Italy) attacks first, while never kicking in for the entire game if the USSR attacks first. Thus, the USSR would be foolish to attack first if they don’t expect to take a capital right away, however it doesn’t take the option off the table.
Just for further clarification, it would be like if the US could attack Japan before being attacked itself and before US4, but if it does so, it never gets the 40 IPC NO, thus making it foolish to attack first. (although I don’t expect a USSR NO to be as significant as 40 IPCs, maybe 10 at most)
Does anybody know how Russia’s non aggression pacts with Germany and Japan will be represented
Germany is easy. Its just like AAP40. Germany will attack first. Or if it does not, by a certain turn, USSR can attack.
Japan-USSR would be more interesting, since that didnt happen until 1945. But I doubt there will be a 8-10 round limit before Japan can attack.
Why shouldn’t the USSR be allowed to attack from R1 if Germany stalls? They may have also signed the Non-Agression pact, but they weren’t just sitting back and waiting for the other side to make the first move like the US was. I read somewhere that the USSR had plans to invade Romania just a few weeks after Barbarossa began (not sure as to the accuracy of this).
If anyone knows more about the USSR prior to Barbarossa , please correct me, but from what I know, the USSR would have attacked Germany if they ever saw a strategic advantage.
I believe it was in either the rulebook or errata where Dutch territories are treated like a nation with a captured capital so their allies can take the territories. If the Dutch work this way, then do other nations work this way? For example, if Japan takes India but Malaya is still British, will landing Aussies in Malaya automatically turn Malaya to ANZAC?
Take a thing into account about Gibraltar: in this game, Spain will be neutral but can be invaded. Since southern edge of Spain is nearer to Africa than Gibraltar, the territories closing the strait should be Southern Spain and Morocco. You may add Gibraltar to the ecuation and make a trio if feel better, specially if Spain is not at war yet. But a Spain at war should close the strait for the other side
While this would be geographically accurate, it would be better for gameplay purposes for Gibraltar to be the territory that closes the channel. Also, it would be historically accurate since Gibraltar was used in the war to watch ships moving in and out of the Mediteranean. It would be historically inaccurate for Spain to block ships from moving into the Mediteranean, since it never did this while it was neutral.
Same goes for Sweden and Norway. Sweden is much closer to Denmark than Norway is. However, for gameplay and historical purposes, Norway and Denmark should control the entrance to the Baltic.
Geographic distance did not matter in the war, and should not matter in the game.
Here’s a few ideas:
1.) Let Gibraltar scramble, and let Denmark scramble, or at least make Sjaelland, the island with Copenhagen, a seperate territory which can scramble.
2.) Make it so that if one side controls both entrances to a straight, it blocks sea movement to the other. For example, if Germany controls both Norway and Denmark, the allies can’t pass into the Baltic. However, if the allies take either Norway or Denmark, both sides can pass through, and if the allies take both Norway and Denmark, only the allies can pass through. Same would go for Morocco and Gibraltar. This idea would create a new importance for the Germans to defend Norway rather than the axis just abandoning it except for a few infantry as happens often in the other games.
The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, and Dardanelles would only be bordered by one territory each so only the side controlling that territory can pass through.
Also, since Japan can scramble, should the UK be able to scramble? Even if it is divided into two or more territories?
If someone could do a Cold War setup that would be pretty sweet. Even a WW1 setup would be nice, although it would be minus a few unit types.
There’s two I don’t know that I couldn’t find on that list:
ACME Wall and KISS
I garuntee you will feel the burn in europe if you plop down 6 battleships in the pacific as the US
Not if the Europe game is designed for a late US entry into the war. If Japan gets the US into the war early, it gives the US an extra turn or two to go Japan only.
Although this opens up an interesting question. Will the US be forced to wait until the third turn to attack in the Europe only game, assuming the Germans and Italians don’t attack before then? And will this change Japanese strategy in the world game, where it might delay an attack on the allies every time to keep the US out of Europe, making J1 attacks unthinkable and J2 attacks an incredibly risky move?
Well I guess we’ll have to wait until Europe is out and how it’s set up to determine whether or not the split income was/would have been a good or bad idea. It really depends on how Europe is set up and how the world game works. In the end, it depends on how it affects gameplay and game balance.
@Frontovik:
don’t forget, US can only buy 10 at each front ;)
so with over 120, thats enough for 20 subs, 10 on each side :D
It’s also enough to plop 6 Battleships into the Pacific in one turn.
Yes, the Dutch did control most of the island, however, since the British are allowed to take the other Dutch islands through amphibious landings, it would only make sense that the British automatically occupy the rest of Borneo using the forces they already had stationed in the northern part of the island.
@WILD:
That is possible, but now your creating 3 incomes for the US. NO East, NO west, and tt income. The other NO’s that the US get’s ($5 IPC) would also go to the NO east or west I guess. Then there’s convoys, which income pays for that. You would have to keep three separate incomes and it might get confusing. It would be easier IMO to just buy units in each theater and move them where you want them.
I actually feel it would be relatively easy to keep track of. 40 IPCs spent in WUS, 40 in EUS, and the rest split up between them and other possible factories the US player builds. The UK did this in the original Pacific (Australia had an income, India had an income, and UK had an income which was divided between Australia and India). Gains in the Pacific should be able to be used to build in the EUS to fight in Europe, just as Germany can use African IPCs to go after Russia. IMO, just the NOs which are written on a certain territory have to be spent in that territory. For example, the WUS NO is written right in the territory (income 10/50), unlike the Phillipines (it just has a 2, not a 2/7), so only the WUS NO has to be spent in the WUS. Honestly though, I don’t care how it works as long as the game plays well.
@WILD:
Sounds like the US income will be split as if it were playing in separate games. Everything earned on the Pacific side (including NO’s) will be spent in San Fran. Likewise for Wash w/no variances. I wonder if San Fran will continue to be considered a capital for game purposes. If Washington is taken do you have to give up you San Fran $. This could be stepping away from the capture the flag rule (I doubt it, but would be easy to implement). On a side note I wonder if something similar will be done w/India. Looks like N S Wales will keep its capital status for Anz.
If income were split depending on where a territory is located on the map it would be very hard to keep track of. Also, looking at the map, there are territories which overlap both maps in Russia, China, and possibly India. If the US somehow gets a hold of one of those territories (through a captured capital) who would get the money? I think the ONLY forced split should be where the DoW national objectives are concerned. The 10 IPCs that the WUS is normally worth can be spent as normal IPCs wherever the US wishes. The 40 IPCs given to the WUS from the DoW NO is the only money that should be forced to be spent in the WUS. A similar NO in the EUS would be the same. Regular territory income and other NOs would be spent as normal, wherever the US player wishes.
@Brain:
The pieces you will produce each turn are determined at the beginning of your turn and placed at the end of your turn I am assuming this is supposed to take care of the time involved in not only producing the pieces but also getting the resources moved to the necessary factories. Otherwise you would already have know in advance every turn what you were going to build or did those resources instantly appear as you say.
Resources are one thing. However, the US cannot move people and factories east. The jump from a peacetime to a wartime economy meant that both the east and west sides of the country were maximizing their production outputs. Resources alone were not diverted to the war effort. Jobs and manpower became a huge focus. The US couldn’t somehow hire its entire wartime labor force living on the West coast to work in East coast factories because it decided that it suddenly wanted to pursue a new strategy of going only to one theater. The wartime economic jump on the West coast would stay on the West coast, and if the US wanted to pursue an anti German strategy, it could either use the wartime labor in the West coast, or it could just let half the country go back into a peacetime economy. The first option would be the obvious choice, meaning the US would have to build some of its forces in the west and ship them east. There is no option, however, of moving the entire West coast labor force east just for the few months the US decides to pursue a Europe only strategy.
No, however helpful it might be, it is not realistic to have half the country suddenly produce everything and the other half stop producing things. With the Japanese clearing the minefields around San Francisco, sorry I don’t think the NYC Recruiters could break out the cards and crosswords.
The US (and Canada) should still have to shuttle units x-country.
I agree exactly.
The US couldn’t just magically move all production to one side of the country. In Pacific, the WUS gets a 40 income boost due to a national objective, representing increased wartime production in the WUS. Why the WUS’s increased wartime production should be used to build units anywhere outside of the WUS is beyond me.
Also, sure, a player can still go all out KGF or KJF with split income, however, it would be highly inefficient to constantly send units cross country when they could fight a much closer enemy.
@Brain:
I am just asking, Why should the US be forced to split its income while the other countries can freely decide how to spend their income?
Two reasons.
1.) Gameplay. The game is more balanced when US has split income by not pushing all of the major battles to one theater. German split income would still allow units to easily and freely move between fronts because Germany is not a large country compared to the US, so split income for Germany would be somewhat pointless.
2.) History. The US was an extremely industrial country before the war, with huge industries on both the East and West coast. The US couldn’t just somehow move its entire industry to one side of the country. Germany is a small country so this does not apply here.
Also, in comparison to other AA games (aside from AA50) this game does have split income for Germany by breaking it up into Germany, which fights mainly in Northern and Eastern Europe, and Italy, which spends money in the Mediteranean and Africa. There was both a historical and gameplay reason for this. Just like splitting US income.