Non-Aggresion Treaty

I like the idea of there being a reason for Japan not attacking Russia and vise versa.

Then again it also would be fun to allow it.

I think there definitely needs to be a time slot.  Maybe a punishment if it is done before turn 5 or something.  Neither one wanted to open up another front in real life but perhaps might of….

Sean

Maybe a NO for still having the non/agg treaty?

There could be an economic penalty for the side that breaks the treaty. For example, if Japan attacks originally Russian territory, the Russian’s get a 10 IPC NO. This objective lasts until Moscow is taken or Japan leaves all originally Russian territory. The NO could be reduced or eliminated when Germany meets certain conditions or after a set number of turns.

Japan got 3 NO’s in the Pacific. If Japan want to forget this NO’s and rather trade 1 IPC territories in Sibir, then let them do it. It will be their loss.

Japan will have its plate full in the global game (although it has a ton of crap). It won’t be such a cake walk for them in China if they have to leave much of that Manchurian force on the boarder. A NAP agreement would allow them to empty the boarder like they do now. If Japan tries to move like 15 ground units + a bunch of air into N.Russia, it won’t be able to crush China as quick. Then the march to India will be delayed, as the Anzac gets stronger. By then they better watch their back because the big mean green machine will be coming. I don’t think you will be able to ignore the US in this game.

I think that at some point Japan could go after Russia, I would just wait until China & India (IC) are in the bag first. Its normally a much shorter path through the middle east to Russia, and the Mid E might be worth more in this game.

I’m just saying that a NAP could be a double edge sword for the allies. It could shelter E Russia’s, but will just shift the burden elsewhere.

I’m excited about all the things we will be able to do. Attack neutrals, open and close seaways, bring enemies in on our terms and fight the war how we want to. If their lined up on the other side I say attack the bastards. I guess its possible that Japan and Russia could start off not at war, but I don’t think so. It was more of a cease fire (NAP). The same type of agreements (some secrete) were used to stab countries in the back throughout that time. As the allies you couldn’t expect the axis (or Russia for that matter) to live up to any of their contracts.

By the way I must have missed that clause in the original 1940’s document that Tojo promised 2 regimens to Stalin if they invaded again.

House Rule 5 – Russo-Japanese Non Aggression Pact
The non-aggression pact was seen as a stab in the back to both Japan and Russia’s Allies; however this “freeing up” of forces was necessary for both powers to achieve their goals. The forces left on the contested Manchurian border were still prepared to fight, in fact each side expected the other to break the pact.
The first time one power attacks the other in one of its originally controlled territories; all defending units gain a bonus of +1 to their defense value this turn. The Attacker’s unit’s attack value is reduced by 1 during all combat against that power this turn. (Infantry have no attack value when not supported by artillery)

This rule makes you warry to start a war, it makes units on defense more powerful than they usualy are without the nasty subject of mysteriously adding units. But it doesnt carry over, once you start the attack your back on even ground, its just that you have to expend an inordinate ammount to do it, and that is EXACTLY why japan didnt attack russia, it would have drained them utterly.

I think that’s a better rule then adding units. I still don’t see how you think the defender should get a boost. Its not like there going to say here we come get ready. This game already gives the def an advantage (inf & ftrs). The penalty for either nation is that neither can afford the units needed to conduct the battle. They will be taking much need units away from other fronts that will cost them. Its a trade off that you as the aggressor decide to do.
Say Russia is having a hard time with Germany/Italy and the allies are not doing squat to help her. Russia starts to pull back the Siberians, you think Japan should pay a price because the allies are faltering?

I think in older games there was a place for NAP. Starting w/AA50 and now AA40 there is so many 1 IPC tt in Siberia that a march to Moscow is possible but will take a long time with a smart Russian player. Now its more viable to attack Russia through the Caucasus, at least you meet some of your goals that way, but it will still take a long time. I will side w/Larry on this because of the new (in game) time table that NAP in no longer needed. If its Kill Russia First by time Japan can mount that 3rd arm to Moscow, the allies should be in position to come to her aid. Actually by then they should have knocked the hell out of Italy, retaken France, or be in position to threaten Japan itself (or at least its many holdings).

I think the design of the game will be the best determinant of whether you attack Russia or not. With a global game I can see that Japan will need to in order to help Germany, but then that will deplete their forces for China and money for fighting back the US as well. With the global game this will be a very balanced game IMO.

Regarding some sort of mandated non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Japan:

I for one, hate built in rules like that. I believe the purpose of this game is to allow us to sort of go back in time and act as the leaders of our own country like Japan,
Russia, etc… We are not going to make the same decisions as the real leaders did, but thats what’s great about this game, it gives us a starting point in history and allows us to recreate it. Pacts should never be mandated. And they should NEVER give you free guys. This is war, and if you want to risk moving troops off of one of your borders, you can do that, but if your enemy then strikes, you shouldn’t magically get free guys to place there. If you wanted them there, you should have left them there. Its just one of many tough decisions you have to make in war.

Now I personally think that is what’s going to be great about the global game, Japan will be able to invade the Russian far east, but just like in AAP1940, it will do so at the risk of overstreching itself. Same goes for the US or any other power that has a global influence. If they shift too many resources to one front, sure they will make a big impact on that front, but at the expense of the other one, so it should balance out, at least in theory. If America goes all out against Germany, Japan will not only destroy the British, Anzac, and Chinese forces, but they will then be free to pressure Russia as well, will take some pressure off Germany, thereby counterbalancing America’s decision to go a KGF strategy.

an important reason why i hinder the attacker, and give the defender a bonus is because of the underrepresented expansiveness of siberia. Russia is the largest country on the planet, and Siberia is some of the most rugged, underdeveloped hinterland on the planet. To assume you can just walk in and stomp out divison after division of entrenched russian soldiers, who know the land like the back of their hand is not fair.

Under my rule, you can still do it, go ahead, im not stoping you. But the russians there defend on a 3 because they know the attack is coming, and they are stretched across endless miles of forests and mountains taking pot shots at the japanese. While the japanese need to expend a huge ammount of millitary power to seek out said russians and eliminate them to gain control of these territories. Because of this their units attack power is reduced by 1. Infantry would not do well attacking into this wilderness alone.

My rule also prevents russia from ever attacking manchuria unless japan leaves it empty OR russia brings over some high power units

Also, my rule does not effect combat in china, japanese can fight russians in there as they please, if russia moves men in. because these are not origianly controlled territoreies of either power.

My rule has undergone slight textual modification, so here it is again:
House Rule 5 – Russo-Japanese Non Aggression Pact
The first time one power attacks the other in one of its originally controlled territories and until the attacker captures a territory it has attacked; all that powers defending units (in originally controlled territory) gain a bonus of +1 to their defense value this phase. The Attacker’s unit’s attack value is reduced by 1 during all combat against that power this turn in the opposing power’s originally controlled territories. (Infantry have no attack value when not supported by artillery) The first power to break the pact, may never utilize benifits from the pact in a latter game turn.