Axis and Allies Revised Varient ( historical edition) Phase one proposal (draft)

I figure combat takes up a lot of time and fuel that has a significant effect on range. If a naval unit has to search around and hunt for the enemy that’s going to take a considerable amount of time and fuel because they won’t be travelling in a straight line. Non-combat movement has a very differnet goal. It is to get to it’s destination as quickly as possible. That is my reasoning. Do you think it’s sound?

When ships enter combat operations say for example when they engage in surface combat they speed up, because slow moving ships get hit easier. The fuel question can be accomodated in assuming that supply ships/tankers  can travel with fleets for refueling purposes. The idea is really a quick reaction force sacrificing speed for firepower. At midway the carriers traveled seperate because they could get to where they were wanted much quicker, while the Battleships were in a followup fleet to deliver the “coupe de main” on any surface action that was possible.

In phase 1 no other unit incorporates cruisers, so I think DDs should incorporate them. Some of these rules will probaby have to be changed around anyway so I don’t think it’s a big problem giving DDs an ability of moving 3 in phase 1 and then taking it away when we introduce the separate cruiser unit. If you feel strongly about it we don’t have to have DD units move 3 in non-combat. Opinions?

++++++++++Im am not sure if we should give destroyers a 3 move, then in another phase just as easily take them away and make them move 2 spaces, because each platform or phase or rules is another layer of ideas that in themselves should not be deleated but only added to make an accurate historical record possible for the projects purpose. WE open up the problem of people asking how is it historical in phase one and not in phase two? WE have to be consistent.

I still feel that CVs should only move 3 in non-combat to discourage them from being used as fodder in a combat 3 spaces away. The carrier will still be able to join the rest of the naval force 3 spaces away, just not make it in time for combat. I think it will work out well. Opinions?

I feel it will work as you do, but why dont you feel it wont work if they move 3 in combat phase like cruisers?

I don’t want US exploiting the 3 moves. What I’m envisioning is Japan having a lone transport 3 away and a US CV with no fighters moving 3 to attack the lone transport. This will probably never happen in a game but at the same time I don’t want to give CVs any added incentive to be used as attack units by themselves. If they move 3 in only non-combat then they can still move just as far as your proposing to be used as a fighter platform, which is their main purpose. If they can move 3 and attack then the only extra advantage these CVs have is that they can participate in combat themselves (all fighters associated with the CV can still attack just like before since no thing’s stopping the CV from moving 3 to that same space in non-combat). Does that rambling make any sense?

OK i am going along with this reasoning. So Lets incorporate the naval fighter concept and move forward. So cruisers and CV move 3 in non combat… good.

OMG thats harsh!  I dont think thats historical either. Can it just be something like:

System 1:
The Soviets cannot attack Japan untill germany and italy are defeated.

If the Japanese decide to attack all soviet troops gain a +2 combat modifier against japans pieces = to the number of rounds rolled on a d6.

System 2:

Each nation has specific VC that it needs to win and Japan has no VC in Soviet territory ( so no incentive to invade)
this would presumably be based on historical victory conditions.

System 3:

NA form–- All attacks by either the soviet or japanese player (breaking the non-aggression treaty) results in the other side awarded with 4 infantry to be immediatly placed in attacked territories… or varient 2… roll d6= number of free infantry placed in this territory.

System 4:

Use Anderssons NA for this.

How is this any more realistic than what I proposed?

I like the idea of giving ‘an out’ to either side… Russia can break the treaty without penalty if all red territories+Germany+Southern Europe are all Allied occupied at that time. Japan can break the treaty without penalty if all yellow territories+China+Sinkiang+India are all occupied by the Axis at the time of breaking the treaty.

Ok during the war neither side defected to the “other side” also in 1939 soviets led by Zhukov clashed with the Kwantung Army in northern Manchukou with the japanese being the aggressor… Result: The japanese were totally smashed to pieces and learned an important lesson that they would never repeat… they decided not to go with the northern strategy advocated by the army, instead they went for a conflict with the navies plan which was to surprise the US pac fleet and sink it hoping that they would sue for peace. Their is not way in hell that the japanese would choose both courses of action… that would have led to national suicide. The army all ready had seen the fighting in China lead to a battle of attrition and to just open up another campaign in worthless land or the Russian eastern territories was basically the biggest waste of resources possible.

Your plan somehow removes up to 12 infantry ( does Japan even start with this?) and gives them to the Soviets? huh? why  defectors? This project has to be historical and based on what actually happened… optional rules could cover the “what ifs” but this idea of defectors is not at all what could have been remotely possible. Whats wrong with some of the other ideas>?

Andersson will post shortly… not to worry…

BTW the neutral aid rules have a few things as well…

Ill save that for another post.

Yes this last post is much better!

the rationale presents each side with a much better historical situation that would ALLOW the treaty to work. I accept the conclusion but the wording to get just the perfect list of what needs to be captured for the Japanese side may be necessary. AS you may remember the Soviets only ventured into Manchuria in order to make claims on lost territory ceded during the Japan-Russo war of 1904. In that war the Soviets (then Russians) lost the Shaklin Islands (spelling?) and wanted a place at the peace treaty just to gain some of that territory back. So in a historical context the attack on Japan in Aug 1945 was for this purpose. Stalin had no intention of fighting both the Germans and Japanese at the same time. He left two front wars for Hitler to engage in because its stupid to fight wars with limited resources.

The idea that japan has to accomplish a list of conquests before any action taken against the Soviets makes alot of good sense.

Japan should have to take out China, India, and Australia and selected islands before they could be in the position to attack the Soviets. This would be conjoined with our national victory conditions… right?

Also, sorry i was not reading your post on the penalty correctly… I have limited time sometimes and my posts suffer from it. Your rule is fine, but we have to have some combat modifier as well…  What should actually happen is to create a NA for the “Siberian eastern army” which must stay at the eastern border until a certain turn. It would gain some modifier in combat against Japanese forces because they were much better trained soldiers and knew how to fight in frozen environments, while the Japanese clearly did not have a clue.

Idea:

The Soviets get some fixed army (research needs to be done) I think it should consist of:

4 infantry
1 armor
1 artillery
1 fighter

this would presumably be the siberian army ( again research)

your idea of the Germans having to be captured for a soviet attack is historical (germany lost in may 11 45, Soviets transfered the army to Manchuria and attacked on about Aug 6th 1945.

I would be noted that we dropped the A-bomb for many reasons and one of the main reasons was because we wanted the japanese to quickly surrender because we didnt want to Soviets to get too far into japanese territories and didnt want that area to turn into a 3rd world war. WE dropped the bomb because we wanted a quick surrender, because the Soviets were a competing ally that had its own agenda ( which brings up national victory conditions)

Should it really be that hard for the Japanese to break the treaty. Remember, with the new rules for infantry placement it’s a lot harder to take China, Sinkiang and Australia. Is there any evidence as to when the Japanese would have broken the treaty? I thought they just wanted to completely take out China first (which they never did). Would they have gone after Australia and/or India before Russia? Didn’t they kind of have an obligation to their German ally to cause Russia to fight a 2 front war?

I think we’re looking at an avg of about turn 6-7 until Japan has China+Sink+India. If we add Australia to the list, that won’t happen until turn 10 at the earliest IMO.

What if we have it that Japan can break it when they have China+Sink+ either India or Australia? Leaves more options that way.

OK Ill give you the military mindset for Japan:

They were faced with growing an Imperial policy of conquest and subjugation of all Asian nations under the rule of Japan. Second was to remove all colonial interference from any powers that were not truly Asian. Japan saw her place in the hierarchy of superior values cultivated by the code of Bushido and the samurai spirit. The realistic plan they engaged in was to establish a pan- Asian commenwealth with economic domination by the empire of Japan. This plan was debated by both the Army and navy to find the proper solution. In fact these were competing interests and they did little to coordinate national military policy. They both saw the options which were as follows:

1. In order to establish markets the need  exploit the labor in China was needed and this was to be conquered. The act of doing this was beyond the capabilities of the Japanese military complex.
2. The Army favored a solution including taking and concentration of forces on the mainland to finish off The British hold on India and remove any European influence in Asia. Also, the war with China needed to be brought to a conclusion.
3. The Japanese army also looked into attacking the Soviets… They tried this tactic at the border in a major clash with experienced Soviet troops dug in and were fully beaten. This sent a jolt into the character of what the Japanese army was capable of and as a result they lost face from the central government for the time being for their “strategic Solution”
4. The Naval commanders came up with a plan of conquest using the existing fleet to capture oil of the dutch Indies and islands with the strategy of turning each island into a fortress so that the approaches to the mainland Japan would not ever be possible. This necessitated a clash with the major power in the pacific which was USA.
5. So the japanese military government decided that it would not venture into the Soviet Union because the Army was not ready to contribute the national resources to enable the Japanese establish this empire in asia…so
6. They then decided that they would attack USA and let the Navy have a try at bringing Japan the result it needed.

So in conclusion its totally out of the question for Japan to attack USA AND then fail… AND then attack the Soviets… this goes against every commen sence approach and was not their mindset. They could care less about the Germans, but felt that Russia was on her way out… so the fear of a Soviet attack was not seen. So in reality the Japanese feared a Soviet attack more than even considered any attack of her own EVEN after she decided to attack the USA.

No coordination of Japan and Hitler occured… only a mutual treaty that assumed it any of the partners got in a ganeral war, that the other members would support the others… Thats why Hitler declared war on USA on dec 11th 1941. To honer his treaty to his partner… unlike Italy did with Germany in 1939.

The lend lease ruloes will take care of that… BTW the land lease money should be able to only purchase armor, artillery or planes So if the land lease is looking at 10 IPC the Soviets can build 2 tanks or a plane or a tank and artillery… that seems correct based on what the other member posed regarding the types of equipment sent.

The allies cannot land any units in soviet territory however… Stalion would not allow even one pilot in Soviet territory. In april 1942 the Soviets rejected the USA request to land those “doolittle bombers” in Soviet territory. This is clearly an indication that the partnership with Soviet Union was very distant. Thats why they had to land in China which was further and they ran out of gas and crashed.