Tweaking China for AAP40

@SMichael23 I wonder how it would go if Italy focused all its income on building an epic navy- just try to shut the Allies out of the Med entirely. Like you said, that 3 production limit makes it so tough to crank out infantry.

Does the German player ever complain about having to give up the income from converted Italian territories? I know the guy who always plays Germany in my group hates Italy in g1940 and always wishes he had that income as Germany haha.

1942.2 is a very neat and faster pace game than other versions of AA, nevertheless the china rules of AA50 and paratrooper tech are both aspects bring in more historical realism, fun and tactical depth to the game in overall. I have tried to incorporat both rules as houserules into 42.2 and would like to have your comments on it if these break the balance . My group are not very sophisticated AA fans therefore a 6:4 balance would not significant impact to our overall result i believe.but of course i want to make the variant as balance as i can

China variants
As i know the original setup is more favour Axis side. And SU in general has a less resources other than her two alliances. So my rules set as below
a.) China power is controlled by SU player
b.) Except the initial IPC, China’s controlled territory IPC are reduced from US productivity.
c.) China can occupy and control only the 8 territories including Formosa/kwangTung/Manchuria .
d.) China only can produce infantry according to AA50 rules except 1 infantry/1 allies controlled territory in China.

The reason for this is enhancing China defence against Jpy in early rounds as it can deploy before Jpy invades. Also the cheaper cost of infantry (1 IPC= 1 inf) is offset by less IPC for US player. Thirdly SU player will has more fun when compared to us and uk.

Paratroopers variant

Generally , players tends to push all their ground force all to the most front line and leave its central territory very empty without any threat. Introduce of para hope can solve this unrealism. I modify the AA 50 rule of para and allow in the beginning of the game.

In combat move , 1 bomber can carry 1 infantry to the target hostile territory Moving and landing rule are as same as normal except the bomber can fly through hostile territories as long as it has legitimate landing route. When the bomber fly through and at the target territory with Aaa gun (during combat move only), do the aaa gun chking as usual combat.

We play tested once with both rules , we found the China rule brought a little upclimb difficulty for JPN player, but in long run , as US has fewer resources and get more balance and has a bit less impact to Axis

With paratrooper variants. We tends to build up more aaa gun and deploy inland or islands , also we will leave some def forces at some strategic territories which the overall deployment tactics looks more reasonable on the map.

Since we did not heavily play test enough,feel free to comment if you sight any potential problem to these variants

@Arreghas I really love this idea!
One of the biggest problems I find in my games is stacking. Its not as fun when the game just comes down to two giant stacks on the western front, and the CPs can never win because they can never get enough guys there. However, I think this house rule combined with Economic and Political Collapse could fix that problem and give the game more of a trench warfare feel. Thank you for sharing and keep up the good work!

Allright- here it is.

The Japanese lost without a massive US contribution. The US built a Flying Tiger tactical bomber turn 4, and the Chinese Nationalists managed to keep the Burma Road open for a turn, so it got to Szechwan. The Russian Far East Army was in Novrosibirsik and Samara by turn 5, so the Japanese made the critical mistake of attacking Amur. This enabled the Russians to divert their tactical bomber from Moscow, and fly it to Suiyuan. The Mongolians walked into the Chinese Communist army over the next few turns, and by turn 8, the CCP had:

8 infantry, 2 of which were Mongolian
2 artillery
1 Russian tactical bomber

The Nationalists had traded Yunnan back and forth four times over the course of the game, and had lost Kwiechow, Anhwe, Hopei, and Hunan. Other than that, they were doing OK, as Szechwan was safe.

The game ended with a narrow Allied victory on turn 12. The FEC had attacked the Japanese unprovoked on turn 2, and by turn 5 had French Indo-China bulked up heavily, with

5 infantry
3 artillery
2 fighters
1 tactical bomber
mIC

Over the next three turns, they built 3 tanks a turn (they controlled Siam and Sumatra).

This forced the Japanese to build an IC in Shanghai, and built 3 tanks every turn to keep the Chinese coast safe from either the Nationalists or the FEC. This means that, out of 55 IPCs a turn, they were automatically spending 18 a turn in an arms race where the Chinese were a factor as well. Then, on turn 8, everything cracked. The CCP retook Chahar at the cost of 4 infantry, and received a Russian tank.

The Nationalist Chinese, who had been playing fairly conservatively, hit Yunnan hard with

9 infantry
6 artillery
1 fighter
1 tactical bomber.

They came out of this battle with 3 infantry dead. Finally, the FEC followed up on this with throwing everything they had at Kwangsi. This triple blow wasn’t something the Japanese could immediately counterattack. They started a new line of defence encompassing Jehol, Shantung, Manchuria, and Kiangsu. They also shipped 6 infantry to hold Hong Kong. It wasn’t enough. The Chinese Communists and Japanese wiped each other out in Jehol, while the Nationalists retook Kwiechow, Hunan, and Kiangsi without any difficulties. ANZAC was cooperative enough to eliminate the possible landing spot of Formosa.

While all of this was going on, the US was focussed chiefly in Europe, where they had done Torch and taken Rome (and were putting its IC to good use!) Normandy had been traded back and forth a few times as well. This had the effect of forcing the Germans to keep 6 infantry in Northern Italy, 2 in Albania, 4 in Yugoslavia, and 1 in Greece. They also had to keep a garrison in Paris, including a fighter to help ward of bombing. This had the effect of the Germans not being able to take Moscow, so there was no immediate danger in Europe. Therefore, the US decided that the time was right to hit the Japanese. On turn 9, they built 3 destroyers, 2 cruisers, and 2 strat. bombers. On turn 10, this all sailed out to Hawaii, as 4 loaded transports came out of WUS. On turn 12, the Japanese (who were down to 12 IPCs a turn, thanks to the Chinese mopping up the northeast, and ANZAC clearing the DEI), succumbed to a US invasion fleet. That same turn, the British captured Paris and Northern Italy, causing Germany to surrender.

Not all of this was caused directly by a stronger China, but that did influence it. Since China could do more, the Japanese did not gain easy access to the 12 IPCs of the Chinese interior, and only ever captured 6 Chinese territories over the course of the game. And holding these territories was trickier as well, as the Chinese could hit harder. Attacking Russia was a really stupid move on Japan’s part, as it not only opened up a supply route to the Communists (Mongolia), but diverted troops away from India and China. Since Japan had more on its hands, the US could focus more on Europe, contributing to Italy’s early fall and Germany’s inability to take Moscow (although strong Russian play and die-rolls played a part in the latter). Once both Axis powers were under a lot of pressure, the US could simply take Tokyo, thanks in part to good FEC play, but also because China could reconquer the valuable coast, depriving Japan of income. And once Tokyo fell, the German player knew that there was a 0% chance of taking Moscow, Paris, Rome, and Cairo. The Allied advantage in the Pacific was due partially to good FEC play and die-rolls, and the insane decision to attack Russia, but a stronger China also played a part.

Just for the record, the players were divided up into US/Nat China/France, USSR/CCP, UK/FEC/ANZAC, Japan, and Germany/Italy.

actually I was Japan so I was pretty happy with his decision :mrgreen:

@Funcioneta:

A small bug in UK deploy: z2 should have a cruiser instead of a dd (same as vanilla game). I’ll correct it as soon as I can

Done

Try this house rule for China to have IPC’s like other allied countries:
1941 China Modifications
These changes enable China to function like a 4th allied country. China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country. China starts the game with $7 IPCs. $2 inf for China, other unit costs are unchanged. China can save unspent IPCs. China gets to Non Combat Move their fighter and place their IC before start of game play (start of round 1). China gets an IC for mobilization of new units. The IC can move one territory per turn and place units into the just moved into territory even if China just took the territory this turn (no unit limit on placement of Chinese units).
If China or her allies capture a Japanese IC in Manchuria or Kiangsu or ANY original Chinese territory, the IC is immediately destroyed. If China captures a Japanese IC in French Indo China, the IC is destroyed. If any allied country captures a Japanese IC in Burma or Kwangtung, it would revert to UK control. If any other allied country (besides China) captures a Japanese IC in French-Indo China, the IC is not destroyed, and control would be reverted to the capturing country. If China’s IC is captured, it is destroyed, and China no longer can ‘purchase’ units. Without the IC, China can get new infantry units per out of the box rules. Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

China has its own National Objective:
The Burma Road If the allies control Burma and 2 of these 3 territories: India, Yunnan, and Hupeh, China receives an additional $2 during their collect income phase.
China Modifications FAQs

Are all Chinese units limited to China and Kwantung? (as per AA50)
• Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

Can China roll for Tech?
There is no restriction on how China spends its money.

Can the axis conduct Strategic Bombing Raids on a Chinese IC?
No, since the IC has unlimited development. The Chinese IC is limited by the fact that China has few IPCs to spend.

May Chinese infantry be placed the same as AA50? (i.e. not just at the IC)
If China still has its IC, new units may only be mobilized in the territory where the Chinese IC resides. Since the IC can move into Allied territories not under Chinese control, reference "Handling when China moves their IC out of territories under Chinese Control.” Once the Chinese IC is lost, AH original Chinese rules apply.

Can the Axis use the captured Chinese IC to build?
No. When the territory where the IC resides is captured, the IC would be destroyed.

What happens when China loses its IC but still has Chinese units / territories under Chinese control?
When China’s IC has been captured and destroyed, China reverts to getting more infantry as described in the AA50 rules. They no longer collect income in the form of IPCs, nor can they ever get any other unit than infantry

China just lost it’s last territory and still has IPCs in her bank. What happens to the IPCs?
Any Chinese IPCs go to the conqueror.

Can the Chinese fighter (the Flying Tigers) attack units in sea zones outside China if it returns to China in the same turn?
No, it can’t leave China/Burma/French Indo-China/Kwangtung, even temporarily.

remember the 4X rule in these places and also the variations on costs for infantry depending on VC.

1.  Is there a limit as to the number of infantry that can be built at VCs?

yes of course, the 4x rule…

2.  If China is incapable of replacing American aircraft or building armor, why are they given a factory in the game?  In reality, China had only the capability to build infantry - which was poorly trained and equipt.  The presence of a factory in the game allows for China to build any type of unit.

4x rule allows them to only build artillery or infantry ( or mech)

As infantry are built at victory cities, I propose removing the factory from China.

but what about artillery? China had artillery and they are but an army of misfits w/o them