Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Historically it was the *Soviets* that violated the pact, no? So I think if really trying to do justice to history, probably a lot more things would have to be changed ideally.
Anyways it's a fun idea, but if it's going to be entertaining to watch, those things I mentioned have to be watched out for.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/898920/discussions/0/1644295067077071135/?ctp=2
The game needs variety,
i would like to see more game options such as Tech's, Free for all games, etc. having a Non Aggression Pact would be cool too.
I always felt this game didn't have enough territories. I guess that's why I made my own board game.
Let us mod it! We can make it different. My favorite MH version is a mod I made for it.
Creativity doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
1. They may be restricted by licensing agreement with another party.
2. Additional features cost money to implement.
You combine these two, and there's a lot of squeezing from both ends.
Imagine you're in a budget meeting. There's a license on the (figurative) table, and you're negotiating the licensing fee. Now imagine you propose features that go well beyond the original scope of the game. (Note I personally really don't consider chat functions and an editor to beyond the original scope, as fixing mistakes or having house rules that would require an editor to implement in a computer version require an editor, and of course chat is pretty fundamental to commuincation).
But anyways you say "let's go above and beyond" then you get a load of funny looks from both sides of the table. From the licensee, because what you're proposing may change the core identity of the license, potentially devaluing it. From the licensor because the draw of the product is the license name, and even if what you're talking about is demonstratively superior, they won't necessarily want to pay a load of money to implement these ideas if it isn't "necessary" - and by that, it usually means "unless it is absolutely demonstrated that it is absolutely in the financial interests to implement these extra features" which is - well.
Sometimes you get someone that really believes in something and puts their personal efforts in, and maybe even recruits others. But when it comes down to it, how many hours can you get yourself and others to put in without pay? Especially if they aren't getting a percentage of the profits because per legal agreement maybe certain profits go to the licensee.
I mean hey. Maybe it IS lack of creativity. But in my experience, you're going to have any number of reasonable explanations why certain features don't show up.
. . . which doesn't mean that one can't leave a review that honestly states one's opinion. After all, I'm only talking about "reasonable" in terms of how the licensee and licensor may view things. There is also a "reasonable" in terms of customer expectations, which may be a different animal.
But let's not bust their chops for not being creative eh?
Yes, The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed in 1941, and the Soviets violated that pact by invading Manchu after Germany surrendered in 1945.
-Russia and Japan were at war from 1904-1905.
-Japan won that war and the Treaty of Portsmouth was signed.
-During the 1930's, Japan invaded Manchu and started experiencing border conflicts with the Soviets and Mongols. The Japanese troops that had crossed into (buryatia) were eventually encircled and defeated.
-The Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed. This enabled Russia to use its Soviet Far East troops to fight Germany, and the Japanese were able to focus on conquering SE Asia and the Pacific.
-Each Nation was intent on breaking the pact when conditions became favorable.
-the Soviets broke the pact after Germany was defeated.
When 1942online was initially released i played a couple me vs me games using the Non Aggression Pact. i was "use to" playing with the NAP in the classic version and had never played the 1942 second edition before.
There are enough victory cities and the Axis can win a standard victory game without taking Moscow. They can hold their two capitals and control Rome, Paris, Lenningrad, plus Shanghai, Calcutta, Philippines, and Hawaii. That's 9 VC without Moscow.
it does requires play testing, the standard i experimented with was:
-The UK and USA can share each others territories.
-The UK and USA cannot enter any territories that are controlled by Russia, if they liberate an original Russian red territory they need to evacuate it on their next turn.
-The Allies can share the same seazones.
-Japan cannot enter territories that are controlled by Germany. if they liberate an original German gray territory they need to evacuate it on their next turn.
- Germany cannot enter territories that are controlled by Japan. if they liberate an original Japanese orange territory they need to evacuate it on their next turn.
-The Axis can share the same seazone
-The term "enter" includes combat movement and non combat movement for land and air units.
-i could not remember if the NAP rules allowed Russia to enter territories that were controlled by the UK and USA,i decided to restrict Russia from entering those territories.
The difficulty was determining when can the NAP be broken?
What happens when it is broken?
i went with the standard of:
-Japan can break the pact at any time by attacking Buryatia and Soviet Far East, these are the only Russian territories they can initially attack. Russia can retake Buryatia and Soviet Far East, without penalty.
-If Japan attacks Russia, Russia can attack Japan anywhere, but If Russia attacks Japan outside of Buryatia and Soviet Far East, Japan can attack Russia anywhere.
-When does Russia get to break the Pact? i really didn't know, so i set a round limit and after that if Russia started their turn in controll of Karelia, Caucasus, and Moscow they could break the NAP.
-When Russia breaks the NAP Japan can attack Russia anywhere.
-When Russia breaks the NAP, the UK and USA are still restricted from entering Russian controlled territories.
This was just an Experiment but i enjoyed it.
Revised had a Russian National Advantage for it. AA50 tried to provide some incentives for Japan to refocus away from Russia, with a redrawn map geometry for the Soviet Far East, and a new China dynamic. AA50 also had National Objectives (though the carrot there wasn't really big enough to steer the Axis play pattern away from the usual center crush.) Global 1940 attempted to include it as part of the base game with politics/Mongolia rules. The 1941 starter board has a simple optional rule for it, though again not the most impressive implementation since it basically makes the game unwinnable for Axis.
Every Soviet Japan NAP proposal I've seen, whether in the standard boxed games or as a House Rule proposal, takes one of two forms: Either its a hard rules prohibition (like it is in 1941) where Russia/Japan just can't do such and such until whatever condition has been met. Or its a carrot/stick approach (like is with the Revised Nation Advantage or the AA50 Nation Objectives or in G40) where the player is somehow penalized for breaking the pact, and the opponent then gets extra units or money.
Of the two kinds, I think the latter is more interesting, since it gives players more freedom to explore alternative type histories where maybe Japan and Russia remained at war. But the problem is usually that the incentives provided just aren't strong enough to overcome the overwhelming strategic advantages of the Axis center crush on Moscow.
In addition to the NAP there are also other ways that the issue could be addressed indirectly, probably the most obvious would be to change the rules around capital looting, since that is actually what drives the center crush strategy vs Moscow in all these games.
In the HR section of AAorg there are several threads with ideas on how a better NAP could be implemented, but most would require an editor.
For a simple rule by player agreement, I think the one that wmct276 proposed is workable. The way I tried to draft it a few years back was that German/Japanese units cannot end their turn in each other's starting territories. And Soviet/Western Allied units likewise cannot end their turn in each other's starting territories. The way we had it, this allows units to exit the territory at the start of the turn in the case of liberation, and if they can't, then the units in violation are simply removed from play, which is pretty effective.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/28846/house-rules-master-list/33
For that one with the NAP in effect, I like it where a cash bonus is awarded to the aggressor's opponent. But it needs to be pretty large to deter the NAP from being broken. I don't know what the correct amount should be. Maybe 20 ipcs or something pretty significant. I'm not sure how best to approach it when something like that can't be done. I guess you could just make it a hard prohibition. Where Japan and Russia just aren't allowed to ever break the NAP, by player agreement, or at least until a nation is destroyed or other condition is met?
Unfortunately, again because of the lack of an Editor, we don't have a way to remove or add units or cash in the Beamdog game, the way we can in the physical game or in tripleA. Until this game has an Editor, the kinds of things we can try are pretty limited. Though I'm still hoping they get with the program and deliver on that at some point.
Ps. Understanding that an editor or house rules like a Non Aggression Pact might seem like a pandora's box to some, (with players just endlessly riffing on things, not achieving consensus and having to go back to the Box, since they can't find enough players willing to adopt the same rules...) but I think this is where the digital developer with weight of the brand behind it could really help provide some standard popular options.
Lots of solid ideas have been floated over the years, but feedback from games played using them is harder to come by. There are probably a few pbf gamesaves that could be reviewed for tripleA using HRs like a soviet japan nap, things that could be combed over to see what kind of effects we're looking at on balance, but not enough interest to really solidify the idea over there. Most just play Global instead of 1942. Beamdog though has a better opportunity to reach players that are interested in 1942. It has popularized the Gencon game, just by making it available. So I think some limited options promoted in simple launch menus for other tweaks could probably take off in a similar way. Editor and gamesave export is still something I'd very much like to see just for basics, stuff that we need, but that's not incompatible with "official" or at least semi-official nods that suggest a particular edit to the set up or a rule, under a different scenario name. 1942 OOB + 1942 LHRT is cool, but we could also have a 1942 Beamdog variant if they wanted. And maybe that could even popularize something on the physical board that might get adopted more widely?
Sounds cool to me. What round would you think best?
It would be interesting to see under those conditions how the restrictions effect the usual KGF/KJF standard, since the co-locating restrictions and the NAP would basically force a dual theater war. I would play to try it out, if you want to catch a game. On discord my handle is black elk
What round would you think best?
[/quote]
i have two thoughts
1. Round 4? if Russia starts round 4, or any round after that, in control of Karelia, Caucasus and Moscow they can break the pact.
2. No Round limit, in any round that starts with Russia in control of Karelia, Caucasus and Moscow they can break the pact.
The NAP is suppose the be beneficial to Russia (among other things) so i find it doubtful that they would break the pact in the first round. If they lose Karelia to Germany in the first round, they would not meet the conditions to break the pact in the second round. The third round starting conditions are uncertain. In a standard game it can take 4 rounds before the USA/UK Fleets are ready to start the invasion of Europe. The math is kind of leading towards not needing a round limit.
i suppose i would choose #2, no round limit, for the first game and see how it plays out.
[[/quote]
German/Japanese units cannot end their turn in each other's starting territories. And Soviet/Western Allied units likewise cannot end their turn in each other's starting territories. The way we had it, this allows units to exit the territory at the start of the turn in the case of liberation
[/quote]
That is an interesting rule. It seems realistic that a nation would permit their ally to fly over their territory, or move through their territory, they just would not want standing armies in their homeland territories. This movement rule might play better on the current 1942 online game, since the game is not programmed to restrict these movements.
That rule also restricted combined forces in Staring Territories, so Russia, UK and USA would be able to combine their forces in a Starting Axis territory such as Poland? If we were to use that rule i would consider giving Japan the ability to break the pact under those conditions; any condition where Russia occupies the same Starting Axis territory as USA or UK. Likewise Russia could break the pact if the Axis had combined forces in a Starting Allies territory. i need to give this rule more thought.
i haven't been on Discord or played any online games yet, and the Weekend is Here.
Excellent!
Have you joined discord? https://discord.gg/kWQuh2
You can Direct Message other players. We can use it to establish a starting time and discuss any in-game questions or concerns.
I'll work on posting a Clarification of NAP Rules to this discussion board; before we game.
1. Japan and Russia cannot enter each other’s territory or attack each other.
a. Japan cannot enter a territory that is controlled or occupied by Germany
b. Germany cannot enter a territory that is controlled or occupied by Japan
c. Russia cannot enter a territory that is controlled/occupied by UK/USA
d. The UK/USA cannot enter a Russian controlled/occupied territory
e. UK and USA can co-occupy any territory that is not a Russian Starting territory, or a Russian Controlled territory.
f. The Axis can share sea zones.
g. The Allies can share sea zones
(The Term enter includes combat movement, and noncombat movement for Air and Land Units)
PARTIALLY BREAKING THE PACT –Border Wars
2. Japan can attack Buryatia and Soviet Far East at any time; limited to these 2 territories.
When that happens:
*Russia can retake Buryatia and Soviet Far East without breaking the NAP.
*Russia can also fully break the NAP at anytime.
3. Japan can attack Russian ships and not break the pact under these conditions.
*If the Russian ships are part of a UK/USA Fleet, or
*If the Russian ships are in Sea Zone 62 or 63, or
* If the Russian ships are being used for a naval blockade
in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
When that happens:
*Russia can fully break the NAP at anytime.
Example 1: if Russia has a ship in Sea Zones 35 and 36 to block an amphibious assault into India, Japan can attack the Ship and not break the pact. This standard is used throughout the pacific and Indian oceans. After Japan attacks a Russian ship, Russia can use it to justify a declaring war.
4. Russia can attack Japanese ships and not break the pact under these conditions
*If the Japanese have attacked Buryatia or SFE, Russia can attack Japanese ships in
seazone 62 or seazone 63 without breaking the NAP
FULLY BREAKING THE PACT -Declaration of War
5. If Japan starts a round in control of “all of its starting territories” plus Hawaii, Japan can fully break the NAP and attack Russia anywhere. Once the NAP is verbally declared to be fully broken, Russia can attack Japan anywhere.
*it needs to be declared (verbally or through invasion), because Japan could meet those
conditions and not intend to break the pact. A USA or Russia player might see that Japan
has met these conditions and wrongly assumed that they have broken the pact. It needs
to be declared.
*if Japan meets these conditions and doesn’t attack Russia or declare that they are
breaking the pact, and in the next round they no longer meet the conditions to break the
pact. They will not be able to break the pact until the conditions are reestablished.
* the same standards apply to Russia, with the exception that once Japan attacks Buryatia
or Soviet Far East, Russia can break the pact at anytime.
6. If Russia starts a round in control of Moscow, Karelia, and Caucasus they can fully break the NAP and attack Japan anywhere. Russia can use this rule even if Japan has not attacked Buryatia or the Soviet Far East. Once the NAP is declared to be fully broken, Japan can attack Russia anywhere.
*if Japan has already attacked Buryatia or Soviet Far East, Russia can fully break the
NAP and attack Japan anywhere at any time. Russia can do this even if they dont
control Moscow, Karelia, and Caucasus.
7. If Berlin falls, Japan can fully break the pact and declare war on Russia
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE NAP IS FULLY BROKEN
8. OPTION 1
When the NAP is Fully Broken, Movement restrictions still apply:
a. UK/USA cannot enter Russian controlled territories, Russia cannot enter territories controlled by UK/USA.
b. Japan cannot enter German controlled territories, Germany cannot enter territories controlled by Japan
c. Russia and Japan can attack each other at will.
LIBERATION
9. When a starting territory is liberated, the liberator must move out of the territory on their next turn.
a. Tanks can move 1 space to keep pace with Infantry/Artillery
b. If the liberated territory has an industrial complex, the liberated nation cannot place
new units in that territory, or non combat move into the territory, until the liberator
moves out of the territory; see rule 1a-1d above.
(UK/USA may be exempt from this circumstance see 1e above)
Example I: UK liberates Karelia and has 1 surviving infantry left in Karelia, Russia cannot
place new units in Karleia until the UK unit leaves the territory. Russia would also not be
able to move units into Karelia until UK leaves.UK must leave on their next turn.
(See rule 1c above: Russia cannot enter a territory that is controlled/occupied by
UK/USA).
Example II: The UK and USA have troops in Finland and Germany controls Karelia. On
UK’s turn they liberate Karelia. Karelia is now a Russian controlled territory with a couple
UK units in it. On Americas turn they cannot move units from Finland into Karleia, and they
also cannot blitz their tanks through Karelia into the Baltic States.
(See rule 1d above: The UK/USA cannot enter a Russian controlled territory)
c. If a liberating nation becomes land trapped, they can back track to get out of the territory.
Example I: Japan liberates territory for Germany by blitzing through Libya, Algeria, and
Morocco. Now Japan is trapped in Morocco. In order for Japan to move out of Morocco on
their next turn, they would need to move back through German controlled Libya and
Algeria. Under these circumstance Japan would be allow to do that.
10. If a Capital City falls, Washington, London, Berlin, Moscow, or Tokyo, the allies of the
fallen capital can move through any of that nation’s territory to liberate their capital. Once the Capital is liberated the liberator must move out of the territory on their next turn.
Note: Berlin is surrounded by the Allies with Russia to the East and UK/USA to the West. if Berlin falls to UK or USA, they can build units but the units cannot advance through Russia controlled territory and fight Japan. They would need to go around Russia; through Africa. (See rule 1d above: The UK/USA cannot enter a Russian controlled territory.)