Welcome! If you're a returning member of the forums, please reset your password. If you don't receive an email within minutes, it means your account is listed under another, likely older, email address. Contact webmaster@axisandallies.org for help.

Japanese/USSR Aggression paid out of Aggressors' pocket



  • Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?

    USSR
    When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Japan
    When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.


  • '10

    Pretty sure it comes from the bank, but I could be wrong.



  • @eudemonist:

    Pretty sure it comes from the bank, but I could be wrong.

    Read the post again dude.


  • '10

    Ah, SHOULD they be responsible.  I see.

    Hmm, dunno about that.  I’d have to vote no.  The IPC bonuses are usually described as “National fervor” or “Trade” or something…internal economic boosts.  Direct transfer of money from one government to another only happens when a capital is being looted.

    Also, the current “balance” is twelve, whereas taking from Japs to give to Russkies would actually create a 24 ipc swing.  Maybe if you cut it to six, perhaps.  Still, doesn’t seem to make much “in-character” sense.  “Hey, we’re going to be attacking some of your turf, so here, have some cash.”  Nah.

    EDIT:  Hey, no fair editing your original to make me look even dumber!  sigh  Fine.



  • no



  • I always thought this might be a better deterrent

    Could scale it down to like 8 if that’s the case or – swing Mongolia from strict neutral to against the aggressor.



  • @Gallo:

    no

    Why not?


  • 2018 2016 2015 '11 '10

    This seems to be an issue of reparations, which, generally, are paid by an aggressor (who lost) at the conclusion of the war. Since the breach of the peace between Japan and the USSR does not entail an end, but a beginning of a conflict, I would vote no on this proposal.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I don’t think 12 IPC’s is enough.

    and I agree, the agressor shouldn’t have to pay.



  • @Gargantua:

    I don’t think 12 IPC’s is enough.

    and I agree, the agressor shouldn’t have to pay.

    How much then?


  • '10

    @Idi:

    Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?

    USSR
    When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Japan
    When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Idi, you may have hit on something here. If the aggressor had two pay 12 IPCs and the defender also collected 12 from the bank for a total of 24 then the non-aggression pact might actually mean something. Both sides would have to give it some serious thought before breaking the pact.



  • @Idi:

    @Gallo:

    no

    Why not?

    that NO is regarding in the alpha rules as ‘recognition of a national emergency’ or smth like that.
    It seems to me it implies the attacked country is doing an extra effort to deal with the new threat (movilizing reserves, forcing workers to produce extra, or smth like that). So I don’t see why shoudn’t come from the bank.

    I don’t see any reason why the agressor should pay.

    do you? if yes, let us know what your thoughts are about it



  • LOL, have Japan declare war on the Soviet Union the turn before Germany takes Moscow…  A free 12 IPCs for your side!



  • @SgtBlitz:

    LOL, have Japan declare war on the Soviet Union the turn before Germany takes Moscow…  A free 12 IPCs for your side!

    WOW SgtSlitiz, Maybe you should have read the post twice before shooting your drunken gob off. I’ll go over it for you so you can hopefully understand the subject matter of this post. The opening line (EX.1) of the post (See below) clearly indicates that the 12 IPC’s is paid to the the bank by the aggressor. Using your example of Japan declaring war on the USSR then Germany getting an extra 12 IPC’s in cash when taking the Russian capital is irrelavent due to the fact that the money is paid by Japan to the bank not to the Russians. So, SgtSlitz just so I know my work is done here….Once again using your example I’ll break it down even further for you so hopefully you’ll get it>

    Japan - Aggressor (Pays 12 IPC’s)
    USSR - Defender
    Bank - Where the 12 Japanese IPC’s get paid to.
    Germany - Gets nothing
    SgtSlitz - Cut down on your Slitz intake before posting.

    (EX.1)
    Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?

    USSR
    When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Japan
    When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.



  • @Idi:
    WOW SgtSlitiz, Maybe you should have read the post twice before shooting your drunken gob off. I’ll go over it for you so you can hopefully understand the subject matter of this post. The opening line (EX.1) of the post (See below) clearly indicates that the 12 IPC’s is paid to the the bank by the aggressor. Using your example of Japan declaring war on the USSR then Germany getting an extra 12 IPC’s in cash when taking the Russian capital is irrelavent due to the fact that the money is paid by Japan to the bank not to the Russians. So, SgtSlitz just so I know my work is done here….Once again using your example I’ll break it down even further for you so hopefully you’ll get it>

    Japan - Aggressor (Pays 12 IPC’s)
    USSR - Defender
    Bank - Where the 12 Japanese IPC’s get paid to.
    Germany - Gets nothing
    SgtSlitz - Cut down on your Slitz intake before posting.

    (EX.1)
    Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?

    USSR
    When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Japan
    When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
    Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
    Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Goodness gentlemen, let’s be civil, shall we? Anyway, in response to your question, the I think that it’s fine the way it is because it makes sense. I’m failing to see the logic of a power suddenly loosing industrial capacity when it attacks another power.


  • 2018 2016 2015 '11 '10

    No one should pay anything (resititution, fine, reparations whatever) to the bank but there could be some other method of penalizing the USSR or Japan for breaking a non-aggression pact. Perhaps turning a strict neutral in the region into a friendly neutral or simply having them go over to the defender would work.

    I apologize to Idi for not giving his post the due attention it deserved before commenting on it.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    yea if the japs attacked, or the russians attack, maybe Mongolia goes pro fro the other side…


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I agree, 12 IPC is not enough of a deterrant.  The idea is to keep Russia and Japan “honest” so as not to unduly effect the tactical situation on the board.  12 IPC to be spent by the attacked nation is great, I understand that the people - so outraged at the breach of a treaty they become incensed and build in a frenzy of national pride - create this boon.  However, I think it should be placed IMMEDIATELY in either one of the attacked territories or in an adjacent one. (Gives the violated country the option to retreat the units or use them for a counter attack.  Yet another penalty on the criminal nation.)

    But yes, this should be “magic” IPC it should not come from another nation.

    IMHO



  • To be fair, either I’m not understanding the question the way Idi is presenting it, or I’m really bad at reading the rules:

    (Also, Larry put in a ninja edit in red with the new Alpha + .2 ruleset on his website…)

    http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167

    Soviet Union

    When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
    4. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    Japan

    When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
    2. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan. Theme: Recognized national emergency.

    So.

    Not really sure what Larry means by “an unprovoked” war dec there, does he mean before the US enters the war proper or at all?  Historically, Japan wasn’t attacked by Russia until near the end of WWII, late in 1945.  Technically, a 1940 Global game could be played where both Russia and Japan are still neutral to the very end, right?  Unless “an unprovoked” war dec means anything else.

    It seems that the IPCs are paid by the bank, not the aggressor power.  If I was Russia, and I just declared war on Japan, would I send a big pile of resources for the Japs to spend as a present to equip more troops to defend against my attack?  That really doesn’t make much sense.  I agree that the rule would make more sense economically by providing a double punch for breaking the truce (i.e. Russia’s loss is also Japan’s gain), but I guess its better that’s there’s any kind of penalty of all for breaking neutrality than the no-holds-barred “truce” from the OOB rules.

    IF the money IS coming from the BANK into the defender’s coffers, it makes pefect sense for the Japs to declare war on Russia if Moscow is just about to be captured by Germany on the next round before Russia’s turn.  The breaking neutrality rule would probably make more sense if it let the defender place free units worth 12 IPCs rather than the money itself.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    I can only imagine he means one of two things, Blitz.

    1)  He is clarifying for those who don’t understand what declaring war means.  For example, if someone thought that each and every attack Russia made against Japan meant that Japan got 12 IPC for that round or something.  I don’t think this is likely, plausible but not likely.

    2)  More likely, if England attacks Korea and lands planes in Amur this is an act of war and thus, Japan’s retalliation should not trigger the 12 IPC boon to Russia.  I am not 100% on how the rules read, but I believe Japan would attack Amur and only kill the British units, leaving the Russians alone.  In which case, presumably, the Japanese would have to retreat to friendly territory or something.  I know this is how it works if England declares war on Japan and hides his ships with the American ones (while America is at peace.)



  • @Cmdr:

    2)  More likely, if England attacks Korea and lands planes in Amur this is an act of war and thus, Japan’s retalliation should not trigger the 12 IPC boon to Russia.  I am not 100% on how the rules read, but I believe Japan would attack Amur and only kill the British units, leaving the Russians alone.  In which case, presumably, the Japanese would have to retreat to friendly territory or something.  I know this is how it works if England declares war on Japan and hides his ships with the American ones (while America is at peace.)

    The UK cold never do that.  As long as the USSR is neutral in the Pacific theater, no other powers can land planes in their territory.

    But this is meant to explain a possible misunderstanding of the rules, and I guess it could work in that regard.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    an unprovoked

    Wow so basically as long as I can articulate that I was provoked.  I get 12 IPC’s.

    Nice.

    Oh whats that? you left 1 man in Amur, that’s PROVOCATION! I am Justified to attack!



  • @Cmdr:

    1. More likely, if England attacks Korea and lands planes in Amur this is an act of war and thus, Japan’s retalliation should not trigger the 12 IPC boon to Russia.  I am not 100% on how the rules read, but I believe Japan would attack Amur and only kill the British units, leaving the Russians alone.  In which case, presumably, the Japanese would have to retreat to friendly territory or something.  I know this is how it works if England declares war on Japan and hides his ships with the American ones (while America is at peace.)

    As already noted by Ruanek, the UK or Anzak (or US , for that matter, once at war) cannot land or move units into a russian territory on the Pacific boards until Russia or Japan declare war on each other.  Until then, Russian territories remain “neutral” and are restricted similar to other “neutral” spaces.

    But to address your other supposition, territories are not the same as Seazones.  You CANNOT attack only one nations’ units in a territory and ignore others as you can in a seazone.  If you plan to attack a territory that contains units not at war with, you’re absolutely REQUIRED to declare war on the power, even if you’re already at war with other units on that space.

    This can only happen very rarely now.  If Japan is at war with Russia, I believe the rules are written such that the UK is allowed to move into russian territories even when not at war with Japan.  At that point, neither country is “neutral” on that side of the board (the UK is never considered neutral, even if it’s not at war with Japan because it’s already a nation at war with Germany/Italy, and the UK does not have the same “diplomatic” theater breakdown that the USSR has) so they can share spaces.  And if Japan plans to attack a russian space with a UK unit, they must declare war on the UK in order to attack that russian space.

    @Gargantua:

    an unprovoked

    Wow so basically as long as I can articulate that I was provoked.  I get 12 IPC’s.

    Nice.

    Oh whats that? you left 1 man in Amur, that’s PROVOCATION! I am Justified to attack!

    It’s not that complicated, why feign outrage by it?  Whoever attacks FIRST is unprovoked.  Why beat a dead horse, even sarcastically?


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Becuase he likes to.

    Anyway, yea, I was trying to think of a way to incorporate two nations on the allied side that would provoke Russia while not directly attacking them, as I described, in a way to see how someone might think it was okay for Japan to attack Russia without Russia getting the money.  The rest of the comment was more ponderance.



  • @Cmdr:

    Becuase he likes to.

    Anyway, yea, I was trying to think of a way to incorporate two nations on the allied side that would provoke Russia while not directly attacking them, as I described, in a way to see how someone might think it was okay for Japan to attack Russia without Russia getting the money.  The rest of the comment was more ponderance.

    Yeah, there’s pretty much no way around the 12 ipcs.  Attacking any russian territory violates it for Japan and attacking any japanese territory (or moving into China - at least I believe it was written that way in Alpha +1) violates it for Russia.

    Personally, I see it as VERY bogus that the UK/Anzac could ever move into Russian TTs after Japanese/Russo aggression while not at war Japan, but they currently ARE allowed to (but the 12 ipc bonus has already been met previously).  However, it’s SO rare and unlikely that the UK would somehow send a plane to russia without
    a) flying over china (DOW on Japan)
    b) getting a carrier far enough north prior to J4 to allow a hop space
    c) using Kwangtung as the hop space.

    None are reasonable, but it is theoretically possible to get a plane there by J3.  I personally prefer that the Diplomatic rules should be written to easily address the impossible scenarios as simply and concisely as the common ones.  I don’t understand why the UK flying over a Japanese TT (Kwangsi) doesn’t require a DOW as well (why would Japan take offense to flying over but not landing in china, but somehow it’s ok to fly over Japan).  but again, somewhat unlikely so alas.


Log in to reply
 

Welcome to the new forums! For security and technical reasons, we did not migrate your password. Therefore to get started, please reset your password. You may use your email address or username. Please note that your username is not your display name.

If you're having problems, please send an email to webmaster@axisandallies.org

T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 22
  • 14
  • 11
  • 21
  • 3
  • 11
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games

82
Online

12.8k
Users

32.9k
Topics

1.3m
Posts