China as a new sub-player

@Krieghund:

The fighter that starts in China is considered to be Chinese for movement and attack purposes.  Once it’s gone, it can’t be replaced.

That is good, but the deployment of 1942 scenario (as seen in the pictures we have), shows chinese fighter in the frontier with japanese conquests. Japan goes before China, so I imagine Japanese 1st attack will be against that fighter.

At least USA’s airfleet should be able of attack with chineses. Lend Lease also went for China (and is implemented in AA Pacific) by Burma Road.

@LT04:

If Allied units can’t go into China the Chinese need to be a diffrent color then the US.  How would you be able to tell them apart?  Unless Chinese units can’t leave China.

Either way that would be distracting as the US player IMO.

LT

I think Chinese units are a different model from USA’s units. Anyway, you can just put a Chinese counter under chinese units and it should work.

I’m still surprised China didn’t became a independent playable power in AE. It dereved more than Italy…

Chinese and US units may not attack together, but there’s nothing preventing Allied units in China.

somebody at the con mentioned they are not allowed in Chinese territories. Ill find that post.

@Funcioneta:

@LT04:

If Allied units can’t go into China the Chinese need to be a diffrent color then the US.  How would you be able to tell them apart?  Unless Chinese units can’t leave China.

Either way that would be distracting as the US player IMO.

LT

I think Chinese units are a different model from USA’s units. Anyway, you can just put a Chinese counter under chinese units and it should work.

I’m still surprised China didn’t became a independent playable power in AE. It dereved more than Italy…

China has 7 territories. Thats 7 IPC.

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

And if you gave China 20 IPC (so it could buy tanks, artillery, bombers, tech, and fighters) you would be destroying game balance.

China did not deserve better than Italy.

@squirecam:

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

Other advantages are: no IC that can be captured, free placement in any chinese territory and immediate placement of units after turn, i.e. no income saved so that units can only be placed next round.

@Krieghund:

The fighter that starts in China is considered to be Chinese for movement and attack purposes.  Once it’s gone, it can’t be replaced.

What you are saying then is that there can be no 14th Air Force in China?  No Chinese-American Composite Air Wing?  No assistance from the US in the form of improved weaponry and artilllery?  If this is the case, why did Larry and Wizards bother making China a US controlled player?  The US was better off in the Classic and Revised Edition.

Is it asking too much for a copy of the rule book to be posted?  The game is released in 2 months, which means that the initial shipments from China are probably already on the way.  Before I shell out $200 I would like to have a lot better idea of what I am buying.

These limitations should gladden the hearts of every Axis-loving player in the forum.

@Atlantikwall:

@squirecam:

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

Other advantages are: no IC that can be captured, free placement in any chinese territory and immediate placement of units after turn, i.e. no income saved so that units can only be placed next round.

I would add: immunity to SBR and territory that are more valuable when hold by China (2 territories = 1 INF = 3 IPC) while they are worthy only 1 IPC if conquered by Axis.

@Krieghund:

@Imperious:

The rules say you cant bring in allied junk into China. So you cant do that.

@Imperious:

So no non-Chinese units cannot fly over or into china.

Not true.  Chinese and US units may not attack together, but there’s nothing preventing Allied units in China.

Thanks, Krieghund, for the information.  Now it will be possible to put the 14th Air Force in China if desired, along with Merrill’s Marauders and some other things.

@Krieghund:

Chinese and US units may not attack together, but there’s nothing preventing Allied units in China.

This rule doesn’t make alot of sense to me. The US and China go on the same turn, why can’t they attack together? Especially sense US units can be in Chinese territories. It might make sense if no allied units were allowed in China. Can you tell us more about this?

@Flying:

@Krieghund:

Chinese and US units may not attack together, but there’s nothing preventing Allied units in China.

This rule doesn’t make alot of sense to me. The US and China go on the same turn, why can’t they attack together? Especially sense US units can be in Chinese territories. It might make sense if no allied units were allowed in China. Can you tell us more about this?

Sure.  The US player controls China, but it is treated as a separate power.  It’s similar to one player controlling both Germany and Japan in Revised.  In this case, though, the US player has a little more flexibility.

First, weapons development is done for the US.  Next, “purchasing” is done for both powers simultaneously (the US purchases units normally, while China gets one infantry for each two territories it controls).  Then, the US player completes both the Combat Movement and Conduct Combat phases for one power, then the other.  Either China or the US may be done first, as the player desires.  Noncombat Movement and Mobilization are then done for both together.  Finally, the US collects income.

Hmmm, this will mean that the US player with respect to China will be pretty close to historical, with probably the US supplying air power and the Chinese the ground forces.  The US goes first, and works over the Japanese with air power, the 14th Air Force, and then the Chinese go in on the ground.  Bombers in China can also work over the Japanese sea lanes, including the Sea Zone around Japan.  Plus, US bombers from Alaska can reach China in one non-combat move since there is no CAP in the game.  With the new rule on transports, the Japanese player will not be able to afford to have any unescorted transports, which will dilute his navy and spread it out, and to slow down the staging of bombers into China the Japanese player might have to invest in more AA guns, otherwise, the bombers get there with no possible losses.  If the US gets the Heavy Bomber tech, that would make bombers in China even more deadly.  Now, having the Chinese as a sub-player is a positive bonus to the US player.

There are also a few extra things about China I should throw in. The American player cannot intermix the combat phase/combat resolution of the U.S. team with that of the Chinese team. He must choose option 1: do Chinese combat movement, then Chinese combat resolution, then American combat movement, then American combat resolution, or option 2: American combat movement and resolution first, then Chinese combat movement and combat resolution. China begins the game with one fighter and a respectable number of infantry. Once China’s fighter is lost (which can happen on Japan’s first turn), it will have no air force for the rest of the game. Therefore, its only attacks would be with infantry. Moreover, when China places its new infantry units, it cannot place them in a way which results in there being more than three Chinese units in any one territory. (However, it can achieve larger force sizes during other phases of its turn.)

@squirecam:

China has 7 territories. Thats 7 IPC.

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

And if you gave China 20 IPC (so it could buy tanks, artillery, bombers, tech, and fighters) you would be destroying game balance.

China did not deserve better than Italy.

I would prefer a 9 ipcs China with IC at Chongquing than that crappy popping infs  :-P

And China deserves being better than Italy. China won the WWII and resisted japaneses. Italy lost WWII and was conquered 2 times, first by germans, then by allies.

@Funcioneta:

@squirecam:

China has 7 territories. Thats 7 IPC.

China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.

And if you gave China 20 IPC (so it could buy tanks, artillery, bombers, tech, and fighters) you would be destroying game balance.

China did not deserve better than Italy.

I would prefer a 9 ipcs China with IC at Chongquing than that crappy popping infs  :-P

And China deserves being better than Italy. China won the WWII and resisted japaneses. Italy lost WWII and was conquered 2 times, first by germans, then by allies.

:mrgreen:

Also Germany lose the war and it is in the game. Also Japan lose the war, even though they attacked USA without declaring the war. So losing the war is not a motivation for being out of the game.  :-D

Italy is in the game for historical reason. The Axis was the Alliance signed by Germany and Italy: the Axis Rome-Berlin. So Italy has always been contained in the name of the game.  :-D

Germany, Japan and Italy signed the tripartite pact.

So losing the war is not a motivation for being out of the game.

great point! Italy makes total sence. Its asinine to make a game on ww2 and have people assume German forces control Italy like a puppet. Thats only true ofter Italy surrendered and only the northern Italian forces reformed under IL duce.

China was not really a complete military power… just infantry outfitted by Germany and equipped and trained into quasi military organization…with no dedicated navy, air force ( aside from volunteer air corps from USA), and no armor or capability to produce that in recognizable quantities.

China was two half’s ( nationalist and communist factions) of an over populated nation with backward traditions like foot binding…something right out of the middle ages.

Who talked about Italy don’t deserve being in the game?  :-P I only said China fought better than Italy (even divided as chineses were), and yet still China gets a minor nation status in this game, while Italy gets glorified to playable power. It’s too eurocentric  :-P Make both fully playable powers and stop that nosense of popping chinese infantry.

Or do you want Italy changing sides to Allies when gets conquered the first time in the game?  :-P This would be more historical  :-D

And China had some qualified troops. Not much, but there were. Kuomingtan had a couple of elite divisions and communists fought pretty well and even defeated the japaneses in a couple of battles. Sure elite italian forces who couldn’t defeat the greeks alone deserve a better status in that game. I think even “freed” Italian forces under allied command fought better than fascist italian forces.

Anyway, all this chatting no matter. Larry has the rules and he will not change  them :-)

I am curious: Your opinion that Chinese fought better that Italian are based on?

War are not fought for deserving place in boardgames, or as source of opinion for liking os disliking other nations, or for their consideration as faction or sub-faction in a game.

If I would design a game on the defeat of the Invencible Armada by the Royal Navy in 1588 should I not include the Spanish fleet as player because they fought very bad and lost the battle, and the war?

Italy fought bad and lost in World War II. They surrendered to Allied. And they had to, Italy was in not shape to continue the war. As a result there was a civil war in wich Fascist Salò Republic at north fought alongside with Germany against southern part of the country in the hand of Allies and of a interim Italian govvernment, with volunteer that fought alongside with USA and UK, most of which former opponents of fascist government coming back to Italy to fight.
And also Salò Republic had some elite units, i.e. X MAS, as also in the Corps that fought with allies there were good units. So the situation in Italy from 1943 to 1945 has been quite similar to those of China in 1936-1945. If China deserve to be a player for that motivation at least Italy deserve to be a player for the same motivation. If the criterium applies to China it should work also for Italy.

However there is more. At start of the war Italy had an Army, an Airforce and a Navy. They were strategically used very bad, with wrong pianification and horrible logistic. Italy lost the war for her impreparation, errors and industrial weakness.

So which is the challenge here? Is to perform better than the Italian high command. What if Italy had acted in another way? What if Italian Navy had keep control of Mediterranean? Moreover presence of Italy gives a further challenge to the Axis: collaboration between Italy and Germany. This introduces a need for negotiation and diplomacy, if played by different players, that is inspired to what really happened in the war. Had Italy and Germany collaborated more had the war another course?

This is the reason for Italy being a player and China only a sub player. Italy may be used by the controlling player in a more effective way because had the potential to do better than Italy Armed Forces did and this is Historically correct. Allowing the same for China seems too much given their situation.

For the fact of switching side you can house rule that if you like. However, you should also house rule the Stalingrad defeat. And the Midaway disaster too. Scripting the game in some way.
History provides the scenario and the starting situation for A&A but each player should be able to play its own game.

There are rules and other things that I do no like in Anniversary but China is ok as it is. Mr. Harris have done a good work there.

@Romulus:

There are rules and other things that I do no like in Anniversary but China is ok as it is. Mr. Harris have done a good work there.

Seems we have different opinion here. I must say, first, we don’t know yet what work had done Harris with the game because we have not the rulebook or the setups, we only have a few pictures and comments. Second, if the pictures we have show the actual setup, China is broken, unable of attack Japan because they lose their lone fig in the very first turn and cannot get another one, even from USA. What if Japan take 2 of the 7 territories China have (probably in the first turn)? China gets 2 patetic inf each turn and is reduced to attack at 1. It was better in Revised, 1 IC at Sinkiang and you could trade territory as each power should be able to to do.

The only thing is good with new China map is more territories. I hope China at least can save that starting fig.