USSR Non-Aggression Treaty National Advantage

@gnasape:

Instead of doing too much, it might be advisable to hit W Rus hard with 10 inf, 2 art, 3 arm, 2 ftr, and create deadzones all around and trade territories with Germany until the reinforcements arrive.

This is usually what I do, and with a 3 inf, 3 arm buy you immediately have 7 armor which should be close to matching Germany and should prevent a German move to either Kar or Ukr for several rds.  You can follow up in rd 2 with 4 inf, 1 rt, 2 arm and your overall offensive units start to look pretty impressive:  3 rt, 9 arm, 2 ftrs.

Or give all 5 nations 2 NA’s each, but let the Axis have ONE random technology, and once selected the option to determine which nation (Japan or Germany) would receive that technology.

That would pretty much even out the NA issue.

@Bunnies:

When in doubt, blame it on America!

I did not think Nuno was still around to do that…  :roll:

This really is wonderful!thanks a lot

okay, I think I found the page my friend showed me in questioning this rule, page 13 in the revised rulebook, it says (in bold) Resolve all combats involving a given unit or group of air units before moving onto the next

I dont know, Im looking for any other thing he could have showed me because this makes more sense to me right now…  that all happens during the combat move so Im assuming it only refers to AA fire, in which case he is completly wrong…

Oh well, we were just hoping we had found a way to ruin nonagression treaty

you can also move units into an enemy seazone that contains only enemy submerged sub(s).

it is hard to slow JPN in the intial rounds. they are the axis “ace in the hole”. I would not sack 2 RUS tanks.

Variant 3 will make subs more or less useless against a Japanese fleet with at least one BB. So I think it is better to not mess up too much with the rules and vote for variant 2 or 1. In plain english, it is not worth fixing a rule that is supposed to fix another one. Things can get too complicated if one does! :wink: