Can Russia survive? (Alpha +3)

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

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.

@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.

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>

@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!”

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!)

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.

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.

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.

Fine, no American NO for continental safety.

+1 IPC for Midway total value 1 IPC
+1 IPC for Wake Island total value 1 IPC
+1 IPC for Aleutian Islands total value 1 IPC
+4 IPC for Alaska total value 6 IPC
+3 IPC for Hawaiian Islands total value now 4 IPC

These are areas that Japan can realistically invade, but are still easy enough for America to liberate or prevent from falling.  It gives the United States the money prior to being at war and heavily rewards the Japanese for invading American soil which should draw firepower off Russia, China, Australia and India (basically Japan is rewarded for the DEI and for attacking America giving them a choice.)

Sorry if I confused you Jen. I meant  I thought US should not get 52 a turn whilst at peace.
When war breaks out, then give them a bigger NO.
In Pacific they started with 17, then got a 40 NO for being at war. I liked that.
It does not work as well when you play Europe as they have Central US on that map, adding 10 to the already richer East Coast.
I would like to see a poor US accelerate to a super rich one in a few turns.
But I have said I am weird like that. I came to this forum 18 months ago with this same gripe. It does not grow old for me!

I know balancing these games must be  a nightmare.
Being on the receiving end of a well played Axis player in a game with Garg,  I have come to see the Allies do have it hard and I feel the Axis NOs are the difference.

I don’t care what America earns, we could even house rule that all US territories that are NOT in the comprised of one or more United States states (but including any captured by America) are worth double once the US is at war.  Just make it so that the axis has an easier chance of capturing that income.

So a US limited to the 50 United States and no more should collect only 45 IPC and no more.  20 EUS, 12 CUS, 10 WUS, 2 Alaska, 1 Hawaii.

However, Formosa is worth 2 IPC to the United States.  Even captured allied territories like Morocco or French Indo-China might be, would be worth double for the US.

Why not start America at 32 for the first round, 42 for the second, then come up to 52 plus NO’s on the third and following rounds. Would sort of emulate a slow ramping up of wartime production.

I copied this idea down a while back.
While not at war: US Major ICs are all Minor ICs and the US is restricted from technology development while at peace. As for income, in addition to collecting NO National Objective income, the US income goes on a percentage:
Round 1 = 25% or 13 IPCs
Round 2 = 50% or 26 IPCs
Round 3 = 75% or 39 IPCs
Round 4 = 100% or 52 IPCs (plus National Objective bonus IF at war)
From Round 4 on, the US would always collect 100% of territorial income. I added the “IF at war” because theoretically it is possible for the US to NOT declare war during the collect income phase of turn 3 or even further. Plus it the Axis never attack the US directly, then they could remain neutral simply collecting their 52 IPCs and letting the Axis run wild on everyone else.
Also, If the US is attacked before round 4, they immediately get 100% territorial income plus National Objectives.

Imagine a game of Global 40 with a neutral United States. It would almost surely be an Axis victory, but think about how the Axis would have to dance around getting that victory. Think about the conditions that would bring the US into the war:
1 > Any attack by an Axis power on US units and/or territories (obviously)
2 > If London falls into Axis hands.
3 > If Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war on UK India or ANZAC (including the DEI)
4 > If US is not at war by the collect income phase of round 3, the US may declare war on any and all Axis powers.
Okay, if we scratch the fourth condition and assume NO Axis units dare to attack any US units and/or territories, what are we left with? First of all, there would be NO SEALION, although Germany could still pound on Russia all they wanted without affecting the US. Also, this would have to be an Axis win on the European board if you go by victory cities: Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Cairo.
A Pacific Axis win would be impossible if you enforced conditions 2 and 3. Let’s assume that UK India and ANZAC never DOW on the Japanese. That would mean the only victory cities Japan could possibly get would be the two they start out with: Tokyo and Shanghai. Calcutta and Hong Kong would be an unprovoked DOW on UK India. Sydney would be an unprovoked DOW on ANZAC. Manila, Honolulu and San Francisco are of course US cities so they are out of the question. Also, Japan would never get any of it’s National Objectives and never get the big money of the DEI.
On the other hand, Japan would be free to pound China into non-existence and gobble up all the far eastern Soviet territories. Heck, with most of Russia’s defenses facing the Germans, Japanese units might be outside Moscow before the Germans. Russia would not stand a chance while the UK I don’t think would be able to do much about it. I don’t think UK India units could go into Russia for defense without declaring war on Japan.
That brings up a curious question: If the UK India and Japan are not at war with each other, but Japan is at war with Russia, Can UK India units go up into Russia through Persia? If so, and Japanese units attack these UK India units, does that constitute a DOW by Japan on UK India?
What about UK London units? If Japan manages to make it as far as Moscow, and UK London flies some fighters into Moscow, if Japan attacks Moscow is that an unprovoked DOW on the UK? If Japan DOW on UK London, UK India or ANZAC, it’s a DOW on all three. So, remembering that in this scenario Japan does NOT want to make an unprovoked DOW on the UK, could the UK put units up into Russia and block any Japanese advancement?
This is assuming Germany, Italy and Japan have all DOW Russia. Also, UK London, UK India and ANZAC are all already at war against Germany and Italy. So, this would make UK London, UK India and ANZAC Allies with Russia due to all being at war with Germany and Italy. So if Japan DOW Russia, and UK puts any units in Russian territories, is that considered an DOW by the UK on Japan? Or if Japan attacked those UK units, would THAT be considered a DOW by Japan on the UK? Would it be unprovoked considering Japan was already at war with Russia?

Nice work Knp. You have given this a lot of thought.
You are right about Russia having no chance though. Perhaps Japan should be penalised for
a DOW on Russia too. Make it another reason the US joined the war.
Japan starts too strong,  as we all know, so my thoughts of penalising the US while not at war, will never make for a balanced game.
And we still want to keep Russia in the game!
The original NOs are the problem and that still needs to be redressed.
Not sure I have made any sense. Feel like I have gone round in circles. Sorry!

There used to be an optional rule commonly played way, way, way back when I played on the MSN Gaming Zone where Japan was just restricted from ever invading Russia unless first invaded by Russia.

That alone usually made life a lot easier on Russia’s survival.  Of course back then we used to give Russia bids because we were all morons and did not understand Allied play better and of course since then AAR, AA50 and AAG40 have been released…

That might be the only option.
But it still leaves a hell of a lot of Japanese units to enlarge the Empire to a ridiculous size, aided by too many NOs.
I do like it as an option though.
With a proviso that a certain number(a garrison) is left in Manchuria and Korea!
Aren’t I maddening?

Nope not maddening at all.

Sounds like a good precaution.