Romania

[gtg21]

Understanding that the Germans need to start the game with some territory all their own, I do however wonder why Romania (who didnt formally enter the war on the side of the Axis until Nov. 1940) wasn’t made a pro-Axis neutral territory in the game.

Romanian forces made up a large part of Axis eastern front forces and it seems to me that by not having them as a pro-Axis neutral that spawns at least 5-6 infantry, that the Axis is deprived of additional infantry that should in fact be represented.

The result is that the Axis end up having to produce through their own IPCs more infantry than they realistically should when you consider the manpower contributed by Axis satellites - of which Romania was the largest contributor.

Even the initial setup doesnt account for this since Germany starts the game with just 2 inf and 1 armor in Romania.  Assuming those intial set up forces are intended to represent a Romanian contribution, there’s no way the starting forces in Romania should be fewer than those generated by operation of the Axis entering Bulgaria or Finland (each of which spawns 4 inf).

Just a casual observation - Im sure there’s a good reason Romania was made a German tt - but I do think the initial set up for that tt should be boosted by at least 2-3 infantry.  Particularly when you consider Russia gets to generate 4 free inf per turn while at peace - a production level that in just 2 rounds negates the infantry the Axis gain through Finland and Bulgaria.

[miamibeach]

I agree with you.  Reasons why this may not be so are:
1.  The developers mentioned number of units also reflects historic strength…mentioned concerning aircraft though.
2.  Balance.  It does seem to me this was play tested.

[Dylan the Canadian]

@gtg21:

Understanding that the Germans need to start the game with some territory all their own, I do however wonder why Romania (who didnt formally enter the war on the side of the Axis until Nov. 1940) wasn’t made a pro-Axis neutral territory in the game.

Romanian forces made up a large part of Axis eastern front forces and it seems to me that by not having them as a pro-Axis neutral that spawns at least 5-6 infantry, that the Axis is deprived of additional infantry that should in fact be represented.

The result is that the Axis end up having to produce through their own IPCs more infantry than they realistically should when you consider the manpower contributed by Axis satellites - of which Romania was the largest contributor.

Even the initial setup doesnt account for this since Germany starts the game with just 2 inf and 1 armor in Romania.  Assuming those intial set up forces are intended to represent a Romanian contribution, there’s no way the starting forces in Romania should be fewer than those generated by operation of the Axis entering Bulgaria or Finland (each of which spawns 4 inf).

Just a casual observation - Im sure there’s a good reason Romania was made a German tt - but I do think the initial set up for that tt should be boosted by at least 2-3 infantry.  Particularly when you consider Russia gets to generate 4 free inf per turn while at peace - a production level that in just 2 rounds negates the infantry the Axis gain through Finland and Bulgaria.

Interesting point, but I guess, it’s just that Bulgaria is more south, and closer to Greece and Yugoslavia.

We got to remember it’s a game, not a war.

[The Fire Knight]

@Dylan:

@gtg21:

Understanding that the Germans need to start the game with some territory all their own, I do however wonder why Romania (who didnt formally enter the war on the side of the Axis until Nov. 1940) wasn’t made a pro-Axis neutral territory in the game.

Romanian forces made up a large part of Axis eastern front forces and it seems to me that by not having them as a pro-Axis neutral that spawns at least 5-6 infantry, that the Axis is deprived of additional infantry that should in fact be represented.

The result is that the Axis end up having to produce through their own IPCs more infantry than they realistically should when you consider the manpower contributed by Axis satellites - of which Romania was the largest contributor.

Even the initial setup doesnt account for this since Germany starts the game with just 2 inf and 1 armor in Romania.  Assuming those intial set up forces are intended to represent a Romanian contribution, there’s no way the starting forces in Romania should be fewer than those generated by operation of the Axis entering Bulgaria or Finland (each of which spawns 4 inf).

Just a casual observation - Im sure there’s a good reason Romania was made a German tt - but I do think the initial set up for that tt should be boosted by at least 2-3 infantry.  Particularly when you consider Russia gets to generate 4 free inf per turn while at peace - a production level that in just 2 rounds negates the infantry the Axis gain through Finland and Bulgaria.

Interesting point, but I guess, it’s just that Bulgaria is more south, and closer to Greece and Yugoslavia.

We got to remember it’s a game, not a war.

Quite debatable.

[strategic planner]

Well, it is a tit for tat game. If the Germans had less tts, the allies could crush them, but if they had more, then they would be too powerful, because this game will be the best man created game of the present and past!

[Flashman]

Not only should Romania be a pro-Axis neutral, it should also possess Bessarabia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_World_War_II

It was the occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviets in June that drove Romania into the Axis camp which it joined officially in November.

Of course it should also be further south, and is rather badly distorted on the new board.  Indeed the “Bessarabia” tt would be more accurately called “Transnistria”, which was not part of Romania until 1941.

So to be accurate:

Romania and Bessarabia should be an independent neutral.  Under terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact Bessarabia was assigned to Russia, so the USSR can occupy this territory without declaring war on Germany BUT it turns Romania proper into a pro-Axis neutral.

Baltic States were similarly assigned to Russia, but do the Soviet “military advisers” present make them Pro-Allied?

[gtg21]

@Flashman:

Romania and Bessarabia should be an independent neutral.  Under terms of the Hitler-Stalin pact Bessarabia was assigned to Russia, so the USSR can occupy this territory without declaring war on Germany BUT it turns Romania proper into a pro-Axis neutral.

Good points Flashman - though in regards to the one I quoted above, Im not sure I agree.  I don’t really have a problem with Bessarabia being assigned to the Russians to start.

Given the way the game is structured and tt’s divided, Im doubtful whether under your scenario (which I agree - is a more accurate situation) a Russian player would have any real incentive to ever occupy a neutral Bessarabia - particularly given that the tt has no significant IPC value, and whose occupation would result in the Axis gaining however many Romanian infantry.

In which case, the core problem I was concerned about (a shorting of the Axis of infantry they should be assured of by operation of a pro-Axis neutral Romania) wouldnt really be solved.

[Flashman]

I’ve always believed that a number of purchased infantry should be allowed to be placed in any home area up to the IPC value of the area, without a factory needing to be present.

Under this system, Romania would function as a vital forward infantry recruiting area for the Axis in a way that would be roughly accurate (assuming you treat assimilated pro-neutrals (as opposed to conquered territory) as home areas).

[Seven_Patch]

Could always use my personal alternate Global set up.

RUSSIA
Amur: 6 Infantry
Sakha: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 6 Infantry
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

UNITED KINGDOM
Egypt: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 91: 1 additional Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 additional Destroyer

ANZAC
Alexandria: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 1 Infantry

FRANCE
French Indo China: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 110: 1 Destroyer

GERMANY
Germany: 1 Fighter
Romania: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 113: 1 Submarine

ITALY
Northern Italy: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 Destroyer

JAPAN
Japan: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 17: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

Yes I know, I’m crazy.

[Dylan the Canadian]

@Seven_Patch:

Could always use my personal alternate Global set up.

RUSSIA
Amur: 6 Infantry
Sakha: 6 Infantry
Buryatia: 6 Infantry
Sea Zone 5: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

UNITED KINGDOM
Egypt: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 91: 1 additional Destroyer
Sea Zone 109: 1 additional Destroyer

ANZAC
Alexandria: 1 Infantry
Egypt: 1 Infantry

FRANCE
French Indo China: 1 Infantry
Sea Zone 110: 1 Destroyer

GERMANY
Germany: 1 Fighter
Romania: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 113: 1 Submarine

ITALY
Northern Italy: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 95: 1 Destroyer

JAPAN
Japan: 1 additional Infantry
Sea Zone 17: 1 Destroyer / 1 Submarine

Yes I know, I’m crazy.

Or give China more infantry.

[marechallannes]

@Flashman:

I’ve always believed that a number of purchased infantry should be allowed to be placed in any home area up to the IPC value of the area, without a factory needing to be present.

World of War - Xeno games :-D

[gtg21]

@Flashman:

I’ve always believed that a number of purchased infantry should be allowed to be placed in any home area up to the IPC value of the area, without a factory needing to be present.

Under this system, Romania would function as a vital forward infantry recruiting area for the Axis in a way that would be roughly accurate (assuming you treat assimilated pro-neutrals (as opposed to conquered territory) as home areas).

Pretty good idea, but think of the havoc it would wreak on the Allies in the Pacific theater if Japan could simply place infantry in “home area” tts they start with on mainland Asia.  It would spare the Japanese player of the need to develop ICs and almost certainly the number of transports purchased over a game.

I can see some serious balance issues arising if the rule isnt restricted in some manner - perhaps tts with a value of 2 IPCs or more?

[Flashman]

Mmmm, but I’m thinking of a much stricter definition of “home” in this sense.

Assimilated Romania can be considered Axis home turf in this respect, as the country has voluntarily joined that alliance.  However any part of China under Japanese occupation does not qualify, however long the Japanese have been there.  Those Chinese symbols on Japanese starting tts are there for a reason; this is occupied Chinese home territory and, as far as I understand the rules, the Chinese can place infantry here if they’re in control.  Limited placement of Japanese infantry in Korea and Thailand wouldn’t be a game breaker.

[WILD BILL]

@gtg21:

Even the initial setup doesnt account for this since Germany starts the game with just 2 inf and 1 armor in Romania.  Assuming those intial set up forces are intended to represent a Romanian contribution, there’s no way the starting forces in Romania should be fewer than those generated by operation of the Axis entering Bulgaria or Finland (each of which spawns 4 inf).

First off I agree the time line is off. Bulgaria getting 4 free inf (12 ipc), and Romania starting w/2 inf +arm (12 ipc) is relatively the same (as far as cost anyway). I agree Romania could have got a boost. The other thing to consider is that w/o Germany starting in Romania it couldn’t get to Bulgaria to claim those 4 free inf rd #1. It couldn’t be in Greece by rd #2 either. Do you want Italy to jump in before you to screw things up (oh yea that’s what they do best) :-D

Anyway just some observations if Romania was a pro axis neutral instead of a starting German tt. Some times history takes a back seat to game play, when playing w/Larry’s map and rules.

[Flashman]

Bulgaria is a tricky case: it never declared war on it’s fellow Slavs in the USSR, only on the western Allies.  It was “pro-Axis”, but only in the anti-capitalist sense. Didn’t save it from a Russian invasion, mind…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria_during_World_War_II

Perhaps if Germany (with Bulgaria in the Axis) invades Russia you have to make a loyalty roll; if you lose it Bulgaria leaves the Axis and becomes pro-Allied. A new group of Bulgarian troops is generated to defend the newly-not-officially-aligned state.

We might consider the same type of rule for Romania if the Russians retake Bessarabia; and so forth for all neutrals, including the likes of Poland and the Low Countries.

[Tralis]

@Seven_Patch:

Could always use my personal alternate Global set up.

Yes I know, I’m crazy.

Yeah, I think you’re crazy. You haven’t even played the game vanilla yet.  :lol:

[Koningstiger]

@marechallannes:

@Flashman:

I’ve always believed that a number of purchased infantry should be allowed to be placed in any home area up to the IPC value of the area, without a factory needing to be present.

World of War - Xeno games :-D

Actually the rule is one infantry per turn in any area with an IPC value (so not as many as the IPC value of the territory). I agree it’s a great rule, though to be allowed to place off-factory infantry. In World at war they cost one IPC more than regular infantry (i.e. when placed in a territory containing a factory).

[UN Spacy]

You know, acting on a hunch here, but I think Romania is a German territory for gameplay balance  :roll:

All right, to be less snobbish, I really don’t believe Axis and Allies should be drenched in realistic borders, territories, or alliances. I think Larry found a perfect balance of historical accuracy and sacrificing some of that for gameplay balance. One can spend hours pointing out the unrealistic set-up and map of A&A 1940. I can personally point out, as a Frenchman, that the French Navy is under-represented, the French forces in the Empire are under-represented, no Vichy France means the Italians have to worry about their flank, the Free French should have a capital in French Equatorial Africa and be able to produce at least one infantry every three turns, etc. But, I know all of that is omitted and/or changed because of balance, balance, balance.

Am I beating a dead horse here? Probably.