@superbattleshipyamato Right. alot more complications introduces longer play. More areas means longer play, More units longer play. I wish their was a light 12 page version with only about 6-10 more units, not 60 more. The map would have about 60% less areas and play would take 2-3 hours but still be buckets of dice concept. That would be my wish plus dedicated piece sets or a version that used counters like nova games edition.
Monroe doctrine!
-
Three important questions!
If USSR attack Uruguay or Cuba in January 1939., could the USA declare war immediately because of the violating Monroe doctrine, or should USA wait for the economy to reach 63 IPPs?
If it can, does the USA economy reach 63 IPP or must wait July 1939 and start to roll dice?
Does also USSR economy reach full production or not?
-
@HMS:
Three important questions!
If USSR attack Uruguay or Cuba in January 1939., could the USA declare war immediately because of the violating Monroe doctrine, or should USA wait for the economy to reach 63 IPPs?
USA needs to be at full income to declare war. If for any reason this occurs yes it can declare war on USSR for Monroe doctrine reasons.If it can, does the USA economy reach 63 IPP or must wait July 1939 and start to roll dice?
USA Must wait and roll for increases in income,
Be Declared war on by a major power or gain income from peacetime bonuses. See USA national sheet for increasing income.
Does also USSR economy reach full production or not?
USSR only reaches full income by rolling for increases, peacetime bonus increases or If war is initiated by another major power on USSR. See USSR national sheet for increases.
So no unless the USA was at full income and declared war on USSR in this situation.Otherwise this would be used as a cheesy move to get USA and USSR at full income earlier every time.
-
As per the designer of the game FAQ
http://www.globalwargame.com/www/question/us-questions/CORRECTION
If anyone attacks South America US goes to full production/income. -
Then that’s a major problem for Axis, and I do not see a way for them to deal with it.
-
@HMS:
Then that’s a major problem for Axis, and I do not see a way for them to deal with it.
A little late to the game here on this thread, but thought I’d throw my two cents in.
I’m just wondering out loud if this is really THAT big of a problem for the Axis? I only ask this because, while it’s true the US will be at full income very early, they are also now at war with the USSR, thus pitting two Allied powers against each other early. Plus, it’s not as though this means they can automatically declare war on the Axis powers right away. They still need to wait for an Axis power to declare war on another power first.
My point is, while the US is getting a much larger income much earlier in the game, the US and USSR forces will now have to deal with each other as well as the Axis (eventually). This could be more USSR troops stationed in the far East/Pacific than they may normally do, and same with US forces stationed in Alaska maybe, out of fear of invasion from one another. Plus USSR won’t be getting any lend lease support from the Western powers moving forward.
What do you think? Does that maybe change the thinking a bit?
This is all moot, of course, if the USSR and US do this, but have agreed to not actually fight each other. That would definitely be an issue. Though, maybe that wouldn’t happen, given US victory objectives. That’s conceivably two victory objectives the US would be giving up if they didn’t fight the USSR in that scenario. That’s a big risk to just let slide.
-
That’s the main problem I thought. I played as the Allies and I arranged with the Commintern player to go first to beat the Axis, while not fighting each other until Axis was defeated. Commintern dont need leand-lease because whit this act (DOW for violating Monroe doctrine) Allies give them cca 100 IPP. We are only formally in the war (Allies vs. Commintern), but the only real opponent is Axis. When Axis is defeated, both of us have a bigger chance of winning. In this case, for Allies it is easier to win only one (Commintern) than two opponents (Commintern & Axis). Why would the Allies at all make real warfare against the Commintern? One and the other war revelations only serve to increase the economy.
First, why would the USSR attack Alaska and America in general when they can take Europe very fast and very easy and there are lot of ipc and victory points for them. Along with this, they would have to build a big navy on the pacific to transport the army, which is completely useless, complicated and it take a lot of time (turns) to do that.
Second, why would the US invade the East of the USSR? They can take maximum (8 IPP?) from USSR, and until the end of the game USA will hardly come to Moscow, until then USSR wipe the whole of Europe. In this situation, most important thing for Allies are to defend France and not to allow USSR to conquer Europe and take victory points.
There are two options for AXIS:
1. Strikes immediately France and Poland but in such an early phase of the game two fronts against America and Russia with full economy, simply they do not have chance and Germany and Italy eventually the will fall. If Germany attacked before January 1939 they simply do not have enough troops to hit France and Poland at the same time, the question is whether they can take Paris (with so little army) in the same round even with the Lightning War. Even with some miracle, France and Poland fall in the same round they will simply not be able to withstand against Allies and Comintern with full economy.
2. Axis do not attack anyone. Allies are unable to attack Axis. But what can Germany do with 24 IPP and Italy with 7 IPP against Russia that will have over 60? 70? IPP when it comes to the border with Germany. Or Japan with 19 IPP against China, and prepared ANZAC and FEC. Even if Japan attacks and Germany and Italy do not. What can Japan do? Japan can not have an offensive on the islands (DEI, Philippines…) China and Russia, because they will quickly exaust they forces. If Japan makes offensive on China and Russia it means spending a lot of units and they have to make a long line of reinforcements for a small amount of IPP territories they conquer and eventually FEC and ANZAC plus America will push them. If Japan attack China and the islands, USSR is safe and when Germany and Italy fall, what can Japan do?
The main thing is that the game of three alliances that have equal chances for win turns into the game of two big factions and Axis who have no chance of winning but can watch how Allies and Commintern fight who will win and maybe at some point of the game make something to someone and decide winner among two of them.
What I want to say; In this scenario Axis has very low chance of winning what is not fair. -
Serapis you read my mind!
But there are two ways when Axis can win the game:
1. They have enormous luck on dices
2. Allies and Cominter players are complete idiots. -
2 ways to solve this problem for the axis
1 house rule this section out of the game.
2 destroy Russian navy before this can happen. Gets Russia in faster but keeps US out.
-
@Rank:
2 ways to solve this problem for the axis
1 house rule this section out of the game. –-> Probably the best option for this
2 destroy Russian navy before this can happen. Gets Russia in faster but keeps US out.––> USSR does not need navy for this, only what they need to do is declare war (USA reference sheet; Monroe doctrine). Even if they must attack one of countries in S.America with some unit, then you have every game where Germany in January 1939 are going to fight on two fronts. You have USSR with full economy on one side and France and Britain on other side (because if you want to get USSR you must attack Poland). And you dont have Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria because Paris didnt fall. Oher option is to beat France but then you cant get USSR fast because USSR will get Romania, Poland, Baltic State before you and have more IPP than Germany. Also, Allies an Comintern are not in war with each other and they can lend lease mutually.
-
Interesting HMS Serapis. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t necessarily disagreeing with you as much as maybe pointing out another possibility. I agree with you, if the Comintern and Allies have that kind of an agreement, then major issue.
@HMS:
First, why would the USSR attack Alaska and America in general when they can take Europe very fast and very easy and there are lot of ipc and victory points for them. Along with this, they would have to build a big navy on the pacific to transport the army, which is completely useless, complicated and it take a lot of time (turns) to do that.
Second, why would the US invade the East of the USSR? They can take maximum (8 IPP?) from USSR, and until the end of the game USA will hardly come to Moscow, until then USSR wipe the whole of Europe. In this situation, most important thing for Allies are to defend France and not to allow USSR to conquer Europe and take victory points.I should clarify here. I was not insinuating that this would be a viable way to war for either the USSR or USA. I agree, the IPP’s available are not large, and would only draw resources away. What I mean here though is, if an agreement between the two is not reached, and they are actually “at war”, then the presence of defensive forces may still be needed. If I’m the USA and I see Kamchatka or Chukchia completely undefended with no hope of anyone coming to the rescue for a couple turns, you bet I’m going to land a single transport there to annoy them. Maybe be able to have a base to more easily fight the Japanese that way too, etc.
Point being, without the presence of a defensive force to block this kind of move (and again, with the Comintern and Allies agreement NOT in place), I could easily see this happening, thus requiring even a kind of token force that may have otherwise been used elsewhere.
But again, if they’ve agreed to be at war only in name, then major issue for the Axis. But, agreements can be broken, and I suppose you can never know if one of the two might do just that to the other and any point in the game :evil:
-
Everything is OK. Neither Allies nor Commintern is in the mutual interest of fighting each other while Axis is in the game. They will fight each other later. We tried this, and if we respected the deal between the Commintern and Allies, the consequences for Axis were catastrophic, they are defeated too early. Basically, I definitely recommend playing the strategy outlined here (USSR violates Monroe doctrine), and tell me how it was. We made our house rule; Commintern can not declare war on anyone in the Western Hemisphere until USSR reaches full economy.
-
Looking at the cards for the US.
Monroe Doctrine
The USA may declare war on any major power that declares war on/Attacks any zone in the Western Hemisphere. (N. America or S. America inclusive of Islands.)Looking at Neutral card:
Monroe Doctrine
An attack by any Nation anywhere in North or South America violates the Monroe Doctrine and allows the US to declare war on the Attacker.Definition of declaring war:
Declaring War: Declaring war is initiating war, meaning that the player declaring it is starting the war. Players may sometimes declare war in response to being Attacked but this is not technically a declaration of war per the rules as war was already declared by the Attacker.So while a nation can declare war at any point even during another players turn, I am interpreting for the Monroe Doctrine to end up applying some one has to actually attack a country in N/S America. From reading those three things it seems to me that it does require the Soviets to land a piece to declare war/attack.
Which means USSR would have to launch by July 36 to even reach a territory in S. America roughly using movement rates. In addition to using up its entire starting capital Jan 36 to place a transport.
Then again by using the same rules on the nation sheets if the Soviet Union initiates War with a nation known to be protected under the Monroe Doctrine it is in effect initiating war with the US knowing it will force them to declare war on the Soviet Union.
Which the Sleeping Bear rule on Soviet sheet means they do not get go to full production…since they initiated the whole series of events knowing what treaties where in place. On top of that it says the US MAY declare war. Not that it has to. I am not sure it would be in the best interest of the US to allow USSR getting into full production since it is now a hostile player to US interest. At least that is how I would play it.
So even if I was wrong and USSR could just say I declare war on Uruguay. The earliest they could attack anyways is Jan 39 meaning the earliest the US income increase would be July 39 where they could use the IPCs for equipment after collecting it at the end of Jan 36.
Definitely a rule I wouldnt allow in a two player game. Might start being fun in a three or five player game though.
As a US player Id wait to declare the counter war and look at western USSR and staging base potential for the eventual clase with Japan.
Of course I havent played the game yet just putting armies together and reading the rules a few times through.
EDITED to get rid of the question marks replacing quotation marks. Have to remember those dont seem to translate…
-
This is perhaps a bit off topic and should perhaps have it own thread, but anyway:
My group are increasingly getting rid of old A&A baggage, thus getting better at the nuances. (Note: we play the 1939 scenario)
Some things we have discovered:
- This is truly a 3-person (or more) game. If only two players, everything about the alliances and victory points doesn’t work
- The Allies have to fight Comintern as much as possible with the few options available. This means Lend-Leasing to neutrals etc. - this have to be balanced with keeping the USSR in the game against esp. Germany.
- If USSR conquer a territory, the Allies have almost zero chance of liberating, as they have to conquer Berlin before they can declare war. Unlikely before 1945.
- Against a good USSR player that uses mobility and the terrain to his advantage, Germany has a very had time
In our previous game, Comintern stood to win due to the amount of neutrals (Mongolia, Iran, Iraq, Finland, Sweden, Norway…) it had conquered. The Allies could do nothing at this point.
-
A few additional comments:
If the USSR violates the Monroe Doctrine, US, UK & France can immediately declare war on USSR. In ‘normal’ games the Allies can not attack USSR until Axis is defeated. By opening up for Allied attacks early on, they risk loosing all/any conquered Neutral territories.
The Allied player can now attack the strongest opponent (Axis or Comintern), taking just enough victory points to win the game.
Remember: It’s a 3-person game :mrgreen:
-
Once more time… main problem of violating Monroe doctrine is if you play as an Axis, even if you have the best strategy ever, you will lose. We are not talking about who have better chances for win between Allies and Comintern or who will benefit more from Monroe doctrine because winner will choose Axis player. If he move majority of forces to USSR then Allies will win, if he move forces to France and try to stall Allies landing, then USSR will win. If Axis player goes to defensive position and try to make ˝fortress˝ Europe, believe me that fortress will crumble very fast. In that scenario chances are same for both factions (Allies and Cominter). At best Allies and Comintern can breed them for some later goals in game but Axis will never have more victory point than them.
So, if anybody have a strategy/scenario where Axis can WIN if Monroe doctrine is violated I would like to hear it.
-
With some thought this is good for USSR. They can now take out India and the middle East from British if they wish. Or many other possible causes… it opens up the game. Allies can attack Russia true but it’s a 2 way street here.
Edit: USSR may want to wait a few turns on this so its income is higher. And the US jump in income is also smaller.
Suggested Topics
