Consider the game as having 4 power “Blocks”.
European Axis
USSR & Chinese Communists
Japanese Empire
Western Allies & Nationalist China
Any two of these blocks can be allied only in the sense that they have a common enemy; they cannot fight together or share territory. This is historical and solves the ambiguities mentioned above regarding the pact.
@Der:
What effect do you think this rule would have on game play? Good? Bad?
Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty:
“Japan cannot violate the treaty unless Moscow falls.
Russia cannot violate the treaty unless Berlin falls.”
In case you ask me, IMHO that is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. No offense. It is totally derogatory and utterly sukks sukks sukks, to the brink of being bedlam. We might as well have a rule that forbid Germany to attack Malta and Gibraltar, since that never happened in the real war. This kind of rules make it a scripted game and boring to play.
What should have been done.
Every non aggression treaty should be associated with a NO bonus, and the aggressor miss that bonus when he break the treaty.
Like Germany get 5 IPC when at peace with Russia, but lose that bonus if and when he break the treaty and attack Russia.
The same rule should go for Japan and Russia too, if Japan attacks he lose the bonus.
If you dont love the Japanese Tank rush to Moscow, dont fix the rules, fix the map. It should be twice as many territories on the Eastern Russian map as there currently is. I figure the designer missed that train. But we can fix it with a pencil. Also I think part of the border between Russia and China should be impassable like the Himalaya and Pripet is, but we can fix that too with a pencil. Poor work from the designer, but nothing we cant fix.
But if you still want to play with the proposed derogatory rule, I can tell you what will happen. Russia can vacate all territories in the east, because Japan is not allowed to attack. Even if Japan stacked 100 Tanks in Manchuria, and all the Russian territories were empty, Japan was not allowed to attack. Now does that look like any rational real world behavior ? We dont need any armed forces because our enemy is not allowed to attack by this rule that says so ? It is written on a piece of paper. I wish Hitler had know about that rule before he startet WWII, his issues could have been solved with talk.
I rest my case.
@Der:
@CWO:
In case this is of any interest: if you go to the Wikipedia article on the Sino-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, you’ll find out that they actually had such a pact, but also that it wasn’t scrupulously observed: China and the USSR were engaged in some low-level border skirmishing against each other during WWII. There’s similar information in the Wikipedia article on the Second Sino-Japanese War, in the section titled “Contemporaneous wars being fought by China.”
Wow - complicated relations there. Not sure how to represent all that on a tabletop…
I don’t think it’s necessary to represent it in an A&A context. The impression I get is that the Sino-Soviet friction was localized and on a small scale. Sort of along the lines of a couple of guys in a tavern tradings insults and a few shoves, not a full-scale bar-room brawl involving them plus most of the other patrons plus the local police force.
In case you ask me, IMHO that is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. No offense. It is totally derogatory and utterly sukks sukks sukks, to the brink of being bedlam. We might as well have a rule that forbid Germany to attack Malta and Gibraltar, since that never happened in the real war. This kind of rules make it a scripted game and boring to play.
Thanks Narvik! Seriously, I’d rather get the criticism here than after I’ve changed my house rule book and am sitting around the game table with all the guys.
In all fairness though, there are scripted things in this game already. For example, the official rules say that for the most part the Chinese can’t leave their borders. You also can’t load Chinese on transports. The one Chinese fighter is restricted to only certain territories. Why? These are just rules that force the historic decision the Chinese made to stay put in China.
So why not force the Russians and the Japanese not to fight unless certain conditions are met? Historically Russia did not attack Japan until after VE day, and Japan would not have attacked Russia unless it was already dead in the water, as Italy did with France, just to get in on some spoils at the end. I think you can agree with that part.
You are right about what would happen though. I definitely play with some guys who exploit every rule, so there would be no units in Russia defending against Japan. There needs to be some answer to that.
Changing the map is the best answer - but this is one of the changes that is least accepted by players, especially when you try it with a pencil. We already play with a penalty for breaking the pact - 4 Russian infantry rise up and Mongolia joins the Allies, but a determined Japan just blows through it.
What about this?
“As long as X number of Russian units are stationed in or around Amur, Japan cannot violate the treaty unless Moscow falls.
As long as X number of Japanese units are stationed in or around Manchuria, Russia cannot violate the treaty unless Berlin falls.”
This way both countries would have to keep a force there to avoid being attacked, as historically happened.
Just stick a mountain range on the continental divide where it is on a satellite map. I studied one for 2 hours trying to find a place where you could march an army through. I zoomed in and out ever 50 miles or so. Other than where the Silk Road goes through the mountain in 2 places, there isn’t much in the way of travelling through there. Neither place would be suitable to cross, especially after you get through hundreds of millions of Chinese troops and partisans. It truly is impassable for a mechanized army.
@Der:
Thanks Narvik! Seriously, I’d rather get the criticism here than after I’ve changed my house rule book and am sitting around the game table with all the guys.
You are right about what would happen though. I definitely play with some guys who exploit every rule, so there would be no units in Russia defending against Japan. There needs to be some answer to that.
Changing the map is the best answer - but this is one of the changes that is least accepted by players, especially when you try it with a pencil. We already play with a penalty for breaking the pact - 4 Russian infantry rise up and Mongolia joins the Allies, but a determined Japan just blows through it.
What about this?
“As long as X number of Russian units are stationed in or around Amur, Japan cannot violate the treaty unless Moscow falls.
As long as X number of Japanese units are stationed in or around Manchuria, Russia cannot violate the treaty unless Berlin falls.”This way both countries would have to keep a force there to avoid being attacked, as historically happened.
What is deadline for writing your new book rules for the next year?
Here is the first draft of a NAP suggested in G40 Redesign.
IDK if you ever read some posts in this thread.
Things can be messy in it but starting from this post there is an exchange about Japan and Soviet NAP and how to enforce it.
If you want to read, follow the post link.
Or maybe even better what if we had a couple generic “penalties” to reinforce the bonuses above, meant to discourage ahistorical play patterns?
Something like this…
NAP Violations:
Russia -15 ipcs one time aggressor penalty for breaking non aggression treaty.
Japan -15 ipcs one time aggressor penalty for breaking non aggression treaty.
Or something along those lines? Where IPCs are removed if the team commits a violation. This way there are no hard rules restrictions, only bonuses and a few key penalties.
Here is how Balanced Mod treats this NAP issue:
G40 Balanced - Balance Mod 3.0
Russia
- 3 PUs if Russia is at war with European Axis, and there are no non-Russian Allied units in any originally Russian territory.
- 3 PUs for each originally German, Italian, or Pro-Axis neutral territory that Russia controls in mainland Europe. (This modifies Russia’s “Spread of Communism” objective).
- 2 PUs for each of the following Lend-Lease lanes that is “open” (i.e., the specified Sea Zone has no enemy warships and the specified territory is Allied controlled) when Russia is at war with European Axis beginning Round 3: (1) sz 125, Archangel ; (2) sz 80, Persia; (3) sz 5, Amur (This modifies Russia’s “Lend Lease” objective).
- An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia.
Note: An Axis power may not move its units into originally Russian territory unless that Axis power is at war with Russia. Also, when not at war with Japan, Russia may not move its units into any non-Russian Allied territory in Asia, other than Syria, Trans-Jordan, Iraq, Persia, NorthWest Persia, and East Persia. The National Objective for Russia’s first capture of Berlin has been removed.
Japan
- 5 PUs if Axis controls Dutch New Guinea, New Guinea, New Britain and Solomon Islands. (This modifies Japan’s “Strategic Perimeter” objective).
- 5 PUs if Axis controls Midway, Wake Island, Guam.
- 3 PUs if Japan controls Iwo Jima and Okinawa and is at war with the USA
This is the incentive I thought about to enforce Soviet-Japan NAP:
Japan NAP bonus:
+5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-5 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Russia get no bonus (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
However, Japan bonus would remain active for all the rest of the game.
No complex things to learn and only a NAP which is beneficial to Russia and Japan.
This would be another incentive to go west for Japan, without compromising the Center Crush strategy.
Your Map has a lot of Soviet TTs in Asian Soviet Union, so I would rise it up to:
+10 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Urals: 1 IPC
Evenki National Okrug: 1 IPC
Yenisey:1 IPC
Yakut SSR: 1 IPC
Buriatia: 1 IPC
Sakha: 1 IPC
Amur: 2 IPCs
Siberia: 1 IPC
Soviet Far East: 1 IPC
Does Japan can get it without growing a monster?
Does it allows more room to Soviet Union to fight European Axis, knowing it is unlikely that Japan will turn down 20 IPCs ( minus +10 NAP bonus and -10 penalty)?
If you don’t play with NOs, then a smaller NAP bonus and same high penalty can do the job:
+5 to Japan if follows the Non-Agression Pact
-10 ipcs one time aggressor penalty if Japan is first to break the non aggression treaty.
Russia get no bonus from NAP (outside keeping intact all Eastern TTs and VCs)
But suffer no penalty from breaking it.
However, Japan bonus would remain active for the remainder of the game.
You may consider this gift like a way to accept that sooner or later Japan can control these TTs, that way giving a bonus is not penalizing Russia.
It is an incentive to not enter into Soviet Union, all Japanese ground units might be much helpful elsewhere.
Both Powers will probably keep a minimum garrison.
Even some of these TTs might fall in Japan hands if Chinese forces are rapidly overcome.
Nenetsia: 1 IPC
Vologda: 1 IPC
Novosibursk: 1 IPC
Tambov: 1 IPC
Khazak SSSR: 2 IPCs
Thanks Baron - I’ll read over these ideas…
Just stick a mountain range on the continental divide where it is on a satellite map. I studied one for 2 hours trying to find a place where you could march an army through. I zoomed in and out ever 50 miles or so. Other than where the Silk Road goes through the mountain in 2 places, there isn’t much in the way of travelling through there. Neither place would be suitable to cross, especially after you get through hundreds of millions of Chinese troops and partisans. It truly is impassable for a mechanized army.
GHG - exactly where are the territories designated on the G40 map where you would say Japan must stop?
Starting at the Himalayas, the line moves north dividing China from Russia, along the west side of Mongolia, the eastern borders of Timguska and Urals. It gets a little snakey up north but I needed to follow some border lines so I chose those 2. If you look at a satellite map you can see that there is no difference between these mountains and the Himalayas. It looks as though this is an extension of that range that branched out perpendicular to the Himalayas. In real terms this is what separated Europe from Asia in the development of cultures for thousands of years. The Silk Road is really just a path that traders used to go between the 2 continents to exchange goods. It winded through these mountains in 2 places, Mongolia and China.
On the Asian side of the mountains there is 8 Russian territories worth 8 IPC’s. If Japan wants to expend the resources they can conquer those territories. It would still have been an almost impossible task for them to do this much but I wanted to make it somewhat worth their while to even bother attacking Russia. Any IPC they gain is one lost for the Russians. It truly would have been impossible for them to move beyond these mountains. The Trans-Siberian Railway would have been simple enough to destroy for the Russians behind them as they were retreating. That’s why I allow them to move their troops from Asia to Europe but not Europe to Asia. The Mongolian Rule would still be in effect. Really though, that mountain range should have been drawn on the map to begin with and made impassable like the Himalayas. It makes the game more realistic when you don’t have Japanese sneaking up on Moscow or Russians piling into China like all they had to do was hold hands and skip across the border.
Side note; Tankograd was built up against the western side of this mountain range. It was there because of the proximity to the rocks that were converted into metal and because it was safe due to the fact that nobody could attack them from the east through those impassable mountains. It was as far as you could get from the front lines with Germany.
Respecting the physical borders of the planet seems more logical than creating political borders that can be debated. The ability to drive a mechanized army through those mountains is not debatable.
I really like your reasoning with the terrain - I’d say it would be a must to put in to improve realism.
The two problems it doesn’t solve are:
Starting at the Himalayas, the line moves north dividing China from Russia, along the west side of Mongolia, the eastern borders of Timguska and Urals. It gets a little snakey up north but I needed to follow some border lines so I chose those 2. If you look at a satellite map you can see that there is no difference between these mountains and the Himalayas. It looks as though this is an extension of that range that branched out perpendicular to the Himalayas. In real terms this is what separated Europe from Asia in the development of cultures for thousands of years. The Silk Road is really just a path that traders used to go between the 2 continents to exchange goods. It winded through these mountains in 2 places, Mongolia and China.
On the Asian side of the mountains there is 8 Russian territories worth 8 IPC’s. If Japan wants to expend the resources they can conquer those territories. It would still have been an almost impossible task for them to do this much but I wanted to make it somewhat worth their while to even bother attacking Russia. Any IPC they gain is one lost for the Russians. It truly would have been impossible for them to move beyond these mountains. The Trans-Siberian Railway would have been simple enough to destroy for the Russians behind them as they were retreating. That’s why I allow them to move their troops from Asia to Europe but not Europe to Asia. The Mongolian Rule would still be in effect. Really though, that mountain range should have been drawn on the map to begin with and made impassable like the Himalayas. It makes the game more realistic when you don’t have Japanese sneaking up on Moscow or Russians piling into China like all they had to do was hold hands and skip across the border.
Side note; Tankograd was built up against the western side of this mountain range. It was there because of the proximity to the rocks that were converted into metal and because it was safe due to the fact that nobody could attack them from the east through those impassable mountains. It was as far as you could get from the front lines with Germany.
Respecting the physical borders of the planet seems more logical than creating political borders that can be debated. The ability to drive a mechanized army through those mountains is not debatable.
Does Timguska able to be captured by Japan if coming from China instead of Russia?
It means up to 9 TTs on G40 Asian Map.
Would it be simpler to use directly the Pacific OOB left map which already physically separate there?
So, if Japan want to go to Russia, it needs to pass through India and Persia, right?
And once Japan reached this Ourals border, does it means Russia can no longer invade it from the Western Side of Ourals?
(Assuming Trans-Siberian Railways are too easily destroyed from either side.)
That way, it can make sense to built a Rising Sun Empire into Asia.
Cutting all possible attacks from western side of Pacific Map, except from India can be very interesting for Japan. It can now just concentrate against USA, UK and ANZAC.
Chineses and Russians TTs remains both ways for Soviet units until Japan close the supply lines.
End of the story.
Moscow is not endangered by Japanese armies but neither Japanese interest in this part of the Asian land.
The NAP bonus should be proportionate to these reachable 8 or 9 IPCs TTs.
If Japan can only gets that much, why put military effort to break something which provides around this bonus.
Earlier, I suggested +5 and -10 penalty for Japan. (My preferred choice.)
To be proportionate, it can be up to +7 or +8 IPCs bonus and -15 one time penalty.
Russia get no IPC but don’t have to bother too much on its eastern TTs.
If Russia breaks it, Japan may still keep the bonus for next round.
If the Russians choose to leave their 18 infantry and 2 AAA plus you add the Mongolians, then it would be a fairly major undertaking to take Siberia for only 8 IPC’s. That would distract them from India and the US so they would have to make a decision. They can wait until some or all of the Russian troops go to Moscow and then attack but they give up a number of turns without the extra income. They could ignore it all together and concentrate on India and the Pacific without having to worry about getting stabbed in the back by Russia. This is the reason for me making the rule the way that I did, it still provides some options while making it more realistic. As Russia I usually leave 6 on Amur and take the rest to Moscow which still makes Japan spend resources if they want to take Siberia while at the same time getting 14 units back to Moscow to help out with Germany. If you’re really concerned about losing the income you could allow Russia to send troops east until Japan gets to a certain point in Siberia then the Railway is closed. Your rule doesn’t have to be exactly like mine I’m just giving you some ideas that might be useful to you when you create your own rule.
Yes to both questions Baron. They could still attack Russia in Europe by going there south of the Himalayas. The Russians cannot go back to Asia after crossing into Europe through Siberia.
It is the Ural Mountain Range so that’s why I had it border Urals. Also, I didn’t want to include Timguska in Asia because that doesn’t seal off China from Russia and the mountains do actually border Mongolia. You have to remember that a mountain range of this size is very wide so it doesn’t resemble the tiny lines on the A&A map. It’s more like the impassable zone in the Himalayas so despite the zigzag of the border lines, the mountain range wouldn’t follow the border lines so accurately and makes this divide more plausible with these borders even through Siberia. It only takes a second to pull up a satellite map of the area and you’ll see what I mean without spending all the time that I did scanning it more closely. I was trying to make a rule so I was looking for a plausible way through (or not). At first I thought it would be interesting to make them go through Mongolia, a strict neutral, to get there but I couldn’t find a place anywhere that they could get through the continental divide so I arrived at this rule.
It is the Ural Mountain Range so that’s why I had it border Urals. Also, I didn’t want to include Timguska in Asia because that doesn’t seal off China from Russia and the mountains do actually border Mongolia.
So, you cannot reach Timguska from Kansu, when you cross all China with japanese Tanks.
This border is close too, right?
Looking on satellite map, I found that Tunguska is indeed in northern part of Mongolia and so on the Eastern part of Urals mounts!
The 1940 PTO Map is not depicting correctly this region.
From what I can understand, Tayshet, Irkutsk Oblast, is the node point from where the Trans-Siberian railroad cross the Urals. And it is not that far from Tunguska, Irkutsk Oblast, Russia (630 km).
And it is clearly on Eastern side of Urals.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Tunguska,+Irkutsk+Oblast,+Russia/Tayshet,+Irkutsk+Oblast,+Russia/@54.4255237,98.2251974,675159m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x5d065ef8ec34d23d:0xe840031772bcc92b!2m2!1d102.7931204!2d52.6463953!1m5!1m1!1s0x5ce06018905c8359:0xe04cb3fe8342dcd4!2m2!1d98.0105748!2d55.9321466
While Evenkiysky District, Krasnoyarsk Krai, is further north and still on the Eastern Side of Urals.
So to cut the Rails you need to capture Tunguska, from a real geographical POV!!!
Now, in my mind it is simpler to consider that you close the Trans-Siberian when both TTs are captured by Japan. Meaning, you just have to follow the physical board map. If there is no more Russian units in PTO and Tunguska (and Evenkiyski) is Japanese controlled, Russia can no more reinforced the Pacific side of the map.
Is it the way you play it?
Really good idea about Urals, IMO, GHG, congrats!
That’s right. No crossing between anywhere in China and Russia. That’s easy enough to remember.
In my game I have Research and Development that nations on the same side can share between each other if they can physically move the research token from capital to capital. On the suggestion of one of my subscribers I decided that it was ok to fly a strategic bomber over that mountain range for the sole purpose of transporting the research token between Japan and Germany/Italy. It was needed to even out the game because Japan is isolated from their allies and did not have the same access to R&D like their Pacific opponents did through sharing tech. That’s it though, no bombing runs or any other reason than sharing tech.
@Der:
.
2) Japan got their butts handed to them when they skirmished with Russian units led by emerging superstar leader Georgy Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol (located along the Mongolian border) in 1939. This squashed any dreams Japan had of expansion into Russia and a treaty was signed. Â
You got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
So basically, your proposal make it a scripted game, in the same way that some players want a Vichy France rule, because that happened in the real war, and it feels strange when your game take another direction than the history books. Then you must decide, do you want an historical correct simulation of WWII, or do you want to play a free game where everything can happen ?
@Der:
I really like your reasoning with the terrain - I’d say it would be a must to put in to improve realism.
The two problems it doesn’t solve are:
- Russia still loses over 20% of its income, while Japan gains more than 20%, even when Japan stops at the Urals. Enough IMO to really sway the results on the East Front and in the Pacific.
- Japan got their butts handed to them when they skirmished with Russian units led by emerging superstar leader Georgy Zhukov at Khalkhin Gol (located along the Mongolian border) in 1939. This squashed any dreams Japan had of expansion into Russia and a treaty was signed.
On IL’s AA50 map, including Evenki National Okrug, there is only for 5 IPCs of TTs on Soviet soil.
It is much accurate than Global on that one, Evenki eastern border is north of Mongolia.
And, that would meant Khazakh SSR and Novosibirk European side (as well as Urals) and both eastern borders becoming impassable to reach Chinghai, which western border would be on Urals down to Himalaya…
However, you map has more details. We can see that Trans-Siberian is crossing Novosibursk.
Clearly, this TT is the key between West and East on your map.
Do you see some issues DK, if it is played that way for China (Western border closed to land units), except for Novo as long as it is Soviet control and Soviet Novosibursk is close to the west for Japan?
10 IPCs, is it 30% of your Soviet Union starting income (37$)?
And it is also 25% of Japan income? (42$)
You got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
Where did you get that information? I never read anything like that. Here’s some quotes from a history site:
http://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
“The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under Zhukov had combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour….Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.”
It also says that Japanese leadership banned air attacks because they were mad that a local commander earlier ordered an air raid on a Russian airfield without asking permission.
@Der:
You got that wrong. It was not superstar Zhukov that kicked the Japan out. It was an inherent leader conflict between Japanese admirals and generals. The generals wanted to continue to grab land from China and Russia, like they had done since 1900, but the admirals wanted more sea power and to rule the Pacific. The admirals won, and they sabotaged the battle of Khalkin gol. They put a ban on moderne weapons like aircrafts, tanks and machineguns, and forced the infantry to attack in human waves against Russian machine guns. The admirals wanted to lose, so they could get the funds to build a strong navy. That’s the ugly truth. If you look at the Russian Japanese conflict in Manchuria, Port Artur, Shakalin and Korea from 1903 to 1905, 1918, 1927, 1931 and 1937, you find that Japans military force was superior to the Russian forces.
Where did you get that information? I never read anything like that. Here’s some quotes from a history site:
http://historyofrussia.org/khalkhin-gol-battle-nomonhan/
“The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under Zhukov had combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour….Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.”
It also says that Japanese leadership banned air attacks because they were mad that a local commander earlier ordered an air raid on a Russian airfield without asking permission.
Do you believe in that propaganda ?
edit, ih by the way, did you know that Memoire 44 is releasing a new game, the battle of Khalkin Gol now as we speak ?
OK then I guess I’ll rephrase my statement to “For whatever reason, the Japanese did not want to attack Russia.”
Never played Memoir '44 but I’ve heard some good things about it - I’ll have to give it a try!
@Der:
OK then I guess I’ll rephrase my statement to “For whatever reason, the Japanese did not want to attack Russia.”
Oh, they should have, in the real war. Half of all Lend Lease from US to Russia went through the port of Vladivostok and with the Siberian railway to Moscow. All Japan had to do was blockade what is seazone 5 on our A&A map, and Germany would have taken Moscow. In real wars, tactics are nothing and a good supply line is everything. I figure Tojo and Hirohito didn’t love Hitlers racial speeches too much, being colored as they were, and at some point maybe they did not trust Hitlers promise to share the globe. Hitler did in fact backstab everyone he made a treaty with. But unfortunately, in our A&A there is no such thing as a Lend Lease route via seazone 5 and Amur, like there actually is in sz 125 and Archangel, so in our case Japan need to capture all the wasteland up to Moscow if they want to help Germany, and as you know, in the real world most of that terrain was impassable mountains and marshes. The easy fix, with no pencil or paint, is to houserule in a new NO bonus, like the one in Archangel. I know I would if I ever come to power, or anyone listened to me
edit, when come to think about it, I believe Hirohito denied to attack Russia for the same reason that Franco denied to attack Gibraltar and close the Med. When you are racist like Hitler its hard to get help from colored men. That idea opens up the possibility, that if Hitler got killed before 1939, would another German dictator, that was not a racist, get more help from Franco and Hirohito ? Pandoras box
Right Foxy.
50% port of Vladivostok
25% Persia
25% Archangel
