Russia and Japan start at war.



  • essentially, Russia and Japan start at war.  Neither side are bound by the restrictions associated with not being at war, and contrapositvely there is no advantage in not declaring war, because the other side is not restricted.  A declaration of war is only meaningful in this game if the other side cannot.

    The peace treaty is just nonsense!

    “It’s up to the Japanese and Soviet players to work out the details of such an agreement”.

    Doesn’t this all just amount to Russia-and-Germany-can-attack-each-other-but-don’t-have-to?  This is how it’s always been with any two opposing nations.

    I realise this is mostly for historic flavour, but it seems silly.  The rulebook encourages diplomacy between opposing sides in a strict win/lose game.  Almost like a role playing game.



  • Make a -5 ipcs NO for Japan having troops in Russia and Russia having troops in Japan. Representing Russian far-away war and japanese winter warfare. This makes war possible but realistically makes it not worth it unless you can dominate them. Should make for an uneasy border.



  • The -5 IPC NO also makes it economicly unreasonable for japan untill they take at least a 6th Russian territory.

    The only alternitve to this is to have a power forefit all NOs if they break the Non-Agression pact.

    But the -5 NO is better, because it is always there weather or not said powers is getting other NOs

    Non Agression Treaty Terms Version 1.0
    Soviet Union
    -5 IPCs If Soviet units are in Chinese or Japanese territory before the allies control Berlin.

    Japan
    -5 IPCs If Japanese units are in Sovet Union territory before the axis controls Moscow or London.


  • '10

    I like that one.  It adds more weight to the Non-aggression pact.



  • Quite frankly I don’t think there is a need for a non-aggression treaty. My friends and I are playing a game right now in which Japan decided to attack Russia on the first turn, so far it isn’t working out to well. Japan took heavy casualties and so far has only taken 4 of the Russian territories by turn 4. Not to mention that Russia essentially got one of their bonuses for being at war. :mrgreen:



  • @Ragan:

    Not to mention that Russia essentially got one of their bonuses for being at war. :mrgreen:

    Only if you bend the rules in favour of the allies. Russia only gets their bonus when at war with European powers. Seems fairly obvious to me to me that is the way the rule is and was certainly intended to be. Not to mention I know that this claim was backed up by Krieghund in another thread.



  • Effectively, they do begin at war, because no Russian player will not make at least a ‘pro forma’ declaration.



  • @13thguardsriflediv:

    Effectively, they do begin at war, because no Russian player will not make at least a ‘pro forma’ declaration.

    I would  😄



  • In fact, Larry lets free way for us to do a non-agression pact rule that can change each game (it’s upon soviet and jap player agree etc etc). By the way the rulebook is written, in fact any non-agression pact that all players agree is not a house rule, because is supported by that sentence in the rulebook. I guess that Larry was too lazy to do such important rule  😛



  • @Funcioneta:

    In fact, Larry lets free way for us to do a non-agression pact rule that can change each game (it’s upon soviet and jap player agree etc etc). By the way the rulebook is written, in fact any non-agression pact that all players agree is not a house rule, because is supported by that sentence in the rulebook. I guess that Larry was too lazy to do such important rule  😛

    I’d say that he chose not to bind players to an inflexible situation but instead to allow them to make their own choices regarding Russia and Japan. The relations between both countries took a number of different turns during WW2 due to events elsewhere. By allowing players to make their own pact (or even refuse it) it opens the possibilities of the game rather than sticking it to what happened in History.



  • It could even be like diplomacy. You could even say that the one who violates the pact has to buy the drinks next game



  • I was thinking (if players agree) to have Russia & Japan put 1-2 ipc’s in a NAP fund. Let it grow, and the player that breaks the agreement (with an actual attack) forfeits the NAP fund to the other player. Allow Russia to declare war in name only (no attack) so it can invade neutrals (which is a silly loop hole anyway, Russia should just be allowed to invade neutrals from the get go).

    Make a list of things that would be a deal breaker, like Russia in China or UK Pac tt’s, or allied attacks on Jap from Russian land ect…


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

47
Online

13.7k
Users

34.0k
Topics

1.3m
Posts