If your opponent is building an Indian complex, they made a mistake (CSub).
C-sub is for beginners. Not for experienced players. Besides, that “paper” has many holes.
Japan can be crushed in a KJF strategy without the Japan player knowing what to do on defense.
They certainly wont be marching to moscow, or even india, in that event. They will be hanging on for dear life…
I don’t know as China is Japan’s best option. At 1 IPC per space why not just move the navy to Austrilla and India?
On the other hand China will continue to build at a rate of something like what 3 INF per turn. I guess it will all depend if Chinese units can leave Chinese soil in the game.
LT
@LT04:
I don’t know as China is Japan’s best option. At 1 IPC per space why not just move the navy to Austrilla and India?
On the other hand China will continue to build at a rate of something like what 3 INF per turn. I guess it will all depend if Chinese units can leave Chinese soil in the game.
LT
Based on what Krieghund has already said in an earlier post, Chinese units cannot leave China, except to attack Hong Kong. I am also beginning to wonder about that Boardgamegeek picture, as A&A Pacific has a lot more Chinese infantry on the board. I understand that the scale will be different, but there is just about the same amount of Japanese infantry in that image as A&A Pacific. I have a hard time believing that a Japanese player is going to go after China all out, when he needs the Borneo and East Indies IPC, and probably the National Objective boost. If my reading of the game board is correct, the troops in the Caroline Islands cannot get to the East Indies the first turn.
If this is a correct list of one of Japan’s National Objectives, and I think that it is, then the Japanese player is going to need every one of his infantry to cover objectives outside of China. Kwangtung+Netherlands East Indies+Borneo+Phillippine Islands+New Guinea+Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs The Japanese have 4 transports, and a lot of islands to take. Throwing a lot of troops into China makes no sense given the National Objectives bonus IPC, which appears to give nothing for taking China. Looking at the board, and then the possible setup for Japan, and the Japanese National Objectives, Japan is going to be stretched to the limit to get those on the first two turns, and then hold them.
Is this correct that chines unit can not leave China?
If yes, what is considered to be chinese? All 7 starting countries of course, but also Shanghai and/or Manchuria? And what about Hongkong?
If this is true, you could leave French-Indochina unprotected against a potental chinese attack.
Is this correct that chines unit can not leave China?
Yes.
If yes, what is considered to be chinese? All 7 starting countries of course, but also Shanghai and/or Manchuria? And what about Hongkong?
All of these territories except Hong Kong are considered to be original Chinese territories. Chinese units can only enter these territories and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a British territory, so if China takes it, it’s liberated and returned to UK control.
Is this correct that chines unit can not leave China?
Yes.
So the chinese fgt can not attack in the sz off Hongkong even if there is a lonely trn?
Seems China need serious modding :-P. Japanese troops sitting happily in FIC, knowing they can attack China but China cannot attack them sucks. It has no sense. It must be wrong or not true.
As much, it could be the rule from AA Pacific, where chinese units couldn’t enter on allied trannies. I still don’t like this rule, but is far better than this.
Yeah that seems kind of odd that Japan could not send a single unit to china and not have to send a single unit to a Chinese adjecent space and not have to worry about loosing it.
I’m sure this question has come up before but there has been some misinformation going around so I want to confirm: Can other allies place units in China?
LT
So the chinese fgt can not attack in the sz off Hongkong even if there is a lonely trn?
No. The transport will need to find someone else to keep it company.
@LT04:
I’m sure this question has come up before but there has been some misinformation going around so I want to confirm: Can other allies place units in China?
That depends on what you mean by “place”. Can they move them in? Yes. Can they build them there? No.
So the chinese fgt can not attack in the sz off Hongkong even if there is a lonely trn?
No. The transport will need to find someone else to keep it company.
@LT04:
I’m sure this question has come up before but there has been some misinformation going around so I want to confirm: Can other allies place units in China?
Thanks for clearing that up.
LT
That depends on what you mean by “place”. Can they move them in? Yes. Can they build them there? No.
I’ve mentioned this just about everywhere else I was able to, so I might as well voice it here as well. :D
Why are we designing China to collapse?
It makes zero sense according to the history and allows weird things to happen on the game board. China was a major theater of operations for the duration, and many historians mark the opening of WW2 in 37 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. To suggest that the Chinese contribution in the war against Japan was somehow irrelevant or insignificant to the broader global War is just totally misleading. 3,800,000 Chinese military personal died fighting in this part of the world. Compare that with the 417,000 US or 380,00 British military personal over the course of the entire conflict, and you start to get an appreciation for what I’m talking about. Its a joke for them to get crushed like they do in most games. They should at least be heavy enough on the inf to draw down some serious Jap firepower, and not just get blown off the map before the US has a chance to do anything meaningful in the Pacific.
I also dislike the idea of China as a sub player with different purchasing, placement and movement rules, distinct from everyone else. It adds to the overall complexity of the game, when we should be focusing on ease of use. In AAPacific it was different because everything was localized, and the more focused/tactical nature of the game made the inf pop rule seem less peculiar. In this case though, it just feels weird.
Also, I don’t see why everyone keeps making so much about the intestine fighting between the CPC and the KMT (even though there was a pretty stable truce in effect from 41-45). There were partisans and civil conflicts in other parts of the world during this period, which we’re perfectly happy to ignore, so why should this case be any different? The Chinese civil war did not flare up again in earnest until 46, so I don’t see why we should feel compelled to treat of it in this game.
I’ve got my fingers crossed and I’m hoping for the best out of AA50, but if we ever revisit the idea in another edition, I’d like to see a less ignominious role for China in it.
:)
Greetings all,
More speculation China,
I have been staring at one picture from Gen Con. It is the display showing a 90% 1942 2004 Revised Setup, plus new stuff.
I note qty 9 Chinese Infantry, plus Fighter.
I wonder if Larry has his own Oct surpise, with the 1942 setup.
By the way, I like Chinese troop restrictions, they were focused on China.
I would hate to see Chinese troops in India.
nuff said.
Historically China fought a hard and bloodly war against the Japan, as the 3,800,000 Chinese military personal died show.
USA and UK supported the Chinese effort.
However China had less impact on the high level strategy. When we speak of the leaders leading the Allies we speak of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. The DDay was planned to open the well-known “second-front” asked by Stalin. Operation Bagration was launched on 22th June 1944 to engage Germany Eastern Armies avoiding sending reinforcement in Normandy.
Also in AA50 there is need for a lot of cooperation between the allied powers. Allowing China to perform an high level strategy cooperation will seem a little bit strange. For example seeing Chinese infantry defending India or cooperating with Russian Army will be really strange. At moment I am curious to see how China works as sub-player because it seems to be more fitting with a nation that fought a bloodly war but rarely looked over the boundaries of its country to participate in high level strategy planning.
If after several games played China will appear really weak and an easy prey for Japan then we can start to think to some home rule.
We could talk about historical accuracy and China in this game for ages (why let Japanese armor blitzing merrily by mountain zones as Sichuan?), and about the bugs with her minor condition. But I agree with Romulus in a thing: let’s try a pair of games with OOB rules, and then, if China means 12 free IPCs for Japan, let’s mod China.
So, the order should be:
Buy the game and learn the actual rules. I have very serious doubts about the deploy we know today.
Play a pair of games with OOB
After that, if China is broken, mod her
the only thing for chian i would hate to see is that they can biuld more then 2 tanks and 2 fighters
china shoudl be allowed a maximum for tanks and fighter of 2 each
also no bombers for china really china having bombers unrealistic and thats an eas way of bombing ipcs from japan that would b giving a edge up to the allies
who agrees with these things i posted + expecially the no bombers rule
I think something should be done, but if you have these rules you need to counter balance something else for the axis
like adding men for japan in japanese china and allowing gb to make only 1 ipc complex
No to limiting UK ICs. Japan has enough advantage in Pacific with this (supposed) setup.
I think there is no need of nerfing a China with IC. First, If you think China can waste 15 ipcs in a bomber, I’d be happy of playing Japan. Second, China would suffer enough with Japan’s strat bombings. Third, a China with IC would need about 10-15 ipcs, thus giving more rich territories who could give Japan a greater reward. Fourth, give chinese IC as Japanese bonus, cancel Ottawa VC and make Chongquing a VC. Now allies would need defend China (and the whole Pacific). No more gamey KGF.
Japan was super duper strong in ww2 the allies were lucky aka dice rolls or in this case allowing them selves stay defensive and ge tthe extra attack value
i was playing a&ae and russia and germany were tied for strenght because the allies were threatening him aka me
so while i moved russia to attack him he was surprised
at the time had 25 ipcs i bought 1 plane 2 armour and 1 inf.
then attacked him i won because i had 7 tanks 1 died from the start ebcause i blitz an opening because he new that i wouldnt normally send a tankt here but it screwed him up to buy 1 bomber!
so when i attacked next turn i won defensive russia easy to handle, agressive russia hard
the point is it is luck and make china and japan have more men in asia show the reasons for rasian wars
One question regarding China and builds: do you determine the number of infantry in the “Purchase Units Phase” or in the “Place Built Units Phase”? The latter would be slightly better for the Chinese, but then again they will probably play very defensively so maybe the difference is slight?
