Can the USSR stand alone in AA50?

[Perry]

Admiral, did you play with NO’s ?
WIth NO’s , I definitely think Germany is too strong for Russia.
W/o NO’s , haven’t played that yet…

[Admiral_Thrawn]

We were playing with NO’s. I think maybe why Germany couldn’t defeat Russia in our games is because the Italian player was coordinating their attacks like some I see here. He just was obbsessed with the Middle East and the Allies were putting up a good fight in Africa.

[Gallo Rojo]

@Perry:

Oh no, Gallo, Russian surely cannot stand alone…
For one, a sound KGF from Round 1 is the only way to go for the allies imho.

Japan will drive to Moscow in aa50 also, but it’ll take some extra time. jap ftrs will defend CAU and BER, just like in AAR.

for what I’ve read here (specially on Imperious Leader’s post), Russia seems to need a little help…

@Woodstock:

I have played againts some very tough Russian players in AA:R, so I reckon there must be a way for Russia to be a pain in the german’s butt in AA50 aswell, just as it was in AA:R.

I consider myself a very solid Soviet player.
I can usually hold the Axis from 5 to 7 turns before collapsing (without Western Allies saving the day)

But on Classic I used to run over Berlin … I haven’t seen that happen on Revised (unless the Germans make one stupid mistake after the other)

@Cmdr:

It would be interesting if Japan and Russia could not attack each other until Berlin or Washington/London fall.

That would be interesting… or that Soviet far east territories worth nothing, or that Japan couldn’t attack the USSR unless attacked first, or some other type of change

@Cmdr:

In Revised it actually makes life a lot harder on the allies.  Japan now has nothing better to do than attack Alaska and W. USA meaning America has to actually invest in a National Guard and a navy in the Pacific.

I beg to disagree: in Revised Japan has nothing better to do than ignore USA, built two or three factories on mainland Asia, and start rolling tanks against Moscow

@Admiral_Thrawn:

We were playing with NO’s. I think maybe why Germany couldn’t defeat Russia in our games is because the Italian player was coordinating their attacks like some I see here. He just was obbsessed with the Middle East and the Allies were putting up a good fight in Africa.

ok, here is something that is very interesting: what does happens with those NO? Are they an incentive strong enough as to lure the players into a more historical development? will the players pursue them or will them forget about them and just rush against each others capitals? (in other words: will Japan and Italy play for themselves or will they be team players and go all against Moscow together with Germany?)

I don’t know if AA50 still has those “individual victory conditions” present on Classic and Revised, those were useful to generate some friction among teams… the problem is that most people simply avoided the “individual winer” rule.

Let me put my concerns bluntly:
I don’t mind with Japan going after Russia (that’s something that could had happened, Japan, after all, considered the USSR her biggest geopolitical adversary until 1940s; then the War in Europe changed that).
What worries me is that in Revised, KGF was the dominant strategy for the Allies
And “Kill Russia and Forget Everything Else” was the only strategy for Axis
That way, the game turns to be not only un-historical but pretty boring (you end up playing always the same strategy).

I was hopping that AA50 changed that somehow … NOs may be an answer, if they’re an incentive strong enough… also the many VC at the Pacific (if the Japanese decide to go after them).

now, a last note on Russia: in the real war, it was the the Soviet Union who defeated Germany (even after D-Day, almost 70% of German Army was committed to the Eastern Front – and they were already on full retreat after Stalingrad and Kursk). So why is that in the game the USSR is always the weaker allied?

[Driel310]

@Gallo:

now, a last note on Russia: in the real war, it was the the Soviet Union who defeated Germany (even after D-Day, almost 70% of German Army was committed to the Eastern Front – and they were already on full retreat after Stalingrad and Kursk). So why is that in the game the USSR is always the weaker allied?

Hmmm, all respect to the Allies who lost men too when they were liberating us over here, but I think that’s because the game is designed by Americans maybe……

We could start a whole discussion again about whether the Soviet Union would have won the war on their own, but let’s not call in timerover again.  :-D

[Imperious Leader]

I have not played with NO’s and perhaps the axis are very strong w/o them.

[Jennifer]

@Gallo:

@Cmdr:

In Revised it actually makes life a lot harder on the allies.  Japan now has nothing better to do than attack Alaska and W. USA meaning America has to actually invest in a National Guard and a navy in the Pacific.

I beg to disagree: in Revised Japan has nothing better to do than ignore USA, built two or three factories on mainland Asia, and start rolling tanks against Moscow

I think you made a very tactical mistake here.  Japan can build a million armor pieces and can NEVER attack Moscow with them, nor can they even get to Europe because you have to go through Russia to get there.

So they do, in fact, have absolutely nothing better to do than annoy America forcing America to be more honest with history and fight Japan.

Without America giving significant aid to the allies in Europe, England will have to send everything just to hold the line against Germany and prevent Russia from falling.

This in turn spurs Germany into sending only minimal efforts into Africa so they can maximize as much punch as possible to break Russia before the joint armies are too strong to break.

(In Revised.)

This of course is if Japan and Russia cannot attack one another (or pass through conquered lands of one another) until such time as a capitol falls.

[Gallo Rojo]

@Cmdr:

@Gallo:

@Cmdr:

In Revised it actually makes life a lot harder on the allies.  Japan now has nothing better to do than attack Alaska and W. USA meaning America has to actually invest in a National Guard and a navy in the Pacific.

I beg to disagree: in Revised Japan has nothing better to do than ignore USA, built two or three factories on mainland Asia, and start rolling tanks against Moscow

I think you made a very tactical mistake here.  Japan can build a million armor pieces and can NEVER attack Moscow with them, nor can they even get to Europe because you have to go through Russia to get there.

So they do, in fact, have absolutely nothing better to do than annoy America forcing America to be more honest with history and fight Japan.

Without America giving significant aid to the allies in Europe, England will have to send everything just to hold the line against Germany and prevent Russia from falling.

This in turn spurs Germany into sending only minimal efforts into Africa so they can maximize as much punch as possible to break Russia before the joint armies are too strong to break.

(In Revised.)

This of course is if Japan and Russia cannot attack one another (or pass through conquered lands of one another) until such time as a capitol falls.

I don’t understand what are you meaning
If Japan and Russia cannot attack one another, it would be obviously stupid for Japan to build any factory on mainland Asia to produce tanks and go after Moscow (since it’s forbidden).

However, that’s only forbidden if you play with a especial rule (USSR-Japan non-aggression treatise)

If you play with no such especial rule (which is the way most players do), and allies are not playing a KJF (which IMHO is a lesser strategy than a KGF) then best thing Japan can do is build one factory on Manchuria and one on India (after taking it from the British) and start rolling tanks against Moscow; hopping that Germany from the West and Japan from the East would conquer Russia before Western Allies take over Berlin.

Do you play TripeA? If you do, I dare you playing a PBEM where you play the Axis and instead of going after Russia you go after USA by Alaska
Then I play the Axis and I go after Russia with both Germany and Japan
And we see which strategy works better (and I’m a sorry Axis player)

[Jennifer]

I can’t play tripleA because it does not work on my system or through my network.  (Very bad program.  Hasbro works, but TripleA does not.)

Anyway, the entire point of my thread was 100% non-aggression between Russia and Japan as a way to balance the game.

If that’s in place, then Japan has nothing better to do than attack America through Alaska.  That’s the point.

[Gallo Rojo]

@Cmdr:

Anyway, the entire point of my thread was 100% non-aggression between Russia and Japan as a way to balance the game.

If that’s in place, then Japan has nothing better to do than attack America through Alaska.  That’s the point.

if that’s the case, I agree  :-)

[Funcioneta]

The funny thing is that if Japan goes Alaska path, they can attack both soviets and USA, and Africa, in Revised (but germans will take Moscow in this case). Imagine now with Japan’s improved income in AA50 :-D

[Jennifer]

The other idea is that no one can be in Russian territory except Axis and Russians which also significantly increases Germany’s odds and again, encourages Japan to attack America since America really has nothing better to do than help in Africa and attack Japan.