I am sorry, but I want to know if this bothers anyone else. Why is it that the Russians get 18 infantry in the most remote parts of Siberia, when there are less then that number on the Eastern front? What ends up happening is the Japanese, one way or another, get a bunch of tanks to blitz through those territories, gobbling up the IPCs and hitting the Ruskies in Moscow. IMHO this is absolutely ridiculous.
Does anyone think that it would be fair just to get rid of the 18 infantry in the East, cut down on the Japanese forces in Manchuria and Korea, and put an impassable barrier between Amur and the Japanese territories? If this were the case the Russians would get their 2 infantry in Novosibirsk when there at war. If the only way to get to Russia for Japan was through China, it would cause more action to go down in China, which in my opinion, is the best part about pacific. Does anyone else get annoyed when 10 jap tanks end up in Stalingrad at the end of the game?
Mmmm, i never had an army of jap tanks go through Siberia…
If you would make a border like that there, you’d have to make the whole of Siberia one big no passing zone.
In our games Japan takes a few territories there, while the russians retreat (6 of them run back as reinforcements to either Moscow or to counter attack Japanese forces at the Russian-chinese border. The other 12 serve as bait to lure some Japanese troops into Siberia, but enough to stop them from advancing too fast.
personally i prefer japan to take the Nordic route, that would take some pressure off China (where in our games here is usually a lot of action)
so basically: it doesn’t bother me
@special:
Mmmm, i never had an army of jap tanks go through Siberia…
If you would make a border like that there, you’d have to make the whole of Siberia one big no passing zone.
In our games Japan takes a few territories there, while the russians retreat (6 of them run back as reinforcements to either Moscow or to counter attack Japanese forces at the Russian-chinese border. The other 12 serve as bait to lure some Japanese troops into Siberia, but enough to stop them from advancing too fast.
personally i prefer japan to take the Nordic route, that would take some pressure off China (where in our games here is usually a lot of action)
so basically: it doesn’t bother me
Yes, Siberia would be one big no Pass zone. The reason this would be done is so the the Japs don’t lose unnecessary amounts of troops to the Russians, who end up attacking because it’s more or less a “why not” scenario. And if the Jap players ferries enough tanks to Siberia, the Russian player will end up with a bunch of japanese tanks at his back door. This is what I don’t like about it.
I don’t like that its only inf. I wish Russia had a tank or a arty or 2 out there as support. I mean they did have lots of divisions guarding the Manchurian border even after the latest non-aggression pact between the two powers.
Playability. If you have to many limitations, the games become more of a script of what you can and cant do. Japan could of attacked Russia so why not leave it as an option for the palyersto decide.
Usually, in our games, the Amur/Manchurian border stays pretty much static through most of the game. In fact, if Japan attacks the Russians, it usually means that they have already managed to beat China, India and ANZAC AND fend off the US Navy. Usually by that time the Axis are close to winning anyway. If the Russians attack Japan in either Manchuria or Korea, then it usually means that Japan is way too spread out and Germany is not giving Russia too much of a hard time on the Eastern Front. That probably means an Allied victory is not far off.
As far as Japanese tanks taking Moscow, if the Japanese are commiting enough forces to possibly take Moscow then it seems to me that they are not accomplishing their other objectives (DEI, beating China and India ). Japan doesn’t start off with a great amount of resources and the main way they gain them is by taking the DEI, Philippines, Malaya and Hong Kong. If they are sending a large tank force across Russia, then they would be weak in fighting Chinese and Indian forces down south. Plus, unless the USA is going mostly Atlantic, the US Navy will come over and stomp the Jap Navy. In that case, the Japanese are going to lose all their island possessions and a big chunk of their money. After all, those eastern Soviet territories aren’t worth much.
Usually, in our games, the Amur/Manchurian border stays pretty much static through most of the game. In fact, if Japan attacks the Russians, it usually means that they have already managed to beat China, India and ANZAC AND fend off the US Navy. Usually by that time the Axis are close to winning anyway. If the Russians attack Japan in either Manchuria or Korea, then it usually means that Japan is way too spread out and Germany is not giving Russia too much of a hard time on the Eastern Front. That probably means an Allied victory is not far off.
As far as Japanese tanks taking Moscow, if the Japanese are commiting enough forces to possibly take Moscow then it seems to me that they are not accomplishing their other objectives (DEI, beating China and India ). Japan doesn’t start off with a great amount of resources and the main way they gain them is by taking the DEI, Philippines, Malaya and Hong Kong. If they are sending a large tank force across Russia, then they would be weak in fighting Chinese and Indian forces down south. Plus, unless the USA is going mostly Atlantic, the US Navy will come over and stomp the Jap Navy. In that case, the Japanese are going to lose all their island possessions and a big chunk of their money. After all, those eastern Soviet territories aren’t worth much.
exactly!
Japan would be sending pricy units to a place of the map where they can’t do anything else or change route fast. This means allied opportunities in the rest of Asia. Don’t know how many tanks you are talking about, but keep in mind that a transport can carry only 1 tank, so Japan probably needs to spend money on an IC as well.
As Russia, you could decide to run around the table (Mongolia) and send some troops into China, make the chinese grow stronger, which is more valuable then a few Siberian territories.
And finally, if you buy a bit of air force (bomber, tactical), retreat your siberian forces to, for ex. Yenisey, then your planes they can do a painful counter attack.
(plenty of) Japanese tanks in the north is a show of force in the wrong place, imho.
edit: but if it bothers you, send some russian reinforcements into China and chances are that Japan won’t do much in the northern area anymore (as russia, i usually dedicate one or 2 tank/mech combo’s to China*, and unless Japan had already decided to mangle the chinese, that works out pretty well).
*and buy at least 1 bomber which can reach about any territory in China from Moscow
Playability. If you have to many limitations, the games become more of a script of what you can and cant do. Japan could of attacked Russia so why not leave it as an option for the palyersto decide.
Agreed.
I appreciate these responses, but from my point of view, the Japanese end up being forced to keep the units starting in Manchuria and Korea in those territories, which really just benefits Russia, because those 18 infantry have no value to them on the eastern front. How is it possible for the Japs to win a war with China AND the UK when they don’t have a significant land presence to begin with? If you can answer this then maybe the infantry won’t be such a problem.
Yeah, I know what you mean and I agree, I hate having to leave all those Japanese units up on Manchuria/Korea just to fend off a possible Russian attack when you could really use those troops elsewhere. However, if the Russians just keep the infantry up there and don’t add any tanks or planes, then your starting Japanese force is usually enough to deter the Russians from attacking since all those infantry only hit on 1. So, any NEW pieces bought by Japan can be used to accomplish their goals in the south. You shouldn’t have to keep placing more units into Manchuria or Korea and you can pretty much forget about those Russian infantry while grabbing up the DEI and beating up China.
I appreciate these responses, but from my point of view, the Japanese end up being forced to keep the units starting in Manchuria and Korea in those territories, which really just benefits Russia, because those 18 infantry have no value to them on the eastern front. How is it possible for the Japs to win a war with China AND the UK when they don’t have a significant land presence to begin with? If you can answer this then maybe the infantry won’t be such a problem.
If this is the case, Germany has 54 fewer IPCs to overcome in Moscow. That’s purty nice.
And if Russia happens to stack up in Amur, destroy them. Sure, you’ll suffer a bit in China, but Russia will suffer much more.
Look at the OOB set up where Russia gets 2 Inf. per turn in Novo. the 18 Inf. would be 9 rounds of battle, they had to come up with a number and 18 was it. If it was 24 then Russia may be to powerful any less and they would be more venerable and likely to be attacked
If you never had Japanese Tanks on the doorsteps of Moscow you dont know what your missing.
It will happen just not all the time, if you rolling good then attack…… everywhere easier threw China they need to fall one of those Axis lucky game
So, correct me if I am wrong, but judging from these responses, completely sealing of Siberia would not severely affect the gameplay. Since that part of the world ends up being static anyways, if you remove the Russians and cut down on the Japanese ground forces, gameplay wont be significantly hampered. The reason I ask this, is because I like to maintain a little more realism in my games, and having Japan blitz through Siberia doesn’t help contribute to that.
I totally agree Killofzee. the problem with that is I think it would hurt the allies way more than the axis since that is 18 less inf for moscow or for the the underbelly of russia when japan gets through china.
I totally agree Killofzee. the problem with that is I think it would hurt the allies way more than the axis since that is 18 less inf for moscow or for the the underbelly of russia when japan gets through china.
You’re right that it wouldn’t be balanced, but if you think about it, if you just play a game of pacific, those 18 infantry aren’t there, and the Japs still get ALL of their units. I think this could be addressed by making the Chinese a little stronger, or by making the UK pacific need to help the Chinese.
the problem I see with making china stronger is that japan will have to spend more resources in asia to supress the chinese and this means less men against UK pacific anzac and later the US. those 18 inf in russia really don’t signify much of a threat and if you opponet decides to keep them in the east, then Germany will have a much easier time taking moscow. How much stronger were you thinking about making the chinese?
I suppose I should revise my thinking. What I mean by making China stronger is making it so the British have more involvement in it. If you gave the British more infantry in Shan State or Kwangtung, you would see a larger involvement of the British in China, making the allied control over China “stronger,” rather then the Chinese themselves. If you get rid of the Ruskies up north, then maybe you could remove some of the Jap army in Kwangsi, so the Chinese would have at least one turn with the Burma road completely open. I suppose there are a number of things you could do to encourage more action in China, which I think is the best part of pacific…the epic guerrilla war the Chinese have to wage against the Japs.
I’m liking the ideas here :-)
In most of my games the Soviets make a fighting retreat from the border until they can link up with offensive units (the tank and mech from moscow and the tank and mech from stalingrad, planes from moscow as well) moving east to Counter the Japanese thrust, when or if it comes.
I think there are 2 ways to address the issues here, one is simple and cosmetic, the other is mechanical and more complex.The cosmetic fix would be to change the setup giving the Soviets a few less infantry, maybe swaping out several infantry for a tank or artillery but reducing the huge number of Soviet Infantry. Moving some of Japans considerable air forces to other provinces, like central China or formosa, so Japan could still attack the Soviets if they wanted to, just not right away, at least not at full strenght anyway. Also, house rules are another cosmetic change, like saying units capable of blitzing cannot do so in China OR siberia. Little things like this may effect a turns worth of play but not the deeper mechanicas of the game.
A deeper, mechanical fix would be to change the area in such a way as to allow the Soviets to respond to a Japanese attack. As it stands now, the Soviets have no real way to respond to a Japanese attack outside of slowly retreating offering up small groups of infantry to delay them. Allowing the Soviets to actually respond to a japanese would completely change this usually static theater and also allow to reduce garrisons on both sides. Say we took the the Yakut and increased its value to 2IPC (and to balance things we’ll reduce timguska to 0). Now the Soviets have a territory with in striking distance of the Japanese border that can house a new minor IC, should they choose to build one. This radically changes the entire theater as it not only give the Soviets a way to more effectively counter the Japanese, but it also gives the Japanese something to work towards capturing. This also allows for the reduction of garrisons on both sides, since the Soviets can now reenforce this region without having to march forces from moscow, there is no need to give them the 18 infantry in the region at the start of the game. the Soviet player can build up the defence of this region if they want to, so you could reduce their starting forces to 6infantry in Amur, and maybe only 3 in Buryatia and Sakha,or less. I think this would also give rise to reviving the Alpha+2 system where one power gets 12IPC if the other attacks it. Now, rather then just throwing down 2 tanks or 4 infantry in Moscow or Stalingrad, the Soviet player has the option to place a minor IC in Yakut and actaully challange the Japanese invasion BEFORE it gets to Moscow. Also, the reduction in forces would give the Japanese player a bit more flexability with what he HAS to keep behing in Manchuria and Korea.
Just something to think about
I am kind of interested in what people are having trouble with these 18 inf that russia can throw towards japan? I think those 18 inf are a lot less annoying than say giving brittain more troops, though giving china more troops at the expense of russia’s 18 inf might be a good change. I honestly like it when Russia keeps her 18 inf on the japan border or near it (18 inf and 2 aa guns less for germany to kill in moscow). If you weaken russia’s power here too much it might be worth it for japan to attack russia’s north. Maybe a good way to test it would be to make a house rule where russia looses 6 inf in the east and china gains 6 inf, but you can only put 1 inf per territory. I don’t know if letting china have the Burma road from the start of the game would be fair for japan? US going 100% japan for first couple turns might prove impossible for japan to beat it china is now significantly stronger with those 4 extra inf yunan plus the extra money and possibility of buying artillery. I see japan as being much weaker on the land since china will be more than just a pain, but a real threat and japan will have to buy more ground to compensate making japans navy weaker and in turn making US’s navy that much stronger. I haven’t played and extensive amount of games, so what do people think about the pacific side of the board and those 18 russian inf? Are you guys having a hard time beating japan as the allies, or keeping japan in check?
