Yeah, it’s odd the game refers to it properly but the fans don’t.
What is the definition of Russia being at war in the Pacific?
-
Here was the situation:
I was Russia, and I (without knowing) made a stupid pact with Japan. The agreement was this: “Russia cannot move units into Japanese territories, and Japan cannot move units into Russia territories and a state of war may not exist between Russia and Japan”. At the time, I was happy because I wanted to pull those 18 inf back to Moscow in case Germany attempted barbarosa. The Japan player was happy too because it didn’t have to defend the North at all.
Over in Europe, the Allies were doing fantastic. Sealion was successfully stopped, and Germany went into sort of close-down state (which meant only buying inf for the rest of the game after round 2). When I (as Russia) could finally declare war, I took as many countries as possible, maximizing my income with the 3 ipc NO. Russia’s income compared to Germany’s income by round 7 was 3:1. On round 6, Rome fell to US and UK took Northern Italy to keep Germany from liberating Rome. It was going great for the Allies.
In the Pacific it was the exact opposite. J4, Japan controlled all the DEI and Manila. On round 4 or 5 all of China was defeated. On round 6 they took Sydney. Now all they needed was Calcutta. Due to an unlucky attack (in which UKP had the advantage), most of the army on Calcutta was destroyed. I was aware of all this–that Japan only needed Calcutta to win and that they could easily take Calcutta in 2 turns. The US had naval superiority in the Pacific, and it could finish off virtually all of Japan’s navy in the next 2 rounds (and there was no way Japan could possibly take Honolulu or San Fran). But, I had the “perfect” plan to stop Japan from winning. My plan was to simply fly one of my Russian fighters into Calcutta so that in order to take Calcutta, Japan would have to fight a Russian unit, and since they **couldn’t**attack a Russian unit, Calcutta would never fall to them!!! This was “perfect” because I knew that in a few rounds, there would be no doubt that the Allies would win.
However, a few minutes after I scared the Japan player by showing him my plan, and after he searched the rules for a few minutes, he excitedly pointed out that Russia is neutral in the Pacific and that it can’t move units into another power’s territories until they are no longer neutral. Since I knew that in a few rounds the Allies would be clearcut total domination winners regardless of whether Calcutta fell or not (I realize that global domination isn’t the victory condition, but I’m just saying that if it was), I tried to defend my plan by asking if I could attack a German sea unit if it’s in the Pacific. I was at war with Germany, and if I’m attacking on the Pacific map, then I’m at war IN THE PACIFIC. And, of course, if I was at war in the Pacific, then I could move my russian fighter into Calcutta, and the Allies would win.
-
Here was the situation:
I was Russia, and I (without knowing) made a stupid pact with Japan. The agreement was this: “Russia cannot move units into Japanese territories, and Japan cannot move units into Russia territories and a state of war may not exist between Russia and Japan”. At the time, I was happy because I wanted to pull those 18 inf back to Moscow in case Germany attempted barbarosa. The Japan player was happy too because it didn’t have to defend the North at all.
Over in Europe, the Allies were doing fantastic. Sealion was successfully stopped, and Germany went into sort of close-down state (which meant only buying inf for the rest of the game after round 2). When I (as Russia) could finally declare war, I took as many countries as possible, maximizing my income with the 3 ipc NO. Russia’s income compared to Germany’s income by round 7 was 3:1. On round 6, Rome fell to US and UK took Northern Italy to keep Germany from liberating Rome. It was going great for the Allies.
In the Pacific it was the exact opposite. J4, Japan controlled all the DEI and Manila. On round 4 or 5 all of China was defeated. On round 6 they took Sydney. Now all they needed was Calcutta. Due to an unlucky attack (in which UKP had the advantage), most of the army on Calcutta was destroyed. I was aware of all this–that Japan only needed Calcutta to win and that they could easily take Calcutta in 2 turns. The US had naval superiority in the Pacific, and it could finish off virtually all of Japan’s navy in the next 2 rounds (and there was no way Japan could possibly take Honolulu or San Fran). But, I had the “perfect” plan to stop Japan from winning. My plan was to simply fly one of my Russian fighters into Calcutta so that in order to take Calcutta, Japan would have to fight a Russian unit, and since they **couldn’t**attack a Russian unit, Calcutta would never fall to them!!! This was “perfect” because I knew that in a few rounds, there would be no doubt that the Allies would win.
However, a few minutes after I scared the Japan player by showing him my plan, and after he searched the rules for a few minutes, he excitedly pointed out that Russia is neutral in the Pacific and that it can’t move units into another power’s territories until they are no longer neutral. Since I knew that in a few rounds the Allies would be clearcut total domination winners regardless of whether Calcutta fell or not (I realize that global domination isn’t the victory condition, but I’m just saying that if it was), I tried to defend my plan by asking if I could attack a German sea unit if it’s in the Pacific. I was at war with Germany, and if I’m attacking on the Pacific map, then I’m at war IN THE PACIFIC. And, of course, if I was at war in the Pacific, then I could move my russian fighter into Calcutta, and the Allies would win.
Your opponent is correct. Unless you declare war on Japan, you cannot move into India. But there’s also no specific that states you can’t break a pact. Axis and Allies isn’t generally about making pacts. Yes, the rules allow you to come up with some sort of understanding between Japan and Russia if you want, but there’s also no rule that requires you to not break the understanding (that’s actually why the whole russia/japan problem hasn’t ever been really well resolved). It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Anyway, as for your clever interpretation of the rules, simply being at war with Germany doesn’t allow Russia to attack German units on the Pacific board. Russia will remain neutral and blocked from any combat moves on the Pacific side until they’re at war with Japan.
-
It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
I thought about that, but I didn’t know that my fighter tactic wouldn’t work, and so I didn’t prepare Russia beforehand. 1 Ftr wouldn’t have made any difference with what he had and the tiny bit that UKP had.
Does this mean that when you play as Russia you always play as though Japan is going to break whatever peace agreement you might have made?
-
It would have been simpler to just say “nya nya nya, never trust a Ruskie” and then just gone right ahead and declared war on Japan, move units into India, and be done with it. It’s all well and good to make a pact but really, desperate times call for desperate measures.
I thought about that, but I didn’t know that my fighter tactic wouldn’t work, and so I didn’t prepare Russia beforehand. 1 Ftr wouldn’t have made any difference with what he had and the tiny bit that UKP had.
Does this mean that when you play as Russia you always play as though Japan is going to break whatever peace agreement you might have made?
Ya you should play with the idea that japan can potentinally break the pact, and vice versa.
-
I don’t think you can break what turns out to be a gentleman’s agreement, live and learn. The next time you strike a deal have it be that you can’t enter each others original territories, and leave the rest out. That way it would give you more flexibility.
-
BACKSTAB YOUR FRIEND.
We’re talking about Axis and Allies here! You must seize Victory~!
-
-
I think the simple answer is that Russia could just declare war on Japan and force them to deal with the Russian Ftr like you wanted them to. As Russia goes before Japan, this is a simple DOW on the Russian turn.
Of course you’d prefer if Japan declared war on you to get all those Mongol units. However Japan gets nothing for waiting for you to declare war outside of preventing a fight in the North.
3 Tanks, and a couple Mechs entering China through Russia really puts a kink in the Japanese conquest of China. Better way of opening up war with Japan than sending your infantry down through Manchuria and Korea. They’d still have to declare war on you, possibly netting you the Mongol units. That or they face a Russian DOW and possibly getting stopped in their tracks China.
Granted Russia diverts a few much needed units away from the German front, but by turn 3 having a few tanks and Mechs down in Sikang / Szechewan creates issues for the Japanese / Chinese conflict. If the Germans DO go after Moscow, you can still get those units back to Moscow for a full defense strategy all the while possibly disrupting the Japanese strategy / purchases.
-
He cut the deal to say that war can’t exist between the 2 powers. Is there a way out? Lets see…
Was this a verbal agreement with witnesses? Don’t matter it’s here say
Was it a written contract?
Did you shake on it and spit in the palm of your hands to seal the deal?
Did you have your fingers crossed at the time, and can he prove you didn’t? LOL -
Well Japan sucker punched the US from the back of the room.
Hitler went after Moscow after signing a non-aggression pact with them 2 years earlier.I don’t see a reason why you can’t renege on a promise =)