I think they make gamey, unrealistic, outcomes. It’s like a deliberately created loophole, exactly why should USA be able to snipe out the garrisons? Also, they don’t make the game more dynamic IMO. They in fact make the decision to go after India as quickly as possible more clear. I also think that
Interesting that there are a couple of people that like the rule. I just don’t quite follow. I’d probably only hate it half as much if USA couldn’t bomb the infantry to create guerillas, but even so it still feels like a retrograde step back to Risk where you couldn’t allow the last unit to leave.
The logic of the guerrilla rule is manifold.
First, the historical justification for the “sniping” as you call it. US involvement in mainland china war was primarily air support, and logistical assistance to native combatants. The guerrilla rule allows the US to have a role in supporting China that doesn’t involve boots on the ground.
Second, it slows Japan’s China crush, and helps simulate the difficulty of plunging deep into and maintaining control of inland china. It also creates an in-game justification for Japan cleaving closer to the coast, which is historical.
Third, from a gameplay perspective, it aids in balance, and presents more strategic choices to both sides.