Avoid China

The idea of ignoring China was because that dumb rule of “China cannot go out of China”. Why fight a power who cannot attack you? Leaving Manchuria ang Kiangsu would reduce China to a almost “neutral” country.

But I must agree. It’s better toast the chineses J1. It’s ridiculously easy killing all them in 1941, and you can still reduce to 3 territories, 4 units, in 1942  :-P. China is not properly represented in this game, I think it’s even worst than in Revised in 1941 and simply not fun in 1942

I think China is an easy task for Japan in either scenario. AS long as you take the fighter on the first turn its easy.

But as long as China gets the worst of Japan’s attacks on J1 then it doesn’t matter. The allies are each given one turn to prepare, since China is virtually of no use to them anyway, they lose nothing if they lost China, but Japan loses precious time it doesn’t have, and they also would gain another border with the Russkies, who are not to nice on land, especially with two IC’s nearby. Simply by absorbing Japan’s blow it serves it’s purpose. Not well represented enough? China was a weak struggling nation with no industries, no coastline pratically, and on top of that they were not in anyway unified against Japan, they only reason Japan did not destroy them was because of China’s size and the fact that Japan had to worry about other fronts.

@Ó:

Not well represented enough? China was a weak struggling nation with no industries, no coastline pratically, and on top of that they were not in anyway unified against Japan, they only reason Japan did not destroy them was because of China’s size and the fact that Japan had to worry about other fronts.

China’s size is not properly represented. China was not at brink of colapse in 1941 as in this setup. They were at draw with Japan. How reasonable is that Japan can make China a 1 inf nation after China 1?. One lone inf!  :-o Hardly the size of chinese armies, even bad quality as they were (the Kuomingtan ones, not the commies). As for other fronts, China was resisting alone, yes, alone and divided, from 1937, more time that USA fought against Japan the whole war.

Japan don’t loses precious time if they kill China J1. In fact, they are winning a lot of time killing one enemy power before it has its very first round. A major design flaw, allies fall as a card castle: first China, then India, then Pacific seas, then Moscow or San Francisco, Japan’s choice.

Like I said, knocking China out is very different from knocking Russia or the U.S. out. Seeing as how in previous versions the U.S. owned China and usually lost it right away, I can’t complain that they have a slim chance of holding it in AA50, besides, India cannot fall immediately after China as Neutral nations block the passage from India to China, and because China is absorbing a good part of Japan’s blow the Brits have a slight window in which to gear themselves to fight Japan. You must keep in mind that the U.S. and U.K. are very rich, and Japan is very poor, and losing China changes that only slightly for Japan, and not at all for the other two, so let Japan destroy China, who cares? Because the U.S. will be readying itself to counterattack Japan,who will not be able to resist unless they move far and fast.

I predict that China gets trounced every time, unless the rule is modified to 1 inf per territory (with no upwards cap at 3 total, or anything weird like that.) As it stands, once China is done, seems like its going to be Jap tanks on India and the Russians as usual.

The Chinese just shouldn’t fold this easily. They had the second highest military casualties of any nation after the Soviet Union, and tied down hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers for the durration. It should be a lot harder for the Japs to take Sikang and Ningxia. The British and Russians should be encouraged to reinforce and defend China, instead of just totally ignoring it as irrelevant after the first round.

Need to get beyond this scripted collapse of China that we’ve had going back to Classic, and replace it with something a bit more dynamic.

Having a high number of casualties does not necessarily indicate that they were fighting effectively. In fact it would rather point to the opposite, the Chinese dided in droves against Japan, and if they would make the game your way, then China would be a black hole that sapped Japan of it’s money and men. While this would be historically correct, the Japanese would have no hope of destroying China for good, much less Russia, and then there would be complaints that Japan had no hope for winning because China and Russia are to big and have to many soldiers.

Well right now its hard for me to see a good reason not to attack the Soviet Far east with Japan. Just to park the bombers in Yakut alone would make it worth it, but you can still grab 6 ipcs from the Russians without having to worry about anyone putting up much of a defense. It would have made more sense to me if China was a full player, and the Soviet Far East did some sort of non-aggression pact/valueless territories/infantry popping thing. Right now I don’t see China as a very strong deterrent to the invasion of Russia. You just knock them out in the first round, and start sending troops and bombers against Moscow.

Every version of AA since Classic has catered to this same scenario with a premature conflict between the Soviets and Japanese, at the expense of pretty much everything else. At least a China sink hole would be somewhat accurate to the history. I also think its odd how quick we are to marginalize the Chinese contribution to the Allied War effort. Just because Western war planners didn’t care much about Chinese casualties, and western historians have typically downplayed the Second Sino-Japanese war in favor of the broader global/European conflict, doesn’t mean that it was just a sideshow of little consequence. They way AA plays out, its as though the Japanese war plan in 37 had been perfectly executed according to their expectations: when the reality was more like a decade of intestine warfare and a total logistics nightmare. If it weren’t for all those dead Chinese people, maybe operation Impala would have actually been successful. Or maybe they would have invaded Australia instead, or hit Panama.

I feel like AA50 is getting closer to the mark, but its still not there yet. The Chinese need a little more fight to them, so that the rest of the Pacific/Asia will fall into the right balance.

@Ó:

Seeing as how in previous versions the U.S. owned China and usually lost it right away, I can’t complain that they have a slim chance of holding it in AA50

Revised: IC to India, IC to sin, fleet to z55. Result: China will resist at least 5-6 turns and if things go well, the whole game. With no ICs, 2 chinese inf could escape to USSR to fight back another day. China gives Japan 4 ipcs

AA50, 1941: China toasted J1. Fully toasted. 1 inf pops in Chinghai, ready to die in J3. No chance of escape to Soviet Union because of buggy rules. China gives Japan 7 ipcs. Result: China is much worst now

AA50, 1942: not sure, needs playtesting, but seems Japan can still attack and kill 4 territories, leading China to a poping 1 inf status. As best, equal resistance, but less attack power because killing the fig is a no brainer. Buggy rules still apply and China cannot trade territories even if the fig survives (by a miracle) because they “colect” inf at begining of turn instead the usual end of turn.

China is a bad joke in 1941, gives axis a too big advantage. I could stand China in 1942 (if it reveals balanced), but it’s buggy and not fun.

I must agreed with Black Elk, China is marginalized too often, even when they were fighting axis even before than Poland. WWII begun in 1937, to be honest, with Marco Polo issue.

@ShredZ:

So far by the accounts of people(s) that have played the game and are not just speculating, it looks like Japans intial low income dictates that they make bigger gains in the IPC deptarment, thus not to attack China.
The investment of troops and supplies and the meager gains from doing so at 1 IPC each TT look like they might have juicier targets. Then when finally you taken care of the targets in the Pacific etc. that get you gains thru NO’s you might consider coming back to China, but by then they might have enough Inf to discourage a Japanese player - the next logical step of thinking asks should you even bother when they cant even attack you anyways… ?

You can take Philippines, Borneo, Sumatra and still China. 42 IPCs with NOs, 32 without them. Why should Japan spare a easy killed enemy power that will be popping guys and finally taking Manchuria and Kiangsu? Where do you else prefer attack than China? Soviets? 1 IPC and 3 guys killed instead of 4 inf, fig and 4 IPCs won. Australia? Good luck. Burma? You can do round 2 or 3 still. Alaska? Too risky for your fleet and gains less than in China

The juicier land target is China because is the bigger menace Japan can kill round 1, and nothing stops you from taking Dutch East Indies still, the 2nd juicier target

Haven’t played yet :(
Think we need much more playtesting before coming up with new rules.

But let’s just share an idea I got for World at War (Xeno Games). The idea was:
_Follow normal rules. So China gets one infantry for every area it controls. But Chinese infantry get a defense bonus of 1 for every area it is ‘in land’.

So a Chinese infantry in an area one area away from sea will defend at 2+1=3.

This to reflect the hugeness of China. And the many mountains and rivers to be crossed when you invade this enormous country._

Just an idea! But first let’s have fun with this new game!

China in the 1941 senario sure it is weak but i beleive it is only weak since the jap’s onyl got so much money to work with.  For turn 1 i plan on taking every single possible territory that will allow me to win and not get any downsizes except maybe 1 mistake.  And while i do this get some USA navy!

So hitting china= china good ipc’s so this will inforce an asian japan, I know when i get the game and we play it the usa player will cripple my navy as fast as possible  axis    i= japan  friend= germany  both= italy 
allies  possible outcomes depending what happens but most likely we will get 2 allies and 1 ill play usa and other russia and share gb or 1 will control until 1 dies.

(japan and usa will be having naval wars)

Seems to me China needs more starting infantry, perhaps with more Japanese inf on the mainland to balance.
Historically, Japan took all of China that was worth the cost of occupying. The only significant advance into China after 1941 was to close down US bomber bases in the south, and even this was futile as the US had by this time obtained bases in the Pacific at a similar distance from Japan.
More inf on both sides makes Japan think twice about going in, but China doesn’t pose that much more of a threat to Japan either. Perhaps the Chinese fighter should be American, which is also more historical and reduces the Chinese threat to HK/Manchuria further. More still if, as some of us have suggested, the northern Chinese are Soviet controlled CCP units (it’s a real test of Allied unity when the Chinese factions are tempted to attack each other…)  :lol:
And, after all, there were a LOT of people in China, even if they were more interested in fighting each other than the Japanese.
Oh, by the way, Soviet/Japanese NAP to stop the China Wall strategy, which I suppose creates the same effect but with a much more potent threat to Japan.

“China Wall” strategy of which i have coined works very well, provided the Soviet are willing to seed at least 6 infantry into the wall fund.

China i beleive will not be avoided in -41 however -42 japan may have to choose!

Like in -41 japan has a chance to switch strats early in the game however if japan -42 wants to switch it will have a harder time.

So attaking china -41 is a not really a must but japan will gain like 4 billion more then its losses