USSR and UK/USA sharing/liberating territories

Which house rules do you use in regards to Soviet and UK/USA troops liberating eachother’s territories and sharing land spaces? I’m aware of the National Objectives which punish Russia if UK/USA units are present in the motherland, but I’m not personally a fan of this.

Any ideas which don’t involve NOs?

My idea so far:
UK/USA units cannot enter Russia unless it is to attack enemy forces and liberate a territory. Upon liberation, ownership is not immediately restored to Russia. The axis power’s IPC chart is lowered by the appropriate amount, but a Russian unit must end it’s movement there before the income can once again be added to Russia’s IPCs.
The same scenario is true when Russian units liberate UK/USA territories

While I think it’s a good start, it’s not perfect. What are your thoughts?
Many thanks

-Clegg

@taamvan said in USSR and UK/USA sharing/liberating territories:

Especially in Global, but in all versions, cooperation between the Allies is key. They defend together but attack apart. In some ways this is a weakness of the Allied team; since the Axis are on opposite sides of the world, they rarely need to coordinate together, and when they do, its usually to do something devastating and unexpected. The addition of Italy changed this dynamic quite a bit, but the Allies have to rely on close cooperation, in every version.

You could play with just 2 colors of pieces, playing Axis and Allies as one giant team. This would benefit the Allies alot, because they have more, smaller powers that have segemented, small incomes that are easy to destroy and hard to deploy real punch with. Large incomes mean game breaking strategies (stacks of tanks, bombers), small incomes just get infantry, mostly.

In sum, I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish unless it is to make the Allies much weaker. Russia is an intentionally and unrealistically weak power–the US and UK are absolutely required to defend and recover its territory. Your suggested change will cost russia infantry and income, as in many games, it simply has so little it cannot function.

So, what do you find unrealistic/ahistorical about the liberation rules? Our house NOs also penalize Russia for having pieces OUTSIDE its starting territory–as well as for having any other allies within–both are worth $3.

Thanks for replying Taamvan

As far as I was aware (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), Russia and the other allies fought the same enemy but didn’t really fight together. It just feels strange to see UK troops in Russia to me. This is why I wanted to restrict this kind of movement but this only created new issues like with liberations.

I don’t want to complicate the game more than it needs to be, and as you correctly said changing a mechanic like this will unbalance the game. Just thought I’d ask here and see if anyone has any ideas.

I would consider giving Russia +5 IPCs per turn instead of the NO (same difference), banning UK/US and Russian units from entering eachother’s territories, and implementing lend lease. But this all seems too complicated for what it’s worth.

Thanks again for your help

@barnee said in USSR and UK/USA sharing/liberating territories:

@CorporalClegg Hi Clegg
yea very few instances of allies and russia fighting together. Heard of some air units, but that’s all I can really remember. Cwo marc probably would know more.

Anyway, using the Global game, I like Black Elk’s " Sphere of Influence" house rule. Gives a minus 10 bucks if Russia has any allied units in russian controlled TTys and vice versa. Same for Germany/Italy and Japan.

Have to use it with some Russian boost rules too, but it gives a more historical game play pattern without eliminating the possibility of “what if”

Cheers Barnee I’ll check out Black Elk’s house rules and see what I think. I was hoping to avoid an IPC reduction for Russia but maybe that is simply the best way to go. I definitely want to allow for “what if” possibilities so perhaps banning movement of units through eachother’s territories isn’t ideal. Thanks for your contribution