The following link might be of help:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=30776.0
:mrgreen:
Krieghund Alpha 3 Mongolia question
-
If Japan attacks Mongolia, does that impact all neutrals as before, or is Mongolia considered Russian friendly, and other neutrals are not affected?
-
… and is there ANYTHING preventing Russia from attacking Japan?
-
If Japan attacks Mongolia, does that impact all neutrals as before, or is Mongolia considered Russian friendly, and other neutrals are not affected?
If Japan attacks Mongolia before it joins the USSR (including on the same turn that it attacks Amur), Mongolia is still a strict neutral and all other strict neutrals will become pro-Allies.
… and is there ANYTHING preventing Russia from attacking Japan?
Only the loss of a Mongolian alliance (if it attacks a Japanese-controlled territory that borders Mongolia).
-
so if it attacks korea mongolias un uffected?
-
Correct.
-
So if Japan attacks Russia in any territory that borders Mongolia, all of Mongolia will join the Soviet Union.
If Russia attacks Japan in a territory that borders Mongolia, then Mongolia simply stays a strict neutral. Correct?
Just for curiosity’s sake, what would happen if Russia attacked Mongolia, or one of the Mongolian territories? Would the rest of Mongolia, and other strict neutrals, become Pro-Axis?
-
So if Japan attacks Russia in any territory that borders Mongolia, all of Mongolia will join the Soviet Union.
If Russia attacks Japan in a territory that borders Mongolia, then Mongolia simply stays a strict neutral. Correct?
Correct.
Just for curiosity’s sake, what would happen if Russia attacked Mongolia, or one of the Mongolian territories? Would the rest of Mongolia, and other strict neutrals, become Pro-Axis?
Yes.
-
I’m assuming this was done to keep Japan focused on the Pacific by removing the option of attacking Russia?
-
Jim, the option to attack Russia is still there.
In fact, i strongly suspect that these new rules won’t change the fact that a J1 attack in Amur will still be a very standard opening.
You just have to work a little harder than before to push the russian. That’s all.
-
The idea was to either deny Russia from collecting the money back there, or keep Russia from bringing the 18 inf to Moscow.
6 extra inf for a total of 24 inf back there? Russia can still peel back enough inf to turn the tide in Europe, and defend its turf against Japan, it seems to me. Russia gets $18 in units versus $12 the Alpha 2 way. It’s getting tougher to hit Russia, but I assume that is their intent.
-
The idea was to either deny Russia from collecting the money back there, or keep Russia from bringing the 18 inf to Moscow.
6 extra inf for a total of 24 inf back there? Russia can still peel back enough inf to turn the tide in Europe, and defend its turf against Japan, it seems to me. Russia gets $18 in units versus $12 the Alpha 2 way. It’s getting tougher to hit Russia, but I assume that is their intent.
Well, 1st of all, if Japan position his troops properly, then we can see that the 2 inf in Buyant-Uhaa will just never make it to Moscow. That’s impossible with proper Japan play.
So this means Russia effectively only gain 4 inf for Defense of Moscou. 4inf = 12 IPC, so that is equivalent to the 12 IPC they were given from Japan invasion in Alpha +2.
That’s no big deal at all. In fact, when you think of it, Russia could at least buy for 12IPC worth of material AND PLACE IT WHERE they wanted in Alpha 2. In alpha 3, they gain 6inf (2 of which are going to dye next turn), and these inf are probably not placed where the russian player would really want them to…
The only real advantage for Russia in Alpha 3 is that they can attack Japan without giving them 12 IPC. But that’s all.
-
Not how I see it, but go ahead and try.
I would now rather play Allies than Axis. Before I won more often with Axis by a fair bit. Now I see that I will win more often with the Allies with Alpha 3.
-
I wonder what difference they could make if Russia sends a good portion of those Siberian forces through the opened Mongolia into China (together with for example a tank and TB from Moscow)
-
About everyone agree on one thing : Alpha 3 is better for Allies than Alpha 2 was.
But this is due to AAguns changes, not Russian situation in the far east. Uk is much better defended now, and that is the major change from Alpha 2. It has huge consequences for the rest of the game. -
About everyone agree on one thing : Alpha 3 is better for Allies than Alpha 2 was.
But this is due to AAguns changes, not Russian situation in the far east. Uk is much better defended now, and that is the major change from Alpha 2. It has huge consequences for the rest of the game.Well, I think it goes beyond just the AA gun changes, although that is a large part of the equation. Larry also removed the 5 ipc NO for German control of London and, probably biggest of all, the Russians immediately enter the war if London falls. Now, UK can “underdefend” London in order to cream Italy in the Med. and have the consequences of losing the UK mitigated somewhat by Russia’s entrance into the war.
-
Well, I think it goes beyond just the AA gun changes, although that is a large part of the equation. Larry also removed the 5 ipc NO for German control of London and, probably biggest of all, the Russians immediately enter the war if London falls. Now, UK can “underdefend” London in order to cream Italy in the Med. and have the consequences of losing the UK mitigated somewhat by Russia’s entrance into the war.
Excuse me if I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you think it would be a good strategy for UK to “tempt” Germay into doing Sealion. I don’t think it would be a good idea for UK to risk losing London in order to pound Italy more in the Med and bring Russia into the war sooner. In fact, I think that’s a strategy that could easily backfire. On one hand, yeah Italy would be severely hampered in the Med and perhaps Russia could make some headway on the Eastern Front attacking Germany before they were ready for it. On the other hand, with UK not making money, Italy would eventually overpower UK in the Med and Africa and Germany will get a lot of money from Britain to turn the tide against the Russians. Of course, the USA also enters the war and if they even just go 50% Atlantic, Germany and Italy could be in for a rough ride.
I guess I just don’t like the idea of risking losing one’s capital and basically being knocked out of the war. I would still heavily defend London at first, especially if Germany goes after the Royal Navy. Make Germany commit a LOT of resources if they want to try Sealion. That will be a lot of stuff that is NOT on the Eastern Front. If Germany is successful at Sealion, then they will be much weaker in the East and the Russians may have a much better advance. If they are NOT successful, then Germany just wasted a lot of IPCs worth of men and equipment and are still weak in the East and may not be able to build up enough before Russia does enter the war ROund 4. As for the Italians, you can deal with them later. Capital protection comes first. -
I just read last 20 posts or so…. I totally agree with Axisplaya on all terms.
KNP : I don’t think anyone said it’s a good strat to ease a Sea Lion. But with free 4 more HP to defend London, you can afford to send 1 or 2 planes away… to pond Italy. Where I would not do in Alpha 2. Loosing London is heavy in consequences.
Also, I don’t think Axis can win without a successful Sea Lion. It was impossible to do in OOB Rules. It’s faily possible in Alpha2… very less likely in alpha3.
-
Yeah, it seems to me that Alpha+3 kind of made it so Germany HAS to do Barbarossa instead of Sealion. I mean, Sealion is still doable if Germany is able to build up enough stuff and kills the Royal Navy, but with the new rule allowing Russia to attack when London falls, it will be much harder on Germany. At least with Alpha+2, Germany could have a round to build up against the Russians. I think that Alpha+3 kind of forces Germany into a more historical route.
Suggested Topics
