Again: why China is too weak?

@barnee Thanks for the replies, the CIS ones sound good, and I like the idea of Gibraltar actually being important in 1914. I might also give the Spanish objectives in North Africa to motivate them to spread out a bit more. Not quite sure what to do with China yet, but they will probably be with the Central Powers (I know they weren’t historically, but it balances the game better). I’m thinking maybe I will give them IPCs for capturing Korea and parts of south Asia.

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.

@Argothair:

Hey ClassicDude,

We agree on the narrow issue that China shouldn’t be knocked out quickly and easily by Japan, but we may need to agree to disagree about the rest. It sounds to me like we’re trying to accomplish different goals. You seem mainly interested in encouraging players to re-enact the historical Japan vs. China conflict, where Japan made deep investments in the China war all through WW2, and didn’t get much to show for it. I’m more interested in making sure that all players have a variety of interesting and balanced strategies available to them – which might include a heavy war in China, or it might focus instead on Indonesia, Siberia, India, or a naval showdown with the Americans.

I think it’s very possible that given your group’s play style, your rules may work great for you and your friends – if America is in the habit of ignoring Japan, then you may as well buff up China to the max to keep Japan busy. In my playgroup, though, we often see Kill Japan First openings, where the USA builds a large navy and attacks the Japanese Empire with it starting on turn 3 or 4. If Japan has to spend most of its income fighting China, then Japan won’t have a realistic chance to even hold off the US Pacific Fleet, let alone defeat it. We do in fact sometimes invade mainland China, because Japan is usually too heavily fortified to take with an early transport fleet – the USA will only have enough cash left over to build one or two loaded transports in the opening, because the rest of their money has to go toward building up a fleet that can overwhelm the Japanese boats and planes.

Cheers,
Argo

Yes I think that this is something we can agree on. However I am still willing to test out your ideas.

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

Interesting addition of Communist Chinese forces.

@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.

Lets just say the rules you posted 1,2,3 were basicially similar. AS far as the Chinese placement the idea was to prevent a wall type of atmosphere where the Chinese would stack all the pieces in choke points.

Historically they were quasi military forces which largely came from the various regions of China, and not organized in such a fashion to move around and conduct major campaigns because the logistics were primitive to say the least. Thats why China got passed over as a proper nation, because they were not modernized at all.

So to not include some notion of preventing stacking you can readily see what will happen.

The rule book on China is deliberately over explaining a simple concept. You just cant place new infantry in a territory unless it has lass than 3 infantry total.

The other rule is Chinese cant leave greater china, which includes the 2 Japan controlled territories and Kwangtung as well as original Chinese territories, and in the case of Kwangtung they don’t get money if they take it.

Thats it.  Its like 4 sentences at most the entire rules for China. If you just rewrite the rules i am sure anybody can get the page down to a few sentences.