Gsh34 (axis) vs. Axisplaya (allies) Alpha +3

[gsh34]

Ok, then let us have some fun in sz 111 (I just knew you would scramble there for some reason….)

Battle for z111

attacker: 2 SS, tac, sbr
Rolls: 2@2 1@3 1@4; Total Hits: 32@2: (1, 2)1@3: (3)1@4: (6)

defender: BB, DD, fig
Rolls: 1@2 2@4; Total Hits: 21@2: (3)2@4: (3, 4)

[gsh34]

I retreat from z111.  You lose 1 BB, 1 DD.  I lose 2 SS.

Battle for z106:  first hit wins.

attacker: SS
Rolls: 20@2; Total Hits: 920@2: (4, 5, 5, 6, 2, 5, 1, 3, 2, 5, 1, 4, 2, 6, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2, 3)

defender: DD
Rolls: 20@2; Total Hits: 820@2: (5, 2, 1, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 1, 1, 4, 4, 5, 2, 4, 1, 1, 4, 3, 2)

[gsh34]

z106 is not cleared.  I lose my SS.

Battle for z110

attacker: 2 SS, 3 fig, 3 tac
Rolls: 2@2 3@3 3@4; Total Hits: 42@2: (3, 4)3@3: (1, 6, 3)3@4: (3, 1, 5)

defender: BB, CA
Rolls: 1@3 1@4; Total Hits: 11@3: (5)1@4: (4)

[gsh34]

z110 cwlo 1 SS

Battle for z112

attacker: BB, CA, fig, tac
Rolls: 2@3 2@4; Total Hits: 22@3: (5, 1)2@4: (6, 3)

defender: 2 CA
Rolls: 2@3; Total Hits: 02@3: (5, 6)

[gsh34]

z112 cwol

Battle for Fra

attacker:  7 inf, 3 art, 4 mech, 5 tank
Rolls: ; Total Hits: 08@1 6@2 5@3:

defender: 1 aa gun, 7 inf, 2 art, 2 tank, 1 fig
Rolls: 9@2 2@3 1@4; Total Hits: 59@2: (4, 1, 6, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, 5)2@3: (3, 2)1@4: (1)

[gsh34]

reroll the attacker for Fra…I must have mistyped something

attacker:
Rolls: 8@1 6@2 5@3; Total Hits: 98@1: (6, 1, 3, 2, 1, 6, 1, 1)6@2: (5, 6, 1, 4, 1, 2)5@3: (5, 1, 6, 5, 3)

[gsh34]

Battle for Fra, round 2

attacker: 2 inf, 3 art, 4 mech, 5 tank
Rolls: 3@1 6@2 5@3; Total Hits: 73@1: (6, 3, 3)6@2: (4, 1, 1, 4, 1, 1)5@3: (4, 1, 4, 1, 1)

defender: 1 art, 2 tank, 1 fig
Rolls: 1@2 2@3 1@4; Total Hits: 41@2: (2)2@3: (1, 1)1@4: (1)

[gsh34]

Fra twlo 7 inf, 1 art, 1 mech

Battle for Yugo

attacker: 2 inf, 1 art, 3 tank, 1 fig
Rolls: 1@1 2@2 4@3; Total Hits: 31@1: (6)2@2: (3, 6)4@3: (2, 3, 3, 4)

defender: 5 inf
Rolls: 5@2; Total Hits: 15@2: (5, 3, 5, 5, 2)

[gsh34]

Battle for Yugo, round 2

attacker: 1 inf, 1 art, 3 tank, 1 fig
Rolls: 2@2 4@3; Total Hits: 32@2: (2, 6)4@3: (2, 1, 5, 4)

defender: 2 inf
Rolls: 2@2; Total Hits: 12@2: (2, 3)

[gsh34]

Yugo twlo 2 inf

NCM

fig Yugo > Sita
fig z112 > Sita
1 aa gun Wgr > Fra (hmmmm, I’m going to have to get used to moving more AA guns around)
11 inf, 3 art, 1 aa Ger > Pol
1 inf Rom > Bulgaria for activation
2 inf Nor > Fin for activation
2 inf Hun > Pol
4 inf, 1 art Sgr > Hun
2 inf Den > TT z113 > z114 > Pol
tac z112 > Wgr
tac z111 > z112 and land on CV
sbr z111 > Wgr
1 fig z110 > z112 and land on CV
2 fig, 3 tac z110 > Wgr

Placement:
CV, DD, SS in z112

Collect Income (note: since the NOs have changed, I am not going to use any of the NO markers in the Alpha 2 chart.  I am simply going to write them down)
39 territory + 19 French plunder + 5 Swedish ore NO + 5 Russian trade NO = 68 ipc

gsh34_vs_axisplaya_1aGermany.AAM

[Axisplaya]

The original rule that the details of the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact are to be worked out by the players involved is restored.

This is what Alpha 3 rules say.

So, do we do something special about that, or do we just decide nothing happens if Russia attacks Japan ?

Won’t make any attack against Japan on R1 anyway, so we have time to work this out eventually.

Russia 1

Buy:
4inf (12)
2art (8 )
1tac (11)
1tnk (6)

NCM

6inf Amu » Bury
6inf Bury » Yak
6inf, 2AAgun Sak » Bury
6inf, 1art, 2AAgun Nov » Bel
2inf Kar » Nov
3inf Vyb » Nov
3inf Bal » Bel
2inf Epl » Nukr
2inf Bes » Nukr
3inf Sukr » Nukr
1mec, 1tnk Vol » Bry
2inf Cau » Ros
1inf, 1art, 1mec, 1tnk, 2AAgun Rus » Bry
1fgt, 1tac Rus » Nov
1inf Arc » Bel
1BB sz115 » sz114

Place units:
2inf, 1art Nov
2inf, 1art Sukr
1tnk, 1tac Rus

Collect : 37 IPC

gsh34_vs_axisplaya_1bRus.AAM

[gsh34]

I had forgotten about that part of the non-aggression pact…that we have to work it out!  Hmmmm…how about the Soviets pay Japan 3 ipc/turn to not attack them?  Is that too much to ask for??? :-D  Seriously though, I have been thinking about the pact since Alpha +3 came out and I did have few ideas about the pact.

1.) Any Japanese attack into a Soviet territory that boarders Mongolia activates them as Russian units. While it does split Mongolia off as an exception to the true neutrals, I’m ok with that. This leaves the three far east territories that Japan could take amphibiously with no repercussion, but then those units would be stranded there until picked up by boat or else they would trigger Mongolia if any other Soviet territory were attacked. In conjunction with this, if the Soviets attack first, Japan should be able to counter-attack without activating Mongolia.

2.) Come up some preset conditions that have to be met before the Soviets and Japanese could attack each other. Not that I am endorsing these particular ideas but it would be something along the lines of this:

“The Soviets can not attack Japan until they own an original German territory for a complete round of play (this means no trading of the territory with the Axis)”
“The Japanese can not attack into original Soviet territories until the Euro-Axis hold 2 out of the 3 Soviet VCs for a complete round of play”
“The Japanese can not attack into original Soviet territories until they have conquered all of China + Kwangtung”
“The Japanese can not attack into original Soviet territories until they have conquered 5 VC on the Pacific board”  (note: or some other similarly defined territory/VC requirement.)

Personally, my preference would be something along the lines of #2.  We have some rather restrictive conditions that have to be met on each board before the Soviets and Japan could attack each other.  Your thoughts?

[Axisplaya]

Before i give you my opinion on this, here is the Alpha 3 rule regarding this issue.

++++Amur – Manchurian/Korean Front:
With the recent unsuccessful Japanese invasion of Eastern Mongolia (1939), and the fragile treaty that followed, Mongolia feels obligated to consider any Japanese military movement into Amur as a flanking threat to its national sovereignty and will immediately renounce its neutrality and join the Allies. If the Japanese attack Amur from Manchuria and/or Korea, all Mongolian territories (Olgiy, Dzavhan, Tsagaan-Olom, Central Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, and Buyant-Uhaa) are immediately placed under control of the Soviet Union in the same manner as though the Soviet Union had moved land units into a friendly neutral territory. These territories have Soviet control markers placed on them, and their standing army units are placed on the board and are controlled by the Soviet Union player from then on. This occurs regardless of the state of relations between the Soviet Union and Japan at the time of the attack. It should be noted that no penalty or bonus is awarded to either side if the Soviet Union attacks Manchuria or Korea.++++

Now, i admit i didn’t think about all your points for hours, but after a brief examination, here are my thoughts:

Your 1st proposition seems to violate the spirit of the Alpha 3 rule in that regard : Japan can only take 3 territories (by sea) if they don’t want to trigger Mongolia. So in effect, all easterns russian territory get to " defend themselves without troops"…

Your 2nd proposition come with so restrictive conditions, that most of the games will never met any of them, leaving the game with the complete impossibility for any figth for the eastern russian territories.

If i had to chose between your 2 proposition, i would choose the 1st one for sure.

Now, here is another proposition of mine. It’s not flashy, but i think it preserves the game balance.

If Japan attacks any russian territory, Russia receive immeditately 12 IPC, as in the Alpha 2 rules.
IN ADDITION of the Alpha 3 rule.
So, if Japan never attacks russia from Man or Kor, the Mongolian territories never get triggered.

If Russia attacks Japan, Japan receives immediately 12 IPC as in Alpha 2.

I, of course, might be totally wrong on this, but i see the Alpha 3 New rule about the Kor-Man / Amu front as a reaction to the Japanese turn 1 attack with all units from Man and Kor to Amu, and Sib with 1inf, 1tnk. By turn 2, Japan has secured a solid 5 IPC in territories that they might hold during all the game (in fact, this 5IPC most often becomes a 7 IPC/round).
This pattern was becoming the standard Japanese opening and was very strong.
Now, with Alpha 3 rule, it’s more complicated to do.

What do you think ? Feel free to propose anything else if you wish or to modify your propositions as you like.

[gsh34]

@Krieghund:

@Cpt_Hellcat:

Question - would the A+2 non-aggr pact be within the rules of A+3, if the players agreed to it?

No.

@Krieghund:

@Cpt_Hellcat:

Could you give an example of something that would be legal then??

Or is it basically players promising not to attack each other?

Anything that doesn’t change a rule or create a new one is legal.  Examples would be restrictions on unit movements and positioning or attacks against certain territories.

I pulled the above quotes off of Larry’s website.  Krieghund shot down the idea of using the old the old Alpha +2 penalty.  My idea for the restrictions was to make them very, very restrictive so that the Pacific game played more like stand-alone Pacific and Europe would play more like stand-alone Europe.  Then, if the powers wanted to interact, it would be in the middle east, and not through the SFE.

I guess we agree then that we won’t use my first suggestion.  Are you open to my second one. The idea of something very restrictive to both powers?  This would, in essence, protect both of our back doors.  Or, do you have another idea beside the Alpha +2 rule you would like to try?  I am open to other suggestions.

[Axisplaya]

Well…after all, since i play allies, i’ll let you pick any of your proposition 2 restriction.  :-D
For the record, i believe such restrictions favor the allies.  :wink:

[gsh34]

@Axisplaya:

Well…after all, since i play allies, i’ll let you pick any of your proposition 2 restriction.  :-D
For the record, i believe such restrictions favor the allies.  :wink:

Ok, fair enough.  I propose these restrictions:

Japan:
Japan may not attack any original Soviet territory until it has controlled 5 VCs for one complete round on the Pacific board.  However, should any other Allied powers units be in an original Russian territory (even if they recapture it from the Euro-Axis), Japan may then enter Soviet territory with the normal Amur/Manchuria/Korea/Mongolia penalty still aplying. (My thought on this is that the US could land troops in the Soviet far east territories.  I did it in a game.  If that happens, I would like to be able to attack them.)  A DOW and subsequent combat may occur between the two powers in any other territory or sz on the map that does not start under Russian or Japanese control.

Russia:
Russia may not attack, occupy, or garrison any territory that Japan starts the game with unless it controls an original Euro-Axis territory for a compete round of play.  War between the two powers may be declared and occur at any other territory or sz on the map that does not start under Russian or Japanese control.

Hmmm, let me think about this overnight.  After typing all of that out I can see where this agreement would be to your benefit.  If I take all of China, you could still take that money away from me, but I would never take money away from you.  I could never SBR you.  I guess what I was aiming at was to seal China and Korea off from the Russians.  If we fought in the Middle East or India or something, I would be ok with it.

Like I said, let me think about this.  Maybe I should just go with the Alpha +3 rule.  My idea may too cute by 1/2. :-(

[Axisplaya]

Yeah, it’s still good for allies because they would about never want to attack Japan, they would love to get this 18inf stack back to russia asap.
While Japan would love to be able to secure 6 IPC /round by turn 3 (maybe 7 or 8 on subsequent turns).
Those IPC are the most secured of the board for Japan, often, they will keep them til the end.

If we stick to Alpha 3, then it’s better for allies, but that’s the purpose of this new rule….

We got all our time. I can’t think of a good idea for now.

Just feel free to propose anything that comes to your mind. We will examine that and try to find something good for both of us. And i’ll try to come up with something as well.

[gsh34]

I’ve been think about this a bit more.  I will agree to a restrictive non-aggression pact that protects China + starting Japanese territories from Soviet units and protects original Soviet territories from the Japanese if you would be willing to accept the same pact in our next game with me playing the Allies and you the Axis.  Since you view this as a net benefit for the Soviets, I would add an item that if any other Allied units occupy an original Soviet territory (even if liberated or captured), then the Japanese are free to attack with the Mongolian rule still in place.
Does this this quid pro quo interest you at all?

[gsh34]

Ok, the conditions for invalidating the non-aggression pact:

Russia:
Soviets must control an original Euro-Axis territory for one complete round of play.  Then, they may enter China or starting Japanese territories.

Japan:
Japanese must control 5 VC for a complete round of play.  Or, if any unit from an Allied power is in an original Soviet territory, the Japanese may attack original Soviet territories (note: Mongolian Alpha +3 rule still applies).

How does this sound?

[gsh34]

Also, once one power meet the criteria to invalidate the pact and did attack, the restriction is removed from the other power.  So, if Russia owned Romania for a complete turn and then attacked into Korea, Japan could immediately turn around and do an SBR on Moscow even though they might not have 5 VC in the Pacific.  Make sense to you?