I don't know about a house rule, but may be you a re referring to an existing optional, at least in WIF. From RAW:
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).
House rules I have used with other players of late is as follows: -Both Japan and USSR must keep 5 land units (Corp/Armies) in Manchuria or the Soviet Far East at all times (at a minimum). -Can only DOW if reach the border garrison limit --> 7:1 in 1939, 6:1 1940. 5:1 1941. 4:1 1942, 3:1 1943. AKA: War unlikely until 1943.
I had too many early games where Manchuria basically decided the entire game in 1941. Either Soviets get bogged down and Germany has it easy or Japan collapses under the weight of Soviet Armour (Cannot do USSR & decently strong China at same time).
With these rules, games now tend to go much later into the war which is far more exciting. Unfortunately it causes a problem of skewing things a bit too much towards Japan in China. Chinese Attack Weakness is no longer played with. The extra Chinese Cities is always a tough call. I am more inclined to play with both of these now. Some say Chinese surrender to Japan is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as Japan's fate is really decided in the Pacific...valid point. I also don't know how the upcoming programming of the option Surrender Rules between the USSR & Japan will fit into all this.
I also play with the rule that the Axis can win outright or win the game by holding more than 15 objective cities by the end of July/August 1945. This gives the Axis player an incentive to continue after the tide has viciously turned. Allies win if Axis hold < 15. Exactly 15 = a tie. Works well.
That number of objectives is what is in the FE Campaign Book assuming all bids for sides and majors were zero. I would suggest making it 14 if the US aligns both Brazil and Mexico since the Allies would need one more if it were a game in which bids were made.
Just thinking out loud; Historically, The Soviet Union and Japan were at war when the 1939 scenario starts. Zhukov had just destroyed the Japanese forces in Mongolia. Why not use the existing neutrality pact rules? Using the existing garrison ratios and entry markers would seem to have the same effect as house rules.
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
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
Yes. And there are a couple of other rules also not in the game. Obscure ones, I have to say.
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.
< Message edited by CL55AMG -- 4/16/2021 5:11:44 AM >
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.
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.
While I agree on the fact that "any terms mutually acceptable" is impossible to code, personally, I still would like to see code for making a neutrality pact with the chips draw between any warring major power. And if one could include the making of a trade agreement between opposite sides possible, with a length of turns in it, together with the already existing debug tool by which one can change hex control, it should be possible to code a lot of the "any terms mutually acceptable".
But I do agree that this is not an important thing at this time.
How about a two player accept and reject dialog similar to what happens for Romania and Finland with Russia? The terms don't need to be formalized in the code, just the acceptance.
It would just end the state of war. Prior to that, each player would take their turns to move their units to take over or give up locations. Ideally, it should be in the border areas consistent with the rules regarding Vladivostok and Manchuria. It would just be a simple cancellation of the state of war once all of the parties are no longer in the other's territory.
If you are playing a 2 player game, at least one of the players will probably recognize that it isn't in their unified side's interest to end such a war, at all. In other words, whoever is winning will see little need to stop winning here.
Russo-Japan relations are a very important part of multi-player play, but not for just 2 players. And overall World in Flames is geared towards multi-player play but with just one winning player. WWII was not an everyone gets a trophy affair. How much to help the other Powers on your side should be calculated against how much it hurts your chances to be THE winner.
But but but I don't want _____ to be at war with _____ and the one guy on the other side thinks so, too. Possible. Then just agree not to attack on that border, wherever it might currently be. But but but then there wouldn't be a rule against it! There wasn't in real life, either. War on this front is a bit like a you broke it, you bought it affair. You are either trying to beat the other combination of powers, or you are just playing too many characters in a role-playing game simultaneously.
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.
Section 9.5 Neutrality Pacts and 13.7.3 Mutual Peace are not optional rules, are they? So let me see if I understand this; Section 9.5 Neutrality Pacts only work for the existing USSR/Germany pact and the Other Major Powers section will not be implemented. Section 13.7.3 Mutual Peace is not and will not be implemented.
As to program code for any peace terms mutually acceptable, I would think terms would be in "game terms" using the existing trade, neutrality border garrison and any other existing/new code of MWIF.
< Message edited by CL55AMG -- 4/21/2021 5:19:05 AM >
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact 
Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread