@genken Thank you very much Panther & Taamvan…
Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression-Pact
-
The truh is that Japan and USSR start the game at war. Maybe the rules say other thing, but if USSR doesn’t want take Persia or aid China (USSR1 attack), they have two choices: retreat all to Buryatia or send some forces to Amur and try annoy Manchuria & Korea. First case, Japan will send one inf to Amur to start picking siberian IPCs; second case, Japan will toast any forces that USSR send to Amur with few losses … specially if soviets send the whole 18 infs, because then Japan cannot ignore them
Even if you don’t attack, you cannot know if the other side will do so and you have to plan this way … exactly like UK cannot know for sure if Italy is going to attack Egypt or not. Larry could claim that Italy and UK are not at war at start of game (without giving them any non-agression rule) and still they would attack round 1 (in fact, if the game starts at May 1940, Italy and UK should not be at war yet) :wink:
-
The truh is that Japan and USSR start the game at war. Maybe the rules say other thing, but if USSR doesn’t want take Persia or aid China (USSR1 attack), they have two choices: retreat all to Buryatia or send some forces to Amur and try annoy Manchuria & Korea. First case, Japan will send one inf to Amur to start picking siberian IPCs; second case, Japan will toast any forces that USSR send to Amur with few losses … specially if soviets send the whole 18 infs, because then Japan cannot ignore them
Even if you don’t attack, you cannot know if the other side will do so and you have to plan this way … exactly like UK cannot know for sure if Italy is going to attack Egypt or not. Larry could claim that Italy and UK are not at war at start of game (without giving them any non-agression rule) and still they would attack round 1 (in fact, if the game starts at May 1940, Italy and UK should not be at war yet) :wink:
Don’t forget taking Iraq before Italy can.
-
Guys remember as soon as Russia takes manchuria China can build infantry there and Russia could move there infantry too Korea, and if Germany’s not planning a barborosa Build a minor IC
-
Guys remember as soon as Russia takes manchuria China can build infantry there and Russia could move there infantry too Korea, and if Germany’s not planning a barborosa Build a minor IC
What else would Germany be doing :?
-
-
From that other thread, it seems like Sealion is not a hugely promising prospect.
-
Even if you don’t attack, you cannot know if the other side will do so and you have to plan this way …
Why not talk about special conditions?
Think Japan and Russia are the only powers who have the possibilty to make an agreement at this small border.
Shure, talking is over when 18 russian infantries marching to Amur, but the russian player is not forced to do this.
He could concentrate the infantries in Buryata or Sakha and wait for the japanese reaction, or till the most jap-planes are figthing in the Pacific.
There is a good chance for 2 - 3 turns peace between Russia and Japan.
-
Russia doesn’t have to attack to be at war. I predict that most Soviet players (at least those aware of this fact) will declare war on Japan in order to be “at war” so they can take Persia and Iraq at the very least.
-
@SAS:
Russia doesn’t have to attack to be at war. I predict that most Soviet players (at least those aware of this fact) will declare war on Japan in order to be “at war” so they can take Persia and Iraq at the very least.
Why can’t they wait?
-
@Dylan:
@SAS:
Russia doesn’t have to attack to be at war. I predict that most Soviet players (at least those aware of this fact) will declare war on Japan in order to be “at war” so they can take Persia and Iraq at the very least.
Why can’t they wait?
OK, so in the rules declaring war does not actually have to be accompanied by an actual attack? Well, that does make some sense of course…(E.g the Phoney war period).
-
@Dylan:
@SAS:
Russia doesn’t have to attack to be at war. I predict that most Soviet players (at least those aware of this fact) will declare war on Japan in order to be “at war” so they can take Persia and Iraq at the very least.
Why can’t they wait?
Why wait? There is absolutely no reason to wait (specially because Japan is going to attack USSR J1 most of the games anyway) and many to attack R1
-
@Dylan:
@SAS:
Russia doesn’t have to attack to be at war. I predict that most Soviet players (at least those aware of this fact) will declare war on Japan in order to be “at war” so they can take Persia and Iraq at the very least.
Why can’t they wait?
Why wait? There is absolutely no reason to wait (specially because Japan is going to attack USSR J1 most of the games anyway) and many to attack R1
Yeah, the real question is why wait? Why should the Russians wait to declare war on the Japanese when they could get extra infantry and IPCs from Persia turn 1, and then more IPCs from Iraq turn 2? They should just wait for the British to take it, which they can’t do until B2 thanks to the fact that they only have 1 infantry in West India? It just lets good IPCs that the Allies could be using go to waste.
-
I think that all of the pro-axis and pro-allied neutrals will be gobbled up as soon as possible by the closest forces. It seems like the team that is right there will just move an infantry or tank in to take it. The only exception might be in the Balkans where the allies could have a problem getting to Greece if the Italians can keep them out of the Mediteranian.
-
Might the Russian player decide he doesn’t want a two-front war? If a Soviet-Japanese conflict does occur the likelihood is that it’ll be fought largely on Russian soil. Or ice.
Perhaps the rule should be that USSR and Japan cannot declare war on (i.e. attack) each other if they are already at war with Germany/Italy or UK/USA respectively. This bind is broken when the relevant capitals are captured; e.g. Russia will only attack Japan after Berlin & Rome have fallen.
The same thing applies in reverse, that is if Russia is at war with Japan it cannot decide to attack the Euro Axis.
Of course this effectively locks off the possibility of this war taking place before the game is won, but if players want a game that plays something like the real war something like this is needed.
-
Because it was against the best interests of the Japanese and Soviet governments, I feel that if the pact should be only this.
“If Japanse units are in Soviet territories, or vice versa, the offending power may only collect one national objective bonus this round.”
This doesnt hinder either side millitarily, it only represents the reluctance of each nation to fight eachother.
Or something as similar as a negitive national objective for the pact…because attacking russia was NOT a Japanese National objective, nor was attacking japan a sovied objective.
Japan: -5 IPCs to fund your war effort in tundra conditions as long as you have units in originaly controled Soviet territory.
Soviet Union: -5 IPCs to fund your distant war effort as long as you have units in originaly controled Japanese territory. -
Might the Russian player decide he doesn’t want a two-front war? If a Soviet-Japanese conflict does occur the likelihood is that it’ll be fought largely on Russian soil. Or ice.
Perhaps the rule should be that USSR and Japan cannot declare war on (i.e. attack) each other if they are already at war with Germany/Italy or UK/USA respectively. This bind is broken when the relevant capitals are captured; e.g. Russia will only attack Japan after Berlin & Rome have fallen.
The same thing applies in reverse, that is if Russia is at war with Japan it cannot decide to attack the Euro Axis.
Of course this effectively locks off the possibility of this war taking place before the game is won, but if players want a game that plays something like the real war something like this is needed.
Then can’t Russia declare war on Japan and avoid the Euroaxis?
-
Because it was against the best interests of the Japanese and Soviet governments, I feel that if the pact should be only this.
“If Japanse units are in Soviet territories, or vice versa, the offending power may only collect one national objective bonus this round.”
This doesnt hinder either side millitarily, it only represents the reluctance of each nation to fight eachother.
Or something as similar as a negitive national objective for the pact…because attacking russia was NOT a Japanese National objective, nor was attacking japan a sovied objective.
Japan: -5 IPCs to fund your war effort in tundra conditions as long as you have units in originaly controled Soviet territory.
Soviet Union: -5 IPCs to fund your distant war effort as long as you have units in originaly controled Japanese territory.I like the negative NO idea, though it would be unprecedented.
-
it would be realistic
A russo-japanese war was agaisnt the national objectives of both nations. So much so that it should be discouraged
-
I support this Russian/Jap -NO whole-heartedtly. I also think that it should be used for America as well. I think that the game should be balanced so that America is one of the smallest earners in the beginning (with a big negative NO to represent their innocent neutrality) but then looses it when it goes to war. Like instead of 52 to 82, it would be 22 to 62.
-
For Japanese/Russian non-aggression I’m thinking of trying out the following house rules:
Japan cannot declare war on Russia unless the Axis controls at least one of the following
1. London
2. Moscow
3. Washington, D.C.
4. San Francisco
5. Every territory with a Chinese roundel on itRussia cannot declare war on Japan unless the Allies control at least one of the following:
1. Berlin
2. Rome and ParisIf the conditions are met to declare war but the player chooses not to exercise it immediately, he loses the opportunity if he has not done so before the other side re-captures the relevant cities/territories.
Suggested Topics
