Am I still safe?

[Chuck?]

In my game against Raver http://www.kotraba.com/toaw.asp?Game=RavervsChuck I have won the battle of britain and also caused the United States to enter the war. Will either of these allow the USSR to declare war?

[Kraut]

nop, the first time Russian can declare war is between turn 110..149 (you better bet on 110 ;) )

[Mark Stevens]

Provided you don't actually use the bonus marines, paratroops and sealift capacity to invade the UK:that would allow USSR activation. If you're planning a Sealion, make sure that you cover the East with some decent units (although you'll get some bonus units and forts anyway).

If you choose to use the extra troops and supplies in the Mediterranean, as advocated by Raeder and Kesselring, it can be very useful if you're deadlocked there.

_________________________________


"Where are the officers, the pensioners and the double-pay men? Let them come to the front!" The cry from the Swiss pike columns, trapped under a murderous fire in the sunken ditch at the Battle of Bicocca, 1522.

[otto]

If the bonus units are not used to invade England than wouldn't the Axis player always choose the Bomb England TO? There seems to be no negative to it.

[otto]

Boy - that is not much of a negative. Especially since the Axis player can control (for the most part) the events that trigger the US entry. Seems like it should be higher. At face value I would alwyas take the TO and hope I won thereby taking a permanant 1,000 increase in shipping and the extra units (paratroopers are particularily nice). If teh Axis loses the +5 is not that big of a deal (although they do end up getting nothing for it). I am tempted to do it in my current game even though I have no desire or plans to invade England. I probably won't because it just seems too gamey if I have no real plans to attack England.

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Chuck
I wouldn't say it was too gamey. If you win the battle of britain the United Kingdom is going to have make sure they protect the home island before worrying about other areas. This would allow the Axis more opportunities in the middle east and africa.

That is how it should be, but the reality is that the UK player does not have to worry about defending the UK, IMO. Rather, they can freely send the bulk of their forces off to fight wherever and count on the game itself protecting the UK.

If the Germans land in the UK, the USSR will enter and you simply ship a bunch of Soviet Corps into the UK to defend it, since you won't have anything else to do with them anyway.

The Allied player should entice the Acis player to land in the UK. It's the best thing they could hope for. You get the USSR starting on their ramp up at least a year BEFORE Germany can go pound on them. The worst case scenario is you trade the UK for the USSR and the US entering much earlier than the German player is ready for. The game hinges on the US and USSR, not the UK, so this is a decent trade.

Berkut

[Mark Stevens]

A couple of points:

winning the Battle of Britain but then using the sealift and bonus units elsewhere doesn't seem particularly 'gamey' to me - it represents the British RAF and Royal Navy taking a good kicking, and consequently being less able to defend, say, the Mediterranean, which is the most likely place to use the extra Axis capacity.

Berkut, I know you're particularly unhappy with the possibilities of a 'Sealion' as the game stands, and certainly if the Soviets are allowed to ship unlimited numbers of troops to the UK it probably is impossible. We do suggest in the Briefing that both players agree on some of the optional rules, and - for you - too late now, I know - I'd suggest either limiting or forbidding the transfer of the Red Army to reinforce the West, and vice versa. I'd personally never do it, but would Churchill, in extremis, have allowed Soviet units into the UK?

[Berkut]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
A couple of points:

winning the Battle of Britain but then using the sealift and bonus units elsewhere doesn't seem particularly 'gamey' to me - it represents the British RAF and Royal Navy taking a good kicking, and consequently being less able to defend, say, the Mediterranean, which is the most likely place to use the extra Axis capacity.

Berkut, I know you're particularly unhappy with the possibilities of a 'Sealion' as the game stands, and certainly if the Soviets are allowed to ship unlimited numbers of troops to the UK it probably is impossible. We do suggest in the Briefing that both players agree on some of the optional rules, and - for you - too late now, I know - I'd suggest either limiting or forbidding the transfer of the Red Army to reinforce the West, and vice versa. I'd personally never do it, but would Churchill, in extremis, have allowed Soviet units into the UK?

Hehe, that is an *excellent* question, and one I had not actually thought about.

My objection is mostly based on the idea of the USSR going to war over Germany landing in England, but ignoring Germany conquering France.

But anyway, it really is an interesting question. My initial reaction was "Of course, if the option was German occupation", but then, on the other hand...

Once Soviet forces enter, they are not going to leave. Ever. The price of English freedom from Nazi occupation would be de facto Soviet occupation. Is that better?

Wow, what an interesting alternate history that would be! The United Kingdon becomes a Soviet dominated puppet state (as opposed to an American dominated puppet state :D )

I would guess that would result in Europe in general falling under the Communist umbrella, and could see a very radically different post WW2 world...

Heck, if I was Stalin maybe I *would* go to war, but only as a chance to "save" the United Kingdom. I wonder how much longer Stalinist Communism could have lasted with the backing of the remnants of the British Empire?

Berkut

[Chuck?]

Another point on this problem: was it really feasable for the Soviets to ship large numbers of units around Nazi-occupied Norway into the United Kingdom? It seems highly unlikely.

[Mark Stevens]

Now that you mention it, probably not. Wasn't one reason for taking Norway because it's harbours and fjords were perfect bases for ships and U-Boats?

Perhaps another line of those ugly impassable black 'sea' hexes hinged on Narvik (?) might be an idea? If the Allies held the port, the Red Army could - once the land exclusion zone comes down - march to Narvik to be embarked: if the Germans held it, it wouldn't be possible.

Thoughts?

[Mantis]

Originally posted by Mark Stevens
Now that you mention it, probably not. Wasn't one reason for taking Norway because it's harbours and fjords were perfect bases for ships and U-Boats?

Perhaps another line of those ugly impassable black 'sea' hexes hinged on Narvik (?) might be an idea? If the Allies held the port, the Red Army could - once the land exclusion zone comes down - march to Narvik to be embarked: if the Germans held it, it wouldn't be possible.

Thoughts?

I like that! Gives even more strategic importance to Narvik, and solves the problem without another cumbersome house rule.