@Der:
Thanks Narvik! Seriously, I’d rather get the criticism here than after I’ve changed my house rule book and am sitting around the game table with all the guys.
You are right about what would happen though. I definitely play with some guys who exploit every rule, so there would be no units in Russia defending against Japan. There needs to be some answer to that.
Changing the map is the best answer - but this is one of the changes that is least accepted by players, especially when you try it with a pencil. We already play with a penalty for breaking the pact - 4 Russian infantry rise up and Mongolia joins the Allies, but a determined Japan just blows through it.
What about this?
“As long as X number of Russian units are stationed in or around Amur, Japan cannot violate the treaty unless Moscow falls.
As long as X number of Japanese units are stationed in or around Manchuria, Russia cannot violate the treaty unless Berlin falls.”
This way both countries would have to keep a force there to avoid being attacked, as historically happened.
What is deadline for writing your new book rules for the next year?
Here is the first draft of a NAP suggested in G40 Redesign.
IDK if you ever read some posts in this thread.
Things can be messy in it but starting from this post there is an exchange about Japan and Soviet NAP and how to enforce it.
If you want to read, follow the post link.
@Black_Elk:
Or maybe even better what if we had a couple generic “penalties” to reinforce the bonuses above, meant to discourage ahistorical play patterns?
Something like this…
NAP Violations:
Russia -15 ipcs one time aggressor penalty for breaking non aggression treaty.
Japan -15 ipcs one time aggressor penalty for breaking non aggression treaty.
Or something along those lines? Where IPCs are removed if the team commits a violation. This way there are no hard rules restrictions, only bonuses and a few key penalties.
Here is how Balanced Mod treats this NAP issue:
@regularkid:
G40 Balanced - Balance Mod 3.0
Russia
- 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
- 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).
- 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
- An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.
Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia. The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.
Japan
- 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).
- 5 PUs if Axis controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
- 3 PUs if Japan controls Iwo Jima and Okinawa and is at war with the USA
This is the incentive I thought about to enforce Soviet-Japan NAP:
Japan NAP bonus:
+5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Russia get no bonus (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
However, Japan bonus would remain active for all the rest of the game.
No complex things to learn and only a NAP which is beneficial to Russia and Japan.
This would be another incentive to go west for Japan, without compromising the Center Crush strategy.
Your Map has a lot of Soviet TTs in Asian Soviet Union, so I would rise it up to:
+10 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Urals: 1 IPC
Evenki National Okrug: 1 IPC
Yenisey:1 IPC
Yakut SSR: 1 IPC
Buriatia: 1 IPC
Sakha: 1 IPC
Amur: 2 IPCs
Siberia: 1 IPC
Soviet Far East: 1 IPC
Does Japan can get it without growing a monster?
Does it allows more room to Soviet Union to fight European Axis, knowing it is unlikely that Japan will turn down 20 IPCs ( minus +10 NAP bonus and -10 penalty)?
If you don’t play with NOs, then a smaller NAP bonus and same high penalty can do the job:
+5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Russia get no bonus from NAP (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
However, Japan bonus would remain active for the remainder of the game.
You may consider this gift like a way to accept that sooner or later Japan can control these TTs, that way giving a bonus is not penalizing Russia.
It is an incentive to not enter into Soviet Union, all Japanese ground units might be much helpful elsewhere.
Both Powers will probably keep a minimum garrison.
Even some of these TTs might fall in Japan hands if Chinese forces are rapidly overcome.
Nenetsia: 1 IPC
Vologda: 1 IPC
Novosibursk: 1 IPC
Tambov: 1 IPC
Khazak SSSR: 2 IPCs