WiF Annual 2008

[hakon]

Ullern: The reason I care about this optional, is that I know that many people are using it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, but I know that many of my opponents will want to use it.

This is why I want to have if work in a sensible manner, otherwise, the option can make it hard to agree on what options to use when starting a game.

The way you want it formulated, I would be VERY reluctant to use it in any matchup (regardless of side), while if it was worded more conservatively (ie given lesser impact), it would be much easier to agree to use it.

morgil: I am not arguing that Russia should not be able to surrender. All I'm saying, is that when doing so, they should give back any territory taken by Japan since the war started. After all, this is the usual conditions for almost any preace treaty. The winner gets to keep what he started with, while the loser may often give something up.

The way it stands now, is simmilar to Germany surrendering to Russia in 1944, and keeping all of Ukraina and Belorussia, but having to give up Poland....

Cheers
Hakon

[Ullern]

Not quite, since the surrender area for both is the area furthest away, your example would have been more precise if you said had to give up Finland. But after all your example is unfair since the areas west and south-west used to be the most important to USSR.

[morgil]

ORIGINAL: hakon

I am not arguing that Russia should not be able to surrender. All I'm saying, is that when doing so, they should give back any territory taken by Japan since the war started. After all, this is the usual conditions for almost any preace treaty. The winner gets to keep what he started with, while the loser may often give something up.

/Error: Does not Compute

I suppose you meant to say that if and when Russia surrenders, they give back any territory taken from Japan, that started Japanese, in addition to the loss area of Russian Manchuria.
And ofcourse that if Japan surrenders, they loose all they have taken from Russia together with Japanese Manchuria.
Also there should be no need for Japan to actually take Vlad, for Russia to claim peace, but on the other hand, Japan should be able to force a peace by taking Russian territory, and not loosing its own. Or Russia should loose tha ability to demand peace after a time, or something.

[Ullern]

Long time since we posted the Annual rule? Here it is with the addition in the Annual inserted with blue color.

ORIGINAL: RAW 13.7.3
Option 50: (USSR-Japan compulsory peace) The USSR may surrender at any time during its first war with Japan. In addition to hexes given up per the existing surrender rule, all hexes on the Pacific Map are surrendered to Japan. Japan may surrender at any time to the USSR during their first war. In addition to hexes given up per the existing surrender rule, Japan also cedes Manchuria to the USSR. If Japan controls Vladivostok during the first war between Japan and the USSR, the Japanese player must agree to a peace if the Soviet player wants one. Similarly, if the USSR controls 3 or more resources that were Japanese controlled at the start of Sep/Oct 1939, the Soviet player must agree to a peace if the Japanese player wants one.
In either case, the new Russo-Japanese border is established by the hexes each controls. Any pocket of non-coastal hexes wholly surrounded by hexes controlled by the other major power becomes controlled by the major power whose hexes surround them.

[hakon]

As most of you are probably aware of, this topic was already discussed at length in the yahoo forums:

http://games.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group ... age/102438

As far as I can tell, the wording of the rule is not clear one way or the other, which is why i prefer going for the interpretation that makes the most sense. (Which is, of course, that losing Vladivostok should not enable Russia to make peace at more favourable terms than not losing it.)

On top of this, I prefer to house rule that territory taken by the surrendering part from the victor, should also be given back. This is simply common sense, since this is a given in virtually any real life surrender situation. (The annual is pretty explicit that this is a surrender situation.) I view the exclusion of this in the annual as a mere oversight. Without this house rule, I would typicall not agree to play with the option at all.

Btw, does anyone know if there has been any official feedback from Harry on how to interpret this rule? This would be a clear candidate for the official FAQ, imo.

Cheers
Hakon