Russian income trick.

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

@ShadowHAwk:

@Caesar:

@barney:

I’m probably misunderstanding here as I admittedly didn’t read the whole thread, but UK and USSR splitting iran would make sense for a pro allies neutral game wise, to represent the fact the allies controlled them.

I agree with your point that iran wasn’t pro uk or ussr. Don’t think they like anybody but themselves

We’re taking about how USSR can abuse the spread of Communism national objective by taking Iraq, the closest nation to do it and if we think it’s a good idea or not to which we got the topic of neutral Iran and Iraq.

In historical context, Iran was pro Axis for sure. The leaders expressed interest in Germany which didn’t make UK or USSR happy because we not only didn’t want them to get oil from friendly nations but also would give the Axis powers a back door.

The NO should really be restricted to europe only, not middle east of afrika, the allies would have never helped russia get those countries ( except for the invasion of neutral Iran )

In historical context, Iran was the only Neutral country. It traded with both germany and the allies. In contrast to the US which was waging an illegal war against germany at that time.
The allies wanted iran to join them, and hand over german nationals that where living peacefully in Iran,  when iran wanted to stay neutral they invaded the country to force them to join them.

Irak was anti-UK because they where oppressed by the british since WW1.

The problem with Spread of Communism is that it technically make sense for Africa and the Middle East. Stalin wanted Europe to see USSR as a European nation. However he wanted to take an advantage any where he gets, he knew that Japan was going to be a thorn in his side which is why he invested interest in Japan true enemy, China. However as history has shown, he willingly joined UK in an invasion of Iran. So it makes sense he can get Communist bonus out of Iraq and Africa. However the African bonus is the bigger issue. I try very much in the early games to get Italy to leave its colonies and destroy there military just to get USSR to take all four of them in Africa for a total of 12 dollars plus 2 for the territory value.

The allies would have never allowed russia to invade or occupy any neutral country ( except iran but they promised to leave once Iran surendered and lend-lease materials could go through )
For the NO bonus in Irak ( which was a british colony at that time ) or afrika the allies have to make way for the russians to invade areas that they wanted themself and not invade them.
For sicily its even more silly as russia needs to get on a US or UK transport do invade those spaces. Russia should never be allowed to go on any persons transports.

If you go for historic accuracy the allies wanted to invade through greece and the balkans to prevent russia from getting those countries so it does not make any sence that the allies help russia take more.

And besides we all know what really happened. And that was UK who wanted to do that and that is ALSO what Germany assumed the allies were going to do. This is actually why Turkey wanted to join the allies sooner than it did but US wanted them to stay neutral as it didn’t give Axis forces in Greece an excuse to invade another nation. US wanted to go right into Southern France from Africa but the agreement was knocking out Italy right then and there.

And as for the USSR being on transport, that is something I never thought of however if I am going to do that, I’d just have the Red Army land on Rome.

I did read somewhere a post or repost where Larry agreed with adding the Rus bomber to the G40 starting set after the 2nd edition was released. He was just concerned how the rest of the world would know about the bomber. Could anybody confirm this and/or post a link?
Thanks.

didn’t have time to read all of it, but one thing that has probably not been mentioned;

when germany is capable of taking moscow, then, it is time to retreat, if you alow his stack to kill you in moscow, and then turn south, it is hard to defend cairo, if you retreat from moscow, and force him to keep his stack there, then that stack will not turn south. at this point you will prolly only collect like 8 ipc anyways, while your army should be worth at least 250 IPC, prolly like 300, do not let him kill it for half the number of IPC, then it is far better to let him get moscow, and keep retreating, forcing him to either build a completly new army to attack cairo over land, or to alow you back into moscow at some point.

Yeah, I loved the intent behind the NOs but in practice it just means US does KJF so they can protect their production.

If America even helps Europe anymore it’s either sending bombers to UK or helping Russia from the Japan side.

Ironically, I agree with Cow on this one.  Russia could use a bomber.  This alone could balance the game.  Maybe a UK sub in the Med also.

Go back to SCHOOL Degrasse, nobody wants to hear what you have to say.

Oh wait… I guess I was the one who asked… :P

looks around

I bet it’s in the pacific manual too, or the original pacific Alpha.

If you take Southern France, don’t forget there are two surface ships in z93 that convoy raid it.

@Natasin:

@zooooma:

I recal a concern about this that if UK is at war with Japan but Russia is not at war in Europe, Russia can land a fighter in Egypt, forcing Italy to ignore it or attack Russia.  This only really works if UK declares war on turn one or two, and Germany has not attacked Russia by turn two or three.  I don’t see this as a problem for the Axis:

Japan would love a DoW by UK

Germany tends to attack Russia anyway

UK can generally hold Egypt by turn two without the Russians

If it’s the ahistoric nature of the situation that bothers you, how do you feel about Japan helping Italy in the Med, or America ignoring a Japanese occupation of Hawaii?

I’ve seen it noted before ( I believe by Krieg) that the attacker can choose to not attack units that it is not at war with. So technically Italy could still attack and Russia would just watch from the sidelines. Because it isn’t a combat turn of Russia, then I doubt they could choose to go to war at that one moment especially if it’s before turn 4.

That only applies to sea zones. If Italy takes the territory, and the Russian plane remains, what happens?