Thank you for your wisdom.
A simple fix for China…
-
One thing that our group has tried to do is allow the US to build more Flying Tigers while they are “nuetral”. The plane is built in the Western US I/C and then on the next non-combat move, can be flown out to Hawaii or Midway. Then on the next combat move, the flying tigear can island hop all the way to China. It can not be transported on an allied carrier (the P40 was not set up for naval duty). As long as the US is nuetral, it can build 1ea P40 for the Chinese. So far, only two have been built and only one made it to China. The second one was caught on the Philipeans when the Japanese attacked and took the Island. The thought was to at least try to get more help to the Chinese without altering the OOB too much. May consider a few more additional infintry to help China remain a viable force.Â
Interesting idea. To make things a little easier for the US and China to pull off this trick, here’s something to consider. The Philippine-based Far East Air Force of the US Army had a decent number of P40 Warhawks in its inventory at the time (the figure for December 1941 was about 90 operational ones). The P40 Warhawk was the aircraft flown by the Flying Tigers, and it conveniently appears as the Allied fighter sculpt in A&A 1941 (so it’s ideal for use as the Flying Tiger plane allowed for China under the OOB rules). Taking your concept of giving China extra Flying Tiger planes, here are two ideas:
-
Replace the American fighter which the setup charts allocate to the Philippines with a P40 Warhawk, then allow it to fly to China as a new unit of the American Volunteer Group (which technically – or at least arguably – would not violate American neutrality), then allow the US to replace this Philippine-based fighter at leisure by a conventionally delivered P38 Lightning American fighter (reserved for US use only).
-
Alternately, leave the American fighter in the Philippines as it is in the setup chart, but add a P40 Warhawk there which can be transfered to China as a new unit of the American Volunteer Group.
-
-
I like the idea of getting a second flying tiger to China faster. Our thought process was to potentially help China more without directly altering the setup. The US doesn’t have to commit more to China but can. The Chinese/FEC have to keep the road open in order to buy American artillery, even while the US is nuetral. A previously built tiger enroute to China via the Philipeans, as the game begins, would still demonstate the volunteer spirit and desire to aid China without a direct intervention or violation of the US government supplying weoponry. The US could still continue to buy and fly P40’s across the pacific until entering the war, should they choose to. Makes me think of adding a leand lease provision to G40 as well.
-
A previously built tiger enroute to China via the Philipeans, as the game begins, would still demonstate the volunteer spirit and desire to aid China without a direct intervention or violation of the US government supplying weoponry.Â
If I were among the US officials involved in this scenario, the cover story I’d come up with (to try to preserve a veneer of neutrality) would go like this. “China recently purchased from the United States some old surplus P40 Warhawks that our Far Eastern Air Force in the Philippines was already planning to decommission. We’ve therefore struck them from our official inventory of military hardware, and we’ve hired some civilian pilots to ferry them over to China, where the planes – and perhaps the pilot themselves, because after all this is a free country and we don’t tell our civilians what to do – will join the 1st American Volunteer Group (AVG) of the Chinese Air Force. None of this should be construed as the US itself becoming a belligerant in the Sino-Japanese War…and in any case, Japan’s in no position to criticize, because they’re the aggressors in that war anyway. So, there’s no problem with any of this, right?” :-D
-
Exactly.
-
A simple way…in our game, IJN cannot be used to attack China.(until japan is at war againt the allies).
-
A simple way…in our game, IJN cannot be used to attack China.(until japan is at war againt the allies).
I don’t see how that would work - China and Japan were fighting since 1937.
-
My house rule for China. If no allies troop in China, China collect 5 ipc + normal ipc and the Burma road, Japan is hardly for take all China, In 3 game test, Is not arrive Japan take all China but is not impossible.
-
Any body try adding more Chinese Inf to the setup ?
My house rule for China. If no allies troop in China, China collect 5 ipc + normal ipc and the Burma road, Japan is hardly for take all China, In 3 game test, Is not arrive Japan take all China but is not impossible.
This might work also.
-
A simple way…in our game, IJN cannot be used to attack China.(until japan is at war againt the allies).
:-D :-D :-D :-D
-
CWO Marc has brought up the observation of the map distortion for China greatly exaggerating Japan’s hold on the mainland, and the fact Japan can move in several hundred miles further in unabated the first turn is even more unrealistic. I can’t attest to the troop positions and garrisons of June 1940 but perhaps a few more Chinese infantry could be placed in empty territories (Chahar and Anhwe) to at least force Japan to burn a few more infantry and slow down their unstoppable early onslaught into China.
Perhaps tied into blunting Japan’s enormous air power they could trade some fighters for an equal value of artillery/infantry.
-
@SS:
Any body try adding more Chinese Inf to the setup ?
My house rule for China. If no allies troop in China, China collect 5 ipc + normal ipc and the Burma road, Japan is hardly for take all China, In 3 game test, Is not arrive Japan take all China but is not impossible.
This might work also.
-
Prohibit construction of factories in China by all powers, including Japan. Is simple rule, and might significantly ameliorate the problem/
-
Prohibit construction of factories in China by all powers, including Japan. Is simple rule, and might significantly ameliorate the problem/
Simple enough. I like it.
The unfortunate thing is that there is no real rationale for why.
-
Prohibit construction of factories in China by all powers, including Japan. Is simple rule, and might significantly ameliorate the problem/
Of course it could work from a game balance view, but as Hoffman just said, there is no real rational for why. In fact, China had both industry and a capitol before Japan come and occupied it. China should be treated the same way as France after Turn 2, when Germany occupy Paris, but there are still some minor ICs on French territories. Its not like its prohibited to have factories in France for the rest of the game, just because Paris is occupied. So why treat China different ? Why cant all playing nations be equal ? Following the same mainstream rules ? Some derogatory special rule will not fix a game balance issue. Maybe an extra man in Anhwe is better than a wholesale rewrighting of the rulebook _
just my 2 cents man
-
Prohibit construction of factories in China by all powers, including Japan. Is simple rule, and might significantly ameliorate the problem/
"Its not like its prohibited to have factories in France for the rest of the game, just because Paris is occupied. So why treat China different ? Why cant all playing nations be equal ? Following the same mainstream rules ? Some derogatory special rule will not fix a game balance issue. Maybe an extra man in Anhwe is better than a wholesale rewrighting of the rulebook _
just my 2 cents man"
Its actually really simple: China was not a modern, industrialized country at the time of the war. This is not “derogatory.” This is a fact. What you characterize as a “wholesale rewriting of the rulebook,” is actually already part and parcel of the existing rules. . .since China already cannot build factories. Making this restriction apply to all powers that occupy China would make the rules more uniform, not less. . . and it would also make plenty of sense from both a historic and gameplay perspective.
Just my 2 cents, man
-
I think China’s treatment as a territory restricted non-industrial power is an abstraction of the dysfunction that gripped the country as it dealt with both Japanese invasion and a ‘cold’ civil war.
-
That too!
-
Take an overall look at the situation then:
- Due to the inner turmoil and backwards technology of China, they could not get their act together offensively to drive Japan out.
- China’s practically bottomless infantry reserves and underdeveloped infrastructure made a total Japanese conquest pretty much impossible.
This historic situation can be duplicated in a simple and acceptable way by having five Chinese infantry rise up every time a Chinese territory is attacked. This way Japan can either burn through a lot of infantry trying to bring down China or set up a defensive wall and expand elsewhere. But China will not be lightly brushed aside any more.
-
Its actually really simple: China was not a modern, industrialized country at the time of the war. This is not “derogatory.” This is a fact. What you characterize as a “wholesale rewriting of the rulebook,” is actually already part and parcel of the existing rules. . .since China already cannot build factories. Making this restriction apply to all powers that occupy China would make the rules more uniform, not less. . . and it would also make plenty of sense from both a historic and gameplay perspective.
Just my 2 cents, man
Even though your (and the game’s) characterization of China as disorganized and pre-industrial is accurate, the rules are pretty clear in that China cannot build Industrial Complexes (anywhere) and if they capture one of their territories with a Industrial Complex it is simply removed. No issues.
Re-formatting the rule so that the Axis cannot build factories there either is rather shortsighted in my opinion. It is convenient in reducing the threat of a China crush by Japan, but does so artificially by removing the Japanese factory build option entirely from the table. Historically, China was not industrialized, but Japan was and brought a good deal of it to China. Manchuria in particular, as an established puppet state, became a large industrial production center for Japan in the 1920s and remained so throughout the war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Manchukuo#Industry).
In A&A G40, the Manchukuo/Manchuria territory is noted as being Chinese, but under Japanese occupation to start the game. In my opinion, Japan should probably have a minor factory there to begin with, but OOB that is not so. Taking away Japan’s ability to build one there has no historical basis. There is likewise no reason to prevent Japan from being able to build Industrial Complexes in other Chinese territories either. If you were to except Manchuria from your proposed rule, on the above mentioned historical grounds, what is the real difference between it and other Chinese territories? Especially the others under Japanese control to begin the game. There really isn’t any.
The rule you suggest is impeccably simple, but it is historically unfounded and completely removes a viable option for the Japanese player, boxing him in just a bit more. Personally, I think there are other ways to address the China crush and cross-Asia push to Moscow.
-
Any body try adding more Chinese Inf to the setup ?
Quote from: GODLEADER on October 22, 2015, 08:29:17 am
My house rule for China. If no allies troop in China, China collect 5 ipc + normal ipc and the Burma road, Japan is hardly for take all China, In 3 game test, Is not arrive Japan take all China but is not impossible.
This might work also.
–-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or US lend lease…?
Suggested Topics
