I am curious: Your opinion that Chinese fought better that Italian are based on?
War are not fought for deserving place in boardgames, or as source of opinion for liking os disliking other nations, or for their consideration as faction or sub-faction in a game.
If I would design a game on the defeat of the Invencible Armada by the Royal Navy in 1588 should I not include the Spanish fleet as player because they fought very bad and lost the battle, and the war?
Italy fought bad and lost in World War II. They surrendered to Allied. And they had to, Italy was in not shape to continue the war. As a result there was a civil war in wich Fascist Salò Republic at north fought alongside with Germany against southern part of the country in the hand of Allies and of a interim Italian govvernment, with volunteer that fought alongside with USA and UK, most of which former opponents of fascist government coming back to Italy to fight.
And also Salò Republic had some elite units, i.e. X MAS, as also in the Corps that fought with allies there were good units. So the situation in Italy from 1943 to 1945 has been quite similar to those of China in 1936-1945. If China deserve to be a player for that motivation at least Italy deserve to be a player for the same motivation. If the criterium applies to China it should work also for Italy.
However there is more. At start of the war Italy had an Army, an Airforce and a Navy. They were strategically used very bad, with wrong pianification and horrible logistic. Italy lost the war for her impreparation, errors and industrial weakness.
So which is the challenge here? Is to perform better than the Italian high command. What if Italy had acted in another way? What if Italian Navy had keep control of Mediterranean? Moreover presence of Italy gives a further challenge to the Axis: collaboration between Italy and Germany. This introduces a need for negotiation and diplomacy, if played by different players, that is inspired to what really happened in the war. Had Italy and Germany collaborated more had the war another course?
This is the reason for Italy being a player and China only a sub player. Italy may be used by the controlling player in a more effective way because had the potential to do better than Italy Armed Forces did and this is Historically correct. Allowing the same for China seems too much given their situation.
For the fact of switching side you can house rule that if you like. However, you should also house rule the Stalingrad defeat. And the Midaway disaster too. Scripting the game in some way.
History provides the scenario and the starting situation for A&A but each player should be able to play its own game.
There are rules and other things that I do no like in Anniversary but China is ok as it is. Mr. Harris have done a good work there.
There are rules and other things that I do no like in Anniversary but China is ok as it is. Mr. Harris have done a good work there.
Seems we have different opinion here. I must say, first, we don’t know yet what work had done Harris with the game because we have not the rulebook or the setups, we only have a few pictures and comments. Second, if the pictures we have show the actual setup, China is broken, unable of attack Japan because they lose their lone fig in the very first turn and cannot get another one, even from USA. What if Japan take 2 of the 7 territories China have (probably in the first turn)? China gets 2 patetic inf each turn and is reduced to attack at 1. It was better in Revised, 1 IC at Sinkiang and you could trade territory as each power should be able to to do.
The only thing is good with new China map is more territories. I hope China at least can save that starting fig.
Units exposed to distruction in opening round is usual in A&A. In Revised UK BB in med is usually a juicy target for Germany the Japanese transport in sz 59 is usually sink before it can play, and the distruction of the USA fighters in China is also a normal opening move for Japan.
Now we have a Chinese fighter that is a possible target for Japanese first round. It have to be attacked and destroyed, first, and this require Japanese forces, so it is already doing something in the game even if it is being destroyed: distracting japanese forces from other targets. I think at this “sacrifical units” as “balancing attacks” factors in the set up.
Furhtermore being a sub-player has disadvantages but also advantages, described in this thread that I briefly recall:
China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.
Other advantages are: no IC that can be captured, free placement in any chinese territory and immediate placement of units after turn, i.e. no income saved so that units can only be placed next round.
China gets 1 INf for every 2 territories. That 9 IPC worth of units. China is benefitting heavily by this system.
Other advantages are: no IC that can be captured, free placement in any chinese territory and immediate placement of units after turn, i.e. no income saved so that units can only be placed next round.
I would add: immunity to SBR and territory that are more valuable when hold by China (2 territories = 1 INF = 3 IPC) while they are worthy only 1 IPC if conquered by Axis.
It means that Japanese had to invest resources to conquer a territory that is poor of IPCs and without any VC. Having China as a full player could have benefit more the Japan than the China, maybe.
For this reason I am with the rule.
Moreover, this should be the 1941 setup. 1942 setup is still to know.
Units exposed to distruction in opening round is usual in A&A. In Revised UK BB in med is usually a juicy target for Germany the Japanese transport in sz 59 is usually sink before it can play, and the distruction of the USA fighters in China is also a normal opening move for Japan.
Now we have a Chinese fighter that is a possible target for Japanese first round. It have to be attacked and destroyed, first, and this require Japanese forces, so it is already doing something in the game even if it is being destroyed: distracting japanese forces from other targets. I think at this “sacrifical units” as “balancing attacks” factors in the set up.
I suppose China as independant power or not is matter of tastes. That is right. But the chinese fighter cannot be replaced. Any units Japan throw against it can and will be replaced. The fact that, as China, you only can purchase inf and cannot join with USA builted fighters means Japan should attack that fighter as the very 1st target, even before than Pearl Harbour, because if you kill that fig, China cannot trade territories (if at least China could build art… :-P) or even attack in most cases, so China can be a walk in park for Japan. It cannot be the true setup, this must be a mistake or a 2nd round map, unless USA’s fig can join chinese inf at attack.
Chinese able to trade territories (realistically 1 having 1 fighter) is not in the plan of Larry Harris, for what we can see.
I suppose that the point considered by the designers is that having Chinese as a full player, with IPC, IC a capital (that should be also a VC) creates more problem than it solves.
I agree. Probably you have reason here. Larry’s plan, OK :-)
I think like others that simple redeployment of the fighter in the set up (out of range from Japan) is the best thing to keep China with something viable to fight with.
@Imperious:
I think like others that simple redeployment of the fighter in the set up (out of range from Japan) is the best thing to keep China with something viable to fight with.
And I would prefer to redeploy the UKR fighter in AAR. But it does not get moved.
Setup is setup, and it should not be changed.
UK fighter –where too?
also, I don’t like setup changes either, but perhaps after playing it may prove a reasonable repair on China’s position offensively.
@Imperious:
UK fighter –where too?
also, I don’t like setup changes either, but perhaps after playing it may prove a reasonable repair on China’s position offensively.
I was talking about the german UKR fighter…
oh that. yea its easy prey.
Huh? You guys want China to attack things? Don’t you see the whole point for China is to create a Chinese Wall?
Owkay, so LH wanted less Japanese ftrs in Moskva, so he had to close the 3 passages: Ind, China, Yak. In revised, Ind and China were the most important ones, so he created some buffers by splicing Fic, and he created China as a power that will collapse at some late stage of the game. This makes perfect sense! China is not a real power in the game; merely a buffer to the Japanese, so why give them ftrs, tnks etc. if their role is to delay. Imagine China were a real power, with IC and the lot.
To make Chinese interesting to play with, would overpower them greatly, making Jpn extra strong, and ruining any historical accuracy.
Besides, historically China didn’t attack a lot, did it?
+building tnk, ftr, rtl sculpts for China is a complete waste of resources: if Japan really wants, it can kill China by J4, thus eliminating it from the game, thus making it’s sculpts useless.
WE are not arguing about why they didn’t include Chinese aircraft carriers, but rather give the Chinese SOMETHING to fight back with. They got all these new territories, but don’t have a toilet to pee in and cant do anything to prevent Japan from taking about 3-4 territories the first turn and probably cleaning up in 2-3 turns total.
I would like something to shoot back with.
And I would prefer to redeploy the UKR fighter in AAR. But it does not get moved.
Setup is setup, and it should not be changed.
You can bid inf to Ukraine, though, making it dumb for Russia to attack. That changes the setup.
Despite that comment I don’t think tinkering with the China ftr’s initial placement needs to be done, especially not right now. It just seems like a unit that will be really desirable to take out in the 1st round…the same way it was in Revised, and if it’s not killed on J1, could be a pain for Japan.
@Imperious:
WE are not arguing about why they didn’t include Chinese aircraft carriers, but rather give the Chinese SOMETHING to fight back with. They got all these new territories, but don’t have a toilet to pee in and cant do anything to prevent Japan from taking about 3-4 territories the first turn and probably cleaning up in 2-3 turns total.
I would like something to shoot back with.
Why, you got something to shoot back with: Brits and USA. And also remember, 3 inf each turn = att power of 1 ftr, + 2 hits. You’ll just have to be creative to try to keep China alive (pressure from pacific, Brits pushing through Fic, Bry stacked with Russian fodder, Allied units defending in Chinese territories…
Personally, I think China is in much better shape than in AAR: there after 2 turns China was done with, now China can even grow strong if Japan is busy elsewhere.
Mmmm… I’m tired of playing with twin ICs at Sinkiang/India plus z55 USA fleet build and China resists pretty well in revised. Not sure if Anniversary China is better than Revised “China”. If at least they could buy a fricking art… Or do you think japanese armor blitzs in mountain zones of China is more realist? Sure Japan’s elite armor could blitz Sichuan or Yan’ An in real life :-P
And for Ukranie fig of Germany: Germany can rebuild more figs. China cannot rebuild nothing more than popping infantery (probably only 2 each turn if Japan takes enough land the first round).
But I’m convinced that that picture cannot be the true setup.
I think it’s pretty realistic that China doesn’t stand a chance against a determined Japan. Back in the 40’s, some of those Chinese were still using bow and arrows (exaggerating), whilst the Japanese like things to be as advanced as hell. So no rtl nor ftrs for China, only sheer power of numbers historically.
In revised however, China is so easily crushed that it’s a no-brainer for Jpn: Attack China, then India, then Sinkiang, then push to Moskva. If your opponent is building an Indian complex, they made a mistake (CSub). If they’re building both complexes in Ind and Sinkiang, then they made a double mistake (if India falls, which it will (Csub), Sinkiang will fall too (2 units every turn vs. 11 if Jpn’s logistics are OK).
Now in AAAE, Jpn will have to let other things go by whilst it struggles to conquer the vast ranges of Chinese soil. This is the difference between AAR and AAAE: AAR’s Jpn: Ind AND Chi AND Aus AND Yak AND Afr, whilst AAAE’s Jpn: … OR … => Jpn will have to choose what it’s greatest gains with smallest losses are. And that’s something I really really like.
In revised however, China is so easily crushed that it’s a no-brainer for Jpn: Attack China, then India, then Sinkiang, then push to Moskva. If your opponent is building an Indian complex, they made a mistake (CSub). If they’re building both complexes in Ind and Sinkiang, then they made a double mistake (if India falls, which it will (Csub), Sinkiang will fall too (2 units every turn vs. 11 if Jpn’s logistics are OK).
Maybe you should play a Revised game against India IC, Sinkiang IC, Siberian units, australian fleet and z55 built USA’s fleet. If you try build 11 units each turn and no fleet, you are damned to a USA’s IC at East Indies or Borneo on USA 5 or 6. If Germany is not near of Moscow, it’s game over for Axis, menacing building more ships there and even a invasion of Japan. And UK can aid soviets to resist enough, especially if they build IC at South Africa (that can even reinforce India if it resist enough).
In this scenario, probably you could not build even the 11th unit, because Japan struggle to reach 33-35 IPCs.
In Revised, if allies really want, Japan cannot afford attack all places. A KGF strategy is a (slow) option, but is not forced.
Back in topic, Boardgamegeek’s picture cannot be the 1941 setup. Impossible. Japan not only can kill the lone chinese fighter in the game. Japan can kill ALL the chinese units in the very first turn (they come 3rd, after Germany and USSR). Thus reducing China to 3 territories, zero in game units and ONE building unit for China 1. OK, if UK can enter and free one territory, China can get TWO units (good luck with 1 Burma 1 inf :-P ). 2 units at the very very lucky best for China at end of round 1 cannot be. Unhistorical, unbalanced and not funny.
Japan can go after those 4 territories, but i concluded its best to just try 3 and save the plane against the British ships off India…leaving China able to build one extra infantry. I think China was meant to be a road apple if Japan wanted to devote her forces against her. Look at AAP set up and how Japan cleans up on turn 1. Of course that game gives Japan a huge deficit against USA, but 1941 was the time where Japan went wild on all fronts.
