if the russians TT were 0 up North, would Japan still go for them?
It would certainly be less enticing.
if the russians TT were 0 up North, would Japan still go for them?
There should also be more of them. The expansive wasteland, y’know.
I solved the non agression treaty by making japan and russia really afraid of attacking eachother
If either party engaged in the non-agression treaty attacks a territory origianaly belonging to the other, all attacks on that power this turn are modified as follows. The attackers units all suffer a -1 penalty to their attack value (infantry have no attack value when not supported by artillery). Likewise, all defending units have their defense value increased by +1 (no unit may exeed a value of 5 by any means).
This rule is considerd void after one power has attacked the other AND succesfuly taken a territory from that power. Combat within the boarders of China and Mongolia have no effect on the treaty. These units are assumed to be Communst Chinese or their Mongolian equvialant.
Well you could just make a rule that the first country that attacks has to surrender all of their income for the rest of the game and that would make them really afraid of attacking each other as well, but it doesn’t make sense, just like your rule doesn’t make sense either.
What many posters seem to forget is that when an A&A game starts, Japan and Russia are at war…. :roll:
You need more than a non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia to make a practical and good solution, if the goal is that Japan and Russia are not allowed to attack each other. You need a completely different design within the aspects of the relations between different powers.
Also, the premise of A&A is that once the game starts, we can alter the history. If you don’t agree with this premise, then I’d suggest you design a game that is completely different from what every A&A (global) game is now.
@Subotai:
What many posters seem to forget is that when an A&A game starts, Japan and Russia are at war…. :roll:
You need more than a non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia to make a practical and good solution, if the goal is that Japan and Russia are not allowed to attack each other. You need a completely different design within the aspects of the relations between different powers.
Also, the premise of A&A is that once the game starts, we can alter the history. If you don’t agree with this premise, then I’d suggest you design a game that is completely different from what every A&A (global) game is now.
Subotai, I am with you 100% on that post.
@Subotai:
What many posters seem to forget is that when an A&A game starts, Japan and Russia are at war…. :roll:
You need more than a non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia to make a practical and good solution, if the goal is that Japan and Russia are not allowed to attack each other. You need a completely different design within the aspects of the relations between different powers.
Also, the premise of A&A is that once the game starts, we can alter the history. If you don’t agree with this premise, then I’d suggest you design a game that is completely different from what every A&A (global) game is now.
I agree, but the big thing is Japan needs a target other than moscow that is almost as difficult to achieve as moscow is for germany. With the way the pacific is laid out in the new game, the indies are worth alot of money and the UK/ANZAC/China/US can really put up a fight for 'em, unlike in old aa50.
yea…my rule doesnt make sense, you obviously are brain damaged
If both sides entered into a non agression treaty, and anticipate holding true to it, it can be infered that the forces that remain there are more “defense oriented” units, as in they have extremely limited forward operations capibility, little to no transportation, no supplys in any positon to move forward, etc. The forces there are ready to defend the border, and would not do well in an attack. Therefore they are penalized; whilst the defender, who has sacrificed any offensive potential for a boost in defense, receives one.
that way you CAN break the pact, however, the other power is still WARY of an attack, more so than normal.
I mean…you can be constructive on these forums, or not, i dont care what you do either way, i just want people to hear my ideas
yea…my rule doesnt make sense, you obviously are brain damaged
If both sides entered into a non agression treaty, and anticipate holding true to it, it can be infered that the forces that remain there are more “defense oriented” units, as in they have extremely limited forward operations capibility, little to no transportation, no supplys in any positon to move forward, etc. The forces there are ready to defend the border, and would not do well in an attack. Therefore they are penalized; whilst the defender, who has sacrificed any offensive potential for a boost in defense, receives one.that way you CAN break the pact, however, the other power is still WARY of an attack, more so than normal.
I mean…you can be constructive on these forums, or not, i dont care what you do either way, i just want people to hear my ideas
Okay oztea, now I see your point of view, and yes I am brain damaged. I take back the part about it not making sense. I do like hearing your ideas, but I just made a response on how I understood it. Sometimes I am wrong and this is one of those times. Please keep posting your ideas.
Well, going back to the original topic. I think that US income will not be split. I think that the western US will stay at 10 ipc. And the Eastern US will be be the big money maker.
Or, the US just gains the 40 IPC for being at war, period.
Granted that would suck, I want a US that makes over 100 lol.
Hopefully the placing of Moscow firmly in Europe will offset the Moscow magnet, simply because Germany will now be so much closer to that city than Japan, not true of the old maps with the Soviet capital somewhere in the Ural mountains.
If this is so, can Germany afford to sit and wait for Japan to arrive east of Moscow before attacking the place?
It should be uneconomical for Japan to devote so much energy to eating up central Asia.
There should, however, be a Soviet factory in the Urals (or at least the option to move one there) so that
1. USSR can fight on with a reasonable factory (3-4 IPC) if Moscow falls,
2. Japan has a reasonably attainable and valuable target if it decides to attack Russia.
I fully appreciate the need for the game to potentially diverge from a historical play out; my concern is that an optimum strategy for the Axis similar to that so familiar from previous versions will mean that the historical game NEVER happens, and the Pacific continues to be ignored.
I fully appreciate the need for the game to potentially diverge from a historical play out; my concern is that an optimum strategy for the Axis similar to that so familiar from previous versions will mean that the historical game NEVER happens, and the Pacific continues to be ignored.
A historical game means axis always lose.
For the real WW2, Germany should never attacked Russia before finishing off UK.
Japan will always lose against US in the Pacific, b/c US had perhaps 4-5 times higher GDP than Japan.
But the Pacific islands should be worth much more, then we could have a real pacific conflict in the global game.
A&A can never be historically realistic, unless a $100 bid to balance the game is considered “realistic”?
The Axis lost the war in 1941. If Germany had attacked Russia 2 weeks earlier, they would not have been stroped by bad wether and Russian reinforments in Kursk. They would have rooled Moscow and Russia would have decended into a state of Panic, they would have lost their command centre, and their few generals.
The axis lost the world war by 2 weeks, 1 year before pearl harbour.
If Moscow had fallen, UK would have surrenderd because of the econmoic attack blowtorch of Germany (bombing, rockets, and stopping american aid) along with aferica falling.
Even the USA couudnet beat the rest of the world.
yep exactly.
Even the USA couudnet beat the rest of the world.
I think that they could have.
I highly doubt Russia would have been easy to occupy, there would have been insurgents all over the place still fighting. The US would just be dropping a nuke on Berlin before they did it to Japan if Russia would have crumbled, but once again I do not feel loosing moscow would have been the complete defeat of Russia that the axis though it would have been.
I highly doubt Russia would have been easy to occupy, there would have been insurgents all over the place still fighting. The US would just be dropping a nuke on Berlin before they did it to Japan if Russia would have crumbled, but once again I do not feel loosing moscow would have been the complete defeat of Russia that the axis though it would have been.
I completely agree with you.
In 1944, the germans said they would have an a-bomb by 1946. They were also devolping stelth-fighters and uber LR bombers that could reach the US and back.
And if the US did have a A-Bomb, it would not be able to reach Berlin without Brittan as a base.
The Germanys just would have built lots of subs and when ever the US lauunced transports, the would be suck before going 10k.
If I was hilter, I would invade northen Canada, use airbases there to bomb the US to nothing, then use your army to work you way to Wasington.
You Americans need to remeber the US is not invisiable (GFC!!!).
May I chime in here and say dont forget that it could be considered that those few tuff russian soliders that held that , what was it 1 or 2 square miles of what was left of stalingrad,played a large part of an allied win. If Hitler had a better dice roll on that battle maybe Russia would have been lost and that changes things a bit. U.S. may have had to make a 100% dedication to Europe theater, with a defence posture on the west cost.
