Can Russia survive? (Alpha +3)

[General Veers]

@wittmann:

Makes sense Jen. I like it.
Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.

[knp7765]

@General:

@wittmann:

Makes sense Jen. I like it.
Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.

No, the Axis doesn’t get robbed of the immediate IPCs. If Germany takes London, they get to plunder the treasury and take UK’s IPCs. It’s just that the UK isn’t totally out of the game because their capital moves to Ottawa in Canada. So, after London falls, the next UK turn they have no money to spend, but they do collect IPCs from whatever territories the UK has left to spend on the next round. Same idea with Eastern USA (Washington) and Western USA (San Francisco). If the Axis capture Washington, they get the USA’s IPCs on hand so the US will go a turn without spending, but with the government in San Francisco, they can collect IPCs and build next round.
As for Russia, they don’t get a 2nd capital because Russia was a dictatorship, even though it was technically an ally. Once Moscow falls, Russia is done unless they can liberate Moscow from the Axis or the US/UK liberate Moscow.
On a side note, I have learned that it isn’t always wise to liberate your capital. Once I was playing Russia and Germany took Moscow. I had enough troops next to Moscow with tanks in Stalingrad so I attacked and liberated my capital. Unfortunately, the battle was costly and I had few units left. Germany had a good sized secondary force and retook Moscow, thus plundering my treasury a second time.

[knp7765]

@cb4:

I didn’t see a response that directly addressed the yes NO’s vs. no NO’s helping/hurting Russia. Consensus from other posts and my “balanced game” poll is that NO’s (and a bid) should be played to balance out the entire board. But, at the risk of being somewhat myopic (to get the hypothetical question answered), if the scope is just Germany and Russia, will NO’s help one power more than the other?

I would say NOs help Germany more than Russia.
Russian NOs:
5 IPCs for Archangel, no Axis ships SZ 125 and no Allied units in Russian territories. – Germany can block this too easily.
3 IPCs for each German, Italian or Pro-Axis territory – If Germany is on the offensive and beating Russia back, Russia isn’t likely to get any of these.
German NOs:
5 IPCs if Sweeden is NOT pro-Allied and Germany controls Norway and Denmark – If Germany is having a good game, they will get this one pretty much every round.
5 IPCs for German control of Leningrad, Stalingrad and/or Moscow – Leningrad in particular is a bonus for Germany. Usually Germany will take it 2-3 rounds after first attacking Russia. From then on it’s an extra 7 IPCs to Germany and -2 IPCs for Russia. As for Stalingrad and Moscow, well, once those fall, it’s just about the end for Russia anyway.
5 IPCs for Axis control of the Caucasus – If Italy is doing well in the Med, they could come up through the Middle East and get that one for Germany.
5 IPCs for German land unit in Axis controlled Egypt. – If Italy is doing well, they will get Egypt and it doesn’t take much for them to ferry 1 German land unit down to Egypt. Or, if Germany has S. France, they could build a transport and move an infantry there themselves.

So, to sum it up, if you play with NOs and Germany is on the offensive and going strong, Germany will get extra money from the NOs while Russia will NOT.
If you play without NOs, it may even the game out a little and give Russia a little better chance against Germany.
By the way, I know you are asking about Russia vs. Germany, but playing without NOs will really hurt Italy. For the first few rounds, more of their income comes from NOs than territory.

[Witt]

@General:

@wittmann:

Makes sense Jen. I like it.
Still need to make Canada a temporary UK Capital too!

That ties to maverick_76’s idea for nations retaining treasuries and production after a capital falling. For the US, If DC were in trouble or about to fall the government would have definitely already have made a contingency to move to SF (or Chicago, but it’s not a VC). It also allows UK to still do something immediately after Sea Lion and as previously mentioned allows Russia to have one last (dying) breath. This does hurt the Axis since it robs them of immediate IPCs and they don’t benefit from the continued operation as much.

Thank you General Veers. I think this will always help the Allies and is a worthwhile House Rule to play.

[Witt]

Nice work Knp.

[Guest]

Here is my suggestion to Russian NO’s.

Soviet Union
When the Soviet Union Is at War in Europe:

• 5 IPCs if Archangel is controlled by the Soviet Union, London is controlled by UK and there are no units belonging to other Allied powers present in any territories originally controlled by the Soviet Union. Axis warships in z125 convoy this NO. Theme: National prestige and access to Allied Lend-Lease material.
• 3 IPCs for each original German or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls. Theme: Propaganda value and spread of Communism.
•      2 IPC for each Soviet controlled victory city. Theme: Cities of great strategic importance.
• 10 IPCs (one time only) the first time the Soviet Union controls Germany (Berlin). Theme: National prestige.

When the Soviet Union Is at War in Pacific:
•      3 IPC if Soviet controlls Korea. Theme: Stated national objective to retake Port Arthur.

Now game will be very close to balanced as Soviet will earn much more IPC. If UK falls however Soviet cant expet any Lend-Lease in the north ofc. It also opens up for attacks on Japan and Iraq, but excludes strange adventures into africa. Defending the key cities will be very important. Germany will have quick progress early in the war but can no longer expect to totaly steamroll Soviet as their wartime production is significantly higher.

[Jennifer]

Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.

[Young Grasshopper]

I have something to offer on this topic, however, even though I love you like a sister Jen, the last time we collaborated on house rules together during the Delta+1 project… I was committed to a mental hospital.

[Jennifer]

Bah, I am NOT that hard to work with!  I just get flustered when things are set in stone and then someone pulverized the stone, cuts a new piece and writes down new rules. lol

Seriously though, I have been working on delta rules off and on since I was stuck in the hospital for a few months and figured I would finish them up (first draft) and post them, then ask for community input on those instead of leaving it open ended.  Just figured it would work better to fix something someone sees as a problem than invite problems.

Granted we did great until Mr. M showed up and then everything went to hell fast.  :P

[Young Grasshopper]

LOL… I would love to read that draft just to see how close, or far apart everyone really was.

[Jennifer]

Some things have changed and probably still will.  Like the Russian NOs and Japan rules.  And I bet a lot of the changes will be reverted or changed yet again once it is published for peer review. lol.  No one’s perfect, but I don’t really want to post anything until I get quite a few more 2nd edition games online under my belt.

[knp7765]

@Cmdr:

Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.

Interesting side note: That was one thing that made Hitler really ticked off at the Japanese. He wanted them to attack Russia and tie down those divisions but they didn’t. Thus, the Russian offensives in winter of 41,42. Also, I think he didn’t really want America brought into the conflict, but was bound by the tri-partite pact once Japan attacked the US.

[Jennifer]

My belief is that Hitler did want America in the war because we were supplying war materials to his enemies.  I just feel that he may have been far happier if America’s overt involvement had not come until after London fell when it may have been possible to get the United States to surrender or at least enter into a no contest agreement.

Of course, I cannot read minds and even if I could, “Unkle” Adolf’s mind has been dead for at least 30 years before I was born, so it would probably have said nothing but <<drool>> lol.  (I use the term Uncle in the same manner as we referred to Stalin by the way, not in a good way!)</drool>

[knp7765]

@Cmdr:

Of course, I cannot read minds and even if I could, “Unkle” Adolf’s mind has been dead for at least 30 years before I was born, so it would probably have said nothing but <<drool>> lol.  (I use the term Uncle in the same manner as we referred to Stalin by the way, not in a good way!)</drool>

Oh yes, I understand. It’s not “He’s Uncle Adolf, everyone loves him!” but more like your mom telling you “Don’t go over to Uncle Adolf’s house without an adult!”

[cb4]

@knp7765:

So, to sum it up, if you play with NOs and Germany is on the offensive and going strong, Germany will get extra money from the NOs while Russia will NOT.
If you play without NOs, it may even the game out a little and give Russia a little better chance against Germany.
By the way, I know you are asking about Russia vs. Germany, but playing without NOs will really hurt Italy. For the first few rounds, more of their income comes from NOs than territory.

Exactly what I was looking for. Thx!

[cb4]

@Cmdr:

Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.

Makes a lot of sense.

[Jennifer]

Taking away the NOs from everyone might work too, I am just worried it’s too drastic.

Granted, anything that stops the Americans from earning 1000 IPC a round isn’t ALL bad.  But ANZAC, India, USA and Italy make a lot of money from NOs and I just wonder how drastic a shift it would be if that income was removed.  Yes you would take some from Japan too, but my ponderance is that Japan could lose 10-15 IPC a round if it means the US loses 30 IPC, ANZAC 5 IPC, India 5 IPC.

Yes, it would make the situation in Russia better, but does this mean that Japan is going to need a bid?  (Not saying it does mean that, asking the question!)

[Witt]

Only the US needs the NO bonus. In other A&A games they trail behind the 2  Axis powers when they should be richer.
I love the NOs in Global, like I did in Anniversary, but the Axis’ income is  increased too much by them.

[Jennifer]

I never quibbled that America needed NOs.  I think NOs keep the Americans honest.  My beef with the American NO is that it’s darn near impossible to take the big one from them and if you do manage to take it, why are the allies still playing?

I would have made an NO for the US that none of the continental Australian territories nor East/West India are captured by Axis forces and taken the continental NO away.  Maybe add in that Brazil is allied or pro-allied.  This puts the NO in jeopardy instead of just assuming you’ll have it for the entire game as free income.

[Witt]

I think the US should be super rich when it joins the war. The problem it shpuld  face is crossing the oceans in sufficient numbers and in time.
Oh and not collecting the 52 income while not interested in joining a world war!
But then I am funny about that.