Japan/USSR Non-Aggression Pact

[deadbunny]

Quaker,

NO’s that favor one side over the other will just give an advantage to one side that was not intended when the game designers worked the mechanics out. What is 3 ipc’s to japan when they can just get that the first turn more than likely by taking the three furthest territories? If Russia attacks they will loose anything gained anyway since they have no offensive pieces to back up a thrust, or their income negated through naval blockading. By turn two japan can be making 4 ipcs by taking an additional territory and if Russia is lax in thinking will loose all the infantry to a major air attack. So it only benefits Japan in this case and seems lopsided.

[QuakerGeneral]

Deadbunny, you may be exactly right and such comments are one of the reasons I wanted to post the idea for discussion.

While I mull it over, let me say that while it is true that Japan could easily get three IPCs worth of territory from USSR, they would have to spend serious resources to take those three territories if Russia defends them with some of those 18 infantry.  If they utilized some of those same resources to do more damage against China and/or elsewhere, the NO would still give them 3 IPC bonus so the net result would possibly be better for the Japanese (though perhaps not for the Axis as a whole).  Meanwhile, some of the boost Japan gets in this scenario would be countered by the boost USSR is getting for not attacking.  I agree that Russia doesn’t have as much incentive to attack as Japan, but the 18 infantry can be a tempting offensive force, esp. if the Japanese player moves forces southward into China.  The NO would give them an additional disincentive to attack early in the game (something I like) and a counter-balancing reward to make up for the advantage given the Japanese player if they decide not to attack USSR.

The point of the NO is not to discourage a Japanese attack on the USSR, which I want to remain a viable option, but rather to make a path that does not involve attacking the USSR equally interesting and viable.  My particular house rule might not fit this bill if it still seems like the “best” option is an attack on the USSR with or without the NO, which is what I take deadbunny’s critique to say.  Do others agree?  If so, what might make a Japanese avoidance of war with USSR equally viable to an attack on the USSR?

[ABWorsham4]

@maverick_76:

The main reason Stalin had not brought his Siberians in earlier was because his spies had told him that Japan might try and invade. Trust me, the last thing you want is a two front war.

Hitler should have taken the threat of a two front war seriously.

[deadbunny]

Quaker,

The reason I said what i said is that I have yet to play a game where Japan does not strike Russia in the first round. It costs the Axis nothing because the current Russian NO is countered by the loss of the territories in (-3 in round one and -1 in round 2 so the Russian not at war NO goes to 1 ipc). Plus the Japanese if waiting till round 3 to attack UK/ANZAC/US have an overwhelming force to both crush China with and the Russian far east with a modest setup to attack the DEI. Maybe if I played different people the result would be different but I always see Japan striking  Russia early, and I would do it myself. Any NO would have to be a penalty to Japan to prevent it, such as giving Russia offensive pieces in the far east or some such.

[marechallannes]

You want to give the Russians more money for being not at war with the Japanese?

Don’t know, what is your production for Russia, but I buy tanks, artillery and infantry, maybe a plane in R1.

…and the road to Moskau is very long.

It’s hard enough for germany to figth the UK back in the nort sea and the mediterrane sea, without spending too much money. One of the biggest german problems is, to get air support to the eastern front.

How do you want to outnumber Russia with an IPC income of 40?

Russia should not be allowed to attack anyone till R4.

[oztea]

An important part of my National Objective suggestion is that the power who didnt break the pact STILL gets those IPCs

So USSR is at 40 at the end of their first turn….not much more than the normal 37…

The actual rule would read

The Russo-Japanese Non-Agression pact is a National Objective for both Japan and the Soviet Union. While bound to the pact each power collects 3 IPCs.

• Japan is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Soviet Territory

• The Soviet Union is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Japanese Territory
  b) Attacks/Occupies Chinese Territory

Powers still collect their 3 IPCs even if the other power has broken the pact.
You may never collect the National Objective after you have broken the pact.

[special forces]

@oztea:

An important part of my National Objective suggestion is that the power who didnt break the pact STILL gets those IPCs

So USSR is at 40 at the end of their first turn….not much more than the normal 37…

The actual rule would read

The Russo-Japanese Non-Agression pact is a National Objective for both Japan and the Soviet Union. While bound to the pact each power collects 3 IPCs.

• Japan is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Soviet Territory

• The Soviet Union is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Japanese Territory
  b) Attacks/Occupies Chinese Territory

Powers still collect their 3 IPCs even if the other power has broken the pact.
You may never collect the National Objective after you have broken the pact.

Sounds not bad.
And yes the “receive IPC’s until break the pact” line is necessary, since 3 IPC’s wouldn’t matter for Japan, (as it can get that from taking Amur, Siberia and Soviet Far East - taking those IPC’s away from Russia). (edit: but i see now that deadbunny already said the same)

So Russia would be allowed to fight back on it’s own territory, right?

[QuakerGeneral]

@oztea:

The Russo-Japanese Non-Agression pact is a National Objective for both Japan and the Soviet Union. While bound to the pact each power collects 3 IPCs.

• Japan is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Soviet Territory

• The Soviet Union is considered to break the pact if it:
  a) Attacks original Japanese Territory
  b) Attacks/Occupies Chinese Territory

Powers still collect their 3 IPCs even if the other power has broken the pact.
You may never collect the National Objective after you have broken the pact.

Thanks very much for this.  I like it better than mine.  The kind of discussion that has taken place has been very helpful and constructive.  This may make Russians even stronger, but I am not sure it is decisive.  Another house rule that I like is the one that gives German submarines three IPCs of convoy damage which doesn’t exactly balance this but couldn’t hurt in conjunction.

[oztea]

Global 40 is not a bean count of IPCs like the other games were.
One extra infantry a turn for USSR will not make or break a game.

The Incentive the 3 IPCs carries however is powerful.

You rarely see a player willingy choose to violate the conditions of one of his own National Objectives……so there is a sense of protection there.

Also…would you sacrifice your NO, knowing that that has little effect on the other pact member…they still collect theirs.

[maverick_76]

@calvinhobbesliker:

Well, if Japan invaded Siberia, Stalin already has a 2 front war, so I bet he’d save the capital rather than snowy siberia

You live in Canada right? Well imagine what would happen to morale if Japan and Germany invaded BC and Quebec, respectively? Would you be pissed if your government decided to let BC go in order to protect the more populated area?

It is not just economy and capital that matters, there are other factors that don’t come into play with the board game. You know that America was actually invaded during WWII right? The Aleutian islands were attacked by the Japanese, and I guarantee you that Roosevelt didn’t say, “Guess that sucks for Alaska.” Most people don’t even know about that, because we like to boast that we have never been attacked since the war of 1812 on our home soil.

[MaherC]

Alaska wasn’t a state until 1958.  So TECHNICALLY…

[calvinhobbesliker]

@maverick_76:

@calvinhobbesliker:

Well, if Japan invaded Siberia, Stalin already has a 2 front war, so I bet he’d save the capital rather than snowy siberia

You live in Canada right? Well imagine what would happen to morale if Japan and Germany invaded BC and Quebec, respectively? Would you be pissed if your government decided to let BC go in order to protect the more populated area?

It is not just economy and capital that matters, there are other factors that don’t come into play with the board game. You know that America was actually invaded during WWII right? The Aleutian islands were attacked by the Japanese, and I guarantee you that Roosevelt didn’t say, “Guess that sucks for Alaska.” Most people don’t even know about that, because we like to boast that we have never been attacked since the war of 1812 on our home soil.

I actually live in California. However, if I did live in BC, I would understand if the only troops were sent to defend Quebec.

As for the Aleutians, they weren’t reinvaded for an entire year.

[Dark_Destroyer]

Question:  If Russia is NOT at war with Japan, can America or any other allies move through Russian territories and or camp in them?

[Fishmoto37]

From ILs 1939 game rules.    NON-AGGRESSION PACT: The Soviet Union and Japan have a special treaty in place. The Soviet player can never attack Japanese territories until Berlin falls. The Japanese player can attack the Soviets as early as turn 4.

[shintokamikaze]

russia cant attack japan before berlin falls,this is historic
japan cant attack russia till it holds all of china

[Clyde85]

I think ozeta has posted the best solution for this sticky situation I have ever seen. Unfortunatly it is near impossible of a board game to model the massive size of the Soviet Union, or the fact that Japanese logistics wouldnt have been able to support a thrust much past irtkurst.
I think Stalin would have pulled those siberian troops even once Moscow was threatened, without a doubt. However, this dosnt mean that the Soviets Far east was undefneded. The Local commander, Gen.Apanisenko, managed to build a force of nearly 1 million men AFTER, the siberian reserves had been sent west.
I think the forces we see in the far east in the begining of the game more closely represent these troops rather then those of the Siberian eliets that counter-attacked in front of Moscow in the winter of 41-42. The troops that were pulled out had atry support and tank batalions with them, so they had real offensive power.

[RedHunter]

@Fishmoto37:

From ILs 1939 game rules.    NON-AGGRESSION PACT: The Soviet Union and Japan have a special treaty in place. The Soviet player can never attack Japanese territories until Berlin falls. The Japanese player can attack the Soviets as early as turn 4.

So Russia can’t attack back? That is retarded.

[oztea]

I think IL meant originally Japanese territories untill turn 4.

However it should read

The USSR may not attack original Japanese Territory, or attempt to liberate occupied Chinese territory untill after its fourth turn

[RedHunter]

@oztea:

I think IL meant originally Japanese territories untill turn 4.

However it should read

The USSR may not attack original Japanese Territory, or attempt to liberate occupied Chinese territory untill after its fourth turn

It should also read unless they are attacked still. USSR should be allowed to do more then just reclaim its territory. IMO its a stupid rule.

[leddux]

most Canadiens I know would GLADLY let Quebec fall to protect any other provence.  :roll: