OK tinkering with an idea here….
CONTROL
1. The CPC is controlled by the USSR Player in a manner identical to the US-Chinese arrangement OOB.
SET-UP
2. Replace the infantry starting in Suiyuan with Communist Chinese (CPC) infantry… maybe use the Russians from AA Pacific.
3. Remainder are KMT and function pretty much like OOB.
CPC PRODUCTION & NEW UNIT PLACEMENT
4. The CPC “grows” 1 infantry for every Originally Chinese territory controlled by the Axis. (The idea here is that the brutal occupation is what aids recruiting.)
5. These infantry may be placed only in Original Chinese territories that are unoccupied or contain 1 CPC infantry. If a territory contains 2 or more CPC then no new units can go there.
6. If no valid territories exist then the unplaced CPC infantry are “lost”.
7. Note that if a territory contains 1 CPC and 1 (or more) KMT unit(s) the new CPC can still go there. BUT if only the KMT were there then the new CPC infantry cannot be placed there.
KMT PRODUCTION & NEW UNIT PLACEMENT
8. CPC controlled territories count towards the KMT calculation.
9. However, the OOB 2:1 ratio is only rounded up if the Burma Road territories (Burma, India and Yunnan) are under KMT control or UK or US hands. Axis control or USSR or CPC occupation rounds down the 2:1 calculation.
10. As long as the Axis do not control any of the Burma Road territories the US may replace that fighter.
11. CPC count towards the 3 unit maximum for placing KMT on the US turn.
MOVEMENT
12. Neither CPC nor KMT can move outside the Original Chinese boundary.
13. KMT units cannot enter a territory where CPC units would outnumber them at the end of that movement phase.
COMBAT
14. KMT and CPC cannot attack jointly nor with their US / USSR “patrons”.
15. When attacked the Russian / CPC player has the option of retreating (without casualties) his infantry to any neighboring Original Chinese Territory not occupied by the Axis.
INCOME
16. No one collects income for territories occupied by Chinese forces.
Whatcha think?
Whatcha think?
I think you looked at my AA50 house rules posted last year and added about 20% more.
So they are just great
@Imperious:
Whatcha think?
I think you looked at my AA50 house rules posted last year and added about 20% more.
So they are just great
Well then you sir would be mistaken.
And I guess I just have to get used to this sense of humour of yours.
from 11-8-08 ( actually created a month earlier but proofed and tested)
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=12316.0
China:
_China is now made up of two military/political entities:
Set up: the starting Chinese units remain in place and are considered KMT. Add one infantry in Chinghai, Ningxia and Sikang which now represent starting CPC units. If the KMT leaves any of their starting territories or is removed from them, the KMT may attack or occupy these by breaking the truce.
Placement change: KMT units are placed at the rate of one infantry per territory under control. The KMT conducts its turn functions as per the out of the box rules and is considered the official Chinese player as per the rules. The CPC can attack the KMT and break the truce, and this would be a desirable considering the production is double.
The US player can always replace the lost Chinese starting fighter if it’s destroyed. They can also fly one bomber to China to be used as needed on the USA turn. No other US/UK forces are allowed in Chinese territories.
The CPC conducts its turn functions during the Soviet players turn.
Greater China: China (both KMT and CPC) may only enter the following additional territories of greater China which consist of French- Indo China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Kiangsu.
Burma Road: If Yunnan or Burma are under allied control, the UK player can lend up to 3 IPC a turn to the KMT player.
From the latest version created in Jan/ Feb 2009:
China:
_China is now made up of two military/political entities:
Set up: the starting Chinese units remain in place in 1941 and are considered KMT. Add one infantry in Chinghai and Ningxia and add one in Suiyuan for 1942 which now represent starting CPC units. If the KMT loses any of their starting territories to Japan, the KMT may attack on its own and keep the territory. In this case they keep it.
CPC infantry attack and defend at 1 to represent their relatively poor fighting conditions
But they do recruit better and can generate 1 infantry for each territory they control.
Placement change: KMT units are placed at the rate of one infantry per territory under control. The KMT conducts its turn functions as per the out of the box rules and is considered the official Chinese player as per the rules. The CPC can attack the KMT and seize territories for itself, and this would be a desirable considering the production is double. Like the original rules you can only place new units in territories that contain less than 3 units.
Flying Tigers: The US player can always replace the lost Chinese starting fighter if it’s destroyed. They can also fly one bomber to China to be used as needed on the USA turn. No other US/UK forces are allowed in Chinese territories.
Greater China: China (both KMT and CPC) may only enter the following additional territories of greater China which consist of French- Indo China, Manchuria, Kwangtung, and Kiangsu. If China occupies any of these territories they keep the income to buy any unit they choose. Both the KMT and CPC may occupy the same territory and defend together, but attack as separate forces.
Burma Road: If Yunnan, French Indo-China or Burma are under allied control, the UK player can lend up to 3 IPC a turn to the KMT player. This income can be used to buy any type of unit.
OK not sure about limiting what the US / UK can place in China….
I was previously thinking that the CPC should get 1 infantry for any Chinese territory (including Kwangtung) occupied by any Imperialist devils… US / UK / Axis.
Except that encourages US/UK deployment…
BUT :-D if one goes with your reduced combat value of CPC and their “melt away on joint defense” option there’s a motive for the US/UK to limit their deployment, keeping CPC numbers low enough to permit more reliable KMT placement… hmmm.
Another wrinkle on Anglo-Soviet cooperation in China, I was thinking that the Soviet player could opt to place no new CPC infantry and instead place 1 Russian infantry in a Russian-controlled territory bordering China.
Thinking you can’t arm everybody [univeral QM principle: but if I issue it to you I won’t have it in stores!]
And - most importantly - gives the Soviets a nice little option to betray both their clients and the Yankee pawns! :evil:
But need to restrict how often that happens so the Russians don’t do it every turn and Novosibirsk becomes an infantry mill. :|
I think the rules are a bit gamey.
I think AA is KISS so i just replace a number of territories as CPC, reduce the effectiveness of CPC because they are not the officially supported power, but double 1:1 the production because China after all had some 550 divisions of poorly trained and equipped armies.
The other thing is to model the actual competition of CPC and KMT, where they can fight each other as well as Japanese.
Yes they had a truce, but it was plausible that at any time the nationalist would go back to fighting the Communists.
I don’t see any need to allow the Soviets to enter China or mess with Japan unless Japan attacks first.
I would change my Burma road rules and perhaps make it so China gets one extra infantry while the road is open.
@Imperious:
I don’t see any need to allow the Soviets to enter China or mess with Japan unless Japan attacks first.
sorry let me clarify: I didn’t mean that the Soviets would add that one Russian infantry into China. It would be placed in a Russian territory on their side of the Sino-Soviet border.
Sort of Stalin’s second-thoughts about how close those panzers are… diverting materials to kit out another Stalingrad-bound division. “Better luck next turn Mao” :-D
@Imperious:
The other thing is to model the actual competition of CPC and KMT, where they can fight each other as well as Japanese.
Yes they had a truce, but it was plausible that at any time the nationalist would go back to fighting the Communists.
Agreed. Just need to concoct some good carrots to dangle in front of the US and USSR players so that they can try to walk that line toward individual victory, letting neither the Japanese or their “ally” dominate China.
Remember that the USA built up a major bomber base in Chengdu in order to bomb Japan, and this prompted the last major Japanese offensive of the war. I see no reason to limit the placement of US aircraft on Chinese soil. Of course they wouldn’t be able to attack in conjunction with Chinese units.
Remember that the USA built up a major bomber base in Chengdu in order to bomb Japan, and this prompted the last major Japanese offensive of the war. I see no reason to limit the placement of US aircraft on Chinese soil. Of course they wouldn’t be able to attack in conjunction with Chinese units.
agreed :-D
