the britsh owns all of africa but have lost india, new zealand and are about to lose aussie. should britian attack w eur.(6 inf. and a fight) with 4 in 1 tnk and a fight. or suicide at Keraila ssr 6 inf 2 tanks and fight against the largest horde of ruhr valley gun slingers you ever saw…(18 inf,6 tnks, and a fight)??? in the w eur. attack america will take it over with overwhelming odds…??? im not an ameuter but a bit confused about which one is right
oh and were playing russia and japan cannot attack each other unless the other is down to 11ipc’s or the capital has been attacked(not necessarily taken) that means 1 russian inf. are holding cauc.,novorbisk, yakut and SFE
preventing Japs blitz
Yes, the UK should attack to soften up W Eur for the US forces. That type of one-two punch is often used in W Eur. Another variation is the example you gave. However, that one works better after the one-two in W Eur or as a one-two-three (UK-US-USSR) punch.
That is a major advantage the Allies have before Germany gets to counter a single move. You will find many opportunities to 1-2 or 1-2-3 in this fashion after turn 3(T3.)
Defense can often work the same way, but you must be careful not to retreat leaving an Allies(or yours if you play one-on-one) ftrs alone.
Let me get this straight, the Russians won’t attack the Japanese until Japan is down to 11 IPC? How does Japan get to 11 IPC without russia attacking?
Let me get this straight, the Japanese won’t attack the russians until the russians are down to 11 IPC? How does Russia get to 11 IPC without Japan attacking?
Damn I swear you’re just pulling our legs……
BB
I’ve said it before–RELAX BigBlocky :wink: !
I think it’s an interesting attempt to “get historical” although I question the amount of the IPC’s required. Say 20-21 IPCs for each side, that’d be more interesting. I think what they are trying to do w/ this rule is reflect the reality that–considering circumstances–neither USSR nor Japan wanted to open a major front with one another in 1942. As soon as one got weak enough, maybe they would change their minds (as USSR did days before the end of WWII). It would be very difficult for Germany alone to reduce USSR to 21 IPC’s especially after the loss of Finland-Norway. Japan would HAVE to link up w/ Germany to help the latter attack USSR strongly enough to hit the critical threshold–that’d be really wierd!
Of course, had the Japanese Army command got their way, the whole '40-'41 push would’ve been vs. USSR rather than UK/USA/Netherlands. I think many players play this scenario, since it yields better results in the context of the game, but w/ such an IPC restriction, might make it more interesting. Call it a “treaty agreement”…
Ozone27
Very cool variant and as ozone mentioned accurate too. Unfortunately it gives an even bigger advantage to the allies. With Russias eastern front safe the UK/Russia combo can take care of Germany all by themselves. And the US gets to play naval combat in the pacific, which is a hell of a lot more fun than transporting wave after wave of infantry to Finland/Norway.
actually the reason the japanese did not attack the russians was because during 1939-1940(i think the date is correct) the russians counter-attacked the japs through mongolia and wiped out a lot of troops. And they were ferocious!!! the japs realized if they take russia (or try to) they would have it worse because the winter… remember the russian winter killed more german troops then the fighting… that’s why the germans lost an advantage on the eastern front… maybe the whole war… in the extra rule the russians actually get the german kerailan beating, and that front will crumble so the japanese can attack from novorbisk and yakut after they have a factory in either india or manchuria (which india was the choice). it works well and is obviously historical. i personally like the rule. the axis get the upper hand it just takes longer instead of manchurian inf and fighters disseapearing… :D the japanese get more time and manpower to worry about china instead of the pesky russians. Try it out. it’s great
i must also mention that the allies can’t (in our rules )get through the baltic without controlling w. eur. for 1 turn. the axis likewise can’t pass through the gibralter sea zone to W spanish sea zone.with out controlling it for 1 trn. that might give you get a picture of the predicament. it actually is (in my view at least) damaging to the allies(because only the russians can take e eur. in one turn and the japanese tied up the americans by taking alaska,destroyingthe pacific fleet and landing in w. america so FDR is not going after the germans). the reason i asked about kerailan attak is that transports and troops that were american were in Britian (and lots of them!!!) so i figured i could do a three way punch(britian, russia,america) therefore preventing a german attack on russia. western europe fell all right, but germany and britianand america stole it from each other for about 4 trns therefore dooming russia to japanese takeover and the allies followed suit…
at least they were able to take a lot of axis troops and equipment with them…
and ozone you mentioned that germany wouldn’t be able to take the capital without japans help. the japs steal africa if germany can’t therefore germany can focus on russia only (starting purchase:9 inf 1tnk) and that means germany gets all the russian income not african…. as i said it might longer but the allies have a problem on there hands… the 11 ipc’s is nearly impossible to take so you go after the capital… the russians hafta leave 1 inf yakut, SFE, and novorb. so when the capital is attacked the russians can get swamped by the japanese…
Ozone…… I am relaxed, you should read me when I am not, and you haven’t yet :-)
I think this would be a rather interesting varient, though I’d agree with Ozone the IPC threshold might be a bit higher. I do however think that if too many special rules are required than something fundemental was changed a bit too much. Not saying this is a case but something to be wary of.
BB
Ozone…… I am relaxed, you should read me when I am not, and you haven’t yet :-)
BB
LOL! I’ll take that under advisement :wink: !
The more I think about the more unworkable this scheme is. I am all for interesting variants if people want to mix it up a little, but this one seems like it would need a few more tweaks to be really good. I like the basic concept, but the Axis would definitely require some extra boost to make up for the wall USSR would represent vis-a-vis Japan through most of the game…
Ozone27
Besides, if you want something really different try AAP or AAE. I swear playing AAP for the first time made me feel like a virgin all over again…… AA virgin that is, I can’t remember that far back otherwise smirk.
BB
I’ve heard of people take the all historical approach (down to the letter) where it ruins it but the difference comes in how it will affect the game big picture wise. For example the paratroopers rule actually is not historic and in my view not important. the german JU-52 transport was not a big transporter (15 or so men) and the total production of ju-52’s was 2804!that means they couldonly carry 34,600 men (give or take 100) and that is usually the reason they add that rule! and the raids they made numbered only about 500 men in the planes! out of 100,000 supposed number of troops we call a half inch tall piece of plastic!!! now the allies made much larger capacity planes and probably sent more men in but to say that those men number one hundred thousand?? that is just one example of “overdoing it”. but the russian-japanese stalemate rule destroys a whole front and totally changes most strats….
