Can Russia survive? (Alpha +3)


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Some things have changed and probably still will.  Like the Russian NOs and Japan rules.  And I bet a lot of the changes will be reverted or changed yet again once it is published for peer review. lol.  No one’s perfect, but I don’t really want to post anything until I get quite a few more 2nd edition games online under my belt.


  • Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

    That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.

    Interesting side note: That was one thing that made Hitler really ticked off at the Japanese. He wanted them to attack Russia and tie down those divisions but they didn’t. Thus, the Russian offensives in winter of 41,42. Also, I think he didn’t really want America brought into the conflict, but was bound by the tri-partite pact once Japan attacked the US.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    My belief is that Hitler did want America in the war because we were supplying war materials to his enemies.  I just feel that he may have been far happier if America’s overt involvement had not come until after London fell when it may have been possible to get the United States to surrender or at least enter into a no contest agreement.

    Of course, I cannot read minds and even if I could, “Unkle” Adolf’s mind has been dead for at least 30 years before I was born, so it would probably have said nothing but <<drool>> lol.  (I use the term Uncle in the same manner as we referred to Stalin by the way, not in a good way!)</drool>


  • Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    Of course, I cannot read minds and even if I could, “Unkle” Adolf’s mind has been dead for at least 30 years before I was born, so it would probably have said nothing but <<drool>> lol.  (I use the term Uncle in the same manner as we referred to Stalin by the way, not in a good way!)</drool>

    Oh yes, I understand. It’s not “He’s Uncle Adolf, everyone loves him!” but more like your mom telling you “Don’t go over to Uncle Adolf’s house without an adult!”


  • '13

    @knp7765:

    So, to sum it up, if you play with NOs and Germany is on the offensive and going strong, Germany will get extra money from the NOs while Russia will NOT.
    If you play without NOs, it may even the game out a little and give Russia a little better chance against Germany.
    By the way, I know you are asking about Russia vs. Germany, but playing without NOs will really hurt Italy. For the first few rounds, more of their income comes from NOs than territory.

    Exactly what I was looking for. Thx!


  • '13

    @Cmdr:

    Honestly, what would have helped Russia is an immunity to invasion by Japan unless Russia first declares war on Japan.  (Russia would be treated as neutral territories on the Pacific map which means American, British and ANZAC troops could not stage through Red territories until Russia DOWs Japan.)

    That would assure the Russians of 13 IPC and they would not have to leave a blocking wall behind - so they could walk those far eastern units to the German front if need be, or they would have the choice to leave them and use them against Japan.  And it really does not hurt Japan much that I am seeing, any Russian incursion is usually at the end to push the Germans over the top for the win, or at least that is what I am SEEING in the games  have looked at so far.

    Makes a lot of sense.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Taking away the NOs from everyone might work too, I am just worried it’s too drastic.

    Granted, anything that stops the Americans from earning 1000 IPC a round isn’t ALL bad.  But ANZAC, India, USA and Italy make a lot of money from NOs and I just wonder how drastic a shift it would be if that income was removed.  Yes you would take some from Japan too, but my ponderance is that Japan could lose 10-15 IPC a round if it means the US loses 30 IPC, ANZAC 5 IPC, India 5 IPC.

    Yes, it would make the situation in Russia better, but does this mean that Japan is going to need a bid?  (Not saying it does mean that, asking the question!)


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Only the US needs the NO bonus. In other A&A games they trail behind the 2  Axis powers when they should be richer.
    I love the NOs in Global, like I did in Anniversary, but the Axis’ income is  increased too much by them.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I never quibbled that America needed NOs.  I think NOs keep the Americans honest.  My beef with the American NO is that it’s darn near impossible to take the big one from them and if you do manage to take it, why are the allies still playing?

    I would have made an NO for the US that none of the continental Australian territories nor East/West India are captured by Axis forces and taken the continental NO away.  Maybe add in that Brazil is allied or pro-allied.  This puts the NO in jeopardy instead of just assuming you’ll have it for the entire game as free income.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    I think the US should be super rich when it joins the war. The problem it shpuld  face is crossing the oceans in sufficient numbers and in time.
    Oh and not collecting the 52 income while not interested in joining a world war!
    But then I am funny about that.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Fine, no American NO for continental safety.

    +1 IPC for Midway total value 1 IPC
    +1 IPC for Wake Island total value 1 IPC
    +1 IPC for Aleutian Islands total value 1 IPC
    +4 IPC for Alaska total value 6 IPC
    +3 IPC for Hawaiian Islands total value now 4 IPC

    These are areas that Japan can realistically invade, but are still easy enough for America to liberate or prevent from falling.  It gives the United States the money prior to being at war and heavily rewards the Japanese for invading American soil which should draw firepower off Russia, China, Australia and India (basically Japan is rewarded for the DEI and for attacking America giving them a choice.)


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Sorry if I confused you Jen. I meant  I thought US should not get 52 a turn whilst at peace.
    When war breaks out, then give them a bigger NO.
    In Pacific they started with 17, then got a 40 NO for being at war. I liked that.
    It does not work as well when you play Europe as they have Central US on that map, adding 10 to the already richer East Coast.
    I would like to see a poor US accelerate to a super rich one in a few turns.
    But I have said I am weird like that. I came to this forum 18 months ago with this same gripe. It does not grow old for me!

    I know balancing these games must be  a nightmare.
    Being on the receiving end of a well played Axis player in a game with Garg,  I have come to see the Allies do have it hard and I feel the Axis NOs are the difference.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I don’t care what America earns, we could even house rule that all US territories that are NOT in the comprised of one or more United States states (but including any captured by America) are worth double once the US is at war.  Just make it so that the axis has an easier chance of capturing that income.

    So a US limited to the 50 United States and no more should collect only 45 IPC and no more.  20 EUS, 12 CUS, 10 WUS, 2 Alaska, 1 Hawaii.

    However, Formosa is worth 2 IPC to the United States.  Even captured allied territories like Morocco or French Indo-China might be, would be worth double for the US.



  • Why not start America at 32 for the first round, 42 for the second, then come up to 52 plus NO’s on the third and following rounds. Would sort of emulate a slow ramping up of wartime production.


  • Customizer

    I copied this idea down a while back.
    While not at war: US Major ICs are all Minor ICs and the US is restricted from technology development while at peace. As for income, in addition to collecting NO National Objective income, the US income goes on a percentage:
    Round 1 = 25% or 13 IPCs
    Round 2 = 50% or 26 IPCs
    Round 3 = 75% or 39 IPCs
    Round 4 = 100% or 52 IPCs (plus National Objective bonus IF at war)
    From Round 4 on, the US would always collect 100% of territorial income. I added the “IF at war” because theoretically it is possible for the US to NOT declare war during the collect income phase of turn 3 or even further. Plus it the Axis never attack the US directly, then they could remain neutral simply collecting their 52 IPCs and letting the Axis run wild on everyone else.
    Also, If the US is attacked before round 4, they immediately get 100% territorial income plus National Objectives.

    Imagine a game of Global 40 with a neutral United States. It would almost surely be an Axis victory, but think about how the Axis would have to dance around getting that victory. Think about the conditions that would bring the US into the war:
    1 > Any attack by an Axis power on US units and/or territories (obviously)
    2 > If London falls into Axis hands.
    3 > If Japan makes an unprovoked declaration of war on UK India or ANZAC (including the DEI)
    4 > If US is not at war by the collect income phase of round 3, the US may declare war on any and all Axis powers.
    Okay, if we scratch the fourth condition and assume NO Axis units dare to attack any US units and/or territories, what are we left with? First of all, there would be NO SEALION, although Germany could still pound on Russia all they wanted without affecting the US. Also, this would have to be an Axis win on the European board if you go by victory cities: Berlin, Warsaw, Paris, Rome, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow and Cairo.
    A Pacific Axis win would be impossible if you enforced conditions 2 and 3. Let’s assume that UK India and ANZAC never DOW on the Japanese. That would mean the only victory cities Japan could possibly get would be the two they start out with: Tokyo and Shanghai. Calcutta and Hong Kong would be an unprovoked DOW on UK India. Sydney would be an unprovoked DOW on ANZAC. Manila, Honolulu and San Francisco are of course US cities so they are out of the question. Also, Japan would never get any of it’s National Objectives and never get the big money of the DEI.
    On the other hand, Japan would be free to pound China into non-existence and gobble up all the far eastern Soviet territories. Heck, with most of Russia’s defenses facing the Germans, Japanese units might be outside Moscow before the Germans. Russia would not stand a chance while the UK I don’t think would be able to do much about it. I don’t think UK India units could go into Russia for defense without declaring war on Japan.
    That brings up a curious question: If the UK India and Japan are not at war with each other, but Japan is at war with Russia, Can UK India units go up into Russia through Persia? If so, and Japanese units attack these UK India units, does that constitute a DOW by Japan on UK India?
    What about UK London units? If Japan manages to make it as far as Moscow, and UK London flies some fighters into Moscow, if Japan attacks Moscow is that an unprovoked DOW on the UK? If Japan DOW on UK London, UK India or ANZAC, it’s a DOW on all three. So, remembering that in this scenario Japan does NOT want to make an unprovoked DOW on the UK, could the UK put units up into Russia and block any Japanese advancement?
    This is assuming Germany, Italy and Japan have all DOW Russia. Also, UK London, UK India and ANZAC are all already at war against Germany and Italy. So, this would make UK London, UK India and ANZAC Allies with Russia due to all being at war with Germany and Italy. So if Japan DOW Russia, and UK puts any units in Russian territories, is that considered an DOW by the UK on Japan? Or if Japan attacked those UK units, would THAT be considered a DOW by Japan on the UK? Would it be unprovoked considering Japan was already at war with Russia?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    Nice work Knp. You have given this a lot of thought.
    You are right about Russia having no chance though. Perhaps Japan should be penalised for
    a DOW on Russia too. Make it another reason the US joined the war.
    Japan starts too strong,  as we all know, so my thoughts of penalising the US while not at war, will never make for a balanced game.
    And we still want to keep Russia in the game!
    The original NOs are the problem and that still needs to be redressed.
    Not sure I have made any sense. Feel like I have gone round in circles. Sorry!


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    There used to be an optional rule commonly played way, way, way back when I played on the MSN Gaming Zone where Japan was just restricted from ever invading Russia unless first invaded by Russia.

    That alone usually made life a lot easier on Russia’s survival.  Of course back then we used to give Russia bids because we were all morons and did not understand Allied play better and of course since then AAR, AA50 and AAG40 have been released…


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 '13 Moderator

    That might be the only option.
    But it still leaves a hell of a lot of Japanese units to enlarge the Empire to a ridiculous size, aided by too many NOs.
    I do like it as an option though.
    With a proviso that a certain number(a garrison) is left in Manchuria and Korea!
    Aren’t I maddening?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Nope not maddening at all.

    Sounds like a good precaution.


  • Customizer

    Well, if we restricted Japan from invading Russia at all, then all the Pacific would be left to is Japan pounding on China until China was all gone. Then Japan would simply sit there and stare across the borders at Russia and India.
    So basically we would end up with a game of Europe 1940 with Russia having a few more territories and no United States and taking up twice the room of ACTUAL Europe 1940.
    I guess the only other way to fix this scenario is force UK/India and ANZAC to DOW on Japan, thus allowing Japan to plow through the DEI and India and isolate Australia while still pounding on China. At least this would give the Japanese navy a little workout by smashing the UK and ANZAC ships. Of course, if Russia decided to get bold and attack Manchuria/Korea, then that restriction would be lifted and Japanese troops could march across eastern Russia and not worry about attacking any UK units since they are already at war anyway.
    They still could not get a Pacific win as they could only capture 5 victory cities without attacking the US.
    I tried a game of the original Pacific once with the US left out of it and any US territories strictly off limits. Of course, Japan just plowed through everything and won in about 5 rounds or so, but it was an interesting experiment.

    By the way, I totally agree with you guys on the US NOs, especially the 10 IPCs for Eastern, Central and Western USA. The US will ALWAYS collect that one through the entire game and if it was ever taken away, that’s pretty much an Axis victory anyway. The only scenario I can think of where it wouldn’t necessarily be at or close to an Axis victory is if Japan managed to sneak over and take Western US but they didn’t have 5 other victory cities yet. Since the Major IC there would degrade to a Minor IC upon Japanese occupation, and with Major ICs in Central and Eastern US, the Japanese could not hope to hold Western US for more than 2 rounds.
    Anyway, I think that NO should be eliminated or at least cut in half (to 5 IPCs for controlling E, C and W US). I really like Jennifer’s idea of making some of the islands into NOs for the US. +1 for Midway, +1 for Wake, +1 for Guam. Those three the US would get for possessing them already and would be in direct opposition to Japan’s NO of 5 IPCs for control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomons and Gilberts.
    Hawaii, Aleutians and Alaska are already a US NO (along with Line and Johnston Islands) so how about this: +1 IPC each for control of original Japanese islands. This would be Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Formosa, Marianas, Palau, Carolines and Marshalls. That would be an extra 7 IPC incentive for the US. Yeah, I know it would actually increase the US NO income by 5 more IPCs if we cut the continental NO down to 5, but it would give the US more incentive to get these little islands that are usually forgotten about in most games AND give Japan incentive to possibly place garrisons there to protect them and keep them from the US.
    Also, we could simply eliminate the continental NO all together and break even. After all, the three US main territories are worth 42 IPCs to the US already, do they really need to be worth another 10? Think about it, if the US lost every other territory outside of the 3 main ones, with the continental NO they would be making 52 IPCs, which is the same as their total territorial income before going to war.
    The National Objective income is supposed to be WAR driven and I think getting all these little Japanese islands better represents that than simply holding onto your three main territories, all three of which have Major ICs and thus are easily defended and one of which is your capital. By that logic, Germany should get 10 IPCs for controlling Germany, Western Germany and Greater Southern Germany. Perhaps Japan should get 10 IPCs for holding Japan, Korea and Kiangsu (Shanghai).
    The more I think about this, the more I think I will house rule it into our games.


  • Customizer

    Just thought of some more ideas for NOs for other countries. Germany, Italy, ANZAC and China I am okay with what they currently have. No need for changes there.
    First, the United Kingdom definitely needs some. The +5 for control of ALL UK territories is really kind of a joke. So what do you think of these:
    UNITED KINGDOM National Objectives:
    When the UK is at war in Europe:
    +5 IPCs when there are NO German submarines in the Atlantic or Mediterranean with the exclusion of Sea Zones 113, 114, 115 and 100.
    +3 IPCs for UK control of ALL Canadian territories (including Western Canada on the Pacific board).
    +3 IPCs for UK control of Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt and Trans-Jordan.
    +3 IPCs for Allied control of Ethiopia and Italian Somaliland and NO Axis units in any African territory south of Egypt and the Sahara.
    +3 IPCs for Allied control of Eastern Persia, Persia, Northwest Persia and Iraq.
    When the UK is at war in the Pacific:
    +5 IPCs for UK control of Malaya and Kwangtung.
    +5 IPCs for Allied control of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Celebes.

    Also, I know that France doesn’t play a big part in most games, but I thought they should have at least one.
    FRANCE National Objectives:
    +5 IPCs for any European Axis territory under French control.
    Sure it’s not likely to happen, but it is a possibility. Say France gets liberated, builds up some tanks and men and takes Holland/Belgium or North Italy. Unlikely but possible.

    Also, I have always thought that Japan should have a couple of new NOs . Here’s my ideas:
    JAPAN National Objectives:
    When Japan is NOT at war:
    +10 IPCs for not being at war with the United States, not making an unprovoked declaration of war on UK/ANZAC and not occupying French Indo-China.
    When Japan is At War:
    +5 IPCs for Axis control of Sumatra, Borneo, Java and Celebes.
    +5 IPCs for Axis control of Midway, Wake, Guam, Solomons and Gilbert Islands.
    +5 IPCs each for Axis control of India (Calcutta), New South Wales (Sydney), Hawaii (Honolulu) and/or Western United States (San Francisco).
    +5 IPCs for Axis control of ALL Chinese territories.
    +5 IPCs ONE TIME for destruction of Flying Tigers fighter.
    I personally think these are good for Japan. The second NO with the 5 islands is nearly impossible to get and keep. It’s hard for Japan to take ALL Chinese territories, but it is doable and it will cost Japan a lot to achieve that goal. I think they should be rewarded for it.
    As for the Flying Tigers fighter, the Flying Tigers were a real nuisance to Japan’s operations in China both in real life and in our game. I think if they managed to put them out of action once and for all, it would have been a real boost to Japanese morale. I figure it could happen either in a Japanese attack or a disastrous Chinese attack.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I like the British one for no submarines.  It used to exist, pretty sure it was taken away at some point, but should be there really.

    France should get a one time 50 IPC NO for liberation of Paris this is to encourage the allies to liberate it, instead of currently where the allies would do anything NOT to liberate Paris if at all possible.  This NO would result in units purchased by France and placed IMMEDIATELY upon liberation of Paris in Paris.  Yes, this means it goes in the middle of another player’s turn.

    Japan’s NO for killing the flying tigers is the death of the flying tigers.


  • Customizer

    Yeah, I think that British NO was in one of the Alphas, not sure which one at the moment. I agree with you, that should have stayed with Britain. As much of a threat as the U-boats were to England’s survival, it’s silly not to have that. Plus, I use the optional rule where German subs convoy raid @ 3 IPCs. (No, I don’t do the rolling dice for convoy raiding because I never liked that rule.)
    Very interesting idea for France. That would make France actually a big player in the final demise of Germany (let’s face it, in most games once Paris is liberated, it’s pretty much on the down hill slope for Germany by then.). So the placing of 50 IPCs of French units in Paris would be a special circumstance since the Paris IC is a Minor due to German occupation. Plus, since you place them there immediately upon liberation of Paris, on France’s next turn they would be like any other power doing the full turn except for the Purchase Units, since they wouldn’t actually have any IPCs just yet. They could still combat move, combat and non-combat move. Also, in the case that Italy is still strong in N. Italy, with that many new French units Paris isn’t likely to be recaptured.
    As for that Japan NO for killing the Flying Tigers fighter, I do see what you mean about it. One problem that crossed my mind is Japan sending a whole fleet of planes past Chinese infantry stacks in front just to kill that Chinese fighter. One solution would be on the Chinese player’s part to always keep a good size stack of infantry with the fighter so even if Japan wants to send a bunch of planes to get it, they have to wade through a stack of infantry to do so and could lose several planes themselves, making that one time NO not worth the cost. Another possible solution is to give China a couple of AA guns. Of course it would be up to the Chinese player to make sure that fighter manages to land with the AA guns.

    I would like to try that one out a few games. We often take turns playing different countries. Perhaps if I see different Japan players keep sending waves of planes just to kill the Chinese fighter and try to get that NO, I would remove it. If only one player does that and the rest play more normally, perhaps I could keep that one in play. I might point out that a lot of times I see different Japanese players when given the chance go out of their way a bit to get that fighter even without a special NO. Still, that one is currently questionable.



  • What Japan needs is an easier NO for taking the American Islands, nothing more nothing less. US needs a counter NO for taking Japanesse islands.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    It was either Anniversary, or one of the Alpha’s that had the best Japanese/American Island NO’s.

    It was basically, japan had 5 Islands, and got +5 for them, and USA had 5 islands and got plus 5 for them, and both sides were constantly picking an island or two off of their enemy to stop the NO.

    Worked great.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 5
  • 14
  • 25
  • 58
  • 40
  • 30
  • 4
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

55
Online

13.7k
Users

34.1k
Topics

1.3m
Posts