What if I dont want to do it larrys way?

I wonder how long US will have to wait in Europe game.

@Brain:

I wonder how long US will have to wait in Europe game.

I would think the US political stuff would be similar. US 3rd round Dec Of War (leading to a large IPC bonus), then able to attack on US 4th turn. Germany/Italy will be able to attack the US at any time (same as Jap) to trigger the US war time economy. The only difference is that UK/France will be at war with Germany/Italy. There won’t be any if G/I attacks UK/F first then that brings US in, because they’re already at war at the start of the game.
I don’t think that an axis assault on Russia will bring about any US involvement.
I could see if Germany attempts a sea lion, then the US is automatically in the war however, or maybe only if its a successful sea lion (SBR not included). I would like to think the US would have come to its parents aid (we were already aiding and a bedding). I would think that it would be the 3rd round before Germany could attempt such a feat though, so the US would be declaring war any way. The only dif would be they could attack in the 3rd rd instead of just declaring war at the end of their turn.

@SgtBlitz:

Hmmm, historically, Germany had just signed a non-aggression treaty with the Soviet Union in Aug 1939, in which they partitioned Poland.  The West viewed this as a stab-in-the-back since Hitler’s Germany was supposed to be a bulwark of Western civilization against the Communists in Russia.  A lot of Western politicians (Neville Chamberlain, specifically) had also been willing to back Hitler through his aggressive tactics in acquiring the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia from 1936-1938 since he had been such a loud and fierce opponent of the Communists.   A lot of the decision to declare war by the Western Powers on Germany if it invaded Poland was based on the weariness of playing the back and forth both sides game between the East and West.  Plus obviously Hitler could not be trusted.

Though, Germany DID backstab the Reds in Jun 1941, only 2 years after signing the non-aggression pact, so invading in 1940 probably wouldn’t be that much different…  Wonder how Larry is going to put in the peace treaty between the Reds and Germany at game start?  Or if its possible to reswitch alliances between the East to West again and be at peace with France and UK at beginning?

With the Soviet militarization and industrialization (begun in the late '20s), and Germany’s militarization (begun in the early '30s), many felt conflict between the two sides was inevitable. But it was far from clear that the Western democracies would take the German side. Motivated by some combination of pro-communism and anti-Germanism, the French government signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. The Czech government did the same thing that same year. Many felt that if or when war came, it would be Germany on one side and the Western democracies plus the Soviets on the other. The Germans would stand no chance in such a war, which is why many nations chose pro-communist/democratic foreign policies in the late '30s.

The fact that things didn’t turn out that way was not due to any lack of eagerness on the Western democracies’ part. The plan failed because of Joseph Stalin, who regarded both the Nazis and the Western democracies as enemies. Knowing that Germany would be roughly equally matched in a war against Britain and France, Stalin hoped for a long, grinding, devastating war between the two sides; similar to WWI. A war which did not involve the Soviet Union. After the Nazis and the Western democracies had been bled white fighting each other, the Red Army would move into the heart of Europe to fill the resulting power vacuum.

In 1939, France and Britain made two specific promises to Poland:
1. If Poland was invaded by Germany, the British and French would declare war on Germany. This promise did not apply to a Soviet invasion.
2. France would launch a full-scale invasion of Germany within 15 days of the start of the war.

While the first promise was kept, the second was ignored. Poland, having relied on false promises from the French government, was put in a terrible position. The Polish government had opted against reconciliation with Germany (which would have required the return of Polish-occupied German territory) or a reconciliation with the Soviet Union (which would have required a significant westward adjustment of the Polish-Soviet border). The Polish foreign policy would have represented a serious calculated risk even if its Western democratic allies had kept their promises. The fact that they didn’t turned Poland’s foreign policy into sheer suicide.

The next question is why the French government chose to mislead the Polish government both before and during the invasion of Poland. While there are many possible explanations for that, I feel the below is the most likely.
1. The French government had decided it was time to go to war against Germany. By the spring of 1940, Allied military strength in France–in terms of men and tanks–was equivalent or superior to its German counterpart. Plus Britain and France, combined, had significantly more military production capacity than the Germans.
2. To persuade the French and British people to go along with that war, some trigger was needed. A German invasion of Poland was one potential trigger.
3. The French wanted a defensive war, especially after their experience in WWI. French military doctrine of 1939 was based on fighting on defense, a fact reflected in the French military’s construction of the Maginot Line.

The deliberate sacrifice of Poland would have represented a way for the French government to get the defensive war against Germany it thought it wanted. While other possible explanations of the French foreign policy of 1939 could perhaps be devised, the idea that the French government was somehow trying to help Poland is not supported by the evidence.

Couldn’t you attack Russia with Germany and let Italy tackle the french?  Perhaps with a little hit from germany using there inf and planes on the border, sending all there mech/arms directly toward russia turn 1 for a turn 2 assault?

Sounds like a good idea to me  :-D

Italy only went to war when Mussolini saw that France was defeated, and wanted to get in on the act before the surrender.

In fact, Hitler was worried about Italy joining in earlier, as this would’ve diverted some of the French air force south when Hitler wanted to destroy it completely in the north.

Mussolini’s later decision to attack Greece rather than press towards Egypt was provoked by Hitler stationing troops in Romania without telling the Italians; this was fatal to the African campaign, and Hitler had wanted the Balkans “quiet” before Barbarossa.

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

Until this it sold arms to Britain, and eventually sent some obsolete destroyers to Canada, most of which were never used.  More important were supplies of American armour to the north African campaign.

@Flashman:

America should only ever go to war if attacked….

Sadly, I think one of the safest bets to be made about AAE40 is that that won’t be in the rules.

American neutrality will no doubt vanish magically after three turns.

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

@Brain:

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

If the UK player could draw on a “neutral” US economy… tan ships appearing in New England, that might be a stimulus to attack.

I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.

@Brain:

I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.

Probably not. Although, in general, I suspect the global game - being optional - will be more complicated than the average WOTC work.

@allboxcars:

@Brain:

I don’t think they(WOTC) want to make the game that complicated.

Probably not. Although, in general, I suspect the global game - being optional - will be more complicated than the average WOTC work.

Let us hope so.

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

@Brain:

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.

While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.

After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.

24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.

Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.

This would require some serious play-testing.

@KurtGodel7:

America should only ever go to war if attacked; FDR didn’t dare send American boys to fight overseas otherwise, even after getting re-elected in November.

@Brain:

Well then nobody would ever attack the US in the game.

Both of you have good points. I’m tempted to address this issue in my rules set. The below text is an idea I’ve recently come up with, and which I haven’t yet posted to that rules set.

While the U.S. is neutral, it can do the following:
1. Collect and spend IPCs.
2. Load up to 24 IPCs onto its transports each turn. (A transport can hold 6 IPCs, so we’re talking four transports total.) These IPCs can be shipped and unloaded into friendly factories, and become the property of whichever nation owns the factories.
3. Build and move units. But it pays double the price for any units it builds.
4. It can move tanks, artillery, and planes onto the soil of other Allied players. At the end of each Ally’s turn, whatever American units happen to be on that player’s soil become the property of that player. (Does not apply to American units on Canadian soil.)
5. It can conduct research. However, the U.S. is limited to only one research center while neutral.
6. It can initiate attacks against German naval forces in the Atlantic, just as it did in 1940 while still technically neutral.

After the U.S. is attacked, the following happens:
1. All the IPCs and MPs it may have stored are returned to the bank. Immediately after the attacker has concluded his attacks, the U.S. performs a one-time collect income action to make up for this. (This is to prevent the U.S. player from stockpiling IPCs while waiting for unit prices to fall.)
2. The U.S. player can now only load 12 IPCs onto transports each turn.
3. American units on non-American Allied soil no longer become the property of other Allies.
4. The U.S. is allowed to build additional research centers.
5. The U.S. can attack Axis players without restrictions.

24 IPCs of lend-lease may seem like a lot. But bear in mind that the U.S.'s starting income is 71 IPCs, and will grow to 126 IPCs over the course of the game through industrializations.

Under this rules set, would it be worthwhile for the Axis to attack the U.S.? Possibly. The U.S. is required to have a lot of transports in various places to collect its full income; with each missing transport associated with a 3 IPC economic penalty. Taking a bite out of that transport fleet would create a temporary income penalty for the U.S. Then the U.S. would have to build replacement transports, plus the military ships with which to defend them. It would likely be four or more rounds before the U.S. had fully recovered from the initial Axis naval attacks. Plus, there’s something to be said for forcing the U.S. to attack separately from other Allies, rather than merging its units with those of the British, or, worse, the Soviets! Under these circumstances, I think that in some games, the optimal strategy would be to attack the U.S.; and in other games the Axis players would be better off leaving it alone.

Yeargh!!!  Complicated!!!11!1  Axis and allies realism only goes so far; at some point one has to draw the line.  Convoy zones are enough abstraction as is.  This just sounds like way too many rules to add to the already convoluted 1940 rulebook.

The suggested ending US income of 126 IPCs proves a point about the lopsidedness of the Axis predicament, however.  I just don’t see how its feasible for Axis victory when the Allies have such a huge base defended by several turns of SZs with insane purchasing capacity.  With the Axis powers on opposite sides of the map, there’s no way either side can hold a 125 IPC juggernaut off for long.  At least one front is going to have to cave; guess this will be Larry’s approximation of “balance”.

The Axis needs to shift the balance early in the game before the US gets involved.

@Brain:

The Axis needs to shift the balance early in the game before the US gets involved.

Agreed.

You have to analyse and recreate the reasons why Germany and Japan decided to go to war with the USA.

In the case of Japan, it was being squeezed economically by the West, and decided to take control of things.  It needed the oil of the DEI with it’s large supply of ORANGE TRIANGLES, and considered that the USN was the only force capable of stopping it getting what it wanted.  So: wipe out this force with a surprise attack, in the knowledge that Germany and Italy were committed to joining in the battle, and that Russia was powerless to intervene.

The navy had been nagging Hitler to let the U boats loose on American shipping for months, so declaring war freed them to get on with a war they knew would come eventually BEFORE the Americans were fully mobilised, and were in any case now engaged in the Pacific, which Hitler wrongly assumed the US would give priority to.

I think the key is to place enough convoy zones in the Atlantic representing US aid to Britain that Germany simply HAS to intervene to stop these supplying the UK with income/units.

Although the Tripartite Pact was not signed until August, assume that the general principle stands: if one of the 3 main Axis powers becomes at war with the USA, they all declare war automatically.

Incidentally, the USA should in no way supply aid to the USSR until it is at war with Germany!

I don’t like the idea of American units “converting” to Soviet pieces; otherwise the game will just become another race to pile the largest stack of units into Russia.

The Tripartite Pact between Japan, Germany, and Italy, 1940

The Governments of Japan, Germany, and Italy consider it the prerequisite of a lasting peace that every nation in the world shall receive the space to which it is entitled. They have, therefore, decided to stand by and cooperate with one another in their efforts in the regions of Europe and Greater East Asia respectively. In doing this it is their prime purpose to establish and maintain a new order of things, calculated to promote the mutual prosperity and welfare of the peoples concerned. It is, furthermore, the desire of the three Governments to extend cooperation to nations in other spheres of the world that are inclined to direct their efforts along lines similar to their own for the purpose of realizing their ultimate object, world peace. Accordingly, the Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1. Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in the establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE 2. Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in Greater East Asia.
ARTICLE 3. Japan, Germany, and Italy agree to cooperate in their efforts on aforesaid lines. They further undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked by a Power at present not involved in the European War or in the Japanese-Chinese conflict.
ARTICLE 4. With a view to implementing the present pact, joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay.
ARTICLE 5. Japan, Germany and Italy affirm that the above agreement affects in no way the political status existing at present between each of the three Contracting Powers and Soviet Russia.
ARTICLE 6. The present pact shall become valid immediately upon signature and shall remain in force ten years from the date on which it becomes effective. In due time, before the expiration of said term, the High Contracting Parties shall, at the request of any one of them, enter into negotiations for its renewal.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1941/411211b.html

I agree because of the Tripartite Pact (Sep 27th 1940) that the axis would be all for one, and one for all w/US, if brought into the war. In my mind by time the Pacific side rolls around it would be entering the fall anyway. If we are working on aprox 6 month windows (per rd), any thing that happened in that time could be reflected in the game even in a slightly different order.

As you Flash, I think Hitler grossly under estimated the fact that we would commit more resources to the Euro side, then the Pacific. Its also worth noting that Japan thought that by destroying the bulk of the US fleet, that it could push the US out of the Pacific, maybe forcing an armistices of some kind. They also grossly under estimated our resolve (and the fact we could read their codes didn’t hurt). The comment about Japan knowing Stalin would not attack, in fear of a German reprisal is a good point, but at that time Stalin thought he was going to be part of the Tripartite pact. The fact that Japan also sought a NAP w/Russia shows how fearful they were, or they had a feeling Germany would turn on Russia at some point, or vise/versa.

I think its nearly comical that neither Germany or Japan got what they expected from the Tripartite Pact. Hitler wanted Japan to engage Russia from Manchuria (didn’t happen Japan signed NAP 6 months later). He also had a plan for a German/Japanese attack on India (bringing both power together), w/both taking tt along the way (both faltered on this plan). Much of India was was anti British, parts of its armed forces defected to the axis in N Africa. Axis control of the Indian ocean and the Suez would have cut off the Med from the east. Would have meant no aid to Russia through Persia. It would have also given Hitler a southern attack route on the Caucasus, as well as the oil that both nations desperately needed. Instead Japan chose to go after DEI and invite the US into the war, much earlier then Hitler would have wanted IMO, although as said before he thought the US focal point would be Japan. He did however fulfill his obligations and declare war on the US.

There was also a joint adventure planned later for the Vichy French Madagascar, to again gain control of the Indian ocean. The Japanese army actually sent an invasion force that it recalled because of infighting between its army/navy and a different use for those forces. The Germans I believe had sent subs to the area to aid in the takeover and was pressuring the VF government. Germany also sent a lot of tech, many of the Jap planes had German engineered engines and so on. IMO, Japan time after time fell a little short with its axis commitments, somewhat like Italy. There were talks and plans involving the original members of the Tripartite Pact, they just kept screwing each other. :-D