AARE Proposed Bilateral Rus-*** Nonagression Treaty

[cousin_joe]

Looks like I have no choice but to come out with an Enhanced version 2.1 :) In addition to D-Day changes, the only other proposed change would be to make the Soviet-Japan Nonagression Treaty a bilateral one. Currently, if Japan attacks a red territory, Russia gets 4 free INF in that territory. With some believing Japan needs help on the mainland, I am wondering about Japan getting 4 free INF if Russia attacks an Orange territory?

6. Bilateral Nonagression Treaty as Standard
-The first time in the game that Japanese forces attack any Red territory (ie. original Russian territory) OR Russian forces attack any Orange territory (ie. original Japanese territory), the defender may place four free INF in that territory before resolving combat. If more than one territory is attacked that turn, the defender may decide which territory receives the INF. After combat is resolved, the Nonagression Treaty is considered void, and no side recieves further INF if attacked

[Vollick1979]

HaHa Enhanced v2.1 I knew it from the very beginning that 2.0 wasn't the final version. But Joe is the proposed Bilateral Nonagression Treaty as Standard the only ammendment you're considering (other than the d-day changes)?

[TomJag3]

I can see both sides of the picture and am undecided. I'm tending towards letting the Japanese get the infantry if attacked by Russia. This would persuade players toward a more realistic role in the Far East for both Japan and Russia. Of course, this frees up extra Japanese infantry to send through China or India.

Keeping it as it is allows the Japanese player to experience what a resource draining operation that fighting in China really was. As it is, too many people don't have any kind of understanding of the problems the Axis really faced. They have this silly illusion that Germany and Japan were on an equal footing with the rest of the combined world. Of course, that type of realism doesn't make a fun game.

[Stephen]

You could always give Japan fewer units than Russia (4:3, 5:4, whatever) . As long as there is some deterrence, I agree with the change. I have secretly always wanted this, but was afraid to voice my opinion, as I don't like to come out strongly or make substantially game-changing suggestions :)

[cousin_joe]

HaHa Enhanced v2.1 I knew it from the very beginning that 2.0 wasn't the final version. But Joe is the proposed Bilateral Nonagression Treaty as Standard the only ammendment you're considering (other than the d-day changes)?

I was really fighting it Vollick :) , and though we could do the D-Day changes as just a clarification, but it's a big enough change that it will require 2.1 status :(

I'm primarily looking at game balance with 2.1, and the prevailing notion is that the Axis have it a bit tough, so this, along with D-Day should help correct that.

As far as NAs, and Techs, all seem to be fairly balanced. The core game also plays very good and I'm not looking at any major changes there either. People can certainly make suggestions, but they'll have to make a pretty strong case to change things now :)

[DocD]

I'm mixed as Tom. I have not experienced the Orange crush, but enough folks say it is so....so maybe this will help.

Of course, my thinking is that Russia is using it troops to garrison India and China, and not attacking the orange spaces until things are out of hand for Japan.

If this is what is happening, orange spaces may not be enough joe. Where is Pagan, since this is his baby. :D

[Stephen]

On the topic of Russian expansion/aggression and defense of Asia, this is something that ought to be addressed too (and was, at one point IIRC).

Is it ok for Russia to attack Japan in China, or Persia or India, but not break the treaty? I think this is hoo-hee, but it seems like it's fine for most. I think that limiting Russia to defending China (Sinkiang and China) works best, as this retains some degree of historical consistency and works well for gameplay. I don't think Russia should be holding onto a treaty and beating Japan out of China. Just doesn't make sense. I know this is a relatively significant change, but perhaps Japan has such a tough time because this is what happens.

Or maybe some penalty, Russia loses 2 of its free inf everytime it attacks Japan anywhere outside of Orange before Japan attacks it. Just in some way, somehow, Russian-Japanese aggression should be restricted, given that Russia receives 4 inf the first time Japan attacks a red territory.

If this is Pagan's baby, then I'm definitely a godparent :)

[pagan]

BILATERAL: 4:4 easy and sufficient



I think that everyone will come to realize my main two problems with the enhanced game (even though I have been a lone voice):

1. JAPAN
2. JAPAN

[AxisRoll]

I think 4:2 would be a good start. maybe 4:4. It needs some testing.

[DocD]

I agree with Stephen. Seems like just saying orange spaces is hoo-hee. Why not include any Russian land/air forces attacking Japanese forces also.

Of course Japan should still be able to attack russian forces garrisoning China or Persia or India without breaking the treaty.

[pagan]

Isn't your argument interesting DocD..... I wonder where I read that before...?


Axis_Roll --> stop wussin' out, you know the only deterent is 4 INF, not 2 INF

[Stephen]

Isn't your argument interesting DocD..... I wonder where I read that before...?
I'm flattered that you remembered me Pagan! ;)

Axis_Roll --> stop wussin' out, you know the only deterent is 4 INF, not 2 INF
There are many deterrents, and the reason I suggest alternative deterrents is that I don't want the decision to give Japan free inf to hinge on having to give Japan the same number of inf that Russia would get. To me it's variable and as long as Japan gets something close to what Russia gets, I'm happy.

[DocD]

Isn't your argument interesting DocD..... I wonder where I read that before...?

The same place I did.... in some earlier post Stephen wrote. :D

Actually Pagan, I'm glad you have questioned many of CJ's rules. You (and many others!) are making this game better and better.

[cousin_joe]

Actually Pagan, I'm glad you have questioned many of CJ's rules. You (and many others!) are making this game better and better.

Hey, is this the part where Darth Vader turns on the Emperor and throws him over the railing?!? :confused:

How could you, DocD??? :eek: Say it ain't so!!! :eek:

[DY]

I'm assuming part of the reason for this change is to keep the bids as close to zero as possible.

[DocD]

Hey, is this the part where Darth Vader turns on the Emperor and throws him over the railing?!? :confused:

How could you, DocD??? :eek: Say it ain't so!!! :eek:
Yes Emperor Joe!! For I am Pagan Skywalker's father! :D

[DocD]

I'm assuming part of the reason for this change is to keep the bids as close to zero as possible.
If you are asking me, YES!

[pagan]

I think the goal is (should always be) to remove the bid.

With all the NAs that becomes difficult, however.

but it should be clearly evident that japan is weak against certain Allied NA combos.

The situation causes a problem as it locks-down a certain axis strategy as the only means of help against Japan getting owned. 1 strategy , all-the-time.

right now its bilateral non-agression (this is a good step with 4:4 equality)

next might be a free INF NA for Japan. to place on any orange territories (including islands). As a counter to the UK/USA ones.

[axis_roll]

Crush Japan is VERY effective in Enhanced 2.0

I think a 4:4 treaty might put Japan on equal footing. The best part about that is it helps the defender (who really needs it if 'double/triple teamed)

[AxisRoll]

The more I think about it, 4:4 is the way to go.

and a 1 inf a turn NA for Japan would be anther good option. Cuz 2 of the *** ones are good, but your pieces die, so it is not a good reusable long game plan.

[Stephen]

Just a thought, but what if the free inf NAs for UK & US were limited to non-IC territories?

[AxisRoll]

if usa has 1inf / turn available, Japan should have that too. its more about having other options to build troops in the front lines of battles. for usa, that has to be the best n/a, 1inf a turn on the front line. without a IC, it would take at least 5 or 6 turns to get troops in there.

[pagan]

I'm for removing that US INF-NA.

PLUS giving Japan an INF-NA.

HOWEVER Let's not get HASTY !!!


The thing about these INF-NAs are that once the balance is broken, its almost an exponential increase in your percentage chances to win when you iclude the IC builds, and these Must Be accounted for.

Japan suffers by trying to keep pace with pieces, then gets hit with multi-shots by the allies, then gets swamped by naval pressure by US.

Bilateral, we THINK will force a larger build up for multi-shots against japan ; the calculation is UK followed by Japan followed by USA, and then if possible to dwindle down Japanese forces with the +4 INF. then follwoed up again by UK before Japan's actions. (i guess you ahvde to play the strat to understand what I'm talking about)

Removing US INF-NA (which is an automatic NA in my opinion) means US has to do other stuff. Lowers the push on asia

Adding Japan INF-NA (which would become and automatic) means US/UK HAVE to build ICs to keep dominance in the area. (but without the ICs in this equation it gets more interesting with the INF-NA selections)

Colonial Garrison is UK's Automatic NA.

What I see as the problem is not the NAs, but the ICs.

I would like some opinions on this:
--NO new ICs can be built. (US/Japan has to produce and move its shipping)
--remove Uk Colonial Garrison
--UK Royal Navy allows for Naval Builds in (SZ??) Australia if DD is placed there.
--UK still has Commonwealth NA (stephen's idea about not on IC terr is a good idea)
--US still has INF-NA
--bilateral non-agression pact in effect 4:4

[Stephen]

I would like some opinions on this:
--NO new ICs can be built. (US/Japan has to produce and move its shipping)
--remove Uk Colonial Garrison
--UK Royal Navy allows for Naval Builds in (SZ??) Australia if DD is placed there.
--UK still has Commonwealth NA (stephen's idea about not on IC terr is a good idea)
--US still has INF-NA
--bilateral non-agression pact in effect 4:4

I think new ICs should be an option, however, AARe both reduced the price & made it possible for UK to get one for free.

So,

I think new ICs should be allowed.
I would also say to scrap UK Colonial Garrison (make UK buy an IC and spend less on other units). This also allows Germany to force UK to defend London and weakens the pressure on Japan.
I would say keep Commonwealth NA and Pacific NA and offer Japan either a free inf per round or even a free artillery per round NA.
Add the bilateral non-aggression pact (4:X)

Now I am also opposed to Russia attacking Japan and being allowed to keep the Non-aggression treaty alive. Up until now, I've held that, if Russia attacks Japan anywhere, they should forfeit their free inf.

Should the bilateral treaty become the standard, I'm unsure what should be done, since it's common for Russia to help defend the ICs in at least the first couple of rounds to keep them in allied hands. Is it too complicated if there is some penalty for attacking the other? Maybe the alloted inf are halved?
Whatever happens, I think Russia-Japan conflicts should be minimized outside Russian or Japanese territories, relieving some of the pressure Japan faces.

A non-aggression pact that ties Japan's hands behind its back is not helpful.
A non-aggression pact that really limits the extent to which Russia can interfere with Japanese expansion in Asia is VERY helpful.

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

i like the idea of not allowing the free inf from the n/as to be placed in an ic territory. this is a help for the axis. this also makes the n/as(which are the best n/as in the game) a little bit less atractive and makes for more decision when it comes to selecting an n/a, not an automatic commonwealth and pacific division pick every game.

adding a free inf n/a to japan just makes another automatic pick n/a which reduces choices.

bilateral non-agression treaty is a good help to axis, and makes the treaty more fair.

[Stephen]

Just to add to my suggestion:

If free inf NAs are retained (and I can see AWNIL's argument about automatic NAs being an issue) we could limit them to non IC territories OR make the free inf count in the production limit of the territory with an IC. In other words, with Pacific Divisions, if the inf is placed in Sinkiang for free, then only one additional unit can be built on a Sinkiang IC.

OR (and this a bit more radical) you could make it that the Pacific Divisions or Commonwealth NAs cannot be used in the same game. If either UK or US takes their free inf NA, the other can't take the other one.

Just to throw some ideas out there...

[DocD]

I'm totally against giving Japan a free inf NA. We have gone from trying to make things balanced for the Axis to just laying down anti-perfect strategies NAs, none of which I'm totally sold on. And besides, has anyone playtested any of these yet? Let's not start changing things which are at the moment just "perceived" to be broken.

Stephen you have a very good idea for limiting the inf-NAs.
Why shouldn't the free inf count against the production level? Seems to me it should, and since "everyone" thinks these are automatic, I say limit it.
(It wasn't long ago, many thought US Pac Div was useless, now it is auto? Go figure huh.)

But also I have an idea for for the 4:4 non Aggression treaty.
Japan should get its extra 4 inf if the USSR moves any troops into any other Allied territory currently owned or occupied by said Allied player. This is not only a big boost to the Japanese, but also gives historical bite to the Non-aggression treaty as well, for Russia was pretty busy protecting Russia and not garrisoning India or China.

I say lets try that or stephen's idea, before we begin "fixing" any more of the NAs.

[cousin_joe]

I'm totally against giving Japan a free inf NA. We have gone from trying to make things balanced for the Axis to just laying down anti-perfect strategies NAs, none of which I'm totally sold on. And besides, has anyone playtested any of these yet? Let's not start changing things which are at the moment just "perceived" to be broken.

I'm against it too. Axis NAs are all about Military Might, not Logistics (Economic Edge). Once you start getting into the trap of thinking both sides must be the same, by giving Japan free INF because the Allies have free INF, you start to ruin the game. Enhanced is all about the Axis Military Might going for the quick victory before the Allied Economic Edge wins the day. This is a more realistic victory scenario for the Axis rather than the equalization of income to win a war of attrition as what happens in AH/LHTR which obviously would never happen.

Sure the Allies get free INF, but instead of just saying Japan NEEDS free INF too, think of how Japan can equalize this advantage. I can name a couple...

Strafes with Banzais and Jet Power
Bombardment with Yamato BBs and Combined Arms DDs

I'm not out for major changes as the game is pretty much balanced. The Bilateral Nonagression and D-Day changes are going to be a HUGE help to the Axis already. Germany gets a LOT more breathing room and opportunity to be even more agressive with Russia. Japan is MUCH more likely to keep Russia out of it's hair in Manchuria, and will be fighting 2 Allies instead of 3, all of which whom are also dealing with Germany.

As far as Colonial Garrison, it needs the free INF to work, otherwise the new IC is vulnerable. And one of the major themes in Enhanced is a more global game, so I'm prefectly fine with Colonial Garrison being picked often. It is definitely a 1st round NA if it is picked, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's better than the others. Besides, I've seen and heard of the free IC being used all over the place (ECan, Ind, Aus, SAfr) which incorporates a lot of variety in and of itself. I don't see this one changing either.

[pagan]

Let's ignore adding any INF-NAs

1. No new ICs allowed

--this makes a large difference in asia.

--with CollonialGarrison (excluded from no_ICs), the Commonwealth should not be able to be placed. (not the terr-limit, NOT be placed at all on an IC!)

--If US selects PAcific-Divisions (which is STRONG with an IC build), and without the ability to purchase any new ICs this causes alot of different NA selections (the only automatic NA really becomes CG _or_ commonwealth by UK).

--defense of asia ends up being: UK india, US pacific, Non-agression pact (probably in this order with corresponding levels of rounds _ much as germany's push can be calculated from/to W.Russia)

--Japan is not going to Steam-Roll anything here. They don't have the money. Anyone playing the axis knows that the only benefit here is that its tough to remove Japan from the mainland in rounds, japan will not easily be knocked off. With some extended cash for Japan (which should be put into a 'costly' navy) US can be at least fought in the pacific. Asia becomes the most intersting part of the war depending upon USSR protection of singkiang, possible us pac-div NA, US money spent on pacific fleet, Japan money spent on units & tranys as opposed to att-naval units, ...a Real strategic struggle...

--If US has to actually FIGHT japan with more forces, this will 'in the least' mean that they aren't sending groups of 6+ INF into africa/norway ; more like small numbers which can still take africa back from germany and/or support russia and/or prep for d-day.

--Its all about a bit of time extension and equal footing.

[Stephen]

As far as Colonial Garrison, it needs the free INF to work, otherwise the new IC is vulnerable. And one of the major themes in Enhanced is a more global game, so I'm prefectly fine with Colonial Garrison being picked often. It is definitely a 1st round NA if it is picked, but I wouldn't necessarily say it's better than the others. Besides, I've seen and heard of the free IC being used all over the place (ECan, Ind, Aus, SAfr) which incorporates a lot of variety in and of itself. I don't see this one changing either.
I'm not suggesting that Colonial Garrison be deprived of the inf that accompanies it. What I am suggesting is that, in subsequent rounds, UK not be able to place, say, 3 units in India (IC) PLUS a commonwealth inf there too. This is very hard for Japan, and I think the case can be made that the commonwealth inf should count against the number of units you can place on a territory with an IC.

Example: UK2, IC already in India (purchased or CG), and UK takes Commonwealth.

UK2: Uk can place in India either:
1) CW free inf + 2 additional units, or
2) 3 units (and now, CW inf must be placed somewhere OTHER than India, since India has already produced its maximum number of units)

This would relieve some of the pressure of Japan, who would be facing 5 units maximum coming out of the 2 allied ICs, rather than 7. If US can hold China, the inf can be placed there, and UK could still develop in Aus or Egy or SA.

Anyways, this is just to clarify my early suggestion.

[pagan]

Japan cannot deal with 5+ UK-US units on asia per round while dealing with the pacific. (don't forget USSR defense units)

If it didn't have to do anything else then OK, but this is 'enhanced'. So what do you do as the axis..? germany goes for combined navy on G1-G2 with sub pruchases

This is the ONLY thing that axis could do to alleviate pacific pressure since US would have to spend more in atlantic to help UK. This would become the only viable axis strategy. Lot's of 'options' ! (sarcasm)

[DocD]

The only problem I see in Asia is Russia garrisoning Allied countries. This is what hurts Japan more than anything. Right now, Japan has the military units to hold off the Allies in the Pacific for at least 3 rounds. That is a hellava lot of time to get things going one way or the other.

Pagan I agree with Non-aggression needing to be bilateral, but that's all you have opened my eyes to. (No small feat I might add.)
Every country has to choose Army or Navy. Every country has to fight a nation here and a nation there. Why should Japan be any different? I say limit Russia as much as possible in Asia and let the rest go for what goes.

9 ipcs per turn to load up India? That's a third of UKs money which then has to fight for Africa, send something to Russia, and work on Uboats in the Atlantic. I don't see that as being a successful strategy for them (without Russian help!).

[Defiance]

I think all of you guys should look into a different direction with these problems..... It's quite clear to me that the game balance on the Asian mainland IS a problem in both AAR and AARe.

I agree with Pagan (and Axis_roll) as what he said earlier, that Japan can be pushed off the mainland if the allies go for that in Enhanced. If one battle goes ill for Japan, Japan can do nothing about that IMO.

And for all this talk about more and more rules for this asian theatre, reflected in IC placements & costs / non-agression pact / NA's for free inf a turn / tokyo express and more of this, it only get's more complicated to create game balance....

Why are there problems with this theatre? I think I know it.... The way the map has been made, that is, in my eyes the problem here. Think back to the second edition, where the IC locations of Karelia and Germany had only one territory in between them: Eastern Europe. This caused the game to become a stackfest. There were too little territories between the IC's. I think the same is going on in Asia now in AAR(e). There are too little territories that represent the fighting that was going on there, If an area is taken by any sides has immediate consequenses.

Take a look at this link and imagine how many deaths there actually were in Asia in comparision to the deaths in Russia!!!!! World war II death tolls (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm)

For Enhanced if you guys remember, I've always opposed the Non-aggr pact, as I believe increasing the siberian front distance with a few more territories, no extra ICP value, changes this. This will also put and end to the race to moscow as the most dominant strategy, while not overkilling it at the same time! Results in MORE strategic options as to the same level created by the non-agression pact. IMO, this game should reflect the military aspects of WWII, and NOT the political aspects, including the non-aggr pact.

I think you guys should not debate over rules in solving these issues, but take a good look at the map & add a few asian territories, keep the same IPC totals in the game but reedistribute them, slightly adjust the board setup & keep the NA's and IC-rules as they stand, but drop the non-aggr pact.

so that's just my 2 cents on this matter. Why not have an altered map for enhanced hmmm? Cousin Joe???

To have an example, take a look at this below here. I made it quickly & it looks ugly, but the content is what matters here.

http://www.d66-voorschoten.nl/images/enhanced3.jpg

[AllWeNeedIsLove.]

hey defiance, i think you are correct that most of the problems stem from the map. however since we all have the mapboard at home there is nothing we can do about it now.

one of the great things about enhanced variant is the limited changes to the game. no map changes, no set up changes, and game mechanics are the same.

but if someone was to create another game from scratch a map change would correct most of the problems with a&a.

[Defiance]

Since Enhanced is played heavily on that specific program called Mapview, changes could be made, could they? I do get your point about a lot of people who are at home and don't have resources on getting a different map. So it's probably not going to work. Making a new map would almost make it a new game..... But maybe Cousin Joe could...... hint :D :eek:

If someone is is capable of producing & selling a good gameboard for Enhanced & run this, people could buy a new board?? :confused: :eek: Oh well....

[pagan]

I think the simplest thing is to not allow ICs to be purchased.

India IC is ok as long as it is NOT combined with INf-NAs + Singkiang IC ; At this point the battle becomes unfightable by Japan without Desparate Luck at just holding a single territory on asia.

Allies can hold the JTDTM to a stand-still with India-IC + Minor russian support + 1 of the 2 INF-NAs by the allies+non agression pact.

The difference here for "enhanced' is that US goes after Japan in the PAcific. If US does not do that, then Japan gets to begin a (naval) JTDTM. If US goes naval at Japan and its Islands, or even a Polar-Express, then the JTDTM is reduced to HOLD-ON-AS-LONG-AS POSSIBLE for Japan. You guys playing this KNOW this stuff already.

If there are not double ICs in asia for the Allies, then this makes Asia a hold out for Japan compared to total removal of Japan

[DocD]

I like my ideal better. Make Russia pay for garrisoning Allied territory.
Let US and UK build their ICs. They still have to pay for their troops.
Besides, limiting IC purchases is too drastic in my book. Why not just increase the price of them back to 15 or 16?

CJ....you must be coming up with something....you have been quiet about this of late.

[pagan]

Cousin Joe --> just look at our game.
--What if you had double-ICs on asia?
--How would long would it take your allied forces to push Japan off?
--What about my naval builds? I have built almost the strongest Naval force possible with Japan and I can't do anything. What if I was building units on Asia and not buying naval ships? How long would my Islands last?

My whole goal with our game on Japan was to see how strong I could get with Japanese Navy to 'see what happens'. I see what is happening. Japan could easily have been kicked off of Asia, and my Navy power position relied on my attacking the UK/US combined fleet with bad odds to stop an IC placement on borneo???

Ohh.. you suck Pagan, you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what you are doing with your Japan navy. You should have taken Kaitans... You should have been more agressive on asia ... you should have been more agressive with your fleet and fighters... You shuold have used germany differently... You could be killing russia even now...

Yeah right...

[cousin_joe]

Cousin Joe --> just look at our game.
--What if you had double-ICs on asia?
--How would long would it take your allied forces to push Japan off?
--What about my naval builds? I have built almost the strongest Naval force possible with Japan and I can't do anything. What if I was building units on Asia and not buying naval ships? How long would my Islands last?

My whole goal with our game on Japan was to see how strong I could get with Japanese Navy to 'see what happens'. I see what is happening. Japan could easily have been kicked off of Asia, and my Navy power position relied on my attacking the UK/US combined fleet with bad odds to stop an IC placement on borneo???

Ohh.. you suck Pagan, you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what you are doing with your Japan navy. You should have taken Kaitans... You should have been more agressive on asia ... you should have been more agressive with your fleet and fighters... You shuold have used germany differently... You could be killing russia even now...

Yeah right...

--What if you had double-ICs on asia?

If I had double ICs on Asia, I would have an even weaker Pacific Fleet and would be exerting much less pressure on WEur. Without the need to reinforce Weur as heavily, you could be in Karelia already and pushing the Russians back. :) Your *** Navy would have killed my Pacific Fleet a turn or two ago.

It's all about trade-offs. Money doesn't grow on trees so if the US is going to buy an IC(12IPC), plus troops to support it(min 6IPC/TURN), not to mention help from Russia as well, that money's gotta come from somewhere.

--How would long would it take your allied forces to push Japan off?

Again, 2 ICs means less UK Pacific Navy and less US Pacific Navy. Japan would be free to support their Army then and in this case, the answer to your question is that it is not possible.

--What about my naval builds? I have built almost the strongest Naval force possible with Japan and I can't do anything. What if I was building units on Asia and not buying naval ships? How long would my Islands last?

You have the numbers in your favor in terms of an attack (You actually had them last round too). Your BBs should also make quick work of India and Australia.

The big problem is that everyone is used to Japan being a Powerhouse. Well, now Germany is the Powerhouse and Japan becomes the lesser Axis power (as it should be). In Enhanced, Japan actually has to make some tough decisions, and no longer gets it's 50+ IPC with total dominion over China, India, Eastern Russia, and the Pacific. Once you've accepted this, the game makes a lot more sense... and always bear in mind... if the Allies pay too much attention to Japan, then who's minding the store over on the Eastern Front???

[axis_roll]

CJ, I have seen Japan controlled (but not kicked fully off asia) with just one Allied IC (India), US Pac divisions, and much russian support. Sure the US navy did occupy the *** navy for a few early rounds, but through some bad dice rolls, the UK air force AND US navy were lost but yet Japan is still holed up in Kwangtung.

Let's see how the bilateral treaty helps Japan first....

I agree with CJ regarding Japans role as the weaker Axis partner (historical). But we're supposed to be playing with the 'what if' scenario that the Axis can actually win the war...

I think uping the Islands is the next thing we might experiment with... it increases some *** income but could actually hurt Japan if the allies go for a Pacific strategy. I know Pagan has been experimenting with some of this concept.

[DocD]

CJ, I have seen Japan controlled (but not kicked fully off asia) with just one Allied IC (India), US Pac divisions, and much russian support. Sure the US navy did occupy the *** navy for a few early rounds, but through some bad dice rolls, the UK air force AND US navy were lost but yet Japan is still holed up in Kwangtung.

Let's see how the bilateral treaty helps Japan first....

I agree with Roll and Pagan on this part. The problem is RUSSIA.

[cousin_joe]

With the bilateral agreement in place, Russia will be much less of a problem.

With the D-Day changes, the Allies will need to step up their Atlantic campaign, as Germany can potentially become an even bigger threat. This means less opportunity to spend resources in the Pacific and SE Asia.

This should be sufficient for now. By the way axis_roll, how or what was Germany doing in the game you speak of.

[DocD]

How soon to print up 2.1 CJ. I haven't got my copy yet. :D

[Clausewitz]

A quick reminder of my simple but effective non-aggro rules:

1. Japan may not attack USSR controlled territories until an Allied capital has fallen to the Axis,
2. USSR may not attack a Japanese controlled territory until an Axis capital has fallen to the Allies.

[pagan]

NOT useful, for AARe

NOT effective, for AARe

[pagan]

Here are the changes I proposed for the map:
{however I think we should all see how the current changes by CJ affect the game.}
{That means I have to start over again on my game opinions, and stop harping about Japan}

Philipines +1
Wake Iss. +1
Solomons +1
Carolines +1

Japan income at 34 (~30)

[DocD]

Nice Map Pagan, but yes...let's see what changes CJ has wrought.

[axis_roll]

A crazy idea that might deter the Russian support of KJF would be to modify their defensive roll. Subtract 1 from every Russian pieces defensive capabilities when they are in Asian non-original Russian territories.

[pagan]

When we look at the history of Japan + Russia invlovment in asia for ww2 what do we get?

When we look at the AARe game, how much russia is too much, and how much is too little?

--lowering defensive values by 1 for russian units in non-red territories.....Seems drastic but I see why you are saying this. A single IC build + the 2 INF-NAs with russia defenders of a few INF+ARM means Japan is stuck on asia coast most likely.

--What I want to see is what can the axis do when there are 2 IC placements + the 2 INF-NAs. My guess is that its a slower demise for Japan from getting kicked.

--I would love to wage out the averages, but its very difficult to see.

US spending average of 21 IPCs per round on Pacific (including IC of 8IPCs)
UK spending average of 9 IPCs per round on India
USSR spending average of 3IPCs per round on Asia
US/UK +6IPCs with INF-NAs on Asia

US then uses 21IPcs on Germany
UK then uses 21IPCs on germany (minus africa shoul be around 15)
USSR then uses its 24+ on germany (usually swapping IPCs but tht can be ignored here)


Japan spending is an average of Naval pieces and Units on Asia (Ic or no IC)
probably broken up in this manner:
Navy = 18
Land = 12 (i don't know how let's just say they do...)

It just doesn't look good. With a stronger german push at russia, how do you calculate the effect on Asia, or vice-versa...?

So what's the swing here:

Japan asia of 12 to 18 vs 24 to 26
...removal of US_IC makes it 12-18 vs 16-18
...Uk or US not selecting INF-NA makes it 12-18 vs 9-15
...the stephen idea of placement with the NAs+ICs means : 12-18 vs 15-17 (+3 US spending to either pacific or atlantic AND +3 UK for atlantic)
...USSR defense is usually more than 3IPcs per round and really takes asia out of possibility _(which is where germany goes ARM+1/2INF with ~navy + ~afrika)
Japan islands of 12 to 18 vs 15 to 21 US production {a wash of *** vs uk/us starting navy?}
Germ of 38 to 44 vs 60+ [naval ships must be bought first for allies]

So is that it? Is that the key for the axis? germany's first 3 rounds of INF_INf+ARM_ARM purchases pushing at russia until the allies have the shipping...?

Non-included japan asia modifier would be the airforce of 6 ftr + 1 bmr, How much could be used on asia vs how much needed to be used on ACs...the build-up of land forces on asia necessary to utilize airforce is what puts the airforce almost out of commission as the allies build in faster numbers.

Well, anyway this is for everyone to just look at for their own ideas....It's late and I'm tired....

[cousin_joe]

When we look at the history of Japan + Russia invlovment in asia for ww2 what do we get?

When we look at the AARe game, how much russia is too much, and how much is too little?

--lowering defensive values by 1 for russian units in non-red territories.....Seems drastic but I see why you are saying this. A single IC build + the 2 INF-NAs with russia defenders of a few INF+ARM means Japan is stuck on asia coast most likely.

--What I want to see is what can the axis do when there are 2 IC placements + the 2 INF-NAs. My guess is that its a slower demise for Japan from getting kicked.

--I would love to wage out the averages, but its very difficult to see.

US spending average of 21 IPCs per round on Pacific (including IC of 8IPCs)
UK spending average of 9 IPCs per round on India
USSR spending average of 3IPCs per round on Asia
US/UK +6IPCs with INF-NAs on Asia

US then uses 21IPcs on Germany
UK then uses 21IPCs on germany (minus africa shoul be around 15)
USSR then uses its 24+ on germany (usually swapping IPCs but tht can be ignored here)


Japan spending is an average of Naval pieces and Units on Asia (Ic or no IC)
probably broken up in this manner:
Navy = 18
Land = 12 (i don't know how let's just say they do...)

It just doesn't look good. With a stronger german push at russia, how do you calculate the effect on Asia, or vice-versa...?

So what's the swing here:

Japan asia of 12 to 18 vs 24 to 26
...removal of US_IC makes it 12-18 vs 16-18
...Uk or US not selecting INF-NA makes it 12-18 vs 9-15
...the stephen idea of placement with the NAs+ICs means : 12-18 vs 15-17 (+3 US spending to either pacific or atlantic AND +3 UK for atlantic)
...USSR defense is usually more than 3IPcs per round and really takes asia out of possibility _(which is where germany goes ARM+1/2INF with ~navy + ~afrika)
Japan islands of 12 to 18 vs 15 to 21 US production {a wash of *** vs uk/us starting navy?}
Germ of 38 to 44 vs 60+ [naval ships must be bought first for allies]

So is that it? Is that the key for the axis? germany's first 3 rounds of INF_INf+ARM_ARM purchases pushing at russia until the allies have the shipping...?

Non-included japan asia modifier would be the airforce of 6 ftr + 1 bmr, How much could be used on asia vs how much needed to be used on ACs...the build-up of land forces on asia necessary to utilize airforce is what puts the airforce almost out of commission as the allies build in faster numbers.

Well, anyway this is for everyone to just look at for their own ideas....It's late and I'm tired....

Pagan,

Your calculations don't take into account Japan's HUGE starting Navy. US contributing only 21IPC/TURN to a Pacific Navy is at best a token effort. Japan can simply ignore this, or get some Tokyo Express DDs for 2IPCs more than the TRNs once the US fleet gets big enough to be a threat.

Also, the new D-Day rules allow Germany to be a lot more agressive. I don't see 21IPC/TURN being that much of a factor if Germany goes Heavy SUB, Heavy Africa, or Heavy Russia. What I often see in Enhanced, is that the US must make a choice between the Atlantic and the Pacific... going halfway in both is the least effective as you will not make much of an impact in either front. You must pick one of the two to hopefully win that front, though losing the other. Just hope that when you do give up the VCs in the other front, you can hopefully keep the Axis from getting the full 10.

[Lt M Cotten]

I like my ideal better. Make Russia pay for garrisoning Allied territory.
Let US and UK build their ICs. They still have to pay for their troops.
Besides, limiting IC purchases is too drastic in my book. Why not just increase the price of them back to 15 or 16?

I realize that I have no experience in playing AARe, but I do support it and think it is a good improvement. Can you imagine the power of CJ's rules combined with Derpanz's map! Now that IS the power of the Dark Side!

I agree with DocD on the Russians. To the best of my knowledge they did not garrison India, and although they may have aided the ChiCom they didn't send tons of troops ( I don't think). I say if Russian forces engage in combat with Japanese forces anywhere then the deal is off, but Russian forces should also be required to stay in the Motherland. Since we ignore the ChiComs in this game, then any aid the Russia may have sent must also be ignored as the Chinese are controlled by the US player, and the US supported the KMT and Peanut. :D

[AxisRoll]

Any thought of adding a *** N/A of 1Inf / Turn on mainland and or islands?

[DocD]

Not at all Roll.

[Stephen]

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to count the free infs in terms of a territory's allowed production.

Adding an extra inf to a 3-IPC territory with an IC that already produces 3 units is a military benefit. But, if that free inf is subtracted from what the territory can produce overall, it is more of an economic benefit, allowing the normal cost of the inf to be moved elsewhere, while maintaining the cap on territory production. As I understand from CJ, Axis NAs are designed to be militaristic, whereas allied ones are to be economic. Granted, placing the free inf at a non-IC site is militarily beneficial, but not as beneficial as increasing the production power of a site with an IC.

You're good with the wording CJ, so I'll let you make it sound good, but essentially at least one part of the rule should sound like this:

No territory can ever produce more than its IPC level in units per turn. If this free inf is placed on a territory with an IC, it counts as one of the IC placements. For instance, if the inf is placed in India and India has a complex, the IC could produce a maximum of two more units that turn.

Instituting this rule may alleviate the necessity of limiting allied NAs. If the maximum production with 2 Asian ICs is returned to 5 (assuming India/sinkiang ICs), then the free infs merely give an economic advantage to the allies. Thoughts?

[Lt M Cotten]

Any thought of adding a *** N/A of 1Inf / Turn on mainland and or islands?

I do not think that is a good idea. Giving out free inf to a naval based power seems off, of course it would be better than tanks! :D .

[DocD]

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to count the free infs in terms of a territory's allowed production.

Adding an extra inf to a 3-IPC territory with an IC that already produces 3 units is a military benefit. But, if that free inf is subtracted from what the territory can produce overall, it is more of an economic benefit, allowing the normal cost of the inf to be moved elsewhere, while maintaining the cap on territory production. As I understand from CJ, Axis NAs are designed to be militaristic, whereas allied ones are to be economic. Granted, placing the free inf at a non-IC site is militarily beneficial, but not as beneficial as increasing the production power of a site with an IC.

You're good with the wording CJ, so I'll let you make it sound good, but essentially at least one part of the rule should sound like this:

No territory can ever produce more than its IPC level in units per turn. If this free inf is placed on a territory with an IC, it counts as one of the IC placements. For instance, if the inf is placed in India and India has a complex, the IC could produce a maximum of two more units that turn.

Instituting this rule may alleviate the necessity of limiting allied NAs. If the maximum production with 2 Asian ICs is returned to 5 (assuming India/sinkiang ICs), then the free infs merely give an economic advantage to the allies. Thoughts?
Very well put stephen and I couldn't agree more.

The military advantage being given by the inf-only NAs is what stagnates Japan. This of course allows the Allies more time to bring their economic advantage into play.

If the NAs were worded (as Stephen suggests), then the Allies merely get a boost in their economic advantage. This would not hamper the Axis as much IMO.

What say ye, CJ?

[newaxis]

I agree with DocD & Stephen

[Beast1313131]

If Russia gets the four extra infantry, then so should Japan. And i agree with Newaxis!

[newaxis]

First of all, I'm glad to see new ideas. That being said, I scrolled up to make sure I was in the right thread. The title is "AARE Proposed Bilateral Rus-*** Nonagression Treaty", so let's try to stay on topic. There are other threads for 2.1 ideas. Please post there Stephen. I like you idea about limiting the production so that Pacific Divisions and Commonwealth free inf can't be placed to exceed the cap.

With that being said, I have yet to hear a good counter to having the 4 free infantry not appear in the territory being attacked. I'm guessing the unstated thought might be "Yes, newaxis, your idea is very logical. However it is far better for game mechanics to be penalized for your sneak attack in the territory you are sneak attacking (when the treaty is broken) than to get the 4 extra infantry on your capital when your angry citizens enlist." Admitting this is the first step towards effecting positive change.

[DocD]

Well newaxis, I will comment on this if you like...

I'm against your idea.

Reasoning being that the treaty has alittle "more bite" if it is kept the way it is written.
Placing troops in the home capital doesn't do very much for the Japanese who now have to transport them to the Asian mainland. Even placing the 4 inf in an adjacent territory drains the treaty of its real intent. Now the inf have to attack back into the territory to be of use and at the weaker 'attack roll' for inf. That doesn't help the owner of said territory very much if you ask me.

No, placing the inf into the territory being attack places all of the burden of attack on the attacker. The attacker now has to come with more forces just to even things out. This is what makes the non-aggression treaty work, otherwise players would just send in a token force, wait for the four inf from some where to show up, then pounce on them. Not my cup of tea.

Also, remember the 'abstraction' of AandA. These 4 inf represent (to me anyway), more than just four inf. They represent the logistical, political, and manpower difficulties incurred when a major power invades the territory of a country it signed a non-aggression pact with. Not withstanding babarossa, such invasions are seldom cakewalks.