The problem with 1936 is that Com China is so weak at the start of 1936 that KMT can easily destroy them within two turns and USSR can’t do anything about it since they can’t Lend-Lease due to Com China not boarding USSR.
Tweaking China for AAP40
-
Air power has completely changed the game now. The fact that a stack of 5 infantry can be taken out with a force of equal or less troops as long as they have enough Tac bombers means that the old way of thinking is obsolete.
Japan has total air superiority over China, meaning they can move at will through any Chinese force. The 3 Japanese Infantry and arty poised all along the coast in the original set up, is enough to take China, as long as its backed up by the airforces in Manchuria and Jiangsu (kiangsu).
I have seen games where this force has taken down stacks of Chinese infantry twice as large in one round of combat. In reality, the best thing you can do with China is to kindly remind the Japanese player that in order to win he needs to take VCs and China has none, and that while all of China is worth 12 there are 3 allied tt to the south, that would be much eaiser and quicker to take, that are worth just as much.
I have an alternate set up that I like to use, but in reality, of the extra troops I give to China, which is 7, 5 get killed in the first turn by Japan with minimal to no loss by Japan. The 2 I add to Hunan, making 3, get killed by Japans air power and the 3 I add to Kwangsi are all killed by Naval bombardment when they retake the area with an anphibious assault that usually bring a tank into play on the mainland. That leaves the 2 inf I add to Hopei after Japans opener, which really dosnt change things up too much later on. By the end of Chinas first turn I’ll have a line that runs Hopei-Guizhou(kewichow?)-Yunan with stacks of 5-5-7 respectively. Japan can choose to move and destroy any of these on its next turn, with out having to commit anymore ground forces then what it already has on hand.
I think China needs to be thought of as more of a seperate power then being subordinate to an allied power. When you look at the victory conditions, there really isnt much point to advancing into China as Japan, its a place for missed placed agression. Outside of taking Yunan, Japan has no where else it needs to go in China. Its not like a Japanese player will be unable to tell if the Chinese are getting to strong in an area, and be able to redeploy its airforce to destroy any concentration of Chinese forces. So, China’s goal becomes getting Japan to attack the west and leaving it alone so it can build up enough troops to ensure its survival and not much more. I think China was historically much more independant from the allies then the game represents. This needs to be changed, along with our alternate set-ups and house rules. China should function, politically and milatarily, more like the Soviets will in AAE40, Independently. I would even go so far as say China should have its own victory condition, that may even run counter to the allies. This would really better reflect the situation, and make for much more intresting games. Imagine the consequences of ceasfires between China and Japan, or other such things, on allied strategy. -
But China is worth 12 ipcs, a lot of money. What 3 allied tt are you talking about? The DEI?
-
But China is worth 12 ipcs, a lot of money. What 3 allied tt are you talking about? The DEI?
I figured that’d be kinda obvious. China IS worth 12, but it takes an uncertian amount of turns and the comitment of large parts of Japans airforce. The DEI on the other hand, can all be taken in one turn, with an equal amount of forces commited (equal to your comitments in China) with a higher net return. Look at it like this, If Japan loses 1 infantry taking a Chinese tt, it take 3 turns for Japan to get the value of the trooper back for the tt it took. However, if Japan loses 1 infantry taking Java, it automaticaly get the value of that trooper back and then some. So from an ecnomic standpoint, China is pretty useless, in terms of Japanese economic growth.
From a gaming point, taking all of China takes a varying number of turns and pulls your forces away from more important fronts. China is not a war winning front. The DEI is a war winning front, and the troops are right in the middle of the action so to speak. These forces are well poised to be redeployed to other crucial fronts, like India and Australia and the central pacific, which are areas Japan HAS to take in order to win. -
Then why not take both at the same time?
-
Then why not take both at the same time?
Because, China is not worth it. Why waste units running around deep into China? What happens if your plan to take the DEI goes wrong or the Americans launch an unexpected offensive somewhere in the central pacific? You’ll need to react and reinforce yourself, but the more units you’ve got deep in China, the less you’ll have to react with and the harder it will be to reinforce yourself. There are 4 Chinese tt that Japan needs/should take
1. Yunan: this province is worth 1 to you but 7 to the Chinese, the burma road adds a 50% increase to China’s economy, it is a priority and must be taken
2. Hunan: it is centraly located and gives you interior lines against the Chinese and a buffer between the chinese and your costal holdings.
3&4. Charhar&Anhui, they are unoccupied and you might as well, they also have the advantage of interior lines.
Outside of that, there is no need to advance any deeper into China. With Japans air superiority any concentration by the Chinese can be swiftly destroyed if it becomes too threating. With only having infantry China has no real offensive punch. Its a defensive force, and holding/bogging down force.
Japan needs to hold 6 victory cities to win the game while holding Japan itself. The only VC in China is already under Japans control. So what value is a prolonged venture deep into China to Japan? 12ipc for 6+ turns and your forces taken away from the important fronts? Thats not a good trade off. -
Americans going on the offensive(with 17 ipc’s on turn 1)? The DEI going wrong??? :lol:
All the DEI can be taken by turn 2, 3 if the Brits sac their navy to block Sumatra
China, with 12 inf and a fighter is not hard to beat and doesn’t waste much resources. Japan will have 27 planes after a J1 that can kill any chinese inf. Just attack with 1 inf and planes and kill planes. After China and India fall, you’ll be making 78. If you avoid 8 chinese tt, you make 70, the same as the allies.
-
Americans going on the offensive(with 17 ipc’s on turn 1)? The DEI going wrong??? :lol:
All the DEI can be taken by turn 2, 3 if the Brits sac their navy to block Sumatra
China, with 12 inf and a fighter is not hard to beat and doesn’t waste much resources. Japan will have 27 planes after a J1 that can kill any chinese inf. Just attack with 1 inf and planes and kill planes. After China and India fall, you’ll be making 78. If you avoid 8 chinese tt, you make 70, the same as the allies.I dont think your stratgey is very sound. You cant take all of China in 1 turn, its not possible, the least amount of turns it would take is 4 or 5. Why would you ever take planes as casualties? That is a total waste of resources, all just to take a tt worth 1ipc. Why Would Japan use 27 planes just to the take 12ipc of China? Japan has the potential to get 20ipc from taking the DEI and southern areas, wouldnt that be a better use of those 27 planes? Also, China has only infantry, if you place 4inf in one of their tt, to take it back they would need atleast 8inf(12 would be better) to even have a chance of retaking it.
I suppose your one of those lucky players that never has a bad roll? Well, im not, and even the soundest plans are up to the dice in the end.
Anyway, the point of this thread is NOT to discuss J1 attack stratgey or other game tactics, there is plenty of that going on in the Pacific forum. This thread is for discussing ways to tweak China to make them a more fun/historical/viable power to play. If you have nothing to add with reguards to the topic please stop posting here. -
Japan doesn’t need planes to take those areas.
Let’s look at the math: if I have a large plane mass vs 3 inf, they all die on the 1st round, and I lose a fighter. I lost 10, he lost 9, and I get 1 ipc from the territory. I’m saying to sac planes to take a tt so that you have ground units that China can’t counter. -
Japan doesn’t need planes to take those areas.
Let’s look at the math: if I have a large plane mass vs 3 inf, they all die on the 1st round, and I lose a fighter. I lost 10, he lost 9, and I get 1 ipc from the territory. I’m saying to sac planes to take a tt so that you have ground units that China can’t counter.Which is counter to what the purpose of this thread.
I think you’ve got some fuzzy math there too. You loose a fighter, which is 10ipc, your opponet has lost 9ipc, and you gained one. So not only do you lose a higher ipc value unit, and a more useful unit, but it will take 10 turns for you to recoop the ipc spent in taking the 1 ipc tt. Thats 9 turn 10ipc deficit, dosnt seem like that great of a trade off to me. I understand that 12ipcs seems like a lot, but there are better places to send those planes and troops. Im not saying never finish off China as Japan, but until Kwangtung, the Philippines, and India (tt with victory cities you need to win) are under your control, China is a low priority.
I played a game just last night, and the Japanese player didnt attack until turn 2 and didnt buy anything for 3 turns, just saved his ipcs, and he was still able to overrun India and be in a strong enough position to call the game by turn 3. So clearly, Japan dosnt really need the extra 12ipcs of China that badly, it wont massively change the game for Japan, or handicap them horrificaly. -
Umm, China loses 9 ipc’s of units, I lose 10, and I gain 1 ipc from the territory. Thus, I’m even on that turn. Since Japan starts with more ipc’s of units, trading evenly won’t hurt them.
Kwangtung and Philippines are taken on turn 1. India can be taken with just 10-15 planes+land, while the other 10-15 are used against China or the US
-
Clearly, Math is not your strong point, as 10 is a bigger number then 9, if you hadnt noticed, and losing 10 for a gain of 1 is never seen as a good thing.
Also reading dose not seem to be one of you better subjects either, because for some reason you keep going on about J1 attack stratgies for pacific 1940, despite the fact that this is the house rules forum, and its a thread about house rules for China.
-
You’re the one who started talking about ignoring China.
I think you’re ignoring the 9 ipc’s the Chinese lose.
-
You’re the one who started talking about ignoring China.
I think you’re ignoring the 9 ipc’s the Chinese lose.
I was talking about changing our thinking towards China. China, historically, was an independent country and did what it saw as being in its best intrest. It was not, as the game has them, subordinate to an Allied power, and often times did things that effected or even hurt the western allied powers in the asia/pacific theater. I was orignaly suggesting that it would serve China better, to try and coax the Japanese player into attacking the west forcusing its main attack away from China. I think that Chinas objective to win the game should be to survive and hold onto 6 (or 4) of its tt, the allies be damed, which would be more historical then how things are currently.
China may be losing 9ipcs worth of infantry, but you lose a plane, and a plane is way way more valuable then 3 infantry. The plane attacks on a 3 or less, the infantry on 1’s. so according to odds, you have a 50% chance of hitting in combat with 1 plane, while those 3 infantry shouldnt hit at all on the attack, according to the odds. A Plane defends on a 4 or less, giving is a 60% chance of hitting, while the infantry hit on 2 or less, giving them a 20% chance of getting 1 hit between the 3 of them. Also lets not forget the planes abality to raise the attack value of the Tac bomber, which requires a 1 to 1 ratio. The fighter is more useful and veratile of a unit and should not be thrown away just to kill 3 infantry, it is a waste of resources.
-
3 infantry have a 42% chance of hitting, and they’re 3 unit so even if one dies, they still have a 11/36 chance in hitting again
-
3 infantry have a 42% chance of hitting, and they’re 3 unit so even if one dies, they still have a 11/36 chance in hitting again
Which is still a lower percentage then the fighter, making the fighter more useful. Also, a fighter can rapidly redeploy to other areas unlike infantry.
Either way, It is irrelevent to the point of this thread
-
On defense, they are even better, hitting 19/27 of the time, as opposed to the fighter’s 18/27.
Yes, a fighter can redeploy, but they’re not that valuable to Japan since it starts with 14 of them.
-
You very clearly dont get it, please stop spamming this thread, go post your fuzzy math and J1 attack stratgies in the Pacific forums, please let us get back on topic and talk about how to tweak China, and how to better the game from the Chinese perspective.
-
You’re the one who started the discussion by saying that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.
How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.
-
You’re the one who started the discussion by saying that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.
How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.
What I was talking about was in reguards to the Chinese NOT the Japanese. I dont believe Japan needs to focus on taking all those Chinese tt early on, its got better things to do. But this isnt really the place to discuss it at lenght. I made a passing comment, you are the one who turned this thread into another J1 attack fan boy rant. Also, anyone with a bit of sense would never make an attack with 6 planes and 1inf, if they can avoid it. Most people would better support their attacks so they wouldnt have to take fighters as casualities, which you can easily do in China as Japan. A fighter is more useful, just because you have alot of them, dosnt mean you should be looking to lose them, its a waste of resources
Suggested Topics
