Global setup with new Pacific setup?



  • We have played a couple of global games and with different Pacific setups suggested by Larry.

    The latest (with added Chinese inf, NB in NSW, etc) is probably good for Pacific, but may cause a too weak axis in global. Tommorrow I am going to do a new global game.

    Any suggestions on what setup I should use?

    Thanks!


  • Official Answers

    Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!


  • '10

    I would add USSR to that NO…  For Historical balance?



  • @Krieghund:

    Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!

    Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

    FMG, in that case, Russia declares war and destroys the NO


  • '10

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Krieghund:

    Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!

    Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

    FMG, in that case, Russia declares war and destroys the NO

    I don’t see why Russia would want the war in the East? Japan has the advantage given Air Power in the conflict.


  • Official Answers

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

    Good point.  For purposes of this exercise, let’s just say that a power must control its capital in order to declare war.  France should be in no position to do so if Germany does its job.  If this ends up being the way we want to go, we can come up with a more elegant solution.



  • @FieldMarshalGames:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    @Krieghund:

    Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!

    Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

    FMG, in that case, Russia declares war and destroys the NO

    I don’t see why Russia would want the war in the East? Japan has the advantage given Air Power in the conflict.

    Russia can declare war and retreat.



  • Thanks for the tips. I will use the NO and will leave out the USSR for the time being.



  • @Krieghund:

    @calvinhobbesliker:

    Than Japan can only get that NO once since France will declare war on it F1.

    Good point.  For purposes of this exercise, let’s just say that a power must control its capital in order to declare war.  France should be in no position to do so if Germany does its job.  If this ends up being the way we want to go, we can come up with a more elegant solution.

    Wouldn’t this be a two way street?
    Would it be safe to say that once France looses its capital (G1), that Jap could take FIC J1 w/o loosing its 10 ipc NO? Jap has nowhere to send its DOW to. Paris is in axis hands, and the French government is in chaos.


  • Official Answers

    No.  By the rules, you must declare war on a power before attacking its territories.  There’s no exception made if the power doesn’t control its capital.  As I said, we’ll need a more elegant solution.

    If it makes you more comfortable, just say that Japan gets the NO if it’s not at war with US or UK/ANZAC and it has not invaded any French territories.



  • and what about “not invaded” any Soviet territories either?
    Also UK can spil the bonus by attacking on UK 1. So this needs some serious revision

    or why not simply change the NO to be:

    Japan collects 10 IPCs as long as Japan only controls its original terriotory and any Chinese territory.
    This bonus is lost once a state of war exists between Japan and the United States.



  • As Japan it would be a lovely present having UK declare war on me. I can kick them without having to worry about the USA.


  • TripleA

    @oztea:

    and what about “not invaded” any Soviet territories either?
    Also UK can spil the bonus by attacking on UK 1. So this needs some serious revision

    or why not simply change the NO to be:

    Japan collects 10 IPCs as long as Japan only controls its original terriotory and any Chinese territory.
    This bonus is lost once a state of war exists between Japan and the United States.

    or
    Japan collects 10 IPCs if not at war with usa

    or
    Japan collects 10 IPCs if not at war with usa or uk


  • Official Answers

    If this NO ends up being used, it will definitely include all four of the powers I mentioned, as Japanese aggression against France was the trigger of the western trade embargo against Japan historically.  As to the USSR, it may be up for debate, but I doubt we need to give the Soviets any more incentive to declare war on Japan.


  • 2018 2016 '13 '12

    Cool. Glad to hear this option is being considered for Alpha. I think it is the best method for addressing a weak Japan. (If this proves to be the case.)



  • @Krieghund:

    No.  By the rules, you must declare war on a power before attacking its territories.  There’s no exception made if the power doesn’t control its capital.  As I said, we’ll need a more elegant solution.

    If it makes you more comfortable, just say that Japan gets the NO if it’s not at war with US or UK/ANZAC and it has not invaded any French territories.

    I still don’t see the logic here. After Paris fell (June 1940), Japan occupied FIC (Sept 1940) and it fits in the time line. Once you loose your capital your tt should be up for grabs. Hell even UK attacked the French during this time, so why not Japan. I don’t see any reason why Japan should be penalized for invading FIC. It was a historical action Japan took to cut off aid to China, a power it’s is at war with. I know the game doesn’t include any Vichy type rules, but FIC should be fair game for Japan (along with any other French tt Japan can reach). In global Japan needs something to conquer while it is stalling its full blown attack. It needs to be able to increase its income other then just China (as its enemies will be doing so in the region). I don’t see why you would be considering a Jap NO (bribe), to stall its attacks on the UK/US tt, only to handicap it.

    With this thinking before we know it a Jap invasion of FIC will bring the US into the war early (which it obviously should not do), so why would it take away its proposed NO involving war with UK/US.



  • @WILD:

    @Krieghund:

    No.  By the rules, you must declare war on a power before attacking its territories.  There’s no exception made if the power doesn’t control its capital.  As I said, we’ll need a more elegant solution.

    If it makes you more comfortable, just say that Japan gets the NO if it’s not at war with US or UK/ANZAC and it has not invaded any French territories.

    I still don’t see the logic here. After Paris fell (June 1940), Japan occupied FIC (Sept 1940) and it fits in the time line. Once you loose your capital your tt should be up for grabs. Hell even UK attacked the French during this time, so why not Japan. I don’t see any reason why Japan should be penalized for invading FIC. It was a historical action Japan took to cut off aid to China, a power it’s is at war with. I know the game doesn’t include any Vichy type rules, but FIC should be fair game for Japan (along with any other French tt Japan can reach). In global Japan needs something to conquer while it is stalling its full blown attack. It needs to be able to increase its income other then just China (as its enemies will be doing so in the region). I don’t see why you would be considering a Jap NO (bribe), to stall its attacks on the UK/US tt, only to handicap it.

    This allows the NO to actually be worth 3 or 8 instead of 5 or 10 if needed. Besides, the US cut off oil trade with Japan as soon as it took FIC, so it’s historical.


  • Official Answers

    @WILD:

    I still don’t see the logic here. After Paris fell (June 1940), Japan occupied FIC (Sept 1940) and it fits in the time line. Once you loose your capital your tt should be up for grabs. Hell even UK attacked the French during this time, so why not Japan.

    UK attacked the French to keep French assets from falling into Axis hands.  The same can’t be said for Japan.

    @WILD:

    I don’t see any reason why Japan should be penalized for invading FIC. It was a historical action Japan took to cut off aid to China, a power it’s is at war with. I know the game doesn’t include any Vichy type rules, but FIC should be fair game for Japan (along with any other French tt Japan can reach). In global Japan needs something to conquer while it is stalling its full blown attack. It needs to be able to increase its income other then just China (as its enemies will be doing so in the region). I don’t see why you would be considering a Jap NO (bribe), to stall its attacks on the UK/US tt, only to handicap it.

    What, exactly, can Japan conquer outside China and the USSR that won’t bring UK/ANZAC and USA into war with them?  FIC only.  I hardly think that giving Japan 10 IPCs for foregoing 2 can be considered a penalty.

    @WILD:

    With this thinking before we know it a Jap invasion of FIC will bring the US into the war early (which it obviously should not do), so why would it take away its proposed NO involving war with UK/US.

    Obviously not, since as Calvin pointed out the US cut off trade with Japan when FIC was invaded, but it did not declare war.  To the US, this invasion represented an expansion of Japan’s war beyond China, involving a European power in a conflict which had previously been confined to Asia.  The trade embargo was invoked to curtail Japan’s imperial ambitions.  Ironically, this is what led Japan to the necessity of capturing the Dutch East Indies to get the raw materials to continue its war effort and its attack on the US to protect those interests.

    In essence, this NO is similar in nature to the one Germany gets for not being at war with the Soviet Union.  It represents the benefit of an economic relationship that will become broken under certain conditions.



  • @Krieghund:

    Try using the same setup, but adding an NO for Japan that gives it 10 IPCs each turn that it’s not at war with any of the following powers: USA, UK/ANZAC, or France.  Have fun, and let us know how it goes!

    i will glad to see it in the next faq, because this “new” Japan is a bit weak. i think this new NO is a good point between historical accuracy and balancing. I hope that will be approved by LH.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

51
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts