Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Link up A&A Pacific 1940 and Europe 1940, and you've got Axis & Allies Global 1940.
User avatar
Imperious leader
Posts: 5207
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Moving up to phase line red...

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by Imperious leader » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:11 am

The commonwealth was very clear in its allegiance to Britain. Perhaps the scattered nations of the empire would not fight on but the specific nations of the Commonwealth. These specific nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) had a special title with the empire. Their title was a "Dominion" and as dominions they had the right to enforce their own foreign policy. All of them declared war on Germany immediately. The South African Prime Minister at the time did not want to fight and his legislative branch was so against his decision that his coalition government collapsed as a result. The United Kingdom had active plans to set up a government-in-exile in Canada if Sealion was successful. So in short and again, would some of the Commonwealth surrender? Perhaps, its maybe even likely that some would. Would the Dominion nations surrender? Not a chance in hell.
This is 100% correct and covered in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer. UK had plans to flee to Canada and carry the war if UK was invaded.

Of all the Allied nations, perhaps only the Soviets might have surrendered according the Col. Glantz, who is an authority on this. IN October 41, Stalin send a secret emissary "peace feeler" to ask what terms Hitler might have in mind if he concluded an armistice. A second offer was made in early spring 42, but thats it.

And yes it can be argued that any peace Stalin might agree too would be of a unknown duration depending on the geopolitical situation.

They surrendered before in 1918, thanks to the poison pill the Kaiser sent called "Lenin" Germany is the only nation to have defeated the Russians, besides Japan in 1904-5
We really need an Axis and Allies World War one game so i can play that on August 1st, 2014.

waspII
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:44 pm

axis convoy boxes?

Post by waspII » Tue Jan 25, 2011 5:29 am

The only real issue I've had with the game is the presence of axis convoy boxes. I'm not exactly sure of the historical accuracy of these but can someone please explain to me what resources these boxes represent.

What resources were the axis bringing in from africa/western hemisphere that the allies were able to cut off? It seems to me that the vast majority of resources were found on the European continent. Anything esle from abroad was pretty much negligable. I understand that these might have been added for game play but was there any other reason or historical account for these that I'm unaware of?

I doubt larry will subtract these from an updated map but I just don't see how they belong.

Also, how many allied players out there have discovered the true allied strength in the new turn order? Sure it's great to have anzac go after the U.S. to help japan deal with the pacific better. However, has this created an even bigger problem for the axis? In this version of a&a...it seems to work out even better for the allies to have UK batting clean up after the U.S. With the UK likely having a huge ftr force and it's proximity to northern europe makes the US/UK punch so powerful...

I have yet to finish my latest game and although it appears somewhat even with it being anybody's game...the US/UK punch almost seems overwhelming by a competent allied player.

stew8888
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by stew8888 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:34 am

First off Canada being worth only 7 is pretty low when Australia is worth 8. Canada had twice the population and much more economic might than Australia in the time of WW2. It should be worth closer to 11 or 12. Next Canada did not declare war until the day after UK to make a statement. Canada also had their own beach on D-Day and lost troops in Italy, Africa, France, Hong Kong, Holland and Germany and had their own command structure. At one time they were the only standing army in UK combat ready, after Dunkirk. There were plans to evacuate all the British parliment to Ottawa and continue the war effort there and run the empire from there to keep fighting a fact. Canada would never had sued for peace with the largest economic power as their best freind and closest ally to the south. Also Canada had a much larger navy than shown as well, so did the UK and the Germans had far less subs in 1940. One could make the assumption that the destroyer and transport in 109 and at least 1 infranty in UK at the beginning of the were Canadian.
But this game is not exact history it as close as one can get while maintaining some balance. If the game decided that Canada would fight on and run the empire taking UK would be almost useless because with the help of the Americans it would be liberated easily if Canada fought on.

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by turner » Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:55 am

I personally, wouldn't have been oppossed to Canada being its own power with an income of 7. I would have balanced this by making Romania its own power with an income of 6 (Controllilng Slovakia/Hungary and Romania).

It may have added a little length to the game, but also some depth and interesting strategy possibilities.

That being said, if Canada fought on after UK was taken and only collected income from the territories with Canadian roundels (7 ipc) it would give the UK Europe player something to do.

I know some would say that this would be a "special rule" for the UK, but we already have "special rules" for the UK (split income), China (may place units without a factory, no capital, can place in newly captured territories, movement restrictions), USA (may not move adjacent to Europe or Africa before at war), Japan (Kamikaze), UK India and ANZAC (may occupy Dutch territories before at war), Russia (may be at war in one theatre and not the other). So the we don't want "special rules" to make the game too complex arguement is at best very, very weak.

mantlefan
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:33 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by mantlefan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:56 pm

Also, how do we reconcile the production during the occupation of London with the likely lack of production in these two when London is controlled by the UK? All of a sudden these places start producing because London has fallen, even though they haven't produced (or their portion of production ends up in London) before then. For it to make sense, you would need to have this production happening also before London even falls.

Maybe if you REQUIRED that the IPCs that could be received after the fall of London be spent in Canada or SA even if London is held by the allies, this could work. (Canada and SA would be able to spend the IPCs gained from their territories, and what is not spent is saved specifically for the Canadian/SA ICs on the next turn.)
Don't forget that London can build on SA and Canada ICs more than Canada and SA produce.

So here's the situation:
London is under allied control:
IPCs generated by London and other UK territories can be spent in SA/Canada
IPCs generated by SA/Canada can be spent in London

So you want UK to be able to take advantage of this abstraction, but as soon as it suits them to get rid of this advantage, it is thrown away?

The fact that SA/Canada can take advantage of being able to produce in London (and have London produce in them) means that they are not entitled to producing after London falls. They are linked by that abstraction. If we want them to be able to produce after London falls, they have to have a separate income pool from the beginning.
“A lie never lives to be old.” — Sophocles

aaron91
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:43 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by aaron91 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:36 pm

I fundamentally disagree with you. What do you mean if London is under allied control? London can either be under axis control or UK control. It does make sense that Canada and south Africa can produce more than they generate because resources from other parts of the empire however if London were cut off these resources would likely be mug harder to obtain bit I literally makes no sense that even though Canada generates 7 that just because London falls that they don't collect the income they generate naturally

stew8888
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:59 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by stew8888 » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:01 pm

Another fun way of doing things would be to make Canada it's own power and give them an NO. 5 IPC if Canada controls all their original territories as a function of lend lease from the USA. Lots of the USA help for Britain came to them through Canada. Now Canada has 12 IPC income but is a separate power. So the UK would only have 21 IPC and Canada would be forces to get troops over to UK to help defend it. They may also require a few more units a cruiser in 106 or what I like better is an air base in Halifax with one fighter there. As well the transport in sz 109 could be canadian but not the destroyer. Now the Commonwealth has more income but is separated even more. Making the supply lines worthy of fighting on the war in the Atlantic very hard to fight, which it was. At least 1 infantry maybe two infantry in the UK could also be Canadian and lost the French infantry and make it UK. Dunkirk could still happen bringing the French across.
Just some thoughts

turner
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:29 pm

Re: Theory Crafting For Alpha.+3

Post by turner » Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:04 pm

Obviously, giving the UK's whole income to Canada/South Africa if London fell would be a game breaker. Larry considered this earlier in this Alpha process and felt it killed SeaLion. However, I don't think that just Canada fighting on or South Africa and Canada fighting on would be that much of a problem.

If South Africa (2 ipc) and Canada (7 ipc) fought on after London fell, their combined income would be 9 ipc. They could buy 3 infantry a turn. Since it is a special case rule, you could even make it so that they could not gain income from any additional territories if you wanted (like China). That would freeze the UK Europe income at 9 ipc or less. You could also say that the IC in South Africa can only produce 1 unit per turn if you wanted.

I really don't see how this is some great advantage to the Allies.

Let's look at this in a typical in game scenario. A G3 SeaLion is successful, most of the UK fleet is destroyed including both transports. Italy and Japan are squeezing the UK in Africa and India respectively.

When London fell Germany would get its IPCs and at the end of turn UK 3 the Commonwealth (Canada/SA) would collect 9 IPC.

If you wanted to move units from Canada to try to take UK it would take forever.
UK:4 buy Transport 7 IPC
UK 5: buy 1 inf 1 tank 9 IPC
UK 6: buy Transport 7 IPC
UK 7: buy 1 inf 1 tank 9 IPC
UK 8: Attack London with 2 tanks and 2 inf.
Come on this would never happen.

At most the units would be bought for South Africa.

Realisticly the U.S. would have supplied both South Africa and Canada with anything they needed had the UK fallen.

The thing is would this be a good addition to the game? It wouldn't really affect the game outcome that much, if at all. It would give the UK player something to do. It would be more historic and kind of fun. Is that worth it?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests