@squirecam does this mean the axis player(s) get to place 3-5 IPCs worth of units, or that the allies get 3-5 IPCs worth?
Ignore China = Happy Japan
-
I played a two-player game as the Axis, and I entirely ignored China. I pulled out most of my troops and never attacked the Chinese, instead focusing on Russia and the UK in India.
China took everything, of course, and it became a real power, but since it couldn’t leave its territory, I was able to replace the lost IPCs with those from Russia and India.
The land war against China nets a lot of IPCs, but I feel like it’s too slow given how much trouble Japan has initially with getting units to the mainland.
In addition, taking Russian/British territory results in IPC denial and prevents the British from successfully building and holding an Indian IC.
Meanwhile, in another game (I’ve only played Anniversary twice), the Japanese player spent all his time hitting China, and it didn’t work out well for him since he never got to Russia soon enough. Although, to be fair, in that game the Axis neglected to take out hardly any Allied navy on the first turn.
So why ever try to take China when it can be (apparently) safely ignored?
-
Are you playing with National Objectives? The Chinese can move into Manchuria and Kiangsu, both of which you need for your “home territories” objective. Also, the Chinese can move into Kwangtung, which you often need for your “islands” objective. If you don’t have Kwangtung, you need to take New Guinea or the Solomon Islands, neither of which are convenient if you’re focusing on the mainland, and both of which can often be contested by the USA.
So it’s not just that you’re giving up the 8 IPCs or so of Chinese territory that you could have conquered – you’re also giving up the 5 IPCs of Chinese territory you hold at the start of the game, plus another 10 IPCs of national objectives, for a 23-point swing.
To pick up 23 points elsewhere on the board, you’d need to hold all of Siberia, Burma, India, Australia, Persia, Trans-Jordan, and Madagascar. That’s doable, but not necessarily easier or faster than taking out China.
-
I play 1940 and I’m fond of at least containing various powers, especially China and India, so they can’t be a problem. Those two examples in particular require relatively little effort at the start to put them on their heels. If you get the Burma road, China is generally down to a stack of infantry and a fighter stuck in a corner. Good enough for me.
I’m also fond of bombing Moscow with Japan, so I like getting China’s northern territories quickly
-
Are you playing with National Objectives? The Chinese can move into Manchuria and Kiangsu, both of which you need for your “home territories” objective. Also, the Chinese can move into Kwangtung, which you often need for your “islands” objective. If you don’t have Kwangtung, you need to take New Guinea or the Solomon Islands, neither of which are convenient if you’re focusing on the mainland, and both of which can often be contested by the USA.
So it’s not just that you’re giving up the 8 IPCs or so of Chinese territory that you could have conquered – you’re also giving up the 5 IPCs of Chinese territory you hold at the start of the game, plus another 10 IPCs of national objectives, for a 23-point swing.
To pick up 23 points elsewhere on the board, you’d need to hold all of Siberia, Burma, India, Australia, Persia, Trans-Jordan, and Madagascar. That’s doable, but not necessarily easier or faster than taking out China.
We don’t play with National Objectives, so ignoring China is less costly.
-
Also, I get where you’re coming from about the lost IPCs from both Chinese territories and the territories the Chinese take, but I believe that an Indian IC can become Japan’s biggest problem, so I suppose I see taking India as worth some sacrifice.
But yes, I see that it’s not exactly “Happy Japan.” More like “safe from Chinese and Britain but otherwise status quo Japan.”
Suggested Topics
