China / US situation



  • At the start of WII manufacturing in China was minimal. Most war materials where imported from the UK and later from late 1941 on the US was the primary supplier. The Flying Tiger group did not enter service in China until 1941. In July of 1942 the US Army began providing air combat services to China. Throughout the war the US was aiding in the development of a Chinese air force.

    It feels like the US is a bit overpowered in the global game as it stands now. A possible reason may be that the drain on US industrial capacity due to lend-lease is not represented in the game properly. Since the US player is already controlling China it’s a simple matter to expand the rules to have the US be    partially responsible for building the Chinese military and to allow it to provide additional aircraft to China

    After Burma fell to the Japanese the majority of the war materials exported from the US to  China had to be flown over the Himalayas  from bases in India. There was constant pressure on the US to provide more transport aircraft for this mission.  These airlift missions where expensive  and aircraft where at a premium.  If the Burma road is closed  the cost of Chinese infantry should be increased to reflect the additional cost of the airlift. While the US was doing this, the job of getting the Burma road open again was delegated to the British.

    I suggest the rules be modified to have the US receive the IPC’s generated by China after the US enters the war. From then on the US pays for all Chinese builds from it’s own IPC pool.  If the Burma road is closed I suggest the cost to build infantry in China be increased to 4 IPC’s each. The US would be free to spend  as many IPC’s as it wants on Chinese infantry.  The rule allowing the purchase of artillery  would remain the same. The US could  buy artillery  for China if the Burma road is open.  I also suggest the US be allowed to provide China with aircraft. The aircraft would be built at US Industrial complexes and moved to India. From there they could be flown into China and become Chinese units. The US would still be free to base it’s own planes in China if it wished.  The US should also be able to build airbases in China. All the Chinese builds could be done at the same time the US is doing it’s own builds.

    The 6 IPC bonus to China for the Burma road should be eliminated if these rules are used since the penalty cost now provides the motivation to keep the road open. The US fighter that China starts with should also be eliminated.

    These rules would put a small drain on  US IPC’s  and add some realism.  This could also improve  balance. Any benefit to the Axis is mostly offset  by the US ability to now buff the Chinese army more quickly. This also gives Japan a strong motivation to keep Burma occupied.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    I suggest the rules be modified to have the US receive the IPC’s generated by China after the US enters the war. From then on the US pays for all Chinese builds from it’s own IPC pool.

    Hang on…  Can’t the us spend 100 IPC’s in China then?  Even at 4 IPC’s an infantry  being able to spend 1 turn of income, to route all of Japan from the mainland, because one can place it’s builds in China anywhere, will break the game.

    This doesn’t make things more realistic.



  • @Gargantua:

    I suggest the rules be modified to have the US receive the IPC’s generated by China after the US enters the war. From then on the US pays for all Chinese builds from it’s own IPC pool.

    Hang on…  Can’t the us spend 100 IPC’s in China then?   Even at 4 IPC’s an infantry  being able to spend 1 turn of income, to route all of Japan from the mainland, because one can place it’s builds in China anywhere, will break the game.

    This doesn’t make things more realistic.

    That is possible but if they did that they’d have not spent 100 IPC somewhere else.  At one time there was a limit of not building more than 3 Inf in any given space in China. Something like that might be needed for it to work right. This is exactly why I posted this here. I knew someone would find the holes in it that need to be plugged before it’s tested.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    First this belongs in the house rules section… IL will soon move it.

    Secondly… the problem isn’t resolvable, even with conditions on 3 infantry per territory.

    The balance of Japanese / Chinese ground units in Asia, is VERY delicate.  And defeating, or bankrupting China, is a core component of most successful japanese strategies.

    To put the Americans in an immediate position, to bail out the chinese at anytime with say - 10 infantry a turn. Is a game breaker.

    Thirdly,  the issue is industrial production,  The Japanese will have to build factories, which can only produce 3 units, and even if the chinese just simply matched those factory builds with infantry in other territories at random, Japan would be defeated.

    Fouth - This immediately ends any possibility of China ever being defeated, period,  and gives the US an arm to throw the Chinese of the Asian mainland with ease, likely before they are even at war,  Japan NEEDS VC’s and IPC’s from the mainland just to have a chance at survival… you are taking this away.

    Finally,  Good for you for present a new concept, and using historical information - which I personally found interesting…  please produce more of these styles of threads.



  • Usually those who think the US is to powerful in this game, enjoy playing the Axis powers way too much. That said, I think you have a very raw house rule with good potential.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    Don’t get me wrong, the US IMO is just right, with the perfect Balance of Power…

    But we’re not talking about the US are we?  No, we’re talking about China. Giving China Access to 100’s of IPC’s at whim is… laughable.

    For crying out loud, one could simply SAVE 50 to 100 IPC’s for deployment on the chinese behalf at any time…  waiting for the Japanese to over extend or make a mistake, that’s not directly a mistake, and exploit their positioning, with just the POSSIBILITY of units appearing.

    You would literally have to imagine a stack of 20 + infantry appearing anywhere at any given time in China, exploiting your planes, or your armor, or your desperately needed units enroute to India.

    D I S A S T E R



  • Good points all around. I ran some more numbers and it seems unlikely the US would want to do something like this since it would leave a big hole somewhere else for little real gain. Lets say they build 25 infantry. That infantry hits @1 so on average they could expect to kill 4.1 units. while at the same time the Japanese defenders would be hiting @2 or more. So no matter what happened the US would be paying a premium for those kills. If I was playing the Japs I would be thinking about invading the west coast since the US now has 100 IPC’s worth of infantry trapped in china that is of no futher use to them.

    What would have happened in WWII if the US had turned it’s entire industry to supporting  china? no doubt the Japs would have been run out of Asia.

    Yes it’s a house rule I am conssidering but  I really needed to bounce it off someone before I spend  a few dozen hours testing. Thanks for bouncing.



  • I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.



  • @Young:

    I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.

    By mainland are you refering to the US? Spending 75 woun’t help much if you lose the US in the process will it?

    Also,I’m having trouble with the idea te US can simply save 100 IPC’s if that is the case then the US is very much overpowered.


  • Liaison TripleA '11 '10

    it seems unlikely the US would want to do something like this since it would leave a big hole somewhere else for little real gain

    I wholeheartedly DISAGREE  Even the OPTION of doing these things is a problem.  Because Japan now has to consider this new unique American ability in all of it’s moves.

    On the first turn of the game, I would also bolster China, for the sole purpose of holding the Burma road - to allow builds of artillery,  “cheap” infantry at 3 and artillery, will quickly prevent Japan from EVER retaking the Burma road.

    The US now also no longer has to ship infantry to the mainland,  and can spend instant money to secure victory cities preventing victory, without even putting ships on the board.

    For the price of an aircraft carrier,  I can add 5 infantry to mainland asia.

    You also need to understand,  that Japan HAS to match builds in mainland Asia, if they want to try and win, meaning less ships, to the less American ships.

    Also please do not fail to realize, that within 2 turns America can have roughly the exact same naval power as Japan, only lacking some airforce,  from a defensive position, you don’t need much more, if you intend to smash Japan elsewhere and widdle them down.

    In the end… it’s all about what the US/China -can- do, irrelevant of what they -do- do. Be careful…



  • @Gargantua:

    it seems unlikely the US would want to do something like this since it would leave a big hole somewhere else for little real gain

    I wholeheartedly DISAGREE  Even the OPTION of doing these things is a problem.  Because Japan now has to consider this new unique American ability in all of it’s moves.

    On the first turn of the game, I would also bolster China, for the sole purpose of holding the Burma road - to allow builds of artillery,  “cheap” infantry at 3 and artillery, will quickly prevent Japan from EVER retaking the Burma road.

    The US now also no longer has to ship infantry to the mainland,  and can spend instant money to secure victory cities preventing victory, without even putting ships on the board.

    For the price of an aircraft carrier,  I can add 5 infantry to mainland asia.

    You also need to understand,  that Japan HAS to match builds in mainland Asia, if they want to try and win, meaning less ships, to the less American ships.

    Also please do not fail to realize, that within 2 turns America can have roughly the exact same naval power as Japan, only lacking some airforce,  from a defensive position, you don’t need much more, if you intend to smash Japan elsewhere and widdle them down.

    In the end… it’s all about what the US/China -can- do, irrelevant of what they -do- do. Be careful…

    I totaly get your point and I’m studying it. Keep in mind that this oes not kick in until the US is in the war so turn one is not an option.

    As I’ve looked at this historicaly Japan was eventualy   got hurt in China. By that time China had an Airforce, supplied mostly by the US.  Up until then is was something of a stalemate because of a large investment by the allies in China. I currently don’t see the need for this  in the game. It may be as simple as raising the cost of Infantry for China to 5 IPC’s if the Burma road is closed. What I’m trying to work out is how much those arlifted supplies really cost the US. I’ve read documents showing that China was begging for more transports but the US simply didn’t have them. This seems to indicate that the cost was very high to supply China, so high that there was a new road built to bypass Burma that wasn’t completed till 1945. So 4 IPC’s for infantry may be too cheap. Again, many thanks for the input.



  • @cyscott1:

    @Young:

    I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.

    By mainland are you refering to the US? Spending 75 woun’t help much if you lose the US in the process will it?

    Also,I’m having trouble with the idea te US can simply save 100 IPC’s if that is the case then the US is very much overpowered.

    Are you saying if America burns their income for 1 round, their continent is vulnerable to an amphibious assault?



  • If America could deploy in China it would be

    GAME OVER !



  • @Young:

    @cyscott1:

    @Young:

    I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.

    By mainland are you refering to the US? Spending 75 woun’t help much if you lose the US in the process will it?

    Also,I’m having trouble with the idea te US can simply save 100 IPC’s if that is the case then the US is very much overpowered.

    Are you saying if America burns their income for 1 round, their continent is vulnerable to an amphibious assault?

    If they did it early in the game yes it’s quite possible.  Japan is pretty strong in the begining and the US is weak. The US is no position to spend that amount of IPC’s in China until later in the game.  If the US committed everything to China and Japan just pulled out and headed to the west coast I don’t see how the US could stop them without abandoning China in the process which puts us back where we where before. If Germany is doing it’s part to hurt the UK then they won’t be of much help.

    What got me thinking about all this is that Japan has a pretty easy time in Asia in the early game which it shouldn’t. At the same time the US is free to build up with little or no drain on it’s resources going to Asia which they should be.



  • @suprise:

    If America could deploy in China it would be

    GAME OVER !

    Note American can’t deploy in China it can only deploy Chinese  Infntry in China. Remember once they are there they are trapped in China and can never leave.  China had a huge Army but it was ineffective due to poor training and supply. It was the US help that kept them in the fight.



  • True with the newest version they cant leave Chinese Territories  I was envisioning a classic type game with an American factory in China


  • Customizer

    I’m not so sure about the US spending IPCs to purchase Chinese Infantry.  However, I’ve always thought that the US should be able to send fighters over to help out the Chinese.  China starts with the one fighter and the rules say if it gets destroyed it can never be replaced.  I think that rule should be altered.  The US could fly a fighter over to China.  Once it lands on a Chinese controlled territory, at the end of China’s next turn it becomes Chinese and they can use it on their next turn.
    Also, I think China should be allowed more than 1 fighter, say a maximum of 3, if the US can get that amount of fighters over to Chinese territory.  So China could never have more than 3 fighters on the board.  If one gets destroyed, then the US can send another fighter to replace it.  Or, if the US wishes, it could send a stockpile of fighters and simply leave them in Chinese territory so whenever China loses one of it’s fighters, it could automatically change one of the “reserve” US fighters to Chinese.
    As for the Burma Road NO and the ability to purchase artillery, I’m fine with that as it is for now.



  • Instead of letting US spend IPC’s in China, i think letting USA and China play together (and allow joined attacks) could work.



  • I have an option to be considered.

    Keep the US and Chinese economies separate as they already are in the rules. US has the ability to buy Chinese infantry to be placed per normal China rules at the cost of 5 IPCs per infantry. The elevated cost is representative of those expensive airlifts over the Himalayas.
    Also, perhaps the US should only be allowed to place Chinese infantry (at 5 IPCs) in Sikang, Szechwan, or Yunnan to represent the limited range of an airlift.



  • Intresting thought, but I have always thought that China should be seperated from the US not more intergrated with them. You are 100% correct that the US did supply all of the Chinese airforces aircraft (and provided training for their pilots in Arizona) and also supplied massives amounts of other war supplies to the Chinese army. However, the US couldnt get the Chinese to do anything the US wanted them to do with all of it! So bringing the two countries closer together in this regard would be counter to the actual historical situation.

    One idea I had heard was to up the size of the Chinese starting force. This would represent the stalement that existed in the China Theater at that time, but since their economy is so small any major loss to them would nigh impossible to replace. This way you could better represent the situation of the Chinese getting support from the allied powers (burma road) but the Chinese not wanting to risk them in an attack on the Japanese (low economy, forces made up entierly of Infantry with little to no arty).



  • @Clyde85:

    Intresting thought, but I have always thought that China should be seperated from the US not more intergrated with them. You are 100% correct that the US did supply all of the Chinese airforces aircraft (and provided training for their pilots in Arizona) and also supplied massives amounts of other war supplies to the Chinese army. However, the US couldnt get the Chinese to do anything the US wanted them to do with all of it! So bringing the two countries closer together in this regard would be counter to the actual historical situation.

    One idea I had heard was to up the size of the Chinese starting force. This would represent the stalement that existed in the China Theater at that time, but since their economy is so small any major loss to them would nigh impossible to replace. This way you could better represent the situation of the Chinese getting support from the allied powers (burma road) but the Chinese not wanting to risk them in an attack on the Japanese (low economy, forces made up entierly of Infantry with little to no arty).

    Making the Chinese starting force larger would help but I think there needs to some expense represented to the US for keeping China going. The main reason I saw to combine them is that the US player is already controling China. Then any extra help they want to give China would come out of the US IPC pool. Maybe just reduce the US war bonus a little and bump up China’s starting force is simpler.Near as I can figure the cost to the US for helping China should run about 3-4 IPC’s per turn since the US spent about 2 billion in China during the war. If the Burma road was open this would probly be 2-3 IPC’s per turn. Or maybe  allow the US to give China 3 IPC per turn instead. Some things to think about.



  • I see what you’re trying to do with these ideas, but you need to be careful or you’ll make the US-China partnership in the game become a penility for the US which wouldnt be fair. Ideas I have heard have been to do things like;

    If the burma road is open allow the US to replace the Chinese fighter if it gets destroyed.
    If the burma road is open AND the US is at war allow them to purchase 1 unit for the Chinese per turn.

    I like both of these and would better represent the US’s support to the Chinese, and also the importance of the Buram road. The second idea would need to be limited to land and air units only (obviously) but to have no more then 1 of each non-infantry/arty unit type (no more then 1 fighter, tatical bobmber, tank, mech infantry, ect…)


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 6
  • 6
  • 3
  • 43
  • 21
  • 2
  • 7
  • 20
I Will Never Grow Up Games

36
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts