Maher, you made some good points (and funny) about Calvin’s propensity to intrude or annoy.
Calvin, kudos for a very mature, substantive, and even-keeled response. I agree Calvin is not a troll, nor does he obsess about his post count. He just likes to be involved. And yes, many of us appreciate your contributions to the site, including Krieghund himself.
Now leave him alone for awhile, Calvin - sometimes we need a little personal space. :-)
Thanks, I guess. That flaw of mine extends to real life as well. When someone makes a claim I find insulting or just wrong, I have the urge to respond.
Marty McFly refers to the movie series starting with “Back to the Future”. Its a bit dated, as it started in the 80’s I believe. Calvin is half the age of a lot of the 30 somethings here, so it is reasonable to assume he may not have seen those films.
For that fact I am impressed with his level of maturity and the ability to use grammar when posting. (That is a subtle jab at his generation growing up with spell check and the like). He is an impressive young person, and demonstrates advanced reasoning skills.
His level of interest in this game, gives me hope that new generations of players may yet be found amongst those growing up in the digital age. The fact that a board game can compete with x-box amongst teenagers is promising.
I’ll just kindly excuse myself for intruding in this matter. His question seemed like a reasonable one for a young person, and I didn’t like seeing this “digital pincer move” on his post. :) It feels like standing by while Poland gets beaten up on.
(What comes after artillery on the post meter? :) )
Thank you James.
I think tank comes after artillery. BrainDamaged sent me a PM with all the ranks and the posts needed to achieve them, but unfortunately, I deleted it.
I think it goes:
infantry-artillery-tank-submarine-fighter-destroyer-bomber-aircraft carrier-battleship-heavy bomber. However, bomber may be after CV and I’m not entirely sure about the fighter.
Thanks, Calvin! I couldn’t think of his name!
MaherC, BrainDamaged is the dude who tries to get his post count up by posting like one sentence at a time.
I second what James said - Calvin is more than welcome here, even if he does post 4 times during my noncoms sometimes. :lol:
Simply me responding to another typical calvin post to just make his little post counter tick up 1. Read the thread. But you’re right. I shouldn’t have replied and therefore fed the troll.
Pfff, I was actually referring to the Shakespeare’s post in ADDITION to yours, 'cause really, his post made little to no sense in the context of the thread as he implied anyone in this thread requested that the USSR be allowed to land units in the UK based on balance, which is completely off base as
A) it’s clearly already allowed because of the writing of the rules
B) most everyone recognizes it’s a completely idiotic loophole.
While it’s unlikely Calvin would understand the popculture reference cause he’s such a young 'un, you actually didn’t respond in anyway that anyone should construe as insulting.
But while Spain did have a volunteer force fighting soviets and trade, it was hardly as critical to Germany’s war effort as Swedish ore. At best Spain’s additions would be worth a single IPC. And Calvin’s not wrong - US trade to Russia and the UK would have amounted to FAR more than Spain could ever muster.
But I will agree with you on at least one thing - anyone that cares about the ranks is a little too invested in a completely trivial bragging right.
I think I’ve modified 85% of my posts so that I wouldn’t need to add another seperate post to a thread. Like this line right here.
i was 2 when back to the future came out great movie by the way and i am amazed ppl try this russian units in western allies territory stuff. Then again I used to play World at War for years so lived with those restrictions
While I was wading through this personal crap, I noticed the side bar advertising. It was for a Russian dating service. It said:
“Find Your Russian Beauty Today”.
Thought it was very fitting for the topic about where Russians can go, and the remark about woman directed to Calvin.
:-D LOL
Although calvinhobbesliker does post quite frequently, I don’t have a problem with it. He’s free to disagree with my ideas as much and as often as he likes. Criticism simply challenges me to view my own ideas critically, and I would suggest to everyone on this forum that they should think in the same way. Also, let’s avoid personal insults like suggesting someone doesn’t know what a woman is or has to rely on allowance money. Arguments ought to carry the same weight whether they come from a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old, and suggesting otherwise would be succumbing to personal bias.
Let me try to return to the topic of this thread. I’m beginning to favor rules causing Russia to treat all neutral countries like pro-axis countries, meaning they must attack to occupy even a pro-allied country, but they can attack true neutrals without global repercussions. If they fail in such an attack, the individual country attacked joins the Axis and may be occupied by any Axis power during its non-combat move.
I’d like to try a game using these neutrality rules coupled with hostile Russia rules: Allied units and Russian units could never enter each other’s territory during non-combat moves. Russia would never liberate an Axis-controlled allied territory but would instead keep it for itself. Russia could also invade China or empty territories belonging to an Allied power whose capital has fallen. What do you guys think?
Although calvinhobbesliker does post quite frequently, I don’t have a problem with it. He’s free to disagree with my ideas as much and as often as he likes. Criticism simply challenges me to view my own ideas critically, and I would suggest to everyone on this forum that they should think in the same way. Also, let’s avoid personal insults like suggesting someone doesn’t know what a woman is or has to rely on allowance money. Arguments ought to carry the same weight whether they come from a 10-year-old or a 50-year-old, and suggesting otherwise would be succumbing to personal bias.
Well said, thanks.
Let me try to return to the topic of this thread. I’m beginning to favor rules causing Russia to treat all neutral countries like pro-axis countries, meaning they must attack to occupy even a pro-allied country, but they can attack true neutrals without global repercussions. If they fail in such an attack, the individual country attacked joins the Axis and may be occupied by any Axis power during its non-combat move.
Good ideas - It’s likely I’ll be playing with similar rules in the future.
I’d like to try a game using these neutrality rules coupled with hostile Russia rules: Allied units and Russian units could never enter each other’s territory during non-combat moves. Russia would never liberate an Axis-controlled allied territory but would instead keep it for itself. Russia could also invade China or empty territories belonging to an Allied power whose capital has fallen. What do you guys think?
Cool ideas, and more historically realistic. By “invade China”, I take it you mean Axis controlled China.
These just lead me to wonder: why weren’t OOB rules more like this? Like I was thinking yesterday…. (In AA50, though it works like this in 1940 also) it’s over simplistic to say Russia has the same consequence (- 5 IPCs per turn) for one American bomber temporarily landing in East Russia after striking the common enemy (Japan) as if 3 different allies had dozens of infantry and armored units in Moscow. I like the idea you and others are putting out, that the Western Allies are simply not allowed to share territory with USSR - ever.
Should help to neutralize a significant perceived Allied game advantage, as well. Yep, good house rule suggestions on here… Only problem is, if I get used to playing these and start playing someone who insistits on OOB, then I won’t be used to that. That’s why I wish they’d just make good rules like these OOB. :-(
I actually meant that Russia could seize Chinese-owned territory if it wanted. This would be consistent with allowing Russia to seize Allied territories if the capital of the appropriate power has fallen, because China is a country without a capital. If Japan gets too close to the Russian border, of course Russia would want to repel them but the rules I suggested prohibit the Russians from occupying Allied territory during their non-combat move. Thus to keep the Japanese out of the motherland the Russians must expand their borders and create satellite territories much as they did with Poland prior to the start of the war. I would say the Russians aren’t allowed to engage the Chinese army in combat and can only occupy empty Chinese territories.
These rules would make it more difficult for the Allies to coordinate but would allow Russia to become more powerful and send more IPCs to Europe. I’m not sure whether the effect would be to tilt the game more in favor of the Axis or not.
These rules would make it more difficult for the Allies to coordinate but would allow Russia to become more powerful and send more IPCs to Europe. I’m not sure whether the effect would be to tilt the game more in favor of the Axis or not.
This is why I, personally, would not incorporate the rules about taking empty Chinese territories. Otherwise, I like your ideas and am likely to adopt them at some point (after playing a few games OOB).
I’m envisioning these Russia rules as part of a set of rules modifications I want to try whose overall effect would be to balance the game out a little more. The rules would also add more historical flavor. Let me share my list:
These are the rules I proposed above in which Russians and Allies can’t mix and Russia treats all types of neutral as pro-Axis. Also, Russia claims for themselves all Axis-occupied territories, empty Chinese territories, and empty territories belonging to an Allied power with a fallen capital.
This rule would balance out the effect of Russia’s possible Chinese expansion. Russia may not declare war on Japan until Berlin has fallen, and moving units into Chinese territory constitutes a declaration of war on Japan. Japan may still declare war, in which case Russia may then begin to claim Chinese territories and fight the Japanese.
The Axis or Allies achieve victory by fulfilling the original victory conditions of either of the individual Europe and Pacific 1940 games. Discussion of this idea can be found at this thread:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=20964.0
If a unit is mixed into a larger group of friendly units, it may use its non-combat move to convert into a unit of the same type belonging to the power that has the most units in that group. If the number of units is even, either side may convert to the other.
I’m considering a few other rules such as Vichy France and focused tech research with less element of luck, but these are the four I’ve decided are good so far.
Those are pretty good, Larry.
I like how Restricted Russia addresses the significant problem of how OOB Japan and Russia can just declare war and fight each other right out of the gate.
Japan can have a hard time in Global, with those 18 Russian infantry thrown in. Besides, it flies in the face of history to have those powers re-enacting the war they had fought in the 30’s, during 1940, 1941.
Indeed it does fly in the face of history. That’s my thinking as I examine possible house rules. Any rule I incorporate would ideally give the Axis a bit more help and also make the game more historical and realistic.
Of the four rules, Joint Command is the one that may actually help the Allies more, but my inspiration for it was a test game using JamesAleman’s kill America first strategy. Japan and Germany had both managed to get decent forces into the Central US, but they ultimately weren’t any threat because they couldn’t attack together and the east coast could continue producing enough infantry to hold them off at least until the other Allies were able to seize the advantage elsewhere. With Joint Command, however, the US would have really been sweating. And consider: if the Germans were grouped in the Midwest and decided to pour over the Appalachians and enact an epic struggle to defeat the world’s most powerful nation, would they really have elected to do so without waiting for the Japanese to link up with and help them out? I think not.
On the other hand, Germany is really going to be screwed when it comes time to invade Normandy. But hey, that’s historical too.
Yes, I think you had good ideas with the joint command mod, too.
One of the age old unrealistic things about A&A is allies that can’t fight together. It’s nice and clean that each power can only attack on its own turn, but your rules find ways to convert units so that they can attack together.
As you said, this does have game unbalancing ramifications, and would really tend to help Allies more than Axis, and the Allies don’t need help at this point. But I like the idea. Also, it uses its noncombat move, so you couldn’t move a unit and convert it in the same turn - it would have to be standing still. I see there is no limit to the number, either. Also, if Allied units are allowed into Russia, then they could convert to Russian and thus get the NO back again (that’s unrealistic, so I take it you mean to combine these rules). If you combined these rules, then Russians could never convert to US/UK command, so that’s a good limitation, too.
Yep, that would help the Allies a lot (in Southeast Asia, too) so you would probably have to throw the Axis some more bones if you wanted a fair game.
The Russians in China problem needs to be solved with Chinese Communist rules.
Early suggestion:
The USSR can place CCP infantry in any free Chinese area bordering USSR or Mongolia. They can expand into any Chinese area, including those held by the KMT, though this will result in a Chinese vs Chinese battle!
The starting unit in Suiyuyan should be CCP.
Use Russian infantry pieces of a different colour.
The way the rules currently read, yes. This may be changed in the FAQ.
Why? They aren’t at war…and the USA can’t land units in the UK so it follows that Russia shouldn’t be able to either. Ditto with moving units into China.
They are at war, with Japan, per the original post.
