Loosening The Alliances

We've talked about Advanced A&A... Now I'd like to hear your comments on what YOU envision a DELUXE A&A GAME to be. What would it look like.
Post Reply

Should the USSR and Japan be "Xenophobic"?

No, allow all allies on each side to co-operate fully
0
No votes
Only USSR is xenophobic, Japan can share with Ger/Ita
1
13%
Yes, both USSR and Japan "go it alone"
7
88%
 
Total votes: 8

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Loosening The Alliances

Post by Flashman » Thu May 10, 2007 4:07 pm

Most people are familiar with the "Soviet Xenophobia" rule and it's relatives, whereby UK and USA forces cannot enter Soviet territory. I'm generally in favour of this rule with the exception that UK/US aircraft may land in Russia (to refuel) but not fight there, and that (under the terms of the Soviet-Japanese non-aggression treaty) they may not use Russian territory to attack Japan.
I would propose a balancing rule whereby, like the Western Allies, Germany and Italy can share territory, but Japan is treated like the USSR and may not share areas with it's allies, nor allow them to use her territory to attack the Soviets.
This neatly divides the powers into four blocks, and balances the disadvantages of the SX rule.

This would have a profound effect on the games of AAR I've played, as the usual strategies of piling units into Russia would simply not be allowed. With no route into Russia for the Western Allies there would be no more crushing units into the Moscow/Caucasus/Persia "spine" where the game tends to be won and lost, and I believe more balanced and interesting strategies would have to be employed. Add in the S/JNAT and a historical playout with a Pacific war and the Western Allies invading Africa and patiently building up forces in Britain becomes likely.

This would tend to focus western strategy into invading the Mediterranean region, but the new Italian power should be able to deal with this.

Are people generally in favour of this, or do you see it as going too far to manipulate a historical scenario?

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Fri May 11, 2007 8:01 pm

To further balance, allow Germany and Italy to launch a joint strike to match that of the UK/US. Or, abolish JS altogether. This means that D-Day would have to be started with a British attack to soften up defences, with the Americans following up to take Western Europe. Except that Italy would play in between and could re-inforce the depleted German defences in France.
All the more reason for the Allies to invade Italy BEFORE launching D-Day.
Have you noticed I'm really warming to the idea of adding Italy to balance up the game and create a more historical playout?
On which subject, I think the combination of the Non-agrression treaty and the Soviet and Japanese xenophobia rule (together with Italy as 6th power) really makes this come to pass.
For example, where does the USA strike? Deprived of the time-honoured route of pumping in units to defend Russia, do they build up in England ready to invade France and then face the joint German/Italian defence?
Do they attack the Axis at it's weakest point by trying to force an Italian surrender?
Or might they just possibly consider that with an intelligent build-up they can do more damage to the Axis much sooner by waging a Pacific war against stand-alone-Japan?

polar
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:27 am

Post by polar » Mon May 14, 2007 6:30 am

Generally speaking, I am for such a rule. It will force the US player to do something else than put units into Russia through Alaska.
And I do not fear Russia becoming to weak. Given that some sort of changes are made to make it harder for Japan to Crush into Russia to early.

Japan has a very nasty tendency to become realy big, mainly cuz everybody else has better things to do. This I think is partly because the one dominating the seas will most probably dominate the seas all age. It is simply to resorce demanding to build up a navy, and it is to easy to loose whatever navy you have. The pacific would open up a lot if you have to roll a die every time there is a navy battle:
at 4,5 or 6 the defender MAY retreat.

Maybe you should roll one die for each defending unit, or the defender can choose to stay in formation rolling one die for all (either they fight as one or they escape as one)

-In effect, this will make navy battles less destructive for the looser.

-Lone transporters is not allways dead meat. Some may actually get where they want.

It opens the pacific and benefits US in the pacific, but would also benefit the German navy on the other side.

User avatar
Flashman
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 6:32 am
Location: Greater East Yorkshire Co-Prosperity Sphere

Post by Flashman » Mon May 14, 2007 4:26 pm

The lack of a Japanese front, and the inability of UK/USA to defend Russian soil should balance each other out.

Germany and Italy can help each other, but major on Russia (Germany) and the Mediterranean/Africa/Middle East (Italy)

With only one major Asian land border Japan will be tempted to go for a major drive through India. I would certainly add areas to Asia, doubling territories in China, South East Asia and India. The ability of US to raise infantry in China, and UK in India (without ICs) should slow down the Japanese advance.

Added IPCs to Germany and Italy can be safely balanced by more for USSR, such as increasing value of Caucasus. This keeps the balance on the eastern front while boosting Soviet income to a more reasonable level, giving the Russian player more purchasing options.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests