Bump - Added Italian Set
What if I dont want to do it larrys way?
-
sounds exciting! like a race
-
RACE, this will be the biggest race in the history of the world.
If Germnay leaves France, they HAVE to get to and capture Moscow in 3 turns. They will need to go for TOTAL warfare. Everything into Russia. SBRing them to nothing, and using all of you aircarft to rapid blitz across Russia, with Italy helping in the south with their navy.
Once the capture Moscow, they pump units out of Germany to kick the UK out of Franance, while cpaturing the high income Cacauus oil fields, then the middle east, and kick the UK out of Aferica from behind them.
IF GERMANY LEAVES FRANCE, GET READY OF THE BIGGEST ******* RACE IN AXIS AND ALLIES HISTORY. 3 Turns and Russia MUST FALL.
This is SOOO EPIC
-
I think, now on second thoughs, a cupple of things.
A-Berlin will be in Eastern Germany (an extra territory for the UK to capture).
B-France is its own power, so Engalnd cannot produce from it (everythings will have to come from transports, execpt about 10 french IPCs)
C-Larry said something about their only been a cupple of infantry on the Russian frount. (Mabey G1 attack not possible).
D-We will not have to worry about the USA. Japan will do a J3 attack, meaning the USA carnt land in France by until US 4, and by then it is too late.So our MOST EPIC RUSSIAN FROUNT has got about 2 turns less epic. :cry: :cry: :cry:
-
i think that if germany attack russia, the russian IPC goes from small token (let’s say 10 IPC) to double of germany, so you need to prepare and have allot of money (france, and possible UK) to invade USSR. with invasion of USSR US will probably jump in too
-
I wonder how long US will have to wait in Europe game.
-
@Brain:
I wonder how long US will have to wait in Europe game.
I would think the US political stuff would be similar. US 3rd round Dec Of War (leading to a large IPC bonus), then able to attack on US 4th turn. Germany/Italy will be able to attack the US at any time (same as Jap) to trigger the US war time economy. The only difference is that UK/France will be at war with Germany/Italy. There won’t be any if G/I attacks UK/F first then that brings US in, because they’re already at war at the start of the game.
I don’t think that an axis assault on Russia will bring about any US involvement.
I could see if Germany attempts a sea lion, then the US is automatically in the war however, or maybe only if its a successful sea lion (SBR not included). I would like to think the US would have come to its parents aid (we were already aiding and a bedding). I would think that it would be the 3rd round before Germany could attempt such a feat though, so the US would be declaring war any way. The only dif would be they could attack in the 3rd rd instead of just declaring war at the end of their turn. -
Hmmm, historically, Germany had just signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union in Aug 1939, in which they partitioned Poland. The West viewed this as a stab-in-the-back since Hitler’s Germany was supposed to be a bulwark of Western civilization against the Communists in Russia. A lot of Western politicians (Neville Chamberlain, specifically) had also been willing to back Hitler through his aggressive tactics in acquiring the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia from 1936-1938 since he had been such a loud and fierce opponent of the Communists. A lot of the decision to declare war by the Western Powers on Germany if it invaded Poland was based on the weariness of playing the back and forth both sides game between the East and West. Plus obviously Hitler could not be trusted.
Though, Germany DID backstab the Reds in Jun 1941, only 2 years after signing the non-aggression pact, so invading in 1940 probably wouldn’t be that much different… Wonder how Larry is going to put in the peace treaty between the Reds and Germany at game start? Or if its possible to reswitch alliances between the East to West again and be at peace with France and UK at beginning?
With the Soviet militarization and industrialization (begun in the late '20s), and Germany’s militarization (begun in the early '30s), many felt conflict between the two sides was inevitable. But it was far from clear that the Western democracies would take the German side. Motivated by some combination of pro-communism and anti-Germanism, the French government signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. The Czech government did the same thing that same year. Many felt that if or when war came, it would be Germany on one side and the Western democracies plus the Soviets on the other. The Germans would stand no chance in such a war, which is why many nations chose pro-communist/democratic foreign policies in the late '30s.
The fact that things didn’t turn out that way was not due to any lack of eagerness on the Western democracies’ part. The plan failed because of Joseph Stalin, who regarded both the Nazis and the Western democracies as enemies. Knowing that Germany would be roughly equally matched in a war against Britain and France, Stalin hoped for a long, grinding, devastating war between the two sides; similar to WWI. A war which did not involve the Soviet Union. After the Nazis and the Western democracies had been bled white fighting each other, the Red Army would move into the heart of Europe to fill the resulting power vacuum.
In 1939, France and Britain made two specific promises to Poland:
1. If Poland was invaded by Germany, the British and French would declare war on Germany. This promise did not apply to a Soviet invasion.
2. France would launch a full-scale invasion of Germany within 15 days of the start of the war.While the first promise was kept, the second was ignored. Poland, having relied on false promises from the French government, was put in a terrible position. The Polish government had opted against reconciliation with Germany (which would have required the return of Polish-occupied German territory) or a reconciliation with the Soviet Union (which would have required a significant westward adjustment of the Polish-Soviet border). The Polish foreign policy would have represented a serious calculated risk even if its Western democratic allies had kept their promises. The fact that they didn’t turned Poland’s foreign policy into sheer suicide.
The next question is why the French government chose to mislead the Polish government both before and during the invasion of Poland. While there are many possible explanations for that, I feel the below is the most likely.
1. The French government had decided it was time to go to war against Germany. By the spring of 1940, Allied military strength in France–in terms of men and tanks–was equivalent or superior to its German counterpart. Plus Britain and France, combined, had significantly more military production capacity than the Germans.
2. To persuade the French and British people to go along with that war, some trigger was needed. A German invasion of Poland was one potential trigger.
3. The French wanted a defensive war, especially after their experience in WWI. French military doctrine of 1939 was based on fighting on defense, a fact reflected in the French military’s construction of the Maginot Line.The deliberate sacrifice of Poland would have represented a way for the French government to get the defensive war against Germany it thought it wanted. While other possible explanations of the French foreign policy of 1939 could perhaps be devised, the idea that the French government was somehow trying to help Poland is not supported by the evidence.
-
Couldn’t you attack Russia with Germany and let Italy tackle the french? Perhaps with a little hit from germany using there inf and planes on the border, sending all there mech/arms directly toward russia turn 1 for a turn 2 assault?
Sounds like a good idea to me :-D
-
Italy only went to war when Mussolini saw that France was defeated, and wanted to get in on the act before the surrender.
In fact, Hitler was worried about Italy joining in earlier, as this would’ve diverted some of the French air force south when Hitler wanted to destroy it completely in the north.
Mussolini’s later decision to attack Greece rather than press towards Egypt was provoked by Hitler stationing troops in Romania without telling the Italians; this was fatal to the African campaign, and Hitler had wanted the Balkans “quiet” before Barbarossa.
America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.
Until this it sold arms to Britain, and eventually sent some obsolete destroyers to Canada, most of which were never used. More important were supplies of American armour to the north African campaign.
-
finally a realistic point of veiw
-
America should only ever go to war if attacked….
Sadly, I think one of the safest bets to be made about AAE40 is that that won’t be in the rules.
American neutrality will no doubt vanish magically after three turns.
-
America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.
Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.
-
@Brain:
America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.
Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.
If the UK player could draw on a “neutral” US economy… tan ships appearing in New England, that might be a stimulus to attack.
-
I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.
-
@Brain:
I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.
Probably not. Although, in general, I suspect the global game - being optional - will be more complicated than the average WOTC work.
-
@Brain:
I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.
Probably not. Although, in general, I suspect the global game - being optional - will be more complicated than the average WOTC work.
Let us hope so.
-
America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.
@Brain:
Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.
Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.
While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.
Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.
-
This would require some serious play-testing.
-
America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.
@Brain:
Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.
Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.
While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.
Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.
Yeargh!!! Complicated!!!11!1 Axis and allies realism only goes so far; at some point one has to draw the line. Convoy zones are enough abstraction as is. This just sounds like way too many rules to add to the already convoluted 1940 rulebook.
The suggested ending US income of 126 IPCs proves a point about the lopsidedness of the Axis predicament, however. I just don’t see how its feasible for Axis victory when the Allies have such a huge base defended by several turns of SZs with insane purchasing capacity. With the Axis powers on opposite sides of the map, there’s no way either side can hold a 125 IPC juggernaut off for long. At least one front is going to have to cave; guess this will be Larry’s approximation of “balance”.
-
The Axis needs to shift the balance early in the game before the US gets involved.
Suggested Topics
