Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty Rule…

[Narvik]

@Der:

I for one am enjoying this exchange about possibly improving the existing game and learning from it.

Yes, that is the spirit that brought us from the first MB classic 1984 edition, and to what we can enjoy today. A&A gets better and better for each new edition, but we still have a way to go before this game is utterly perfect. Even PB Risk do evolve at some level. If nobody wanted to improve anything, we would still be living in the stone age.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Another 4th point to make things bitter for Japan:

Geographic limitations to Asia (only east of Urals) for Japanese,
but close Trans-Siberians Railroad (for Soviet) toward east if Novosiburk is captured  (Timguska on G40),
+6 NAP bonus for both,
activation of Pro-Soviet Mongolians if Japan breaks NAP. (GHG idea)

I love the 6 IPC NAP idea in your former post. Unfortunately, it is moving far away from Der Kunstlers opening post, so maybe you should start a new thread based on that idea. But if K. dont mind, we can continue here.

I dont utterly love the geographical limitation idea, since it is not in the spirit of A&A, and it is not how the real world function either. If a Russian person can go to Timgusta, then so can a Japanese person, unless there is a wizard with magic power living there who autokill all Japanese persons that enter that place. But then it would not be A&A anymore.

A more rational suggestion would be to make Yakut SSR into a semi impassable territory, since the terrain at that place, the Lake Baikal surrounded by high mountains, is very hard to move through. It would be kind of like the Pripjat Marshes. The terrain in Yakut is in military term, an easy defended bottleneck with natural flank protection. I would say, you can only non combat move into Yakut, and that is probably correct in real life too. Or, you can only combat move into Yakut if it is defenseless and vacated, like total empty.

I also like the activation of Pro Sovjet Mongolians if Japan breaks the NAP.

If we also say that the border between China and Russia is impassable, as it is in real life too because of the Hindu Kush mountain range, which basically is the Himalayas continuing north, dividing China and Europe in a natural way. Then, the only way for Japan to Tank Crush into Moscow, is to go through Mongolia. I love this. This is exactly the problems Japan would face in the real war, if they wanted to go to Moscow. It was not impossible, but very difficult, costly and time consuming. Now Japan will stay out off Moscow, but not because of some non aggression treaty rule, that politicians and national leaders from any places would break at first opportunity anyway, but because it is too difficult in practice. It is doable, but only if you commit everything.

[baron Münchhausen]

I believed Urals mounts west of Mongolia and Tumguska were almost impassable and higher than Hindu Kush mountain range.

From GHG posts, I thought the bottleneck was the Trans-Siberian railroad passage which was not a piece of cake to carve out of Urals. But  can be easily defended or destroyed.
I can be wrong I just took a few minutes on Sat. maps, I’m not a geographer.

Instead of magic power, I thought about dynamite power to forbid entrance into European Soviet Union.

Tunguska Park is in fact due north to the western part of Mongolia.

---

I’ve got it wrong about Novosibursk. It is on the western side of Urals.

On DK’s map, Japan cannot reach Western Soviet Union (via China nor Eastern Soviet TTs); but, as long as Yenisey is Soviet controlled, USSR can transfer units into Asian Soviet Union.
It also means that as long as it is Soviet controlled: Ningxia (which is also connected to Yenisey) can be reinforced by Soviet units;  as well as all others 7 Eastern Soviet Union TTs:
Yenisey:1,
Evenki’s National Okrug:1,
Yakut SSR: 1,
Buriatia: 1,
Sakha: 1,
Siberia: 1,
Soviet Far East: 1,
Amur: 2.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok my 2 cents.

Japan could only view Vladivostok with any value and capturing the disputed island north of Japan ( which is not represented in the game anyway) .

So if the Soviets withdraw a certain force ( to be decided) then Japan could attack, or the Soviets can attack if Berlin falls. Also all movement is one space while in Russia east of Urals and defender gets +1 defense ( rugged terrain)

Japan will not attack and Soviets wont either.

[Narvik]

@Imperious:

So if the Soviets withdraw a certain force ( to be decided) then Japan could attack, or the Soviets can attack if Berlin falls.

Japan will not attack and Soviets wont either.

Another forced rule to make sure the game will follow the historical correct timeline. You dont think that after playing the game historical correct 20 times it just may get boring. You want to try a new strategy, but huh, wait, that is not allowed by the political correct Rulebook. If it did not happen in the real war, you can not do it in this game neither, is that what you tell us ? Or, you love special rules that are only useful in the last turn. So after playing the whole weekend, Berlin finally falls, and hey, I am finally allowed to attack Japan by this special rule, something I have wanted to do the last day of playing, but what, huh, what is this, people are leaving ? The other players quit the game and go home ? So how about my final attack on Japan ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

What effect do you think this rule would have on game play? Good? Bad?

Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty:
“Japan cannot violate the treaty unless Moscow falls.
Russia cannot violate the treaty unless Berlin falls.”

@Der:

@Baron:

Yours is blocking 30 IPCs TUV and scripting the game until almost a win is achieved.

NAP is a different rule because it incites in an historical direction but let players and team decides what is better for their strategy.
NAP can be broken or not broken by Japan or Soviet…
Who knows what would have happen after Midway disaster if an army putsch would had overthrown IJN commanders and counselors around Emperor.

Japan and Russia can left more or less units anywhere they want.

JTDTM is the worst aspect, geographical rule can take care of it.

OK fair enough, Baron…this is another option…I’m not under any pressure to change anything in my game group for now, so will do more thinking…

Maybe, if looking for an historical event to allow Japan breaking NAP, this can be :
Axis control Leningrad and (Stalingrad or Cairo or London).
This can be seen as a proof that European Axis are able to deal a major blow on Allies.
This can decide Japan to DOW on Russia.
As all these events are alternate history, then Japan DOW breaking NAP is alternate too.

I was looking for something as spectacular to Pearl Harbor raid.

Russia can decide to expand in Asia (break NAP) when getting control of all his original European TTs.

Harder variants: needs also to control all these four: Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine, Smolensk and Belarus.
I would not include Baltic States, but all others were original TTs before Barbarossa.
In both case, it is not mandatory. But, at that point, breaking NAP will be a possibility.

I still like geographical limits. I would keep them without the bonus, of course.

IDK if Russia is the first power to act, but stating that all starting TTs have to be controlled can also imply that Soviet can decide to break NAP on first turn, if Soviet attack Japan.
It still allows for a KJF.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Maybe, if looking for an historical event to allow Japan breaking NAP, this can be :
Axis control Leningrad and (Stalingrad or Cairo or London).
This can be seen as a proof that European Axis are able to deal a major blow on Allies.
This can decide Japan to DOW on Russia.

IMHO this is a school book exempel of a forced rule that make A&A an scripted game. The beauty of A&A is that all players are equal, like Russia got Battleships and Carriers in their tray too even if they never purchase them, and second, its basically the players choice and decision what to do. I play A&A because I like to see if I got better judgement than the historical Japanese leadership. But your rules force me to play out what ever strategy you think Hirohito and Tojo would have done in the real war. You believe that Tojo would only have attacked Russia if Leningrad fell, which it did not in the real war so we will never know for sure anyway, and now you force me to follow this poor judgement too. Really bad idea. Not cool, man.

I believe that geographical limits are the best way to go. The Japanese player should always be allowed to attack Russia, even if that never happened during the real WWII, and even if it is a bad idea based on poor judgement and nobody in your playgroup or club would never do so, or for what ever reason you can come up with. But, if the Japanese player choose to attack Russia, he should face more territories and impassable terrain and difficulties than he do with the current map. The designer and mapmaker can be blamed for making a map that is not good enough, but the Japanese player should never get his freedom of movement taken away with stupid house rules because of the mapmakers limited brain capacity and geographical ignorance and lack of knowledge. No offense

[baron Münchhausen]

No offense taken.
You are simply consistent.
What I just suggested was something inside the same general framework than DK’s opening post. I tried to make it less rigid and DOW not only a late-game options but something which European Axis has to work for because historical Japan was relunctant to break NAP against a such a Power which was Soviet Union.

The principle is to use a specific historical what-if to trigger an alternate history event.
DK may still use this idea to pick a different army movement trigger which fit better to its game map dynamics. So your same critics apply to my idea than Opening Post, it is still scripted. But far less scripted than OP and, if not to the taste of DK, he had a much wider sandbox to find something which fit in. But no power is  forced to break it, just enforced NAP course for a shorter period of time before getting this option.

For my part, I prefer my other idea above which include a NAP bonus and a geographical restraint.

Also, another reason DK mentioned is about Japan player will usually capture these 8 IPCs TTs.
That seems to not left enough income to Soviet Union according to him. My suggestion only delay a bit the somewhat inevitable event on DK’s map.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Also, another reason DK mentioned is about Japan player will usually capture these 8 IPCs TTs.
That seems to not left enough income to Soviet Union according to him. My suggestion only delay a bit the somewhat inevitable event on DK’s map.

Lets get this straight, DK have a friend that always capture the 8 Russian IPC on the Pacific map, and when this happen, Russia has not enough income left to survive.

Basically we have 3 different options to solve this.

1. DK need to change his strategy, since he obviously do something wrong. If DK dont like to lose the 8 eastern IPCs, he must defend them, at some point he must stop moving his Siberian infantry to Europe, and send some Tanks and fighters east instead.

2. A bid. Bidding is the classic way to solve balancing issues when playing A&A. If DKs friend is a better player, then let DK start with some more infantry or something.

3. Change the Rulebook. If you lose a lot, blame the rules. In this case, the best solution is to make a house rule that dont allow Japan to attack Russia. And you, mr Baron, want to help him doing that. My suggestion was to take a pencil and change the map, but people tell me that is weak, or taboo, something you dont do. But to change the rules are OK ?

Bottom line, if you buy this game, I guess you can play it as you wish, and the non aggression treaty is not the worst thing you can do. But if I come to a basement, and the host tell me I can do what I want except attack Russia, then I would just walk away. But that’s me, man

[baron Münchhausen]

Did you take a look at awesome DK’s map?

Each TT worth at least 1 IPC, no zero IPC on his map.
I’m sure when he feels the need to change his homemade map, he will.
But it is a costly and time consuming process, given the level of details he puts into such project.
I saw its NAP HR as a way to not play on map or opening set-up or bid.
(I assumed he revises his HRs booklet once a year.)
You summarized all options neatly Narvik.

For the sake of this option (drawing a different map), how adding more worthy TTs between Manchuria and Russia will not give similar results and still too much IPCs swing from Russia toward Japan, only more time to conquer all of them for Japan?

As a counter-example: what if 4-5 Soviet TTs in Europe received +1 IPC value instead?
For instance,
Archangel 2 IPCs rising to 3 IPCs,
Nenetsia 1 IPC to 2 IPCs,
Urals 1 IPC to 2 IPCs,
Novosibursk 1 IPC to 2 IPCs
Vologda 1 IPC to 2 IPCs.
But still applying a geographical limit to Japan expansion in Asia up to Yenesey, (Evenki and Yakut).
Even this would require changing map eventually: Taklamaka Desert (Pamir mountains (western China) Altai Mountains (northwestern China)) and Central Siberian Plateau becoming Impassable in Western China and west of Evenki and Yakut.

[baron Münchhausen]

DK, on your map I see 2 TTs east of Khazak SSR in China:
1 is Tsinghai (North) and the other
1 is Chinghai (South)

In fact, it is the same region named now Qinghai.

The southern region should have been probably named Sinkiang (Sikang on G40 map) or Xinjiang (modern name on Google map), if you followed G40 map.

Based on general orientation on real map, I would have named from north to south western China TTs:
North western TT Kansu/ Gansu  (Kansu on G40 map / and DK’s hybrid)
Middle western TT Xinjiang (Tsinghai on G40 map / and DK’s hybrid)
South western TT Tsinghai/ Qinghai (Sikang on G40 map / and Chinghai on DK’s hybrid).

Kansu is north central in China only connected to Mongolia, but it has been connected on G40 map to Russian TT (Timguska) (Tambov and Novosibursk on DK’s).

Middle TT I named Xinjiang is bordered on western side by Khazak SSR (and is the only direct access to Soviet TTs from China). (Correctly connected to Khazak and Tambov on DK’s hybrid)

Southern TT I named Tsinghai / Qinghai doesn’t have access to Khazaz SSR or other TT but it is really bordering Tibet (Himalaya).

Also Tambov is too far on West and north of Volgograd / Stalingrad.
Samara should be a better choice as name for this region north of Kazakh SSR, west of Novosibursk and bordering China on your hybrid map.
(As you had on G40 map.)
However, to have named it Novosibirsk (instead of Tambov) would have been much better.

And named Novosibursk: Krasnoyarsk because Irkustk (Timguska on G40) being Yenisey on your hybrid map.

Was Novosib**u**rsk a typo error (“u” being just left of “i” on keyboard)?

Take no offence DK, your map is awesome.
I was just looking at these topographicals when I followed the leads.
If you ever update your home map…

On G40, Yakut SSR was wrongly named, it should have been Irkutsk.
Yakut SSR is the same as Sakha .

[Der Kuenstler]

Baron is there some kind of reference you use to know the correct territory names and spellings? What is it? Because when I revise my map someday and I want it all to be right.

[baron Münchhausen]

Actually, I look at old pictures of Soviet Union, Republic and Oblast.
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/large_detailed_terrain_and_transportation_map_of_USSR_1974.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/soviet_union_admin_1974.jpg
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/detailed_political_map_of_russia_with_relief.jpg
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/administrative_map_of_russia.jpg
I closely look on Google map, both Satellite and road map.
And made the inquiry.

It seems there is many possibilities to name a given region: political division (Yakut SSR), geographical division (Yenisey or Urals), ethnical dominance (Buriatya), sometimes a city give its name to a region (Irkustk, Tambov). And across time, the same region might get different names.

When creating a map out of a game, it seems a real challenge and compromise to find the more appropriate name. Simply to not lose track of reference to the game map toponymy. Clearly Chinese regions rise this kind of issues.

[Der Kuenstler]

Nice links - thanks!

[baron Münchhausen]

Pretty interesting maps indeed.

One in particular makes me realized that essentially Krasnoyarsk and Yenisey are almost the same region. In addition, Urals mount are further west than north of Mongolia.
It is on northwestern side of Kazakh.
Northwestern of Mongolia and along Yenisey river is the Central Siberian Plateau.
It also showed than on your Map, Novo is correctly put west of Yenisey, but it is directly connected to Kazakh.
So, on your hybrid map, it depends whether which border is more important to keep as accurate. Tambov is not the more accurate to describe what is north of Kazakh but west of Novosibursk. It needs to be in Siberian plain.
The only major city on the eastern side of Urals is Chelyabinsk, aka Tankograd.
So, that region on your map instead of Tambov, should be Chelyabinsk Oblast.

Samara or, in WWII era Kouibychev, is also a valid name.
It is west side of Urals on Volga river. Northeast of Stalingrad.
Also learned that Samara in 1941 was preparing to receive all of Moscow political organs to established a temporary capital in case Moscow was captured.

[Der Kuenstler]

Since the areas of the map must be divided up roughly in equal size to accommodate game pieces and movement, I’m thinking it may be best to just name each TT by a well known city or landmark/river within that territory, when no clear territory name exists for the area. But Chelyabinsk will definitely be in a revised map - I can see the fun possibilities of having Tankograd there!

[baron Münchhausen]

I found another interesting point which argue for Japan not going further west than Yenisey TT:

During World War II, Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire agreed to divide Asia along a line that followed the Yenisei River to the border of China, and then along the border of China and the Soviet Union.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yenisei_River#History

As you can see on the picture, Tunguska (G40 PTO map: Timguska) is on the eastern side which clearly advocate for considering all G40 Pacific map to be the end of Japan expansion in both Soviet Union and China.
It makes sense that only via Persia Japan may reach Moscow with Tank and Artillery, if we assumed Moscow would have give the order to blow off all communication links to the east within Central Siberian Plateau, mainly Trans-Siberian railways.

[General 6 Stars]

Why not give the Russians the N.O. called Nonaggression Treaty. The first time in the game that Japanese attacks any red territory, you may place 6 ( you can change this if need be ) Russian Inf for free in that territory before combat. If Russia attacks Japan first they lose the N.O.

This would help Russia once they lose the 8 icps to territory capture some what.

Or skip this rule and add the railway for Russia.

Or you may want make the Russian territories that only border the sea zones worth money. Could be 3 or 4 total icps worth. You also maybe want to give the 4 or 5 icps lost to territories added to other Russian territories by Moscow. Then make any movement on that part of map only 1 movement ( all Northern territories ) that includes tanks and mechs ( due to terrain ) so Japan will never make it to Moscow.

Just thinkin of KISS.

[baron Münchhausen]

Evenkiyski District is also east of Central Siberian Plateau, and in part overlap Yenisey bassin.
All indicates that all Soviet TTs on G40 Pacific map are parts of Japanese sphere of influence in Asia as was agreed with Nazi Germany in WWII.

You also get a physical map of regions below.
It helps understand what Narvik meant about adding more TTs between Moscow and Vladivostok in Amur. Distances are so huge in Siberia compared to Eastern Europe.

@Narvik:

I have listened to all 3 of you, General, Baron and K, and again, I tell you the real problem is the map.

The distance from Vladivostok to Moscow is 5 times longer than the distance from Berlin to Moscow, on a real map, or globe.

On our A&A map, from Berlin to Moscow is 5 spaces, and from Manchuria is 7 or 8, depending on the route. It should have been 25 or more to get it right. The Siberian Express, as some name it, favor a historical not correct Japanese Tank drive to Moscow. The only smooth way to solve this, is take a pencil and divide every Russian territory east of Moscow in two, so we get at least 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow. Then, the border between Russia and China should be impassable, since the Himalaya mountain range continue into the Hindu Kush mountains, and there are no way a Panzer Army could cross that range. Maybe mountain climbers, but not Tanks.

Now, if everybody in the A&A community do this, the sooner the better, and we start a wave, or a map revolution, in 3 or 4 years from now, the next global 3th edition will have 16 Siberian spaces printed on the official map. Trust me, we the players have more power than we know, but we must use it, and send a message to WOTC. Now, with 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow, and impassable terrain between Russia and China, we dont need a derogatory non aggression treaty rule. Every sane Japanese player will see that a Tank drive over that distance is a bad idea.

edit, and I hate this suggestion myself, but if you dont want to use a pencil, another solution could be a house rule that deny any attacking enemy land units to combat move more than 1 space in a turn on the Pacific part of Russia. On every Russian territory, starting from Timgusta to Soviet Far East, all attacking land units can only combat move 1 space each Turn. And the same house rule let Russia non combat move all kind of units with the Siberian Railroad 2 spaces each turn.

[Imperious Leader]

Actually, I look at old pictures of Soviet Union, Republic and Oblast.
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/large_detailed_terrain_and_transportation_map_of_USSR_1974.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/commonwealth/soviet_union_admin_1974.jpg
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/detailed_political_map_of_russia_with_relief.jpg
http://www.vidiani.com/maps/maps_of_europe/maps_of_russia/administrative_map_of_russia.jpg
I closely look on Google map, both Satellite and road map.
And made the inquiry.

1984 is not an old map and the names mostly changed after 1956. You need to research old 1940’s based maps to gain knowledge of what regions were known as.