@andrewaagamer I definitely agree, I was horrible at playing the Axis but it just took a few games and some new strays to see the unbalance. And I too don’t like nerfing strat bombers because it seems to unbalance it more.
Japan-Soviet Non-Aggression-Pact
-
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.
-
I plan on staying in, and protecting the russian space just north of manchuria so USSR and USA can use it as a Strategic Bomber base and starve Japan of new units.
-
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?
No; it isn’t allowed to attack the Euros, but it can be attacked by them. The idea is that neither USSR nor Japan can deliberately fight both wars simultaneously.
-
Just to clarify my suggestion:
USSR may not initiate a war with Japan if it is already at war with Germany or Italy
USSR may not initiate a war with Germany or Italy if it is already at war with Japan
Japan may not initiate a war with USSR if it is already at war with UK/FRANCE/USA
Japan may not initiate a war with UK/FRANCE/USA if it is already at war with USSR
The Japan/China situation does not effect these.
In all cases the bind ends when a capital (or both capitals) of the enemy you are already at war with fall(s).
It will be seen from this that if the game follows the historical pattern, then USSR & Japan will be trapped in a double-bind preventing them from becoming at war with each other until either the Euro Axis or the Western Allies are defeated.
I’m thinking about similar restrictions on other powers, for example should UK or France be allowed to declare war on Japan while any of London/Paris/Rome/Berlin is Axis controlled?
Should Germany and Italy be automatically drawn into war with the USA if Japan attacks it?
Would Italy declare war on ANY other power unless Germany had already done so?
-
USSR may not initiate a war with Japan if it is already at war with Germany or Italy
USSR may not initiate a war with Germany or Italy if it is already at war with Japan
Japan may not initiate a war with USSR if it is already at war with UK/FRANCE/USA
Japan may not initiate a war with UK/FRANCE/USA if it is already at war with USSR
This could work.
I think it needs to be rephrased:
USSR can’t attack Japan until Germany is defeated
Japan can’t attack USSR unless one major power ( not ANZAC or China) Have their capital occupied by Germany or Italy. -
I’m more in favor of a negative national objective (5 or 10 ipcs) for fighting in each others territory. Those rules would very conceivably end up just making the manchurian and siberian zones dmzs until it appears a capital is going down. the -NO still requires a military presence.
Suggested Topics
