Slitherine

quote:

Option 50:

(USSR-Japan compulsory peace) 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.
(...)
If a peace is reached, remove all forces now in each other’s territory. Put
them in the nearest hex in whcih they can stack controlled by their major
power or its aligned minors.
If a minor makes peace and is now not at war with anyone, remove all its
land and aircraft units from the game until it is next at war, upon which
all its land and aircraft units are again set up as normal (see 19.4). All of
the minor’s naval units remain under the control of their controlling
major power (British in the case of the Commonwealth).
If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you have
on the map or on the production circle that have ‘Res’ on their back and
place them in the reserve pool. Remove all your remaining MIL units
from the game until you are next at war (see 4.1.2).

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Those are not implemented either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Those are not implemented either.

Section 9.5 of the Rules as Coded manual isn't implemented?

OTHER MAJOR POWERS
Major powers from opposing sides can agree to enter into a neutrality pact during any peace step provided they are not at war with each other. Both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese must agree before China can enter into a neutrality pact. Major powers automatically enter into a neutrality pact when they choose to come to peace (see 13.7.3).
Provided both major powers agree, you may re-confirm a neutrality pact during any subsequent Neutrality Pact step

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.

Is there a list or errata for the Rules as Code manual as to what is working and what isn't? I was under the impression that "Rules as Coded" was the implemented code specification for the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: CL55AMG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.

Is there a list or errata for the Rules as Code manual as to what is working and what isn't? I was under the impression that "Rules as Coded" was the implemented code specification for the game.

There's a list of which optional rules were/were not included (since superseded by the addition of some of them) when the game was released (page 5). There is a section in the hyper-linked manual (page 187) that talks about deviations from the rules as written. Unfortunately some parts of the manual were already out of date when the game released. (It's easy to see why a manual of that magnitude would be a massive undertaking in addition to getting all the code ready.)

Discussions regarding the decision about coding Mutual Peace go way back, but the core of the issue was this phrasing in the original rules: "Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units)."

Forget about handling multiple neutrality pact chits, including finicky things like Japan drawing every second turn and Germany drawing two per turn - regardless of how many pacts each has - but how does a programmer code: any terms mutually acceptable?

Even in a face-to-face over the table game you essentially have the rule book saying: house rule it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck
There's a list of which optional rules were/were not included (since superseded by the addition of some of them) when the game was released (page 5). There is a section in the hyper-linked manual (page 187) that talks about deviations from the rules as written. Unfortunately some parts of the manual were already out of date when the game released. (It's easy to see why a manual of that magnitude would be a massive undertaking in addition to getting all the code ready.)

Discussions regarding the decision about coding Mutual Peace go way back, but the core of the issue was this phrasing in the original rules: "Two major powers at war can agree to come to peace on any terms mutually acceptable (except for transferring units)."

Forget about handling multiple neutrality pact chits, including finicky things like Japan drawing every second turn and Germany drawing two per turn - regardless of how many pacts each has - but how does a programmer code: any terms mutually acceptable?

Even in a face-to-face over the table game you essentially have the rule book saying: house rule it.