A simple fix for China…

Anniversary Edition is well-known for being slanted towards the Axis.  This is partly because of China’s weakness and unnecessary special rules that just make new players confused and us veterans upset.  Let’s fix China with some easy changes:

1.  In both the 1941 and 1942 setups there should be 4 infantry and 1 fighter in Yunnan.  This usually saves the fighter, making China fun to play, and also helps to balance the game.
2.  Remember that rule in which China cannot have more than three units in one space? Scrap that.  It only makes things confusing and too hard for China.
3.  China is no longer limited in movement.  Go ahead and attack Burma, sink a Jap (Nips, Japanese, you know what I mean stupid censor) transport off the coast with the Flying Tigers, and march into Russia.  Who’s stopping you?  insert Bruce Lee photo

My concern was not related to turn 1 or 2 but to later German turn:
9 additional Art for a Russian counterattack may cause a problem for Germany advancing to Belarus or Western Ukraine or one turn later to Bryansk, because Italy cannot take this area first (RU takes it back before the German turn) and therefore G cannot land their air on top of it’s army.
12 additional Inf may delay a G 6 attack on Russia (Simon33 was faster while I typed this post).

My concern was based on a game otherwise played without bid or only with a small bid (for example: balanced mod;  our group with other houesrules).
If you play OOB-rules with a bid around 30 IPC, then Gargantua’s idea is very fine (I already understood that he only wants to make one simple adjustment), the inherent bid goes to Russia and does not destroy the game in the MED (as usual IMO).
I will have to try it to see more effects.

@Cmdr:

I would be concerned in allowing the UK to can open like that for the Americans.

What if the turn order ended:  USA >> Italy >> Germany (Germany being first in the turn order)?

That at least permits Italy to blitz some tanks from N. Italy into Denmark to save Germany’s arse at the last minute.

London is at risk, Calcutta is at risk, Moscow is at risk… Why shouldn’t Berlin and Rome be at risk?

These VCs could actually be very good for fixing some one problem of the game. “Capture the capitals” is always a terrible victory condition, and because of the slow warfare in this game, the CPs basically have to get an economic advantage to stand a chance (which is virtually impossible). I don’t agree with the non-capitals having production capacity, but I could be convinced if it led to better balance. However, I would change it to 12 VCs after round 4, with one of them having to be an enemy capital, and shared or revolted Russian VCs counting as half a point for both sides. (Perhaps only for the CPs if Russia intentionally revolting itself becomes a problem) Contested VCs are still nothing for either side.

Thank you Clyde85, thank you Rhey.

I agree with everything you said. Additionally, the prospect of the Chinese was very interesting. But even so, I would like to see the Chinese army more numerous, leading Japan to put more tanks, more planes and more artillery on Chinese soil IF wanted to continue with the war in Asia.

Japan has many NOs outside China and receive many IPCs and could maintain a war of attrition on Chinese soil as it gets the Co-Prosperity Sphere had in mind (as it was historically) and after that, return to finish the 'China incident ".

I have my own house rules for this situation. They are great!

League of Nations:

Political costs for a DOW along the Russian/Japanese border result in world outrage against the aggressor nation.

If Russia conducts a DOW against Japan, the U.S. will remain neutral 1 additional turn and will not interfere with Japanese aggression against UK and ANZAC in the Pacific since they are the “victim” nation. Fear of Communism fuels American pacifism and ties Roosevelt’s hands. The Japanese Ambassador exposes a (faked) “Caucasian” treaty between Russia, UK, and ANZAC dealing with the suppression and division of Japanese assets/territories.

If Japan conducts a DOW against Russia, the U.S. will remain neutral 1 less turn and they become a “friendly” power with the pacific allies, permitting the landing of US units on allied territories and providing sea units for a common defense until a formal DOW occurs between the US and Japan. These land and sea units upon meeting with allied forces/fleets change flags (I.E. swap US vessels/units with UK,China,USSR or ANZAC pieces) to maintain “neutrality”.

@cressman8064:

@Fishmoto37:

Here is an easy fix for the problem of not being able to land planes on carriers after one hit. Carrier takes one hit and combat lasts one round then it cannot land planes as per the rule book. If combat lasts two rounds then carrier can land planes because damage control parties have had time to make temporary repairs. If carrier takes the hit in the second round then it must survive a third round of combat in order to land planes and so on. The damaged carrier must still make its way back to a friendly naval base to be repaired. To be fair and balanced this rule must be the same for each nation even though the U.S. had the best damage control.

So according to this house rule if your attacked by an enemy fleet who scores 1 hit and you apply it to your carrier, then on defense you roll all 3 hits and wipe out the attackers you would loose your planes, where as if missed and the attacker continues for another round your planes can safely land if you eventually succeed?

You are correct. If you are involved in a small naval battle like this and the the battle is NOT in a sea zone that contains a friendly island or a sea zone next to any friendly land territory then you obviously need to put some serious thought into taking that hit on your carrier. This is all covered in the rule book for the first round of combat. This house rule does not even come into play unless the combat goes into the second round. It would make no sense to take a hit on your carrier if you thought there was any chance of combat not going into the second round and you might LOSE your planes. If you were attacked by a force that only took three hits to destroy, then I would take my first hit on my escorting vessel or vessels. I would never have an unescorted carrier anywhere near the enemy at any time.

@Praetorian:

Thus, at the start of the Chinese turn both the USSR and US bid.  the USSR secretly bids $2.  The US secretly bids $4.  The bids are revelaed simletaneously.  The US wins and now immeditaely transfers the winning $4 to China’s cash.

(the goal of this is to represent the schizophrenic nature of the Chinese forces - its not quite modeling history since it treats the Chinese as a cohesive whole, but does model the conflicting goals of the US and USSR and their intervention in China).

Unless there are seperate victory conditions for the Soviet and US player, there’s still no conflicting goal.  The US could simply bid an excessive amount of money as they have better position and economy to stick it to Japan, and now they have essentially a free infantry factory in China.  For it to really work you’d have to choose two somewhat passive-aggressive people to play the USSR and the US who have some sort of bet going on between for who controls the most territory at the end of the game.  Maybe the bill for pizza & beer at stake, but even then I can’t imagine Russia choosing to give themselves another front when they’re already going to be needing that cash to halt Germany.  And add another rule that if US units enter Russia they immediately become Russian but are unable to use or participate in combat for a full round (to emulate lend lease training, plus they refused to return the b29s that made emergency landings so reverse engineering and research)