[Anniversary] 1941 China revisions



  • I am aware that many people in the A&A community are turned off by Anniversary’s 1941 scenario because its too weighted towards the Axis’ side, however instead of completely throwing a scenario away, I propose that we balance the game so we can not only play the year earlier scenario and have it be fun for both sides. Currently one idea I have is the integration of a Global 1940-like China, in which China has its own economy and can produce artillery. What if the rule where China produces 1 infantry per 2 territories stays, however it can use its economy to buy either, more infantry, or even artillery. Due to the smaller scale of Anniversary, it can produce artillery even if the Burma Road isn’t open. I also propose that China starts with a few more units to really halt the mainland progression of Japan. This will not only deter Japan from marching to Moscow through Siberia, but also have to fend off against a much tougher China. Overall I think this will help nerf Japan and stop them from utterly dominating in Asia. Of course Japan isn’t the only Axis that needs to be nerfed, its just the most overpowered out of the 3.

    Moderator’s edit: Added tag [Anniversary] to title.



  • I think the best thing for China would be to allow certain unit purchases like artillery and tanks just like they were sold during the war. However, I must admit that I haven’t played Anniversary so I am assuming they operate under the same rules as G40.



  • What do you mean Caesar? The way they obtain units is different. They don’t have their own economy, and can’t buy artillery. The way they get units is for every 2 territories under their control, they get a free Infantry to place anywhere. If you mean rules as in where they can move, then yes, they’re identical to G40. I recommend doing a bit of research and know what you’re talking about before you comment.


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    @TheAandAClassicDude:

    What do you mean Caesar? The way they obtain units is different. They don’t have their own economy, and can’t buy artillery. The way they get units is for every 2 territories under their control, they get a free Infantry to place anywhere. If you mean rules as in where they can move, then yes, they’re identical to G40. I recommend doing a bit of research and know what you’re talking about before you comment.

    No    you need to look at this discussion.
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41017.0



  • No    you need to look at this discussion.
    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=41017.0

    Interesting, the change where China chooses where to put its fighter is definitely something to consider.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    I like the problem you’re trying to solve (China gets crushed too easily), but I think your solution is complicated and confusing. China is supposed to simultaneously have both a normal economy and a partisan economy? So would you add a factory? A capital that can be looted? Are you saying that if China owns 6 territories, then they can deploy 3 infantry as partisans, plus 2 more infantry at the factory? Or would the factory be capped at one unit per turn? How do you distinguish Chinese artillery from American artillery if the Americans invade via the Pacific?

    I think if we adopted all of your suggestions at once (more starting infantry for China, China can build artillery, China gets to use both a partisan economy and a normal economy in the same territories) then China would be over powered. Right now China + Hong Kong + Burma have 6 Allied infantry, and Manchuria + Kiangsu + Thailand have 9 Axis infantry. If you even that up so that both sides start with 9 infantry, and if you let China produce 5 infantry per turn, then, as a rough rule of thumb, Japan will have to produce or transport an average of 6 infantry per turn into China in order to make progress and start rolling China back toward Kazakhstan…but that’s a lot to ask. 6 infantry per turn is Japan’s entire starting income on turn 1, and about half of Japan’s income on turn 2. It really doesn’t leave Japan any margin to expand its navy to defend against a US Pacific campaign, or to try out aggressive strategies against India or Siberia or Australia. You’re kind of forcing Japan to go all-in on China every game, which is not that much more interesting than turning China into a doormat. The ideal would be for China to be tough enough that you need to put some Japanese reinforcements there if you want to win, but weak enough that you can usually afford to mostly neglect China if you’re comfortable with a stalemate.

    So, here’s one way to do that:

    • Add 2 more starting Chinese infantry to Yunnan – this means that the Flying Tigers will almost always survive unless Japan wants to abandon other turn-1 objectives and risk serious fighter losses, or unless Japan wants to empty out Thailand and let the British walk into Thailand and collect the British national objective there.

    • Add 1 starting Chinese infantry to Ningxia – this gives the Chinese army a bit of depth, so that if the Japanese attack Suiyuan, Hupeh, and Fukien on turn 1, the Chinese still have something relevant to fight back with in the north.

    • Allow Chinese forces to move freely into Burma, Hong Kong, and/or Thailand – this makes it a little more dangerous for Japan to completely ignore China.

    • Allow the USA to spend $12 to replace the Flying Tigers ($10 + shipping) if they are destroyed – this makes it a little harder to permanently knock China out of the game.

    Otherwise leave everything the same as OOB rules. This should be more than enough to keep China interesting, without making China so powerful that Japan gets sucked into a mandatory total war in China in every single game.


  • 2018 2017 2016

    I really like the concept of the USA replacing the Chinese Flying Tiger fighter for 12 IPCs.  Once that fighter is gone, China is pretty much done.



  • Larry Harris actually suggested adding the bonus 2 infantry in Yunnan.  I always use that.

    Some easy suggestions:
    China can get one artillery instead of an infantry every turn. (E.g. if China owns 6 territories, it can get 2 infantry and 1 artillery.)
    China can get one tank or AA gun instead of the artillery as long as China does not already have one.
    I also like what Argothair just said: the US can buy one fighter for China if the original is lost.

    Almost every A&A game that is in Axis favor can be easily and historically balanced by bolstering China.



  • @Argothair:

    I like the problem you’re trying to solve (China gets crushed too easily), but I think your solution is complicated and confusing. China is supposed to simultaneously have both a normal economy and a partisan economy? So would you add a factory? A capital that can be looted? Are you saying that if China owns 6 territories, then they can deploy 3 infantry as partisans, plus 2 more infantry at the factory? Or would the factory be capped at one unit per turn? How do you distinguish Chinese artillery from American artillery if the Americans invade via the Pacific?

    I think if we adopted all of your suggestions at once (more starting infantry for China, China can build artillery, China gets to use both a partisan economy and a normal economy in the same territories) then China would be over powered. Right now China + Hong Kong + Burma have 6 Allied infantry, and Manchuria + Kiangsu + Thailand have 9 Axis infantry. If you even that up so that both sides start with 9 infantry, and if you let China produce 5 infantry per turn, then, as a rough rule of thumb, Japan will have to produce or transport an average of 6 infantry per turn into China in order to make progress and start rolling China back toward Kazakhstan…but that’s a lot to ask. 6 infantry per turn is Japan’s entire starting income on turn 1, and about half of Japan’s income on turn 2. It really doesn’t leave Japan any margin to expand its navy to defend against a US Pacific campaign, or to try out aggressive strategies against India or Siberia or Australia. You’re kind of forcing Japan to go all-in on China every game, which is not that much more interesting than turning China into a doormat. The ideal would be for China to be tough enough that you need to put some Japanese reinforcements there if you want to win, but weak enough that you can usually afford to mostly neglect China if you’re comfortable with a stalemate.

    So, here’s one way to do that:

    • Add 2 more starting Chinese infantry to Yunnan – this means that the Flying Tigers will almost always survive unless Japan wants to abandon other turn-1 objectives and risk serious fighter losses, or unless Japan wants to empty out Thailand and let the British walk into Thailand and collect the British national objective there.

    • Add 1 starting Chinese infantry to Ningxia – this gives the Chinese army a bit of depth, so that if the Japanese attack Suiyuan, Hupeh, and Fukien on turn 1, the Chinese still have something relevant to fight back with in the north.

    • Allow Chinese forces to move freely into Burma, Hong Kong, and/or Thailand – this makes it a little more dangerous for Japan to completely ignore China.

    • Allow the USA to spend $12 to replace the Flying Tigers ($10 + shipping) if they are destroyed – this makes it a little harder to permanently knock China out of the game.

    Otherwise leave everything the same as OOB rules. This should be more than enough to keep China interesting, without making China so powerful that Japan gets sucked into a mandatory total war in China in every single game.

    I see. Now that you tell it to me, I understand. However I made these ideas as a way to stop Japan from marching over to Moscow through Siberia. Yes it may seem that with the addition of these rules that China becomes overpowered, however I would disagree. In the normal 1941 Scenario, If Japan plays their cards right they can destroy every single unit China begins with. From there, they can open up a hole in Siberia to prepare their march to Moscow. All before the U.S even begins their first turn and even get a chance to build up a navy. I believe that you’re underestimating Japan’s strength in the beginning of the game. They’re more than capable of handling the U.S Navy with just what they start with. This is one of the many reasons people consider the 1941 weighed towards the Axis’ side. Also you say that China is able to produce 5 Infantry per turn using my rules. However if Japan takes the time to make a dent into China, then they lose territories and thus cannot make Partisan Infantry (Partisan Infantry is based on the No. of units China starts with at the beginning of the U.S’ turn). Another thing the Japanese player usually does is take out as many things as they can. So more often than not, Kwangtung and Burma’s units are taken out before the British player is even given an opportunity to use them. Japan focusing in on China in my rules would actually make the game more realistic. In the real war, Japan not only focused on their Pacific campaign, but also heavily focused (and failed) in China. Japan knocking out China so quickly is far from accurate, and makes no sense historically.
    Also I guess I will take the time to clear up a few questions you had regarding my China.

    • Yes they have both a Partisan and Normal Economy. I explained why this isn’t overpowered

    • There is neither a factory, nor capital for China, G40 isn’t this way, so why would it be here?

    • You ask how do you distinguish Chinese Artillery from American, however could you not ask the same question for the Flying Tigers and normal American Fighters? I think that its highly unlikely the U.S would go out of their way to invade mainland Asia, when they can just invade Japan anyway.


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Hey ClassicDude,

    We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

    I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

    Cheers,
    Argo


  • 2018 2017 2016 2015 '14 Customizer '13

    @Argothair:

    Hey ClassicDude,

    We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

    I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

    Cheers,
    Argo

    I agree with you here for trying to find what works best for the happy medium. Don’t make China to strong with a KGF and a KJF to the point that Japan has no chance.

    Have you tried the 2 inf in Yunnan in your games yet ? So do you think even those 2 inf in Yunnan would be to strong for China for your group ?


  • 2019 2018 2017 2016

    Thanks! Not yet…my group is pretty keen on tournament bidding rules; only 1 piece per territory. Even 1 extra inf in Yunnan plus 1 inf in Phillipines and 1 art in Buryatia can give the Japanese real problems in China, though. Sometimes the Flying Tigers live, and sometimes the Japanese kill only the Yunnan stack, leaving China with 3 surviving infantry (plus 3 more to collect) on round 1.

    So far it hasn’t seemed like an unfair amount of pressure, but maybe I’d feel differently if someone did it to me. 🙂


  • Customizer

    Chinese infantry should be worth 0 in attack.

    Consider all non-coastal Chinese areas highlands and nerf units attacking them.



  • @Argothair:

    Hey ClassicDude,

    We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

    I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

    Cheers,
    Argo

    Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 14
  • 7
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 4
  • 1
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games

46
Online

13.4k
Users

33.7k
Topics

1.3m
Posts