Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?

[MaherC]

Ask the 7000 or so Poles that died defending the Eastern front in 1940 if the Russians were neutral.

Or all the people that were executed in the process of making Poland “soviet”.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

Ask the 7000 or so Poles that died defending the Eastern front in 1940 if the Russians were neutral.

Or all the people that were executed in the process of making Poland “soviet”.

Neutral with respect to Germany v Britain.

By your logic, Spain should not be neutral since it was at war in 1936.

[MaherC]

Spain’s war was over in 1939.   Franco actually pissed off Hitler by staying out of WW2, but he knew that he was screwed for support if he got into it on the axis side.   Spain had no money by 39 and no army to speak of.  Read about the Spanish Civil war and how it left Spain completely decimated.

If you want to argue about historical tweaking though, I do think that germany should have an NO of +5 IPCs from Spain if the Axis controls all of France.    They did give a few men and some raw materials to the Nazis.

There’s also this country called Portugal sitting there that might not have liked a Pro Axis spain and welcomed a nice American landing force.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@MaherC:

Spain’s war was over in 1939.  Franco actually pissed off Hitler by staying out of WW2, but he knew that he was screwed for support if he got into it on the axis side.  Spain had no money by 39 and no army to speak of.  Read about the Spanish Civil war and how it left Spain completely decimated.

If you want to argue about historical tweaking though, I do think that germany should have an NO of +5 IPCs from Spain if the Axis controls all of France.    They did give a few men and some raw materials to the Nazis.

The US also gave much more than a few supplies to the UK. Thus, it should get a +10 NO if the US controls WUS, CUS, and EUS by your logic.

Russian war on Poland was also over by the time this game begins

[gamerman01]

@MaherC:

Ask the 7000 or so Poles that died defending the Eastern front in 1940 if the Russians were neutral.

Or all the people that were executed in the process of making Poland “soviet”.

It’s hard to talk to dead people.

McFly as in Marty McFly, the time traveler.

[MaherC]

the Spain NO i was talking about would be something akin to the current NO germany has from Sweden.

[kcdzim]

@MaherC:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Who’s McFly?

in this thread, McFly would be people who think Russia isn’t in the Axis or at least NOT in the Allies until Germany declares war on Russia.

Only a little uncalled for considering no one in this thread actually suggested that Russia SHOULD be allowed in the UK or SHOULD be allowed to attack Germany first (of course not!)

[MaherC]

Simply me responding to another typical calvin post to just make his little post counter tick up 1.  Read the thread.  But you’re right.  I shouldn’t have replied and therefore fed the troll.

In fact I will say this.  I’m done.  If calvin replies to anything of mine with his typical LH slurping, you can’t possibly be right crapfest, I will not reply again in the same thread.

Furthermore, let me say this.  If TripleA gets up and running w/the G40 rules, you won’t have to deal w/me in these forums anymore, as I try to use them as a way to gather info from outside my playgroup.  If I can have the people in the TripleA lobby to strat with, I won’t have to wade through the calvinfest any longer.  So, if you want me gone from the forums, please donate and support TripleA.  The link can be found elsewhere in the forums, and shockingly, it is the only post of mine that Calvin hasn’t thrown his 2 cents into yet.  Maybe he should take some of his allowance money instead and throw it into TripleA.

/Retired from posting until the kid learns what a woman is

[calvinhobbesliker]

Again, I don’t care what my post count is. In fact, I have no reason to care, since I’m already a heavy bomber. I  do not worship Larry as you imply. I recognize flaws, but I also recognize that it is difficult to make a flawless game of this magnitude.

I do not have any allowance money(if I want something, I ask my parents directly, like I did with the AA40 games).

I do know what a woman is. However, you’re probably implying that I have not dated anyone or had sex. I fail to see how this has anything to do with whether my statements about the Axis and Allies Global 1940 game are true.

Maher, just because I have a different opinion to you does not mean that I am a troll. You probably think most of my posts are “trolling”(which to you means posting anything that does not agree with you). My posts are open to you: you can see all of them. I have made numerous useful posts. For example, I have posted setup pictures of the G40 alpha setup, and I have answered rules questions so much that Krieghund deputized me(along with gamerman01) while he was gone. You also post numerous house rules that are constructive, and I do not agree with all of them; yet I do not call you or anyone else who disagrees with me a troll.

By the way, troll=/= someone with a lot of posts.

[gamerman01]

Maher, you made some good points (and funny) about Calvin’s propensity to intrude or annoy.

Calvin, kudos for a very mature, substantive, and even-keeled response.  I agree Calvin is not a troll, nor does he obsess about his post count.  He just likes to be involved.  And yes, many of us appreciate your contributions to the site, including Krieghund himself.

Now leave him alone for awhile, Calvin - sometimes we need a little personal space.  :-)

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gamerman01:

Maher, you made some good points (and funny) about Calvin’s propensity to intrude or annoy.

Calvin, kudos for a very mature, substantive, and even-keeled response.  I agree Calvin is not a troll, nor does he obsess about his post count.  He just likes to be involved.  And yes, many of us appreciate your contributions to the site, including Krieghund himself.

Now leave him alone for awhile, Calvin - sometimes we need a little personal space.  :-)

Thanks, I guess. That flaw of mine extends to real life as well. When someone makes a claim I find insulting or just wrong, I have the urge to respond.

[JamesAleman]

Marty McFly refers to the movie series starting with “Back to the Future”. Its a bit dated, as it started in the 80’s I believe. Calvin is half the age of a lot of the 30 somethings here, so it is reasonable to assume he may not have seen those films.

For that fact I am impressed with his level of maturity and the ability to use grammar when posting. (That is a subtle jab at his generation growing up with spell check and the like). He is an impressive young person, and demonstrates advanced reasoning skills.

His level of interest in this game, gives me hope that new generations of players may yet be found amongst those growing up in the digital age. The fact that a board game can compete with x-box amongst teenagers is promising.

I’ll just kindly excuse myself for intruding in this matter. His question seemed like a reasonable one for a young person, and I didn’t like seeing this “digital pincer move” on his post. :) It feels like standing by while Poland gets beaten up on.

(What comes after artillery on the post meter? :) )

[calvinhobbesliker]

Thank you James.

I think tank comes after artillery. BrainDamaged sent me a PM with all the ranks and the posts needed to achieve them, but unfortunately, I deleted it.

I think it goes:
infantry-artillery-tank-submarine-fighter-destroyer-bomber-aircraft carrier-battleship-heavy bomber. However, bomber may be after CV and I’m not entirely sure about the fighter.

[gamerman01]

Thanks, Calvin!  I couldn’t think of his name!

MaherC, BrainDamaged is the dude who tries to get his post count up by posting like one sentence at a time.

I second what James said - Calvin is more than welcome here, even if he does post 4 times during my noncoms sometimes.  :lol:

[kcdzim]

@MaherC:

Simply me responding to another typical calvin post to just make his little post counter tick up 1.   Read the thread.   But you’re right.   I shouldn’t have replied and therefore fed the troll.

Pfff, I was actually referring to the Shakespeare’s post in ADDITION to yours, 'cause really, his post made little to no sense in the context of the thread as he implied anyone in this thread requested that the USSR be allowed to land units in the UK based on balance, which is completely off base as

A) it’s clearly already allowed because of the writing of the rules
B) most everyone recognizes it’s a completely idiotic loophole.

While it’s unlikely Calvin would understand the popculture reference cause he’s such a young 'un, you actually didn’t respond in anyway that anyone should construe as insulting.

But while Spain did have a volunteer force fighting soviets and trade, it was hardly as critical to Germany’s war effort as Swedish ore.  At best Spain’s additions would be worth a single IPC.  And Calvin’s not wrong - US trade to Russia and the UK would have amounted to FAR more than Spain could ever muster.

But I will agree with you on at least one thing - anyone that cares about the ranks is a little too invested in a completely trivial bragging right.

I think I’ve modified 85% of my posts so that I wouldn’t need to add another seperate post to a thread.  Like this line right here.

[Henz]

i was 2 when back to the future came out great movie by the way and i am amazed ppl try this russian units in western allies territory stuff.  Then again I used to  play World at War for years so lived with those restrictions

[WILD BILL]

While I was wading through this personal crap, I noticed the side bar advertising. It was for a Russian dating service. It said:

“Find Your Russian Beauty Today”.

Thought it was very fitting for the topic about where Russians can go, and the remark about woman directed to Calvin.

:-D LOL

[larrymarx]

Although calvinhobbesliker does post quite frequently, I don’t have a problem with it. He’s free to disagree with my ideas as much and as often as he likes. Criticism simply challenges me to view my own ideas critically, and I would suggest to everyone on this forum that they should think in the same way. Also, let’s avoid personal insults like suggesting someone doesn’t know what a woman is or has to rely on allowance money. Arguments ought to carry the same weight whether they come from a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old, and suggesting otherwise would be succumbing to personal bias.

Let me try to return to the topic of this thread. I’m beginning to favor rules causing Russia to treat all neutral countries like pro-axis countries, meaning they must attack to occupy even a pro-allied country, but they can attack true neutrals without global repercussions. If they fail in such an attack, the individual country attacked joins the Axis and may be occupied by any Axis power during its non-combat move.

I’d like to try a game using these neutrality rules coupled with hostile Russia rules: Allied units and Russian units could never enter each other’s territory during non-combat moves. Russia would never liberate an Axis-controlled allied territory but would instead keep it for itself. Russia could also invade China or empty territories belonging to an Allied power whose capital has fallen. What do you guys think?

[gamerman01]

@larrymarx:

Although calvinhobbesliker does post quite frequently, I don’t have a problem with it. He’s free to disagree with my ideas as much and as often as he likes. Criticism simply challenges me to view my own ideas critically, and I would suggest to everyone on this forum that they should think in the same way. Also, let’s avoid personal insults like suggesting someone doesn’t know what a woman is or has to rely on allowance money. Arguments ought to carry the same weight whether they come from a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old, and suggesting otherwise would be succumbing to personal bias.

Well said, thanks.

Let me try to return to the topic of this thread. I’m beginning to favor rules causing Russia to treat all neutral countries like pro-axis countries, meaning they must attack to occupy even a pro-allied country, but they can attack true neutrals without global repercussions. If they fail in such an attack, the individual country attacked joins the Axis and may be occupied by any Axis power during its non-combat move.

Good ideas - It’s likely I’ll be playing with similar rules in the future.

I’d like to try a game using these neutrality rules coupled with hostile Russia rules: Allied units and Russian units could never enter each other’s territory during non-combat moves. Russia would never liberate an Axis-controlled allied territory but would instead keep it for itself. Russia could also invade China or empty territories belonging to an Allied power whose capital has fallen. What do you guys think?

Cool ideas, and more historically realistic.  By “invade China”, I take it you mean Axis controlled China.

These just lead me to wonder:  why weren’t OOB rules more like this?  Like I was thinking yesterday….  (In AA50, though it works like this in 1940 also) it’s over simplistic to say Russia has the same consequence (- 5 IPCs per turn) for one American bomber temporarily landing in East Russia after striking the common enemy (Japan) as if 3 different allies had dozens of infantry and armored units in Moscow.  I like the idea you and others are putting out, that the Western Allies are simply not allowed to share territory with USSR - ever.

Should help to neutralize a significant perceived Allied game advantage, as well.  Yep, good house rule suggestions on here…  Only problem is, if I get used to playing these and start playing someone who insistits on OOB, then I won’t be used to that.  That’s why I wish they’d just make good rules like these OOB.  :-(

[larrymarx]

I actually meant that Russia could seize Chinese-owned territory if it wanted. This would be consistent with allowing Russia to seize Allied territories if the capital of the appropriate power has fallen, because China is a country without a capital. If Japan gets too close to the Russian border, of course Russia would want to repel them but the rules I suggested prohibit the Russians from occupying Allied territory during their non-combat move. Thus to keep the Japanese out of the motherland the Russians must expand their borders and create satellite territories much as they did with Poland prior to the start of the war. I would say the Russians aren’t allowed to engage the Chinese army in combat and can only occupy empty Chinese territories.

These rules would make it more difficult for the Allies to coordinate but would allow Russia to become more powerful and send more IPCs to Europe. I’m not sure whether the effect would be to tilt the game more in favor of the Axis or not.