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
Maybe their could be a minimum amount that they must spend in each theatre.
Let’s not forget that spending in one theater doesn’t force USA to play in that theater. He can still move his troops around…
Say he wants to go only Europe (i don’t know, a new player’s strategy), he can use the pacific money to buy only fighters/tac/bombers and send them all in non-combat toward Europe
yes thats it true, but Japan can win because they most likely in the global game will have their own VC and it wont be tied to Germany where they have to tag team Stalin
Let’s not forget that spending in one theater doesn’t force USA to play in that theater. He can still move his troops around…
Say he wants to go only Europe (i don’t know, a new player’s strategy), he can use the pacific money to buy only fighters/tac/bombers and send them all in non-combat toward Europe
Well that pretty much ends this discussion.
I do like the idea of individual victory conditions. Maybe they could be optional. But I like the idea of the Russian player not really coordinating a whole lot with the allies, but just having common enemies to fight. I think it could make the game really interesting if victory could go to the allies, the axis, or the commintern(Russia), not saying that the allies and russians would fight each other, but maybe the side with the most victory cities in the end would be the overall winner
@Imperious:
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’
The A&A games have very little to do with reality, for obvious reasons, a strategy boardgame can only be so detailed and advanced before it gets unplayable. One of many factors is that the ipc/money element in A&A don’t differ between oil, steel and the total number of citizens (soldiers) a nation can produce.
I guess most f2f playgroups are multiplayer environments, but the online A&A communities will still be both 1vs1 and multi. The reason for this is obvious, different players have different preferences, just like there are different opinions on tech/no-tech, LL and other options.
For many experienced players, (like myself) it’s not fun to play multi, and this is not only b/c we’re all expert players, (I’m not a top player or an expert), it’s b/c we have strong opinions on what strategies and tactics that are the most effective, or fun, to achieve victory.
@WILD:
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.
Think Japan attacked Pearl Harbor more out of a sense of regaining honor, the US had been playing rough with them diplomatically about the Chinese, and had cut off their oil supply they needed to run their war machine. Basically Japan saw no way out once they realized they had no way to obtain oil except for the euro colonies in Borneo and East Indies, which were technically under protection from the Brits and the US. I guess they thought they were knocking out two birds with one stone by sinking the American battleship fleet and going for broke in the Pacific.
Japan attacking Russia, well, either side wasn’t really interested in what Eastern Russia/Manchuria had to offer, though they had several skirmishes. Neither side wanted a worthless war over a bunch of crap land, but Russia and Japan had bad blood since WWI, so its feasible the skirmishes could have been pushed into a war. If, however, the Axis alliance had been a bit more together from the beginning and Germany had let Japan know about its designs on Russia, maybe they would have been in on Barbarossa. And you can do that in this game! Whether it will actually be worthwhile with all the new territories is probably another matter.
Seems like third round, anything goes! Though US prob going to be pretty boring to play until round 3. Guess the games will be a lot longer :( .
Jesus though, how much money will America start the war with? 100+ IPCs? I mean it makes sense, the US really was the reason the Allies turned the war around in terms of equipment and resources, but still, will the Axis have a prayer if the US can just suddenly plop down 100+ IPCs of units on the East coast for 3 turns after war dec and walk through France?
Guess its supposed to be unbalancing, US entering the war. I guess there’ll be limits on how many units the east and west coast can pop per turn too.
And if Hitler was a woman she’d be really ugly.
This is important. Hitler wasn’t exactly a good looking guy though, was he? If he’d been an ugly woman he would’ve at least had the genitals to guarantee him sex, even if they didn’t guarantee him love.
Question: If Hitler had gotten laid more, would he have been the way he was? Feminists might see that as laying the blame for insane men at the feet of women – which I’m not trying to do. I do believe, however, that some of the men out there who go nuts and kill people might not have done so had they had a decent share of trim. Thoughts?
Her claims lay in the Pacific and she wanted the Europeans out of Asia into some pan-asian empire controlled by japan.
That always seemed a flimsy idea; “We want those foreigner Europeans out so we can rule Asia with an iron fist (since all Asians are inferior to the Japanese).”
Russia was not part of that equation, let alone sending really light and slow tanks 10,000 miles to attack Moscow.
Whenever I think of the “what if the Japanese had attacked Russia” hypothesis, I am always thinking in terms of a limited military campaign to show support to the Germans and to redraw some of the borders of Manchuko in Japanese favour. I never think of vast armies moving with the intention of reaching Moscow. More of a ‘force the Russians hands’ than a ‘defeat Russia with the might of Japan’. I also picture it as a part of the whole Pacific naval campaign. I think they could have carried out a moderate sized engagement in the north of Manchuko without affecting anything else they did (even if their intention was not victory). After all, the Manchuko army just sat there most of the time. Doing this might also have allowed their military vessels to attack the Soviet/US shipping that was supporting Russia through their waters, which might’ve had a significant impact on Russia’s military mobility (does anyone have any figures on lend-lease equipment to Russia - from whom and how many?)
Let’s face it, the Russian’s did end up breaking their non-aggression pact and attacking the Japanese, and they did it with equipment that the Japanese had allowed them to have which was being given to them by the US who the Japanese were at war with! Crazy!
I agree, though; with the Japanese mindset how it was, the attack was never going to happen. They seemed (on one level) to honour their treaties. They also treated any area tainted with failure as a closed door. They were like the kid that plays a game, loses, and then will not consider playing that game again.
Before the traditional Spring/Summer 1942 start I generally favour a 4 player game; European Axis, USSR/CCP, F/UK/USA/KMT, and Japan.
Each of these has it’s own objectives, and any “Alliance” with another player is purely honourary.
In theory each player will have to give roughly equal attention to it’s two potential historical enemies, otherwise it is handing a big advantage to whichever HE it doesn’t attack.
Theoretically the WA can attack the Communists (or VV), or Germany and co can attack Japan (or VV); but in neither case would it make much sense on purely geographical grounds. The two “Grand Alliances” were based purely on having a threatening mutual enemy; USSR never saw Japan as a threat so didn’t attack it until Hitler was beaten.
For Germany in 1941, it made sense to attack it’s Soviet friends in order to gain Russian resources considered necessary for the ultimate battle with a fully mobilised USA. But suppose the Reds attacked first and gained huge inroads into Europe; the Democracies may have been persuaded to throw in their lot with Hitler and defend Germany. If this sounds far fetched, remember that Churchill had called Mussollini the “First Statesman of Europe”, and that he’d called for Britain to send troops to Finland to fight Stalin. After the war he commented that he might have “Killed the wrong Pig”.
Nevertheless the R-J treaty should be given serious consideration; Japan wouldn’t have launched PH without it, neither would Stalin have been able to send so many Siberian divisions to the defence of Moscow.
@Army:
I agree, though; with the Japanese mindset how it was, the attack was never going to happen. They seemed (on one level) to honour their treaties. They also treated any area tainted with failure as a closed door. They were like the kid that plays a game, loses, and then will not consider playing that game again.
You’ve touched on a critical point there AoNV. The Japanese fought significant skirmishes with the Russians on a couple of occasions in the late 1930’s some of them with Zhukov himself commanding the Russian soldiers. The important thing was: The Japanese got their asses handed to them every time. As a result they were not keen of fighting Russia ever again. The non-aggression treaty was Japan’s idea; it existed because the Japanese were literally afraid of the Russians.
Perhaps AA does a poor job of representing how incapable the Japanese were, not only of getting to Moscow, but at capturing any territory whatsoever inside Russia after the 1930’s.
It seems like the game mechanics of the traditional global AA games (41 and 42) always encouraged Russia to split its income and the US to pool its income.
My guess is the VC conditions in the Pacific will force the US to make a big commitment here, even if they are not required in the rules to split their income. There just seem to be many more prizes for the Japanese to take in south Asia and the Pacific and the consequences are bigger for the allies of she gets them.
As far as Russia goes, I think the larger China and more territories in Siberia and the Far East should keep Japan out of Russia’s way, at the most we could see a little “keeping them honest” strike like you described.
The again, it’s more than likely that, given the diplomatic dynamics of the current versions, Larry will clearly lay out in the rules a necessary build in the Pacific for US and/or an non-aggression between Japan and Russia. I hope not though.
Alternatively, did anyone ever think that the maximum builds per factory might make the US make a bigger commitment to the Pacific? I realize that its easy to just march troops 2 spaces from WUS to EUS but that holds up your forces quite a bit. Perhaps this combined with the greater significance of the South Pacific as far as winning the game goes, will force the US to commit to both theatres.
Every other player has to decide how to split it’s resources between fronts, so it seems odd to deny the US the same privilege.
There are other, better ways of representing the need to balance; i.e. the four-player game:
Pump everything into Europe, and see a Japanese monster eat up the world; go all out in the Pacific and have a huge German empire to deal with in future.
As far as Russia goes, I think the larger China and more territories in Siberia and the Far East should keep Japan out of Russia’s way, at the most we could see a little “keeping them honest” strike like you described.
The again, it’s more than likely that, given the diplomatic dynamics of the current versions, Larry will clearly lay out in the rules a necessary build in the Pacific for US and/or an non-aggression between Japan and Russia. I hope not though.
I think that there should be some flexibility. In a huge game a certain amount of treaty-making might not be such a bad thing (as an option - not as a regular rule). For instance; I would like to have seen some convoy boxes. I would especially have liked them for Russia. A non-aggression treaty between Japan and Russia could exist until one person breaks it. If there were a couple of convoy boxes in the north Pacific it might have been a temptation for the Japanese player to take them, or maybe they might not touch them, but still have to move things into Manchuria in case of Russian betrayal. I guess there could be some house rules made up.
Alternatively, did anyone ever think that the maximum builds per factory might make the US make a bigger commitment to the Pacific? I realize that its easy to just march troops 2 spaces from WUS to EUS but that holds up your forces quite a bit. Perhaps this combined with the greater significance of the South Pacific as far as winning the game goes, will force the US to commit to both theatres.
Maybe. Can a land unit move one space and then be loaded onto a transport all in one go?
I think the US player will still have to play proactively, with units moving where the Axis are growing, or to support Allied forces even while the US maintains some kind of forward thrust.
Damn, I’m looking forward to the Europe game!
@Army:
Can a land unit move one space and then be loaded onto a transport all in one go?
No. A land unit must be loaded on to a transport as its first move. So in that case it would take 2 extra turns to load infantry build in the west onto transports built in the east.
Seems to me like sending those guys against Japan in 1 turn would be quite a bit more effective.
Additionally, the US is going to be making mega-wads of cash and will have to be smart about placement on only 2 or 3 industrial complexes. in AA50 it was no big deal, you could do an entire build in the east, but in the new game when you have 100+ IPCs to spend, you’re going to have to be careful about where you decide to build your equipment. If its all built in the east it better be 12 bombers or you’re wasting a lot of money just to focus on in the European theatre.
It seems to me that the logistics of the 10 unit IC and the fact that the US should have adequate resources to deal with BOTH theatres should negate the necessity for a forced split of income. Additionally, I beleive that the need to contain Japan will be greater in this version.
In any case, if it happens I can always house-rule it out.
P.S. Just had a thought. Perhaps the US not being at war with Germany yet will have a bearing on it. A in: if US goes to war with Japan, WUS income jumps to 50 but if it is still at peace with Germany EUS income remains at 10 (or whatever the east will be worth). Something like that could really shake things up…
Let’s not forget that spending in one theater doesn’t force USA to play in that theater. He can still move his troops around…
Say he wants to go only Europe (i don’t know, a new player’s strategy), he can use the pacific money to buy only fighters/tac/bombers and send them all in non-combat toward Europe
There is no way to force the US to split its income as Omega has pointed out.
And certainly, there won’t be a rule that says units bought in Pacific remains in Pacific. Or else, it will be so complicated that the game won’t be playable.
I say, keep the income united (up to Larry I guess), and let the players do as they wish. Obviously, some strategies won’t work, but that’s the fun of a non-linear game :)
Robert
One alternative is to split the entire Western Allies into two players thus:
The “Atlantic” Allies;
Eastern USA
Eastern Canada
(France)
UK
African and Middle Eastern colonies
VCs: London, Paris, Cairo, Cape Town?
[Neutral Iran provides a handy marker]
The “Pacific” Allies:
Western USA
Western Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Asian and Pacific colonies
Nationalist China
These players can send help to each other, but individual victory conditions can limit this.
VCs: Chungking, Delhi, Sydney, Manilla
