Lets just keep it at 2 inf and also impose a movement of 1 into mongolia due to poor terrain… that way tanks are at least stuck.
If you guys want we can add extra forces from Soviet stocks we can do something like OOB has under soviet-jap non aggression
Good Idea, but don’t you think we should do that to several territories?
GG
Nah. Some of them aren’t that crucial as Mongolia
well it does not hurt to hear him out… what do you think? currently movement restrictions to Mongolia, Himalayans, Sahara, possibly sinkaing-- due to desert, also alaska, argentina, switzerland, finland due to frozen/mountain conditions?
currently Himalayans is still out of bounce, unless other Neutrals
you guys thinking of changing that?
Non Aggression Treaty
If Mongolia is invaded Russians place 3 Siberian Shock Troops and a tank there for free
a rule to artificially place forces in the territory when its attacked is unrealistic
a treaty is just a diplomatic thing
Okay so GG is right. But we should increase it to 2 INF, because if not the once Japan captures it and then it would march unopposed all the way to Moscow.
the right tool should be used for the right job
putting 2 INF there is unrealistic
I prefer the terrain modelling solution
How about this.
The allies would not have violated any neutralities, therefor, only the axis can. But, if the axis do violate neutrality, then the ally that liberates it would controll it(signifying that the neutral country would join arms against the aggressors) until once again taken over by the Axis.
The Sahara and Himalayas were geographically impassible, however, the other countries were a political thing.
No I think that my “non-aggression-treaty” is valid… Japan and Russia Maintained troops on the borders, just in case… If the Neutrality is Violated doesn’t it seem logical that those “troops” appear, albeit out of “nowhere”? They are in “reserve”… Otherwise what “stopped” Japan from taking it? Then I would suggest the mountains as Imp is talking about Therefore making it impossible to violate it…
GG
When a countries neutral status is violated, there would be some resistance met. People of the country would fight t back to some extent. So yes, that does seem logical to me.
Mongolia should be 2 or 3 territories signifying the rough terrain, or tanks can only move 1 space, we could say that the Himalayas may be passed over by aircraft or infantry. Infantry should get a movement penalty to move through as to difficult terrain, but Sahara would be too difficult to pass.
What do you think about the Allies not being able to violate neutral countries and what happens when the Axis do in my earlier post?
A good idea, I think that if you look earlier in the “posts” you will find something to that effect…
OOB Impassible territories should in every case be able to be flown over.
Allies should be able to invade neutrals : precedent- US invaded Azores which was previously under Spains control. UK seized Iraq when it had a pro axis leader in power but was still neutral. UK also seized Iceland from Denmark and USA/UK seized Greenland from Denmark, UK seized Madagascar from Vichy France, UK attacked Dakar which was also Vichy. There are more cases.
Soviets also tried to attack Finland and also occupied part of Rumania and took over the independent Baltic states as well as eastern poland. They had semi control of Mongolia as a satellite nation.
ON the Mongolia situation: It can be included as a semi-restrictive territory due largely for its inhospitable terrain features. Ideas:1) only x amount of units can pass into or out per turn ( this idea can be used for Sahara as well) 2) all movement is at the rate of one per turn ( no blitz with tanks) 3) completely make it impassible like the Himalayans
If you look at any map of mongolia you will notice that it has mountains along the whole Russian Border which we would call Novorbisk and Evenki National Okrug, making it technically giving it the same effect as the Himalayas, and a desert to cross first… To my understanding they didn’t really have “roads” going over those mountains, or atleast nothing that would have carried an army or tanks… So I would make it impassable, make it simple… The same reason the Japanese didn’t invade, and the Russians didn’t commit forces to guard it…
GG
Thats a great point! much of what the Soviet Union is in the east is inhospitible terrain… perhaps it all should be one territory per turn movement? plus terrain modifiers of +1 for defense in those areas… like mongolia, siberia?
I would definitely consider it… Also the territory scales there are much smaller then what they should be…
Maybe this will solve the problem (it still needs a little bit of modifications though):
Snowy terrain: When attacking snowy territories roll a die. If you roll a 6 sacrifice 2 units. If you roll a 5, sacrifice 1 unit. A roll of 4 or less doesn’t do anything.
Desert terrain: Only tanks and aircraft can pass through desert terrain.
Mountainous terrain: Only aircraft can pass through mountainous terrain.
Mongolia–Mountainous terrain
Himalaya–Mountainous terrain
Russia, Soviet Far East, Buryatia SSR–Snowy terrain
Sahara: Desert terrain
Southern Europe: Mountainous terrain
Greenland: Snowy terrain
Alaska: Snowy terrain
Saudi Arabia: Desert terrain
*PS–I know I post things everywhere but I promise I’m still working on NA’s
Snowy terrain: When attacking snowy territories roll a die. If you roll a 6 sacrifice 2 units. If you roll a 5, sacrifice 1 unit. A roll of 4 or less doesn’t do anything.
+++ i see what your after on this but the Russian winter has to be a seperate issue. losing units because its snow in Alaska is not realistic. Snow can mean -1 or +1 combat modifier, movement -1 modifier…
Desert terrain: Only tanks and aircraft can pass through desert terrain.
+++++ this is good… but allow say Italy to pass infantry for its NA choice.
Mountainous terrain: Only aircraft can pass through mountainous terrain.
++++ good
Mongolia–Mountainous terrain
Himalaya–Mountainous terrain
Russia, Soviet Far East, Buryatia SSR–Snowy terrain
Sahara: Desert terrain
Southern Europe: Mountainous terrain
++++ this cant happen or axis cant get infantry to lybia easy.
Greenland: Snowy terrain
Alaska: Snowy terrain
Saudi Arabia: Desert terrain
*PS–I know I post things everywhere but I promise I’m still working on NA’s
Yes i know … good.
yeah I like the direction of modelling the Mongolia terrain rather than letting troops appear
“the Neutrality is Violated doesn’t it seem logical that those “troops” appear, albeit out of “nowhere”? They are in “reserve”…”
yes, all the military we give neutrals take both military and ready reserves into account
that was the idea
what about Saudi Arabia?
any deserts there?
so is it going to be 1 INF for Eire and 0 INF for Mongolia?
Mongolia should be also one infantry. perhaps two
Mongolia only needs 1 (25,000 Standing men), and Imp, I like your Terrain Ideas….
Looking through Google, it appears that Rommel did fight in the Sahara during WW2. It appears combat could and did take place in the desert.
Yes but it was limited due to lack of support in the desert. the number of units that can cross this territory should be limited to say 3 units per turn. any more than that and it would overburden the supply train and men would die. Each infantry = a corps to an army. a Corps is 3-5 divisions and an army is 3-5 corps or some 40,000-120,000 men
