Chinese house rule
Since China can easily fall to Japan has anyone tried putting 2 infantry in Sinkiang and a house rule that is every 2 Chinese territory which is Yunnan, Szechwan, Anhwei, Sinkiang, Kwangtung, Kiangsu, and Manchuria, they get 1 free inf and can place it in any chinese territory the allies own. This makes China a little bit more tuff, not enough so that Japan will have a hard time taking it using a lot of it’s resources. It’s to have China fall with a bigger fight. Now if you make China to strong then Japan’s asian grip is very small to do anything, any thoughts or ideas on this?
If someone can make a house rule for Russia and Japan not at war because historically they weren’t at war so ideas on that would be great.
Russia and Japan having a non aggression pact would be a great idea, as the Allies have it tough in this game. The extra 2 or 3 income for longer might make all the difference to holding Moscow.
I agree on China too. It is a pushover and drains America’s income by T2.
I have not tried either, although others have talked of these two ideas.
Just an idea,
as long as there is at least 1 US owned Chinese territory, USA gets 1 additional Infantry per game round.
This Chinese recruitment Infantry can be put on board at the end of the US’ Place New Unit phase into any US’ owned Chinese territory.
Great suggestion. What do you think Frederick II?
oztea last edited by
I have been considering a rule that says “when japan attacks a Chinese territory, place a free infantry unit there” represents a peasant army kind of thing. So that way the Chinese don’t have this massive army able to attack and stuff, but they get an annoyingly growing defense as japan attacks it.
Just original american controlled chinese territories and not japanese I think could be better.
oztea does your rule still apply even if there liberated.
Thanks guys keep up the good ideas.
Young Grasshopper last edited by
I’m confused about US owned Chinese territories, are we talking about 1942.2, or 1940?
This is slightly off-topic, but I think one of the biggest trade-offs A&A makes, especially in 1942.1 and 1942.2, is to allow Japan to rapidly and reliably grow into a monster superpower for the sake of dynamic gameplay, even though this outcome is not historically plausible.
I think as a matter of history, Japan could have conquered territory as far deep as Yakutsk OR Sinkiang OR India by mid-1943 (roughly corresponding to turn 4 or turn 5) if Japan had focused solely on a single front – but in the game, Japan routinely makes extreme progress on ALL THREE of those fronts, while also simultaneously building up a navy that can keep pace with the US Pacific Fleet.
In my experience playing the board game, Japan’s progress westward into central Asia is limited primarily by the fact that they can only conquer one territory per front per turn because the Allies can keep placing a single infantry to block the Japanese tank advances. The strength of the Allied defenses have very little to do with the speed of Japanese advancement – maybe you can slow them down by one turn, maybe you can’t. It would not be much fun for a player to have overall command of the Allied Pacific front, because that front is going to crumble pretty much no matter what you do.
On the other hand, having a continuously expanding Japan keeps things very interesting in terms of global gameplay. Instead of just a one-dimensional race to see if Germany can conquer Moscow before it is inevitably pushed back and destroyed, there is a dynamic give-and-take, where Germany needs to weaken the Russians, but then has a real choice between trying to capture Moscow itself and trying to provide a steady defense of Europe so that the Japanese have more time to take Moscow. Analogously, the Americans have a real choice as to whether to try to capture Tokyo, lopping the head off of the Japanese dragon, or to race for Berlin, or even to just focus on reinforcing its allies’ defense and living to fight another day. There are meaningful ‘grand strategic’ decisions to made in Axis & Allies, which I like.
If you do too much to bottle up Japan back into its historical sphere of influence, by, e.g., making China a costly, wearisome slog for the Axis, then this grand strategic flexibility disappears, and the game is reduced to a series of questions about what unit types to buy and whether to invade Moscow via the northern route or the southern route. You also run the risk that Japan will simply ignore China – if conquering China requires more investment than it’s worth, because it’s artificially strong on defense compared to its IPC value, then a smart Japanese player will ignore China, and then you’ve got a whole section of the map (and extra house rules) that are not contributing anything to the game.
I think any house rules about China have to be based at least in part on a clear vision for what role Japan is supposed to play in the global game. Is Japan a nuisance power, that is there primarily to force the British to spend a few IPCs in India and the Americans to spend a few IPCs in San Francisco? (If so, will Japan be any fun to play?) Is Japan a ticking time bomb, that is harmless for the first six turns or so but then can become a monster if left unattended for too long? (If so, will the Allies typically just surrender once Japan starts blossoming?) Is Japan the dominant Axis nation, responsible for controlling shipping lanes and posing the biggest threat to Moscow? (If so, is China going to be anything more than a doormat?)
I don’t see any easy answers, but I think there are many reasonable approaches, depending on what kind of game you’re looking to build.
Good point Argothair, Japan taking should happen, but I think it should not be so easily taken. I think it should be a bit harder and slower for Japan but not to long. Do you think China should on J2? Because that’s what happens. Plus a nonaggression pact between Russia and Japan makes China really easy to take if there is one.
About that rule here’s my idea of course Russia and Japan are not at war and if one attacks the other each territory they attack on that turn each territory gets 3 inf this rule applies to that round. Any other ideas on that would be awesome and on china.
Well, for starters, I think that if all four Chinese territories are falling by J2, then you’re either making a deliberate choice to abandon China early, or you’re using some poor tactics in the Pacific. There are many Allied units that are capable of reinforcing Sinkiang and/or Szechuan before J2 – you’ve got 5 Russian infantry in Siberia, 1 British infantry in Burma, the British fighter in the Indian Ocean, the British fighter in Egypt, and you can also spend part or all of the Allied bid in China if you want to make a stand there. 1 American artillery in Szechuan can work very nicely to both save the Flying Tigers (the Chinese-American fighter unit) and to help provide some counter-attacking capability. If you’re feeling really aggressive, you can even bring a Soviet tank from the Caucasus to either Sinkaing or Szechuan. If you throw all that stuff into China, there’s no way it falls before J4, probably more like J5/J6 unless Japan makes taking China a real priority.
On the other hand, if you evacuate the Flying Tigers and then never add any reinforcements to China, of course it’s going to fall quickly – you’re trying to hold three territories with nothing but 6 infantry, which is less than you would use even to keep up a little bit of light trading.
That said, the way I would prefer to strengthen China is by giving the Russians (!) an artillery unit in Yakutsk, and possibly by giving the Americans an artillery unit in Sinkiang. That way the Japanese have to worry about counter-attacks, and can’t just keep marching forward with nothing but infantry and fighters, because the Japanese infantry can get creamed when the Japanese fighters land in the rear. At the very least, this might force Japan to pick and choose some of its goals – they wouldn’t be able to attack Russia, China, India, and Hawaii all in J1/J2.
I understand the idea that you don’t want China falling so quickly to Japan, but if you put all of that into China (British planes from Burma and India, Russian tank from Caucasus) won’t you be weakening other areas a bit much. Maybe Japan forgets China and goes right after India and/or expands into Russia instead. Then they will have more money and can deal with the China defenses with more stuff on their side.
It’s been my experience that UK really needs those fighters elsewhere to make any impact on Japan, or even against Germany in the Middle East/Mediterranean. Russia surely needs all it’s tanks to push Germany back. I just think there are more important places for those valuable units to be than in China.
How could the infantry in Burma make it to China since Japan can block it off. Adding an art to Szechuan I think wouldn’t be enough to counter attack the Japs but the art in Szechuan is good I would also add 2 inf, and 1 art to Sinkiang would be a pretty good counter attack because you got 4 inf, 2 art, and 1 fighter. An artillery in Yakutsk is great because I see Russia could get aggressive on Manchuria which force Japan to keep more troops in Manchuria then invading China
Plus the fighter in the Indian Ocean is better in the attacking of sz37 than defending China and using the russian inf I thought they were better fighting Germany, not saying it’s a bad idea maybe it’s a better idea. One idea is to give russia more troops in the east to defend China, remember they were communist in China.
knp7765, I agree with you that you usually shouldn’t put all of those units into China. As you say, Japan can just choose to attack somewhere else, and then you’ve over-committed to a region that’s only worth 4 IPCs per turn. My point is that the Allies have the option of choosing from any of those units, and that if you want to hold China, you can and should bring in 2 or 3 units as reinforcements. If you would prefer to have every available Allied unit head directly for eastern Europe, that’s fine too, but then don’t complain too loudly if you lose China; you evacuated China on purpose as part of your strategy.
Frederick, the British go before the Japanese on turn 1, so Britain can move the Burmese infantry to Yunnan before the Japanese get to go. One simple plan for reinforcing China is to bring in the Burmese infantry to Yunnan and the Kazakh Russian infantry to Szechuan. At a cost of only 2 infantry, this forces Japan to take the Chinese defenders seriously – if the Japanese aren’t willing to sacrifice fighters or bring in (scarce) troop transports, then Sinkiang will usually hold until J3.
Okay, usually on GB turn they don’t put their infantry there. If Japan builds a IC in Manchuria on J1 (which is a good move) they don’t need to bring in other troops. Also what do you mean (scarce) troop transports because were else do you use your transports (besides invading Honolulu or Alaska) they should be dropping troops in Asia. The 2 fighters starting in Asia is plenty to take china, so you don’t need to bring in any other aircraft. I think china should hold out on J4 or longer. Quickly back to the communist in china maybe there should be 2 russian inf starting in Anhwei, or Sinkiang, any ideas on that?
The Manchurian IC is not going to help you take China on J2 – you have to build the IC on J1, and then you can drop tanks in Manchuria on J2, but the tanks can’t attack Anhwei or Sinkiang until J3 – they don’t attack on the same turn they’re built.
The transports are scarce because you only start with two of them – only one of them if the British fighter sinks the destroyer off the coast of Manchuria. There are lots of good places for the transports to go – they can go to Burma for a strong anti-India push, to Buryatia for a strong anti-Moscow push, to Hawaii for an early VC grab, to Alaska for a diversionary attack on the US (as early as J1! It works!), to the Pacific islands to pick up idle Japanese infantry, or to retake Borneo or New Guinea after a British attack. Any of these places can easily make use of both Japanese transports – you’ve got good uses for about eleven or twelve transports, and you only start with one or two. That’s why they’re scarce.
My point is not that Japan needs to send more fighters to China. My point is that Japan is likely to lose a fighter or two in combat if they insist on conquering a reinforced Sinkiang on J2.
You can put 2 Russian infantry in Sinkiang if you want – it’s not going to break the game. I have to ask you, though: by your own logic, if you had 2 Russian infantry in Sinkiang, wouldn’t you be tempted to move them west toward Moscow to fight the Germans?
I didn’t mean that the IC in Manchuria is going to take china on J2 I know it will take a while to get tanks there. But have you ever tried putting a IC in Kwangtung it’s easier to take India and china even though it produces 2 at a time.
Would you stack your russian inf in Buryatia even it’s likely to be wipe out by Japan, because if I was Japan I would immediately attack it, well it’s 5 infantry and it has no back up so when you wipe it out you really don’t need to worry about russians coming down into Manchuria because it’s not worth Russia’s time and resources. Also about your question if I still had them and Moscow and Caucasus were in trouble yes I would. But I would not if they weren’t in trouble so your answer is no I would not.
GODLEADER last edited by
For me is simple if no allies in chinese territory chinese get 5 icp par turn after the declaration of war of Japon and the rest of allies (Uk and Us).
I think the map design of China in 1942.2 encourages Japan to take it rapidly, even at the expense of other objectives they might pursue.
sz 61 shuck into Yunnan, is only 3 moves to Moscow!
Like Frederick suggested, Kwangtung can support a new Japanese factory for sz 61 defense or the ground push. I think its a better location than Munchuria. It allows you to build 2 transports for a stronger shuck out of Tokyo, and gives you a coastal IC at an ideal convergence point for the IJN. If the Allies start creeping, you can build subs or capital ships here if need be, to maintain the steady shuck, instead of returning your fleet all the way to the home island. Once you have 4 transports in sz61/8 ground shucking out of Tokyo (into Yunnan) every round, you can then build artillery or tanks out of Kwangtung to enhance your drive against the Russian capital along the middle route.
I find that the Kwangtung factory encourages the max placement discipline, moreso than say Manchuria, East Indies, or Borneo, since it is much much easier to max-place at total 10 production slots, than 11, or 12. Basically 8 inf/art from Tokyo each round, and the remainder spent at this factory in Kwangtung or in sz 61 for new ships. 10 production is usually more than enough for Japan to set up the Moscow push.
Szech is the fastest route for a Japanese tank drive to Moscow of any board at this scale. Classic and Revised were both 4 moves to Moscow. AA50 was 5 moves. But here in 1942.2 it’s only 3!
Japan usually smokes China as priority number one, since its so hard for Allies to do much to stall them. At best Russia can afford to stall Japan along the middle route for 1 round, maybe 2 (if they want to throw everything east and stack Kazakh/Szech with tanks, and then redirect for German defense at the last second), but this almost certainly allows Germany to stack Karelia in the opening round.
One option I toyed around with was the idea to give the USA a starting factory in Szechwan, to represent the Wartime capital of Chongqing (Chungking). This would seem to fit the game’s timeline/start date…
Allies would then have at least some reason to hang around in the region and try to block Japan along the middle route.
Under the current design, there is little incentive for Russia or UK to trade the territory of Szechwan, since USA never receives the income before Japan takes it back. But if there was a factory here, that might change the calculus for Allies. They might start to look at it more like India… A territory that must be stacked immediately and defended for as long as possible.
Of course right now, Russia doesn’t have nearly enough starting units or income to make this plan viable, Japan can put way more units into a Szech attack than the Allies can put into a Szech defense. But perhaps with a few other unit tweaks to help support it, the starting Chinese IC could be fun.
The 1941 game established the precedent of factory worth 1 ipc, so maybe it could work in China? A couple tanks or fighters built out of this location might be a real boost to the Allies in the region, if they can just keep it going. Perhaps enough of a boost to prevent Moscow from getting steam rolled.
I wonder what China would need to hold Szech past J2? In all my games, the Allies will defend it on J1 to save the Flying Tiger, but then bounce to establish a new line at Kazakh. A starting IC in Szech would might make them stick around for longer, but you’d have to give Allies something more to work with or they’d never hold it against the Japanese.
Perhaps if USA had 2 addition starting infantry in Sinkiang (a territory which is currently empty at the start.) This would look fairly clean, as the Chinese starting territory would all have 2 inf each.
This still might not be enough though. As it stands Japan can bring a truly huge force against Szech on J2, like 10 ground and the whole air force if they wanted to.
I’d take the point that if you change China too much, it will alter the rest of the game, but in general (for 1942.2, just like G40 AA50) I prefer to balance the game in China over other theaters. It seems less distorting overall to focus the bid here. For example, the game supports a much higher Allied bid when used by USA in China, than it could when used by UK in the med, so I think you could get away with adding an IC and additional ground forces if you want.
Extra USA infantry in China, would be almost as good as extra Russian infantry, since they could still pull out of China to help stack the Soviet capital or Caucasus vs G. That’s why I think the Factory might be a cool way to anchor them in the region, otherwise players will just take the extra US units in China and use them vs Germany on the Eastern front.
GODLEADER, what version are you talking about because we are talking about 1942.2
Good post Black_Elk, also what do you use against allied fighters that destroy your transports because destroyers sometimes don’t always defend them.