Russia's National Objective Met by Declaring War on Japan?

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Clyde85:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Russia declares war so it can take Persia and Iraq

Which dose what excatly? How dose that shift the gorss imbalance of forces between the Russians and the Japanese? How dose it make it so that Russian forces out in the far east will last longer?

Its great that you can quote me, but could you try answering the questions that were asked instead giving a cryptic answer which just raises more questions?

Like how can the soviets attack Iraq when the rules say they can make no offensive against the European axis (and before you tell me, Iam well aware the Iraq is in the Middle east, but since its on the AAEuro40 board, im grouping it in with them)

Russia can invade any neutral once its at war. Persia can give it ipc’s and infantry, and killing Iraq prevents Italy from getting those inf and is another 2 ipcs. The 18 inf can just retreat to Buryatia.

[Clyde85]

Russia can go to war with Japan without it affecting it relations with the other axis, just because Japan and the Soviets are at war dosnt mean it can attack the Euro axis. Iraq is on the Euro board, making it part of the Euro axis in my view, where Russia is forbidden from attacking.

Now your talking about the Soviets retreating, so your saying that the Soviets should declare war against japan, not attack them, and stack everything in Buryatia? This sounds like a terrible long term stratgey, I highly doubt that a 5ipc NO and the extra 2 infantry and 2 ipcs is going to make a difference, espically when you basically invite the Japanese to take 5ipcs worth of tt from you for free.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Every transport japan wastes dropping troops in siberia is a turn the dutch east indies, india, or singapore holds out.

It does hurt russia by redistrubuting its infantry to the east. It pushes japan back a square or two. I think of each round of territory which has to be captured as one more turn america has to get involved.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Clyde85:

Russia can go to war with Japan without it affecting it relations with the other axis, just because Japan and the Soviets are at war dosnt mean it can attack the Euro axis. Iraq is on the Euro board, making it part of the Euro axis in my view, where Russia is forbidden from attacking.

Now your talking about the Soviets retreating, so your saying that the Soviets should declare war against japan, not attack them, and stack everything in Buryatia? This sounds like a terrible long term stratgey, I highly doubt that a 5ipc NO and the extra 2 infantry and 2 ipcs is going to make a difference, espically when you basically invite the Japanese to take 5ipcs worth of tt from you for free.

Iraq is not part of axis. Krieg has confirmed that Russia can attack it when at war with Japan. However, the NO only applies if at war with Germany or Italy

[Funcioneta]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Iraq is not part of axis. Krieg has confirmed that Russia can attack it when at war with Japan. However, the NO only applies if at war with Germany or Italy

The latter should be included in an official FAQ or many will play with the NO working also at war with just Japan. By the way, a non-agression pact official rule would be welcomed in the FAQ, because I cannot see the hidden penalties to prevent Japan and USSR DOWing each other round 1 (however, I can see the many incentives to DOW round 1  :roll: )

[Clyde85]

Which still, dose not explain you grand stratgey about why, and how, Russia would go about fighting this war with Japan from Turn 1.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Clyde85:

Which still, dose not explain you grand stratgey about why, and how, Russia would go about fighting this war with Japan from Turn 1.

Russis won’t fight Japan. It will be at war with Japan in name only

[Clyde85]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Russis won’t fight Japan. It will be at war with Japan in name only

That is the worst idea I have ever heard.
So, Russia delcares war on Japan, moves into a defensive position, and starts raking in the NO cash and moves into Persia and attacks Iraq. That has got to be the most explotive thing I have ever heard. What an abhorrent gamey tactic, you actually play like this?  :|

Im assuming you move the one guy from the caus. to Perisa and back him up with the tank and mech. from Stalingrad to attack Iraq? The way we’ve been playing is that Russia cant make any offensive moves on the European Board, period. Attack Iraq, a pro axis nation, might prevoke the Germans which paranoid old uncle Joe wouldnt want to do.

I really am shocked, I would have thought people would have more respect for the game and the history and play according to the heart of the rules and not just the letter  :|

[Funcioneta]

The problem is that the best move for USSR anyway is moving to a defensive position with the siberians, and that Japan is going to attack Amur anyway J1 with minimal forces just because there is nothing to stop them doing so, so the best approach for USSR is DOWing Japan first round, taking Persia and sending some units to China. You can be gamey (I agree that is a exploit caused by a bugged ruleset) or you can attack Korea with 2-3 infs (I think that this attack is decent) and not being gamey

Without a rule, Japan and USSR start the game at war. It’s like saying that France and Italy don’t start at war (as it was before Paris fallen) but you don’t make penalties or restrictions for the attacker

I strongly think that a non-agression rule is really needed. It was not so difficult to do: my suggestion is that the first that DOWs the other must pay 20 IPCs to the bank to represent logistic changes, spies and sneaky diplomatic tactics to ensure a surprise attack. I cannot see USSR paying 20 IPCs just to take Persia, and I’m pretty sure that Japan would prefer wait to smash China before to pay the cash

[Corbeau Blanc]

@Krieghund:

It was intended that this NO only apply if the USSR is at war with a European Axis power.  This will be in the FAQ.

What part of Krieg’s statement was’nt clear  :?

[Clyde85]

@Funcioneta:

The problem is that the best move for USSR anyway is moving to a defensive position with the siberians, and that Japan is going to attack Amur anyway J1 with minimal forces just because there is nothing to stop them doing so, so the best approach for USSR is DOWing Japan first round, taking Persia and sending some units to China. You can be gamey (I agree that is a exploit caused by a bugged ruleset) or you can attack Korea with 2-3 infs (I think that this attack is decent) and not being gamey
Without a rule, Japan and USSR start the game at war. It’s like saying that France and Italy don’t start at war (as it was before Paris fallen) but you don’t make penalties or restrictions for the attacker

Why would Japan attack Amur anyway? for the 1ipc and to kill six soviet inf? Infantry that are unsupported are the most useless thing on the attack. They will die in droves, and its nigh impossible for the soviets to reenforce themselves in this region.

[Funcioneta]

@Corbeau:

@Krieghund:

It was intended that this NO only apply if the USSR is at war with a European Axis power.  This will be in the FAQ.

What part of Krieg’s statement was’nt clear  :?

Krieg’s sentence it’s clear, but I cannot go and explain my FTF buddies that some dude in internet said that. I need a official FAQ if I want play FTF with that modification of the rules, because it’s a modification, not a clarification (the rule as is written is pretty clear)

[Funcioneta]

@Clyde85:

Why would Japan attack Amur anyway? for the 1ipc and to kill six soviet inf? Infantry that are unsupported are the most useless thing on the attack. They will die in droves, and its nigh impossible for the soviets to reenforce themselves in this region.

Precisely because it’s impossible for soviets reinforce Siberia, you want kill as soviet infs as possible. This way you have more freedom to continue taking siberian territories. As for being useless attacking … they are not if there are enough of them, and I as Japan would not want let Manchuria or Korea at risk of a possible attack … you cannot have the fleet and some units parked there all the life, it’s better kill the resistance and proceed to China/India/DEIs

Any amount of soviet inf stacked at Amur will die painfully J1. Amur is a lost cause for USSR

[Clyde85]

@Funcioneta:

Precisely because it’s impossible for soviets reinforce Siberia, you want kill as soviet infs as possible. This way you have more freedom to continue taking siberian territories. As for being useless attacking … they are not if there are enough of them, and I as Japan would not want let Manchuria or Korea at risk of a possible attack … you cannot have the fleet and some units parked there all the life, it’s better kill the resistance and proceed to China/India/DEIs

Any amount of soviet inf stacked at Amur will die painfully J1. Amur is a lost cause for USSR

Right, and how dose this bring Japan any closer to winning the game? I know attacking Siberia used to be a great stratgey, but now its useless. In order to win the game, you need to capture Victory cities, which the Soviet far east has none, so whats the use? You could get the extra ipcs attacking China, and atleast that would bring you somewhat closer to the Victory Cities in their theater of Operation. Also, I dont think the 5 or 6 Ipcs you take from russia is going to matter to the soveits, considering they’re ment to fight the germans without that income in AAeurope40.

[Funcioneta]

@Clyde85:

Also, I dont think the 5 or 6 Ipcs you take from russia is going to matter to the soveits, considering they’re ment to fight the germans without that income in AAeurope40.

In AAE40, siberian units deploy at Novo each turn when at war… basically mimics the income in that area. I think that the siberian income is going to be worth. Not for a full campaing, but if you beat that 18 inf group, Japan can send a couple of units and start grab land almost for free

[Clyde85]

Thats great, but how dose this bring Japan close to capturing a victory city? The extra income is great, but sending attacking units away from your objectives seems to be, at best, a break even in terms of money gained to cost of the units sent, and at worst, a waste and misdirection of japanese units that should be sent to Malaya, DEI, India, Australia and Hawaii,

[calvinhobbesliker]

@Clyde85:

Thats great, but how dose this bring Japan close to capturing a victory city? The extra income is great, but sending attacking units away from your objectives seems to be, at best, a break even in terms of money gained to cost of the units sent, and at worst, a waste and misdirection of japanese units that should be sent to Malaya, DEI, India, Australia and Hawaii,

If there’s a tank in Manchuria, getting to India takes 5-6 turns, while Siberia is one turn away and a free 9 ipcs after you kill the 18 inf

[Clyde85]

what? that makes no sense, your not giving any clear answers to the questions i’ve presented. I can get a tank to india in 3 or 4 turns

[Seven_Patch]

It’s going to take time and effort to kill those 18 inf and capture those 9 IPC’s.

I have to agree with the overall standpoint that there is no real incentive for Japan and USSR to not be at war.  There is no strategy for them to not be at war other than both players deciding on their own that they won’t be at war.

Here are the options.

Russia does not DOW.

1. Russia puts all 18 Inf in Amur.  Japan Kills them all J1.

2. Russia pulls the majority of Infantry back and leaves one guy buffer zone.  Japan uses minimal forces to attack the one guy buffer zone and take what Siberian territories are available.

Russia DOW

1. Russia attacks Korea but doesn’t gain any IPC.  Japan takes Korea back and eventually advances into Siberia.

2. Russia pulls the majority of Infantry back and leaves one guy buffer zone.  Russia also moves into Persia.  Japan uses minimal forces to attack the one guy buffer zone and take what Siberian territories are available.

I don’t see many options here.  There are no game designed incentives for them not to be at war.

EDIT: I can think of only one reason for Japan to not attack Russia, and that’s if it is planning on doing a J1 attack on UK/ANZAC/US.  I haven’t played enough games to know what the best Japan strategy is yet though.

[Clyde85]

I can think of a good reason for Japan and Russia to not be at war.

For Russia: not having to deal with slowly losing IPCs and having to think about diverting nessecary offensive units to a far off and unimportant front that it will have very little chance of gaining the upper hand in, espically if japan diverts a chunk of its airforce there.

Japan: There is no victory city objective in the Soviet Union that the Japanese can realisticly capture, which it needs to win the game. They will be making thing more difficult for their Euro-axis allies by giving the Soviets and income boost from round 1 greater then the amount they can take from the soviets right away. Moving offensive units away from more vital fronts in the south to play wack-a-mole with soviet infantry with a minimal and slow economic gain for Japan.

The Japanese stratgey of “back dooring” the soviet union is no longer useful. In order to win the game, the axis powers must capture 14 victory cities. If Japan sends forces against the Soviets, it is moving units away from the nessecary 4 or more victory cities they need to take to secure an axis victory. Even if Japanese forces in siberia help the Euro-axis take down the soviet union, that will still olny give them 3 victory cities between them giving them a total of 9 cities, 5 short of the 14 they need. If Japan goes south, it can capture at least 3 easily, which will help the axis more towards a global victory.