@wittmann:
I, too, meant doubling the NO, but also restricting the Spread of Communism to Europe and Iraq.
Is there a reason for that?
Historically, the USSR did spread communism to territories controlled by the Japanese, in particular Korea. I think rather than restricting the spread of Communism to just Germany and Pro-axis, it should apply to German, Japanese, and Pro-axis territories.
I think many here think it ridiculous that Russia can convert African nations, like Ethiopia or Libya. It is a silly sideshow, which many Allied players go for, to supplement Russia’s meagre income. If it had a proper, workable, NO, it would not need to send Mechanized forces into Africa to do this.
Thank you for telling me that it did do so in Korea, however.
@wittmann:
I think many here think it ridiculous that Russia can convert African nations, like Ethiopia or Libya. It is a silly sideshow, which many Allied players go for, to supplement Russia’s meagre income. If it had a proper, workable, NO, it would not need to send Mechanized forces into Africa to do this.
Thank you for telling me that it did do so in Korea, however.
Well, maybe just get rid of the Italy portion, and replace it with Japanese original territories. It’s unlikely that Russia will capture many of those, anyway.
Capturing Korea is pointless early on, as Japan ought to have a fleet in SZ6 and Russia gains no income and loses the potential 6 Infantry. If you say it happened, historically, I can agree.
Still, we have to get that Lend Lease to stick. Russia cannot be on 20 income, while Germany is on 60 and hoping that the UK comes up through the Middle East to save them.
@wittmann:
Capturing Korea is pointless early on, as Japan ought to have a fleet in SZ6 and Russia gains no income and loses the potential 6 Infantry. If you say it happened, historically, I can agree.
Still, we have to get that Lend Lease to stick. Russia cannot be on 20 income, while Germany is on 60 and hoping that the UK comes up through the Middle East to save them.
Like I said, it is unlikely that Russia will take many, or even any, original Japanese territories. But the option should still be there. It might encourage Russia jumping in on a KJF if they get an extra 3 IPCs from Korea.
The Historical basis is this:
North Korea’s history began with occupation of the Korean Peninsula north of the 38th parallel by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II in 1945, a division of Korea with the United States occupying the south. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established in 1948.
In the aftermath of partition of Korea, Kim Il-sung arrived in North Korea on August 22 after 26 years in exile in China and the Soviet Union. In September 1945, Kim was installed by the Soviets as head of the Provisional People’s Committee. He was not, at this time, the head of the Communist Party, whose headquarters were in Seoul in the U.S.-occupied south.
Kim established the Korean People’s Army (KPA) aligned with the Communists, formed from a cadre of guerrillas and former soldiers who had gained combat experience in battles against the Japanese and later Nationalist Chinese troops. From their ranks, using Soviet advisers and equipment, Kim constructed a large army skilled in infiltration tactics and guerrilla warfare. Before the outbreak of the Korean War, Joseph Stalin equipped the KPA with modern medium tanks, trucks, artillery, and small arms. Kim also formed an air force, equipped at first with ex-Soviet propeller-driven fighter and attack aircraft.
We altered Russian NOs like so:
When Soviet Union is at war in Europe: +3 IPCs for each original Axis and pro-Axis Neutral territory within continental Europe and Scandinavia controlled by Soviet Union.
+3 IPCs for each Pro-Allied Neutral and Strict Neutral territory within continental Europe and Scandinavia controlled by Soviet Union but ONLY if said territory was first controlled by an Axis power (This includes Turkey).
When Soviet Union is at war against Japan:
+3 IPCs for Soviet control of Korea.
So you see, this disallows the African territories and the Mediterranean Islands (Sicily, Sardinia and Crete). It also disallows Iraq, but that’s more of a personal taste for me. I just don’t like the idea of Russia traipsing along through the Middle East when Operation Barbarossa is bearing down on Moscow.
Also, Russia can get the bonus from Pro Allied neutrals and even Strict neutrals but only if they are taking them from the Axis. This way, there will be no Russia attacking Turkey, turning the other Strict Neutrals into Pro-Axis and getting rewarded for it to boot.
Finally, we included Korea because like amanntai mentioned, that’s simply historical.
By the way, does anybody remember the good old days when Germany could perform Operation Sealion but Russia still had to wait until round 4 to declare war? Germany was a winner almost every time.
Isn’t Scandinavia in Continental Europe?
I wasn’t sure about that. I have often heard reference to “Europe and Scandinavia” so that’s why I list them both.
Well the islands in the med are also part of continental europe so that does not really rule them out.
Sugest naming it countries with a IPC value of 1 or more.Also there are no pro allied neutrals in the zones you give so better dont put the line there only causes confusion.
Strickt neutrals should not be touched really, it gives the allies even bigger incentive to attack the true neutrals, true it is more hystorical correct,
if russia is strong in scandinavia then us can just attack a true neutral and give russia a +5 bonus for the rest of the game ( sweden + NO ), no need to weaken sea lion even further.
Um, the “continental” part should exclude islands already, right? It doesn’t just mean “Europe-British Isles.”
Well the islands in the med are also part of continental europe so that does not really rule them out.
Sugest naming it countries with a IPC value of 1 or more.Also there are no pro allied neutrals in the zones you give so better dont put the line there only causes confusion.
Strickt neutrals should not be touched really, it gives the allies even bigger incentive to attack the true neutrals, true it is more hystorical correct,
if russia is strong in scandinavia then us can just attack a true neutral and give russia a +5 bonus for the rest of the game ( sweden + NO ), no need to weaken sea lion even further.
The islands aren’t part of continental Europe. By definition, no island is part of continental Europe.
There are pro-allied neutrals in that zone: Yugoslavia and Greece.
Russia can’t invade Sweden for a +5 bonus unless Germany already invaded it. Germany just has to leave Sweden alone to deny Russia the bonus.
This thread somehow switch from discussing “National Prestige” to the “Spread of Communism”. Anyway how about this one:
Red Spread:
3 IPCs for each original German, Italian, or pro-Axis neutral territory that the Soviet Union controls, and for each of Novgorod, Volgograd, and Moscow while at war.
I like that, basically one infantry per turn, for each city it controls!
Nice Variance. You have eliminated the African territories and the Islands owned by Italy in one swoop. I like it. Adding 6 IPCs (Leningrad won’t stay Roussian for long) should help Russia too. That is what we are all craving.
Of course a better way would be to give Russia an Inf unit in those VP cities, rather than 3 IPCs that can be bombed away, but I realise that would be too much of a jump.
OK I am going to give that one its own thread in house rules so it doesn’t get lost and forgotten. Simple fix to a few issues. Sorry I didn’t mean to hijack this thread, but it seemed to have already switched topic from the Murmansk NO
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35771.0
I also added the phrase “on the Europe map” so Russia can’t get the NO for its cities by declaring war on Japan.
OK please go back to Murmansk
