Shouldnt the CCP be named, "PRC" ("People's Republic of China") ??

This is all on the NRS. The only condition that is not USSR dependent is that Germany or Japan has surrendered.

There is no single CCP action that can trigger an allied declaration of War.

@jbuckbuddy the answer is that the truce can’t be signed multiple times

@jbuckbuddy China at War allows USSR to invade Sinkang in July of 37 but OOB must be July of 1939 but I warn you about doing this because this will cause the Warlords to align to KMT (or whatever the rule book depending on expansions state) and put you at war with KMT which means USSR lost it’s neutrality to the Allies and might cause the Allies to declare war on you.

@general-5-stars Thanks for sending! Interesting rules there! A lot of what I was thinking too (glad I was on the right track haha).

Yeah, I think the idea is a lot of fun to have them added in! I think it’s ripe for expansion possibility, but who knows!

@Linkler I don’t remember where I heard this, it might have been one of Doug’s Youtube updates, but I had heard somewhere that they didn’t really have any immediate plans for really any expansions for a little while. They’ve been focusing on Meltdown (which just released) and 1914 so much, as well as Midway earlier this year, that I think any expansions have really taken a back seat! I’d personally like to see expansions as well, since the 1936 game is really the one that interests me haha.

@theveteran
Good additions 👍🏼

@trig said in 2.1 Variable End and CCP Possession of Nanking:

The KMT is not a major power. Case closed.

Unless it evolves. Then yes.

Definitive! How did I miss that? Thank you, Trig! 8 )

@GeneralHandGrenade Unsurprising that you have the intel GHG! And ultimately unsurprising this is in the works. They’ve done such a great job with diverse expansions, this was bound to be an area for one. Very intrigued it’s the same designer as Latin America, as I think that Expansion (and China at War) was one of the best thought out ones they’ve done yet! Will be very interested in seeing this in the future, I think it could hold a lot!

I completely agree, I think the Med/North Africa could be a great standalone game. I posted on the forums here years ago how cool it would be to see an A&A game like that done, though really any similar game like that would be great. There’s so much that can be done.

The biggest criticisms I’ve really heard on the topic was that you couldn’t really do a true “final victory”, since any map would obviously not actually include a Berlin as a final destination to take, and that this game wouldn’t feel like you “won the war”. Well, I guess that’s true, but who cares! One needs to look at is as a Theater-level game. You’re objective is victory in the Theater. That might mean taking Rome and Tunis for the Allies, or taking Cairo as the Axis, or it could just mean surviving a certain amount of time.

The other part of this would be how to incorporate the US. Do you start a game on the eve of Operation Torch? Or have a game similar to Global 1940, where the US joins starting a certain turn? I personally would advocate for the later. I’d love to play out a game where I do what I can with British and Commonwealth forces early on, and then see the tide turn with a US entry. I’ve seen complaints of how people think it would be dumb to just have US forces bought/appear from the edge of a map (since the US would presumably not be represented here). Again, I say you’ve got to be able to have fun with a game!

@cdatkins74 I agree with you. In terms of big picture, Japan doesn’t have a ton of need to go past the coastal territories. That’s where the money is, and where they can maneuver a bit better.