Chinese Civil War



  • Yes, this setup is for the G40 map



  • IMPORTANT UPDATE. I am removing all updated rule posts. Rules changes for the second setup will be directly made on the posted setup.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I only had time for a quick look, so my comments are just very general ones, in no particular order.

    “Winning the Game: Nationalist China wins if all Communist Chinese units are eliminated. Communist China wins if they can control all Nationalist China mainland territories (not including Warlord territories).”

    Comment: This solves the original concerns I’d raised, which were related to capitals. The new winning conditions are more straightforward and clear, which is a good thing. That being said, you may want to be a bit more explicit with each side’s goals, in order to provide guidance to the players, because the two goals are stated in different terms. As far as I can tell, each side’s basic goal is the destruction of the other side’s military forces, the only difference being that the Nationalists need to destroy the Communists completely, whereas the Communists only need to destroy the Nationalist forces in every mainland location. This is slightly unbalanced, so you may want to set up victory “gradations” (total victory, major victory, etc.) because a Communist victory in which the Nationalists are totally destroyed should count for more than one in which the Nationalists escape in large numbers to Taiwan (and/or Hainan Island, which isn’t part of mainland China).

    “Nationalist Aligned Warlords”

    Perhaps I’m not remembering correctly what I read in that Wikipedia article, but I think the warlord era was pretty much over by the 1930s. The Communist Revolution was in the late 1940s.

    “Pheasant Recruitment”

    Peasant, not pheasant. Peasants are, in Communist terms, the rural proletariat. Pheasants are birds.

    “Nationalist Defection: Every second turn, the Communist China player has the option to replace their purchase phase with Nationalist Defection.”

    This is an interesting concept, and it actually brings into the game one of the political angles of the Communist Revolution.

    “(Russia slowly moved out of Manchuria after WW2, allowing the Communists to move and control the land)”

    The Soviets also, if I’m not mistaken, allowed the Communists to get hold of a lot of captured Japanese military hardware.


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Another thing you may add to game to maybe slow down a bit or have it based on some city’s they fought over. Don’t know if u saw this mentioned in an earlier post but make like 2-4 City’s separate territories so they have to attack theses city’s . But have only so many pieces can retreat (non combat move ) back into city’s within those territories.
    Like say example such city of Changchun is in the territory of Manchuria. The territory of Manchuria gets attack. Defender survives with 6 inf. On defenders next turn can only move in non combat up to 2 Inf into city of Changchun.
    This option should be in all small campaign war games I believe.



  • @CWO-Marc
    Thanks for the positive feedback!
    The reason for adding in the Aligned Warlords was to try and limit the conflict area between the Communists and Nationalists. After looking at a map and noticing that there were different Chinese cliques part of the Nationalists, I decided to represent them. However, I do see your point about the Warlord era ending before the civil war resumed. I’ll see what I can do with the Warlord territories. Honestly, after playing a trial round, I find the Warlords to be more a hindrance to a Nationalist victory, because they are underpowered compared with the Communists.



  • And yes, I misspelled peasants! I keep forgetting how to properly spell the word so it means humans. Who knows, maybe the Communists had specially trained attack birds! I’ll edit the spelling in the setup.



  • @GEN-MANSTEIN
    I don’t believe I did see your post. However, I think that would be a very interesting addition to the gameplay. I’ll add that in to the rules. Thanks!



  • @CWO-Marc
    Like yourself, I only had time for a quick glance, so I missed the part of balancing the victories. I’ll clear up the victory conditions for sure. As for the unbalanced condition, perhaps some kind of system in which either side must complete a certain number of objectives in order to win could work. Or, straightforward victory conditions which are the same for each side. What do you think?



  • All right, I have completed the changes to the rules. They have been made directly onto the setup. Please tell me what you think!



  • @GEN-MANSTEIN
    I think you’ll be pleased 😉



  • Btw, has anyone tried this setup out on the board? I want to know how the gameplay works for people other than myself! PLEASE!


  • 2020 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 Customizer '13

    Ya that looks interesting. Did you play test it yet ?



  • @GEN-MANSTEIN
    I haven’t play tested with these newest rules yet, but I’ve done a few test with the setup before these new rules were added. Gameplay was fine, though I did play against myself. These new rules shouldn’t impede gameplay however. The siege rules were inspired by War of the Ring, so I know they work, and the objectives seem straightforward. I’ll give it a play test though for sure to confirm this



  • Okay, I’m going to try and be a respectful about this as possible. I think the siege rules are pretty dumb. If you want to slow down combat, don’t limit the number of units that can go into the territory, the area each territory takes up is so massive that you would need a massive number of units for them not to fit. Just make it so that all combat, regardless of where it is, is resolved one round of combat per turn of play. For more information on that look up a free pdf of the Axis & Allies 1914 rules, they work great. I think the idea of a siege is kind of weird. China was made out of wood and paper. Cities could easily just be burned down from a distance or shoot through the buildings, there’s not a whole lot of sieging to be done.



  • @Militarized-Milkmen
    Yeah, I gotta agree with you. I’ll use cities for victory, but not military.



  • IMPORTANT NOTICE
    The original setup is being removed to clear up confusion over which setup is the true one.



  • The siege rules have been removed, as well as there has been a couple of other small changes to the rules.



  • This post is deleted!


  • Update. Rule changes have been made



  • @ General public
    Hello everybody. I was curious to know if anyone has tried out this setup. If so, please tell me how it went. Thanks!


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 15
  • 15
  • 1
  • 34
  • 4
  • 9
  • 1
  • 7
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

46
Online

14.8k
Users

35.5k
Topics

1.4m
Posts