Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/11/2021 8:56:00 AM   
juntoalmar


Posts: 569
Joined: 9/29/2013
From: Valencia
Status: offline
I think I read long ago that people were using a in-house rule for a Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact, but I can't find it.

Can you share what house rules you use for it (if any)?

Thanks in advance!

_____________________________

(my humble blog about wargames, in spanish) http://cabezadepuente.blogspot.com.es/
Post #: 1
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/11/2021 3:11:18 PM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2282
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
I don't know about a house rule, but may be you a re referring to an existing optional, at least in WIF. From RAW:

quote:

Option 50:

(USSR-Japan compulsory peace) If Japan controls
Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the
Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one.
Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were
Japanese controlled at the start of Sep/Oct 1939, the Soviet player
must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one.
In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the
hexes each controls. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly
surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes
controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.
(...)
If a peace is reached, remove all forces now in each other’s territory. Put
them in the nearest hex in whcih they can stack controlled by their major
power or its aligned minors.
If a minor makes peace and is now not at war with anyone, remove all its
land and aircraft units from the game until it is next at war, upon which
all its land and aircraft units are again set up as normal (see 19.4). All of
the minor’s naval units remain under the control of their controlling
major power (British in the case of the Commonwealth).
If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you have
on the map or on the production circle that have ‘Res’ on their back and
place them in the reserve pool. Remove all your remaining MIL units
from the game until you are next at war (see 4.1.2).

(in reply to juntoalmar)
Post #: 2
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/11/2021 5:00:52 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2383
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
It is not implemented - bit difficult. You need a house rule to act as if

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 3
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/11/2021 5:23:36 PM   
Joseignacio


Posts: 2282
Joined: 5/8/2009
From: Madrid, Spain
Status: offline
So that's it, it's an optional in WIF FE and a house rule in MWIF for those who want to implement.

You can see the ruling I posted and an example in RAW if you want to play it, Juntoalmar

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 4
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/11/2021 7:43:46 PM   
Vanman

 

Posts: 80
Joined: 11/23/2012
Status: offline
House rules I have used with other players of late is as follows:
-Both Japan and USSR must keep 5 land units (Corp/Armies) in Manchuria or the Soviet Far East at all times (at a minimum).
-Can only DOW if reach the border garrison limit --> 7:1 in 1939, 6:1 1940. 5:1 1941. 4:1 1942, 3:1 1943. AKA: War unlikely until 1943.

I had too many early games where Manchuria basically decided the entire game in 1941. Either Soviets get bogged down and Germany has it easy or Japan collapses under the weight of Soviet Armour (Cannot do USSR & decently strong China at same time).

With these rules, games now tend to go much later into the war which is far more exciting. Unfortunately it causes a problem of skewing things a bit too much towards Japan in China. Chinese Attack Weakness is no longer played with. The extra Chinese Cities is always a tough call. I am more inclined to play with both of these now. Some say Chinese surrender to Japan is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as Japan's fate is really decided in the Pacific...valid point. I also don't know how the upcoming programming of the option Surrender Rules between the USSR & Japan will fit into all this.

I also play with the rule that the Axis can win outright or win the game by holding more than 15 objective cities by the end of July/August 1945. This gives the Axis player an incentive to continue after the tide has viciously turned. Allies win if Axis hold < 15. Exactly 15 = a tie. Works well.

(in reply to Joseignacio)
Post #: 5
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/13/2021 6:15:22 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8107
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
That number of objectives is what is in the FE Campaign Book assuming all bids for sides and majors were zero. I would suggest making it 14 if the US aligns both Brazil and Mexico since the Allies would need one more if it were a game in which bids were made.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Vanman)
Post #: 6
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/13/2021 3:55:02 PM   
CL55AMG

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 11/21/2019
Status: offline
Just thinking out loud; Historically, The Soviet Union and Japan were at war when the 1939 scenario starts. Zhukov had just destroyed the Japanese forces in Mongolia. Why not use the existing neutrality pact rules? Using the existing garrison ratios and entry markers would seem to have the same effect as house rules.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 7
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/13/2021 11:25:42 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8107
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Those are not implemented either.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to CL55AMG)
Post #: 8
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/14/2021 3:46:27 AM   
CL55AMG

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 11/21/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Those are not implemented either.

Section 9.5 of the Rules as Coded manual isn't implemented?

OTHER MAJOR POWERS
Major powers from opposing sides can agree to enter into a neutrality pact during any peace step provided they are not at war with each other. Both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese must agree before China can enter into a neutrality pact. Major powers automatically enter into a neutrality pact when they choose to come to peace (see 13.7.3).
Provided both major powers agree, you may re-confirm a neutrality pact during any subsequent Neutrality Pact step

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 9
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/14/2021 4:43:06 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8666
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Those are not implemented either.

Section 9.5 of the Rules as Coded manual isn't implemented?

OTHER MAJOR POWERS
Major powers from opposing sides can agree to enter into a neutrality pact during any peace step provided they are not at war with each other. Both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese must agree before China can enter into a neutrality pact. Major powers automatically enter into a neutrality pact when they choose to come to peace (see 13.7.3).
Provided both major powers agree, you may re-confirm a neutrality pact during any subsequent Neutrality Pact step


Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to CL55AMG)
Post #: 10
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/16/2021 1:17:59 AM   
CL55AMG

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 11/21/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.


Is there a list or errata for the Rules as Code manual as to what is working and what isn't? I was under the impression that "Rules as Coded" was the implemented code specification for the game.


< Message edited by CL55AMG -- 4/16/2021 5:11:44 AM >

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 11
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/18/2021 2:55:43 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
deleted

< Message edited by davidachamberlain -- 4/18/2021 2:56:55 PM >

(in reply to CL55AMG)
Post #: 12
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/19/2021 4:50:27 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8107
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.


Is there a list or errata for the Rules as Code manual as to what is working and what isn't? I was under the impression that "Rules as Coded" was the implemented code specification for the game.


There's a list of which optional rules were/were not included (since superseded by the addition of some of them) when the game was released (page 5). There is a section in the hyper-linked manual (page 187) that talks about deviations from the rules as written. Unfortunately some parts of the manual were already out of date when the game released. (It's easy to see why a manual of that magnitude would be a massive undertaking in addition to getting all the code ready.)

Discussions regarding the decision about coding Mutual Peace go way back, but the core of the issue was this phrasing in the original rules: "Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units)."

Forget about handling multiple neutrality pact chits, including finicky things like Japan drawing every second turn and Germany drawing two per turn - regardless of how many pacts each has - but how does a programmer code: any terms mutually acceptable?

Even in a face-to-face over the table game you essentially have the rule book saying: house rule it.



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to CL55AMG)
Post #: 13
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/19/2021 2:36:59 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8666
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.


Is there a list or errata for the Rules as Code manual as to what is working and what isn't? I was under the impression that "Rules as Coded" was the implemented code specification for the game.


There's a list of which optional rules were/were not included (since superseded by the addition of some of them) when the game was released (page 5). There is a section in the hyper-linked manual (page 187) that talks about deviations from the rules as written. Unfortunately some parts of the manual were already out of date when the game released. (It's easy to see why a manual of that magnitude would be a massive undertaking in addition to getting all the code ready.)

Discussions regarding the decision about coding Mutual Peace go way back, but the core of the issue was this phrasing in the original rules: "Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units)."

Forget about handling multiple neutrality pact chits, including finicky things like Japan drawing every second turn and Germany drawing two per turn - regardless of how many pacts each has - but how does a programmer code: any terms mutually acceptable?

Even in a face-to-face over the table game you essentially have the rule book saying: house rule it.




While I agree on the fact that "any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to code, personally, I still would like to see code for making a neutrality pact with the chips draw between any warring major power. And if one could include the making of a trade agreement between opposite sides possible, with a length of turns in it, together with the already existing debug tool by which one can change hex control, it should be possible to code a lot of the "any terms mutually acceptable".

But I do agree that this is not an important thing at this time.

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 14
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/19/2021 3:12:01 PM   
davidachamberlain

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 1/21/2014
Status: offline
How about a two player accept and reject dialog similar to what happens for Romania and Finland with Russia? The terms don't need to be formalized in the code, just the acceptance.

It would just end the state of war. Prior to that, each player would take their turns to move their units to take over or give up locations. Ideally, it should be in the border areas consistent with the rules regarding Vladivostok and Manchuria. It would just be a simple cancellation of the state of war once all of the parties are no longer in the other's territory.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 15
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/19/2021 5:59:46 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3189
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
If you are playing a 2 player game, at least one of the players will probably recognize that it isn't in their unified side's interest to end such a war, at all. In other words, whoever is winning will see little need to stop winning here.

Russo-Japan relations are a very important part of multi-player play, but not for just 2 players. And overall World in Flames is geared towards multi-player play but with just one winning player. WWII was not an everyone gets a trophy affair. How much to help the other Powers on your side should be calculated against how much it hurts your chances to be THE winner.

But but but I don't want _____ to be at war with _____ and the one guy on the other side thinks so, too. Possible. Then just agree not to attack on that border, wherever it might currently be. But but but then there wouldn't be a rule against it! There wasn't in real life, either. War on this front is a bit like a you broke it, you bought it affair. You are either trying to beat the other combination of powers, or you are just playing too many characters in a role-playing game simultaneously.


(in reply to davidachamberlain)
Post #: 16
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/21/2021 12:33:46 AM   
CL55AMG

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 11/21/2019
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
There's a list of which optional rules were/were not included (since superseded by the addition of some of them) when the game was released (page 5). There is a section in the hyper-linked manual (page 187) that talks about deviations from the rules as written. Unfortunately some parts of the manual were already out of date when the game released. (It's easy to see why a manual of that magnitude would be a massive undertaking in addition to getting all the code ready.)

Discussions regarding the decision about coding Mutual Peace go way back, but the core of the issue was this phrasing in the original rules: "Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units)."

Forget about handling multiple neutrality pact chits, including finicky things like Japan drawing every second turn and Germany drawing two per turn - regardless of how many pacts each has - but how does a programmer code: any terms mutually acceptable?

Even in a face-to-face over the table game you essentially have the rule book saying: house rule it.


Section 9.5 Neutrality Pacts and 13.7.3 Mutual Peace are not optional rules, are they?
So let me see if I understand this;
Section 9.5 Neutrality Pacts only work for the existing USSR/Germany pact and the Other Major Powers section will not be implemented.
Section 13.7.3 Mutual Peace is not and will not be implemented.

As to program code for any peace terms mutually acceptable, I would think terms would be in "game terms" using the existing trade, neutrality border garrison and any other existing/new code of MWIF.

< Message edited by CL55AMG -- 4/21/2021 5:19:05 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 17
RE: Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 4/21/2021 5:02:48 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8107
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Sounds about right.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to CL55AMG)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.186