1942.2 New NAP, Soviet Japanese Non Aggression Pact

What do these units represent?

I prefer very simply that:

Japan may not attack USSR until a major Allied capital has fallen/major Ally is out of the war;

USSR may not attack Japan until Berlin or Tokyo is captured by the Allies/Germany is defeated

Remember the Japanese only attacked the Western Allies when they’d secured their backs against Russia with the treaty.

Another option is to allow Russia to place infantry in northern China representing the CCP; these are free to fight the Japanese in China only.

@Black_Elk:

I think players just don’t like being put in the straight jacket…

,…… for a boardgame that is supposed to create what if scenarios.

Some people actually believe that if Japan had made a coordinated attack on Russia together with Germany, and kept USA out of the war long enough to take Moscow, they would have won for sure. We will never find out if it would have worked if we got the straight jacked scripted game.

I agree that I don’t like the “Japan and Russia can only attack each other if a major capital falls” rule. Or any type of rule like that where it basically makes it illegal for Japan or Russia to attack each other. I prefer the choice to do so.

Having the attacked power receive 7 infantry or 21 IPCs seems a little high to me. Not sure if there should be that much of a punishment for the attacker (or bonus for the attackee). I just don’t think that area warrants so much of a response. Not enough of an important front.
In the case of Japan attacking Russia, I suppose it could lead to a faster falling of Moscow to Germany. Japan would be taking a few IPCs from Russia’s income and destroying a few resources that could have headed for Moscow.
As for Russia attacking Japan, I think it matters even less. It is annoying for Japan to lose Manchuria but they usually get it right back since it’s right next to Japan and then the Russian presence in the far east is over. So it might slow Japan’s expansion by one round, which I guess may be just what the other Allies need to keep Japan in check.

Great idea Black_Elk! I thought of very similar ideas on this. :-D

@knp7765:

In the case of Japan attacking Russia, I suppose it could lead to a faster falling of Moscow to Germany. Japan would be taking a few IPCs from Russia’s income and destroying a few resources that could have headed for Moscow.

If Japan had taken Vladivostok in the real world, they would have cut off 50% of the Lend Lease stuff to Russia from USA, and even get an oilfield too.

Depends on the starting date.

If a game starts with Japan and the West already at war, then Japan has already secured itself against Russia with the treaty.

If we are at a point before Pearl Harbor, then Japan’s choice is to attack the West OR the USSR; it would never have done both (unless of course one of them was already defeated).

So, speaking of “What Ifs”; if Japan chooses a Russian strategy, then by what means is the USA to be brought into the war? Without Pearl, its unlikely Roosevelt could have persuaded Americans to go to war to save Britain, less still Russia.

Perhaps the fall of a capital rule is too extreme; maybe the treaty is broken when either J or R fall below respective IPC income levels.

I dislike any house rules that outright prohibit Russia and Japan from attacking each other for part or all of the game; it kills the “what-if” historical speculation that makes the game so much fun for me, and it introduces very weird tactical considerations – you can wind up wanting to artificially delay your capture of an enemy capital so that you have time to shift your troops over to a new front against an enemy who you know you will soon be at war with but who is powerless to do so much as raid your transports until after a scripted game event.

I also strongly dislike the idea of magically dropping a large stack of defensive infantry in the path of a Japanese invasion. It totally shatters my suspension of disbelief. I understand that the game isn’t trying to be a realistic simulation, but the commenters above are right – there’s just no way that being sneak attacked would provide a boost to your economy; the opposite would likely be true.  I can imagine the Russians raising a small additional militia in Irkutsk/Yakutsk in response to an invasion (at the cost of supply shortages and hunger), but Japanese-occupied Manchukuo had no loyalty to the Japanese – they might even have welcomed an invading Russian army as liberators.

Leaving aside the issues of theme and story, and considering things strictly from a strategic point of view, I guess 7 infantry is balanced enough, but I would really rather structure the starting units and bonuses in the game so that players are naturally incentivized to avoid an unnecessary Russo-Japanese war. In another thread (the 1943 scenario), I suggested giving Russia an NO for +5 IPCs/turn if Russia controls Amur and is not at war with Japan, and giving Japan an NO for +5 IPCs/turn if Japan controls Manchuria and Korea and is not at war with Russia. That may not be exactly the right number, but that’s the kind of house rule I’d prefer to see – something that makes keeping the peace win-win for Russia and Japan unless one or both of them decide to launch a serious invasion.

Yeah, I mean a cost for the sneak attacker is more interesting than a bonus payment of IPCs to the sneak attack victim. You could even have a choice of whether to pay the sneak attack cost or just declare war one turn in advance of when you actually invade. The sneak attack cost could represent the added difficulty of stockpiling supplies, ammo, etc. on the border without your rival detecting the buildup.

I think if Japan wants to invade Russia simply because Russia needs cash more than Japan, then the game is broken on a deeper level than NAPs can fix – Japan should also be feeling pinched for cash in the opening. Japan should have lots of fronts they want to invade (potentially including Russia), and Japan should be unable to generate enough cash to invade all of them at once in sufficient force to actually win. Otherwise the Japanese player isn’t making any interesting strategic choices; the only valid strategy is “attack everywhere” and it all comes down to tactics.

Instead of a fixed penalty, what about randomizing the consequences of breaking the NAP by rolling a die (or dice) to determine the penalty? The randomness could reflect the somewhat-less-than-certain outcome that might result from breaking the pact.

Penalty to the Attacker
Cost of Betrayal! Roll [a number to be determined] of dice before the Purchase Units phase. Sum of dice determines the penalty to be paid immediately. I rather like the idea of a regressive penalty that would decrease in subsequent rounds.

For example:
Rounds 1-2: 4 Dice–Penalty between 4 and 24
Rounds 3-4: 3 Dice–Penalty between 3 and 18
Rounds 5-6: 2 Dice–Penalty between 2 and 12
Rounds 7-8:  1 Die–Penalty between 1 and 6
Rounds  9+: No Penalty

Bonus to the Defender
Rally the Militia! Defender rolls 1 die after the sneak attack is declared in the Combat Movement phase. The number rolled determines the number of infantry to be placed in territory being attacked before conducting combat.

Hybrid Penalty/Bonus
A combination of the two described above. Attacker pays a penalty and Defender receives a bonus.

I am curious about something. In reading all the posts in this thread, it seems to me like we all want to keep Japan and Russia from attacking each other without making an actual rule stating that.
If we are wanting to do this, it seems to me that apparently this is a problem for most people of either Japan attacking Russia and romping across the north toward Moscow or Russia attacking Japan and taking all the coastal Chinese territories.
Does one or the other happen a lot in your games? So much so that you are wanting to design a deterrent?
In most of our games, Japan and Russia usually don’t attack one another until things are under control in other sectors.
In Japan’s case, they usually won’t go into Russia until they have the DEI and Calcutta, China is mostly conquered AND they are successfully fending off the US Navy and ANZAC Navy.
In Russia’s case, they won’t go into Manchuria/Korea until it is a nearly sure thing that Germany will not be taking Moscow AND Japan is having a hard time of things and perhaps busy in another sector. In that case, either Japan will not be able to retake Manchuria/Korea right away or if they do then it will hurt their efforts against Calcutta, the DEI or the US Navy.
This is kind of a mutual benefit thing. Russia doesn’t want Japan romping around in their far east territories and Japan doesn’t want to lose Manchuria or Korea.

The reason Japan attacks Russia in most games is to combine with Germany to knock Russia out of the game - by far the most likely means of eliminating an Allied power.

The problem is not as acute as when Moscow was placed in the middle of Siberia, but its still the optimum Axis strategy. Every power piling as many units as possible into Stalingrad/Moscow is something seen altogether too many times in Axis and Allies, and an effective NAP is the only solution. You may want the What If? scenario that there was no pact, but you may as well have the possibility of a Western Allies - Soviet war, something that very nearly happened over Finland while the Soviets were still Allied to Germany.

But this fusion of two entirely separate conflicts is unhistorical and blocks any chance of a remotely familiar playout. The reason Japan initiated a Pacific war was because it had secured itself against the possibility of another conflict with Russia. Enact the Pact, and Japan must attack USA in the Pacific to drain American resources away from the European front. Russia becomes stronger and can concentrate on fighting a Germany less likely to be worn down by American attacks. Anything else just isn’t WWII.

Every power piling as many units as possible into Stalingrad/Moscow is something seen altogether too many times in Axis and Allies…

Couldn’t agree more.

…and an effective NAP is the only solution.

That’s crazy talk. For any game design problem, there are always dozens of potential solutions, several of which will be interesting and fun for at least some types of players. I’m just going to brainstorm some other solutions that could help avoid the repetitive rush to Moscow:

1. Give Russia lots more starting infantry and slightly less income so that conquering Russia is relatively less attractive
2. Give the UK fewer starting infantry and slightly more income so that conquering London is relatively more attractive
3. Shift the Axis starting troops toward the extreme periphery, e.g., in France, Norway, Morocco, Midway, and New Guinea, so that attacks against the USA and the UK are easier to pull off and attacks against Moscow are slower.
4. Change the capital-capture rules so that conquering Moscow doesn’t automatically prevent the Russians from mobilizing new units or provide the Axis with a massive economic windfall
5. Write a house rule for partisans and revolts so that ungarrisoned territories have a chance to shake off enemy control, making it less attractive to try to occupy all of Russia’s low-value territories
6. Use national objectives to give Russia and Japan incentives to attack other nations
7. Use national objectives to give Russia and Japan incentives not to attack each other
8. Treat the USSR as a ‘third faction’ that isn’t necessarily on the same team as either the Allies or the Axis, so that if the Axis gang up on the USSR and ignore the US/UK, they risk throwing the game to the US/UK
9. Write a house rule for supply lines so that it’s difficult for Germany and Japan to project power across 4+ land territories to get to Moscow, but relatively easy for them to project power across sea zones to London, Rio de Janeiro, Calcutta, Capetown, Sydney, and Honolulu
10. End the game after a set number of turns, and put more victory cities in US / UK / French / Chinese nations than in the USSR, forcing the Axis to attack other nations besides just Russia if they want to win

That’s really just off the top of my head. If you want a non-aggression pact, fine, enjoy it, but don’t pretend like the only way to get an interesting game is to force players into a rigidly scripted version of history. Some players enjoy alternate histories, and that’s a legitimate part of what Axis & Allies is about.