@WILD:
Those are good questions,
- Is it possible for the US to be at war with Jap, and not Euro axis, and vise versa in the gl game?
Apparently USSR can be at war with Germany/Italy and not with Japan according to LH, so there is a precedent, but I’m not sure that will be the same with the US… :?
I don’t think that Russia will be treated the same as the Western Allies.
@Brain:
@WILD:
Those are good questions,
- Is it possible for the US to be at war with Jap, and not Euro axis, and vise versa in the gl game?
Apparently USSR can be at war with Germany/Italy and not with Japan according to LH, so there is a precedent, but I’m not sure that will be the same with the US… :?
I don’t think that Russia will be treated the same as the Western Allies.
I doubt they will either, due to the way it was historically and also for simplicity’s sake. I think the Russian exception is simply to represent the Russia-Japan Non-aggression agreement. I wonder if there will be any kind of NO between Russia and Japan that further reflects this; something that might be similar to the German-Russian trade NO that has already been revealed?
I doubt they will either, due to the way it was historically and also for simplicity’s sake. I think the Russian exception is simply to represent the Russia-Japan Non-aggression agreement. I wonder if there will be any kind of NO between Russia and Japan that further reflects this; something that might be similar to the German-Russian trade NO that has already been revealed?
I would think that there will be a NO, but I can’t imagine what it would be.
Perhaps that both the Russians and Japanese get 5 IPCs for every turn they aren’t at war?
Perhaps that both the Russians and Japanese get 5 IPCs for every turn they aren’t at war?
Ah that’s it, they both benefit. How come I couldn’t come up with that.
Perhaps that both the Russians and Japanese get 5 IPCs for every turn they aren’t at war?
What would be the historical basis however?
Saved resources on the count that both parties are not at war, or are you alluding to trading between the Soviets and Japanese via railways in Manchuria that connected to the Trans-Siberian Railway?
I wasn’t assuming any historical basis, just gameplay basis. I guess the only historical basis might be saved resources from not fighting each other, but that probably doesn’t justify an NO.
I have been thinking though that more of the Siberian territories should probably be worth 0 IPCs for income purposes rather than 1 IPC like they have been, because I can’t see how those regions produced more than places like Yukon, Greenland, Iceland, or some of the 0 IPC islands… It would better reflect Japan’s unwillingness to go through Siberia because it wouldn’t gain them anything regardless…
The fact that it is giving up its units to fight their will mean that-
China will soon be holding most of the cost
The DEIs will be taken
UK will have 40+ income or
The US will be so power it can liberate Russian territorys while taking the whole Pacific.
Japan can only really manage 2 major atttacks at one time, so its their loss for attacking.
@democratic:
Japan can only really manage 2 major atttacks at one time, so its their loss for attacking.(Russia)
But Germany’s gain.
As I said, the only time this would be good is if Russia holds all its territories and is about to attack Germany, and so Japan captures 1 territory to stop them.
