Japan taking soviet territories bordering Mongolia

@Caesar:

Yeah which is why FIC is key but adding any more minors in China seems pointless with a transport fleet.

The Japanese fleet has enough to do without shielding transports ferrying troops to the Chinese mainland. To save 12IPCs?

It’s not easy, you’ll probably lose most of China to the FEC, and you’ll have to start from scratch in South East Asia. You’re also giving the Americans free rein in the Pacific. It’s easier to take advantage of ANZAC’s low income to keep a small fleet in sz63, maybe conquer NZ and Solomons/NB, and keep them bottled up, while attacking Calcutta and US fleet.

@Zhukov44:

I don’t do this move as the Soviets because Japan starts with too many units in Korea/Manchuria and too much aircraft in range of Amur.

I think it’s a mistake for Japan to use its fleet/transports to attack Amur J1–they can still attack without any transports and divert a strategic bomber to Yunnan and still have 100% odds with an average +25 tuv swing.  If they send their fleet and transports south they’ll be in good position for a J2 or J3 declaration, but if Japans’ transports/fleet are stuck in sz6, Japan will have to put off its declaration till J3.

But I’m uncertain about it because however good this attack looks for Japan on paper, it will divert alot of troops from China.  The extra 6 inf in Mongolia help make up for the Allied tuv loss.  But the Soviets will also lose out financially because Japan will conquer Siberia quickly.

Massing Amur on R2 seems like the better move because the bulk of Japan’s airforce is usually out of range of Amur on J2.

Agree

Everyone discussing Europe strategies please follow the link instead of hijacking this Japan IC thread… Thank you.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=32940.0

Yes. They would all become Allied friendly.

Who ever is the defender when the pact is broken gets +1 defense to all their units on the first round of combat, in combats launched by that opposing power.

So that encourages players to keep some units on the border….because they will defend as if they were tanks on the first round.
Or an AAA would defend at ‘2’ on the first round.

Think trench warfare…both those powers were expecting an attack on that front (defensive posture) but didn’t have the initiative, or reason, to launch an attack.

In the Europe rulebook, it is on page 30 under Transports (Loading and Offloading).

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!