have you guys begun writing these rules down?  they are really incredible.  I’ve always felt the game wasn’t realistic enough but trying to redesign a game on your own can be incredibly overwhelming.  I’d love to see what you guys have and try to add my own house rules or new political situations.  Also I’m curious how long your games take?  given that each turn is only a month.

Additional information:  Their plan was to attack Hungary from Yugoslavia using all the Yugoslavian troops with the addition of the British tank from Cairo that activated the pro-Allied countries.  my issue, beyond the historical inaccuracy of the entire situation, is that the minor Axis powers are all independent countries.  Moreover attacks cannot come from the territories of the minor Axis powers or from minor Axis units themselves until either at war with Russia, either Yugoslavia or Greece is controlled by an Axis power, or a mixture of both.  Therefore how does it make sense that these pro-Allied countries can attack into minor Axis countries which cannot attack them back.  I have no problem with attacks from Yugoslavia being directed at a belligerent Italy or Austria, but attacking territories which cannot attack back is the definition of broken.

I have just encountered a broken part of the game with regards to Greece and Yugoslavia.  On my first and second German turn the Balkans was ignored.  Paris was taken on the second turn and my idea was that Italy would invade Yugo, and then Greece.  However, Britain has activated both and is preparing to launch an attack into one of the minor axis powers if not two.  My issue with this is that both Yugoslavia and Greece remained neutral until attacked in 1939/40.  So not only is the Pro-Allied rule historically inaccurate to begin with, but allowing Britain to conquer one if not two of the minor axis powers through the use of Greece and Yugoslavia and as a result removing a substantial portion of the German forces for the eastern front and gaining the minor powers incomes for a turn seems ridiculously broken. I argued that 1) the minor axis powers technically aren’t at war, this was immediately shot down.  2) It’s A-historical in so many regards.  I want everyone’s opinion on the topic please.

Hey all, My friend and I called the Russia first game, it just didn’t look like it could end in an axis victory. So we switched sides and started a new game.  Unfortunately this game won’t be able to be finished either, since my friend leaves monday for school.  But it was a very interesting first three turns and I thought I’d share them with you.  It’s interesting mainly because on the third turn France is still alive and in possession of all their original territories.

On the first turn, my opponent built all airforce and as a result did not have enough units to hold reims.  He sent 6 infantry into denmark during the second impulse and had only 4 mech in reims at the end of the first turn.  On the French Uk turn, the allies attacked reims with every unit that was able to reach it.  Germany was unable to mount a second attack on reims until the third turn.  on the second turn the french built a new fortification, and had 20 infantry/artillery sitting in reims, plus 2 fighters (1 uk 1 french) and 1 tac in paris, and 3 british fighters in normandy.  i just rolled this battle, and i have to say the allies got incredibly lucky.

This was the battle:

Germany: 8 infantry, 2 artillery, 3 mech, 2 grenadiers, 4 armor, 5 fighters, 4 tac, 3 ss panzers

allies: 1 mech, 3 art, 2 FL, 1 tac, 14 infantry (6 french, 8 uk), 5 fighters (1 french, 4 UK), 1 aa.

(I just realized we have been playing with A&A 1940 aa rules, where they fire before combat as opposed to during the first round. but we have used this version throughout the game for both sides so it evens out in our games.  However this situation could have turned out differently given that.)

Any way.  AA makes opening shots, kills 4 fighters and 2 tac.  then we did air supremacy.  He devoted 1 of his two fighters so as to not give my fighters +2, and i devoted 1.  I won, and his 2 remaining tacs now attacked on a 4 rather than a 7 (a 3 given the fort.)

First round of combat allies kill 10 germans only kill 4.

Second round, allies:8 Germans: 7

third and final round allies: 7 (remaining units)  Germans: 2

moral of the story good rolls combined with your opponents poor choices makes for a hard game.  Also these pictures are of before the battle.  I will post after the battle tomorrow.  We are playing the historical lend lease rules, that is why there is an american navy off the coast of normandy.

3 points

1. we did mess up with regards to the minor axis, I assumed that the only reason the didn’t benefit from the second impulse is because they weren’t going to be at war with anyone.  So as a result you would have to wait until at least the second turn to invade Russia otherwise you can’t get enough men into Russia.

2. if on turn three the UK declares war on Japan and Japan retaliates on turn four that would not cause France and the UK to declare war on Germany. Only an unprovoked Japanese attack would effect German uk/french relations.

3. this strategy is hard mainly because the rules never considered france surviving past the second turn.  For example France can’t research.  Also pro allied status is hard because does an invasion of a pro allied nation cause war with the UK.  Not according to the rules.  Also can a non active allied player claim a pro allied nation.

The bottom line is if you aren’t willing to use house rules the strategy can’t work.  The designers never considered this strategy and as a result the rules are just too unclear in too many places for it to work without house rules.  The strategy is a bust.  I would like to see a consideration of this strategy in the next version of the rules.  But I don’t expect it.

Also sorry I haven’t provided pictures of the game.  We are on Italy turn three.  My friend and I smoked weed and I completely forgot to take pictures.  I will resume picture taking when we play again.  Ahaha.  Russia and the allies are looking very strong though.  Germany has more money than Russia but just can’t get enough troops to the front line with transports and the minor in karelia. They need to be able to build in enemy lands.

To allow this strategy to be viable we agreed on some interpretations of the rules.

1. all pro allied nations function in the same regard as finland.  the allies and axis can fight within them without declaring war.

2. Minor axis can attack during the second impulse.

also the rules only state that england, is diplomatically tied to france, holland, and poland.

This strategy is not viable if the minor axis can’t attack during the second impulse.

First turn report:

Germany has declared war on Russia.  First turn build: 3 transports, 1 tank, 2 tac bombers.

First impulse: Combat, all troops in Elbing attack the Baltic states, 4/6 infantry from west germany attacked denmark with support of second bomber.  4 subs eliminate danish navy.

Non Combat, move 4/5 of Germany’s starting tacs and fighters to Helsinki in addition to 1/2 bombers with 1 airborne.  activate Romania and Hungary, use transport to move 1 infantry and 1 tank from stettin to helsinki.  move all infantry, mech, and artillery within range to austria for attack on yugoslavia during second impulse.

Second Impulse:  Combat, 4 infantry 4 tanks, 4 tac bombers with support of 1 cruiser and 1 battleship attack leningrad.  troops in baltic states invade pskov.  3 inf and 1 art attack karelia from vipurii with support of 5 fighters.  Romanian troops invade western ukraine and bessarabia.  3 inf in turin invade murmansk.  8 inf, 5 mech, 1 art, 1 tac, and 1 fighter invade yugo.  1 airborne is paradropped into western russia to secure my flank.  all attacks are successes.

Non Combat, all planes in army group north land in helsinki, all planes in army group south land in romania, 6 infantry in berlin move to stettin to prepare to move to the front.

Tomorrow I will be giving the Russia first strategy a try.  I would like this thread to be a place for discussion of different strategy ideas, and a place to discuss issues with rules that would otherwise not come up in the historical route.  First of all I am going to bring up a few rule issues which my opponent and I will have to settle tomorrow before we play, but I wanted to have your opinions as well.  Second I will post my moves turn by turn and hopefully include pictures so keep updated to see how this plays out.

1. In the rules it specifically states that both Germany and Russia can attack strict neutrals.  I think it is quite silly to assume that Japan and Italy could not do so as well.  As members of the axis powers they are seeking to establish “empires” and the restriction to only being able to attack allied powers seams silly.  Although I do agree that the allies, save Russia, should not be able to attack strict neutrals.

2. my second concern is with neutral France and England.  Given that these two powers will both be neutral until Germany decides to attack them, I believe they should have a couple of restrictions on them.  The main one is that, so long as they are not at war with an axis power, they can not activate pro-allied nations.  I have two specific examples that will come up in my game tomorrow.  First, Greece.  Since it starts the game pro-allied and generally Britain has been at war with Germany on the first turn, Greece gets activated by Britain.  But since Britain will not be an active member of the allied powers I don’t think it would make sense for them to be able to activate a power, and collect their income, when they themselves are not at war.  My second example is a country which gains pro-allied status as a result of an invasion.  Specifically Turkey.  Turkey is key to my southern Italian invasion of Russia, because of the Turkish straights.  When Italy invades Turkey, the entire country will not be conquered, and so the remaining territories will become pro-allied.  Like, Greece, I don’t think neutral allied powers, like Britain, should be able to activate or receive these countries navies.  In both examples I think that only Russia, as the only active allied power, should be able to activate these types of territories.

3. Finally, I come to Industrial Complexes.  I know that the notion that conquered minors ICs get destroyed has been floating around, but I have not been able to find this in the written rules anywhere, an truthfully find it to be a silly rule.  I know that ICs can only be built in original territories or conquered.  However, I think an exception should be made for strict neutrals.  Strict neutrals are not given industrial complexes, despite the fact that they would surely have industrial capabilities.  It would be hugely advantageous for Italy to be able to produce troops in Istanbul, mainly naval units, and yet this is an impossibility.  I think that strict neutrals should either A be exempted from the original territory rule or B have an inherent production capability like the Minor axis powers.

These are the only three issues I could think of right now.  I hope to see some discussion on the questions I posed, and on the strategies that everyone would pursue in a Russia first game.  Stay tuned for my game updates with pics.

@sophiedog2:

yes, but with Italy entering the war against all allies, the French took Rome, and Paris and Moscow fell the same turn. Warsaw fell a turn later. The allies still won.

If Germany’s opening move is to attack Russia, Italy would join the axis and thus only be at war with whoever Germany is at war with.  Italy would not necessarily get murked.

first impulse: you dont attack denmark, you can go through the straights and their neutral navy doesn’t cause combat.  if you attack and conquer denmark on the first turn you would control the straights but their two ships may cause combat if the neutral rolls don’t go your way.

i’ll let you know when i try ahahaha.  in the mean time has anyone actually tried it?