GW36 Japanese Strategy, Refusing the Dragon.

  • As for the Russians I see how they are able to attack any nation Starting July 1939, The Sleeping Bear Rule. Just Russia Doesn’t go to Max war time Economy … so that is at lest figured out on my end. That still leaves Japan and its IPP confusion

  • '13

    Agreed – we need v1.3.

  • I am not sure where the confusion lies with Japan and war declaration.

    “Each nation has different conditions under which it can declare war which are listed on their National Reference Sheet. In some cases, the nation only needs to reach its full Wartime Income level. In other cases there are more conditions to be met. Once you are able to declare war you may do so at any time, even during another player’s turn.”

    This is the rule regarding declaring war. Now granted it is poorly word the line “more conditions” should read “different conditions”. However it clearly states the national reference sheet lists the condition to declare war. Japan’s are simple. They can declare war on any nation other than Italy and Germany. Using information from other National Reference sheets obscures the matter. For each nation only the core rules and its reference sheet apply.

    Japan has no income criteria to declare war. There is no “governing principle” that a nation must be at full income to declare war, however to execute the war to it fullest extent certainly. Russia can declare on Japan in Jan 1939 if that is a strategically valuable option to the Russian. He must wage that war with 8 IPP per turn plus the d12 after July '39 but he may invade Manchuria and kill Japanese units to his fullest ability.

    I will also add my voice in support of a version 1.3 (as well as a 1.4 and 1.5) to clean up different grey area and bad wording.

    If you would like to see the extent of the shenanigans that the rules currently allow following an Axis War Dec.

    German war dec a minor
    Russia …. Declares war on Domincian Republic
    Monroe Doctrine triggered
    USA responds with war dec on Russia

    USA goes to 76 IPC
    Russia goes to 45
    USA War dec Germany and Japan (probably attacked someone by Germany first attack)
    UK War Decs Russia
    Uk War Decs germany
    France War Decs Russia
    France War decs Germany

    Germany completes invasion of minor thinking “WTF!!!”

    Allies and Soviets all go full production and consume the Axis player before facing down in a final clash of the titans, most likely won by the Allies.

  • '13

    We disagree about the existence of a governing principle w.r.t. wartime income, but that’s ok. When HBG weighs in, they will either affirm it or not. If not, then your wording of “different conditions” should be adopted along with other clarifications.

    Thanks for your shenanigan scenario - made my day!
    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

  • I posted this under the FAQ on the Global War site as well but I figured I would share this with you all also and get some feed back as well … Thoughts ideas?

    Under War Lords for CCP the last Sentence reads as such. “An attack by a foreign country on a Warlord or the KMT is an attack on China and causes all Warlords to Align with the KMT”
    Does that mean that if Japan Declared War on just the CCP  and in the 1939 Set up the CCP have ” SICHUAN”  Does that mean the Warlords do not Align?
    What about for example if in the 1936 Set up the CCP take control of  Taiyuan, Understanding that the Warlords do not align correct? Then Japan Declares war on the CCP with the last Sentence in the “CHINESE COMMUNIST SPECIAL ABILITIES” under Warlords: with the final Sentence reading as such “An attack by a foreign country on a Warlord or the KMT is an attack on China and causes all Warlords to Align with the KMT”  it does not state the CCP can Japan still step foot into China with out having either Declared war on the KMT and also having the Warlords Align?
    When I state stepping foot into china I mean taking any territory that is CCP owned.

  • '13


    Does that mean the Warlords do not Align?

    There are no Warlords in 1939 per the KMT National Ref Sheet under Wartime Income for 1939: “The KMT has aligned all warlords”. Also, any Warlord territory with troops is listed under the Nationalist China 1939 Setup chart. That made sense to use because of how alignment works i.e. each Warlord ceased to “exist as a separate country” when they aligned with the KMT.


    What about for example if in the 1936 Set up the CCP take control of Taiyuan… the Warlords do not align correct?



    Then Japan declares war on the CCP… Can Japan [attack the CCP] without having declared war on the KMT and also [without] having the Warlords Align?

    Yes. The KMT and CCP are at war so they don’t care about each other. And only an attack “on a Warlord or the KMT” will align the Warlords because only that kind of attack counts as “an attack on China”.

  • Ah I totally forgot about 1939 Japan already being at War. That is oversight on my end my apologies but I think it is a miss about the 1936 set up because a situation like that is currently going on in our game.

  • Sorry I fixed it… I had a hell of a day and had this dropped on me and didn’t cross check as closely as I should have. But I still wonder is the scenario I gave something that was over looked or intentional ?

  • '13

    Hey, no worries :-)

    It seems logical enough so I don’t think it was an oversight. In fact, by allowing the exact scenario you brought up, it adds some flexibility to the game.

  • '13

    I didn’t want to hijack this thread with all the secondary (but important) discussion about wartime income and declaring war.

    [Announcer says in a deep voice] We now return to our original programming…

    I am intrigued by Refusing the Dragon with a 1939 start and I think it is viable.

    The 39 start gives Japan three (Nanking, Tai-Yuan, Henan) of the six wartime ‘bonus’ territories and a pretty good number of units (16 total) on the mainland. But the KMT has 10 units and the CCP has 11 units bordering those territories. In the spirit of “refusing” to engage the Chinese, Option 1 is to migrate troops north into a stiff defensive line (Henan, Tai-Yuan, Shanxi) and swap Nanking for Peking. That’s a net +1 IPC for Japan and +2 for (most likely) the KMT, with an overall swing of -1 against Japan. At some point, though, these will have to be reinforced. To delay that and do more refusing, go with Option 2 instead and dig in at the Tai-Yuan/Shanxi line. That’s a net -3 IPC for Japan and (likely) +2 for both KMT and CCP for an overall -7 IPC swing. Finally, Option 3 would do the least “refusing” and create the longest defensive line (Henan, Tai-Yuan, Shanxi, and Zhejiang). It would also generate the most income, with +7 for Japan and -2 for the KMT (an overall swing of +9), but require the most resources to maintain.

    With nothing else to do, hopefully the KMT and CCP will go at it and exhaust themselves in the process. Worst-case, though, is if they decide instead to build up their forces. This would necessitate Japanese reinforcements to maintain a stalemate along the established defensive line. The required investment would be 11 IPCs for Option 1 (less $$ but start sooner) or 16 IPCs for Option 2 (more $$ but start later). I skipped calculating the investment for Option 3 because it depends how the opposing forces are concentrated. Much of the necessary investment can be made up in the USSR, with 9 IPC available from all eastern USSR territories. As has been said, this would have to be well-coordinated with Germany. Alternatively, go south for Netherlands gold – 11 IPCs total including bonuses.

    From an IPC standpoint, how do the Options compare to the opposite strategy i.e. refusing to refuse the dragon? Let’s call it the “Swallowing the Dragon” strategy. I did it in my first game and was quite successful. It starts before Japan’s first move by signing the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact. This frees up units in Manchuria to go south. Next, kill the KMT and make sure they can’t buy artillery. I mobilized every available land unit and the entire Japanese air force against the KMT. I took the other three ‘bonus’ territories (Peking, Zhejiang, Guangxi) and Yunan by T2. That effectively ended any immediate KMT threat, though I still needed to reinforce my position against the 11 CCP units. To finish things off in short order (and prepare for an overland invasion of the FEC), I placed two minor ICs in China at the end of T2. All totalled, that’s  a +10 IPC gain over Option 1, +13 over Option 2, but only +4 over Option 3. Japan can make similar IPC gains by Refusing the Dragon, but it will take longer than 2 turns.

    From a political standpoint, Refusing the Dragon will have significant consequences over Swallowing the Dragon. If Japan goes north, it’s at war with Russia. If it goes south, it’s at war with the British Commonwealth (BC) and France. All are major powers. There is an additional complication that must be planned for. If Japan goes north, Germany must not take the Netherlands. Otherwise, the FEC (or Anzac) will get 9 additional IPCs per turn for the Dutch East Indies. If Japan goes south, Germany has to wait until Japan has possession of most of the DEI so that the FEC (or Anzac) doesn’t get much additional income when Germany takes the Netherlands. Swallowing the Dragon, on the other hand, has no significant consequences. Neither the BC nor the US can declare war on Japan until Japan declares war “on another nation during the game”. France is the exception. It can declare against Japan but has to pay 10 IPCs to do it (half its per turn income). Not that it would matter. France isn’t any kind of threat to Japan.

    Refusing the Dragon can work with a 39 start, but I agree with Warwick that against strong players it will be difficult to pull off. Still, I especially like the idea of going north and ‘sticking it’ to Russia. And I look forward to trying it because it’s my style of play – all in one way or another.

  • @cb4:

    I didn’t want to hijack this thread with all the secondary (but important) discussion about wartime income and declaring war.

    Exceedingly important I think.

  • Maybe it’s not a question directly related to the subject, but I’m wondering if the aircraft can scramble on the island if the island has no airbase? Islands such as Guam, Formosa, Palau …

  • @HMS:

    Maybe it’s not a question directly related to the subject, but I’m wondering if the aircraft can scramble on the island if the island has no airbase? Islands such as Guam, Formosa, Palau …

    Im certain they cannot scramble to adjacent SZ unless there is an airbase present.

    Upon reflecting on your point and considering other islands and also very small territories with strategic value (such as Gibraltar) it makes no sense that several wings are incapable of assisting in a defensive naval engagement merely offshore.

    HBG has made a money-making provision by selling Air Strips, tiny airfields bases for islands. Cheaply giving scramble ability to any aircraft in Guam.

  • That’s what I was thinking, but I was not sure, I just needed confirmation. Thank you.

Suggested Topics

  • 2
  • 5
  • 1
  • 11
  • 6
  • 11
  • 15
  • 15
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures