Topics created by Royal fighter1

Historically, the type of agreements countries made during this time included:
-Diplomatic Relations: Before countries could negotiate treaties, they had to establish diplomatic relations in order to facilitate any agreements between the two nations. Diplomatic Relations could also be broken off (like many South American countries did with the Axis powers).
-Mutual Defense Pacts: Two or more countries agree that if one is attacked, the other will come to their aid.
-Treaties of friendship: These treaties express friendly diplomatic relations and cooperation between the two countries, though doesn’t necessarily mean mutual defense in the event of an attack by a third country.
-Trade Agreements: Trade of resources and/or capital.
-Non-Aggression Treaties: Two countries agree not to go to war with one another.
-Spheres of influence: Countries agree to partition a country, or region, into “spheres of influence” where the territory is divided between the two nations.
-Allied Conferences: The allies held conferences throughout the war to coordinate their war efforts.
-Intervention in Minor Wars: Powers would intervene in small wars around the world, supporting one side or the other.
-Appeasement: They would allow concessions to territorial expansion of certain powers.
-Embargo: Countries agreed not to trade with a third party.
-Governments in Exile: Conquered nations often continued the fight by moving their government to Allied occupied areas (usually London).
-Puppet States: Conquering nations would often set up Puppet regimes loyal to, and controlled by them.

@Royal:

See now this is interesting, because I’m playing Germany, and I don’t have nearly enough troops to get through Russia. It’s 1942, and I’m basically trying to hold onto the, what I call, “Leningrad line.” I built a lot of infantry, which in the end caused tons of problems because They simply can’t get to the front line fast enough. Don’t get me wrong, I make about 80 IPP’s, but I don’t have the mechanized power to keep the Russians at bay. What they have done is basically let me have everything, and stacked artillery and Militia in Moscow and Stalingrad, making them unreasonable to even try to attack. I don’t know what to do! America is just about to enter the war and throw roughly 10 transports at my door. Italy is doing well owning all of Africa, but Japan never did well and China and is basically 3 years behind the ballpark. I could start buying strategic bombers, but it seems like carpet bombing is a waste, even with heavy bombers.

That brings me to a question that I would like to have input on for everyone who is reading this Forum (Thanks by the way, I really needed some feedback like this!) Carpet bombing only hits on a 2 or less, which is like hitting on a 1 for a D6, but worse because there’s more sides. (I know statistics are the same but they still never seem to hit!) I was thinking about increasing carpet bombing to a 3 or less, to give them the real firepower they had. I know that they were really good at simply destroying cities, but the only concept that can show that is by destroying factories. What do you guys think? Would it be too strong, or do you think it would be okay?

I don’t think Germany should be able to “go through Russia”. Historically, it wasn’t the case. It is one of many of A&A legacies / fallacies. The Victory Points gives you a hint as to what territories are important to win the game. Germany wins nothing except a few IPPs by conquering Moscow. If the Russian player in your game has stacked Moscow & Stalingrad with slow units, he has lost the game.

Re Carpet bombing, I like the rules as they are (and so does everyone else in my group). Strategic bombers are meant for infrastructure. Historically, ‘carbet bombing’ armies were not effectively used in WW2.