This had a victory-changing impact in a game I just played.
This had a victory-changing impact in a game I just played.
Russia is considered a neutral power on the Pacific side of the board as long as it is not at war with Japan.
“Due to its separate treaties with Germany and Japan, the Soviet Union is in a unique position in its relationship with the Axis powers. As a result, if the Soviet Union is at war with Axis powers on only one map, it is still under the restrictions of being a neutral power (see Powers Not at War with One Another above) on the other map. In other words, a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.”
Good Question…
And what happens if European Axis surface ships, or Units make it onto the Pacific Map? Can Russia then be considered at war on both maps?
Good Question…
And what happens if European Axis surface ships, or Units make it onto the Pacific Map? Can Russia then be considered at war on both maps?
That doesn’t seem to be the case, based on the last sentence of the Alpha3 rule set: a state of war with Japan lifts those restrictions from the USSR on the Pacific map only, and a state of war with Germany and/or Italy lifts those restrictions on the Europe map only.
So, even if Germany and Italy had sent units thru the mideast all the way to india, once they were there Russia would have to declare war on Japan in order to attack them.
It doesn’t seem as though that’s going to occur in many games though. If it were possible that if German/Italian units get to India that it opens the Soviet union up to being at war with axis powers on both maps, that as soon as those units are destroyed, Russia’s neutral again (as they’re no longer at war with units on that board)? That’s not very elegant. So I’m pretty sure even if German/Italian units managed to get to India, Russia would need to declare war on Japan in order to attack on the Pac Boards.
But so what? It’s pretty easy to declare war on Japan - there aren’t any restrictions (Mongolian rules are still in play whether war exists or not), and you don’t even have to do a combat move against japan in order to declare war. Even if Russia declared war on Japan preemptively, they don’t give up anything until they attack either Manchuria or through china against japanese controlled territories adjacent to Mongolia. So what’s the big deal? As far as I can tell, there’s no reasonable reason not to declare war on Japan almost immediately, as I don’t see any downside existing. There’s no loss in income, it allows allied units to travel to, thru, over, etc. At war or no, the mongolian territories are the restriction more against Japan than against Russia, especially if Russia wants to use her territory for staging US units.
Good Question…
And what happens if European Axis surface ships, or Units make it onto the Pacific Map? Can Russia then be considered at war on both maps?
Euro axis ships on the Pac map, Jap ships on the Euro map, neither would need a DOW to move ships to the other map. Actually if say Italy and Jap both had ships in sz 80, and Russia was at war in Europe only, then Russian planes could attack only the Italian ships from say Caucasus (if either Persia, or E Persia was activated the turn before), and ignore the Jap ships (unless Jap DOW before hand). Likewise in a scenario that Russia is at war with only Japan, and has put air units on India (it can, India is on the Pac side). Say again Japan and Italy have ships in sz 80 (could say sz39 on the Pac map, but that’s a stretch for Italy), then now the Russians can attack only the Jap ships. It is possible that they don’t even get the option to attack the Italian ships because of the delay of entering the war on R4.
Euro axis units (including planes**see note) can enter friendly tt on the Pac side, and Jap units can do the same on the Euro map w/o DOW w/Russia.
**note as long as planes don’t break Russia’s neutrality by flying over Red tt’s to do so (would require a DOW) .
If Russia wants to attack (or liberate) a tt of a power that they are at war with, but that tt also has axis units from a power that Russia isn’t yet at war with. Russia would have to DOW to other axis power to attack it, providing that it is able to by rule (may have to wait to attack Euro axis). I agree w/kcdzim that there is really no restrictions on the Russian to DOW on Jap.
I do have one question though. Japan builds an AB on Hainan island J1, and moves a carrier to sz 36 (with other fleet). Say Italy rolls for tech It1, and gets LRA. It fly’s a plane to Ethiopia It1 (6 spaces from S Italy). J2 Japan moves carrier to sz 39, but leaves a space open on the carrier. It2 Italy fly’s ftr from Ethiopia to to Jap carrier (4 spaces). Russia is only at war with Japan, but they have Russian ftrs in India. On R3 can the Russians attack the Jap carrier w/Italian ftr on it? They can’t DOW w/Italy until R4, because Germany is dragging their feet. Do they attack Japan and ignore the Italian ftr as if it was an Italian ship (Italian ftr is airborne, but doesn’t roll)? And after the battle the Italian ftr has 1 space to find a safe landing, or be lost? I can’t see the Italian ftr being cargo, because when under attack all planes go up.
I believe they could “Choose” to ignore the fighter.
Also, russia can not move anything into india when it is not at war with japan
Here was the situation:
I was Russia, and I (without knowing) made a stupid pact with Japan. The agreement was this: “Russia cannot move units into Japanese territories, and Japan cannot move units into Russia territories and a state of war may not exist between Russia and Japan”. At the time, I was happy because I wanted to pull those 18 inf back to Moscow in case Germany attempted barbarosa. The Japan player was happy too because it didn’t have to defend the North at all.
Over in Europe, the Allies were doing fantastic. Sealion was successfully stopped, and Germany went into sort of close-down state (which meant only buying inf for the rest of the game after round 2). When I (as Russia) could finally declare war, I took as many countries as possible, maximizing my income with the 3 ipc NO. Russia’s income compared to Germany’s income by round 7 was 3:1. On round 6, Rome fell to US and UK took Northern Italy to keep Germany from liberating Rome. It was going great for the Allies.
In the Pacific it was the exact opposite. J4, Japan controlled all the DEI and Manila. On round 4 or 5 all of China was defeated. On round 6 they took Sydney. Now all they needed was Calcutta. Due to an unlucky attack (in which UKP had the advantage), most of the army on Calcutta was destroyed. I was aware of all this–that Japan only needed Calcutta to win and that they could easily take Calcutta in 2 turns. The US had naval superiority in the Pacific, and it could finish off virtually all of Japan’s navy in the next 2 rounds (and there was no way Japan could possibly take Honolulu or San Fran). But, I had the “perfect” plan to stop Japan from winning. My plan was to simply fly one of my Russian fighters into Calcutta so that in order to take Calcutta, Japan would have to fight a Russian unit, and since they **couldn’t**attack a Russian unit, Calcutta would never fall to them!!! This was “perfect” because I knew that in a few rounds, there would be no doubt that the Allies would win.
However, a few minutes after I scared the Japan player by showing him my plan, and after he searched the rules for a few minutes, he excitedly pointed out that Russia is neutral in the Pacific and that it can’t move units into another power’s territories until they are no longer neutral. Since I knew that in a few rounds the Allies would be clearcut total domination winners regardless of whether Calcutta fell or not (I realize that global domination isn’t the victory condition, but I’m just saying that if it was), I tried to defend my plan by asking if I could attack a German sea unit if it’s in the Pacific. I was at war with Germany, and if I’m attacking on the Pacific map, then I’m at war IN THE PACIFIC. And, of course, if I was at war in the Pacific, then I could move my russian fighter into Calcutta, and the Allies would win.
Here was the situation:
I was Russia, and I (without knowing) made a stupid pact with Japan. The agreement was this: “Russia cannot move units into Japanese territories, and Japan cannot move units into Russia territories and a state of war may not exist between Russia and Japan”. At the time, I was happy because I wanted to pull those 18 inf back to Moscow in case Germany attempted barbarosa. The Japan player was happy too because it didn’t have to defend the North at all.
Over in Europe, the Allies were doing fantastic. Sealion was successfully stopped, and Germany went into sort of close-down state (which meant only buying inf for the rest of the game after round 2). When I (as Russia) could finally declare war, I took as many countries as possible, maximizing my income with the 3 ipc NO. Russia’s income compared to Germany’s income by round 7 was 3:1. On round 6, Rome fell to US and UK took Northern Italy to keep Germany from liberating Rome. It was going great for the Allies.
In the Pacific it was the exact opposite. J4, Japan controlled all the DEI and Manila. On round 4 or 5 all of China was defeated. On round 6 they took Sydney. Now all they needed was Calcutta. Due to an unlucky attack (in which UKP had the advantage), most of the army on Calcutta was destroyed. I was aware of all this–that Japan only needed Calcutta to win and that they could easily take Calcutta in 2 turns. The US had naval superiority in the Pacific, and it could finish off virtually all of Japan’s navy in the next 2 rounds (and there was no way Japan could possibly take Honolulu or San Fran). But, I had the “perfect” plan to stop Japan from winning. My plan was to simply fly one of my Russian fighters into Calcutta so that in order to take Calcutta, Japan would have to fight a Russian unit, and since they **couldn’t**attack a Russian unit, Calcutta would never fall to them!!! This was “perfect” because I knew that in a few rounds, there would be no doubt that the Allies would win.
However, a few minutes after I scared the Japan player by showing him my plan, and after he searched the rules for a few minutes, he excitedly pointed out that Russia is neutral in the Pacific and that it can’t move units into another power’s territories until they are no longer neutral. Since I knew that in a few rounds the Allies would be clearcut total domination winners regardless of whether Calcutta fell or not (I realize that global domination isn’t the victory condition, but I’m just saying that if it was), I tried to defend my plan by asking if I could attack a German sea unit if it’s in the Pacific. I was at war with Germany, and if I’m attacking on the Pacific map, then I’m at war IN THE PACIFIC. And, of course, if I was at war in the Pacific, then I could move my russian fighter into Calcutta, and the Allies would win.
Your opponent is correct. Unless you declare war on Japan, you cannot move into India. But there’s also no specific that states you can’t break a pact. Axis and Allies isn’t generally about making pacts. Yes, the rules allow you to come up with some sort of understanding between Japan and Russia if you want, but there’s also no rule that requires you to not break the understanding (that’s actually why the whole russia/japan problem hasn’t ever been really well resolved). It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Anyway, as for your clever interpretation of the rules, simply being at war with Germany doesn’t allow Russia to attack German units on the Pacific board. Russia will remain neutral and blocked from any combat moves on the Pacific side until they’re at war with Japan.
It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
I thought about that, but I didn’t know that my fighter tactic wouldn’t work, and so I didn’t prepare Russia beforehand. 1 Ftr wouldn’t have made any difference with what he had and the tiny bit that UKP had.
Does this mean that when you play as Russia you always play as though Japan is going to break whatever peace agreement you might have made?
It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
I thought about that, but I didn’t know that my fighter tactic wouldn’t work, and so I didn’t prepare Russia beforehand. 1 Ftr wouldn’t have made any difference with what he had and the tiny bit that UKP had.
Does this mean that when you play as Russia you always play as though Japan is going to break whatever peace agreement you might have made?
Ya you should play with the idea that japan can potentinally break the pact, and vice versa.
I don’t think you can break what turns out to be a gentleman’s agreement, live and learn. The next time you strike a deal have it be that you can’t enter each others original territories, and leave the rest out. That way it would give you more flexibility.
BACKSTAB YOUR FRIEND.
We’re talking about Axis and Allies here! You must seize Victory~!
I think the simple answer is that Russia could just declare war on Japan and force them to deal with the Russian Ftr like you wanted them to. As Russia goes before Japan, this is a simple DOW on the Russian turn.
Of course you’d prefer if Japan declared war on you to get all those Mongol units. However Japan gets nothing for waiting for you to declare war outside of preventing a fight in the North.
3 Tanks, and a couple Mechs entering China through Russia really puts a kink in the Japanese conquest of China. Better way of opening up war with Japan than sending your infantry down through Manchuria and Korea. They’d still have to declare war on you, possibly netting you the Mongol units. That or they face a Russian DOW and possibly getting stopped in their tracks China.
Granted Russia diverts a few much needed units away from the German front, but by turn 3 having a few tanks and Mechs down in Sikang / Szechewan creates issues for the Japanese / Chinese conflict. If the Germans DO go after Moscow, you can still get those units back to Moscow for a full defense strategy all the while possibly disrupting the Japanese strategy / purchases.
He cut the deal to say that war can’t exist between the 2 powers. Is there a way out? Lets see…
Was this a verbal agreement with witnesses? Don’t matter it’s here say
Was it a written contract?
Did you shake on it and spit in the palm of your hands to seal the deal?
Did you have your fingers crossed at the time, and can he prove you didn’t? LOL
Well Japan sucker punched the US from the back of the room.
Hitler went after Moscow after signing a non-aggression pact with them 2 years earlier.
I don’t see a reason why you can’t renege on a promise =)
