Russian tanks are great if Germany decides to swing down towards the Middle East instead of a straight march to Moscow. They are not going prevent the stackwalk any better than artillery except perhaps if the calculations show that the extra firepower will slow down a critical step like Rostov or Belarus. Hence it could be good to build the tanks on turns 3 or 4, depending on the German DoW. No need for them on Round 1.
Japanese/USSR Aggression paid out of Aggressors' pocket
-
Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?
USSR
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Japan
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
Theme: Recognized national emergency. -
Pretty sure it comes from the bank, but I could be wrong.
-
-
Ah, SHOULD they be responsible. I see.
Hmm, dunno about that. I’d have to vote no. The IPC bonuses are usually described as “National fervor” or “Trade” or something…internal economic boosts. Direct transfer of money from one government to another only happens when a capital is being looted.
Also, the current “balance” is twelve, whereas taking from Japs to give to Russkies would actually create a 24 ipc swing. Maybe if you cut it to six, perhaps. Still, doesn’t seem to make much “in-character” sense. “Hey, we’re going to be attacking some of your turf, so here, have some cash.” Nah.
EDIT: Hey, no fair editing your original to make me look even dumber! sigh Fine.
-
no
-
I always thought this might be a better deterrent
Could scale it down to like 8 if that’s the case or – swing Mongolia from strict neutral to against the aggressor.
-
@Gallo:
no
Why not?
-
This seems to be an issue of reparations, which, generally, are paid by an aggressor (who lost) at the conclusion of the war. Since the breach of the peace between Japan and the USSR does not entail an end, but a beginning of a conflict, I would vote no on this proposal.
-
I don’t think 12 IPC’s is enough.
and I agree, the agressor shouldn’t have to pay.
-
I don’t think 12 IPC’s is enough.
and I agree, the agressor shouldn’t have to pay.
How much then?
-
@Idi:
Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?
USSR
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Japan
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Idi, you may have hit on something here. If the aggressor had two pay 12 IPCs and the defender also collected 12 from the bank for a total of 24 then the non-aggression pact might actually mean something. Both sides would have to give it some serious thought before breaking the pact.
-
@Idi:
@Gallo:
no
Why not?
that NO is regarding in the alpha rules as ‘recognition of a national emergency’ or smth like that.
It seems to me it implies the attacked country is doing an extra effort to deal with the new threat (movilizing reserves, forcing workers to produce extra, or smth like that). So I don’t see why shoudn’t come from the bank.I don’t see any reason why the agressor should pay.
do you? if yes, let us know what your thoughts are about it
-
LOL, have Japan declare war on the Soviet Union the turn before Germany takes Moscow… A free 12 IPCs for your side!
-
LOL, have Japan declare war on the Soviet Union the turn before Germany takes Moscow… A free 12 IPCs for your side!
WOW SgtSlitiz, Maybe you should have read the post twice before shooting your drunken gob off. I’ll go over it for you so you can hopefully understand the subject matter of this post. The opening line (EX.1) of the post (See below) clearly indicates that the 12 IPC’s is paid to the the bank by the aggressor. Using your example of Japan declaring war on the USSR then Germany getting an extra 12 IPC’s in cash when taking the Russian capital is irrelavent due to the fact that the money is paid by Japan to the bank not to the Russians. So, SgtSlitz just so I know my work is done here….Once again using your example I’ll break it down even further for you so hopefully you’ll get it>
Japan - Aggressor (Pays 12 IPC’s)
USSR - Defender
Bank - Where the 12 Japanese IPC’s get paid to.
Germany - Gets nothing
SgtSlitz - Cut down on your Slitz intake before posting.(EX.1)
Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?USSR
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Japan
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
Theme: Recognized national emergency. -
@Idi:
WOW SgtSlitiz, Maybe you should have read the post twice before shooting your drunken gob off. I’ll go over it for you so you can hopefully understand the subject matter of this post. The opening line (EX.1) of the post (See below) clearly indicates that the 12 IPC’s is paid to the the bank by the aggressor. Using your example of Japan declaring war on the USSR then Germany getting an extra 12 IPC’s in cash when taking the Russian capital is irrelavent due to the fact that the money is paid by Japan to the bank not to the Russians. So, SgtSlitz just so I know my work is done here….Once again using your example I’ll break it down even further for you so hopefully you’ll get it>Japan - Aggressor (Pays 12 IPC’s)
USSR - Defender
Bank - Where the 12 Japanese IPC’s get paid to.
Germany - Gets nothing
SgtSlitz - Cut down on your Slitz intake before posting.(EX.1)
Question: When the following attack happens should the aggressor be made responsible to pay the 12 IPCs to the bank instead of the bank paying it to the defender?USSR
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Japan
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following a declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan.
Theme: Recognized national emergency.Goodness gentlemen, let’s be civil, shall we? Anyway, in response to your question, the I think that it’s fine the way it is because it makes sense. I’m failing to see the logic of a power suddenly loosing industrial capacity when it attacks another power.
-
No one should pay anything (resititution, fine, reparations whatever) to the bank but there could be some other method of penalizing the USSR or Japan for breaking a non-aggression pact. Perhaps turning a strict neutral in the region into a friendly neutral or simply having them go over to the defender would work.
I apologize to Idi for not giving his post the due attention it deserved before commenting on it.
-
yea if the japs attacked, or the russians attack, maybe Mongolia goes pro fro the other side…
-
I agree, 12 IPC is not enough of a deterrant. The idea is to keep Russia and Japan “honest” so as not to unduly effect the tactical situation on the board. 12 IPC to be spent by the attacked nation is great, I understand that the people - so outraged at the breach of a treaty they become incensed and build in a frenzy of national pride - create this boon. However, I think it should be placed IMMEDIATELY in either one of the attacked territories or in an adjacent one. (Gives the violated country the option to retreat the units or use them for a counter attack. Yet another penalty on the criminal nation.)
But yes, this should be “magic” IPC it should not come from another nation.
IMHO
-
To be fair, either I’m not understanding the question the way Idi is presenting it, or I’m really bad at reading the rules:
(Also, Larry put in a ninja edit in red with the new Alpha + .2 ruleset on his website…)
http://www.harrisgamedesign.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=4167
Soviet Union
When the Soviet Union becomes at War with Japan
4. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by Japan on the Soviet Union. Theme: Recognized national emergency.Japan
When Japan becomes at War with the Soviet Union
2. Collect 12 IPCs, once, at the beginning of the turn following an unprovoked declaration of war by the Soviet Union on Japan. Theme: Recognized national emergency.So.
Not really sure what Larry means by “an unprovoked” war dec there, does he mean before the US enters the war proper or at all? Historically, Japan wasn’t attacked by Russia until near the end of WWII, late in 1945. Technically, a 1940 Global game could be played where both Russia and Japan are still neutral to the very end, right? Unless “an unprovoked” war dec means anything else.
It seems that the IPCs are paid by the bank, not the aggressor power. If I was Russia, and I just declared war on Japan, would I send a big pile of resources for the Japs to spend as a present to equip more troops to defend against my attack? That really doesn’t make much sense. I agree that the rule would make more sense economically by providing a double punch for breaking the truce (i.e. Russia’s loss is also Japan’s gain), but I guess its better that’s there’s any kind of penalty of all for breaking neutrality than the no-holds-barred “truce” from the OOB rules.
IF the money IS coming from the BANK into the defender’s coffers, it makes pefect sense for the Japs to declare war on Russia if Moscow is just about to be captured by Germany on the next round before Russia’s turn. The breaking neutrality rule would probably make more sense if it let the defender place free units worth 12 IPCs rather than the money itself.
-
I can only imagine he means one of two things, Blitz.
1) He is clarifying for those who don’t understand what declaring war means. For example, if someone thought that each and every attack Russia made against Japan meant that Japan got 12 IPC for that round or something. I don’t think this is likely, plausible but not likely.
2) More likely, if England attacks Korea and lands planes in Amur this is an act of war and thus, Japan’s retalliation should not trigger the 12 IPC boon to Russia. I am not 100% on how the rules read, but I believe Japan would attack Amur and only kill the British units, leaving the Russians alone. In which case, presumably, the Japanese would have to retreat to friendly territory or something. I know this is how it works if England declares war on Japan and hides his ships with the American ones (while America is at peace.)
Suggested Topics
