Posts made by Gallo Rojo

So far I’ve played only two games (actually I’m in the middle of the second one). In the first one, Germay played really poorly (I would say): German player captured London on G3 (UK played even worst) but didn’t attaked Russia (me). The result was that I declared war on Germany and invaded their territories right away, making a lot of ipc by Soviet’s NOs. Even if Germany managed to punch back, the Red Army was HUGE and with the USA comming from the West the Axis conceded.

In my second (current) game, I’m playing Germany and I’m about to take Leningrad (on G4).

I agree with knp7765, but I also I share Bishop’s frustration about the USSR

It is true that a good Soviet player can smack a poor German one and vice versa, but the real question is what would happen with two good players.
In historical terms, knp7765 recall is also correct… but, I have to add something: Soviet loses in the first two year of the war (especially during the first one) were the result of three factors: 1st, German Army better training and tactics, 2nd Red Army poor training and tactics, but 3rd: Because the Soviets had move their heavy industry far away from the front lines, beyond the Urals… I haven’t seen any AA version that allows for that and it’s a shame.
I elaborate what I mean: in every AA version income depends on territory, and now to on NOs. For Russia, that means that she gives up territory to buy time (which is historically correct), but time doesn’t buy more income for the USSR. It only means more time to buy more units but with less and less income… historically that wasn’t the case: in the actual war Moscow gave up territory and the capacity of building weapons during 1941… but after that the USSR experienced what in AA terms should be an enormous increace in IPC/Production.

In order to represent that in the game the USSR should have something like America has now in AA40: an increment in income after a given turn (of course not right after the begining of the war, but at some point after the war declaration by Germany).

I’m not sure about how to design that though, but I think it could be a good idea if a more historical game for Russia is what we want.

Thanks  :-)

@brettstarr4:

Yes, UK can collect the income if it occupies that territory.  Once France’s capital is liberated that income will go back to France.  If the axis take French West Africa, the income goes to the axis.  If the allies take it back again, it will go to the allied army to liberate it from axis control (assuming France is still axis-controlled).

really? is this a new rule for AA40? in all previouse A&A versions allies could only liberate other allies territories but didn’t collect income from them (even if their capital had fallen). Am I right? can you please pointing where in the (new) rulles says that (say) UK can collect income from French territories?

thanks

I’m kinda boathered about Italian & Japanese tanks having the same strength than other nation’s tanks – 'cause, you know, they only had lighter tanks.

So I’ve come to this idea (as a house rule): those nations can only buy ‘light tanks’ cost 5; attack @ 3 but deffend @ 2 (move @ 2, can blitz)

what do you guys think about this?

I’ve also been thinking about F-17 attack @ 5, defend @ 2 (cost 15?)
British bombers attack @ 5, defend @ 1 (cost 14?)

Lancasters a +1 when strategic bombing
while B17 can only be shoot down by enemy interceptors by rolling @ 1 (instead of @ 2)

@Krieghund:

Yes.

thanks!

Cheers,

Can fighters and tac scramble to defend ships from an allied nation? i.e.: German planes scrambling to protect Italian ships using an Italian air-base?

since Manual talks about ‘friendly units’ I’m guessing the answer is ‘yes’, but I want to confirm it with the experts (those are you guys)

thanks!

…

Cheers:

First stupid question: France starts the game with some money (17ipc?). 110% of the times, Germany will take Paris on G1. That means 110% of the times Germany gets a bonnus of 17ipc (France’s money) at the end of G1. Am I right?

Second stupid question: is it there an Alpha-Europe or is Alpha only for Global?

thanks!

@Ruanek:

@The:

@cts17:

Don’t worry about it. That’s the wuss’s way of playing.

I agree but It makes it easier to work out how many hits you are getting

But what is it?

it’s a way of reducing chance when playing.

works basically the way you described you calculate odds in your battles but applied as a rule and rolling just one dice to cover for the ‘rounded’ factor.

So: add all the attack values in your attacking force and divide it by 6. That’s the total number of hits you get. Then, you roll a dice for the rest.

Example:

You’re attacking with 5 infantry, 2 artillery, 2 tanks, and 1 bomber: 3@1 + 4@2 + 2@3 + 1@4 = 21 ; 21/6 = 3 with a rest of 3.
That means you have 3 hits, plus roll a dice @3 for a 4th hit.

hope that helps

A last comment: if we are venture into not strictly historical events, and start thinking in terms of likes/dislikes/and sympathies, it would make much more sense a pro-Axis Spain than a pro-axis Argentina.
Except that, again, although Franco sent troops to fight against the USSR (the División Azul), he also made clear to Hitler that the Spanish army was going to resist any advance from the German Army against Spain, if that ever happened.
It seems to me that countries are pro-allied or pro-axis in the game depending on whether they actually joined one side or the other after 1940, and not depending on whether the some generals in Argentina or Franco in Spain had sympathy for Hitler and Mussolini. I think that keeping it historical was a good decision.

@Gargantua:

Argentina and England HATE each other.

I have two basic problems with your statement regarding Argentina and England hating each other:

First one is about verb tense: you are using present tense, so are you meaning Argentina and England hate each other when? Now? Always? During WW2? During Falklands war? During 1982 Soccer World Cup when Diego Maradona scored two (one famous and one infamous) goals that kicked the English team out of the tournament?

The only relevant question  is what feelings Buenos Aires and London had for each other during WW2.

Which leads me to my second problem:  as I’m sure you are aware, Countries are not like individuals; they just don’t hate each other. What we’ve come to name Nation States are sovereign political organizations are made of different interest groups, various ruling elites and subaltern group), government institutions and bureaucracies, etc. And what we call National Interests, are actually the interest of ruling elites.
Those ruling elites (and subaltern groups too of course) may have what we could call ‘feelings’ (although I would use different words, like ‘interest’ and ‘cultural visions’) about ruling elites in other Nation States.

In the case of ‘Buenos Aires-London’  during WW2, I already gave a brief summary about what the ‘feelings’ the two Argentine’s most relevant political actors (the Military and the land-owning economic elite) had towards London, Berlin, and the War. The tension between those two major political actors explains Buenos Aires’ ‘ambivalence’ during WW2.

Regarding London:  they wanted Argentina to remain neutral. Period. (remember Brazil entered in the war under the excuses that Germany had sunk Brazilian merchant ships delivering stuff to Great Britain – but part of Brazil’s government at that time did want to enter in the War and build an hemispheric alliance with the US).

@Gargantua:

Clearly you have never been to Argentina.

Actually, I am from Argentina (funny, isn’t it?)  :-D

I was born and raised in Buenos Aires :-)

(And I’m a political science college professor, so I happen to know a little about Argentine politics and history :-)).

@Gargantua:

This hatred, stemming from multiple reason culminated into the Falklands war in the 80’s.

No, I’m sorry; I couldn’t disagree more with you about this. :-)

1982 Falkland’s War had its own dynamics and had nothing to do with some multiple and deep antagonism or dislike between the two Nations – actually the Falklands conflict is the biggest (maybe the only) reason for antagonism between London and Buenos Aires in the field of foreign relationships and, especially from the Argentine point of view of resentfulness against the UK. No offence, but I’m afraid you are placing the cart before the horse here :-)

The invasion of the Falklands by Argentina In April 1982 was because of two main reasons: Firstly, an internal struggle for power within the Argentine Military Junta (basically Admiral Anaya, who was a hawkish Falkland-cause fanatic, traded his support for General Galtieri’s internal cup-de-eat against General Viola in exchange for Galtieri’s promise about ‘doing something about the Falklands; rumor has it that General Galtieri, who was an alcoholic, was drunk when he agreed with Admiral Anaya’s plan). Secondly, an opportunistic attempt by the very discredited Military Dictatorship to rally popular support around a national-cause, and hence preventing the Military Government to probably fall-down or have to tall for democratic elections. There wasn’t deep hatred for the British boiling there – those feelings were fuelled later during the war by the Military Junta.

You see: a sector within the Argentine dictatorship was looking for an international ‘clean’ war to wash the ‘dirty war’ they’ve fighting internally against political opposition (what included gross human right violations). Those sectors had been seeking a war against Chile three years before – which fortunately didn’t happened. Now, with Chile you can argue that there were multiple heating-lines seaming that could have culminated with a war. That that wasn’t the case with the UK and the Falklands: all that was there was plain opportunism, and lots of stupidity from the Argie side.

Hey! We are Argentines, not Irish, we’re not THAT pissed with the Englishmen :wink:

@Gargantua:

Argentina had many OTHER trade partners who were larger - like the United States.  Great Britian was not at the top of their friends list.

Firstly, even if you were right, I don’t see how this helps your position about making Argentina pro-axis (shouldn’t make it strongly pro-American?).

It is true that US-Argentine trade had expanded in years previous to WW2, BUT you have to see this within the perspective of the relevant political actors.

Argentine’s economy was (and still is) about agriculture (cattle and grains), as you know. USA is also a big exporter of grains and beef.  Argentine Land-owners couldn’t sell much to the USA (actually, USA was a strong competitor). So, from the perspective of Argentine Land-owners, USA was a problem: it wasn’t buying their stuff, and was competing with them for European market.
Trade with the USA caused deficits for the Argie side: USA was selling industrial goods but wasn’t buying Argentine products (unlike the British, who were buying grains).

There was a small industrialist elite in Argentina that liked the Americans but they represented a much smaller part of Argentine economy at that time, and lacked political power.

The land-owners (not the industrialist) were running the show, and their economic interested tied them with the British. As a matter of fact, Buenos Aires and London had signed a bilateral treaty in 1933 known as the Roca-Runciman Treaty, by which UK agreed to keep buying Argentine’s beef in exchange for Argentine to keep buying British industrial goods – that were more expensive than American ones (there were other things, I’m keeping it short). That was basically a deal tailored by and for Argentine Land-owners and British industrialist at expenses of both Argentine and American industrialist (who wanted to trade with each other). So you can see who had the political upper hand there. After signing the treaty, Julio Roca, who was the argentine signatory, Nation’s Vice-President, and member of the land-owning elite, joyfully expressed “It can (now) be said that Argentina is an integral economic part of the British Empire”.  And he was quite happy about that – so you can see how much he loved (not hated) the British.

@Gargantua:

And what the people think DOESN’T matter - especially in regards to the game we are playing

Perhaps you missed the parenthesis I inserted there:

@Gallo:

Most of the people   (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

By that I meant not that anyone in the Argentine government really cared about what most of the people liked or not (it was a dictatorship for a reason: not to play attention to democratic will).

@Gargantua:

look at Russia, Italy, or Nazi Germany, were all the people there Pro Comintern or Pro Fascist? No.  They were just tightly controlled by a militant government.

Precisely.

@Gargantua:

Falklands aside, Argentina had nothing to really gain from the war, so they never joined in.

Falklands were not even such a big deal. :-)

@Gargantua:

HOWEVER,  if Nazi Germany had a South American Invasion plan, and was stomping all over the world in a blood-lust of conquest.  And had the Germany army ARRIVED there, Bent on total S.A. Domination. Argentina surely would have joined the side of the Axis.

A big “If” :-) … not to mention that the Germans had a much bigger fish to fry… however, when a German submarine (U-73) sunk an Argentine ship in 1940 and the Nazis started operating in nearby Uruguay, Argentina sent troops to the border with Uruguay as a show of force just in case of a German infiltration occurred … so I don’t see Buenos Aires jumping happily on the German boat (or U-boat).

(There had been stories about possible plans from German residents in Uruguay, supported by the German embassy there to launch a cup and take control of Uruguay prior and during WW2, but it’s mostly hearsay and exaggerations about the capabilities of what best case scenario were a bunch of lunatics you could count with your fingers).
Guys in Buenos Aires wanted to remain neutral. So they did :-)

@Gargantua:

That, or, if the allies felt that the Government of Argentina was going to join the Axis effort immenently, as a pro axis nuetral, it is possible the allies may have attacked to depose them.

Sorry, lots of speculation :-)

@Gargantua:

It makes PERFECT game sense to have Argentina Pro-Axis.  And it add’s an EXCITING element to the game.

Notice I started my first post in this thread saying that from a Historical point of view Argentina was neutral, not pro-axis (except from its Military sympathies for Prussian traditions), and its “National Interest” (aka ruling elite’s interest) was to remain that way.
For game sense… well, it may be cool to try a German invasion of Argentina & Brazil maybe (I saw you suggested that in another tread), could be a lot of fun :-)

But if you want to support a pro-axis status of Argentina in the game based on historical facts  then no, I’m sorry, it doesn’t make sense :-)

@Idi:

@Gallo:

no

Why not?

that NO is regarding in the alpha rules as ‘recognition of a national emergency’ or smth like that.
It seems to me it implies the attacked country is doing an extra effort to deal with the new threat (movilizing reserves, forcing workers to produce extra, or smth like that). So I don’t see why shoudn’t come from the bank.

I don’t see any reason why the agressor should pay.

do you? if yes, let us know what your thoughts are about it

no

Thanks about your answers guys! :)

So the US gets its extra income from NOs?  :?
(this is different from Pacific, right?)

@94Canuck:

I think the when the USA declares it is on all, and they dont’ have a choice to stay neutral in one theatre.  Some confirm this part.

Manual says (I’m reading the Spanish version I’ve downloaded) the US may declare war on one or many axis powers, hence my question

(I don’t know why the US may not want to declare war on everybody though)

From the manual: if not yet at war, the US can declare war to some or all Axis Powers at the beggining of Collencting Income phase its 3rd turn.

Since the Collecting Income phase is at the end of the turn, that means the US can not start performing any hostile action (either combat movement, or non-combat movement that go beyond their pace time allowed movenments) until its 4th Turn.
Am I right about this?

Secondly: the US starts cashing its war time income at its 3rd Turn collecting income phase (so it will have a lot of money to buy new stuff at the beggining of next turn (4th) when at full war). Am I correct

Thirdly:
how much $ does the US makes while not at war?
how much $ does the US makes when at war?

If (say) at 3rd turn the US decides to declare war against Japan (but not Germany) or Germany/Italy (but not japan), I assume the US remains neutral bis-a-bis the powers didn’t declared war too… in such case: does the US claims all its income boost or only part of it. how much?

thanks in advance!

@SgtBlitz:

Thanks for the clarification, Gallo Rojo.  I always wondered about the True Neutral status of Argentina depicted in 1940 when you see movies like Evita and there’s a fascist takeover of the state half way through (happened in the fifties tho, right?)

Juan Perón governed (Evita was Juan Peron’s firtsh wife)  from 1946 to 1955, when was overthrown in a military coup.
In the film Evita he is depicted as a quasi-fascist and a wanna-be dictator. The point there is that the film takes the point of view of Peron’s political adversaries (mostly the land-owning economic elite). Althought there was an element of authoritarianism in his government, Peron was not a fascist – actually he was a democratically elected leader.
The ‘fascist’ element in Peron’s goverment was more a matter of aestetics than of policies.
Serious historians and political-scientist agree about characterizing Peronism as one of the three classic examples of 1950’s Latin-American Populism (Gertulio Vargas in Brazil and Cardenas in Mexico are the two other). An similar lider outside Latin-America would be Mosadeq in Iran.

@Gargantua:

That’s why Argentina needed to be Pro Axis…

From a strictly historical point of view: Argentina’s government at that time (a Military dictatorship) had pro-German bias. That was specifically about cultural/institutional reasons since most Argentine Army officers had received training from Prussian military institutions.

However, the economic ruling elite (rich cattle & grains producer landowners) were strongly pro-British. And that was because of both cultural but above all economic reasons: Argentina was a huge exporter of cattle&grains to the United Kingdom (that the UK especially needed during war time), and a buyer for UK’s industrial goods.

Most of the people (not that anyone cared) had pro-allied feelings.

So, even if the governing Military Dictatorship had a taste for fascism, Argentine economy (and the economic well being of the landowners whose economic interest the Military were defending) relied on trade with the Great Britain.

All that resulted in an odd situation where the Military Government liked Germany… but Argentine foreign policy was leading to maintain neutrality… and maintaining neutrality was the best option for, well, for the United Kingdom! That was because as long as Argentine were neutral German U-Boats couldn’t torpedo Argentine cargo-ships carrying grains to the UK.

Too sum up: Argentina’s neutrality was a de facto support of Great Britain’s war time economy.

A different matter was the relationship with the USA. The Americans wanted all South American countries to declare war against the Axis powers. That idea was resisted by both the Argentine Military Goverment (both because of their pro-fascist ideology and because of the economic interest of the landowning elite), and by London (because of the reasons explained above).

The Argentine Military Government’s fascist ideology would have taken as far as allowing the German pocket-battleship Graff-Spee to seek safe heaven Buenos Aires’ port (if she had managed to scape from Montevideo and reach the Argentine Capital)… but it’s un-clear how much help the Argentine government would have given to the German ship after all – breaking with the UK would have been like killing the Golden Laying Eggs Chicken for the Argentine economy.

So from an historical point of view anything but a stric neutral Argentina doesn’t makes sence.

:lol:@Krieghund:

No.  Scrambling occurs before strategic bombing raids.

:-(

@McMan:

@Gallo:

@McMan:

But technically, most of the US was originally controlled by Native American tribes, so they shouldn’t be able to have Major IC’s there, correct?  :wink:

Not to mention that Texas was originally controlled by Mexico :wink:

Which was also controlled by Native Americans  :-D

Aztecs :wink: