I played last night as the Allies - my buddy was the Axis (obviously). He, as Japan, had placed an IC in Manchuria; if China had regained control of the territory, what do they do with the IC? I would assume it stays there not doing anything, but can China destroy the IC??? ( Probably not, but I thought I would ask)
Thanks.
I played last night as the Allies - my buddy was the Axis (obviously). He, as Japan, had placed an IC in Manchuria; if China had regained control of the territory, what do they do with the IC? I would assume it stays there not doing anything, but can China destroy the IC??? ( Probably not, but I thought I would ask)
Thanks.
It stays there not doing anything. ICs can’t be destroyed. The Chinese can’t use it, because they don’t have IPCs, but the Japanese can’t use it either, and that’s worth something.
I played last night as the Allies - my buddy was the Axis (obviously). He, as Japan, had placed an IC in Manchuria; if China had regained control of the territory, what do they do with the IC? I would assume it stays there not doing anything, but can China destroy the IC??? ( Probably not, but I thought I would ask)
Thanks.It stays there not doing anything. ICs can’t be destroyed. The Chinese can’t use it, because they don’t have IPCs, but the Japanese can’t use it either, and that’s worth something.
Yeah, that’s what I thought - Thanks Krieghund!
Manchuria and Kiangsu are considered original Chinese territories, so it would be liberated to China. This will be in the FAQ.
Let me make sure that I understand this correctly. The IPC from Manchuria and Kiangsu are only useful to Japan or another Axis country (if some some bizarre reason either Italy or Germany get that far). The IPC cannot be used by any Allied power if they take the area, but can only be denied to the Japanese.
It stays there not doing anything. ICs can’t be destroyed. The Chinese can’t use it, because they don’t have IPCs, but the Japanese can’t use it either
Sounds totally ridiculous to me, complicated and unnecessary. :-D
Everyone should just be able to destroy their own own Factories if they want to. That change alone would make the game much more enjoyable, especially towards the later rounds. We allow for the purchase of new ICs, so why shouldn’t we allow a dynamic for their removal?
The logic behind the present distribution of starting factories just doesn’t make sense to me. Why should the Russians get production in Caucasus and Karelia, but not the British in India and Australia? Its time to just embrace the fact that there is no meaningful correspondence between real world industry and the way this game is set up. As such, factories should be treated like the fun gaming abstractions that they really are, and distributed more liberally across the board. I don’t want to hear any more excuses for the current, low production model. Everyone knows that the game is more fun to play with a Factory in India and a Pacific fight, its just too expensive the way the board is currently arranged. Someone needs to get with the program, and fix the factory thing. :-)
/black_elk
Don’t agree: a UK IC in South Africa is fully doable in '41 and in '42 an India IC is a go (or even an Aussie one). Whereas that Karelia IC means there are more options for the Russian front, it becomes much more volatile and dynamic now rather than just marching towards Caucasus. Destroying ICs is a nice idea, but would also slow down the game which is unfortunate. We will just get used to the idea of UK troops attacking Karelia to support Russia, think of it as a sort of Lend-lease and I’m sure Churchill could have ordered that, he did it in 1918-1919… :wink:
We will just get used to the idea of UK troops attacking Karelia to support Russia
I’m sick of getting used to this idea. I’ve had to get used to it in every iteration of the game since Classic. :-D
Frankly, at this point its just boring to me, and I think it really encourages the wrong sort of play-style from UK. The British should be thinking about the Med and the Pacific and France, not stacking infantry in Northern Russia.
A factory in India or Australia shouldn’t just be ‘doable’, it should be a given. Starting ICs would ground the Pacific game, and prevent the one directional attack plan that predominates in just about every version of A&A since the original. The Russian factory might be novel, but the Allies don’t need a new factory anchor in Karelia nearly as bad as they need one in the Pacific. That’s all I’m thinking
:-)
Destroying ICs is a nice idea, but would also slow down the game which is unfortunate
Honestly I don’t think destroyable ICs would add to game length all that appreciably. They might add somewhat to the length of the endgame, but only because the match ups would be closer and more intense. In any case, the gameplay would be much more entertaining while it lasted, so its a trade off I’d be willing to make.
8-)
I totally agree that E. Canada and Australia should have starting ICs, and I would not disagree with a starting IC in India. If people think that would unbalance the game, then give Czech-Hungary a starting IC as well. (That would solve some of Germany’s build limitation issues.)
These starting ICs would definitely alter the game for the better, I believe.
There should be a “scorched earth” method in the game as well. Why not use the damage counters that are already in the OOB rules? My thought would be that every time that a territory containing an IC is captured, that the IC would receive damage counters equal to half of its total damage capacity. (i.e. If Germany captures Karelia, then Karelia would immediately receive 2 damage counters.) So if China captures a Manchurian IC, then put 3 damage counters on the IC, and then when Japan recaptures it, put another 3 damage counters on it making a total of 6 damage counters (the maximum allowed) on it.
First I want to say that I agree with everything that Black_Elk is saying.
Secondly, and this should probably go in the House Rules forum - but since we’re talking about it here, here goes:
Regarding the destruction of an IC: what about a house rule that if a country takes an enemy territory with an IC, and they decides to destroy it, that country must industrial bomb that complex to twice its IPC value; and it must be done while this country has control of the territory.
Just a thought; and it’s probably the wrong place to post it…
Thanks.
Yea this is turning into house rules….make a new thread or stay on topic.
@Imperious:
Yea this is turning into house rules….make a new thread or stay on topic.
LOL. The topic was complete after the second post.
It would make a lot more sense if you just put a “house rules” sub-forum in each category, instead of continually moving the threads around.
:-D
I can’t imagine a topic worth discussing, in any section, that isn’t going to verge on a house rule at some point. Besides the current House Rules is section is all over the place anyway, and rather hard to navigate, since stuff gets dumped their from all over the rest of the site.
Sorry if I pushed the thread in an off topic direction. I like to try to think of solutions while I gripe ;)
It would make a lot more sense if you just put a “house rules” sub-forum in each category, instead of continually moving the threads around.
:-DI can’t imagine a topic worth discussing, in any section, that isn’t going to verge on a house rule at some point. Besides the current House Rules is section is all over the place anyway, and rather hard to navigate, since stuff gets dumped their from all over the rest of the site.
I totally agree with you.
