Posts made by SuperbattleshipYamato

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Why not? Because it makes Italy too underpowered?

Frankly unless they’re destroying Northern Italy the French get very little to do.

@TheDesertFox

Yeah, but different reasoning. For example, Soviet tank production absolutely soared after going to war:

https://archive.org/details/worldwariidatabo0000elli/page/278/mode/2up

Giving them more IPCs (or more tanks), to represent that (as The Captain has proposed as part of a broader set of house rules), would make more sense as opposed to Lend-Lease that weren’t that important.

Or even just make Moscow worth more. 3 IPCs is quite low. Make it at least 5 like Berlin. Some parts of the Soviet Union were really industrialized!

@TheDesertFox

There’s literally a national objective for this situation:

From page 36 of the Europe 1940 rulebook, Second Edition:

“5 IPCs if the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of Axis warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, and
there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet
Union. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.”

I’m also not too hot on expanding this, since Lend-Lease seemed to play a pretty marginal role on the Eastern Front. It is weird that the objective disincentivizes Allied support on the Eastern Front, and should be removed.

A more historically accurate idea would be to give the Soviets extra IPCs when at war or simulate winter somehow.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Makes sense. Given that they were “already there”, you can make them free and have them enter at a certain turn.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Oh, right. I forgot that the Romanian Third Army was attatched to Operation Case Blue from the start but wasn’t assigned to the Stalingrad initially.

@Faramir

Including them makes them more historically accurate.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Really? I’m unaware of that.

On August 21st, 1942, it seems like all the Romanian, Hungarian, and Italian units were already in the vicinity. The Battle of Voronezh already ended by the beginning of August.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

The second one of buffing the minor Axis units. They were inferior to German ones in the area in almost every way.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’ll be historically inaccurate.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

That’ll be historically inaccurate.

@SuperbattleshipYamato

September 2, 2025, marks the formal surrender of the Empire of Japan on the USS Missouri to the Allies.

The surrender was primarily caused by the US dropping nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime) and the Soviet invasion of Japanese held Manchuria and the looming threat of the massive Red Army turning its sights on Japan.

And that, my friends, concludes the 80th anniversary of World War 2.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Thanks for clarifying.

It doesn’t matter, but I’ll note that in TripleA, if a power (in this case, Japan) attacks a territory controlled by an enemy (China), that contains units belonging to a netural power (in this case, the Soviet Union), TripleA straight up ignores those units and leaves Soviet units in the newly Japanese territory.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Where is that statement mentioned?

This rulebook from this post https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/23900/global-1942-scenario-by-larry-harris

doesn’t say anything on this issue.

@Young-Grasshopper @Krieghund @Panther I don’t know if you can settle this issue, but can you please clarify? Thank you!

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Thanks! Yeah, this issue is the main reason I haven’t tried 1942 yet.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Here (circles drawn by me after screenshotting):

Here’s the file I’ve taken it from:

2025-9-1-Oztea-1942.tsvg

As you can see, this is an Oztea 1942 game that I haven’t done anything to. If I used edit mode to fake this problem, it would show up in the history. If you downloaded and opened the file, you will find that the history does not contain any evidence of such tampering.

So I started playing Oztea’s 1942 Global 1940 setup on TripleA, and I noticed that Japan starts out at war with ANZAC and has occupied the Dutch East Indies, but is not at war with the British.

This wasn’t mentioned in the game’s notes at all, and doesn’t really make much sense given the political situation the game starts with.

Am I missing something in the original rules? Is tihs just an error everybody knows about?

Thank you!

@FranceNeedsMorePower

Can-openers between Italy and Germany are actually pretty useless anyway.

ANZAC and France are literally the only powers that go between Germany and Italy. What point is there in can-opening for the bigger Allies if Germany can easily fill it next turn?

Unless ANZAC is blowing holes for France (an incredibly difficult and unlikely move to pull off), can-opening after Italy and before Germany doesn’t really do much.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

France already serves as a canopener in Europe between Italy and Germany. ANZAC isn’t needed for that purpose.

@TheDesertFox

Good question!

I think the better question though is (I believe this is what you meant, I’m just clarifying the question)

“Would keeping the carrier outweigh the risk posed by a higher chance of losing in Taranto?”

I don’t think so. In such a situation even if the British win in Taranto, there probably won’t be many planes left for the carrier, unless you’re flying some over from India.

More to the point, Britain in general doesn’t really need carriers. They’re certainly nice to have, but there are enough territories as landing spots across Europe and Africa that carriers aren’t required to reach anywhere. They’re a bit more useful in the Pacific depending on what the Japanese do and how much focus the US is putting there. A British fleet by itself cannot stand up to the Japanese.

@FranceNeedsMorePower

The issue is if you do that there’s not enough frosting for the Pacific cake.

ANZAC going off into Europe means there’s less resources for the Pacific, which means that Japan has a better chance of winning.

As everyone else has said, it’s far more efficient for ANZAC to concentrate on the Pacific.

If you want more power in Europe, just have the US spend more money in the Atlantic. As a bonus they can cooperate with all the other American units that are likely to be in North Africa or Europe anyway.

Meanwhile, ANZAC sticking to the Pacific means shorter supply lines which means they can reinforce their troops more easily (without the cost of building more facilities). This is especially helpful to defend their capital.