By 1943 Russia had 2-5 times as many tanks as germany on every front. 2-10 times as many planes. 2-5 times as many artillery pieces, and 2-5 times as many infantry units. Remember Germany had to send 15-20 % against the allies in the west. Norway, france, Homeland Germany, Denmark, and other occupied states, while as Russia had nearly all of its forces Against Germany since Japan was NEVER going to attack russia after it had previous battles against Russia and saw it was hopeless as well as Japan had its hands full against the other Allies. This is just Russia VS. Germany. The allies (UK, Canada, and US) had 10 times as many tanks as Germany and 10 times as many aircraft. Japan was equally screwed. US built over 100 Carriers in WW2. Japan had a total in the 20’s, but never at one time due to battle losses. The US built over 1,300 warships. Japan could never have handled this. No matter what you say the Axis had about a 5% chance to win WW2. this only if Moscow would have gotten taken, but if you read military history you will see that this probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway seeing as how Russia moved its factories back into Siberal in the Ural mountains region. Germany never could have taken Russia due to Russia’s huge size as well as huge manpower advantage, industrial advantage, only one front to deal with, and the fact that their front lines were in Russia meaning tanks and airplanes could drive and fly strait into the battle off the assembly line. While as Germany’s front lines in 1942 were far from Germany’s industry. If the game was ever played to history allies would win 98 percent of the time with two equally skilled players IMO. This is why the game is made to recreate history sort of, while being playable so that both sides have an equal chance of winning.
Alpha 4 is due next month
-
Britain may not have been an original goal of Nazi Germany, but after it entered the war it became one, at least until they basically lost the Battle for Britain (the air campaign). Really, any enemy capital would be an objective in a war, and that’s basically how it went in WWII. The Allies went for Rome and Berlin (and would have gone for Tokyo), and the Axis went after London, Paris, and Moscow. It’s pretty symbolic and prestigious and stuff to take an enemy capital.
-
Just thought of something from reading another thread, but this is a good place to put it….
Once Russia declares war on Japan and invades Japan, I think Japan should be able to invade Amur from Korea or Manchuria without penalty. Do you?
-
Just thought of something from reading another thread, but this is a good place to put it….
Once Russia declares war on Japan and invades Japan, I think Japan should be able to invade Amur from Korea or Manchuria without penalty. Do you?
I think that is the case already. I’m pretty sure that the Mongolia penalty for Japan attacking Amur from Manchuria/Korea is only if they attack Russia first. If Russia has already attacked Japan, then Japan is free to attack Russia in any territory from any territory. At least that makes sense to me.
-
You are correct, and Larry just stated that in a post.
-
Just thought of something from reading another thread, but this is a good place to put it….
Once Russia declares war on Japan and invades Japan, I think Japan should be able to invade Amur from Korea or Manchuria without penalty. Do you?
Good, I was wondering about that.
I think in addition to Mongolia, Russia should get the 12 IPCs as well. :P But I’m a loon for keeping Japan out of Russia.
-
What Larry said was that he’s thinking about changing the rule. As of right now, Mongolia joins the Allies if Japan attacks Amur from Manchuria and/or Korea, whether or not Japan and the USSR are already at war.
-
What Larry said was that he’s thinking about changing the rule. As of right now, Mongolia joins the Allies if Japan attacks Amur from Manchuria and/or Korea, whether or not Japan and the USSR are already at war.
Ah. Good to know. So essentially, Russia always wins the neutral agreement. Japan can never invade Amur from Manchuria/Korea without giving Mongolia to Russia.
-
@Cmdr:
Removing the NO from England was probably an unnecessary factor in having people consider Russia before England.
It was necessary because he removed the British NO for no German Subs in the Atlantic.
-
@Cmdr:
Removing the NO from England was probably an unnecessary factor in having people consider Russia before England.
It was necessary because he removed the British NO for no German Subs in the Atlantic.
I am confused…how is it necessary to take the NO out of England because the No Submarine NO was moved to Paris?
-
I think they are trying to say that since England doesn’t get an NO for no German subs on the board it doesn’t give Germany the need to build subs and in general building units towards England
-
@urmomsmom7:
I think they are trying to say that since England doesn’t get an NO for no German subs on the board it doesn’t give Germany the need to build subs and in general building units towards England
That makes partial sense. I still think you need submarines for Germany, but a lot less. Before you needed 4 in SZ 109, 2 in SZ 106, 2 in SZ 82. Now you need 2 in SZ 109, 1 in SZ 106 and 1 in SZ 82 to get almost the same results as before.
What the change does, however, is weaken England to the tune of 5 IPC a round. There’s not a bat’s chance in hades that England and America are putting units in Paris until the game is already over (but the axis won’t concede). Essentially, what Larry did, was to remove 10 IPC a round from the Allies give the Axis a significant boost in buying power in relation to the what the Allies used to get.
It also means that the Allies dont ahve to go beserk trying to kill every submarine on the board too.
Suggested Topics
