What if the Soviets are ALWAYS active?

[el cid again]

Don't misunderstand, I don't mean "the Soviets are in the war as bellegerants."
I mean what if the Soviets are set to active, so the Allied player can move their units,
upgrade them, build forts, etc?

EITHER side COULD attack the other - because they really could - but it would be like real life - don't do that if you don't want a war! It would go a long way to recreating the tension on that front. You could have half measures too - like recon flights. Some players might tolerate them - others might not. And both sides would have to worry about an attack all the time - don't transfer too much away from the front! The border is awful - you can never defend it all properly.

This way the Russians are not managed by the AI and the game cannot be messed up if the Allied player does not invade the right hex first.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Don't misunderstand, I don't mean "the Soviets are in the war as bellegerants."
I mean what if the Soviets are set to active, so the Allied player can move their units,
upgrade them, build forts, etc?

EITHER side COULD attack the other - because they really could - but it would be like real life - don't do that if you don't want a war! It would go a long way to recreating the tension on that front. You could have half measures too - like recon flights. Some players might tolerate them - others might not. And both sides would have to worry about an attack all the time - don't transfer too much away from the front! The border is awful - you can never defend it all properly.

This way the Russians are not managed by the AI and the game cannot be messed up if the Allied player does not invade the right hex first.

This is why most players use the "Activate Russia" on Turn one House Rule. Ever since I was invaded by my French PBEM opponent 6 months ago I have suggested this very thing. When we release the next CHS version it will be suggested in the Documentation that players follow suit.

Any game where an invasion of Russia is considered the opponents should agree to activate Russia on turn one. Then rather than use the point system to keep Kwantung army units in Manchuria you could use the real threat of Soviet invasion. Additionally it allows the Allied player to monitor the front and displace his troops as he sees fit based on Reconaissance. Prior to activation the Allied units in Russia are immobile. An unfair Japanese advantage.

[CobraAus]

I alway play with Soviets active and have full use of units

Cobra Aus

[witpqs]

I agree with the proposal and the house rule as outlined.

[treespider]

And what happens late in 1942 or 1943 or 1944?

[treespider]

Are US units interned if they fly into an active Russia?

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Are US units interned if they fly into an active Russia?

I have two units that did that. A pair of PBY units from Manila, one US one Dutch. Though the mechanics to "Intern" them don't exist in the game the effect of their presence is the same, in so far as they operate normally, and the aircraft would certainly have been interned and used by the russian with russain crews. Unfortunately my Soviet PBYs have American last names on the pilot list. This is no stretch of imagination as the Soviets license built the PBY under the designation PBN as early as 1940, and I think earlier. The fact that there is no naval Search in the USSR as part of the original OOB is an oversight to begin with...

As an experienced Soviet player I can say that in small instances such as the one above, the redeployment of US or commonwealth units in very small numbers is fine. The house rule in questio0n should be expanded to state:

"Combat capable units with the range to fly themselves to the USSR are prohibited. This applies specifically to Heavy bombers as most medium bombers or smaller aircraft don't have the range. Lend lease routes through Alaska are not to be used either to put the Home islands in range of LBA"

Furthermore it is my opinion that should aircraft such as the PBY "Escape" the Philipines in the manner described above they should be stood down until such time as war is joined between the USSR and Japan as it lends too significant/unrealistic an advantage to the Allies to have PBY's monitoring the movements of the Combined fleet so close to home.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

ORIGINAL: treespider

Are US units interned if they fly into an active Russia?

I have two units that did that. A pair of PBY units from Manila, one US one Dutch. Though the mechanics to "Intern" them don't exist in the game the effect of their presence is the same, in so far as they operate normally. Unfortunately with American last names on the pilot list. This is no stretch of imagination as the Soviets license built the PBY under the designation PBN as early as 1940, and I think earlier. The fact that there is no naval Search in the USSR as part of the original OOB is an oversight to begin with...

As an experienced Soviet player I can say that in small instances such as the one above, the redeployment of US or commonwealth units in very small numbers is fine. The house rule in questio0n should be expanded to state:

"Combat capable units with the range to fly themselves to the USSR are prohibited. This applies specifically to Heavy bombers as most medium bombers or smaller aircraft don't have the range. Lend lease routes through Alaska are not to be used either to put the Home islands in range of LBA"

Furthermore it is my opinion that should aircraft such as the PBY "Escape" the Philipines in the manner described above they should be stood down until such time as war is joined between the USSR and Japan as it lends too significant/unrealistic an advantage to the Allies to have PBY's monitoring the movements of the Combined fleet so close to home.

Why not just make the whole front persona non grata? By starting the Soviets activated we're introducing a whole set of house rules that need to be implemented.

I haven't played far enough to know, but what are the effects of an all out Soviet Offensive in 1943? Is there anything that would prevent it, could it be succesful?

[moses]

Any Allied player with the option to attack with Russia should do so on turn one. The Russian forces are very strong and if Japan does not bring in added forces Russia is likely to win and at worse will get Japan into a long and costly struggle from the start.

The only way Japan wins is to bring in a bunch of extra forces and launch a surprise attack whild Russia is not allowed to move..

So if you want to allow Russia free movement thats fine. But you cannot allow Russia the option to attack at any time. You might as well surrender.

If you do not allow Russia to attack when it wants then you're back to more house rules to force Japan to keep troops in Manchuria.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: moses

Any Allied player with the option to attack with Russia should do so on turn one. The Russian forces are very strong and if Japan does not bring in added forces Russia is likely to win and at worse will get Japan into a long and costly struggle from the start.

The only way Japan wins is to bring in a bunch of extra forces and launch a surprise attack whild Russia is not allowed to move..

So if you want to allow Russia free movement thats fine. But you cannot allow Russia the option to attack at any time. You might as well surrender.

If you do not allow Russia to attack when it wants then you're back to more house rules to force Japan to keep troops in Manchuria.

The point of the House rule is not to get the russians to attack. That initiative should always be up to the Japanese player. The point of the house rule is to give the Allied player the ability to move behind his own lines and prepare as he sees fit for the POTENTIAL of a Japanese invasion.

My suggestion that a Russian Player be able to attack is only to mitigate the Japanese player's ability to effectively strip Manchuria of garrison units to feed another front unfairly. There would have to be some sort of agreement between players so as to allow the Soviets to monitor garrison unit levels in Manchuria. Perhaps League of Nation inspectors?

In essence the Soviet activation rules would still need to be maintained in spirit through cooperation between players...

[treespider]

The problem is as I see it the Japanese debated two courses of action before the War...

A. Attack the Soviet Union.

B. Occupy the SRA and defacto attack the US.

Had the Japanese not attacked the SRA or Britain or any US positions and invaded the Soviet Union would they have done so in December of 1941? Would the US or Britain have involved themselves in that conflict and if so when?

Unfortunately the game we are given is not designed to address those issues. The game we have addresses option B.

[el cid again]

This is no stretch of imagination as the Soviets license built the PBY under the designation PBN as early as 1940, and I think earlier

There is some confusion here. The Russians DID licence build the PBY - but they didn't keep it the same and it was not successful. They ALSO DID operate the PBN - but it is OUR PBN! The N stands for Navy as in Naval Aircraft Factory - a USN facility that built them! I added the PBN as a Soviet aircraft type - although it is virtually identical to the PBY - it allows a separate pool and production to exist for the USSR.

[el cid again]

Lend lease routes through Alaska are not to be used either to put the Home islands in range of LBA"

Why? This is precisely why Japan invaded the Aleutians. And also Gen Simon Bolivar Buckner built an entire network of fields - bomber capable - both to facilitate Lend Lease and to facilitate either defense or feeding an offensive campaign - which was originally contemplated. It is entirely up to the Allied player wether to use the fields in any particular way. And it is a two edged sword: Japan can sieze Alaskan fields to use to bomb Seattle with the biggest aircraft plant in the world (Renton).

[el cid again]

Why not just make the whole front persona non grata? By starting the Soviets activated we're introducing a whole set of house rules that need to be implemented.

I haven't played far enough to know, but what are the effects of an all out Soviet Offensive in 1943? Is there anything that would prevent it, could it be succesful?

Why is that the prevention of movement of Russian units is wholly unrealistic and also unfair to the Allies. Why is also that the threat of a possible invasion keeps Japan honest - it won't strip too much out of Kwangtung Army unless it gets desperate. When a Soviet invasion becomes feasible depends on WHEN Kwangtung Army becomes too weak. This is a judgement call - for both sides - and a tension missing from the present game. Togo (FM of Japan) said "Every night I go to sleep worrying about what to do about Russia. Every morning I wake up without an answer."

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

The problem is as I see it the Japanese debated two courses of action before the War...

A. Attack the Soviet Union.

B. Occupy the SRA and defacto attack the US.

Had the Japanese not attacked the SRA or Britain or any US positions and invaded the Soviet Union would they have done so in December of 1941? Would the US or Britain have involved themselves in that conflict and if so when?

Unfortunately the game we are given is not designed to address those issues. The game we have addresses option B.

I thought that the Japanese rejected option A because of the necessity of getting oil (and perhaps other raw materials)? In effect, even if they wanted to pursue option A they had to pursue option B first.

[el cid again]

Any Allied player with the option to attack with Russia should do so on turn one. The Russian forces are very strong and if Japan does not bring in added forces Russia is likely to win and at worse will get Japan into a long and costly struggle from the start.

The only way Japan wins is to bring in a bunch of extra forces and launch a surprise attack whild Russia is not allowed to move..

So if you want to allow Russia free movement thats fine. But you cannot allow Russia the option to attack at any time. You might as well surrender.

Reply: In a strategic sense Moses is probably right: win, lose or draw the Russian invasion is a big problem for Japan. But Stalin would not do that especially early in the Pacific War - being too worried about events in the West. Russia should be ABLE to attack however, to forstall a Japanese offensive if one is detected in the build up phase. Players need to be realistic about politics and geostrategic realities - or they will reap the result of being unrealistic. The Japanese felt that they could win and push the Russians to Kita with about 15 divisions - and they start with about 13 divisions there. Further, these units were increased 50% in manpower between July and September 1941 (an extra 180,000 men were sent to join the existing units and bring them to wartime TO&E). Japans army believed in artillery and the really big stuff is in this area - all the way up to super heavy. I don't know if the game OB reflects reality or not - but if it does - Russia should not be winning in 1942. This should turn around sometime in 1944.

If you do not allow Russia to attack when it wants then you're back to more house rules to force Japan to keep troops in Manchuria.

[el cid again]

The problem is as I see it the Japanese debated two courses of action before the War...

A. Attack the Soviet Union.

B. Occupy the SRA and defacto attack the US.

Had the Japanese not attacked the SRA or Britain or any US positions and invaded the Soviet Union would they have done so in December of 1941? Would the US or Britain have involved themselves in that conflict and if so when?

Reply: This is correct but incomplete. IJA - which controlled the government - ALWAYS planned to invade Russia. It designed its vehicles for cold weather and its airplanes were range optimized for this area - not the Pacific with its vast distances. They pre sighted critical facilities on the Soviet side of the border - and this worked too - a super heavy gun took out a bridge at extreme range when the Russians attacked for example. IJA never was happy with the need to go south and would not have agreed to do so except that Japan could no longer delay war once the US, UK and NEI embargoed oil. There was no way to "strike North" WITHOUT fuel! Using what fuel they had to get the area would only mean no more fuel. Strike North allowed them to capture oil wells. The option in the game is the ONLY option - and IJA admitted that de facto - but it always expected "sooner or later" to fight in the North - and the Kwangtung Army was long the strongest one to that end. Regardless of events, it begins the game as big enough to defend but not big enough to attack - Japan needs more troops if it must fight up there. But the game does not really force Japan to agonize over how many? It probably is never really enough either. This proposal turns that agony into reality - good simulation. It is messy - but reality was messy.

Unfortunately the game we are given is not designed to address those issues. The game we have addresses option B.

[el cid again]

This is why most players use the "Activate Russia" on Turn one House Rule.

I thought it was something we had to build in to the scenario with the editor. How can PLAYERS "activate Russia" - without actually attacking?

[CobraAus]

yes you have to use the editor example say you wanted to play CHS 155 with soviets activated
using both the database and scen editor open sen155 and save the database to another slot number then open the sen 155 in the sen editor swith soviets on snad save into same slot as database - start game using new slot(sen number) number

Cobra Aus

[el cid again]

yes you have to use the editor example say you wanted to play CHS 155 with soviets activated
using both the database and scen editor open sen155 and save the database to another slot number then open the sen 155 in the sen editor swith soviets on snad save into same slot as database - start game using new slot(sen number) number

OK. I had it right. I think that we should make "yes" in the Soviet's Active field the standard - and let players who don't like that turn it off with the editor. I don't like allowing the AI total control of the Soviets - because mostly it does NOT control them (they just sit) - and because if the Japanese do not move into a certain hex the AI will STILL not activate the Soviets to defend their country! If the Allies control the Soviets, they can move things around, control construction and upgrades, sail ships (one of two subs was torpedoed en route to Siberia near the US West Coast historically) etc. Sailing ships is the ONLY way to supply remote posts on the coast and in islands. Of course, it creates a host of operational problems for the Japanese - they essentially cannot set planes to attack in the North - unless they want to risk a war by striking the wrong ship - a very real issue in that fog shrouded region. On the other hand, more tonnage went to Russia via Alaska than by any other route (or even by all other routes combined) - so Japan may WANT to shut down that line of supply at some point. There are resources in Siberia and useful bases along the Soviet coast and in the Komandorskie Islands. Players need to weigh all the pros and cons, and deploy as if this is a real front, because it is anything but a dependable and safe area. Fighting in the north is a sometime thing due to weather (ask the Germans in Norway). Locking everything up is much less realistic - it means Japan can deploy for an attack and the Russians must just sit there until it jumps off. They cannot even move laterally along the rail lines or send submarines to sea. Nonsense. Taking Siberia will be hard - but in the game it won't be unless it is intelligently handled. On the other hand, we better be sure the Russians don't have too much stuff - or they can invade before the late war period.