AARHE: Phase 2: National victory conditions

[Imperious Leader]

This advanced concept addresses the need to facililitate the historical component of realistic conditions for victory. Rules for a free for all approach  my be offered in the optional rules section.

[tekkyy]

Post your ideas so far.

Something about UK not wanting USSR taking Western Europe?

[Guerrilla Guy]

Germany = Establish Lesterbaum
Japan = Create the East Asian Cooperative Sphere of influence
United States and Britain = Capture or Capitalization of Germany and Japan (Territories as well as players). Prevention of Russia from completing 24 IPC’s in Captured Territory.
Russia = Seizure of Enemy Territory. He gains victory points based on the amount of IPC’s in those Territories. He is going for 25 IPC’s in order to be the “Champion”.

GG

[Imperious Leader]

yes something like this would be possible under national victory conditions. The very most important idea is Japan not having to invade russia to win. For example japan has fully independant objectives to meet and it has nothing to do with Germany. That is what the historical record says. The game should really be called the western allies, the Soviets, Gernamy and Italy and Japan all fight it out for themselves…

[Guerrilla Guy]

Ok…

Italy = Establish New Roman Empire

[tekkyy]

@Imperious:

The very most important idea is Japan not having to invade russia to win.

Yeah I think Japan just wanted resources. Eastern regions of USSR had nothing  :-D

The game should really be called the western allies, the Soviets, Gernamy and Italy and Japan all fight it out for themselves…

We definitely need that rule about US/UK not able to roam freely in USSR.

[Imperious Leader]

We definitely need that rule about US/UK not able to roam freely in USSR

EXACTLY NO MORE OF THAT! that has to be fixed. their is no way in hell Stalin would ever allow the western capitalist allies “land” troops in Soviet Union. Imagine how he felt about Churchill the suspicions from both sides was astounding. That is a huge flaw in the game that need to be corrected.

[tekkyy]

In fact it is not unreasonable to include the unusual case where USSR breaks off from Allies, or a Japan/Germany conflict.

It just has to be modelled correctly. eg…

Russia attack Japan, 10 IPC
Japan attack Russia, 12 IPC
UK attack Russia, 18 IPC
Japan/Germany, 0 IPC

[Guerrilla Guy]

Ofcourse I hope you mean to include a Russian Patriotic Rule…

[tekkyy]

What do you mean?

[Guerrilla Guy]

basically that means that all equipment that the British or Americans move onto Russian Soil becomes Russian… This isn’t lend lease… Italy would also have the same system with German Equipment… These rules are used to avoid a complicated lend-lease system… unless you want to make a complicated Lend-Lease System…

GG

[Imperious Leader]

The lend lease system does not have to be complicated to work and be accurate ( well sort of) When Italy becomes that 6th player, then the offset in lost formerly german income is balanced with … a lend lease system allowing ipc to be shipped to uk and soviets AND be subject to German interdiction ( u boats and planes). that kinda solves two problems together balancing the additional money created from Italy.

[tekkyy]

So is it realistic to absolutely disallow UK/US units land units entering original USSR territories?

[Imperious Leader]

Yes… Stalin would never in his lifetime allow the capitalist swine to “help” him in this manner. He had a bad experience in 1919-1920 in the Russian civil war with this help. Look it up. Also, he viewed the Americans as actually trying to avoid the second front in order to kill more Russians and latter fight against the Soviets with Germany. That was his real suspicion. At UK he hated Churchill as well as a great denier or foil of Soviet ambitions.This follows a historical course of hundreds of years of Britians ability to defeat the attempts of Russia to secure a warn water port in the middle east.  I am 100% on this. no allies in russia… only aid.

[tekkyy]

Hm…actually which heading does the rule come under?
We might need a new heading.

[tekkyy]

Germany =
Italy =
Japan = Control orange territories plus China, India, Australia, and New Zealand

USSR = Control 20 IPCs more than start
UK/US = Together control more of the following then USSR: Western Europe, Germany, Southern Europe, Manchuria, Japan

This is in addition to controlling your capital.

[Imperious Leader]

Germany =conquer Russia, while holding to all original territories in europe including norway/finland
Italy = Control x amount of territories in africa and x amount of african neutrals
Japan = Control orange territories plus China, India, Australia, and New Zealand ( add Hawaii, specific islands in pacific)

USSR = Control ( i think they need to control germany, and all german occupied territory in former eastern europe, plus manchuria)
UK/US = Together control: Western Europe, Southern Europe, Japan, africa, all japanese islands in pacific.

This is in addition to controlling your capital.

++++ some problems: Mancuria was occupied by the Soviet Union in the closing days of ww2, also Japan was never occupied ( of course its under the western allied players influence for Victory conditions… work needs to be done)

[tekkyy]

USSR’s requirement to control Germany is good. Don’t know about Manchuria. Is it for “freshwater port”?

My UK/US rule is based on capitalisation of majority of major IPC centres.

I think yourUK/US rule is about territory control.
In which case UK and US should be separated. UK might be Africa and southeast Pacific islands and US might be about north and central Pacific islands?

[Imperious Leader]

USSR’s requirement to control Germany is good. Don’t know about Manchuria. Is it for “freshwater port”?

+++++ all i can tell you is they jumped into manchuria to have a clain at the peace talks. Their intent was to get back the part of the Shakelin Islands that they lost in the war of 1904 and also control the direction of where China would go into.

My UK/US rule is based on capitalisation of majority of major IPC centres.

+++++  yes right it will take some time to get this equasion right.

I think yourUK/US rule is about territory control.
In which case UK and US should be separated. UK might be Africa and southeast Pacific islands and US might be about north and central Pacific islands?

+++++ in the pacific UK will have to hold on to its original territories, but its victory is kinda spoiling the Soviets and their gains in ww2.

example: as far as the war results the allies won but Soviets won as the individual player with USA second and UK third… why? because UK wants to keep the balkans free of soviet control, along with norway. IN the real war norway was not captured and the balkans were taken by stalin.

[tekkyy]

Oh yes Balkans is a strategic region.
But I think the require shouldn’t be too strict. My suggestion of majority control of a list of territories is modelling a net effect. Like if overall the situation might be better even though a particular territory is lost.