I have read several threads and the rulebook and from what I understand it is up to the players to determine the guidelines for their political status etc. So, my question is; could Japan and Russia agree that who ever is attacked get free units?
This would be much like the non-aggression rule in A&A Revised under National Advantages. I believe Russia got four free infantry if Japan attacked first.
I guess that the answer is no, but I am curious to see what others think of this?
I have read several threads and the rulebook and from what I understand it is up to the players to determine the guidelines for their political status etc. So, my question is; could Japan and Russia agree that who ever is attacked get free units?
This would be much like the non-aggression rule in A&A Revised under National Advantages. I believe Russia got four free infantry if Japan attacked first.
I guess that the answer is no, but I am curious to see what others think of this?
I too believe in magic, someone attacks you and poof! more defenders just magically appear…… :roll:
I was gonna make a thread on this, but luckily it’s already here. Anyway, I thought free infantry units was the intent of “working out the details of such an agreement,” since that is what was used in previous versions. Since Asia is so huge now (long way from Moscow to there), I would think maybe 6 infantry units for Russia if attacked (also based on how many they set up there in those territories). I wouldn’t give Japan anything since their production facilities are so close to that front.
@Col.:
I was gonna make a thread on this, but luckily it’s already here. Anyway, I thought free infantry units was the intent of “working out the details of such an agreement,” since that is what was used in previous versions. Since Asia is so huge now (long way from Moscow to there), I would think maybe 6 infantry units for Russia if attacked (also based on how many they set up there in those territories). I wouldn’t give Japan anything since their production facilities are so close to that front.
What if you declare war but don’t attack?
The 6 free infantry can be deployed in any original Russian territory in their eastern provinces (i.e. the two Pacific boards) at the beginning of Japan’s Combat Move when they declare war (although I don’t know why Japan would declare and not attack).
But it is so interesting that Larry left it up to the players to decide what the terms are, so it can be different every game (though a standard will probably emerge, especially for tournaments). Heck, you can choose off-the-board terms if you want, I guess: if Japan breaks the treaty, they have to take a shot of vodka, and if Russia violates, they take a shot of sake, thus impairing them for the rest of the game.
i think the attacker should pay the deffender 15 or 20 ipc,this could be war reparations or trade deals between the two countrys,that went south due to the attack.ipc to be paid during collect incom,this will stop a j1 attack
i think the attacker should pay the deffender 15 or 20 ipc,this could be war reparations or trade deals between the two country,that went south due to the attack.ipc to be paid during collect incom,this will stop a j1 attack
I you are attacking someone, will you care about paying them money? if they didn’t honor the first treaty, why would they honor the 2nd? The whole thing is convoluted to me.
I’m not sure the pact would EVER be broken if IPC’s were paid from their supply directly. If Japan breaks it, then Russia gets 15-20 IPCs to use on the more important German-Russian Front, and if Russia breaks it, it’s 15-20 IPC’s away from that front.
It also makes sense to me because if Japan invaded Russia, local militias/partisans in the East Asian territories would be called up to defend their homes. But really the only place for Russia to invade is Manchuria, which is originally a Chinese territory and not loyal to Japan, so they wouldn’t receive infantry. But, getting “free units” is not much different from a bid like in the other Axis and Allies games: it balances how much weaker Russia is to Japan on that front.
I guess i don’t understand why everyone stresses about “balance”. If in real life Japan could stomp USSR then why not in a game? I think Libral Progressives have infultrated the AA community cause everyone is using that 4 letter F-word……“fair”, when life and war are not fair at all.
In otherwords, don’t make an AA country stronger than it really was.
I don’t think anybody enjoyed the Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow mechanic that was present in the other global games because it was too powerful and not fun. The game of Go has been around for thousands of years and giving handicap stones to the weaker player is common practice there in order to balance the game and make it enjoyable for both players: I don’t think progressives caused that mechanic to appear.
what if its 3 die ipc paid,it could be 3-18,you would have to take a gamble
@Col.:
I don’t think anybody enjoyed the Japanese Tank Drive to Moscow mechanic that was present in the other global games because it was too powerful and not fun. The game of Go has been around for thousands of years and giving handicap stones to the weaker player is common practice there in order to balance the game and make it enjoyable for both players: I don’t think progressives caused that mechanic to appear.
whatever, robs the weaker the opportunity to come up with a new strategy that defeats a superior enemy……play on …everybody is special :-D
@Col.:
The 6 free infantry can be deployed in any original Russian territory in their eastern provinces (i.e. the two Pacific boards) at the beginning of Japan’s Combat Move when they declare war (although I don’t know why Japan would declare and not attack).
But it is so interesting that Larry left it up to the players to decide what the terms are, so it can be different every game (though a standard will probably emerge, especially for tournaments). Heck, you can choose off-the-board terms if you want, I guess: if Japan breaks the treaty, they have to take a shot of vodka, and if Russia violates, they take a shot of sake, thus impairing them for the rest of the game.
Hell, I haven’t played a game of Axis & Allies alcohol free since 1991
Officially, this pact is political in nature only. It should not break any established rules of the game, such as giving IPCs to another player. Things like “I won’t attack here if you won’t attack there” are fine, but free units are out. Also, any agreement carries only as much force as the honor of the players involved.
Unofficially, you’re free to make any house rules that you like.
This was the answer I was expecting.
@mwindianapolis:
This was the answer I was expecting.
Then why ask? Needed affirmation?
Well yes, especially if I game with some yahoo at a tournament in Minneapolis.
Then why word it that way at all? There’s nothing to work out: there’s only two places Russia can attack (Manchuria and Korea) and 3 places for Japan to attack (Amur, Siberia, and Soviet Far East). And it’s at least three territories to get through China, so no one will be surprised there. Since there is an expectation of shipping Russia’s Asian troops west (due to the Novosibirsk rule in just Europe rules), Russia will most of the time weaken that front, and Japan will quickly exploit it for free IPC’s and a diversion from the Eastern Front.
True, 18 infantry over there is a force to be reckoned with, but diverting from the Eastern Front is always Japan’s relationship with Russia.
One of the realism rules I want involved in some home brew rules Im working on is to have russia place 1 infantry in each of their northern territories leading to moscow the turn Japan invades, to represent the partisans rising up to pick away at the invaders, slowing down the final attack on moscow.
