@andrewaagamer
Ah. I hadn’t understood that subtlety. It’s a bit like assuming that, as an attacker, I’m going to win - so, retreat isn’t an option. Thanks a lot for your help.

@tvarberg said in China - placing new infantry:

@panther said in China - placing new infantry:

Every power that will not be attacked and that maximizes (or at least tries to maximize) their IPC gains and unit builts will be able to achieve huge amounts of units

Yes, you are very right.
My point is just that the China rules to me are very unclear (in terms of Mobilize New Units)
And that you can just over come the “max three or more rule” by moving China’s units and make space for the new units.

Thought I misunderstood the rules, but seems like it’s not the case because basically we are on the same page in terms of the rules I can see.

You are correct. As long as there are no units in a Chinese territory, they can place up to 3 units there during mobilization. So if you move all units out of a territory, you can then place your new units there, and repeat this ad-nauseum.

It’s not overpowered though as Chinese units can not leave China, so if this is happening chances are Japan is ignoring China anyway (as they can easily go around and ignore it). So go ahead a load up those infantry in China. If they are being completely ignored by Japan (I frequently ignore China as Japan), they’ll sit there, completely useless.

@tvarberg

Yes, Panther is correct. An important additional note is that the attacking transports may not unload during non-combat. Anything that is on board stays on board and remains vulnerable to sinking.

@wanguskhan

They may reprint it again, preserving all the errors and the illogicially ordered setup charts.

Comp for WW1 is $350-600 now.

@sensenschwarm thank you.Reprint.jpg

this rule was expanded in the reprint of anniversary edition - but not in the PDF Rulebook on axisandallies.com, and not in the FAQ/Errata, and in my physical copy of the original AA50, it is the version which I had quoted above.

The issue is resolved! Thanks alot! :-)

@vonlettowvorbeck1915 A couple of Chinese territories in the original version have dual Japanese and Chinese markers printed on them too.

@victoryfirst
Never mind, I found it here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/3158/missing-setup-charts-look-no-more/27?page=2

@bigfatal

Yes and no. The UK has a lot of earning potential, but a lot of it is vulnerable to attack or capture, making UK very “swingy”. If things are go well for the allies, UK will be pretty wealthy, if it goes badly UK can end up being very cash strapped indeed. Playing with national objectives (which is the way I prefer to play) will amplify this even further as the UK is the easiest ally for the Axis to prevent earning any bonuses.

Meanwhile the US has a huge does of IPCs that are rarely touched by the axis, even when things go badly for the allies, and is also the only nation with 20 ipcs of objective bonuses available, so the US is still very much the big spender of the game.

As to what’s in it for the US in the pacific: Its less about increasing US earnings and more about limiting Japan’s. Left unchallenged Japan can reach stratospheric income, bringing the UK economy to its knees as they drive to Moscow.

There are also two pacific based objectives for the US, so that adds 10 potential ipcs of direct incentive, plus the chance to pick up one more for the UK and prevent Japan from earning any, which stacks up to enough money to justify a US fleet investment.

I find allied players that are good with a slow push play style do well fighting it out in the pacific, but those that are better at a quick kill/knockout blow style will have more success trying to kill Germany before Japan gets too big. I also find a pacific allied strat is more likely to work in the 1942 set up than it does in 1941. (Part of the reason I like that set up better)

Without objectives it may be better for the allies to just fight a delaying action in the pacific and focus on Germany, but I have not played that way enough to say for sure.