Russian battleship

@Navymule:

I stand corrected.  However, they (USSR) could declare war upon Japan and then attack a neutral such as Turkey, right?

No again, sorry:

@rulebook:

Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the
Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions
of being a neutral power (see “Powers Not at War with One Another,” page 15) on the other map, and Axis powers on
the other map are also still under those restrictions regarding the Soviet Union on both maps. For example, a state of
war with only Japan lifts the neutrality restrictions from the Soviet Union on the Pacific map only, and allows Japanese
units to attack or fly over Soviet-controlled territories on either map. However, the Soviet Union is still restricted on
the Europe map, …

You’re getting closer. Defining it in terms that you have will work for the purposes of this rule.

The UK ships, and all of their other units for that matter, are controlled by one unified UK. The terms Europe economy and Pacific economy are only relevant when it comes to purchasing and placing units and making repairs to facilities. After the purchase and repair phase of the UK’s turn, all of the units move and fight as one power. On the place units phase and collect income phase, then the “economies” are separated again.

Thank you for the clarification, there are alot of grey areas with this.

Just like China for example… the original controller by setup -is- Japanese, but it’s really not, it’s China.

The fear is that someone misinterprets the rules, then ALWAYS attacks all neutrals with Russia (in a Sealion game), simply for all the + 3 grabs.

Imagine a Russian attack on Mongolia under this false pretense…

He meant to say that UK can declare war, as it always can, but the consequences (USA not stepping in) stay the same. Russian-japanese situation doesn’t influence UK.

@Ruanek:

@Xandax:

@MarkHC:

Bottom line, I’ve played multiple games as the Soviet Union where I didn’t let anyone attack my units except an infantry I left as a road block.  Even when Japan invades Russia turn one/two and tries to keep pushing, it still didn’t make much difference because they can only take a territory a turn.  So when Germany finally reaches Moscow, almost every single unit I’ve built as Russia is there defending my capital.  Sure, if time weren’t a factor, it’s a bad strategy, but I know that the Allies are going to be landing in force by turn 5 or so, so the Axis is not able to deal with the Allied pressure and overcome a huge Moscow stack.

If the allies are landing in force in turn 5 Europe is lost regardless of a large stack of inf in Moscow.
Nothing is gained in the game by removing USSRs chance to defend and making a German attack on Russia go faster. On the contrary.
The huge stack isn’t an automatic win.

Well, not having the huge stack gives the Axis a bit more of a chance to blitz and take the necessary 8 victory cities quickly.

Well - of course. And removing the Russian troops entirely would equally.
You cannot remove the turtle. You shouldn’t IMO make it easier to take Russia.
We should however figure out why turteling is so strong and address that cause instead of just the symptom.

If you make it any easier to take Russia, you’ve effectively turned Germany into a one trick pony and removed most strategy from the European board.

Would prefer battleship, as long as I have other units with it. If I would have a dd and a ca, pls give me a bb instead of another dd and ca

I guess the concept was that the U.K. could sacrifice the occasional fighter withour screwing up the Russian N.O…  If Germany decided not to attack a given Territory to have the U.k. Fighter deny the N.O… then Russia is still ahead because they weren’t attacked.

Anyway, the U.K. could land on U.K.4 as I would think that %100 of Russian PLayers would declare war on R4 if Germany had not declared war by then.

A sub works.