but doesnt this whole scenerio build……acme walls?
and would it not be simpler and more realistic to just impose monitary penalties?
not only because these actions went against BOTH powers real life_national objectives_, but both actions were deemed cost ineffective by both powers. Either by the Soviets having to fuel such a far away war, or the Japansese having to commit to a war in such hostile (especialy to them) terrain.
but in the actual rules they can fight, correct? or are there rules against this.
in the standard game there is no restriction on japan fighting the USSR
in real life there would have been no phisical barrier to it either, breaking a treaty during war time carries no penalty, you arent going to get sanctioned by the UN or anything….because you probably already are.
in simulations however, account should be taken of the fact that
1. Neither power wanted to fight eachother becuase they just did in the 1930’s and it was a bloodbath
2. Conflict in that area is expensive because of distance and climate, and there is little reward in minerals or oil (that is, little that is easy to extract)
3. And both powers had larger concerns in other areas.
I am disapointed the game does not have a pact rule, i hope 18 infantry and vast distance can simulate it enough
I love how half of the posts here revolve around some “new” house rule. 95% of the people out there don’t even have the game yet, but everyone is already trying to “fix” it……get back to me with all your ideas in say, 10-15 games.
Staying on topic here…I would stack and stay one back from border…holds some of the Japanese back from China/India and can be used as a bomber base (lots of US planes buzzing around the board in my opinion - fastest way for US to get 82 IPC’s into the fight)
I love how half of the posts here revolve around some “new” house rule. 95% of the people out there don’t even have the game yet, but everyone is already trying to “fix” it……get back to me with all your ideas in say, 10-15 games.
Staying on topic here…I would stack and stay one back from border…holds some of the Japanese back from China/India and can be used as a bomber base (lots of US planes buzzing around the board in my opinion - fastest way for US to get 82 IPC’s into the fight)
The new rules are for PACIFIC40, not Europe…
The new rules are for PACIFIC40, not Europe…
This is in the Global forum, which is neither Pacific or Europe…
I’m surprised nobody spotted the obvious flaw in my suggestion:
The Allies can block a Japanese attack on the Western Allies by sending a single Soviet infantryman over the Manchurian border to start a war before Germany attacks.
It needs to be that Russia or Japan cannot initiate wars against both enemies. But would that work?
I’m not sweating it until I get the game in my hands and can see the angles in person. The first game that I play will be straight up and then we can see how well the game was playtested. From sources that were at GenCon they said it was a blast and the game played very well.
Flashman, you cant henpen them in to not being allowed to attack unless conditions are met
Make the action itself undisireable
The Allies can block a Japanese attack on the Western Allies by sending a single Soviet infantryman over the Manchurian border to start a war before Germany attacks.
And thats why you go with my suggestion and don’t get into this issue.
USSR can’t attack Japan until Germany is defeated
Japan can’t attack USSR unless one major power ( not ANZAC or China) Have their capital occupied by Germany or Italy.
@Imperious:
The Allies can block a Japanese attack on the Western Allies by sending a single Soviet infantryman over the Manchurian border to start a war before Germany attacks.
And thats why you go with my suggestion and don’t get into this issue.
USSR can’t attack Japan until Germany is defeated
Japan can’t attack USSR unless one major power ( not ANZAC or China) Have their capital occupied by Germany or Italy.
Also exclude France.
Japan SHOULD be able to go to war against the Soviet Union. That’s the nature of the game. It was also a serious option Japan considered for quite some time. Indeed, in the end they decided to go for the Southern option. It’s difficult to simulate both things in a game of the nature of A&A. One we want mutual attacks to be possible, Two neither of the two countries in question was eager to fight the other while already at war with Germany/Italy or the US/UK/France respectively…
Perhaps a negative NO would work or an IPC penalty (in the rulebook it’s explained that NOs represent a boost in morale and vigour (I suppose both in the military and as far as civilians/factory workers etc. are concerned). Hearing that your country is being attacked from both sides would probably have the opposite effect of an NO, so a negative one might work: -6 IPC if Japan is at war with the Western Allies and the USSR simultaneously and -6 if the USSR is at war with both Japan and Germany/ Italy. These negative SA’s only apply when you initiated the conflict with the Soviet Union or japan respectively. ( I agree the wording needs to be worked on, but I’m sure you get the idea). I’m certainly not for completely disallowing the possibility!
