China as a new sub-player

[Funcioneta]

No to limiting UK ICs. Japan has enough advantage in Pacific with this (supposed) setup.

I think there is no need of nerfing a China with IC. First, If you think China can waste 15 ipcs in a bomber, I’d be happy of playing Japan. Second, China would suffer enough with Japan’s strat bombings. Third, a China with IC would need about 10-15 ipcs, thus giving more rich territories who could give Japan a greater reward. Fourth, give chinese IC as Japanese bonus, cancel Ottawa VC and make Chongquing a VC. Now allies would need defend China (and the whole Pacific). No more gamey KGF.

[italiansarecoming]

Japan was super duper strong in ww2 the allies were lucky aka dice rolls or in this case allowing them selves stay defensive and ge tthe extra attack value
i was playing a&ae and russia and germany were tied for strenght because the allies were threatening him aka me
so while i moved russia to attack him he was surprised

at the time had 25 ipcs i bought 1 plane 2 armour and 1 inf.
then attacked him i won because i had 7 tanks 1 died from the start ebcause i blitz an opening because he new that i wouldnt normally send a tankt here but it screwed him up to buy 1 bomber!
so when i attacked next turn i won defensive russia easy to handle, agressive russia hard

the point is it is luck and make china and japan have more men in asia show the reasons for rasian wars

[Lynxes]

One question regarding China and builds: do you determine the number of infantry in the “Purchase Units Phase” or in the “Place Built Units Phase”? The latter would be slightly better for the Chinese, but then again they will probably play very defensively so maybe the difference is slight?

[Krieghund]

China receives the infantry in the Purchase Units phase and places them in the Mobilization phase.

[Funcioneta]

Great, more bonuses for Japan against China. Japan can trade territories and gain the IPC. China cannot trade territories, not only because they lose the lone fighter they have, but also because they colect poping inf at begining of turn instead the usual colect income at end of turn.

Thinking ways of modding China to a true playable power …  :roll:

[Krieghund]

The rules say that Chinese units may not move outside of China.  They make no distinction between land and air units.  The Chinese fighter may not leave Chinese territory, even temporarily.  I checked with Larry on this, and he verified it.

[losttribe04]

I have not been following all that close so humor me please.  When China gets there new units can they bunch them into one space in the mobilize phase or do they have to spread them out?

Thanks,
LT

[Krieghund]

They may place them in any Chinese-held territories that don’t already have three or more Chinese units in them.  They may place them together or separately.

[losttribe04]

Thanks, Krieghund + 1.

LT

[Black_Elk]

Also in AA50 there is need for a lot of cooperation between the allied powers. Allowing China to perform an high level strategy cooperation will seem a little bit strange. For example seeing Chinese infantry defending India or cooperating with Russian Army will be really strange. At moment I am curious to see how China works as sub-player because it seems to be more fitting  with a nation that fought a bloodly war but rarely looked over the boundaries of its country to participate in high level strategy planning.
If after several games played China will appear really weak and an easy prey for Japan then we can start to think to some home rule

I can almost guarantee, that if you included China as a full faction they would be primarily preoccupied with their own defenses. If anything it’d be Indian and Russia troops helping to defend Chungking and not the other way around. In any case, the patterns of conflict can be easily determined by the unit set up. Right now China seems hopelessly neutered, with its own confusing ‘inf pop’ status and the inability to move outside its starting territories. I really dislike this idea of a Chinese defensive wall. I would rather the territories were under USA control, or else built into a seperate faction.

Also, I’m not impressed by the argument that a Chungking factory would be of more use to Japan than the Allies. Clearly if we were going to do something along these lines then we would design China to have a fighting chance in this game, and not just get blown off the map in two or three rounds.

:-)

[italiansarecoming]

hmm……

these are both reasonable arguements from you the opposing sides:

1 side thinks give china fighting chance and allow them to be a true player;
While the other enjoys allowing china to have little coperation and showing chinas weaknesses of knowing whats happening(this is basically using china as a dump for none to little help to the allies which the cinese did very little besides stall the japanese army in many squabbles

i beleive that an ipc in china or without will not harm anyone any ways even if china did have 1 ipc complex and there was a rule (sorry about going to house rules/ maybe a real rule in a&a50) that chinas complex gets destroyed as soon as a conquerer takes it .

[Funcioneta]

If they want China being only a nuisance to Japan, as in real WWII, so be it, but she must be a nuisance, and not free IPCs for Japan. I mean China should be able at least of defend herself, not being a weak sparring for eeer… Japan 1  :-P

[italiansarecoming]

Oh well all games have flukes except games that are as simple as risk! but risk has the flaw of boring and no change

[Flying Tiger]

IMO if the fighter is an American squadron then I have no problem using it out of Chinese territory. It is weak by itself though and best used as defending chinese territories.

Off Topic: Just for bragging rights I was a part of the Flying Tigers unit at Pope AFB. 1993-1995. I even got a 1 hour ride in a 2 seater F-16. I miss the Air Force but I don’t miss the pay.

[italiansarecoming]

ya the chinese fighter should stauy in chinese territory to show that china was totally scared of more japanese army’s coming oh oh japanese coming ahhhh!

[Atlantikwall]

@Krieghund:

Any number of new Chinese infantry can be placed in any Chinese territory.  However, they can’t be placed in territories that already contain three or more Chinese units.

Just to clarify: can you place units in territories that you have conquered this turn?

E.g. China retakes Hupeh with 1 inf. Can you place another two there at the end of your turn (assuming that you have at least 4 chinese territories)?

[italiansarecoming]

hmm we are all just guessing here until it comes we will not know for sure this is just great

[Imperious Leader]

Just to clarify: can you place units in territories that you have conquered this turn?

E.g. China retakes Hupeh with 1 inf. Can you place another two there at the end of your turn (assuming that you have at least 4 chinese territories)?

IN 1941 China is going to be left with 3 territories and be able to make one infantry. BY J2 China is gone unless uk does something with USSR. Japan has enough men and planes to kill 4 spots quite easily.

[Guest]

@italiansarecoming:

hmm we are all just guessing here until it comes we will not know for sure this is just great

Makes the moment you get it that much more sweet!

[Bluestroke]

In AA50 1941, I would agree with those who point out, the rules, as we understand them, is to allow the Chinese to distract the Japanese and not become a full viable playing power.

item:China can not be ignored or they become a problem.  They should not be so powerful as to be conquering other territory.  Along with, Burma, Hongkong and China, they distract-burn the resources of the Japanese, limiting/slowing the japanese India push.  It buys UK and extra round.  Thats all UK really needs to get the India IC up and running.  The main confrontation will still be India.  Uk has slightly better odds, in this setup, of making that IC viable.  And as someone pointed out, the extra Chinese territories, will slow down a tank push from Japan to Moscow.  It looks like a slight change from AAR, with good balance IMHO.  I believe those who want China to be more viable are on the balance beam, too much, too little.  Only game time under our belts will tell the truth of Larry’s balancing act.

item:a big item, no one mentions much, the US pacific carrier is now safe for US to base a pacific fleet.  Now with two Japanese carriers, this close to the West Coast, US is forced to spend/defend resources in the Pacific.