A Bid For Allies

[cannon fodder]

I thought it was 1 Chinese infantry for every 2 territory not 3?

@Corbeau:

For China, I think it’s mostly it’s rules rather than number of initial units that makes them so bad. ( Except that fighter who should get to place where you want )

• Remove the unit limit reinforcement per territory if there is already units in it.
• Divide by 2 and not 3 for the number of reinforcement infantry.
• Place fighter where you want or at least not in range for Japan turn 1.

[Butcher]

What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.

[cannon fodder]

Would there be a limit as to one Flying Tiger at one time?

@Butcher:

What if we let America rebuild the Flying Tigers for an increased cost, and they would be deployed when China places their infantry? Somewhere in the 12-15 IPC range seems about right. That would certainly give China a chance to hold off the Japanese.

[Butcher]

Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.

[cannon fodder]

Sort of like a Chinese-US lend & lease?  I like that idea.  It  would take some time but at least the Flying Tiger can be replaced.

@Butcher:

Yeah, there is a limit of one, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Either that, or if the U.S. can fly a fighter into a Chinese controlled territory, it comes under Chinese control when they place their units. Again, there is a limit of one Flying Tiger.

Or to keep it alive at the start, the Flying Tiger could start in Sikang.

[Butcher]

I think it makes sense. The U.S. can provide support to China, but they have to actually get the fig there.

Maybe both options could be included. Pay 15 to have it placed with China’s new infantry, or pay 10 and have to move it there. Limit one Flying Tiger at a time.

[rockrobinoff]

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

[Funcioneta]

If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working

[cannon fodder]

Never thought about that.  If there are no Chinese territory, no US-Chinese lend and lease.  No Flying Tiger.

@Funcioneta:

If Japan kills China J1, as they should, USA’s figs will not arrive there at time to even land in China. And India will be soon another japanese puppet

China needs a total change of rules and setup if we want this game working

[Butcher]

@rockrobinoff:

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

Why didn’t I think of that?

[cannon fodder]

I thought that is what you meant?  US buys the fighter and flies it to China?

Maybe I misunderstood?

@Butcher:

@rockrobinoff:

i like the flying tiger idea. how about instead of paying directly for it, the USA has to actually fly a plane and land it china?

Why didn’t I think of that?

@Butcher:

I think it makes sense. The U.S. can provide support to China, but they have to actually get the fig there.

Maybe both options could be included. Pay 15 to have it placed with China’s new infantry, or pay 10 and have to move it there. Limit one Flying Tiger at a time.

[Butcher]

Yeah, that’s what I meant. It would function as a limited lend-lease. However, it would probably take about 4 turns to get there unless you have a strong naval presence in the Pacific. In the 42 scenario, that might be ok, but it’s too late in 41.

The best option may be to move the Flying Tiger to Sikang in the setup. Then it will actually have a decent impact on the game.

[critmonster]

All Chinese terretories should be worth zero. Does not effect allies and makes it less appealing for Japan.

[Funcioneta]

Just give the chineses a real army - not some random frontier garrison with Flying Sparrings laid to die - and also give them a IC as all the other powers!

[Zhukov44]

The more I play aa50 the more I am satisfied with a unit bid to Egypt/Karelia to balance out the game.  Strictly speaking, a China bid would be more historically accurate.  But allowing Germany to knock over Egypt isn’t very historical either.  A bid to Egypt makes North Africa a contest.

The common bid (1 unit to Karelia, 1 to Egypt) allows the Allies to shore up 2 spots that were historical battlefields but which will fall easily to Axis in a game w/o a bid.

[critmonster]

I go back and forth, but I see your point about better allied defense in the west, it might encourage allied presence in the pacific and others have posted that more units in Asia will just encourage more KGF because one can stall Japan with existing units. The problem I have is that Europe is pretty balanced if decent USSR and UK play (with USA help) and if we give them more then do we encourage the KGF strat even more? Also, Italy really needs to be able to get African $ or its NO’s to be viable and Egypt bids curtail that. Hmmm

[Funcioneta]

@critmonster:

Also, Italy really needs to be able to get African $ or its NO’s to be viable and Egypt bids curtail that. Hmmm

1 or 2 inf to Egypt are not enough. It will prevent early conquest of Egypt, as you say, but round 2 Egypt will be lost anyway, and the problem is that Germany can still attack z2 BB. The kar/egy bid will aid a bit, of course, but will not solve the main problem: Asia/Pacific mess

[Lucifer]

The “standard” bid for allies in 41 +NOs are from $6 to $9, one unit pr. TT.
It seems that this applies for regular dice games as well as LL games.
Usually the units are put in Egy and Kalia.

[critmonster]

@Subotai:

The “standard” bid for allies in 41 +NOs are from $6 to $9, one unit pr. TT.
It seems that this applies for regular dice games as well as LL games.
Usually the units are put in Egy and Kalia.

From your experience does this encourage more Pacific interaction or less?

[Zhukov44]

The bid doesn’t seem to make a big difference on whether USA goes Pacific. Having Russia better off in Kar and Uk better off in Egypt is a boon for pretty much any Allied strategy.  It makes KGF easier; it also makes it easier to play a USA Pacific offensive without losing in  North Africa and Northern Europe.