China placing new units



  • Can china place new units on newly taken territories? I should restate this 1. Can China place units on newly taken territories that were originally china’s? 2. Can they place units on a territory that has 3 or more units during the mobilization/placement phase?

    Example: Yun is taken buy Japan turn1 china retakes with 4 units remaining after combat and then places 5 newly built units.



  • Yes to all. China can build in any Chinese territories that they control. Even ones taken over from Japan that they originally start with. You may also place units in territories that have been captured the same turn.



  • There is also no limit to the number of units you can place, so if China regains its footing its best to save money for a rainy day fund.



  • @JimmyHat:

    There is also no limit to the number of units you can place, so if China regains its footing its best to save money for a rainy day fund.

    Isn’t there a 1 per territory limit?


  • 2018 2017 '16 '11 Moderator

    @Ruanek:

    @JimmyHat:

    There is also no limit to the number of units you can place, so if China regains its footing its best to save money for a rainy day fund.

    Isn’t there a 1 per territory limit?

    No.  If China saved up the money for it, they could put 33 Infantry down in one territory in one turn, even if they just took it back from the Japanese.



  • The answer to all them is yes Why cant people read the rulebook?



  • I’m not even conviced that China (being as it had essentially no ‘industry’ during this period of history) should even be allowed to ‘carry-over’ IPC’s from turn to turn.

    In China’s case, the IPC’s earned cannot represent a build-up of manufacturing capacity but merely the ‘opportunity’ to marshal more manpower…which should not have a carry-over to allow a build up.

    The same argument could be made for the other powers; however, for the industrialized nations (ie:  all other powers) IPC’s carried over could represent a stockpiling of the needs of industry (steel, aluminium, oil/coal, etc.) for quick and easy use at a later date (the next turn).

    Any thoughts?



  • China shouldn’t be able to build more units in a territory than nations with actual industrial complexes can.



  • @DTDeGrave:

    I’m not even conviced that China (being as it had essentially no ‘industry’ during this period of history) should even be allowed to ‘carry-over’ IPC’s from turn to turn.

    In China’s case, the IPC’s earned cannot represent a build-up of manufacturing capacity but merely the ‘opportunity’ to marshal more manpower…which should not have a carry-over to allow a build up.

    The same argument could be made for the other powers; however, for the industrialized nations (ie:  all other powers) IPC’s carried over could represent a stockpiling of the needs of industry (steel, aluminium, oil/coal, etc.) for quick and easy use at a later date (the next turn).

    Any thoughts?

    I think that would actually be a good idea.
    Not that China usually carries over a lot in the games I play, but I can see the hoarding as a viable strategy - but as you say - the IPCs for China work more like a marshalling of man-power than a production.
    But then the question becomes whether China’s “collect income” should be based in the purchasing units phase, because they can only marshal troops from free territories.



  • @Ruanek:

    China shouldn’t be able to build more units in a territory than nations with actual industrial complexes can.

    This is an even better rule, much easier to handle.  Chinese spaces can produce no more than 10 units.  10 is the max per square.



  • @JimmyHat:

    @Ruanek:

    China shouldn’t be able to build more units in a territory than nations with actual industrial complexes can.

    This is an even better rule, much easier to handle.  Chinese spaces can produce no more than 10 units.  10 is the max per square.

    I was thinking no more than 3, because of minor ICs.



  • Well thats too few.  It would be even easier for Japan to roll China.  I think 10 is better because they won’t usually be able to produce 10 units anyways, only when they save and have 60ipcs could they do that.



  • good idea



  • @JimmyHat:

    Well thats too few.  It would be even easier for Japan to roll China.  I think 10 is better because they won’t usually be able to produce 10 units anyways, only when they save and have 60ipcs could they do that.

    Then what’s the point of the limit at all?  And why should Russia have to buy an IC to build 3 or 10 infantry a turn to defend when China can do it without an IC?

    I also won a game as the Allies operating under the mistaken impression that China could only place 1 unit per territory.  China still did pretty well.



  • Because China is different.  And is an exception.
    There’s no need for an arbitrary limit on China.



  • @Alsch91:

    Because China is different.  And is an exception.
    There’s no need for an arbitrary limit on China.

    Oh, ok.  I guess it makes sense that since China has a unique political/industrial situation it has a better ability to produce infantry than even well-established, industrialized nations.



  • Correct.  😄



  • they have a high population though



  • Thanks for the answers.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

36
Online

14.6k
Users

35.2k
Topics

1.4m
Posts