Yeah Yunnan keeps Burma Road almost always open since China can keep the five bucks coming in, the artillery buy just adds an advantage. It’s really hard to use China offensively against a Japanese player who knows what they are doing but in my games, I find Japan going after India by sea any ways.
China placing new units
-
Hey,
I was curious, can you place as the Chinese player put your new units in Hong Kong or Burma?
Cheers, BH
-
From the rule book;“New Chinese units can be mobilized on any Chinese territory that is controlled by China, including those captured in the current turn.”
With regard to Hong Kong and Burma this can happen if Calcutta is under Axis power as well as Hong Kong (Kwangtung) and Burma, and these are then liberated by Chinese forces. In this case China will take control, until Calcutta is liberated….and troops can be deployed in Chinese controlled territory.
-
I was curious, can you place as the Chinese player put your new units in Hong Kong or Burma?
No, you can’t.
Additionally to Bjn’s quote
“New Chinese units can be mobilized on any Chinese territory that is controlled by China, including those captured in the current turn.”the rulebook also says:
“Chinese territories on the game board have a Nationalist Chinese emblem on them.”
and
“However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, …” -
Gotcha,
Thanks for clarifying. BH
-
I have one that is similar to this question. Hand Grenade on one of his youtube videos says that the Flying Tigers can land in Burma when UK is neutral with Japan but I can’t find a rule that allows that.
-
@Caesar:
I have one that is similar to this question. Hand Grenade on one of his youtube videos says that the Flying Tigers can land in Burma when UK is neutral with Japan but I can’t find a rule that allows that.
Here we go:
@rulebook:
However, Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese territories, Chinese forces can move into them.
These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy.
…
This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat. It cannot leave the territories that Chinese occupation
is restricted to, even to attack and return.together with
@rulebook:
For the moment, the United Kingdom (including Canada), ANZAC, France, and China make up the Allies.
Actually for landing the Flying Tiger in Burma it is irrelevant whether UK is at war with Japan or not, as UK and China are allied right from the beginning of the game.
HTH :-)
-
Its not much of an alliance, if UK can sit there for 3 turns watching China get dismantled and then CHOOSE to declare war, or just be free parking! Thanks Panther.
Don’t forget, someone suggested saving most or all of China’s money so that upon some hopeful liberation in the backfield, 20 infantry appear on top of the landing force. I love this idea, but unless I spend the China money it doesn’t appear to live long enough to take advantage of this plan.
-
It shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion because if UK is shielding a combatant while neutral, it would be an act of war legally. Japan goes to war when UK enters Chinese territory but suddenly it’s okay for the Tigers to enter neutral UK.
-
That’s why it’s a good move to place the fighter there. In order for Japan to kill it they have to declare war on the western allies. We can talk all we want about how wrong that is but in the end I’m still parking the Flying Tigers there. Come and get me.
-
@Caesar:
It shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion because if UK is shielding a combatant while neutral, it would be an act of war legally. Japan goes to war when UK enters Chinese territory but suddenly it’s okay for the Tigers to enter neutral UK.
Though this move may seem a bit dodgy, there is historical precedent: The US occupied Iceland in July 1941, American destroyers escorted convoys bound for Britain (which resulted in the USS Reuben James being sunk off Iceland by U-552 that October), US military pilots “resigned their commissions” to join the Flying Tigers and RAF Eagle Squadron and so on, all prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the P-40s flown by the Tigers were originally shipped from the US to Burma in the spring of '41, assembled there, then flown to China.
If you dig deep enough, I think you’ll find that neutrality in WWII was situational, at best; at worst, a mutually-agreed-upon fiction. I’d classify this rule as “strange, but historically accurate.”
-
@Caesar:
It shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion because if UK is shielding a combatant while neutral, it would be an act of war legally. Japan goes to war when UK enters Chinese territory but suddenly it’s okay for the Tigers to enter neutral UK.
This is a misunderstanding! UK is not neutral. It is at war, it is part of the Allies - from the beginning of the game. Thus UK can’t be neutral.
It is just not at war with Japan. -
UK IS neutral with Japan and shielding a power at war which is why I argue it shouldn’t be able to do and also look at it like this, UK is at war with Germany and Italy however China usually isn’t.
-
@Caesar:
UK IS neutral with Japan …
No, still there is no concept of a nation being at war and at the same time being neutral to another nation.
In Axis and Allies Global 1940 powers are either neutral or at war.
In Global 1940 the only powers that start the game being neutral are USA and Russia.
There is no way that UK can be neutral to any nation.Again, UK is not at war with Japan at that time! But that has nothing to do with neutrality.
-
@P@nther:
@Caesar:
UK IS neutral with Japan …
No, still there is no concept of a nation being at war and at the same time being neutral to another nation.
In Axis and Allies Global 1940 powers are either neutral or at war.
In Global 1940 the only powers that start the game being neutral are USA and Russia.
There is no way that UK can be neutral to any nation.Again, UK is not at war with Japan at that time! But that has nothing to do with neutrality.
Sigh.
-
@Caesar:
Sigh.
Cheer up! Just the subtleties of the rules.
-
@Caesar:
It shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion because if UK is shielding a combatant while neutral, it would be an act of war legally. Japan goes to war when UK enters Chinese territory but suddenly it’s okay for the Tigers to enter neutral UK.
Perhaps not. It would have been like Iraqi fighters in the Gulf War fleeing to Iran and then returning to fight the allies.
However, it seems that it is. It’s like GHG said, you can argue that the rules are wrong but unless you want to house rule it out, then the allies can take advantage of that one.
-
A neutral shielding a belligerent would be a casus belli against the neutral nation
but Japan claimed many other casus belli like the Western Allies cutting off access to resources…also we have the Burma Road, which was clandestine, “illegal” support for the Chinese Army (many allies helped here), which is as much as or more provocation than setting up friendly airfields and not impounding belligerent aircraft.
The USA shielded neutral shipping and oxymoronically declared itself an “armed neutral”, which was part of Germany’s CB against the USA.
Japan can declare war, or not. Its not legally required to declare war for violation of International Law, but it may “justifiably” do so.
-
@The:
@Caesar:
It shouldn’t be allowed in my opinion because if UK is shielding a combatant while neutral, it would be an act of war legally. Japan goes to war when UK enters Chinese territory but suddenly it’s okay for the Tigers to enter neutral UK.
Though this move may seem a bit dodgy, there is historical precedent: The US occupied Iceland in July 1941, American destroyers escorted convoys bound for Britain (which resulted in the USS Reuben James being sunk off Iceland by U-552 that October), US military pilots “resigned their commissions” to join the Flying Tigers and RAF Eagle Squadron and so on, all prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the P-40s flown by the Tigers were originally shipped from the US to Burma in the spring of '41, assembled there, then flown to China.
If you dig deep enough, I think you’ll find that neutrality in WWII was situational, at best; at worst, a mutually-agreed-upon fiction. I’d classify this rule as “strange, but historically accurate.”
This is also exemplified by the “Destroyers for bases” agreement between UK and US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers_for_Bases_Agreement. Hearts of Iron IV does a good job of including this in the game play.
-
You could even do a house rule for that, such that 1-3 US destroyers would be able to cross ATL and join/protect UK/ally fleets during defensive combats on turns 1-4.
-
You could even do a house rule for that, such that 1-3 US destroyers would be able to cross ATL and join/protect UK/ally fleets during defensive combats on turns 1-4.
I am currently working on a house rule where one can do that with Lend-Lease that US can transfer equipment.
I am also trying to set up a different rule for declaration of war where you can declare war but if you don’t have just cause, then you take a penalty for attacking but if you have just cause, then of course you’re free to declare war.
I was going to changed the let up of all units, try to get it to reflect actual WWII in 1940, for example USSR will actually have a Pacific Fleet as an example.
I was going to something crazy like put in merchant ships for Lend-Lease that will make convoy zones more useful and for pain in the A$$ to disrupted. So I had an idea setting up fighter units closer to real numbers ( I am making this number up to make an example) Let’s say I put ten fighters on London, I was going to make one of them a US fighter to represent Eagle Squadron, US will be neutral however because Eagle Squadron is in London, this is a “just cause point” for Germany and Italy to go to war with US.
I have other examples but this makes the point.
Suggested Topics
