Thank you!
The Berlin-Rome-Moscow axis and the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
-
So a resounding allied victory! I suppose the game begins with the odds stacked against the axis, and once you take Japan out of the picture, there’s no second front for the allies to have to focus on. I am, however, suprised at how well Japan did against the Soviets on their own! The fact that, despite soviet aid, you were still able to crush China and march nearly to Moscow is impressive.
I would hesitate to change the set-up, but maybe bring the soviets in as full allies of the axis at the end of turn 4 might change things. It might give the axis the help they need, or just make the Germans send forces to help beat back the Japanese.
And last we come to China! Its in such an odd position, being only at war with Japan, and getting pwned, it needs help for anyone who is willing. The soviets are the obvious choice, being the closest(well closest that wont spark a war with the west). It must seem wrong to have China collect money based on British positions, when they are in defacto alliance with the axis. Perhaps, some other stipulation should be put on British support, like only haveing “X” number of soviet forces in their country or somethng like that.
Just wondering if you used the standared set-up or if you used the alpha set-up, and how do you think it would effect the game?
-
This is the weirdest and most disturbing thread about global yet. Regardless of balance issues what would the purpose of allowing Russia to join the axis be? Would this be axis vs allies at that point?
-
This is the weirdest and most disturbing thread about global yet. Regardless of balance issues what would the purpose of allowing Russia to join the axis be? Would this be axis vs allies at that point?
Well I certian didnt intend to disturb anyone with it :-D
It was just a fun little exploit I found in the political rule system. Talking about Russia joining the axis is really more of the home rules section, but allowing Japan and the Soviets to whail on one another while Germany keeps the peace with them in Europe is actually workable with in the standard rules. It was just a fun venture into some speculative gaming.
I had honestly thought that Japan would have been at more of a disadvantage, and that the Soviets would eventualy gain parity with them and start to push them back. At which point, if China is still in the game, I could see it be a very desperate struggle for Japan. However, we have found that the oppsite is true so far, that Japan has enough of an advantage that it can hammer both China and Russia before more forces can be brought to bear. We’ll have to see if this is the rule or just luck.
-
Why not just develop this into a full four player game as per my suggestion, with each of the four (Germany/Italy, USSR/CCP, Japan, UK/US/KMT/F looking out only for itself.
Alliances are only by word, never binding, and temporary allies can never co-operate by sharing territory.
Winning conditions are the greatest number of Victory Cities held over your starting count after a pre-agreed number of turns.
The disposition of neutrals would have to be redrawn, e.g. a neutral could be “pro-Western Allies”, or even “Anti-Communist”.
Clearly NOs and the like need to be rewritten also.
-
I agree that if you were to make Japan and the Soviet full members of their opposing alliance, you would more than likely need to re-write the NO’s and such, and maybe even modify the setup, but that would make it more of a house rules kind of thing. What I was wondering was how, with the standard game setup and rules, a scenario like this would play out.
Though I dont see much way of winning as the “axis alliance” in a game like this, how they would capture 14 victory cities with out the Japanese beyond me.
-
On Victory Cities, that was another mis-calculation for me. Usually, at the end of each round I count how many vicory cities each side has. However, I kept counting the three Soviet cities as Allied and Shanghai and Tokyo as Axis, when it really should have been the other way around. In fact, I’m not even sure that would work because throughout most of the game the two conflicts really were separate. Russia was sort of allied with Germany in that one German NO for trade of oil and wheat from the Soviet Union, but that was all. Japan had even less to do with the Western Allies, more of non-aggresion pact than an actual alliance. It wasn’t until round 9, after Germany and Italy were totally destroyed, that USA and UK declared war and joined Japan in smashing Russia. Even then that was more the player’s choice to wrap it up than the actual “game rules” themselves. If I decide to try this again, I will definitely have to rethink the Victory City conditions and maybe even come up with some new NOs.
Also, I still think a new setup would be in order. I think the reason Japan did so well against the Russians was because the bulk of Russian heavy equipment was all in the west facing Germany. By the time they got some units with firepower up to face the Japanese, Japan had already built a sizeable force on the mainland. Plus, the Japs had much greater air power which I think also told in many of the battles. Oh yeah, I used that new “Alpha” setup in this game. While that does cut down the air strength for Japan, they still had a huge air superiority over the Soviets. If I had used the original setup, it might have gone even better for Japan and they might have actually reached Moscow.
-
Something I had mentioned in another thread was that maybe bumping up Novosbrisk to 2 ipc, allowing the Soviets to build a minor IC would help balance it out a bit, as the Soviets could use this to get reinforcments to the FE theater quicker.
-
One way you could counter this is never count victory cites as a winning mechanic. My gaming group always has played to total domination (generally ends in concession by the USA if axis wins or concession by japan if the allies win, try taking out up to 80-90 troops in a sea invasion!) and it would fit this scenario better than the victory city setup.
-
Well I certian didnt intend to disturb anyone with it grin
I still find a sense of disturbance to this!
-
I agree that if you were to make Japan and the Soviet full members of their opposing alliance, you would more than likely need to re-write the NO’s and such, and maybe even modify the setup, but that would make it more of a house rules kind of thing. What I was wondering was how, with the standard game setup and rules, a scenario like this would play out.
Though I dont see much way of winning as the “axis alliance” in a game like this, how they would capture 14 victory cities with out the Japanese beyond me.
I’m suggesting a four-player game, not Axis vs Allies, but Axis versus Allies versus Communists versus Japan; each of the 4 groups fighting entirely in its own interest. Two players might find they have common enemies, but are still rivals in the end, as there can only be one player out of 4 winning the game.
-
I guess, that could work, though I could see Japan getting ganged up on.
If we’re going to head down that road, I could post my A&A risk set-up and rules, but id really rather not get this thread sent to the house rules and variants section.
The game more or less turns in to what you describe with this scenario anyway, and if you wanted to throw the alliances out altogether, thats just what you’d have. However I find it more intresting to try to win within the avaiable frame work of the game.
-
We did think of the idea of continuing the game after the fall of Russia. Basically, it would then be Western Allies VS Japan. In that case, I don’t think Japan would have lasted more than a few more rounds. USA and UK had a huge amount of forces in Europe and Western Russia by then. Also, the USA was making so much money that they started building a large naval force on Western USA just for something to spend extra IPCs on. If we had decided to carry that out, I think the US Navy would eventually sink the Jap Navy and both British and US forces would grind eastward pushing Japan back to the coast.
In this scenario, I’m not sure what would be done with China. Would the US/UK forces liberate Chinese territories? Or, since they decided to attack Russia, which was China’s main ally in this game, does that mean that China is out permanently and the US/UK forces would simply be conquering the Chinese territories from Japan? It seems like the latter would be the best solution.
You know, I am tempted to try this out again but this time with a few new rules, NOs and victory conditions. Here’s one idea: If China is allied with Russia, who is allied with the Euro Axis, what if they were able to take British territories to open the Burma Road? Of course, with Japan pounding on them, I don’t think China would be strong enough to take on British forces, especially since part of the Burma Road includes the Pacific UK Capital of Calcutta. Or maybe devise a NEW supply route coming from Stalingrad to Szechwan. That would make a little more sense. Also, it would be hard for Japan to shut that down.
Do you think the Western Allies should take a larger part in aiding Japan? How about the Euro-Axis helping out Russia and China? I’m talking about actual military aid, not just simply avoiding each other. Then again, Flashman’s idea of four seperate groups is interesting as well. That would mean that, technically, each group could attack any of the other three groups. For example, UK forces could attack the Euro-Axis, Russia and/or Japan. That would definitely provide different avenues of obtaining IPCs. Plus, I guess that would also mean that Japan could sail down and get the DEI for all those IPC plus their NO.
-
I dunno, I think China is really a neutral power in this scenario, the only reasons they are allied with the Russians is because they desperatly need the help. I think China would be willing to accept help from anyone who fought the Japanese. Maybe finding someway to track the influnce each country, Russia, Britian, and USA, have in China? I dunno it sounds like it would really over complicate things though.
It is tricky, as you really end up walking a fine line, and I really see this as favoring no one but the Anglo-American alliance.
-
I was giving this some thought the other day, but A good way to help balance this game out might be to take away the USA’s extra 30ipc NO and just keeping it at 52. If the US declares war on only the Euro-axis (which is esentially the point of this whole thread) at the begining of turn 4, then they dont get their +30NO. However, if the Germans or Italians (remember this whole thing is based on Japan not fighting against the west) attack America first, they do the their +30ipcs.
Think of it like this, the attack on Pearl Hrabor shook this country out of its isolationist policy, but what if there had been no such shock? This scenario represents the US getting dragged into a EUropean conflict, rather then being shocked into a global war
-
You know, that’s a pretty good idea. One reason I think the Euro-Axis got smashed so bad was because USA was just making SO MUCH MONEY. With all of 82 IPCs every turn, plus more as they snatched up the neutrals in South America, all directed at Europe with pretty much none of it going to the Pacific, also with Britain managing to hold out and keep the Axis off guard, there was really no way Germany and Italy could survive that. With the UK Pacific base of India heading west, it was like Italy had to face a 2nd Britain – one that was nearly equal militarily and stronger economically. Also, once England managed to repulse Sealion and the RAF destroyed the Kriegsmarine, Germany really had no other way of increasing their income since Russia was off limits. So, if UK can hold out against Germany and slug it out with Italy in Africa and the Med for 3 rounds, then USA will show up with MASSIVE force to hammer-punch the Axis. After that, UK Europe can afford to start thinking offensively and keep up the pressure. Then ANZAC shows up with it’s modest force and just compounds the Axis’ woes.
However, if USA wasn’t making such a staggering amount, it might not be quite so tilted against the Euro-Axis. They would still have a massive force right at first because they have 3 rounds to simply build up in Eastern USA and transfer their sizable Pacific fleet over to the Atlantic, but maybe the Euro-Axis could come back against the initial onslaught. America wouldn’t be able to pour quite so much into Europe and if the Germans and Italians planned it right, they might be able to at least keep the tables even. Perhaps Germany could duke it out with USA and give Italy more of a chance to fend off the UK Pacific forces and re-take the Middle East. Obviously controlling the Suez is key there.
I think a successful Sealion is key for the Axis in this scenario. If Germany had succeded in taking out London, that would have made it harder on the US. Of course, if they hadn’t failed so miserably by not only losing all those land troops, most of their airforce AND all of their navy on Britain’s turn, perhaps it wouldn’t have been so bad for Germany not having taken London. As it was, in my game, that was a disaster for Germany and I don’t think they ever quite recovered.
-
You know, that’s a pretty good idea. One reason I think the Euro-Axis got smashed so bad was because USA was just making SO MUCH MONEY. With all of 82 IPCs every turn, plus more as they snatched up the neutrals in South America, all directed at Europe with pretty much none of it going to the Pacific, also with Britain managing to hold out and keep the Axis off guard, there was really no way Germany and Italy could survive that. With the UK Pacific base of India heading west, it was like Italy had to face a 2nd Britain – one that was nearly equal militarily and stronger economically. Also, once England managed to repulse Sealion and the RAF destroyed the Kriegsmarine, Germany really had no other way of increasing their income since Russia was off limits. So, if UK can hold out against Germany and slug it out with Italy in Africa and the Med for 3 rounds, then USA will show up with MASSIVE force to hammer-punch the Axis. After that, UK Europe can afford to start thinking offensively and keep up the pressure. Then ANZAC shows up with it’s modest force and just compounds the Axis’ woes.
However, if USA wasn’t making such a staggering amount, it might not be quite so tilted against the Euro-Axis. They would still have a massive force right at first because they have 3 rounds to simply build up in Eastern USA and transfer their sizable Pacific fleet over to the Atlantic, but maybe the Euro-Axis could come back against the initial onslaught. America wouldn’t be able to pour quite so much into Europe and if the Germans and Italians planned it right, they might be able to at least keep the tables even. Perhaps Germany could duke it out with USA and give Italy more of a chance to fend off the UK Pacific forces and re-take the Middle East. Obviously controlling the Suez is key there.
I think a successful Sealion is key for the Axis in this scenario. If Germany had succeded in taking out London, that would have made it harder on the US. Of course, if they hadn’t failed so miserably by not only losing all those land troops, most of their airforce AND all of their navy on Britain’s turn, perhaps it wouldn’t have been so bad for Germany not having taken London. As it was, in my game, that was a disaster for Germany and I don’t think they ever quite recovered.
If both the US and India were ignoring Pacific, what the hell was Japan doing? It must have been played by a 2 year old
-
If both the US and India were ignoring Pacific, what the hell was Japan doing? It must have been played by a 2 year old
Well, if you had bothered to read any other post in this thread, or maybe even its title, you would have your answer :-D
The crux of this whole thread, is that the Germans and the Soviets keep the peace between them, and the Russians wage war against Japan only. Japan, for its part, focuses on only fighting the Sino-Soviet forces arrayed against it, and dosnt attack the US or the Brits. This is an exploit from the political rules, allowing the Soviets to attack Japan without effecting its relations with Germany, Germany gaining a 5ipc NO aslong as its a peace with the Soviets, and the Americans being allowed to declare war on any, or all, of the axis powers by turn 4. This way the US can fight the Euro-axis with out having to fight Japan, and Japan can focus all its attention on the asian mainland. Hence the title of 'The Berlin-Rome-Moscow axis and the Anglo-Japanese alliance :-D
-
I did some more thinking on this scenario and came up with some interesting ideas for a few rule changes, set up changes and new NOs for the different nations. Okay, first of all, the new Axis is Germany, Italy, Russia, China and France. What do you think of that? Okay, the main reasin I did this is I would like to see France stay in the game longer and I figure they will have a better chance if they were Axis. This leaves United States, United Kingdom, ANZAC and Japan as the Allies.
First of all, I changed a couple of rules. The US and USSR do not start the game as neutrals. The game starts with all countries at war with one side or the other. Hey, we are already changing history anyway, right? The rules for the other neutral countries doesn’t really change except pro-Allied and pro-Axis mean different countries now. One other thing is I expanded the limits of Chinese occupation. Chinese forces are now allowed to occupy: Korea, Kwangtung, French Indo-China, Siam, Shan State, Malaya and Burma. Of course, if they occupy French Indo-China, it will be as liberators since France is now part of the Axis. Also, Chinese Troops can be on Soviet territories since China and the Soviet Union are such good buddies. In that case, it is possible for there still to be some Chinese military units even if all Chinese territories are captured. This is important for one of Japan’s new NOs.
Okay, here are my ideas for new National Objectives:
GERMANY
5 IPCs representing trade of wheat and oil from the Soviet Union. This bonus ends if Moscow is captured.
3 IPCs if at least one German land unit is in Egypt. Egypt may be controlled by any Axis power.
5 IPCs representing delivery of Swedish iron ore if Germany controls both Denmark and Norway while Sweden is neutral or controlled by the Axis.
5 IPCs each round Germany has submarine(s) on the board.
SOVIET UNION
5 IPCs if the Soviet Union is at war, the convoy in sea zone 125 is free of ALLIED warships, Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union and there are no units belonging to other AXIS powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union.
6 IPCs for each original Japanese Territory controlled by the Soviet Union as long as the Soviet Union controls all of it’s own original territories. This does NOT include Chinese territories occupied by Japan at the beginning of the game.
JAPAN
5 IPCs for each Soviet city - Moscow, Stalingrad and/or Leningrad - that Japan controls.
5 IPCs if all Chinese territories are controlled by Allied forces and all Chinese units are eliminated.
5 IPCs one time bonus when Chinese fighter is destroyed.
UNITED KINGDOM
5 IPCs if it and ANZAC control all of their respective original territories. This includes the territories of Canada.
5 IPCs if there are no German submarines anywhere on the board.
ANZAC
5 IPCs if ANZAC controls all of the following territories: Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and the Solomons.
3 IPCs if Allied Powers control Malaya and ANZAC controls all of it’s own original territories.
ITALY
5 IPCs if Axis controls all of the following territories: Egypt, Greece and Gibraltar.
5 IPCs if there are no Allied surface warships in the Mediterranean Sea (sea zones 92 through 99).
UNITED STATES
NONE
CHINA
6 IPCs if the Stalingrad Road is totally open. The Axis must control Volgograd, Kazakhstan, Sikang and Szechwan. China is also permitted to purchase artillery if the Stalingrad Road is open.
FRANCE
5 IPCs if all sea zones surrounding the French homeland territories (sea zones 93, 105 and 110) are clear of Allied Warships and Gibraltar is controlled by Axis powers.
3 IPCs for each round France retains control of French Indo-China. This also applies if another Axis power liberates it from Allied control.
3 IPCs if at least one French land unit is in United Kingdom. United Kingdom may be controlled by any Axis power. -
Now, here are the changes I made to the setup. I started with the OOB set up with the exception of China. I used Larry Harris’s Alpha setup for China because I thought they should have more men. One other thing I took from the Alpha setup was including the Naval Base in New South Wales. I now include that change in every game I play no matter which setup I use. Everything else was OOB setup and then I made the following changes to better reflect the new alliances. As you will see, some are relatively minor but a few are fairly substantial.
GERMANY
MOVE 1 infantry, 1 tank from Poland to Norway.
MOVE 2 infantry from Germany to Denmark.
REMOVE 1 infantry, 1 tank from Holland/Belgium.
ADD 2 transports to sea zone 113.
SOVIET UNION
MOVE 3 infantry from Sakha to Soviet Far East.
MOVE 3 infantry from Buryatia to Siberia
MOVE 1 infantry, 1 artillery from Western Ukraine to Buryatia.
MOVE 1 infantry from Eastern Poland to Kazakhstan.
MOVE 1 infantry from Baltic States to Novosibirsk
MOVE 2 infantry, 1 artillery from Novgorod to Yakut SSR.
MOVE 1 infantry from Novgorod to Yenisey.
MOVE 1 infantry from Belarus to Timguska.
JAPAN
MOVE 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 tac bomber, 1 battleship from sea zone 33 to sea zone 20.
MOVE 2 infantry, 1 fighter from Japan to Korea.
UNITED KINGDOM
MOVE 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank from France to United Kingdom.
MOVE 2 infantry from Malaya to Shan State.
MOVE 1 infantry from India to Burma.
MOVE 1 transport from sea zone 37 to sea zone 39
ADD 1 infantry to Nigeria.
ADD 1 infantry to Belgian Congo.
ADD 2 infantry to Gibraltar.
UNITED STATES
MOVE 1 carrier, 1 fighter, 1 tac bomber, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 submarine from sea zone 10 to sea zone 101.
MOVE 2 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank, 1 tac bomber, 1 bomber, 1 AA gun from Western United States to Eastern United States.
MOVE 1 bomber from Hawaiian Islands to Western United States.
REMOVE 1 bomber from Philippines.
FRANCE
MOVE 1 cruiser from sea zone 112 to sea zone 105.
MOVE 1 destroyer from sea zone 93 to sea zone 105.
MOVE 1 infantry, 1 artillery, 1 tank from France to Normandy.
MOVE 1 infantry from France to Southern France.
MOVE 1 infantry from France to French Central Africa.
MOVE 1 infantry from France to French Equatorial Africa.
MOVE 1 infantry from United Kingdom to French Madagascar.
ADD 2 infantry, 1 artillery to French Indo-China.
ADD 1 mechanized infantry to Morocco.
ADD 1 tac bomber to France. -
Well, there you have it. I think I came up with some pretty good ideas. I actually have the game set up for this scenario and hope to try playing it tomorrow. I am curious as to how this will turn out. I don’t think that I left it too heavy toward one side or the other. Yeah, France got a few more units but not too much. I figured they ought to have a little more to represent them being a more aggressive Axis power now. Switching more stuff to the east will definitely help the Soviets. Then again, moving the bulk of the US forces from the Pacific to the Atlantic will be a big boost to the Allies. One crucial decision that I think will make the game more balanced was not including that 30 IPC war bonus for the US. I felt that was too much for the Axis to deal with. Then again, sind Britain and the US have to deal with Germany, Italy and France, maybe that was a mistake. I guess I will find out.
Let me know what you think and if you have any tips or suggestions.
Suggested Topics
