Russian Korea

[Clyde85]

@calvinhobbesliker:

1. Japan can’t blitz thru Amur since it has no tanks

Thats right I forgot the Mech cant blitz without the tank, however I think leaving the one guy behind will be to tempting for a Japanese player not to take, and screen the other 12 retreat into the hinterlands

@calvinhobbesliker:

2. Japanese fleet in Z6 raids Korea’s convoy so you don’t get the 3 ipcs.

Seriously? why wouldnt you just retake Korea? This dosnt make much sense, why would you waste you naval forces raiding convoys? That and Japan would be down by 3ipc as well, I dont really see the logic behind this?

[kcdzim]

@Clyde85:

Seriously? why wouldnt you just retake Korea? This dosnt make much sense, why would you waste you naval forces raiding convoys? That and Japan would be down by 3ipc as well, I dont really see the logic behind this?

Russia can take and retake Korea all she wants, but if Japan has any fleet builds or any homefleet in sz6, Russia will probably never see an increase of 3 income.  If Japan builds two subs on her turn, those ships will still be there on Russias turn.  It’s not a waste of naval forces as the convoy disruption occurs on Russias turn.  They’re just waiting there.  And if Russia is threatening their territories, you can bet that some Japanese navy will be accompanying the transports who will be dropping units on Russias head.  So yes, Japan will be down three at the beginning of her turn, but early in the game she can fairly easily take back and have at the end of her turn.  Russia could only pick up the 3 if they attacked after Japan had moved the home fleet out, which would be R2 or later.  But japan doesn’t exactly NEED to move everything that early and could afford to leave a sub or two if they aren’t attacking the UK/Anzac/US until J3.

Chances are Russia will probably never see increased income on the pacific side.  On the mainland, she can only make gains from Korea or god help her, Siam or FIC (assuming France is gone).  Everything else goes to Britain or China.  Two subs or a sub and destroyer would clip Korea completely, so all russia is doing is sacrificing infantry that can’t even pay for themselves.  Russian territories aren’t worth much for Japan, but Japanese territories aren’t worth ANYTHING to Russia.

[Clyde85]

Ok, no, I understand the convoy disruption and how it functions, but im pretty sure the ships are put “on station” on the owning players turn, so Japan would take the 3 dollars from Russia on Japans turn, either way Russia wouldnt get to the spend the money so it dosnt matter.

However I dont understand why you wouldt just retake Korea? Like whats the benifit to Japan in letting Russia keep troops in Korea?

[kcdzim]

@Clyde85:

Ok, no, I understand the convoy disruption and how it functions, but im pretty sure the ships are put “on station” on the owning players turn, so Japan would take the 3 dollars from Russia on Japans turn, either way Russia wouldnt get to the spend the money so it dosnt matter.

However I dont understand why you wouldt just retake Korea? Like whats the benifit to Japan in letting Russia keep troops in Korea?

I don’t think you understand.  There is no “on station” and Japan doesn’t disrupt Russia’s income on Japan’s turn.

Convoy disruption occurs when a power collects income.  At that point, you check territories that have adjacent convoy markers, and if there are enemy ships, you deduct that from your total territory IPC income.  You do not check to see if you deduct from another players income and you do not need to assign units to be “on station”.  If Russia captures Korea, during Russia’s collect income phase, Russia checks to see if any warship belonging to an hostile power is in SZ6.  Considering that’s Japan’s home seazone, it’s unlikely Russia will ever collect those 3 IPCs.

The game no longer has any rule where IPCs are taken away from any player EXCEPT for capitol capture.  It’s simply not collected in the first place.  And it does matter.  It’s kind of important for Germany to note if they want to capture the UK, but not reduce the income of the UK before hand (through convoy disruption on UK’s turn).

And Japan absolutely WOULD retake Korea.  No one said they wouldn’t.  However, considering that Russia never profits from their aggression, it’s not exactly bad news for Japan if Russia to attacks Korea, because it thins Russia down on a distant front for no economic gain.  So, if Japan trades Korea, eventually the Russian east front is so weak that Japan can simply crush the rest and move full on through the east towards Moscow.  And Russia netted nothing (economically) and probably lost a disproportionate number of units because Japan can pummel a stack of infantry with their airforce and bombardment advantage.  That said, it does SLOW Japan and that may be worth it, as long as it doesn’t make Russia so weak that Japan can just move into Siberia with minimal investment

Baiting Russia to take Korea means that Japan can easily smite them.  Japan almost WANTS it to occur; at the very most it’s something they (most likely) easily take back.  What Japan doesn’t really want is to press into Russia and THEN hit the stack, as their airforce can’t get back to the action easily and their navy can’t help at all.  Russia keeping infantry on a coast is always a dangerous gamble.

If Russia is used aggressively it’s probably more useful liberating Manchuria (obviously R2 or later) for China than ever bothering with Korea.  At least with Manchuria, China MIGHT get the income (not the home seazone) or maybe even place units there, while slowing Japan down and keeping China alive a bit longer.

[Clyde85]

Without the rule book in front of me, I cant really debate you on the specifics of the convoy disruption rule, but that dosnt sound right to me, its not how I remember it, but without the source material in front of me, I really dont know.

@calvinhobbesliker:

1. Japan can’t blitz thru Amur since it has no tanks
2. Japanese fleet in Z6 raids Korea’s convoy so you don’t get the 3 ipcs.

No mention is made of Japan retaking Korea, which is where my question is directed at.

If Russia just bunches up in Amur, they’re dead. A standard J1 opener seems to be hit them with everything in the area and take 'em out. Seeing as Japan has a staggering amound of airpower, and its Naval bombardment, its not a bad move and numerious post have said its Japans best option. I see Russia’s best option with these forces is to just be annoying, as they’re pretty much dead sooner or later anyway. I would say its worth it to attack Korea, just to misdirect Japanese forces away from the Central Pacific and Souther-East Asian fronts, which are where they need to focus to win. Retreating into the hinterlands create the very situation you describe, where Japan is drawn inland and its reenforcments arent able to reach the front quick enough. As it causes Japan to send forces in the total wrong direction, to me, it seems a worth while move, as any Japanese unit playing whack-a-mole in Siberia against the Soviets is a Japanese unit not fighting in India, or the DEI or Australia, or Hawaii, the places in the Pacific Japan needs to win the game.

[kcdzim]

@Clyde85:

@calvinhobbesliker:

1. Japan can’t blitz thru Amur since it has no tanks
2. Japanese fleet in Z6 raids Korea’s convoy so you don’t get the 3 ipcs.

No mention is made of Japan retaking Korea, which is where my question is directed at.

Ah.  Well, I don’t think he was saying that Japan WOULDN’T take back Korea.  He was saying that on Russia’s turn, it wouldn’t collect Korea’s income in the first place because you said:

@Clyde85:

I like the idea of attacking Korea as the Soviets because its an easy win, for an extra 3ipc gain

To confirm that disruption occurs during the collect income phase as I described it, I direct you to the following post by Krieghund in the Europe 1940 threads:

@Tava716:

So, sea zone 72 starts out the game with a French destroyer in it.  on round one, I (Italy) moved into Kenya… do I not collect the 1 IPC point due to the destroyer being in a convoy disruption zone?  The arguement in my group is that I should collect because France has not done a turn yet… I think I lose it though…

@Krieghund:

Welcome, Tava716!

France and Italy begin the game at war, so you lose the IPC.

[Clyde85]

Well thats fair enough, I’ll re-read the rule when I have the rule book in-front of me just to refresh my memory.

Alot of this depends on the individual player, as certian players might just ignore the Soviet movements all together, or only make a limited advance. Others, however, like to play very agressively, and cant help themselves and would just dive al out into Russia. This plan works best against those kind of players, while a more conservitive player might not be greatly bothered by it.

[Blitchga]

I think that is exactly what Calvin was getting at. I know that I look forward to a bold Russian as I have always thought that a bold Russian is a dead Russian. (at least against Japan)

[kcdzim]

@Blitchga:

I think that is exactly what Calvin was getting at. I know that I look forward to a bold Russian as I have always thought that a bold Russian is a dead Russian. (at least against Japan)

I’d say it depends.  In previous versions (revised & 1942) a bold Russian could actually make economic gains in the Pacific, and it could seriously harm Japan, but it was usually predicated on also sending russian units through china and india at the same time.  However, in 1940G, a bold russian can only slow Japan, as it doesn’t give them any economic gain, and because reinforcements are so very far away, it can go pear shaped for them easily.

I haven’t played a global game yet, so so it’s all armchair engineering for me, but if I were Russia, I would look for an opening to move into Manchuria first, but  only on R3 or so, when Japan had started the move south.  Being aggressive before that seems to put Russia in a very vulnerable position, especially as it won’t get help until Japan gets the US into the war.

The one rule that troubles me is that by declaring war with Russia against Japan, it allows Russia to move through pro ally neutrals and into UK territories.  I personally think that that isn’t in the spirit of the game, and Russia should only be allowed to control neutrals or move into ANY friendly (exception of China, as that’s only pacific side) after it’s at war with the European powers.  Moving into a UK space would be seen as a hostile act by Germany, and Russia’s not supposed to be hostile to Germany yet.

[Blitchga]

I suppose that I should clarify by saying that I usually use the alpha set up. That many Japanese land forces up north and a bold Russian almost never bodes well for them.

[Clyde85]

Dose the alpha setup include the Soviets, or is it only for the stand alone pacific forces? Im thinking that if Japan gets a boost in manpower on the asian mainland, maybe the soviets should be getting some offensive units out in the far east, or maybe some more infantry?

[Blitchga]

@Clyde85:

Dose the alpha setup include the Soviets, or is it only for the stand alone pacific forces? Im thinking that if Japan gets a boost in manpower on the asian mainland, maybe the soviets should be getting some offensive units out in the far east, or maybe some more infantry?

Alpha is considered the new set up for  Pacific and since you use the Pacific set up for global it is also used for Global. I am not sure that giving the soviets more troops is the answer though, we are trying to have a balanced game where either side can win…

[Clyde85]

something needs to be done cause we wind up witha very unbalanced soviet far east. Perhapse making the political rules for the Soviets say the cant attack ANY axis power until turn 4, might fix it.

[Blitchga]

I personally think that where the mix up is the fact the Soviet far east is so easy to conquer and yet worth so much. Personally I would have liked to have seen the Urals worth more and some of those territories in the far east worth nothing. Then there is more reason for the Japanese and Russians to make a peace treaty. The Urals was one of the main areas targeted for industrialization during the five year plans yet you can not even put a minor there. I understand why no territories are worth 3 except for Russia as they wanted no other major factories being placed but I still think that the far east is worth FAR to much money and that is why things become unbalanced in that region.

[Clyde85]

you make a very good point. Maybe increasing the value of one of the soviet far eastern tt to a 2 would help. say Novosbrisk is worth 2, that way the soviets could actually place a minor IC there, and reinforce their positions in the east. It would also represent the build up of industry in this region.

[gtg21]

An interesting derivative of a Russian held Korea is that it denies the US player a Korean IC.

As Japan, simply letting the Russians hold Korea indefinitely would essentially eliminate the possibility of a US IC on mainland Asia (assuming that US strategy is still viable in Global).

The Japanese player can always choose to attack the Russians in Korea to reduce whatever stack is there - and/or -  keep a sub or two in SZ6 to negate Russian income - and/or - launch their own attacks into Siberia to force the Russians to reduce their Korean garrison themselves.

The IPC loss to Japan (of 3) could easily be gained from other conquests, including Russia’s own original territories.

Sure, its kind of “gamey” to leave Korea (particularly if its empty) in Russian hands, but ultimately could be to their benefit if it deprives the US of an IC build later.

The obvious wrinkle here is if Russia is cleaning up in Europe, and therefore can spare 30 IPCS to build their own factory there.  But any Japanese player should be able to see that move coming rounds in advance, and simply move to take Korea pre-emptively.

[calvinhobbesliker]

@gtg21:

An interesting derivative of a Russian held Korea is that it denies the US player a Korean IC.

As Japan, simply letting the Russians hold Korea indefinitely would essentially eliminate the possibility of a US IC on mainland Asia (assuming that US strategy is still viable in Global).

The Japanese player can always choose to attack the Russians in Korea to reduce whatever stack is there - and/or -  keep a sub or two in SZ6 to negate Russian income - and/or - launch their own attacks into Siberia to force the Russians to reduce their Korean garrison themselves.

The IPC loss to Japan (of 3) could easily be gained from other conquests, including Russia’s own original territories.

Sure, its kind of “gamey” to leave Korea (particularly if its empty) in Russian hands, but ultimately could be to their benefit if it deprives the US of an IC build later.

The obvious wrinkle here is if Russia is cleaning up in Europe, and therefore can spare 30 IPCS to build their own factory there.  But any Japanese player should be able to see that move coming rounds in advance, and simply move to take Korea pre-emptively.

Or even better, take Korea after Russia builds the IC

[Blitchga]

I have always been able to hold the US from coming anywhere close to Korea with enough to actually hold it, then again I always build a minor IC in Manchuria on J1. If need be I upgrade it to a major but that is VERY rare.

[gtg21]

All well and good - though I haven’t been as lucky.  And from reading these forums, many others haven’t either.  But again, those are all in the context of AAP40 and not Global.  Not having had the benefit of playing a Global game yet, I can’t really say for sure whether the US Korean IC would even become a consistent strategy.

In any event, I was only pointing it out as a perhaps unforseen consequence of Russian expansion - one that could wind up being in Japan’s favor.