My recommendation is to hit him hard in Normandy and see about landing only a couple infantry in Norway. Taking Norway loses him those IPCs plus the Scandinavian trade bonus, which will hurt his economy by at least a Panzer purchase per turn, and he can’t afford to split his attention so many ways. Just like he is trying with Russia, give him a death by a thousand little cuts. If you can convoy raid him (if you are playing with raids, that is), then you can knock him down even more. Of course, I may just be a bit overaggressive– I can’t see what all you can, but anything to stop the Scandinavian bonus is a good thing for beleaguered Russia.
Operation Sealion a Possibility with AA1940 Europe?
-
@WILD:
Regardless of how you or I would play it, if you allow China the freedom of any other power, people will abuse it, now you would have a broken game IMO.
Players also abuse of the lack of the non-agression treaty, it’s called JTDTM. Also they abuse of western allied troops landing on USSR. The minimal that you should allow China is free attacking on axis powers, even if the ACME wall is active in NCM phase, but even that would have some gamey bugs. The optimal is free movement on allied countries (I repeat that China and USSR should not start allied and they only should ally after Japan breaks the non-agression treaty or when german/italian troops are next to chinese controled territories)
@WILD:
By the way if India falls, China most likely won’t be in position to do anything anyway. Likewise if China is powerful enough to start invading other countries, or boarding transports to attack Japaneses, the game is over, start a new one.
Then why limiting China? If they have enough strenght to do such things, they deserve do such things. Japan then would have no right of abuse of this wacky rule
@WILD:
If Japan vacates Manchuria to take out China, then why should there be some BS rule (acme wall) protecting them from a Russian invasion.
ACME wall means that one side can pass and the other cannot, no matter what happens and how ridiculous is the wall (like Roadrunner and W.E. Coyote). A non-agression treaty is not a ACME wall because after it’s broken, both sides can pass. Of course, the breaker of the treaty should have a penalty
@WILD:
I would be ok w/a one time bonus/incentive that one side gets if the other strikes first. Maybe even have it linked until a certain round of play, or void all together if certain things happen. I want the freedom to attack if it benefits me though, even if it cost me some one time NO. Germany will get a $5 NO to stay out of Russia early in the game.
That’s the meaning of a non-agression treaty rule. I never meant a rigid unbreakeable treaty
-
@WILD:
If Japan vacates Manchuria to take out China, then why should there be some BS rule (acme wall) protecting them from a Russian invasion.
ACME wall means that one side can pass and the other cannot, no matter what happens and how ridiculous is the wall (like Roadrunner and W.E. Coyote). A non-agression treaty is not a ACME wall because after it’s broken, both sides can pass. Of course, the breaker of the treaty should have a penalty
Yea I get that, see next quotes.
@WILD:
I would be ok w/a one time bonus/incentive that one side gets if the other strikes first. Maybe even have it linked until a certain round of play, or void all together if certain things happen. I want the freedom to attack if it benefits me though, even if it cost me some one time NO. Germany will get a $5 NO to stay out of Russia early in the game.
That’s the meaning of a non-agression treaty rule. I never meant a rigid unbreakeable treaty
And USSR should not be DOWing japs unless Berlin falls or unless China or Persia falls
Then maybe I’m missing something here. If you don’t allow Russia to attack Jap tt till Berlin falls (or some other power) near end of game, then this is a two way street? how? Sounds like your above definition of an “acme wall” to me (for at least 1/2 the game). Your allowing Japan to vacate its boarders, knowing that Russia can’t come over. This would be totally one sided for the first 1/2 of the game. It would allow Japan to much freedom, when one of its biggest fears was Russian involvement.
Take out the part that limits when Russia can attack (can’t be only a counter attack, or dependent on other powers falling), and we have common ground. Japan can’t feel safe from Russian attacks the first 1/2 of the game. China is going to need help from other powers to survive. Either through distractions out side of China, or units moving into China. If Russia chooses to move in then this would obliviously break any NAP and a penalty should be paid.
-
Mmmm… maybe allow the soviets attack at pleasure, but at cost of giving Japan 5 free infs at Manchuria when soviets break the pact? The same if Japan is who breaks the pact
-
Mmmm… maybe allow the soviets attack at pleasure, but at cost of giving Japan 5 free infs at Manchuria when soviets break the pact? The same if Japan is who breaks the pact
This rule does not make sense.
-
Thanks for your allways valuable input, Mr. “Canadian roundels are there purely for bla bla bla” :roll:
Anyway, we are getting offtopic. Some of our ideas about non-agression treaty are interesting, but they have no relation with Sea Lion. We would need another thread
Back on topic, if Sea Lion is relatively easy to do (say, at least 1 of 5 games), we need change the capital conquest conditions or this is going to ruin the game. India is not going to save allies is London falls with current rules, and even a more logical Canada split would not do much
-
Mmmm… maybe allow the soviets attack at pleasure, but at cost of giving Japan 5 free infs at Manchuria when soviets break the pact? The same if Japan is who breaks the pact
This rule does not make sense.
Thanks for your allways valuable input ……
Thanks once again for your asinine suggestions about how to make the game better. How do you account for 5 fully trained Japanese infantry units at no cost springing up out of nowhere merely because their country was attacked by Russia? I’ll answer that for you. You can’t, because it is just some meaningless rule that you want to add to the game to achieve your personal desired outcome.
-
I never liked the influx of inf that appeared at the boarder if your side was attacked that we had in earlier games (must have been hiding). With the NO/war time production bonus system that we have now, you could do a one time $5-$10 bonus to the power that was infringed upon. It would be similar to Germany getting a $5 bonus per round for staying out of Russia for the first few turns. If it was a one time cash bonus, at least it would show the time needed to get those extra troops to that front. Of coarse it would still be up to that power if he indeed wanted/needed to send them. It could also be looked at as an increase to production to fuel that front. Anyway it would serve as an added deterrent for either power to break the NAP (if one existed), keeping in mind both powers have many other things going on as well, and may not want to fight each other.
As far as Sea lion goes, If Germany try’s to go after UK full tilt, then Russia will just build and build. It might take all 3 axis powers to bring the Soviets down. In that case what happens at the Rus/Jap boarder (NAP) would make a difference.
-
Meh, really, it simply depends on the Axis’ focus on any particular game. It looks like Russia only gets a crappy +5 NO once it is at war with the Axis, so compared to pissing off the Americans, war with Russia (only) would be a much more palatable option for Japan. 18 land units, while it is quite a lot, would not be expected to be massed together right at the border with Japan, so they could be picked off a bunch at a time, and definitely doable if Japan gets a major industrial complex in Asia (which it probably will in most games). Plus, Moscow it so far away that sending reinforcements east is probably not Stalin’s top priority, so Japan could hold onto the Russian IPCs for a long time, gaining back whatever the cost was in killing the units over 3-4 rounds.
Also, it is subterfuge to some extent; forcing the Soviets to respond to threats on their eastern front would pull some attention (and troops) away from the western front, which would help Germany and Italy pull off a successful Sea Lion AND Barbarossa in turn. Kinda of like not letting your left hand knowing what the right hand is doing. However, with a Sealion going into action on Round 3 or 4, Japan may be forced to focus entirely on eliminating India so that the UK is incapable of sending reinforcements anywhere else.
I’m wondering what Italy will be required to take in the Med to stop UK air from reaching England. Definitely Gibraltar and Malta, and all of the African coast, excepting Egypt maybe. Italy has its hands full. Maybe it would be best for Germany to ditch Sealion and just go after the Med early and take what it can get?
Suggested Topics
