Matrix Games Forums

I like the lines found.
I read all post though and in post number 39 Froonp found out that Kamchatka should be given to Japan if the USSR surrenders.


I am sorry but I don't like the new wording of the rule.
I vote for the original Annual version.

Here is the first part of hakon's post that you are acting on:

ORIGINAL: hakon

The Russian-Japanese compulsory peace from the annual has one major loophole. Say for instance, that Russia declares war on Japan in 1940, then pushes agressively into Manchuria, taking most of the hexes there, including all the resources and the factories. Maybe they even take some hexes in China.

Japan then redeploys, and lands on the eastern coast of USSR, taking out the resources and Vladivostok.

Then 1941 comes, and it seems like Germany is about to lauch a major Barbarossa. The Russians, seeing this, now with the new optional rule, can just "surrender", and only give away whatever is on the pacific map, which means that they keep what is most important in Manchuria, as well as anything they may have taken in China, etc.

If they've already lost the east coast, this basically means that they can force a white peace at little net cost to themselves, while gaining immunity from war with Japan for at least a year or two.

The consequences you are reporting here is nothing new, and actually you get the rule wrong. If Japan takes Vladivostok as you say, then the USSR can immediately surrender losing nothing. That's the standard optional rule, as it has always been, and this has not changed with the Annual. If you don't like that you don't need to use this optional.

As per the standard optional rule, Japan can also surrender immediately if she looses 3 resources. That may be the 3 resources in Manchuria or 2 resources in Manchuria and one somewhere else.

I want to keep the rule in the Annual, because it has the great advantage that it makes a smooth transition from the standard rule to the new surrender rule. Say the USSR has taken most of Manchuria, then Japan can speed up the process and give them the rest for peace. Remember that the new rule is still the old rule with an additional clause. The new Annual rule addendum enable both Japan and the USSR to stop the other from being gamey in a situation like Japan taking all of Siberia but Vladivostok, to prevent the USSR from surrendering.

If you introduce such a "give back all hexes in x" type of clause you are reintroducing the same problem as before. That the other player can be gamey and avoid the hex that will trigger the surrender in the original rule.

If Japan takes all hexes in Pacific Siberia but Vladivostok, I don't think it's fair that the USSR should loose more than Vladivostok. And same thing the other way around.

***
There is still a point to be made:
I am not concerned about the idea that Japan could have taken large parts of the Siberia, while the USSR has taken large parts of Manchuria without triggering the standard surrender rule criteria. The point is too theoretical as both sides have plenty of options to intervene. (And in my world Japan should always take Vlad very early, so this would per defention be gamey play by Japan.)

For the surrender mechanism, I hate to point this out, but you really need two mechanisms. If this whole bit of code hasn't been written yet, then by all means use the newest language for Option 50. But keep in mind that the game explicitly allows the players to 'come to peace under any terms they find mutually acceptable.' This is a key part of a multi-player game the way Harry designed it. Obviously in a human vs AI game, a structured system has to be in place. Ditto for a two player game, where any deal-making is rather pointless. But World in Flames is a multi-player game with only one winner, not a winning side. How Japan and Russia get along is something you get to decide as you control a major power. The real Japanese elected to not only not attack the Russians, but also to look the other way while the US shipped military aid through Vladivostok. In the interest of expediency, I could see a system to enable creation of a new trade agreement or haggling over which hexes become controlled by which power, be something left for the future, but I hope it is not forgotten.

I would also like to comment that in some situations, such horse trading is prohibited, for example at US WiFCon, in the interests of player harmony, so one player doesn't blame another for ruining an expensive vacation via cutting a deal with the enemy side. I think this is misguided; there is just absolutely no way you can prevent the players on a side from getting upset at each other as long as people are playing the game for an individual result. For example, there is no way to write a rule about who can attack the German perimeter from where. If the Western Allies decide to commit heavily in Europe, heavily enough to launch a major campaign in the Balkans, there is little chance the Russians can then win the game no matter how well they play. There are other possibilities along these lines. Some people just don't play well with others, and others get overly upset when a teammate finally makes decisions in their major power's interests over the team interests, and this will never change.

I can't quite follow how the total sum of the new language and the original optional work. I do feel that any system whereby Japan is encouraged to wage war on the Russians without ever taking the most obvious military objective in the whole region, is insane. Also, the idea that if Japan takes Vladivostok, they would have to automatically accept a Russian surrender and only receiving the Vladivostok hex and one or two others they may have taken, rather than the whole of the Maritime Province, is equally nuts. If Russia surrendered at any point, the Japanese would demand much more than the city of Vladivostok and the territory for 50 miles around. If such a negotiation was occurring with the Germans at the gates of Moscow, Japan would hold ALL of the cards and dictate the terms. Personally, I don't understand the need for specific triggers allowing a surrender. If you want to surrender, you should be able to at any time. The territory that would change hands should be obvious.

I think we should consider what Japan wants from this area, and also consider how peace was settled back then. If you smacked the opponent good and well, so that he wanted peace, you would get a border province, maybe two. Its not like if Japan rode all the way to Moscow they would keep all of USSR as a part of Japan in a peace agreement.
I found this map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Manchuria.png, that shows the area of conflict. Basically what Japan wanted was not so much own the land as to make sure no other Empire owned it. So they first fought to keep Korea independent, then to keep Manchuria independent, ofcourse the inhabitants in these areas was so overwhelmed by the noble signs of japanese support that they elected to become part of the Japanese Empire only few years later.
So this war is over Manchuria, not stratbomber bases nor quelling of Russian navy, that was a CW talkingpoint, and the peace should be over Manchuria, so you could surrender at any time, but you will loose your part of Manchuria.
So all you have to do is define what is currently(1939) "Russian Manchuria", and cede that to Japan if Russia surrenders. Kamchatka should not be included in this peace.

And the pink line on the map looks like a good aproximation, I would have taken it a bit further west, to include Dzhalinda, and kept the top a bit more south,following the Oda, upriver til it turns south and then due west to Skovorodino, and including all of Sakhalin. But that would just be for cosmetic reasons. Pink line works for me.

Damn, lost a rather long mail on this topic, without having backed it up to the clipboard or notepad

I don't have time to write it all over again, but here is a summary:

@ullern: As you probably know, the interpretation of the rule has been discussed at some length on the yahoo forum, and it doesn't seem remotely clear to me that your interpretation is "correct", however you define that. The way that I read it, it could just as well mean that both the conditions for peace applied, and that regardless of which condition was used, both the new and old rules for what hexes were kept/gained by each side was used as well.

Personally, I don't really see the need for any compulsory peace rule between Russia and Japan. But if such a rule should be used in a game where I would participate, I would at least require that it would be fairly realistic.

And the only realistic way that I can imagine that either side should be able to unilateraly force a peace, would be some kind of semi-unconditional surrender, in which they would at least give up the most likely conditions posed by the victor. I think "reasonable" conditions for Japan, would be:
- Russia gives back anything they took from Japan, if any
- Russia gives up the majority of the resources in the far east (for instance the pacific map).
- In addition, Japan should be able to keep the hexes they have already taken.

Simmilarily, in order to convince Russia, the following would be fair:
- Japan gives back any territory taken from Russia.
- Japan gives up Manchuria
- In addtion, Russia would probably want to keep whatever territories they already hold.

There could also be conditions where even this would be enough (such as when Moscow is in Axis hands or when Berlin is in Allied hands), but the above rule would cover enough of the releveant cases to stand as it is, I think.

Cheers
Hakon

ORIGINAL: hakon

Damn, lost a rather long mail on this topic, without having backed it up to the clipboard or notepad

I don't have time to write it all over again, but here is a summary:

@ullern: As you probably know, the interpretation of the rule has been discussed at some length on the yahoo forum, and it doesn't seem remotely clear to me that your interpretation is "correct", however you define that. The way that I read it, it could just as well mean that both the conditions for peace applied, and that regardless of which condition was used, both the new and old rules for what hexes were kept/gained by each side was used as well.

Personally, I don't really see the need for any compulsory peace rule between Russia and Japan. But if such a rule should be used in a game where I would participate, I would at least require that it would be fairly realistic.

And the only realistic way that I can imagine that either side should be able to unilateraly force a peace, would be some kind of semi-unconditional surrender, in which they would at least give up the most likely conditions posed by the victor. I think "reasonable" conditions for Japan, would be:
- Russia gives back anything they took from Japan, if any
- Russia gives up the majority of the resources in the far east (for instance the pacific map).
- In addition, Japan should be able to keep the hexes they have already taken.

Simmilarily, in order to convince Russia, the following would be fair:
- Japan gives back any territory taken from Russia.
- Japan gives up Manchuria
- In addtion, Russia would probably want to keep whatever territories they already hold.

There could also be conditions where even this would be enough (such as when Moscow is in Axis hands or when Berlin is in Allied hands), but the above rule would cover enough of the relevant cases to stand as it is, I think.

Cheers
Hakon

How you WIF-zen the rule is likely different for us all, and therefore the views on realism is different too. I WIF-zen this optional rule due to the reluctance of Japan and the USSR to go to war with each other and the likely short war that would have resulted. In WIF there is no reason for such a reluctance, therefore a "short war" will never happen if this rule is not in effect.

But obvoiously you think of this rule quite differently than me, and you end on another conclusion. I think I would be able to negotiate deals like you suggest. Simply because your rule favors the winner and makes sure the winner gets a break (unless he already won all the territory). So as the winning side I would likely agree to such a deal presented to me, and it's what I would expect of my opponent to demand if I wanted to surrender to him.
_ From one perspective that makes the rule fair, but on the other it means that the rule doesn't add anything new to the game.

To add something new to the game the rule needs to fair in such a way that it gives a fairly even upside to both players. And that is possible, since both sides usually are held back in the game by the USSR-Japan war.

(On one thing I agree with you, that the deal should ideally depends on "what the status is" around the world.)

ORIGINAL: ullern

But obvoiously you think of this rule quite differently than me, and you end on another conclusion. I think I would be able to negotiate deals like you suggest. Simply because your rule favors the winner and makes sure the winner gets a break (unless he already won all the territory). So as the winning side I would likely agree to such a deal presented to me, and it's what I would expect of my opponent to demand if I wanted to surrender to him.

Ok, so we agree that this kind of deal is one that could actually happen without the optional, as it would satisfy both sides, at least if playing for individual victory. (Any game where players play exclusively for team victory, is a zero-sum game, so any voluntary peace treaty will benefit one side at the expense of the other, resulting in (at least theoretically) "the other" refusing th deal).

The main point of the rule, the way I see it, is to have a mechanism to prevent one side from continuing to wage war even when that is no longer in the best interest of their country, simply to help their allies on the other side of the world. For instance, in an all-out barbarossa, Japan can continue to press on vs Russia even after having taken all their resources. If Russia only keeps a couple of units in the east, these will get killed, and Japan can move on. In fact, I've been in games where the Germans and Japanese have been meeting each other in the Novosibirsk area.

Japan can draw several benefits from this. First of all, all-out Barbarossaas tend to force the allies to focuson Europe, and only send minimal assets vs Japan until Barb has been stopped. This is very good for Japan, as they can take objectives at their leasure. Even the threat of it, will tend to keep Russia away during 1940, letting Japan focuson China. By focusing a lot on the land wars, Japan can develop a semi-independence on overseas possessions, and also get a pretty large production before the US is able to send significant force against them.

A healty Russia would be a big threat in the late game vs a Japan that has focused on land, though, especially if the allies are winning in Europe. But, if Japan has pushed all the way to Iruktsk, or something, it will be very hard for the Russians to ever make it back to the far east.

So, even if it may seem that Japan is just acting as Germany's puppet if pushing on beyond Chita, it can actually make some strategic sense.

Personally, I think this was a strategic option that was available to Japan historically, and one that should be available in the game, so I'm really against any kind of forced peace. Some people, though, seem to think that it would be very unlikely for Japan to push this far into Russia, and so they want the compulsory peace option to limit this.

The pre-annual version of the compulsory peace didnt limit Japanese aggression very much, though, as it allowed Japan "dance" around Vladivostok.. My interpretation of the rule printed in the annual, was that it was intended to fix the "dance", which is part of the reason why I chose to believe the interpretation that Russia was meant to have to give up the far east even if they lose Vlad.

But if the option is not properly reworded to avoid the "dance" and silly surrendering just to keep newly occupied enemy territory, I would be very reluctant to accept playing with it.

Cheers
Hakon

I think the new map will be a very big help with the issue of Japan even considering going past Chita. The ridiculously not-real supply base of Komsomolsk will be an additional thorn in the Japanese rear. Russia having more than one CAV division will also help. One ATR backing two or three cavalry divisions would make it very difficult for the Japanese to keep a really long, single-track rail supply line open to their point units. Even on the current Asian map, a good Russian player should make this a fairly difficult proposition for the Japanese with a similar technique. Definitely one of the more fun pieces in the game, the one composed of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandsons of Genghis Khan. Too bad that unit isn't one that can be split into divs so you could have two of them running around. But the Russians have plenty of their own anyway.

The option in the Annual does need some tightening up, it still somewhat encourages Japan not to take Vladivostok depending on how you add the two options together, how you read the English language, and how "your rules lawyering may vary", as I was told rather curtly on the Yahoo list last year.

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the new map will be a very big help with the issue of Japan even considering going past Chita. The ridiculously not-real supply base of Komsomolsk will be an additional thorn in the Japanese rear. Russia having more than one CAV division will also help. One ATR backing two or three cavalry divisions would make it very difficult for the Japanese to keep a really long, single-track rail supply line open to their point units. Even on the current Asian map, a good Russian player should make this a fairly difficult proposition for the Japanese with a similar technique. Definitely one of the more fun pieces in the game, the one composed of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandsons of Genghis Khan. Too bad that unit isn't one that can be split into divs so you could have two of them running around. But the Russians have plenty of their own anyway.

The option in the Annual does need some tightening up, it still somewhat encourages Japan not to take Vladivostok depending on how you add the two options together, how you read the English language, and how "your rules lawyering may vary", as I was told rather curtly on the Yahoo list last year.

I believe the 10th one in your list should be a "not-so-great".

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think the new map will be a very big help with the issue of Japan even considering going past Chita. The ridiculously not-real supply base of Komsomolsk will be an additional thorn in the Japanese rear. Russia having more than one CAV division will also help. One ATR backing two or three cavalry divisions would make it very difficult for the Japanese to keep a really long, single-track rail supply line open to their point units. Even on the current Asian map, a good Russian player should make this a fairly difficult proposition for the Japanese with a similar technique. Definitely one of the more fun pieces in the game, the one composed of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandsons of Genghis Khan. Too bad that unit isn't one that can be split into divs so you could have two of them running around. But the Russians have plenty of their own anyway.

The option in the Annual does need some tightening up, it still somewhat encourages Japan not to take Vladivostok depending on how you add the two options together, how you read the English language, and how "your rules lawyering may vary", as I was told rather curtly on the Yahoo list last year.

It takes two ATRs to fix Genghis descendants. (you double the reorganisation cost of a unit if any reorganisation point came from a co-operating major power or minor country)

I liked you latest reply Hakon. I actually agree with a lot of what you wrote.

I too believe it's important to remember the rule should ideally work in both a zero sum game and in a non-zero sum game. (Two player games and side victory will always be zero sum, but other games may be non-zero sum depending on the situation.)

I also agree with your strategic considerations on an all out Barbarossa. I think Japan still will have something to gain by going past Chita. But I usually find Japan has better gains elsewhere. But in a zero sum game a better gain from someone other than Russia may not be better anyway if USSR production turns out to be a tie breaker. (Which is quite a common case.)

(If you are used to the term "alternative cost" I could say that I often figure Japan has a positive "gain - direct cost" sum if they continue past Chita, but a negative "gain - direct cost - alternative cost" sum. But if I add the knowledge that the game is zero-sum all in all, and I therefore could weight a USSR loss more heavily than a CW loss, then the sum may turn positive again.)

So far I just restated what I think we agree on. But we still disagree on the purpose of the rule. You say that

ORIGINAL: hakon
The main point of the rule, the way I see it, is to have a mechanism to prevent one side from continuing to wage war even when that is no longer in the best interest of their country"

But I am not satisfied with such a goal. I agree that the proposed solution will have such an effect. But I would like the rule to support a short war. I believe the annual edition of the rule does this, while I believe the suggested change have the opposite effect. I think the suggested change will make the war end up always having only one of two outcomes: One side wins all or an endless war.

You know that even though we agreed that the suggested change is something that could be agreed on in a negotiated deal. If playing with the modified annual rule the looser will not surrender at the point in time when the deal is reasonable. But instead the looser will defend weakly, but in such a way that the victor needs to continue pushing forward in strength. This will go on until the victor is already past what the deal is about, and only then when the deal no longer gives any direct benefit to the victor, will the looser spend a few units to capture back some additional hexes on a late in the turn move and then surrender at end of turn.

For the victor the time in between before the surrender may be expensive if the looser plays well. A kind of game mechanic that allows only one side to stop the war is a powerful weapon in the hand of any good player, especially where this player has no limits on when to use this option. And I don’t see why the looser so unilaterally can decide the time of the signing so that the deal is put to the worst possible moment for the victor. On the other hand, I think the original Annual rule deals with this issue as it allows also the victor to surrender without loosing his gains. I will get back to that argument below, but first:

Based on experience I see more than half of the USSR-Japan wars go into a steady state quite quickly. The steady state situation happens often since the USSR is usually able to mount more land units, but Japan will have a firm grip on air superiority and better manoeuvrability since they can invade and shore bombard. Once both countries have adapted their tactics to the fact that they are at war and their strengths, the war will slow down drastically.

The strategic consideration arguments we agreed on above I think is true in this case too. In a fairly steady state Japan may be better of keeping six additional USSR corps occupied than doing anything else. But that's because the game is zero sum or close to zero sum, and because a WIF player know the length of the game. For Japan it really would be better to free units to get resources for themselves, and out of scope for the game: Because a beaten USSR would have no problem to rebuild and come back 10 years later when the war with Germany was settled. And whatever the reasons the countries had for starting the war in the first place are of no importance if the war turned into a First World War trenches kind of war that will keep a million men on each side occupied with very little chance of any real progress for a very long time. I think this is precisely what both countries feared and precisely what the rule should make them be able to get out of.

Here are even some more examples I think may happen with the modified Annual rule:
Japan could still "dance" around Vlad. And there would be no point for a loosing USSR to attack an undefended western Manchuria unless the USSR planned to continue the war forever. And that argument holds the other way around too. This is not good, although it's probably not the most important issue.

ORIGINAL: hakon
But if the option is not properly reworded to avoid the "dance" and silly surrendering just to keep newly occupied enemy territory, I would be very reluctant to accept playing with it.

Where you see a problem, I see a good thing.

The pre annual rule had the problem that usually only one side could surrender, usually the USSR, which meant that at once Japan took Vlad Japan could fall victim to the USSR using bizarre last impulse moves and possibly also last impulse attacks that would, simply put, be stupid if it were not for the fact that the USSR could surrender if the attack went wrong. I guess this is what you are referring too. This far I agree with you. But I don't see this problem at all in the annual edition of the rule:

What I consider typical for a steady state or slow moving USSR-Japan war is that both sides has taken territory from the other. It's a fact that it is much easier for Japan to take coast hexes and the USSR to take inland Manchuria hexes where blitz bonuses can be used. First as far south as Mukden does things start to get hard for the USSR. While at the same time it's so easy to invade that Japan may get quite a few coast hexes for free in Siberia. After the war has been going on for a while both countries will have lost typically half their "surrender area." And then I think that even a country who is winning can be willing to surrender if the timing of the surrender really matters. And I'd like to repeat that whatever the reasons the countries had for starting the war in the first place are of no importance if the war turned into a First World War trenches kind of war that will keep a million men on each side occupied with very little chance of any real progress for a very long time.

I think that at least pre '42 both countries have so good use for their units elsewhere they really should accept a peace deal. In WIF it's simply the fact that the game is zero sum and fixed length that makes us come to other conclusions. But I think the beauty of the rule is that the optional rule gives you something you could not get by a deal negotiated in the game since you will for sure always argue from the perspective of winning the game, while good role play would dictate you should instead argue from a much more country specific point of view.


***

So what I am saying is that I think that the ability for both parts to stop the war no matter if they consider themselves winners or not is important, and this is precisely what will prevent extensive abuse of the rule in all cases, including silly dancing, but there are limitations of course. Since it necessary that the penalty paid for stopping the war is a real penalty, it's not possible to stop lesser abuses.

But I fail to see that there are any silly dancing problems, as the rule does so well give each side a weapon to fight all kinds of extensive abuses of the original rule.

Hi, Ullern.

It really doesn't seem like we agree about a lot

I too believe it's important to remember the rule should ideally work in both a zero sum game and in a non-zero sum game. (Two player games and side victory will always be zero sum, but other games may be non-zero sum depending on the situation.)

Well, with the interpretation that I expect that you are using for "work", this is not what I was saying at all. Rather, my position, was that the rule (when used) have as a function to force a player to play/role-play Japan as if playing for individual victory, even in games where the axis are cooperating closely.

In a game where Japan truely is going for individual victory, and maybe even is role-playing a bit, the rule should not be needed.

(If you are used to the term "alternative cost" I could say that I often figure Japan has a positive "gain - direct cost" sum if they continue past Chita, but a negative "gain - direct cost - alternative cost" sum. But if I add the knowledge that the game is zero-sum all in all, and I therefore could weight a USSR loss more heavily than a CW loss, then the sum may turn positive again.)

I am quite used to the term "alternative cost", and my analysis always use such a line of thought. What the benefit is of pushing Russia to Chita, and possibly beyond (given an all-out Barb, for instance), really depends on how many forces Russia has there. If Russia has a lot, then all Japan needs to do, is to defend after taking the 4 resources. But if Russia only keeps 1-2 units, then these can be easly taken out, without sacrificing too much elsewhere.

But I am not satisfied with such a goal. I agree that the proposed solution will have such an effect. But I would like the rule to support a short war.

Imo, one could create much better formulations of the war, if a short war was indeed the goal. For instance, one could say that either side could call a white peace N turns war was commenced. (Where N could be 2-6 somewhere.)

I believe the annual edition of the rule does this, while I believe the suggested change have the opposite effect. I think the suggested change will make the war end up always having only one of two outcomes: One side wins all or an endless war.

I've played with my suggestion 1-2 times already, the latest one at the latest eurowifcon, where I was doing a Super Balbo. In this game, Russia surrendered to Japan after only 1-2 turns of war, iirc. Of course, in that game, Japan was in command of western manchuria, so Russia didnt have anything Japanese to give up. Japan also took all 3 pacific resources pretty quickly, iirc.

You know that even though we agreed that the suggested change is something that could be agreed on in a negotiated deal. If playing with the modified annual rule the looser will not surrender at the point in time when the deal is reasonable. But instead the looser will defend weakly, but in such a way that the victor needs to continue pushing forward in strength. This will go on until the victor is already past what the deal is about, and only then when the deal no longer gives any direct benefit to the victor, will the looser spend a few units to capture back some additional hexes on a late in the turn move and then surrender at end of turn.

Again, not my experience. Since the victor (at least in my proposal) gets to keep all territory he has taken, the defender will tend ot surrender rather quickly when realizing he is losing, since delaying the surrender means losing more territory. Also, since this is usually a secondary front for both sides, the loser will be quite anxious to free up the forces involved, and use them elsewhere, which also tends to speed up the surrender.

This could be quite relevant for Japan, too, if he is faced with an early (39-40) japan first strategy by the allies. If he surrenders to the USSR, then at least he can defend properly vs the UK, France and China.

For the victor the time in between before the surrender may be expensive if the looser plays well. A kind of game mechanic that allows only one side to stop the war is a powerful weapon in the hand of any good player, especially where this player has no limits on when to use this option. And I don’t see why the looser so unilaterally can decide the time of the signing so that the deal is put to the worst possible moment for the victor. On the other hand, I think the original Annual rule deals with this issue as it allows also the victor to surrender without loosing his gains. I will get back to that argument below, but first:

I fully agree that the ability to unilatteraly decleare semi-white peace is very powerful. But I think you are blatantly wrong about the victor wishing to surrender. (Which is a good thing). Simply having to give up the far east (russia) or Manchuria(Japan), will make sure that the stronger side will NOT want to surrender.

The strategic consideration arguments we agreed on above I think is true in this case too. In a fairly steady state Japan may be better of keeping six additional USSR corps occupied than doing anything else. But that's because the game is zero sum or close to zero sum, and because a WIF player know the length of the game. For Japan it really would be better to free units to get resources for themselves, and out of scope for the game: Because a beaten USSR would have no problem to rebuild and come back 10 years later when the war with Germany was settled. And whatever the reasons the countries had for starting the war in the first place are of no importance if the war turned into a First World War trenches kind of war that will keep a million men on each side occupied with very little chance of any real progress for a very long time. I think this is precisely what both countries feared and precisely what the rule should make them be able to get out of.

To cover this kind of psycology, one could add a clause where each side could declare a white peace at the 6th turn of the war or so. But for a power to ambush the other, and make some quick gains, and then simply surrender in order to be able to keep those gains, makes no sense to me. The other side should at least have a reasonable amount of time to chase the aggressor away before the aggressor can surrender.

And if it is the aggressor that is the winner, this matters much less.

I think that at least pre '42 both countries have so good use for their units elsewhere they really should accept a peace deal.

One way to enforce the historical peace, is to have Japan and the USSR start at war, or alternatively start with a peace treaty in 1939. (Both would be quite historical, even if the first would assume that the game starts a few weeks earlier in asia than in europe.)

Now, with a peace in 1939, both sides will have an easy time to keep the garrison in 1940, but this WILL require some garrions units. And if they both deply a historical strength vs each other in 1941, there will no war then either.

But the fact was, that both sides WERE deploying HUGE armies vs each other historically, even when both were at war elsewhere. If war had not been a very real possibility in their minds at the time, this would hardly have have been necessary.

So what I am saying is that I think that the ability for both parts to stop the war no matter if they consider themselves winners or not is important, and this is precisely what will prevent extensive abuse of the rule in all cases, including silly dancing, but there are limitations of course. Since it necessary that the penalty paid for stopping the war is a real penalty, it's not possible to stop lesser abuses.

But I fail to see that there are any silly dancing problems, as the rule does so well give each side a weapon to fight all kinds of extensive abuses of the original rule.

Unless I misunderstand your opinion, I definitely think you will see "silly dancing". In fact, i think the outcome will often be quite the same as in my suggestion, since most games will see the "winner" taking, or threatening to take more territory than has to be given away when surrendering early. Japan, if on the offensive, will be moving toward the westernmost resource, and then collect all the other 3 before taking Vlad, While Russia when on the offensive will simply hold on to that same area as well as the pacific map, before converging on Manchuria. They will also want to threaten Korea or areas in China.

So basically, I think the amount of "silly dancing" will remain at the same level as pre-annual Russia can force a white peace if Japan holds Vlad.

On top of this, I expect that the rule, the way I understand your interpretationi, will encourage surprise attack by either side, just to be able to quickly take border hexes before one side surrenders.

Cheers
Hakon

Even with these changes I don't think the "dance around Vlad" is dealt with completely, is it?

That was one of the most shameful exploits.

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Even with these changes I don't think the "dance around Vlad" is dealt with completely, is it?

That was one of the most shameful exploits.

The "dance around Vlad" is when Japan avoids taking Vladivostok to deny the possibility for Russia to surrender, that's it ?

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
Even with these changes I don't think the "dance around Vlad" is dealt with completely, is it?

That was one of the most shameful exploits.

The "dance around Vlad" is when Japan avoids taking Vladivostok to deny the possibility for Russia to surrender, that's it ?

Yes. And I suspect that was part of the motivation for that rule's addendum.

ORIGINAL: hakon

Hi, Ullern.

It really doesn't seem like we agree about a lot

OK. Now I'll have too agree on that. [:)]

I think you got a lot of arguments wrong.

The only thing that can prevent an extensive abuse by any such rule is to give both players the power to stop the war. That means the rule needs to gives the victor a possibility to force a peace on the looser. Your suggestion does not deal with this problem, but you assume that the looser will surrender to stop loosing another empty mountain, even though the victor will have much more units freed if the war stops.

The Annual rule deals with this problem as any it give the victor to stop the war if he gives up three resources and one factory. (Or as I analyzed, the price to stop the war would likely go down if the war already had been long lasting, but then the war had already been long lasting so that case is of no concern to me.)

This kind of logic is used elsewhere too. I would expect introducing the standard surrender rule was done to stop exploits of the conquest / Vichy rules.

So the way I see it the Annual rule deals with all cases, but the suggested modification deals with only some.

. Now I'll have too agree on that.

I think you got a lot of arguments wrong.

The only thing that can prevent an extensive abuse by any such rule is to give both players the power to stop the war. That means the rule needs to gives the victor a possibility to force a peace on the looser. Your suggestion does not deal with this problem, but you assume that the looser will surrender to stop loosing another empty mountain, even though the victor will have much more units freed if the war stops.

Why should ANYONE be able to force peace unilateraly? (Excluding the trivial case of complete conquest) Generally, the ONLY way to reach peace without completely destroying your opponent, is to that both parties agree to.

Your argument seems to work like this:
1 We dictate that one side should be able to force peace unilatteraly
2 Hence, by symmetry, it should follow that both sides should be able to do this, as it would be unfair otherwise.

I don't agree to any of these.

Instead, I maintain that the only situation where the rules should force one side to have to accept a peace, is when it would be politically impossible for that side not to accept the peace treaty. And this should only happen when the side was offered a treaty that a clear majority of the ruling class/cabinet would have been in favor of.

And I'm pretty sure that the majority of the Japanese cabinet would accept giving up half of Manchuria if it looked like Japan was winning, with Russia attacked by Germany in the other end, and desperately needing to free up forces.

While Japan could also want to free up forces, it would hardly be nearly as urgent for them as for the USSR.

Cheers
Hakon

ORIGINAL: hakon

Your argument seems to work like this:
1 We dictate that one side should be able to force peace unilatteraly
2 Hence, by symmetry, it should follow that both sides should be able to do this, as it would be unfair otherwise.

I don't agree to any of these.

Instead, I maintain that the only situation where the rules should force one side to have to accept a peace, is when it would be politically impossible for that side not to accept the peace treaty. And this should only happen when the side was offered a treaty that a clear majority of the ruling class/cabinet would have been in favor of.

I think this is the core of the disagreement. And if we are to find an alternate solution we need to decide on this first.

But to restate my biggest issue with your solution is that I believe it's very hard to achieve what you are saying. No matter how well defined your suggested rule are, the moment you fix the treaty into a MWIF rule, you also enable the side that can surrender to use it at a time and in a situation where it would be unreasonable.

On the other hand your biggest issue with the Annual rule implementation seems to be that you believe the dancing around Vlad and other unreasonable situations would happen:

And I'm pretty sure that the majority of the Japanese cabinet would accept giving up half of Manchuria if it looked like Japan was winning, with Russia attacked by Germany in the other end, and desperately needing to free up forces.

Frankly I'd not see how an inadequate Japanese defense of Manchuria would qualify as winning.

Playing with the Annual option Japan should realize that conquest in Pacific Siberia will only lead to an easy choice for the USSR to surrender. So if Japan is attacked and wants to play well, with the Annual version, he must send troops to defend Manchuria before can make any attacks in Siberia. And for the very same reason, if the USSR planned to win he would have defended Siberia well, so that easy attacks in Siberia would be non existent anyway. (If he didn't plan to win it would be just the more obvious and force Japan to retake lost ground in Manchuria before attacking in Siberia.)

Same thing goes if Japan is the aggressor, he also needs to put up an adequate defense in Manchuria first before attacking into Siberia. Which seems pretty fair too me. And this fixes the unreasonable dancing.

So no matter previous history: If I knew half of Manchuria was Russian I'd say Japan was loosing or controlled by an inexperienced or bad player.

Finally I'd say that if you don't like the rule, so don't use it and I'll beg you all not to touch optionals other people like as they are.

Thank god this rule is optional.  It's pretty easy to just not agree with it.  The only thing I worry about is how peace will be handled under the 'standard' rules.  I don't think the two sides can come to arbitrary agreement on control of hexes in MWIF, but an agreement can happen if one side would like to de-escalate.  My impression is that the intent of the rule and how it's used exploitatively (sometimes with poor validation) is what people don't like.
 
Japan surrendering Manchuria after dancing around Vlad is pretty messy as far as 'is it a real surrender?'  Particularly if they hold Chita or something similar.
 

ORIGINAL: hakon

1 We dictate that one side should be able to force peace unilatteraly
2 Hence, by symmetry, it should follow that both sides should be able to do this, as it would be unfair otherwise.

I don't agree to any of these.

If I understand the rules correctly, France is offering Vichy, and the Axis agrees. The Axis does not have to accept a Vichy, but they usually do. If the conflict between Japan and USSR is seen as a conflict about Manchuria, it would be quite probable to allow for a unilateral surrender, and thereby giving up the territory that is Manchuria.
In early 1940, there is not really a World War, just separate conflicts, one in Europe, and one in China, and other conflicts should be seen in this regard, and not with 20/20 hindsight.
Forcing the continuation of war against an enemy that wishes to surrender is really bad form, and bad form / war crimes is usually simulated with USE. So an addition of a heavy USE hit for not accepting the peace proposal would be very appropriate, as you can then make the dominance of Manchuria a world problem, and by that involve all of the world in the conflict.

So like the French refusing to hold Paris, and thereby allowing for an easy Vichy, Russia could refuse to fight for Vlad and then demand a peace.
The goal of either side should be to settle the diplomatic differences by it natural continuation of War, and by War decide a winner. The goal should not be to move bits of paper on a really simplified map in someones hobby room.