J1: Make peace with China?

Japan loses a lot of money if he decides to leave china alone.  Not to mention 2 victory cities, landing spots for allied planes, etc.

@ghr2:

Japan loses a lot of money if he decides to leave china alone.  Not to mention 2 victory cities, landing spots for allied planes, etc.

100%

Chinese forces can’t go to India. The only territories outside of China that Chinese units can go into are Burma and Kwangtung.

I know it seems kind of silly. Like if China had this huge army in Manchuria they wouldn’t go on and attack Korea. Or if Japan took India but only had a little left to hold it with and China is sitting there with a stack of 15+ guys in Burma, like the Chinese wouldn’t attack and liberate India.

We have a house rule where if China manages to get control of all Chinese territories, they can then go to other territories outside of China on the Pacific board.

The only reason why that rule exist is because of the Chinese civil war……but both sides made peace so that they both could focus on Japan.  So why does that rule exist again?

Besides if given the opportunity I’m sure Generalissimo Chiang would have loved to “liberate” the Chinese populations in Southeast Asia and Korea from Japanese rule to improve the KMT’s image. It would also re-establish Chinese influence over those areas that was lost during the decline of the Qing.

ShadowHAwk makes a good point. There were many times that the Allies got very frustrated with Chiang because he would not use his troops against the Japanese like they needed him to. He always seemed more interested in plotting against the Communists and saving his army to do so.
I know that Japan needed to be stopped back then, but it almost seems like it would have been better to just fight the Japanese everywhere BUT China and let Chiang fend for himself.

You are probably right. One thing that might have helped Japan win is if they would have sat back, consolidated what they had already captured and not advanced anymore. If they could have waited long enough, the Nationalists would have eventually decided that Japan is not attacking anymore so why not hit the Communists now. Then after the Nationalists and Communists blasted away at each other for a while, perhaps Japan could resume advancing further into China with significantly less Chinese fighting troops to deal with.

Then again, even if the Western Allies totally left China alone, they would probably still be pounding Japan out in the Pacific which would still drain resources from Japan’s China front. Also, in spite of their frustration with Chiang, the Allies needed China actively fighting Japan in order to drain a lot of their resources. It was the same in Europe with Russia. The US/UK needed Russia to stay in the war because a huge amount of German resources were dedicated to the Eastern Front. As hard as we had it in Italy and France, I imagine it would have been much worse if Russia wasn’t demanding such a huge toll on the German military forces.

If you mean by ‘unreasonable demands’, that the USA demanded Japan to stop its war in China then I can’t say the USA and the Brits had any choice but to demand that. The Japanese waged such a cruel and barbaric war in China, that I am wondering why the USA hadn’t declared war on Japan first.
Just Google ‘rape of Nanking’ and you get a picture of what the Chinese had to endure. This massacre alone still causes tension between China and Japan…

Eventually the USA was so fed up by the Japanese cruel bararism in China, that they stopped supplying oil and other strategic materials to Japan, and, indeed, started supplying war materials to the Chinese. Deprived of oil, Japan could not wage an effective war so Japan had to attack the DEI oil fields, an act the western allies would never let go unpunished. This would (very likely) mean War and Japan knew it, so they attacked first, at Pearl Harbor.

Back to the Japanese war in China. It wasn’t exactly going well for Japan (sluggish), so maybe they butchered the people in occupied China out of frustration? Who knows.
The fact is that A&A gives the impression that the war in China is very easily won. In reality however, Japan had very limited resources (manpower and oil in particular) and it had to make choices of what to do with it. Wage an effective war against the western allies OR China. Even with the DEI oil.

If you want to translate the war in China into A&AG40 (taking the Japanese set up as startingpoint), I think China has to start with at least double all their forces at set up and limit their production to 2 units per turn (or 1 ART if they own Yunnan) regardless of how many IPCs they own. The IPC value of their areas would only be of use for Japan. Furthermore, the chinese INF units should attack @½, or @1 if paired with an ART. Their defensive values remain normal. All the other OOB rules would still apply for China. This would roughly simulate The choice Japan had to make in the real war.

You realize that with those rules, you would actually make it easier for japan to conquer china

I wouldn’t call it easier, if China starts with double their forces everywhere.
I’d think Japan would actually have a reason not to J1. Since A&A is a game and not a simulation, I wouldn’t want to make taking China as hard as it historically was. My point for additional China rules/set up in a game like A&A would only be to draw in more power from the Japanese, so they have less to use against the Wallies. If need be, China could even get more units at start up…

I agree, you could start with adding like 5-6 Chinese units on the back side of China (would take them a couple turns to get to the front so wouldn’t change the opening much). I would also give China a AA gun at start in Szech to keep the Japanese honest.

I think the problem is that China is worth so much. Isn’t it 24 IPCs? The 12 territories owned by China, when the game begins, should only be worth 4-6. It is ridiculous that Japan can get rich from these 12 territories. Its overly generous starting Air units ensure China stands no chance. (Combined with the 19 from the DEI, Japan makes far too much, too quickly.) Perhaps a few extra Chinese would help too.

@wittmann:

I think the problem is that China is worth so much. Isn’t it 24 IPCs? The 12 territories owned by China, when the game begins, should only be worth 4-6. It is ridiculous that Japan can get rich from these 12 territories. Its overly generous starting Air units ensure China stands no chance. (Combined with the 19 from the DEI, Japan makes far too much, too quickly.) Perhaps a few extra Chinese would help too.

The 12 territories china starts the game with is worth 12, the coast is worth 11, not counting HK and Korea.

ghr:23 total, that is right. Thank you. That is a lot of money for Japan to (soon) have.
It annoys me that China can be worth that much, when England is worth 8, France 9 and  Greater Germany 14. China could have had 6 territories worth 0.

Maybe make Suiyuyan, Hopei and Kweichow worth zero. Kansi, Tsinghai and Sikang worth 2. Can’t build factories.  Would keep the money the same just distributed  a little different.

Hey Wittmann,
I have to disagree with you here. I don’t think the remaining 12 Chinese territories are worth that much and I don’t think it is really worth it for Japan to go after it very hard. The 12 IPCs from China will take a while to get, at least 3 rounds and that is if Japan goes all out for just China, and it will cost them a lot of infantry of their own to get it. This is time and resources much better spent getting the DEI, Hong Kong, Malaya and the Philippines under your belt – 28 total IPCs (with the DEI NO).
I’m not saying Japan should ignore China. Japan definitely has to keep the Chinese in check so they don’t amass too much infantry and possibly threaten your coastal territories or VCs. But get those money islands and other expensive territories first, work on getting India and deal with the Chinese at your leisure. As long as they don’t get too big of an army, once you have all the money territories and the new factory in Calcutta, then you can roll over the Chinese fairly easily while still being able to face off against the US Navy or maybe threaten Sydney. With no British backup, the Chinese will be easy to deal with. Plus, they most likely won’t be getting Russian help by then either as Russia will have their hands full of THE HUNS.

Even though a total of 23 IPCs seems a lot for China, remember that most of the expensive lands are on the coast and Japan already has them. In fact, it is nearly half of Japan’s starting income so you can’t take those away or Japan won’t even be able to get started.
As far as the remaining 12 Chinese territories, we feel they are such a waste of time for Japan that we play with a house rule: +5 IPCs if Japan controls ALL Chinese territories. This gives Japan a bit more of a reason to go all after China. It can also be a dangerous temptation. In one game last fall, our Japan player went after China for that very reason and they got it by round 4. However, they never managed to get the DEI bonus as they were always one short. They had so much stuff in China that they didn’t have enough transports to cover all the DEI. They kept taking one at a time. Then India or ANZAC would sacrifice a transport to take a DEI that Japan left open. Next round Japan would sink the transport and retake that island, just to have one or the other land on the other one that Japan just left.
We came up with another NO for Japan: it’s a one-time $5 for killing the Flying Tigers fighter. This one hampered China more than we thought it would. Unless China was sure to leave their fighter with a nice stack of guys, Japan would easily risk a couple of planes just to fly out and hit that fighter. And while it does seem silly for Japan to risk losing a $10 fighter or $12 bomber just to get a $5 NO, it was more an object of taking away China’s already limited offensive capability. Using this NO just seemed to make our Japan player even quicker to notice if China left their fighter without any infantry protection.

Thanks for the write up  Knp.
I have a problem with the US/Japan income,'is all. I always want to see the US with more than Japan, as I believe your nation was able to easily out produce all others, historically. Yet it does not always seem the case in 40 ( and 1942). I would only like to see Japan’s in one cut accordingly. Making China worth less was one way.
Always good to hear from you.

So you don’t really think that Japan has too much potential for growth, rather you think that the US should be making more. Well in that case I do agree with you. Some time back I thought that the US just made too much and once they came into the war, the Axis were doomed. Since then I have a few more games played and am starting to see that the US doesn’t really make nearly enough to compete with a strong Japan and Germany player.
Also, I have been watching a lot of WW2 documentaries and while there are historians that say the Allies winning WW2 was no sure thing and “It could have gone either way”, I am thinking that this is not really true. Once the US was fully committed to the war against the Axis with their humongous material and industrial capabilities, there was just no way the Axis could compete with that. Both Germany’s and Japan’s resources were very finite and they didn’t protect them well either (like the US submarine campaign on Japanese shipping). Add to that the Axis military blunders – Japan throwing away some of their best troops in “Banzai” charges or losing their seasoned pilots in fruitless attacks. As for Germany, well Hitler made any number of blunders that wasted troops and equipment but didn’t achieve their objectives.
Granted, a lot of the stuff I watch may very well be slanted toward the Allies, after all it’s the victors that write the history books, right? Still, it just seems to me like the Axis cause was really doomed from the start.
As for the US income in the game, if you wanted to properly represent the way US industry affected the war, perhaps the US should be making more like 100 IPCs or so per turn. Let’s see, Eastern US could be bumped up to 30. Central US to 20 and Western US to 25. Okay, there is 75 IPCs right there. Now add Alaska (2), Hawaii (1), Philippines (2), Mexico (2), SE Mexico (1), Central America (1) and West Indies (1) for another 10 IPCs. Now the US has 85 IPCs per turn. Now come the NOs:
$10 = US control of E US, C US and W US.
$5 = US control of Alaska, Aleutians, Hawaii, Johnston Island and Line Islands
$5 = US control of Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America and West Indies
$5 = US control of Philippines
$5 = At least 1 US land unit in Paris (France).
Okay, so at wartime the US could be making $115 IPCs per round. However, the “One land unit in Paris” probably won’t happen for a while and Japan will probably take the Philippines and keep it for several rounds. So that knocks a wartime USA down to $105 IPCs per round. I think that would better represent how much they put into the conflict.

However, if you are still not satisfied, you could always add some wartime NOs to boost the US income. One of my favorite HR NOs is to give the US $1 per island for all the little Pacific Islands: Midway, Wake, Guam, Marshalls, Carolines, Palau, Marianas, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Formosa. This gives the potential for another $10 to the US, $3 of which they get already.
Or you could increase the amount given for each of those islands. And there are others that you could come up with. Perhaps a few for the Atlantic side, like $5 for US presence in the Med or North Africa. You could come up with some pretty neat ideas and you could also just get ridiculous about it and have the US making all kinds of stupid money, in which case the Axis really would be doomed from the start.
Hey, here’s an idea. Have the US make such a ridiculous amount of money that there is simply no way the Axis would be able to hold out against them, much less overcome them, but say the US can not enter the war until round 6. See if the Axis can beat the other Allies and win the war before the US enters and trounces them both.
Okay, so the beginning setup would be the same and the US would still make their territory money and can spend it however they wish to build up their forces before entering the war on round 6. The US can not enter the war until round 6 no matter what (London falls, Axis occupation of a territory in North America (basically Canada), Japan attacks UK/ANZAC in Pacific, etc.). Also, the Axis are not allowed to attack any US units or territories with 2 exceptions: Japan is allowed to attack Guam and the Philippines and the US can not immediately attack Japan for doing so. The US must still wait until round 6 to enter the war. Guam and Philippines are the ONLY US territories that can be attacked before round 6. As such, the US is limited to what units are on those territories and adjacent sea zones at startup and are not allowed to add new units to those territories or their adjacent sea zones.
For any other US territory, the US may place whatever new units they like during the first 6 rounds of buildup time.
ROUND 6
On this round, the US is allowed to enter the war. They may declare war on any or all Axis powers.
US Income: Once US is in the war, All Territory values double for US Original territories only. If US conquers Axis territories, they are worth face value. Only Original US territories are double in value. ALSO, this double value is only for the US. If Axis captures a US territory, it is only face value to the Axis power. Once US or an Ally liberates that territory, it becomes double worth again to the US.
The US will also benefit from the following NOs:
$10 = US control of EUS, CUS and WUS.
$10 = US control of Alaska, Aleutians, Hawaii, Johnston, Line Island, Mexico, SE Mexico, Central America and West Indies.
$5 = US control of Philippines
$5 = One US Land unit in Paris.
$5 = for at least 1 US surface warship in the Mediterranean.
$5 = for at least 3 or more US bombers in London.
$2 = for each Axis territory under US control.
$5 = for each Axis Victory City under US control.
$10 = for each Axis Capital under US control.
$3 = for each Axis Capital under Allied control.

Techs: The US will get 2 free tech tokens each round starting with round 1. They may roll for tech starting round 1. If a 6 is rolled, then tech tokens go back to bank and US rolls for tech. If no 6 is rolled, then US keeps tech tokens for next round (so the US will then have 4 tech tokens to roll for). They will keep adding up until a breakthrough is achieved, at which point the tech tokens go back to the bank and the US starts again next round at 2 per turn.
Also, it is possible for the US to get more than one breakthrough in one turn, but they can never get more than two per turn no matter how many 6s are rolled. If the US does get 2 6s on the same turn, each breakthrough must be on a different breakthrough chart. In other words, the US can NOT get two breakthroughs on the same chart on the same turn.
Along with all other nations, the US may also purchase further tech tokens for 5 IPCs each and add them to their freebies.

Does all of this sound overwhelmingly, even unfairly in favor of the US? GOOD! It’s supposed to. The US is supposed to be this overwhelming, unstoppable juggernaut coming to wipe the nasty Axis forces from the face of the earth.
The object of the game is to see if the Axis can win the game before the US comes in and cleans their clocks.
With Germany, it should be roughly the same challenge in obtaining victory cities since the only US VC is Washington and Germany never gets that one anyway. For Japan, it will be very strict as Sydney now becomes an absolute must. Japan only has 6 available VCs to get for the win (which is why I allowed the Philippines to be attacked before round 6).
Do you think the Axis can win by round 6? Actually, even though the US can attack on round 6, it may take them a couple of rounds to really be able to start hurting the Axis on either side, so in a way the Axis have until about round 8 or so to pull off a win.
Of course, you could be variable with this too. If it seems the Axis can easily pull off a win in this time, then bump the US entry to round 5 or even round 4. If it seems like there is simply no way the Axis could win in 6-8 rounds, you could even delay US entry a round or two.
As with most games, there will come a point where the US has so much stuff all over the board that there is no way for an Axis victory. Then it will just be for the glee of the US player methodically wiping out the last of the Axis forces. Hey Axis, don’t complain. You had 6 rounds to beat up on the poor Russians, Chinese, Brits and French so now it’s your turn for the beating.

You know, when I started mentioning this idea it was more or less as a joke. But as I kept typing and ideas kept popping into my head, now it seems like a fun variant I might have to try out soon.

Your point is good. The US are not properly represented. But maybe just giving the US the War Bond, Improved Shipyard and Increase Factory Production tech (All 3 when at war) could help to make the US more historical without breaking too much the game. I’ll try it in my next games.