I can’t speak to the history but in game terms, I think it is probably better for it to stay the way it is. If Japan can deny that NO by simply moving a sub there it is an easy choice without much risk. The axis just commit one cheap unit.
The way it works now, if Japan declares war it can shut that NO down but at the cost of giving the USSR double the NOs in Persia and Archangel. If the USSR declares war on Japan, it loses the NO in the Pacific without getting the bonuses in the West. This creates an additional complication to weigh when considering attacking eachother directly and in the war in China. Obviously given the value of IPCs at stake, this is not going to be the most significant decision in the game, but I like that it is another decision that has both a payoff and a risk.
Probably Russia and Japan aren’t at war.
Ok…but of course Japan did attempt to interdict all allied shipping, even ones that would just be trade ships once it was at war with the allies, especially US and UK ships even if not at war with russia.
I think if BM3 is updated, having to be at war shouldn’t matter for Japan to block that NO with a sub in sz 5…it would just mean that Russia could get the additional NO money like it currently does when Japan is at war with Russia.
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
interesting idea.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I agree and had something similar in my mind. Just don’t know if it should effect the point system as well when playing with a handicap game.
But Yes, I would vote for that and welcome it.
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
Very fair enough. Surprised on that.
But what if Russia sends troops into Yunnan (or China anywhere) to support a stack? Should Russia then not have to declare war to do so? How is that fair in terms of both gamism of the accurate Siberia Lend Lease route for Russian trade ships and the fact that entering China with troops is essentially an act of war (maybe not an official declaration)?
Russia needs to declare war on Japan to move into China. It’s the same rule as in vanilla, except in vanilla there was no reason not to declare war on Japan.
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
Didn’t they inspect those ships to make sure there were no arms onboard though?
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ll post something on github.
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
Didn’t they inspect those ships to make sure there were no arms onboard though?
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ll post something on github.
I would think a bunch of unescorted american trade ships in sea sone 6 would just be sunk in the real war. Seems unlikely that Japan would allow those ships to contain anything but fresh water. So of course the objective is not historical accurate. Although history is not my field of expertice i find this hard to believe to be accurate
Correction: sea zone 5
Actually Japan let through every lend-lease ship through to Russia as it didn’t want to go to war with Russia, so it’s accurate.
Didn’t they inspect those ships to make sure there were no arms onboard though?
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ll post something on github.
I would think a bunch of unescorted american trade ships in sea sone 6 would just be sunk in the real war. Seems unlikely that Japan would allow those ships to contain anything but fresh water. So of course the objective is not historical accurate. Although history is not my field of expertice i find this hard to believe to be accurate
Well look it up. Japan inspected the passing shipment and let everything through to Russia to avoid provoking a war with Russia.
From Wikipedia: “The Pacific Route opened in August 1941, but was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US; after December 1941, only Soviet ships could be used, and, as Japan and the USSR observed a strict neutrality towards each other, only non-military goods could be transported.[40] Nevertheless, some 8,244,000 tons of goods went by this route, 50% of the total.”
I dont understand why the USA accepted this. Seems completely ridic.
While waiting for my turn earlier this morning I googled this and came across this conference presentation on the topic: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/paperno/index.htm
Thought folks here might find it interesting. The major point of it (for the purposes of the discussion here) is that there was more than one Pacific route. The one going to Vladivostok came close to the Japanese Islands and was inspected. So it only took non military cargo. The ones with military cargo went further north to avoid the Japanese. More details are in the link.
Also of interest, 23 Soviet cargo ships sunk in the pacific. 8 were destroyed by the Japanese (4 because they were in Hong Kong when the Japanese attacked) and 6 were hit mistakenly by American submarines.
The route via the Bering strait was small tonnage wise. I’ll bet that’s because it was closed due to ice for a good portion of the year. Still interesting that there was such a route at all.
simone, i was wondering if it’d be feasible to improve tripleA to allow NOs to be turned on or off individually, as an alternate form of bidding and to add a little more variety to the game strategy. plus it could be useful for handicapping a much stronger opponent, e.g., M playing against E or 1 tier.
I’ve received a suggestion on a way it is possible without changing the engine - by adding map options to disable certain objectives. I think we should be able to disable the guerrilla fighters this way too.
So which objectives do we want to be able to disable? Here’s my suggested list:
or we can add more bonus instead :-P
BM3 is too difficult for my skill set playing as the Axis (probably the minority here). I have only played it like 5x, but have played Global 40 150+ games. Expert regular league players will of course disagree with me (probably because they created it).
1. Russia seems to collect a lot of money = tons of troops. Should we tone it down…or maybe tone down the China thing…one or the other at least please.
Any missteps like helping Italy capture Cairo could easily result in Russia being more powerful than Germany by turn 6-7 (espcially if the Allies also come over to slow Germany down). Whereas in Global 40, Germany could still make it vis-Ã -vis slower; and maybe not be able to capture Moscow, but could push them back. Now of course I’m sure there is more finesse to doing both in BM3 compared to Global, but gosh, sure seems it like it doesn’t take much for Russia to become super powerful.
2. Cairo: To me, the UK National Objectives money seems to make Cairo not very important to the UK as compared to Global 40 (where losing any original territory cost them 5). I don’t know what the consensus here is on this.
Getting it doesn’t seem to have a huge reward…it’s like how Sea Lion can be pyrrhic in Global. I kind of think a bonus should go to BOTH Italy and Germany for capturing it (whether or not Germany or Italy has a land unit in it. Germany gets 5 if Italy or Japan captures Caucasus).
Negative National Objective for the UK: Makes the UK lose an 2 additional IPCs (2 for territory + 2 more) for losing control of Cairo (I believe the UK considered the fight in North Africa to be a decisive theater of war). Do both things and again, Cairo would be decisive for the UK. Less players will stop NOT doing Taranto or Toronto.
I like that negative objective for Cairo! Is it over the top though? If Cairo falls early, Axis victory is usually the result.
On your point that USSR becomes too strong, well that was my first impression too. Practice (and advice from the forums) makes for perfect Barbarossa strategies. Still I think the idea is that a defence of Moscow becomes more viable. I’m inclined to think this makes A&A a better game. There’s a couple of features which go the other way but the net benefit is a positive.
A well orchestrated Barbarossa will kill Moscow no problem.
And consider this: You don’t essentially need to capture Moscow - if you’re able to siege them while taking everything else, that’s usually enough to win the game.
But the point you’re making is still true: If Russia is not pushed hard, they make a lot of money. So if you invest too much into your German Navy, you might be in some trouble. I think that’s a good adaptation to the original rules though. Before, it was too easy to hold off an Allied invasion of Western / Southern Europe while still sieging Moscow.
I like that negative objective for Cairo! Is it over the top though? If Cairo falls early, Axis victory is usually the result.
On your point that USSR becomes too strong, well that was my first impression too. Practice (and advice from the forums) makes for perfect Barbarossa strategies. Still I think the idea is that a defence of Moscow becomes more viable. I’m inclined to think this makes A&A a better game. There’s a couple of features which go the other way but the net benefit is a positive.
I think with the negative objective for Cairo; assuming subs killed, that the UK will still break even or still collect more IPCs than when having lost Cairo in Global 40. I don’t think it over the top.
What’s over the top is that the UK can lose Cairo in BM3 and it’s not decisive. I see lots of people just kill the Italian destroyer and transport in SZ 96 and that is it. And then a few rounds later evacuate. And sometimes they aren’t even doing the Gibraltar Air Base thing. If Cairo was decisive for the UK, they’d again have to sacrifice they’re expensive Navy in the med to neuter Italy (keeping the Navy is like 50+ bid - didn’t add it up).
I’m an easy win in a league game or just for fun. I’ll play allies straight up to gain more experience anytime.
Thank You!
