December 15, 2017, 07:52:52 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Read all about what's new on the Axis & Allies .org Website Search me
  Articles  
   Home   Help Login Register AACalc  
Loading
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
  Print  
Author Topic: IL's Axis and Allies Global 1939 and 1942 files  (Read 50069 times)
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter
*****
Posts: 1248


"The state reigns and tells us what is true"


View Profile
« Reply #180 on: July 21, 2010, 09:30:18 am »
0

and even for Japan to attack the Soviet Union again after suffering a huge defeat and exposing their unprepared state.
Again, IL, no one is saying that Japan should attack the Soviet Union, no one is saying that your game should reward that action.
However, if the Japanese player reprsents the army and navy leaders and the army and navy learders thought about a northern attack and then decided on the southern approach, then the player should also be able to do the same thing. With your four turn cease-fire that part of history is left out.

If its bad for play its bad for play, but i dont see how this non-aggresion rule adds realism.
Logged
Imperious Leader
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15362


Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company


View Profile
« Reply #181 on: July 21, 2010, 11:14:52 am »
0

My appeal is based on historical considerations. That example is the underlying reasons why Japan could not go to war against the Soviet Union on Sept 1939.

They were not prepared in any measurable manner till late 1941.

The facts back that up and the game allows only those plausible historical ideas to bear fruit and everything is designed to reflect that.

I don't let players fulfill "fantasy lists" of every unimaginable idea that they hold firm as conviction since an early age.

Its fun to have Adolf dropping atomic bombs on New York and having thoughts of Japan perform circus acts and drive tanks to Moscow and many other strange things. But reality must at times prevail and the free for all must stop. I don't design 'candyland' games.

The "what-if" peeps can just play OOB if they want fantasy games.
Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter
*****
Posts: 1248


"The state reigns and tells us what is true"


View Profile
« Reply #182 on: July 21, 2010, 01:34:52 pm »
0

Japan perform circus acts and drive tanks to Moscow and many other strange things.

So you beleave that in a game of axis and allies the only/best way to keep Japan from taking moscow is to have a rule that says they cant attack the first four turns?

You couldn't give Japan less units to show that it is unprepared for a war with the Soviets? I thaught you already said that with the current setup a Japanese attack would be futile anyways?
Logged
Imperious Leader
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15362


Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company


View Profile
« Reply #183 on: July 21, 2010, 09:49:50 pm »
0

Quote
only/best way to keep Japan from taking moscow is to have a rule that says they cant attack the first four turns?

No the solution was multifaceted:

1) Change to national victory conditions ( no reason to do this, you don't win if you do)

2) Make set up based on historical data ( not enough pieces to make it possible)

3) Make territories based on historical data ( not enough economics to justify the expedition)

4) Add political rules that maintain existing political relationships that were historical ( respect pre-existing historical treaties and results of fighting that occurred before Sept 1939)

5) Add map features that make the distance insurmountabe based on given national capabilities ( make KISS the concept of terrain by imposing many territories representing the distance due to terrain type)
Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter
*****
Posts: 1248


"The state reigns and tells us what is true"


View Profile
« Reply #184 on: July 22, 2010, 12:07:01 pm »
0

Right,

The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations. So number 4 is redundant.
Logged
Imperious Leader
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15362


Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company


View Profile
« Reply #185 on: July 22, 2010, 09:35:19 pm »
0

Quote
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.

The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties. Japan decided that attacking Russia was suicidal and decided to instead go with the non-aggression pact latter in 1941. Thats why the military goals changed direction to a "southern strategy" after Russia exposed the futility of a "northern strategy"... That is why the rule exist in my game.

And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not 'candyland'.
Logged
eddiem4145
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 219


View Profile
« Reply #186 on: July 23, 2010, 08:38:20 am »
0

The rule makes sense period. The fact is the decision to attack south won. So that is how the game is played.

It represents what was at a specific time chosen to represent the best balance of play. If you started the game at the end of 1944 and kept it historically accurate with the political and strategic forces in place, the Allies would win every time. If you start it at 1939 and ignore only the political forces in place, the Axis loses every time as the USSR, France, Britain, and the US could all declare war on Germany in 1939. 

The policital will to invade Japan on turn 1 when this game begins does not exist. A decision was made to go south and the game begins after that from what I understand. I understand that the arguement that the game was structure to make this a fools errand concludes that the rule is not necessary. I also understand that if by chance it has an unrealtic effect on the game if done demands that rule.

But for all of those arguing the need or sense for that rule, just do it. Who says you can't. If you want to suppose that the decision to try north again won out, go ahead. Who is stopping you. If you want to suppose that FDR was able to muster support for war without Pearl Harbor, or the moment France was invaded, go ahead. Who is stopping you.

I do not agree however with the tone of IL or comparing the idea of Japan attacking Russian right away with giving Germany the A-bomb or flying saucers right away.

As a moderator, I am assuming part of his role is to moderate and to stay moderate and not go to extremes. It only encourage others to be more so. It is like the pastor of a church using foul language. It would only cause the flock to do it more often.













or flying saucers. I am not sure what is setting hi off









or 1940, Germany would have lost quickly.
Logged
Emperor_Taiki
A&A.org Fighter
*****
Posts: 1248


"The state reigns and tells us what is true"


View Profile
« Reply #187 on: July 23, 2010, 08:51:23 am »
0



The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties.


pieces of paper

Quote
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.


And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not 'candyland'.

That is what i thought i was saying.
ill reinterate, no one is saying japan should attack the Soviets.
I am just saying that the non-agresion rule is redundant
should rules be redundant?

eddiem4145 i really dont see this as an arguement, I want to know ILs reasoning behind his rules. I have enjoy this discusion.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2010, 09:00:43 am by Emperor_Taiki » Logged
Imperious Leader
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15362


Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company


View Profile
« Reply #188 on: July 23, 2010, 10:32:53 am »
0

Quote
pieces of paper

That Japan stuck too the ENTIRE WAR. This shows the real intention of what they were thinking before and during the war.

Japan saw they had no hope to fight Russia again and decided to sign a piece of paper to ensure and reaffirm their word because it was in their best interest.

In terms of best interest:

1) they didn't have the capability
2) they could not gain anything substantial that would benefit Japan
3) they proved that the results showed a doctrinal gap of military effectiveness that could not be closed until late 1941 ( if even that)

Logged
HBG
A&A.org Fighter
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*****
Posts: 1070


Historical Board Gaming (HBG)


View Profile
« Reply #189 on: July 23, 2010, 10:57:48 am »
0



The political relationships are also the result of treaties and past results that caused the treaties.


pieces of paper

Quote
The political relationships are a result of the goals, armed forces, resources and geography of the opposing nations.


And even if #4 was removed as an effect to why Japan wont be attacking Russia till turn 4, the others proof the rule because this is a historically based game and not 'candyland'.

That is what i thought i was saying.
ill reinterate, no one is saying japan should attack the Soviets.
I am just saying that the non-agresion rule is redundant
should rules be redundant?

eddiem4145 i really dont see this as an arguement, I want to know ILs reasoning behind his rules. I have enjoy this discusion.

You are being redundant!
Play the game the way it is designed, if you do not like it, do not play it!
I have to agree with IL that it is ridiculous for to Japan to March to Moscow.
Japan had to go south for the oil since they were cut-off.
Read some books other than Wikipedia people.
Logged
crusaderiv
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 945


View Profile
« Reply #190 on: July 23, 2010, 11:22:03 am »
0

They were cut off by USA and allies in august 1941. (If i'm not wrong)
When I played Japan, I never try to march over moscow,anyway.
(It was not in the plan of Imperial army)
No in fact, this accomplishement goes to the German player. grin

No serioulsy...
For a good USSR player, it will be easy to repulse any German offensive if everyting is quiet on the asian front.
Logged
Imperious Leader
A&A.org Heavy Bomber
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*******
Posts: 15362


Sgt. Saunders 351st, King Company


View Profile
« Reply #191 on: July 23, 2010, 11:53:40 am »
0

The only other idea to add here is this:

The Soviets can't move or relocate the Far East border force until starting turn 4, by which Stalin knew certainly ( by spys) as an indication that Japan had decided to attack USA. He can pull this force starting on that turn, but allow it to immediately enter Moscow ( modeling the railroads that were established between these points).


That would be historical too.
Logged
eddiem4145
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 219


View Profile
« Reply #192 on: July 23, 2010, 12:23:30 pm »
0

That is an awesome rule. That is perfect. Historical and accurate.

One idea about IL's reasoning that makes sense that he has not to my knowledge expressed. I am a history buff. I read a lot and watch the History Channel and Military Channel. I have always had the sense that Japan, after 1939 did not want war with Russia. It needed the resources of the islands. Oil, rubber, ect... Without that it could not take out China much less Russia. The traditional axis and allies starts out with Japan having those resources. Once it got them, they might have decided to invade Russia. But why didn't they. They spent huge resources attacking the US, when they could have assitted the Germans invading from the rear. Why didn't they.

How about this. Germany was to Japan what Russia was to US. The enemy of my enemy. Nothing more. They wanted Germany to slam thier head against Japan while they grew stronger and stronger. So they hoped by attempting to take the entire Pacific. Invading Russia from the rear risked Hitler being successful and getting to Moscow first making him King of the Land. Like all dictators and thieves in an enemy of my enemy alliance, each tries to play it out so they end up on top.

Japan wanted the west to be in a protracted war while they prospered in an "Asia co-prosperity something or other".


Just my take on all the facts and opinions on the facts I have heard throughout my time.
Logged
eddiem4145
A&A.org Artillery
**
Posts: 219


View Profile
« Reply #193 on: July 23, 2010, 12:25:48 pm »
0

I meant Germany slamming thier heads against Russia
Logged
crusaderiv
A&A.org Submarine
****
Posts: 945


View Profile
« Reply #194 on: July 23, 2010, 12:37:53 pm »
0

The Soviets can't move or relocate the Far East border force until starting turn 4, by which Stalin knew certainly ( by spys) as an indication that Japan had decided to attack USA. He can pull this force starting on that turn, but allow it to immediately enter Moscow ( modeling the railroads that were established between these points).

Here's what misses in my game rules.
A good espionage rule.
Sorge was probably the best.
And Staline didn't make anything to save him!   
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

2017 Support Drive

Read about this support drive.
Support Level
Forum Username
Note: payee will appear as Livid Labs, LLC.
Buy Axis & Allies
  • Axis & Allies 1942 [Amazon]
  • A&A Pacific 1940 [Amazon]
  • A&A Europe 1940 [FMG]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • A&A D-Day [Amazon]
  • A&A Battle of the Bulge [Amazon]
  • [eBay]
  • [eBay]
  • WWII Themed Combat Dice [FMG]



Axis and Allies.org Official Gold Sponsor: Historical Board Gaming

Axis & Allies.org Official Silver Sponsor: Field Marchal Games
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © 2015 Livid Labs, LLC. All rights reserved.
Axis & Allies is registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro, Inc.
Note: the copyright below is for the forum software only.
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!