“him” the one who embodies our passion for the game and exhibits it
“it” our passion for this game/the game and our desire to express it
Avoid China
-
Then, the game design is flawed, even before knowing the true setup. China not allowed go out of China (and the whole minor popping inf status) is bugged. Minor popping inf status leads to some minor bugs involving conquered ICs and aa guns (but at least it will happen few times)
China not allowed attack Japaneses leads to avoid China strat. What if Chineses conquer both Manchuria and Kwantung? OK, it’s 11 IPCs less (6 for lovers of only-mandatory-stuff) , but you would need about the same amount to fight the chineses with uncertain result. Now you can focus in any IC UK could buy (Australia or mainly India) without caring about Chineses. Evacuate both territories J1 and aim for USA or Moscow (your choice, if allies try ignore Japan strat) or simply Moscow if allies go global war strat. What about VCs? Well, allies need more than 2 vcs to win and anyway you have India and Australia at your reach. Simply conquer Moscow or California and it’s game won for axis anyway, you don’t have to care of china in all the very game
Only Hong Kong could do anything, but it would need a IC :-o, a succesfull tech roll on improved industry and then start building ships there :-P. But many will not allow tech :-P and still the deploy of this strat (another bug, by the way) would cost at the very least 20 ipcs and any costly ships you could buy (ships that can be destroyed easily by Japan’s navy unless they are beaten anyway)
The best and simpler is mod that buggy rule: change “China cannot go out China” for “China cannot enter allied territories but they can attack axis territories at pleasure”. Or, of course, make China a normal playable country with normal IC and such, as should.
I think at least some players will try avoid China, think how many players ignore Japan now (and Japan can go out Japan, opposite to China :-D ). Modding is needed I fear.
I was one of the people who played this game at GenCon. I controlled Japan. I felt like I was under pressure everywhere, and therefore not in a position to deliver decisive pressure of my own.
J1: My starting income was only 17 IPCs, so I felt I had to expand quickly to have a chance to keep up with the Allies over the long term. The most obvious expansion opportunity was Pacific islands such as the Philippines and the East Indies. The need to take those places meant that early on, I was sending fewer troops to the mainland. Also on J1, I focused on taking Chinese territories, and on sinking as much of the Allied fleet as possible.
J2: By now there was a factory in India. Because I’d focused on increasing my income in my previous turn, my units were not in a position to threaten the factory. In any case, I decided China was a more urgent priority than India. My plan was to eliminate the Chinese problem first, the Indian problem second, and somewhere in there start putting pressure on the eastern Soviet Union. My ability to execute these plans was hampered by my low income, and by the fact that the U.S. player was pumping all his resources into the Pacific.
J3: I think this was the turn that Greg moved a large Soviet force right next to the Manchurian border. (Or maybe he waited until USSR4.) I destroyed this force, and I think I obtained a favorable exchange. I was left with a relatively small force at the end. Those few remaining units were able to slowly push westward. However, I wasn’t in a position to send very many additional units to that theater, because my strength was very badly needed elsewhere. China was proving to be a more lingering problem than I’d anticipated. Bad die rolls cost me some battles I should have won. This meant that China received more infantry than should have. There were times when China was able to use large infantry forces to retake weakly-held Japanese territories. (Some of this was my fault for not making those territories stronger, and some of it was dice.) I was becoming bogged down in China–and the Chinese player receiving too many infantry–at the very time when I most needed to be applying decisive, crushing pressure in that theater. I simply wasn’t in a position to send more strength there, because of the need to counter the U.S. naval threat, and because of the pressure Britain and the Soviets were applying.
J4: It was either by J4 or J5 that I began devoting a large portion of my production to naval units. I had to have a stronger fleet than the U.S. fleet, or else I would have started losing my income-producing islands. I was too weak economically already, and the loss of those islands would have been devastating for me. (Bear in mind that we were playing without the national advantages–a fact which probably unbalanced the game in favor of the Allies.) I’d made some progress in gaining income, both with islands and on the mainland. But the American income, alone, was higher than mine, and all of it was being thrown against me. Add to that the Chinese infantry that kept regrowing each turn, and the three units Britain kept pumping into India, and it was clear that the Allies were building up their strength in that area faster than I could build up mine.
Nor were things going well elsewhere. The Soviet Union had initially given some ground to the German advance. But the Germans reached a point where they could advance no further because there was too large a pile of Soviet infantry in the way. Then, the Soviets began grimly pushing the Germans back. This wasn’t so much a case of big battles being fought, as it was a case of the German player realizing that he was overextended and needed to withdraw westward a territory. Then a turn or two later he’d be forced to withdraw westward by another territory. It was clear that, eventually, the Soviet Amy would push all the way to Berlin.
The lone bright spot was that when the game ended, the Allied resistance to an Italian conquest of Africa had basically been eliminated. Africa would likely have gone over to the Italians, providing the Axis with much-needed income. But it wouldn’t have been enough.
The first point I’d like to make with all this is that you are suggesting a rules change that would benefit the Allies, and I’m firmly convinced that’s the absolute last thing this game needs. (To anyone who thinks the Flying Tigers shouldn’t be destroyed on J1, the same thing applies: the Allies have it too good already.)
I made mistakes early on, such as buying two research tokens when I should have been building units. I also built more transports than I needed. With the increased size of the gameboard, I had assumed I’d need the mobility that only transports can provide. And that was true to some degree, but what I really needed more of was brute force, especially in China. I also should have waited a turn before shifting my focus over to naval units. Together, these things might well have allowed me to eliminate China, thus eliminating one of the three sources of new Allied units to my theater (the other two being the India factory and the U.S. West Coast factory).
Suppose instead that I had taken your advice, and had evacuated from China. This would have lost me the China income, plus the income from Hong Kong, Manchuria, and Kwangtung. Under this strategy, my main short-term goal would obviously be to take India and the Pacific Islands. The long-term goal would be to have an income greater than, or equal to, that of the U.S., to prevent the long-term economic/naval domination by the American player. (If the American player can afford to spend X IPCs in the Pacific, the Japanese player had better be able to spend at least X, or else over the long term he is doomed.) To obtain that >U.S. income, I would need South Asia + Pacific islands + some Soviet territory. Without looking at the gameboard, I don’t know whether this would be enough.
Withdrawing from China does have one advantage: it allows you to simply ignore the 10 - 14 Soviet units (I don’t remember the exact number) that would otherwise be in a position to threaten Manchuria. You’d just let them sit there over the short term, while focusing on conquering British territory and Pacific islands. This accomplished, step 2 could be a massive invasion of the eastern Soviet Union. (Unless of course you chose to let that force continue sitting there while invading from the south. An Indian Ocean focus would also position you to go after Africa.)
I’m not yet sure what Japan’s best strategic move is. All I know is that in my one and only game of this, I simply didn’t have the strength to accomplish everything I set out to achieve. Instead of the “conquer everything at once” strategy of Revised, it may be necessary to focus on obtaining overwhelming local supremacy in one theater after another–especially if the U.S. is throwing everything it has into the Pacific. The Axis starts off at a severe economic disadvantage. I suspect that over the long term, it may need the China income if it is to overcome that disadvantage.
Some of the ideas I’ve read on this forum make sense. For example, Japan would be much better off conquering India on J2 than it would be in conquering the Philippines on J1. If Japan can prevent the U.K. from building a factory in India (or else immediately take the factory if built), it would solve a lot of the problems I encountered that game. With no new British units in that theater, and with the extra income from India, Japan would be in a strong position to deliver decisive force to China and that large eastern Soviet force. If the first domino (India) falls, China and the eastern Soviet Union are very likely to follow. But if the Allies can hold onto an India complex early game, and if they can bog down Japan’s advance into China, and if the U.S. devotes everything to the Pacific, things would look very grim for Japan.
-
Oh, wall of text! :-o Seems you played with the true setup. Well, let’s suppose you are true and China not needs new units or conserve her lone and last fighter round 1. If true, at least one thing must be modded: China should be able of attacking Japanese controled territories, as FIC, Burma or India (and even german and italian occupied ones if you ask me). If not, we’ll see gamey strats here and there.
-
Yea, pretty reasonable stuff, Craig :-)
Just a item: in Revised, techs were forbidden for competitive play in most places, even if tech were mandatory in OOB rules. Maybe the same will happen with China not being able of go out of China: mandatory in OOB, but ignored rule in league games or even in LH rules next versions
-
Yea, pretty reasonable stuff, Craig :-)
Just a item: in Revised, techs were forbidden for competitive play in most places, even if tech were mandatory in OOB rules. Maybe the same will happen with China not being able of go out of China: mandatory in OOB, but ignored rule in league games or even in LH rules next versions
I agree, what if you are just very good or lucky with CHINA? In a game of Pacific I played once, to the surprise of all players… with a little dice luck and some poor Japanese decisions CHINA became not only a nuisance but a TRUE THREAT! It would seem silly to me that if CHINA was lucky enough to stand on its own two feet ans expel the invaders… They would sit on thier hands when they had the Japanese on the run in Asia.
(If this game is ever changed so CHINA is a 7th player this will have to be the case)
-
The war game: world war 2 allows that to be done because china is its own player.
You cannot avoid china at all because of its power the only problem i have with it is were the industrial complex is and the only reason it is there is actually because of how it can touch the water. The game is very realistic for adding china italy is added. normally for 6 players because there is 8 powers germany, japan, china. italy, france, ussr, gb and usa. normally they say they would play as 6 players so italy/ china would be played for 1 or all allied players or 5 players so china/ italy played by all or 1 player. france is for d-day. Also i would like to pinot out this game is similiar to a&a except for the dice is 12 not 6. Anyways chian in that game is playable.
Avoiding china i beleive many will not since it is quite away to deplinish the forces of asia for the allies and gives a little ipc’s for the cost of few men.
In all in all there will be probably a few who will not go for asia but thats all good more men to supply eastern/western sea front.
-
a couple questions for clarification:
- 1 infantry per 2 territories…so you round down not up if you have an odd number?
- rules state that you can only place new units up to a limit of three units per territory. Does that include the flying tiger unit or only chinese infantry? what about other allied forces reinforcing the chinese? do those also count towards the limit of three units?
-
- 1 infantry per 2 territories…so you round down not up if you have an odd number?
Correct.
- rules state that you can only place new units up to a limit of three units per territory. Does that include the flying tiger unit or only chinese infantry? what about other allied forces reinforcing the chinese? do those also count towards the limit of three units?
Only Chinese units count, including the fighter. You can only place units in territories that had less than three Chinese units before you started placing units, but there’s no limit on the number of units you can place in a single territory. In other words, you can place all of your new units in a territory that already has two units in it, but none of them in a territory that already has three units in it.
-
I am rather skeptical about this avoid China strategy. I believe that Japan will need a firm base on the mainland of Asia to extend it’s control over the continent and that base is ideally Manchuria or Kiangsu. If you simply forfeit these territories to the Chinese then what other options have you? India? Perhaps but the U.K. and U.S. will do everything they can to wrench you out of it, and will most likely receive Russian aid and in the end Russia will be able to throw more units in India than Japan in my opinion. What about Russia’s territory? Again maybe, but they aren’t worth very much and it’s a long way to rich lands from Soviet Far East, not to mention you’ll be vunerable to attacks from the Russians and Americans, who are sitting in Alaska. So, I believe that Manchuria is the ideal spot to build an IC and get your firm footing on the mainland, and that is threatened by China. I believe as China has no hitting power, since they can only get infantry, that you could defend against them fairly easily and cheaply, also using infantry, so they wouldn’t dare attack Japan if the Japs had enough Infantry in Manchuria, or else they would hit back and steam roll all of China, especially since you can’t hastily rebuild China’s forces. I believe it will be far more likely to have a stalemate for the first 3-5 turns then see Japan attempt to defeat China and thus gain quick and easy access into the Russian heartland from the back door.
-
Avoiding China is one of the dumbest strategic thoughts I have ever heard for several reasons.
-
Their units are free. All the other Allies have to purchase units and get them into the Pacific. Other than Russia, this means either an IC or transports which = more purchases.
-
They are nothing but a paper tiger to start out with and I see no reason to allow them to grow stronger. After the destruction of the Chinese fighter on round 1 they have no real ability to attack. This also means it is worth sacrificing Japanese fighters to kill the Chinese fighter because once it is gone China has almost no means of attacking you.
-
The Chinese territories are very hard for the allies to reach. This means once you have them they are yours.
-
-
The idea of ignoring China was because that dumb rule of “China cannot go out of China”. Why fight a power who cannot attack you? Leaving Manchuria ang Kiangsu would reduce China to a almost “neutral” country.
But I must agree. It’s better toast the chineses J1. It’s ridiculously easy killing all them in 1941, and you can still reduce to 3 territories, 4 units, in 1942 :-P. China is not properly represented in this game, I think it’s even worst than in Revised in 1941 and simply not fun in 1942
-
I think China is an easy task for Japan in either scenario. AS long as you take the fighter on the first turn its easy.
-
But as long as China gets the worst of Japan’s attacks on J1 then it doesn’t matter. The allies are each given one turn to prepare, since China is virtually of no use to them anyway, they lose nothing if they lost China, but Japan loses precious time it doesn’t have, and they also would gain another border with the Russkies, who are not to nice on land, especially with two IC’s nearby. Simply by absorbing Japan’s blow it serves it’s purpose. Not well represented enough? China was a weak struggling nation with no industries, no coastline pratically, and on top of that they were not in anyway unified against Japan, they only reason Japan did not destroy them was because of China’s size and the fact that Japan had to worry about other fronts.
-
@Ó:
Not well represented enough? China was a weak struggling nation with no industries, no coastline pratically, and on top of that they were not in anyway unified against Japan, they only reason Japan did not destroy them was because of China’s size and the fact that Japan had to worry about other fronts.
China’s size is not properly represented. China was not at brink of colapse in 1941 as in this setup. They were at draw with Japan. How reasonable is that Japan can make China a 1 inf nation after China 1?. One lone inf! :-o Hardly the size of chinese armies, even bad quality as they were (the Kuomingtan ones, not the commies). As for other fronts, China was resisting alone, yes, alone and divided, from 1937, more time that USA fought against Japan the whole war.
Japan don’t loses precious time if they kill China J1. In fact, they are winning a lot of time killing one enemy power before it has its very first round. A major design flaw, allies fall as a card castle: first China, then India, then Pacific seas, then Moscow or San Francisco, Japan’s choice.
-
Like I said, knocking China out is very different from knocking Russia or the U.S. out. Seeing as how in previous versions the U.S. owned China and usually lost it right away, I can’t complain that they have a slim chance of holding it in AA50, besides, India cannot fall immediately after China as Neutral nations block the passage from India to China, and because China is absorbing a good part of Japan’s blow the Brits have a slight window in which to gear themselves to fight Japan. You must keep in mind that the U.S. and U.K. are very rich, and Japan is very poor, and losing China changes that only slightly for Japan, and not at all for the other two, so let Japan destroy China, who cares? Because the U.S. will be readying itself to counterattack Japan,who will not be able to resist unless they move far and fast.
-
I predict that China gets trounced every time, unless the rule is modified to 1 inf per territory (with no upwards cap at 3 total, or anything weird like that.) As it stands, once China is done, seems like its going to be Jap tanks on India and the Russians as usual.
The Chinese just shouldn’t fold this easily. They had the second highest military casualties of any nation after the Soviet Union, and tied down hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers for the durration. It should be a lot harder for the Japs to take Sikang and Ningxia. The British and Russians should be encouraged to reinforce and defend China, instead of just totally ignoring it as irrelevant after the first round.
Need to get beyond this scripted collapse of China that we’ve had going back to Classic, and replace it with something a bit more dynamic.
-
Having a high number of casualties does not necessarily indicate that they were fighting effectively. In fact it would rather point to the opposite, the Chinese dided in droves against Japan, and if they would make the game your way, then China would be a black hole that sapped Japan of it’s money and men. While this would be historically correct, the Japanese would have no hope of destroying China for good, much less Russia, and then there would be complaints that Japan had no hope for winning because China and Russia are to big and have to many soldiers.
-
Well right now its hard for me to see a good reason not to attack the Soviet Far east with Japan. Just to park the bombers in Yakut alone would make it worth it, but you can still grab 6 ipcs from the Russians without having to worry about anyone putting up much of a defense. It would have made more sense to me if China was a full player, and the Soviet Far East did some sort of non-aggression pact/valueless territories/infantry popping thing. Right now I don’t see China as a very strong deterrent to the invasion of Russia. You just knock them out in the first round, and start sending troops and bombers against Moscow.
Every version of AA since Classic has catered to this same scenario with a premature conflict between the Soviets and Japanese, at the expense of pretty much everything else. At least a China sink hole would be somewhat accurate to the history. I also think its odd how quick we are to marginalize the Chinese contribution to the Allied War effort. Just because Western war planners didn’t care much about Chinese casualties, and western historians have typically downplayed the Second Sino-Japanese war in favor of the broader global/European conflict, doesn’t mean that it was just a sideshow of little consequence. They way AA plays out, its as though the Japanese war plan in 37 had been perfectly executed according to their expectations: when the reality was more like a decade of intestine warfare and a total logistics nightmare. If it weren’t for all those dead Chinese people, maybe operation Impala would have actually been successful. Or maybe they would have invaded Australia instead, or hit Panama.
I feel like AA50 is getting closer to the mark, but its still not there yet. The Chinese need a little more fight to them, so that the rest of the Pacific/Asia will fall into the right balance.
-
So far by the accounts of people(s) that have played the game and are not just speculating, it looks like Japans intial low income dictates that they make bigger gains in the IPC deptarment, thus not to attack China.
The investment of troops and supplies and the meager gains from doing so at 1 IPC each TT look like they might have juicier targets. Then when finally you taken care of the targets in the Pacific etc. that get you gains thru NO’s you might consider coming back to China, but by then they might have enough Inf to discourage a Japanese player - the next logical step of thinking asks should you even bother when they cant even attack you anyways… ? -
@Ó:
Seeing as how in previous versions the U.S. owned China and usually lost it right away, I can’t complain that they have a slim chance of holding it in AA50
Revised: IC to India, IC to sin, fleet to z55. Result: China will resist at least 5-6 turns and if things go well, the whole game. With no ICs, 2 chinese inf could escape to USSR to fight back another day. China gives Japan 4 ipcs
AA50, 1941: China toasted J1. Fully toasted. 1 inf pops in Chinghai, ready to die in J3. No chance of escape to Soviet Union because of buggy rules. China gives Japan 7 ipcs. Result: China is much worst now
AA50, 1942: not sure, needs playtesting, but seems Japan can still attack and kill 4 territories, leading China to a poping 1 inf status. As best, equal resistance, but less attack power because killing the fig is a no brainer. Buggy rules still apply and China cannot trade territories even if the fig survives (by a miracle) because they “colect” inf at begining of turn instead the usual end of turn.
China is a bad joke in 1941, gives axis a too big advantage. I could stand China in 1942 (if it reveals balanced), but it’s buggy and not fun.
I must agreed with Black Elk, China is marginalized too often, even when they were fighting axis even before than Poland. WWII begun in 1937, to be honest, with Marco Polo issue.
-
So far by the accounts of people(s) that have played the game and are not just speculating, it looks like Japans intial low income dictates that they make bigger gains in the IPC deptarment, thus not to attack China.
The investment of troops and supplies and the meager gains from doing so at 1 IPC each TT look like they might have juicier targets. Then when finally you taken care of the targets in the Pacific etc. that get you gains thru NO’s you might consider coming back to China, but by then they might have enough Inf to discourage a Japanese player - the next logical step of thinking asks should you even bother when they cant even attack you anyways… ?You can take Philippines, Borneo, Sumatra and still China. 42 IPCs with NOs, 32 without them. Why should Japan spare a easy killed enemy power that will be popping guys and finally taking Manchuria and Kiangsu? Where do you else prefer attack than China? Soviets? 1 IPC and 3 guys killed instead of 4 inf, fig and 4 IPCs won. Australia? Good luck. Burma? You can do round 2 or 3 still. Alaska? Too risky for your fleet and gains less than in China
The juicier land target is China because is the bigger menace Japan can kill round 1, and nothing stops you from taking Dutch East Indies still, the 2nd juicier target
Suggested Topics
