Agreed Russia should only place a deterrent force in it’s eastern territories, while focusing it’s main effort Europe.
@Brain:
Russia wasn’t really a team player and should be played by a separate player.
Your 100% right, but Russia did make moves that would ultimately benefit them. If they would have thought Japan was gunning for them through China, Soviets would have been there. They invaded northern Persia as UK took the rest, to keep the rail lines flowing with aid, as well as protect their own southern boarders and oil. If Germany would have invaded Turkey, I think you would have seen both Russia and England go in. It probably wouldn’t have been a joint venture, but they both had interest to protect in the region.
It would be kinda cool that if Russia liberates an allied tt, that it just keeps it and collects its income until it leaves though.
@WILD:
[It would be kinda cool that if Russia liberates an allied tt, that it just keeps it and collects its income until it leaves though.
[/quote]Then we could call the game Axis & Allies & Russia.
Sorry to resurrect a thread that had it’s last post nearly two months ago but…
What if we put Italy and Japan together. It would allow Japan to have a hand in everything
2 Player: Axis v. Allies
3 Player: 1. axis 2. Russia/China 3. All others
4 Player: Japan/Italy 2Germany 3. Russia/China 4. Normal Allies
5 Player: Japan/Italy 2. Germany 3. Russia/China 4. UK/ANZAC 5.USA/ France
6 Player: 1-3 axis powers 4-6Allied powers as above
7 Player: 1-3. Axis 4-6 Major Allies 7. Minor Allies
8 Player: Seperate anzac
9 Player: Each for himself
This way for a game of 2-6 everybody sees both theatres while the game stays mostly historically correct (Italy Japan is a small matter as opposed to Russia+Democracy
