That happened in the actual war at one point, intentionally rather than because the CV was sunk I mean. USS Enterprise had a broken (front?) elevator and couldn’t land planes rapidly enough so they landed on Henderson Field in the Solomons campaign.
Krieghund - Landing Russian units on UK?
-
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?
Soviet attempts to join the axis as 4th player in 1940? (German-Soviet Axis talks)
Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact? 4/13/41
Things like that…
Trade agreement=/=military alliance
Is not allowed in game, so Russia not axis
Germany and Poland also had a nonagression pact. Therefore, Poland was an axis power. -
Game starts with Poland already split up per the terms of the MR pact. Game does start in 1940 after all. Poland was done by 9/6/39.
-
Back to my point. If Russia cannot attack on R1, then they should be considered locked or OOP on the Europe board unless acted upon by the EU Axis.
-
Back to my point. If Russia cannot attack on R1, then they should be considered locked or OOP on the Europe board unless acted upon by the EU Axis.
They should at least be able to attack neutrals, like they did historically(Baltic States, Bessarabia, Poland)
-
i have had this debate also and the simplest solution seems to be until they are at war with the same power they arent allied
-
The way the rules currently read, yes. This may be changed in the FAQ.
When will they be out?
-
Perhaps Russia should be treated like UK.
Split the boards: Russia may be neutral on the Europe board and at war on the Pacific board.
It follows the example of UK splitting their income and is a simple way to state it while avoiding confusing scenarios.
Hope that “May” comes to pass. Either way, this is my favorite game now. Thanks Larry, Kevin and the gang for more years of entertainment to look forward to.
-
Perhaps Russia should be treated like UK.
Split the boards: Russia may be neutral on the Europe board and at war on the Pacific board.
It follows the example of UK splitting their income and is a simple way to state it while avoiding confusing scenarios.
Hope that “May” comes to pass. Either way, this is my favorite game now. Thanks Larry, Kevin and the gang for more years of entertainment to look forward to.
Thats an interesting way to look at the political situation, USSR gets to spend the 9IPCs on the Pacific board in those territories, perhaps only INF buys and placed anywhere like china buys? Helps round out USSR in the global game when they get 18 extra inf and +9IPCs and Germany gets nothing extra.
-
The way the rules currently read, yes. This may be changed in the FAQ.
When will they be out?
I don’t know for sure, but sometime in November is probably a good bet.
-
Perhaps Russia should be treated like UK.
Split the boards: Russia may be neutral on the Europe board and at war on the Pacific board.
It follows the example of UK splitting their income and is a simple way to state it while avoiding confusing scenarios.
Hope that “May” comes to pass. Either way, this is my favorite game now. Thanks Larry, Kevin and the gang for more years of entertainment to look forward to.
Thats an interesting way to look at the political situation, USSR gets to spend the 9IPCs on the Pacific board in those territories, perhaps only INF buys and placed anywhere like china buys? Helps round out USSR in the global game when they get 18 extra inf and +9IPCs and Germany gets nothing extra.
Actually, I wasn’t referring to income, just split status of neutral/war for Russia. Meaning, USSR could be neutral in Europe and at war in Pacific. The particular board would be used to decide if USSR can attack a neutral/land in an ally/etc. based on that boards war “status”. Hopefully, this could be considered as a fair solution.
-
Forget the split.
The rule should be:
1 SU is neutral to the other allies (even if it is at war with Japan) until it is at war with one or both european axis powers.
2 While not at war with each other, Japan are neutral to UK and ANZAC, so their air units cannot fly over each other territories
-
They should at least be able to attack neutrals, like they did historically(Baltic States, Bessarabia, Poland)
Again, we’re talking about G40 here. Those regions are not Neutral in the OOB setup I see. Russia starts with E Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltics. No need for them to attack any of those on R1, they took them on R-Zero.
-
Reiterating my opinion that Russia should NOT be able to share a territory with the Allies until USSR is at war with Euro-Axis.
(Trying to tip the scales so it IS included in the FAQ)
-
Allowing Russia to force a German DOW is a bit broken in a game that seems to lean towards the allies already. If the allies were struggling to win, I could see making the argument to let them do so. As it stands, I think the allies are strong enough.
-
The way the rules currently read, yes. This may be changed in the FAQ.
When will they be out?
I don’t know for sure, but sometime in November is probably a good bet.
Yeah, November.
-
Allowing Russia to force a German DOW is a bit broken in a game that seems to lean towards the allies already. If the allies were struggling to win, I could see making the argument to let them do so. As it stands, I think the allies are strong enough.
A-FREAKIN’-MEN!!!
-
They should at least be able to attack neutrals, like they did historically(Baltic States, Bessarabia, Poland)
Again, we’re talking about G40 here. Those regions are not Neutral in the OOB setup I see. Russia starts with E Poland, Bessarabia and the Baltics. No need for them to attack any of those on R1, they took them on R-Zero.
Yeah, those tt are not neutral to start. OOB shows Russia’s aggression, and they are “RED”. However, I think that Russia (as an aggressive nation) should be given the right to invade any of the remaining neutrals that it can get to w/o a DOW w/Japan. War w/Japan really has nothing to do with what Russia does in Europe/Middle East. Invading neutrals should just be part of Russia’s political situation rules IMO (expand the Empire). If this clause is changed (DOW w/Jap allows Russia to invade neutrals before its at war w/Euro axis) you would have a better chance of putting a NAP together too (would only concern Jap/Russian relations). Russia did invade NW Persia (as UK took control of the rest). Stalin wanted access to the just finished rail lines (Soviet interests-trade routes, protect its Caucasus oil etc), plus Stalin didn’t want UK that close to its boarders either (trust issues). As far as Russia going further in the middle east, that’s up to the allies to sort out (I think that’s why Larry made Persia 3 tt’s). Russia can’t get to Bulg, Yogo, or Greece (blocked by Romania). Furthermore if the German player makes a blunder, and forgets to invade Finland, the Russian player should be able to take advantage.
Just for the record I think that Russia should stay out of all UK tt until officially at war w/Euro axis (and vise versa).
-
@WILD:
OOB shows Russia’s aggression, and they are “RED”. However, I think that Russia (as an aggressive nation) should be given the right to invade any of the remaining neutrals that it can get to w/o a DOW w/Japan.
Well… Maybe to simulate Russia’s aggression, it should have a different diplomatic relationship than the other allies with regards to neutrals. Specifically, proallied neutrals are hostile to the USSR and are only friendly to the Western Powers (UK, ANZAC, US, France), which makes sense, considering that “control” is given under the assumption that the neutral power maintains sovereignty. And as history demonstrated, nations that the Soviets liberated were certainly not necessarily sovereign after ww2.
So russia can “attack” whatever pro allied or proaxis neutral it wants from the outset of the game, but they are all attacks, have to be combat moves, and they can NEVER gain free units from those territories (gotta attack them, or let a western ally control them). So after round 1 maybe they’ll be allowed to get Persia, but it will involve an attack and they don’t get free fodder.
I still wish that the rules, with all this DOWs and such, simply added some Russian diplomatic rules. Bar them from having US or UK units in original USSR territories (instead remove them immediately and USSR can buy them at half cost rounded up the next round and replace them in their territories). And similarly, they just should not be allowed in original Western Power’s territories EVER. Russia should not be so simply “ally”. It was a far more complicated and distrustful relationship of Axis and Allies and Russia.
-
kcdzim, all neutrals being hostel to Russia is very interesting, and probably more realistic (don’t think it will be adopted though). Russia being a hostel ally (not allowing units to mix w/western allies) is also historic and would give the game a good twist. The boards have shown some support for something like this in the past and would be a cool house rule. If the allies end up having an advantage in E40, or G40, adopting a hostel Russia could swing things back to center. Of course you could work in a lend lease program w/western powers and mobile industry so Russia could continue to build if Moscow falls.
-
@WILD:
Of course you could work in a lend lease program w/western powers and mobile industry so Russia could continue to build if Moscow falls.
This would be the LendLease: @kcdzim:
Bar them from having US or UK units in original USSR territories (instead remove them immediately and USSR can buy them at half cost rounded up the next round and replace them in their territories).
Russia shouldn’t ever get lendlease units for free, simply because if they were free Russia would be able to RAPIDLY outproduce Germany because US planes are being dumped into soviet hands and since the US is generally further from the action, handing over units to russia doesn’t hurt the US really at all, while Russia gets a larger stack than they should be able to build, which would make russia even tougher for germany.
However, if Russia can pay half price for allied units in their spaces (and place their new units in those appropriate spaces) it’s not nearly as broken a mechanic. Russia can build more than they normally could, but it still costs SOMETHING, and the other allies spend the bulk amount mobilizing and moving the units into Russian territories and lose full cost.
so, I would propose lendlease work as follows:
- An allied unit enters an originalRussian territory
- place a marker of some sort in that spot to specify type of unit and return the piece to the allied owners box (internment). If a territory with a marker is attacked before the russian turn, the marker does not participate in the battle and is immediately removed if the territory is captured (allies need to plan ahead, no do or die fighter defense drops unless it’s not an originalRussian territory.
- On russia’s purchase phase, any remaining markers can be repurchased as that type of unit for half price, rounded up.
- Russia may choose to mobilize a lendlease unit to its marker or to a production center (following standard mobilization rules eg it can’t exceed mobilization levels just because it’s lend lease). Obviously if the marker is at a production center, the marker doesn’t count against production levels.
- all remaining markers are removed from board. Call it reverse engineering or poor training & implemenation. Whatever it is, russia can’t SAVE up cheap fighters for a rainy day.
Again, this only occurs in original russian territories. Joint allied defense is still allowed for non original russian controlled territories. Allied units will hold the line there, but once inside the iron curtain they aren’t allowed to fight.
It doesn’t immediately give russia defensive units, and any lend lease unit will need to be protected until russias turn. Russia still has to pay a little to gain what could effectively be ALOT - 2 ipc infantry, 3 ipc tanks, 2 ipc artillery, 2 ipc mech, 5 ipc fighters, 6 ipc tacs, 6 ipc bombers. In return for the unit not being available that first round and potentially being lost if the drop goes to a vulnerable space, they can be remobilized to the space immediately, potentially closer to the action (siberian bombers). Allied planes can make their historic emergency landings (pacific theater b29 pilots interned and released, but the bombers were kept for reverse engineering), but just make sure the territory isn’t overrun before russia gets to enjoy the fruits of allied labor.
Obviously this is all house-ruley and stuff and I’d never expect any new Russian diplomatic rules to be implemented. I just wish they had been originally. I mean, china has bizarre special rules, Russia was just as unique as an allied power.
Suggested Topics
