@timothy-gengarella all the forts and coastal guns in the zone are lost if you lose the territory
G40 Historial v1.1
-
Ok if you want it to be pro axis.
History wise Japan did Attack Siam for 2 days on Dec 8 1941. Then on Dec 27 41 signed treaty so they were allowed to go thur and attack maylay and other country.
I believe there was a ton of guerilla inf resistances. I could add a event card where they could pop up like they did in Philippines had. I do have an event card for US for that action.
But getting back if Japan wants Siam I believe they should have to attack it first period to get any icps for territory and use.
The real and correct way would be Japan needs to attack Siam for 1 round of combat then signs treaty and gets it.
Setup for Siam should be 2 inf 1 fig -
@SS-GEN said in G40 Historial Beta:
History wise Japan did Attack Siam for 2 days on Dec 8 1941. Then on Dec 27 41 signed treaty so they were allowed to go thur and attack maylay and other country.
I believe there was a ton of guerilla inf resistances. I could add a event card where they could pop up like they did in Philippines had. I do have an event card for US for that action.James Dunnigan’s book Victory at Sea: World War II in the Pacific has an interesting section on Siam/Thailand’s odd and complicated situation in WWII. As I recall (I don’t have the book in front of me right now), Siam had an authoritarian leader who was was willing to collaborate with Japan, but there were also pro-Allied elements in the government, in the population at large, and in the diplomatic service abroad. If I remember correctly, for example, Siam technically declared war on the US and/or the UK, but the US and the UK ignored the declaration, either because the Siamese ambassabors refused to pass the declaration along to them or because the US and the UK refused to receive it. And the Allies supposedly got a lot of intelligence during the war from the pro-Allied Siamese factions.
-
Thanks Marc. Ha ha now it’s pro allies.
I read where yes to what your saying but then I maybe wrong but I thought I read that there were 150,000 guerilla resistance people that just kept causing havoc for Japan ? -
@SS-GEN said in G40 Historial Beta:
Thanks Marc. Ha ha now it’s pro allies.
I read where yes to what your saying but then I maybe wrong but I thought I read that there were 150,000 guerilla resistance people that just kept causing havoc for Japan ?I’m not familiar enough about the subject to know if Siam had an appreciable guerilla movement or not. There are all sorts of things which were peculiar about Siam; I believe that, pre-war, it was the only genuinely independent nation in Southeast Asia, and I think that Japan technically “asked” Siam (more or less at gunpoint) to give it right of passage through its territory so that Japan could send forces from Vichy French Indo-China (where Japan had a presence) to Burma. Germany similarly wanted to traverse Spanish territory to attack Gibraltar from Vichy France, but opted to negotiate with Franco – ultimately unsuccessfully – rather than marching in first and asking for permission second (which is what I think happened in Siam). A further complication was that Siam had its own regional ambitions, as shown by the Franco-Thai War of 1940-1941.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand_in_World_War_II
It was 90,000
-
Thanks for the information, we decided Siam will be Pro-Axis. And if you play with events per turn, Japan can activate it until round 4. For now, wen playing with turn-based events, Mexico, Central America, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Siam, they are considered true neutrals until they enter the war; however, we want to implement the same restrictions for the other neutrals.
For example, the countries of “Latin America”, except Argentina and Chile, signed a mutual defense treaty, supported by the USA.
On the other hand, the Original rule with respect to true neutrals is unreal. What does it matter to Switzerland if Afghanistan was attacked by the UK or Japan? Why do all the neutrals turn to one side, when one of them is attacked? This is something that we want to modify.
But for now here is the placement of the neutrals:Pro-Axis
Siam: 2 Infantry.
Persia: 1 Infantry, Northwest Persia: 1 Infantry, Eastern Persia: 1 Infantry
Iraq: 3 Infantry.
Romania: 4 Infantry
Bulgaria: 4 Infantry
Finland: 4 Infantry.
Pro-Allies:
Mexico: 1 Infantry, Southeast Mexico: 1 Infantry
Central América: 1 Infantry, Canal Counter.
Brasil: 3 Infantry
Colombia: 1 Infantry
Eire: 1 Infantry
Ecuador: 1 Infantry
Liberia: 1 Infantry
Sierra Leona: 1 Infantry
Yugoslavia: 5 Infantry
Greece: 4 Infantry
Special Neutral
State of Spain
Spain: 6 Infantry, Rio de Oro: 1, Infantry Balears: Empty.
People’s Republic of Mongolia
Ulaanbaatar: 1 Infantry, Buyant-Uhaa: 2 Infantry, Dzavhan: 1 Infantry, Olgiy: 1 Infantry, Tsagaan-Olom: Empty, Central Mongolia: Empty.True Neutral
Venezuela: 2 Infantry
Peru: 1 Infantry
Bolivia: 1 Infantry
Paraguay: 1 Infantry
Chile: 2 Infantry
Argentina: 4 Infantry
Sweden: 6 Infantry
Switzerland: 2 Infantry
Portugal: 2 Infantry, Portuguese Guinea: 1 Infantry, Angola: 2 Infantry Mozambique: 2 Infantry.
Turky: 8 Infantry.
Saudi Arabia: 2 Infantry
Afghanistan: 4 Infantry -
Your question on why is if one Strict ( True) Neutral is attacked the rest join the other side.
Yes This is wrong how some have this in the game. The way your game is going by using turns to add or change things is most of those neutrals will join allies at some point as war years go on. But as you mentioned you will get to that issue later.
At least in my game you can attack any Strict Neutral or Influence them because both sides were doing it all the time. Just certain countries can influence certain Strict Neutrals. And if you get one in game on any turn helps a bit. Another little change you want in game to spice it up.
For Mongola that should be Pro- Russia only. Russia should be able to just walk in there an activate them. Up to you how much you make territories worth and how many ground pieces in there army. They weren’t no push overs. My game I just have 2 territories worth 1 icp each and 1 inf each. Did you know they made most of the Russian winter coats for Russia ?
Mongolians defended or stayed on alert for any Japanese attacks after they signed the treaty and the Stalin ordered all his Siberian or shock troops back to Moscow. -
@SS-GEN Yes, I knew about the help of Mongolia in custody the border, but no the products,very interesting. I also think that it should be worth 1 IPC, Central Mongolia or Ulaanbaatar.
There are errors that I do not understand how they happened to the editors of the game. Colombia, Peru, Dutch, New, Guinea, should be worth at least 2 IPC, for oil. Persia was to be pro-axis, or strict neutral, strict neutral Ireland, Mexico and central America as pro-allied… and no love for Corseca, no Sakhalin island. They are uncomfortable details that could be corrected with a little research, and this is the reason we created the house rules.
Unfortunately I do not have the editing skills to create, Sakhalin, Malvinas and Cocos, islands. And an over map, to divide Yugoslavia, like the Historical Board Gamin one. There are many great ideas from them and from other players, like yours, the idea is to create a balance between history and acceptable complexity.
That’s why we do not copy ideas like rail lines, which break the difference in the movements of the pieces, move factories, construction cycles for large units. We are clear on one thing, the scale, that is why ideas such as hospitals, pow camps, are very interesting, but they are for a small scale tactical game and not for large scale strategy one.
One reason why we eliminate AAA from the facilities at start, is because they almost do not sufer attack in our games, now you have to buy the aaa (cardboard counter), and now we see more attacks in our games.
PD: I am intrigued by your system to influence neutrals ¿how does the mechanics work?
-
Here’s some peoples thoughts on neutrals if you’re interested.
I haven’t tried it myself but plan to at some point. I like how some of the more powerful nations are represented with units besides just infantry. Not saying you should implement it whole scale necessarily, just that you might get some ideas from it : )
-
What Barney posted I have done to neutrals too as far as adding armies but not as much inf. Yes Spain and Turkey in my game have 11 inf each with a fig tank aa gun AB. Destroyer.
In my game for strict neutral influence is where each country can only influence certain neutrals based on where they were at And which countries were trying to get to join them.
So to influence Spain or Turkey cost you 10 icps
And you roll a D20 die and on a 4 or less that strict neutral joins your side. If you get either one your inf are cut in half and you only get 6 plus the rest.
To influence the other stricts it costa you 3 icps and roll same d20 die 4 or less then receive what ever army is there and yes you get the territories value added to your income.
If you really want to get historic then some neutrals just join sides at time of war. A lot didn’t flip until 44. My way is to spice game up a bit every game and has a 30 to 40% games being different with all the other stuff added.
Ya maybe I’ll tweak the neutrals more closer to 100% historic but I don’t see that happening soon.
Testing new Cruiser BB AD values by using 2 different colored dice for each ship. -
@barnee said in G40 Historial Beta:
Here’s some peoples thoughts on neutrals if you’re interested.
I haven’t tried it myself but plan to at some point. I like how some of the more powerful nations are represented with units besides just infantry. Not saying you should implement it whole scale necessarily, just that you might get some ideas from it : )
Thank you very much for the information, i check the post, there are many interesting ideas that we adopt.
Increase the army of neutrals and the value of some territories.
We added a new territory, the last one for the mod, the Sweden’s island of Gotland, IPC 0.
We add sea zone 128, Caspian Sea. -
@SS-GEN said in G40 Historial Beta:
What Barney posted I have done to neutrals too as far as adding armies but not as much inf. Yes Spain and Turkey in my game have 11 inf each with a fig tank aa gun AB. Destroyer.
In my game for strict neutral influence is where each country can only influence certain neutrals based on where they were at And which countries were trying to get to join them.
So to influence Spain or Turkey cost you 10 icps
And you roll a D20 die and on a 4 or less that strict neutral joins your side. If you get either one your inf are cut in half and you only get 6 plus the rest.
To influence the other stricts it costa you 3 icps and roll same d20 die 4 or less then receive what ever army is there and yes you get the territories value added to your income.
If you really want to get historic then some neutrals just join sides at time of war. A lot didn’t flip until 44. My way is to spice game up a bit every game and has a 30 to 40% games being different with all the other stuff added.
Ya maybe I’ll tweak the neutrals more closer to 100% historic but I don’t see that happening soon.
Testing new Cruiser BB AD values by using 2 different colored dice for each ship.Interesting idea to adapt to a dice 6. In our modification we only add countries until 1943, historically. In normal mode the aligned neutrals can be activated from the first turn by powers that are legally at war. Since many countries joined the allies at the end of 44 or 45, because they were the winning team, and wanted to get a benefit of post war. In a game where the axis is winning in turn 10, ¿why Argentina or Turkey, would join the allies? Has no sense.
I have adopted your idea of Mongolia, we have decided to give a value of 1 IPC to the capital.
Here I leave you an information that you can use for sea routes and combois.
-
@Valladares said in G40 Historial Beta:
@barnee said in G40 Historial Beta:
Here’s some peoples thoughts on neutrals if you’re interested.
I haven’t tried it myself but plan to at some point. I like how some of the more powerful nations are represented with units besides just infantry. Not saying you should implement it whole scale necessarily, just that you might get some ideas from it : )
Thank you very much for the information, i check the post, there are many interesting ideas that we adopt.
Increase the army of neutrals and the value of some territories.
We added a new territory, the last one for the mod, the Sweden’s island of Gotland, IPC 0.
We add sea zone 128, Caspian Sea.I think I have the Gotland Island too. The Caspian Sea yes. Did you know that was a route for lend lease for Russia ? They would truck everything to the sea and then transport it on ships if it couldn’t go by railroad or truck. I have all this in my game.
-
Sweet that you did the Mongolian update. Good luck with the game and post your results and future changes.
-
By chance do you have food charts just like the mineral charts you posted. I need to find out where China got all there wheat and rice from in Chinese territories. If it’s enough I m going to make it where if japan controls all of these Chinese resources I may make it s bonus point for axis towards game points for a win
-
@SS-GEN
This is a good read :
prerelease.triplea-game.orghttps://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/reviews/collingham_2010.pdfLengthy but worth it imo
[link text]prerelease.triplea-game.orghttps://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/reviews/collingham_2010.pdf(link url)
-
@barnee yea didn’t think that link would work. I’ll try again
[link text]https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/books/review/the-taste-of-war-by-lizzie-collingham.html(link url)
@CWO-Marc might like this too if you aren’t already familiar with it
sorry thought it was the whole read not a advert
-
@SS-GEN No, i dont have. But i know Malay is rubber, Central America rubber and food, USA and UCRANIE food (cereals).
Total population at the start of WW2:
USSR: 168,524,000 USA: 131,028,000 China: 517,568,000 UK: 47,760,000 Germany: 69,850,000 (84 million including Austria + Volksdeutsche) Italy: 44,394,000 Japan: 71,380,00 France: 41,700,000 (Cited from: http://www.militarian.com/threads/population-and-resource-factors-in-wwii.9279/)
These tables can help (Partialized source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
(“Neutral” source)https://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/ -
The testing of the new aggregates will be delayed, because this week my friends can meet me, however, the Caspian Sea (zone 128) and Sweden Island of Gotland, do not require further testing. The new modern heavy tank unit will be formaly added.
Beyond the crude oil, personally, think adding more resources would complicate the game more, you can adjust the value of the IPC, which is supposed to represent industrial capacity or production or resources. Personally, I do not share some of the decisions of the creator in terms of initial values, each country should be worth 1 IPC at last, all to a greater or lesser extent had their resources, regardless of their industrial development or infrastructure.
One of the elements that makes Axis and Allies less realistic is the lack of the fog of war, but the creator of the game is developing an interesting mechanic in his new title “WarRoom”, once the game goes on sale, and have its time of use by the community, it would be interesting to adapt that concept in Axis and Allies.
-
Ya I got Larry’s game war room on order.
Resources yes up to individual preference or group. I would at least add them. Countries do receive income for each one. They should be SBR and convoy raid up to 3.
At least the oil refineries and oil derricks should be able to SBR and or convoy raid.
Talk soon
Suggested Topics
