Agree, and Razor also think it should be individual victory conditions. In fact there never was no teamwork. In late 1945 USA threatened to nuke Russia if they did not move out from Iran/Persia. Razor remember the MB classic editon had an option to choose an individual winner by their % of IPC gain. Also if playing in tournaments, it would be nice to have a system with individual a winner, a second, etc etc.
Exactly WW2 had ZERO teamwork with these exceptions:
UK and USA in Europe
Germany tells Italy what to do because they pay their bills.
The Soviets didn’t trust anybody
The British didn’t trust the Soviets
Italy just wanted the trains to run on time, and the have a large lake known as the Mediterranean.
Spain wanted to be on the winning side after it won
USA just wanted to keep Democracy alive after 1945
Japan wanted its own dominion in the pacific
Germany wanted a free hand in Europe
Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungry all wanted parts of western Russia for farming and lucrative contracts from the Reich.
Nothing else existed.
You forgot France
Remember that the Soviets weren’t at war with Japan until after Hiroshima, so didn’t allow Allied planes to use Russian air space to attack Japan.
The Soviet-Japan relationship is crucial if the game is to end up playing anything like WWII.
Look at all the comment on pacific right now, if the US decide to only run the european war, Japan would steamroll over the pacific Without any resistance, so Germany would only have to stall until Japan can put a winning move, it would be a race to the finish but I’m pretty sure Axis would win.
Same thing if the US commit to only to the pacific, Japan just keep the american occupied while Germany take total control over Europe.
So american must back up it’s allies on both side for them not to be overrun.
Also I do believe the declaration of war will also be in effect in europe, so Germany will have time to built up and smash some face before the US become the usual war machine and the axis will have to play that card the best they can in the global war to get the most of the sleeping giant phase.
The Soviet-Japan relationship is crucial if the game is to end up playing anything like WWII.
I like tha ability for the Soveits and Japanese to fight each other early than they did historicaly. They had aleready gone to war in 1939 and both were fearful of the other invading throughout the war until in fact one of them did.
If the Soveits and Japanese did not have to worry about maintaining their defences in Siberia and Manchuria it would take a small but important strategic dimention away from the game.
Of course it should take alot for Japan to reach moscow, but it would not be all that unreasonable for Japan to attack the SU and capture pacific coast… at least compared to everything else that tends to happen in A&A.
But Japan wouldn’t have launched the Pacific war without the Russian treaty. Although of course at this point they probably thought Hitler would finish off the Soviets anyway.
Most importantly, without the treaty the whole Moscow Tank Magnet effect kicks in and warps the whole game into the too familiar pattern of the Axis powers crushing Russia between them.
With the treaty Japan has to attack the Western Allies, who in turn have to give significant attention to the Pacific war, thus no need for artificially splitting US income.
Keep in mind Tanks cost 6 IPC now. Razor hardly doubt Japan will try Tank Push Mechanic in this edition.
There was a lot of back stabbing going on in WWII. Hitler did it to Stalin, Franco backed out on Hitler, England walk out on France(although forced). I don’t see how you could hold any merit for any of the treaties or agreements of the time. They weren’t worth the paper they were written on. If Japan hadn’t bitten off more then they could chew with the US they could have attacked Russia’s back door at any time. I’m still not sure why they nailed Pearl. I guess they thought they could scare us into signing some type of agreement allowing them to do as they pleased in the Pacific as long as they left us alone. The Tripartite Pact also guaranteed that Germany and Italy would join in against the US (another deterrent aimed at keeping the US from declaring war). Boy that backfired, now Roosevelt had the ammo he needed.
When this game starts the US is not at war. Hitler felt he would be parading through Moscow by late fall of 1941, just as he did in Paris in the spring of 1940. If Hitler could have got Japan to attack Russia’s back door around the time of Barbarossa (a double back stabbing on Stalin) Hitler might have got his parade. There were open talks of Japan ending its nonaggression pact with Russia, because of the Tripartite Pact it had prior with Germany. Japan instead decided to go after the Euro colonies in the Pacific and invite the US into the war.
This game starts before all this. You as ruler of Japan can do what ever you want especially the first couple rounds. In the global game if you want to attack Siberia then as Tiger Woods would say “just do it!”
I would think that in the global game a Japanese attack on Russia would not bring the US into the war, just as attacking China won’t.
Keep in mind Tanks cost 6 IPC now. Razor hardly doubt Japan will try Tank Push Mechanic in this edition.
That’s a good point Raztag, WB thinks that a Jap push through India would be better. Kill 2 birds 1 stone that way. Now you have an IC closer to pump out cheaper units to really stick the Caucaus. That will tie up Russia enough for Germany to sack Moscow. You will have to make good def against USA though or they will kick your a$$.
Japan could not get to Moscow if Stalin gave them a ride on the Trans Siberian railway.
It was not feasible and Japan had no claims to anything remotely more than a replay of 1904-5 and the area relating to that. Japan would never attack China, USA, and USSR at the same time and could not address any of her claims for resources with some attack against the Soviet border.
There is nothing of value for Japan in that part of Russia, except the coastal areas.
If Japan could not get farther than basically the coast of China in 10 years of fighting, how do they even conceive of attacking and holding any more of Russia?
This is not even possible and should not be possible in a game that has anything to do with reality.
On another note: Hopefully this global game will return AA to a social multiplayer environment and no more of the ‘one guy playing 3-4 sides thing’
@Imperious:
On another note: Hopefully this global game will return AA to a social multiplayer environment and no more of the ‘one guy playing 3-4 sides thing’
Only an individual victory condition will make that happen.
yes thats true.
@Imperious:
On another note: Hopefully this global game will return AA to a social multiplayer environment and no more of the ‘one guy playing 3-4 sides thing’
Do you really think their will be individual vicotry in the global game? I would think larry would have talked more about that.
it seems like a great concept.
I think it will already be more social/manyplayer oriented since their are so many units and space for one person to think about.
I look at A&A as a 2 player game so I couldn’t care less about an individual country being the winner.
@Brain:
I look at A&A as a 2 player game so I couldn’t care less about an individual country being the winner.
Really? I find it much more fun with all the spots filled.
@Brain:
I look at A&A as a 2 player game so I couldn’t care less about an individual country being the winner.
Really? I find it much more fun with all the spots filled.
I’m a control freak.
Regarding the non aggresion pact:
I’m not saying that Japan should have went full force against Russia in Siberia, they only needed to start minor skirmishes to keep the Russian guessing. The axis had discussions about a 2 front Russian assault, its documented. It took Stalin 2 weeks to absorb the fact the his buddy Hitler stabbed him in the back, if the Japs came at him too it might have really sent him over the edge. The Siberian reserves were a big part of the counter attacks later when the tide turned. If Stalin was fighting a 2 front war (even if the Asian side was only a decoy) its safe to say there wouldn’t have been as much of a Russian counter punch. Remember the axis time table was for Russia to fall before the US got involved. Of coarse England was supposed to fall before Russia was attacked too. And if Hitler was a woman she’d be really ugly.
Japan concluded a non-aggression pact with Stalin before it attacked Hawaii. Tojo already figured out nothing of value would be gained by attacking the Russians because it had nothing to do with the oil Japan needed in south east Asia. Her claims lay in the Pacific and she wanted the Europeans out of Asia into some pan-asian empire controlled by japan. Russia was not part of that equation, let alone sending really light and slow tanks 10,000 miles to attack Moscow.
Japan had no inclination to help Germany, except that whey would be fighting the same foes, but for entirely different reasons…. their own.
If each axis has it’s own VC to be met individually, the idea to help the other is a waste, so playing them both and perfectly coordinating them might just end.
When you think about it, Hitler was pretty alliance minded, he helped Franco as much as he could and wanted some help in return, he saved Mussolini after his debacles in Libya, Greece, and Italy itself, he declared war on the US after it declared war, upholding his allegiance with Japan, and he helped the Finns against the Russians.
And all the while, whoever Hitler helped just ended up not returning the favor, Franco never came through, Japan never attacked Russia, Italy Surrendered and Finland…well they couldn’t do much anyway with the bear breathing down their neck.
On the Split income issue…how will tech work, the US can buy tech tokens with its Pacific money?
So if you REALLY wanted to KGF you just buy all planes and tech from Western US, and use them in the Atlantic.
Not like id ever do that…im a fan of a 2 front US
