Soviet-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty Rule…

[Narvik]

I have listened to all 3 of you, General, Baron and K, and again, I tell you the real problem is the map.

The distance from Vladivostok to Moscow is 5 times longer than the distance from Berlin to Moscow, on a real map, or globe.

On our A&A map, from Berlin to Moscow is 5 spaces, and from Manchuria is 7 or 8, depending on the route. It should have been 25 or more to get it right. The Siberian Express, as some name it, favor a historical not correct Japanese Tank drive to Moscow. The only smooth way to solve this, is take a pencil and divide every Russian territory east of Moscow in two, so we get at least 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow. Then, the border between Russia and China should be impassable, since the Himalaya mountain range continue into the Hindu Kush mountains, and there are no way a Panzer Army could cross that range. Maybe mountain climbers, but not Tanks.

Now, if everybody in the A&A community do this, the sooner the better, and we start a wave, or a map revolution, in 3 or 4 years from now, the next global 3th edition will have 16 Siberian spaces printed on the official map. Trust me, we the players have more power than we know, but we must use it, and send a message to WOTC. Now, with 16 spaces between Manchuria and Moscow, and impassable terrain between Russia and China, we dont need a derogatory non aggression treaty rule. Every sane Japanese player will see that a Tank drive over that distance is a bad idea.

edit, and I hate this suggestion myself, but if you dont want to use a pencil, another solution could be a house rule that deny any attacking enemy land units to combat move more than 1 space in a turn on the Pacific part of Russia. On every Russian territory, starting from Timgusta to Sovjet Far East, all attacking land units can only combat move 1 space each Turn. And the same house rule let Russia non combat move all kind of units with the Siberian Railroad 2 spaces each turn.

[General 6 Stars]

Just make each territory count as 2 moves.

[Narvik]

@SS:

Just make each territory count as 2 moves.

The problem with that, is it makes Tanks and Mechs a poor buy. Unless you say that infantry need 2 turns to move between this territories, in which case is a nightmare to keep track of. It would be unplayable. A good pencil, innovation spirit and courage is the supreme choice.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Narvik:

I have listened to all 3 of you, General, Baron and K, and again, I tell you the real problem is the map.

I’m with you, Narvik - I would definitely be on board with throwing out all forced rules (including the China ones) in favor of a historic map that steered the play. I don’t have access to a G40 global map - how long would the map have to be to have 25 spaces between Moscow and Vladivostok? Allowing for an average of 2 inches wide per space, that would be 50 inches. Then you might as well fix the Pacific too - make it larger to have some true island hopping. Add a foot or two there - you are getting over 8 feet long. Most people don’t have the space for that, so I doubt well ever see Wizards fix it right.

[General 6 Stars]

@Narvik:

@SS:

Just make each territory count as 2 moves.

The problem with that, is it makes Tanks and Mechs a poor buy. Unless you say that infantry need 2 turns to move between this territories, in which case is a nightmare to keep track of. It would be unplayable. A good pencil, innovation spirit and courage is the supreme choice.

Then add trucks to transport inf.

Then design your own map. The map is what it is now. Play it or leave it. People don’t like the design then to bad. Don’t play it . Pay somebody to make u one gggeeeezzzz.

Use a sharpie or dry erase marker.

Don’t forget to make all of Russia grass.

[baron Münchhausen]

@Der:

@Baron:

Why this change of pace is not enough for helping Russia according to your experience on your tabletop game and hybrid map?

Well, using the terrain blocking alone on my map, Japan could still take 10 away from Russia in the east. On the East front on my map, Karelia is pretty much indefensible so Germany will get that every time and be making 54 IPCs to Russia’s 28. How long can Russia hold out at that level of income?

I think I’m going to try what I’ve revised below with our group until I can finish a map that better represents the terrain issues…

Japan historically chose the Southern Expansion Doctrine (Nanshin-Ron) for their war policy. Therefore, as long as at least 6 infantry and two tanks belonging to Russia guard the Soviet-Japanese border, Japan cannot break this pact until China or Moscow falls.
Russia did not attack Japan until after VE Day. Therefore, as long as at least 6 infantry and two tanks belonging to Japan guard the Soviet-Japanese border, Russia cannot break this pact until Berlin and Rome fall.

I know you hate it, Narvik, and I do respect your opinion about keeping options open. Believe it or not, I’ve done some really wild things with this game over the years. I remember years ago we used to even draw nations out of a hat for who was fighting who. We had Germany and Britain fighting the USA and Japan. It was no where close to historical!

I’m starting to realize that when you go off the tracks too far, you gain the novelty of it but you also lose the feeling of authenticity. Too far and you are not in WWII anymore - you might as well be playing someone’s dungeon fantasy game with elves and spells. For me, as with riding a bicycle, I find I have to find good balance in this game in order to fully enjoy it.

Shutting off that Russo-Japanese front would help Japan go in more historic directions, like China, India, and the Pacific, and help Russia be more of the bear it really was to the Germans and Italians.

Peace between Russia and Japan worth something. For Russia, it allows a lot of Lend-Lease to reach Vladivostok ; for Japan, it allows not redirecting resources (already meager) to fight on the north.
Why not try a reciprocal bonus, which can only be cut on the next enemy’s turn?
+6 IPCs NAP, given at the start of Soviet first turn to both Japan and Soviet Union, so it can be use to purchase units on Round 1.
And, hereafter, collected on purchase phase at the end of power’s turn.

If Soviet breaks it right away (R1), neither Japan nor Soviet Union can get it on collect income phase.
But still, Japan has already received +6 on setup (Round 0).
If Japan breaks it J1, Soviet Union already collected its bonus on R1, for a total of +12.

That way, breaking the NAP will not prevent the opponent from getting what the offender already received.
Even more, if Japan breaks it, Soviet Union will have received more IPCs from NAP than Japan.

So breaking the NAP gives no immediate reward.
From a general balance POV, both Allies and Axis received +6 IPCs bonus.

I would also kept the geographical aspect brought by HGH.

Japan cannot reach Western Soviet Union (G40 Europe Map) via China nor Northern Asia; but, as long as Timguska is Soviet controlled, USSR can transfer units into Pacific Map.

On DK’s map, Japan cannot reach Western Soviet Union (via China nor Eastern Soviet TTs); but, as long as Novosibursk is Soviet controlled, USSR can transfer units into Asian Soviet Union.
It also means that as long as Novosibursk (1 IPC) is Soviet controlled: Kansu and Ningxia (which is also connected to Yenisey) can be reinforced by Soviet units;  as well as all others 8 Eastern Soviet Union TTs:
Yenisey:1,
Evenki’s National Okrug:1,
Yakut SSR: 1,
Buriatia: 1,
Sakha: 1,
Siberia: 1,
Soviet Far East: 1,
Amur: 2.

So, Japan is not totally forbidden to attack Soviet Union but there is no Tank Drive to Moscow possibility, and it will only be a +4 (-6+10) IPCs income increase to fight a North Asia campaign. German’s may still asked his Axis partner’s in crime to do it because it will cut up to 16 IPCs from Russia (+6 NAP +10 Asian TTs).

It will be only a long term rewards for Japan because it will need to take all Amur, Soviet Far East, Siberia, Sakha and Buriatia before seeing the first increase in income with Yakut or Yenisey or Evenki being taken.

It will not be the best interest of Japan, only for Germany and Italy.
As it was historically speaking, Hitler insisting that Japan opens another front toward Soviet Union.

Do you like this?

[Der Kuenstler]

@SS:

Then design your own map. The map is what it is now. Play it or leave it. People don’t like the design then to bad. Don’t play it . Pay somebody to make u one gggeeeezzzz.

SS I don’t know what your problem is but this is the House Rule section. I for one am enjoying this exchange about possibly improving the existing game and learning from it. Nobody is forcing you to read all this - go hang out at the G40 forum if you only want what Larry and the Wizards hand out.

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

That way, breaking the NAP will not prevent the opponent from getting what the offender already received.
Even more, if Japan breaks it, Soviet Union will have received more IPCs from NAP than Japan.
Do you like this?

Eh….making a NAP is just adding a special rule. What’s the difference between that and my special rule? It’s still adding a rule. Just a different one.

[baron Münchhausen]

Yours is blocking 30 IPCs TUV and scripting the game until almost a win is achieved.

NAP is a different rule because it incites in an historical direction but let players and team decides what is better for their strategy.
NAP can be broken or not broken by Japan or Soviet…
Who knows what would have happen after Midway disaster if an army putsch would had overthrown IJN commanders and counselors around Emperor.

Japan and Russia can left more or less units anywhere they want.

JTDTM is the worst aspect, geographical rule can take care of it.

[General 6 Stars]

@Der:

@SS:

Then design your own map. The map is what it is now. Play it or leave it. People don’t like the design then to bad. Don’t play it . Pay somebody to make u one gggeeeezzzz.

SS I don’t know what your problem is but this is the House Rule section. I for one am enjoying this exchange about possibly improving the existing game and learning from it. Nobody is forcing you to read all this - go hang out at the G40 forum if you only want what Larry and the Wizards hand out.�

My comment was towards Narvik. Not you.  I’ll hang out where ever I want. I’ll reply my opinion where ever I want. I don’t play G40. I play the better and more advanced games.
 :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P :-P

[Der Kuenstler]

@Baron:

Yours is blocking 30 IPCs TUV and scripting the game until almost a win is achieved.

NAP is a different rule because it incites in an historical direction but let players and team decides what is better for their strategy.
NAP can be broken or not broken by Japan or Soviet…
Who knows what would have happen after Midway disaster if an army putsch would had overthrown IJN commanders and counselors around Emperor.

Japan and Russia can left more or less units anywhere they want.

JTDTM is the worst aspect, geographical rule can take care of it.

OK fair enough, Baron…this is another option…I’m not under any pressure to change anything in my game group for now, so will do more thinking…

[baron Münchhausen]

Another 4th point to make things bitter for Japan:

Geographic limitations to Asia (only east of Urals) for Japanese,
but close Trans-Siberians Railroad (for Soviet) toward east if Novosiburk is captured  (Timguska on G40),
+6 NAP bonus for both,
activation of Pro-Soviet Mongolians if Japan breaks NAP. (GHG idea)

[Narvik]

@Der:

I for one am enjoying this exchange about possibly improving the existing game and learning from it.

Yes, that is the spirit that brought us from the first MB classic 1984 edition, and to what we can enjoy today. A&A gets better and better for each new edition, but we still have a way to go before this game is utterly perfect. Even PB Risk do evolve at some level. If nobody wanted to improve anything, we would still be living in the stone age.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Another 4th point to make things bitter for Japan:

Geographic limitations to Asia (only east of Urals) for Japanese,
but close Trans-Siberians Railroad (for Soviet) toward east if Novosiburk is captured  (Timguska on G40),
+6 NAP bonus for both,
activation of Pro-Soviet Mongolians if Japan breaks NAP. (GHG idea)

I love the 6 IPC NAP idea in your former post. Unfortunately, it is moving far away from Der Kunstlers opening post, so maybe you should start a new thread based on that idea. But if K. dont mind, we can continue here.

I dont utterly love the geographical limitation idea, since it is not in the spirit of A&A, and it is not how the real world function either. If a Russian person can go to Timgusta, then so can a Japanese person, unless there is a wizard with magic power living there who autokill all Japanese persons that enter that place. But then it would not be A&A anymore.

A more rational suggestion would be to make Yakut SSR into a semi impassable territory, since the terrain at that place, the Lake Baikal surrounded by high mountains, is very hard to move through. It would be kind of like the Pripjat Marshes. The terrain in Yakut is in military term, an easy defended bottleneck with natural flank protection. I would say, you can only non combat move into Yakut, and that is probably correct in real life too. Or, you can only combat move into Yakut if it is defenseless and vacated, like total empty.

I also like the activation of Pro Sovjet Mongolians if Japan breaks the NAP.

If we also say that the border between China and Russia is impassable, as it is in real life too because of the Hindu Kush mountain range, which basically is the Himalayas continuing north, dividing China and Europe in a natural way. Then, the only way for Japan to Tank Crush into Moscow, is to go through Mongolia. I love this. This is exactly the problems Japan would face in the real war, if they wanted to go to Moscow. It was not impossible, but very difficult, costly and time consuming. Now Japan will stay out off Moscow, but not because of some non aggression treaty rule, that politicians and national leaders from any places would break at first opportunity anyway, but because it is too difficult in practice. It is doable, but only if you commit everything.

[baron Münchhausen]

I believed Urals mounts west of Mongolia and Tumguska were almost impassable and higher than Hindu Kush mountain range.

From GHG posts, I thought the bottleneck was the Trans-Siberian railroad passage which was not a piece of cake to carve out of Urals. But  can be easily defended or destroyed.
I can be wrong I just took a few minutes on Sat. maps, I’m not a geographer.

Instead of magic power, I thought about dynamite power to forbid entrance into European Soviet Union.

Tunguska Park is in fact due north to the western part of Mongolia.

---

I’ve got it wrong about Novosibursk. It is on the western side of Urals.

On DK’s map, Japan cannot reach Western Soviet Union (via China nor Eastern Soviet TTs); but, as long as Yenisey is Soviet controlled, USSR can transfer units into Asian Soviet Union.
It also means that as long as it is Soviet controlled: Ningxia (which is also connected to Yenisey) can be reinforced by Soviet units;  as well as all others 7 Eastern Soviet Union TTs:
Yenisey:1,
Evenki’s National Okrug:1,
Yakut SSR: 1,
Buriatia: 1,
Sakha: 1,
Siberia: 1,
Soviet Far East: 1,
Amur: 2.

[Imperious Leader]

Ok my 2 cents.

Japan could only view Vladivostok with any value and capturing the disputed island north of Japan ( which is not represented in the game anyway) .

So if the Soviets withdraw a certain force ( to be decided) then Japan could attack, or the Soviets can attack if Berlin falls. Also all movement is one space while in Russia east of Urals and defender gets +1 defense ( rugged terrain)

Japan will not attack and Soviets wont either.

[Narvik]

@Imperious:

So if the Soviets withdraw a certain force ( to be decided) then Japan could attack, or the Soviets can attack if Berlin falls.

Japan will not attack and Soviets wont either.

Another forced rule to make sure the game will follow the historical correct timeline. You dont think that after playing the game historical correct 20 times it just may get boring. You want to try a new strategy, but huh, wait, that is not allowed by the political correct Rulebook. If it did not happen in the real war, you can not do it in this game neither, is that what you tell us ? Or, you love special rules that are only useful in the last turn. So after playing the whole weekend, Berlin finally falls, and hey, I am finally allowed to attack Japan by this special rule, something I have wanted to do the last day of playing, but what, huh, what is this, people are leaving ? The other players quit the game and go home ? So how about my final attack on Japan ?

[baron Münchhausen]

@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.”

@Der:

@Baron:

Yours is blocking 30 IPCs TUV and scripting the game until almost a win is achieved.

NAP is a different rule because it incites in an historical direction but let players and team decides what is better for their strategy.
NAP can be broken or not broken by Japan or Soviet…
Who knows what would have happen after Midway disaster if an army putsch would had overthrown IJN commanders and counselors around Emperor.

Japan and Russia can left more or less units anywhere they want.

JTDTM is the worst aspect, geographical rule can take care of it.

OK fair enough, Baron…this is another option…I’m not under any pressure to change anything in my game group for now, so will do more thinking…

Maybe, if looking for an historical event to allow Japan breaking NAP, this can be :
Axis control Leningrad and (Stalingrad or Cairo or London).
This can be seen as a proof that European Axis are able to deal a major blow on Allies.
This can decide Japan to DOW on Russia.
As all these events are alternate history, then Japan DOW breaking NAP is alternate too.

I was looking for something as spectacular to Pearl Harbor raid.

Russia can decide to expand in Asia (break NAP) when getting control of all his original European TTs.

Harder variants: needs also to control all these four: Ukraine and Eastern Ukraine, Smolensk and Belarus.
I would not include Baltic States, but all others were original TTs before Barbarossa.
In both case, it is not mandatory. But, at that point, breaking NAP will be a possibility.

I still like geographical limits. I would keep them without the bonus, of course.

IDK if Russia is the first power to act, but stating that all starting TTs have to be controlled can also imply that Soviet can decide to break NAP on first turn, if Soviet attack Japan.
It still allows for a KJF.

[Narvik]

@Baron:

Maybe, if looking for an historical event to allow Japan breaking NAP, this can be :
Axis control Leningrad and (Stalingrad or Cairo or London).
This can be seen as a proof that European Axis are able to deal a major blow on Allies.
This can decide Japan to DOW on Russia.

IMHO this is a school book exempel of a forced rule that make A&A an scripted game. The beauty of A&A is that all players are equal, like Russia got Battleships and Carriers in their tray too even if they never purchase them, and second, its basically the players choice and decision what to do. I play A&A because I like to see if I got better judgement than the historical Japanese leadership. But your rules force me to play out what ever strategy you think Hirohito and Tojo would have done in the real war. You believe that Tojo would only have attacked Russia if Leningrad fell, which it did not in the real war so we will never know for sure anyway, and now you force me to follow this poor judgement too. Really bad idea. Not cool, man.

I believe that geographical limits are the best way to go. The Japanese player should always be allowed to attack Russia, even if that never happened during the real WWII, and even if it is a bad idea based on poor judgement and nobody in your playgroup or club would never do so, or for what ever reason you can come up with. But, if the Japanese player choose to attack Russia, he should face more territories and impassable terrain and difficulties than he do with the current map. The designer and mapmaker can be blamed for making a map that is not good enough, but the Japanese player should never get his freedom of movement taken away with stupid house rules because of the mapmakers limited brain capacity and geographical ignorance and lack of knowledge. No offense

[baron Münchhausen]

No offense taken.
You are simply consistent.
What I just suggested was something inside the same general framework than DK’s opening post. I tried to make it less rigid and DOW not only a late-game options but something which European Axis has to work for because historical Japan was relunctant to break NAP against a such a Power which was Soviet Union.

The principle is to use a specific historical what-if to trigger an alternate history event.
DK may still use this idea to pick a different army movement trigger which fit better to its game map dynamics. So your same critics apply to my idea than Opening Post, it is still scripted. But far less scripted than OP and, if not to the taste of DK, he had a much wider sandbox to find something which fit in. But no power is  forced to break it, just enforced NAP course for a shorter period of time before getting this option.

For my part, I prefer my other idea above which include a NAP bonus and a geographical restraint.

Also, another reason DK mentioned is about Japan player will usually capture these 8 IPCs TTs.
That seems to not left enough income to Soviet Union according to him. My suggestion only delay a bit the somewhat inevitable event on DK’s map.