Operation Sealion a Possibility with AA1940 Europe?

@Funcioneta:

Mmmm… I wonder if soviets could sacrifice one inf to make a suicide attack on Manchuria to start the war and so start sending troops to China. I hope that not or we’ll not have any non-agression pact  :|

I am pretty sure USSR is going to have to focus all of its resources on holding off Germany.

Russia will be able to send units into China at any time w/o attacking Japan. It just needs to declare its self at war with Japan before hand earlier in its turn. It would be the same as UK moving units into China. The only difference would be that Russia moving in won’t have anything to do w/US war time bonus. I haven’t heard of any bonus incentive (NO) involved, but maybe there should be. All Larry has said is its totally up to the 2 players, but there will be reasons why they may leave each other alone. I would imagine its because they will both have their plates full and won’t want to start a new front.  A one time bonus of say $10 to the player who didn’t provoke the war would be cool IMO. I don’t think I would want a rule that doesn’t allow these two powers to fight if they want to.

If you give full freedom, USSR and Japan will attack each other from round 1, 2 as much, specially if USA is not at war with axis yet. We need a rule for the non-agression treaty or this is going to be as if Japan and USSR were at war defacto from round 1

Until now, Larry is sending confusing messages about this subject, so we’ll have to wait. But if there is not a non-agression treaty rule (again) and we are going to suffer the ACME wall (again), good old Func is going to be sad, and Larry don’t want that. Do you, Larry?  :cry:

I think we have the ACME walls everywhere sadly secured (neutrals, China  :-P ) , but I have a small hope about the non-agression pact

@Funcioneta:

If you give full freedom, USSR and Japan will attack each other from round 1, 2 as much, specially if USA is not at war with axis yet. We need a rule for the non-agression treaty or this is going to be as if Japan and USSR were at war defacto from round 1

The Neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan wasnt signed until April 13th 1941, after the starting point of this game. Historically the USSR and Japan were, at times, in a state of defacto war. After the Japanese conquest of manchuria in 1932 border skirmishes were common between the two powers. Some involved tens of thousands of men and tanks on each side. The most famous of these being the clash at lake Khasan in 1938, and the battle of Khalkin Gol the following year. I think the uncertainty in the setup perfectly reflect the historical situation while allowing the player to follow his own inclinations.

I don’t think we need a NAP, although in global I don’t think we will see a J1 attack either. Both powers will have good size forces at the borders, and neither will want to risk them, leaving them selves weak to other enemies. Both will want to use those forces in other missions, but shouldn’t leave the boarder unprotected for fear of attack.

Japan could go after Russia, but that would leave less to take out China. Japan will also be looking to set-up attacks on UK holdings no later then rd #3 (Siberia is a long way from India). Russia will have a ton of inf to fight through, and will be able to back down until it can reinforce with attack units. Japan would be caught in nowhere land, and not have much to show for its efforts. By time Japan gets anywhere near a Russian victory city the UK (India) will be much stronger, and the US will be breathing down their neck.

Russia will be preparing to get raped by Germany as soon as Paris falls (unless of coarse Germany attempts a Sea Lion, then Russia might get bold). Even if Russia wants to push into Manchuria, I don’t think it will have much more then inf that far out to do so. It would take a turn or two to get tanks or air units to Siberia to do any real damage. I think Russia may declare war on Japan to enter China just to help keep them alive.

Speaking of China and the “Great Acme Wall”, IN Pac 40 China normally gets pushed back to the Russian or Mongolian boarder. I wouldn’t like for the Chinese to be able to totally vacate China and retreat into Russia, India or Mongolia for that matter. You would end up w/Chinese def Russian soil all the way to Moscow, Stalingrad, or a last stand in India. That’s much worse then keeping them within their own boarders IMO. China has 20 tt it can go into now. It will have many allies (including Russia) to come in and help keep it alive, or breath life back into it if it falls in GL40. I’m sure Larry has learned from AA50, he has even acknowledged the short comings w/China and possible improvements in the future. There are many improvements concerning China in the new game. The flying tiger is protected at the start. China gets it own income and turn. The Burma road is rather cool, allowing China to purchase art, and get an NO bonus. I don’t think you can pass judgment on the global game, or say some part is broken w/o first seeing how it all works out.

If I am playing Japan and Russia leaves its eastern territories barely defended, I would make them pay for it.

@WILD:

Speaking of China and the “Great Acme Wall”, IN Pac 40 China normally gets pushed back to the Russian or Mongolian boarder. I wouldn’t like for the Chinese to be able to totally vacate China and retreat into Russia, India or Mongolia for that matter. You would end up w/Chinese def Russian soil all the way to Moscow, Stalingrad, or a last stand in India. That’s much worse then keeping them within their own boarders IMO. China has 20 tt it can go into now. It will have many allies (including Russia) to come in and help keep it alive, or breath life back into it if it falls in GL40. I’m sure Larry has learned from AA50, he has even acknowledged the short comings w/China and possible improvements in the future. There are many improvements concerning China in the new game. The flying tiger is protected at the start. China gets it own income and turn. The Burma road is rather cool, allowing China to purchase art, and get an NO bonus. I don’t think you can pass judgment on the global game, or say some part is broken w/o first seeing how it all works out.

ACME walls always have annoying effects, like when India is taken by Japan and China cannot reopen the Burma Road because of that silly ACME wall  :-P

For chinamen escaping to USSR, that’s simple. USSR and China should not start allied, so China cannot escape to USSR unless Japan is attacking soviets or if axis take novo or kaz. That’s enough reason for japs not attacking USSR. And USSR should not be DOWing japs unless Berlin falls or unless China or Persia falls

@Funcioneta:

ACME walls always have annoying effects, like when India is taken by Japan and China cannot reopen the Burma Road because of that silly ACME wall  :-P

You often talk about China not being able to attack into other tt the w/acme wall like Burma road (India). In actuality China wouldn’t be attacking in most cases it would be retreating. I still think it would be far more damaging for game play to allow them to totally vacate their counties boarders (all 18 of them + 2 UK). If you open china up to go anywhere (it would have to be a two way street), then you may as well just start them off as US units. 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. 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

@Funcioneta:

For chinamen escaping to USSR, that’s simple. USSR and China should not start allied, so China cannot escape to USSR unless Japan is attacking soviets or if axis take novo or kaz. That’s enough reason for japs not attacking USSR. And USSR should not be DOWing japs unless Berlin falls or unless China or Persia falls

Its well known that Japan feared Russia, especially when it got its A$$ kick early on. Russia likewise didn’t want to exhaust resources into yet another front, that’s all a given. The reality is that this is a game. We are able to toss the NAP right out the window, just as Germany did with its treaty when it invaded Russia. In this game you don’t have to follow history, hence the fact that the game starts in the summer of 1940. If you don’t want to perform Barbarossa, then don’t, do a Sea lion instead. If Japan vacates Manchuria to take out China, then why should there be some BS rule (acme wall) protecting them from a Russian invasion. The same would be the case of Russia vacating Siberia to head to Moscow. If they leave it weak you should be able to take it. If you really think about it a NAP would in actuality be putting in more acme walls.

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.

What about an air and naval base in Norway for Germany, would this be able to hit Scotland tt?

@Krupp:

What about an air and naval base in Norway for Germany, would this be able to hit Scotland tt?

Until we see the new board, we won’t know for certain, but I would suspect yes.

@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

@Funcioneta:

@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.

@Funcioneta:

@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

@Funcioneta:

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

@Funcioneta:

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

@Funcioneta:

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.

@Funcioneta:

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.