• Here’s a thought for whatever it might be worth (which may not be much).  Historically, the biggest help which Japan gave to Germany during the summer and fall of 1941 was the possibility of a Japanese invasion of the eastern Soviet Union kept some of the USSR’s best troops (its tough Siberian divisions, trained and equiped to fight in harsh winter conditions) tied down during the early months of the German invasion of Russia.  One can debate how much of a real threat this was, given that the Japanese had lost against the Russians and the Mongolians during the border wars of 1938 and 1939, and given that Japan was already in over its head in China even before it added to its problems by going to war against Britain and the USA…but Stalin still took it seriously enough to keep his Siberians at one end of the country while the Germans were running rampant at the opposite end.  It was only when Stalin learned in the fall of 1941 from Richard Sorge that Japan’s intentions were aimed south and east (against the British, Dutch and Americans) rather than north and west (against the Russians and Mongolians) that he transferred his Siberian divisions westward, getting them there just in time to help save Moscow from the Wehrmacht.

    As Wolfshanze and others have said, the A&A concept of Japan being able to march on Moscow is utterly absurd for many reasons.  On the other hand, it would be perfectly credible for Japan to be able to tie down part of the Soviet armed forces simply by being in a position to attack the eastern Soviet Union.  In other words, the Soviet player might be given an option of transferring some of his eastern forces to the western front if he judges that the Japanese threat on his eastern borders is too small to worry about…and the Japanese player might be given the option of reinforcing his own position in Manchuria and Korea in order to increase the threat to the USSR, thereby discouraging the Soviet player from transferring forces from the east to the west.  It would be realistic, but to keep this scenario truly realistic it would have to be coupled with a rule governing what would happen if Japanse strength in the area and/or Russian weakness in the area were to lead to a Japanese invasion of the eastern Soviet Union.  Realistically, the most that Japan ought to be allowed to grab off would be the portions of the USSR east of Lake Baikal (which is what the Japanese coveted in their ambitious moments) because the distances and terrain in Siberia are simply too formidable.  The Soviet player might therefore simply decide to sacrifice that part of the country to Japan (knowing that the losses will never extend west of Buryatia) in order to transfer all of his eastern forces to the western front.  So this may not be any actual improvement over either the OOB rules or the far simpler concept of simply prohibiting Japan from going to war against the USSR.  But perhaps someone here can think of a way to apply the historical threat-of-invasion / transfer-of-troops elements in a way that would work.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    Japan isn’t realistically or historically represented at all, since it was never even able to meet its Washington 1920 tonnage limits, had no air corps depth, and had awesome battleships that were white elephants.

    These “facts” are represented in this game by 3 core sea fleets, 2 strategic bombers for each axis (huh?), nearly 20 air fleets, and well, also a bunch of battleships too, all in 1940!

    As you said, the Japanese were not ready for strategic combined arms warfare against Russia on the battlefield, so they were also not ready for strategic continent-crossing offensives across thousands of miles.  The were a so called “naval power”, while somehow having minimal radar and only 2.5 tons of shipping for every 10 that the UK and US had.  They had six unarmored fleet carriers against 30 fleet and 60 escort carriers.

    the tie-up rule you refer to Mr. Marc, is in the game; its 1940 Europe 2ed standalone NO “Russia gains 7 IPC during euro game during war”

  • Sponsor

    Lately I’ve been appreciating Axis & Allies 1940 Global for the strategy board game it is, and letting go expectations of it needing to represent a WW2 simulator.

  • '21 '20 '18 '17

    My basic position is that “games that attempt realism aren’t, and aren’t as much fun as a result”

    wish we would spend more time asking why Fortress America isn’t “more realistic” with the big blue Pan-Caribbean Alliance coming up through texas…

    :wink:

  • '21 '18 '16

    A&A will never be realistic and that is the whole point. You get to rewrite history. Isn’t that what the initial promos for the Gamemaster series touted?

    As many on here lament, the setup could probably be a bit more balanced and a bid system makes everyone feel whole sometimes. YG’s group uses a victory system. We use our own realism rules to cause some randomness and generally screw up the game at times. I’ve been burned twice with our system when certain victory was within my grasp.

    That’s the great thing about this game. Everyone tries for balance in this game. Do we ever ask why? BECAUSE YOU LOST THE LAST ONE!!! We try to find some way to smooth out the gaps we perceive.

    Often it’s just a matter of dice rolls. The strategy is sound but luck was not on your side. Sometimes its because we drank one too many beers and insert result.

    As YG said before, this isn’t a simulator but rather for some a way to get together with people you hopefully like enough to spend 10-20 hours with, drink beer, and talk smack. A way to reconnect with your old buds and check out from reality for a while. My harsh reality consists of low oil and gas prices as a petroleum engineer. The game lets me forget all that crap and live out my imaginary warlord fantasy.

    As Taamvan said, those Pan-Carribeans would never make it past San Antonio. FA is such an awesome game. I even have the one with Saddam Hussein on the cover!!!

    May the dice gods be in your favor.


  • I agree that Japanese wouldn’t have gotten deep into Russia, and that tanks or even inf getting anywhere near Moscow is far fetched. With that said this game allows the Japanese to crush China, and invade India on a normal basis. Those pesky Japanese also often get into the Mid East and sometimes Africa which is also absurd. So should we bar the Japanese from crossing over to the Euro map, and the Germans from the Pac map?

    Probably not


  • Thanks guys for all the great ideas and comments.

    I too support the enforcement of the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact, at least at first. In Barbarossa, Germany was crippled by harsh conditions before it got to Moscow. Thus, it does not seem plausible for Japan to launch an extensive campaign through Siberia, which is Northern most route for Japan to travel. I think it could be allowed for Japan to attack Russia if she reaches her border through China, because A) it will take a while, B) China cant turtle in the Burma Road any more, and C) it seems possible for Japan to send SOME troops to take pressure off Germany.

    The rule that I best think could address this issue is requiring Axis air to be a certain (TBD) distance from their ground forces, so that you wont see Germany funneling an air force east, purely on their own. Thoughts?


  • Like others said, I dont want a scripted game. When I play Hirohito then I wanna make my own decisions, man. Besides, how do you explain that Djenghis Khan and Attila the Hun could cross the Siberian plains, the Kazakhstan desert and the Ural mountains on horseback like 1000 years ago, but in 1940 the Japanese was not even able to drive like 10 miles into Russia Far East before the terrain force them to stop ? The Japanese did in fact conquer and use the Russian railroad in Manchuria a few years before WWII, so what kind of magical force is it that deny them to capture and use the Russian railway and roads in Buryatia ? The terrain in China with mountains and rivers was much more difficult to attack than the plains in Siberia, and they had no problems doing that. Is it because the population in Buriatya would put up some fierce resistance ? That population was ethnically Chinese and Mongolian, and Russia had to have like 30 security divisions there just to keep them from doing a revolt. Sorry but I cant see no rational reason to deny Japan to attack Russia Far East, other than it did not happen in the real war, so if we want to play this game out the historicall correct way then we need some scripted rules


  • @WILD:

    I agree that Japanese wouldn’t have gotten deep into Russia, and that tanks or even inf getting anywhere near Moscow is far fetched. With that said this game allows the Japanese to crush China, and invade India on a normal basis. Those pesky Japanese also often get into the Mid East and sometimes Africa which is also absurd. So should we bar the Japanese from crossing over to the Euro map, and the Germans from the Pac map?

    Probably not

    Germany had lots of colonies on the Pacific map before WWI so I guess there is no rational reason to keep them out of there. And Japan was in fact an advanced military power that captured colonies all over the place, so why is it absurd when they get into Africa ? Should it not be more absurd that a tiny island like England had a lot of colonies in China ?


  • That’s generally what war is about, one country(s) wanting to expand and colonize, and other county(s) trying to stop it to protect their own interests. England was a super power at the time, it won multiple wars allowing it to expand the Empire. With expansion comes a strain of resources and uprisings (like that little conflict in the America’s). Although the English were on the winning side of WWII much of the Empire was disassembled afterwords.

    The axis partners had spheres of interest prior to the start of WWII. Germany would dominate Europe, Italy the Med region, and Japan would get Asia and the Pacific. If things had continued to go the axis way,  those lines very well could have gotten blurred leading to conflicts among the axis. We all know that the Germans were capable of back stabbing their treaty partners.

    Yea the Germans were late to the party, but did colonize in the Pacific and Africa prior to WWI. As a result of WW1 they lost those colonies. It is reasonable to believe that had the war progressed in their favor the Germans would want those lost territories back at some point. Would the Japanese just freely relinquish those Pac territories? Maybe some kind of trade off?

    I’m no historian, but I don’t think the Japanese had any interest in expanding into Africa during the war(?). That would fall under German/Italian influence where the Euro axis were already fighting. I’m not saying the Japanese didn’t have the means to make landings in Africa, only that it would probably raise red flags to their axis partners if they did. Plus such a landing would have been a major strain on Japanese ambitions and holding they already had in their own back yard. They chose to keep the NAP w/Russia to continue their conquest of Asia and the Pacific (against the wishes of their strongest ally). I don’t think the Japanese would have looked at Africa unless they got the US to sign a treaty giving them complete reign of Asia and the Pac. Then they may have looked towards Africa or the Mid East???

    With that said, I like that fact that if the US goes full tilt Europe the game allows you as the Japanese to venture to into Africa, and other European territories. Same for if the Japanese are getting pounded the Germans/Italians can make gains on the Pac side if they want. I wouldn’t like a set of rules that limit you to one map side or the other. Many people already complain about the Acme Chinese wall as it is.

    If a house rule limited axis cross overs, or base certain moves on a domino type of effect, I think that you would also have look at putting in some US spending limits per theater as well.

Suggested Topics

  • 8
  • 1
  • 12
  • 8
  • 18
  • 11
  • 23
  • 12
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

24

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts