in AAP, they (the Marines) cost 4 and attacked at 1 unless it was an amphibiaus asssualt, then they attacked at 2. currently, artillery would be the better buy because they always attack at 2.
Yes, but remember that the Marines did attack at 3 or less if amphibious assaulting together with a matching artillery. That was a lot of bang for the bucks. Too bad Larry dont want them.
This is off topic, and they deserve a dedicated thread, butt since we are at it, Razor think the Marines should go free on a tranny, as their special ability. Just think about it. An infantry unit or a tank unit, or an artillery unit, they all are attached to large supply and support units with trucks and horses, that takes a lot of space on a tranny. A Marine unit is only the men, since they will be supplyed from their ships.
Come to think about it, Marines should be able to travel on destroyers or cruisers. Like one DD takes one matching Marine as cargo.
Also let me comment on the actual topic. I dont like special rules for split income. I know we need them, but I dont like them. I think the player should decide where he wants to place his units. If he wants to place all in one theater, thats OK to me. And as long as it is team victory conditions, he might get away with it too. If the game had individual victory conditions, then no player could afford to ignore any theater. It would be like the real war, everybody looks out for everybody. The only fix this game need is individual victory conditions. Now go tell Larry that.
If the US player leans too heavily towards any one theater while ignoring the other, I’ve a feeling the Axis player in the other theater will run rampant. We shall see.
If one is running rampant, then the other should be getting squashed.
After reading this I like the idea of making the US fight a 2 front war with victory conditions.
How about this: AAP and AAE are played simultaneously, if the Japanese meet the AAP1940 victory requirements in the pacific then the Axis win. If Germany and Italy meet the victory requirements in in AAE1940 then the Axis win. (Likewise for the Allies) That way to prevent an axis win the US will need to keep the axis occupied in both theaters.
I am thinking since both versions of the game are balanced by themselves it should still be balanced when they are combined. No special rules required:)
But the Pacific game wont be balanced after the Far East Russian territories are mobilized.
Good point
But the Pacific game wont be balanced after the Far East Russian territories are mobilized.
They must have accounted for this on the merged game. We only have part of the info so far. Without seeing Europe merged with Pacific it’s going to be very hard to guess the ‘balance’.
Non agression pact will be standard in europe, its referanced in the pacific rule book that it cant be violated
Im supposing the europe book will have a condtion that if either power attacks eachother that power immidatly forefits its ability to collect upon ANY national objective bonus income. For japan in a global game…thats not that bad. The army’s northern plan aimed to attack russia, but this will be a near imposible task in 1940…And russia just plain wont want to break it…the tanks and mech infantry are fast enough to be pulled west to moscow, so losing your NOs on a fools errand in the east wont happen
The far east front has to represent one thing…because it IS NOT the route to moscow like it is in Revised etc. It has to represent the fear each power had of eachother. Russia HAD to use the sibeiran divisions to save moscow, and you probably will have to leech some of in 1940 leaving youurself exposed. And Japan feared the soviets leaping across the border and cracking open the bread basket of Korea and Manchuria
They both didnt want to break it, but there has to be the ablity to break it…it would just be foolish to break it
The far east front has to represent one thing….
They both didnt want to break [the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact], but there has to be the ablity to break it…it would just be foolish to break it
Totally agreed.
The far east front has to represent one thing….
They both didnt want to break [the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact], but there has to be the ablity to break it…it would just be foolish to break itTotally agreed.
How about having a rule where whoever breaks the pact goes to bed without supper?
Or at least pays for the pizza
Pizza and A&A, what a combo.
Maybe Japan can choose EITHER to attack the Soviets OR the Westerners. It cannot fight both (unless attacked by the other) until the one war has been finished, i.e. Moscow has fallen, or either London or Washington has fallen.
Similarly USSR has the option to fight either; unless it finds itself attacked on two fronts.
This is really an extension backwards of my old NAT rules for 1942.
With the overall grand strategic concept of which A&A is designed, it doesn’t make any differences between different kind of resources. So 2 ipc is 2 ipc, plain and simple. Thats why it pays off for Japan to attack Russia.
There is no oil and steel in A&A, there is only money (ipc) to take and to protect.
So thats why 2 Russian TTs which is 2 ipc each, is as good as Borneo or East Indies in A&A (at least AA50). In the real war Japan needed oil. In A&A all you need is money.
Capice?
lol they needed rubber and steel too. but yes i see your point. but isnt it against the rules for japan to attack russia?
@Subotai:
With the overall grand strategic concept of which A&A is designed, it doesn’t make any differences between different kind of resources. So 2 ipc is 2 ipc, plain and simple. Thats why it pays off for Japan to attack Russia.
There is no oil and steel in A&A, there is only money (ipc) to take and to protect.
So thats why 2 Russian TTs which is 2 ipc each, is as good as Borneo or East Indies in A&A (at least AA50). In the real war Japan needed oil. In A&A all you need is money.Capice?
Exactly and in A&A there is lots of easy Russian territories that are up for grabs, All you need is a few tanks and you are in business.
if the russians TT were 0 up North, would Japan still go for them?
Yes, because the real reason Japan sends tanks to Moscow is to knock the Soviets out of the war ASAP. Even the money and income from Moscow isn’t as important as clearing the Eurasian landmass of Allied forces; just consider how much shorter the front lines the Axis defends now become. It’s about reducing the Allied position more than boosting that of Japan.
Of course if you make it a four of five player game (with individual winning conditions) then everything changes, as it’s Germany which is more likely to benefit in the long term from the fall of Russia.
Even then, racing the Germans to Moscow may be worth doing while your navy holds off any US Pacific build that may materialise. More likely the yanks will have sent units to save Moscow, or perhaps take Berlin before Moscow falls.
After an initial strike to gobble up valuable islands, the land route into Russia will always be the optimum strategy unless the treaty is put in place (1942+), or Japan is forbidden from attacking on both fronts until one enemy has been defeated (1940).
if the russians TT were 0 up North, would Japan still go for them?
That is one way of designing strategic abstractions in A&A which is related to WW2. Increase the ipc value of TTs close to Moscow and Moscow itself, (in the global game), then the Japanese must take two or three TTs before being able to gain anything in attacking Russia, Siberian TTs should be worth less according to historic realism.
This is much better, imo, than silly non-aggression pacts which were notoriously broken both before and during WW2.
