National Objectives vs Balance

@DarthMaximus:

I would either move the ftr further inland with another China inf added for cover or removing some J inf to make it unattackable or such a low odds attack that if they try and fail they could be royally screwed.

I’d also remove the restrictions on their movement and give them the ability to enter any China, Japan, or UK territory.  Can’t go into Red (Russia).

You can’t do both.  The chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t think Japan would leave too many unguarded trns, they still start with 3 ac + ftrs, 1 ca, 1 bb.

You’d probably have to shuffle around some starting units, but it shouldn’t be a problem for Japan to still safely take all the coastal ter and a few of the boarder china ter meaning the ftr couldn’t reach the coast.  The only issue would be landing in Ind, but if it does that it can’t participate in the land battles deeper in China and still safely land.

I do think the China ftr could flee when the odds got overwhelming for Japan to take, but that shouldn’t be an issue when it comes to trns given the UK and US have plently of planes on the board that are just as likely to threaten a defenseless trn.

Also the ftr couldn’t flee to the West since Kaz and Novo are Red, it would have to go South East and if the Ftr started on say (chi - furthest ter West, it may never get the chance to fly to ind considering the J1 and J2 attacks may keep india out of range or it may just be an unsafe landing spot.

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

But I agree It would definitely require some testing though, since if China gets a bit too strong too early it will probably be an easy Allied victory.

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

ie, if we beef up China (even if it’s move the Ftr and/or +1 inf), the Axis should some type of benefit elsewhere.

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Sometimes I think it would have been better in a different stating location too; but only when I’m playing the Allies (of course), because if I’m the Axis, I think the placement is great!  But we could say that about a lot of starting locations of pieces.  The fact is, due to player sequencing, there are some units at the start of the game that are just pretty much toast for any Power (Axis OR Allies).  Something has to get killed round one (it is a war game…after all) so I don’t see what that issue is with the china fighter especially when compared to the past 2 games.  It dies J1 just like it does in AAR.

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot).

That is a big issue.  IF the game is “balanced” then any help we give to China will swing the game.

Yea…if they get too strong they are no longer the speed bump they are in the AAR and AAC but an actual Power.  But so far, they feel like a good mix between the old and the desire for the new to always be more (IMO).  :|

First time i played, China was dead before i could say WTF. Since then, in 1941, i did some changes, not big ones but china can now live a little longer. I just put 1 inf in the 3 vacant territory, so China have at least 1 inf in all territory. When you play U.S.A you ask for reinforcement from Russia and China can be defended for some extra turns. China will die eventually but in games that i tried this, China lived longer and did some damage to Japan and forced Japan to put more troops against China.

Thats all, you guys have tried other things?

@Builder_Chris:

…but I still do find it a bit hard to understand how a minor power could be introduced with a ftr in an extremely vulnerable spot (41) and not be accurately tested.  A simple eyeball test of J1 moves says the ftr dies, along with all other boarder inf.  There must have been some thought into the playability of China since the rules have a section on how China can attack.

Granted its been a while since I’ve played the classic A&A, but the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

But in the earlier versions China was not a minor power, it was just US forces.  So essentially the US loses a couple inf and a ftr before they start.  The US could always rebuy ftrs and eventually fly them to Asia, but with China as a “Minor Power” you cannot rebuy the China ftr.  If the intention was to keep China as a “speed bump”, why give them minor power status?  Why not just keep them fully US?  I think the same thing could have been accomplished by just keeping China part of the US, putting 1-3 more inf scattered around (no inf reinforcement per turn) to start with the caveat they couldn’t leave China and you get the same thing, Japan killing approximately 4-8 China inf on J3-4 in the last China territory.
This is my main issue, why introduce new rules for China only to have them never be used.  It would be like saying Russia automatically gets Heavy Bombers, but they can’t buy a bombers.

My impression (given the current '41 setup and description of China in the rules) is they wanted a little more than a “speed bump” type atmosphere, yet had trouble (or not enough time) finding the balance between China being annoying to Japan and China being too overwhelming so in an effort to fix other areas China was left on the back burner and figured “speed bump” status was good enough.

I think the solution to the Chinese Fighter problem would be to allow an American Fighter that lands in China and is not used for Combat or Non-Combat that round to be converted to a Chinese fighter if no other Chinese Fighter exists at that time.

In other words, make it replaceable.  It’s gunna be hard to get an American fighter there without moving it for a full game turn and it’ll cost America 10 IPC to build it which is appropriate since the Flying Tigers were American Pilots, American Equipment and working for China.

It also wouldn’t change any of the mechanics of the game, and it’s only one fighter so it wouldn’t be terribly unbalancing.  Especially since you are giving Japan 1 round to move into position to attack it and 1 round to kill it before it becomes Chinese. (USA lands the plane.  1 Round goes by where the plane is changed from US to China and then China can move the plane.)

@Builder_Chris:

The Chinese ftr picking off lone transports would be too much of a swing, IMHO

I don’t really agree with this. So the fighter would be used as it works for everyone else instead of having its own rules; great.  What’s the big deal about it being able to hit lone transports, so can every one else’s fighters/bombers.  The China fighter will most likely die round one anyway (before it even gets the chance); and if for some odd reason Japan lets it survive long enough to hit lone transports, you could bet it probably wouldn’t get the chance to do it again before Japan would realize the error of their ways and hit that thing ASAP (or at the minimum Japan would secure enough of China’s territories to make it impossible to fly that sucker out to sea and back to a viable landing spot

The big deal is that USUALLY they don’t have to worry about lone trannys getting picked off on C1 or even C2. 
The premise was to move the chinese ftr to keep it alive, so it won’t get killed round one

The only time to slow Japan is before she gets to big.  Early back door US fleet can cause the IJN to sail home for protection.

Adding a rogue Chinese ftr that can pick off transports only compounds this power swing you are discussing.  I have found in these games that the advantage penduleum swings much more quickly from one side to another … either messing with game set-up or actual game play outcomes.

@DarthMaximus:

stuff

DarthMaximus consistently gives the most informed and logical explainations at A&A.org.

+1.

@Cmdr:

I think the solution to the Chinese Fighter problem would be to allow an American Fighter that lands in China and is not used for Combat or Non-Combat that round to be converted to a Chinese fighter if no other Chinese Fighter exists at that time.

In other words, make it replaceable.  It’s gunna be hard to get an American fighter there without moving it for a full game turn and it’ll cost America 10 IPC to build it which is appropriate since the Flying Tigers were American Pilots, American Equipment and working for China.

It also wouldn’t change any of the mechanics of the game, and it’s only one fighter so it wouldn’t be terribly unbalancing.  Especially since you are giving Japan 1 round to move into position to attack it and 1 round to kill it before it becomes Chinese. (USA lands the plane.  1 Round goes by where the plane is changed from US to China and then China can move the plane.)

A clever idea, but impractical.  Lets say you want to convert the US fighter in Hawaii to a Flying Tiger.  Your route is Hawaii -> Australia -> India -> China.  That’s THREE turns.  And you have a wait ANOTHER turn to convert the fighter.  China is usually evaporated by J4.  You basically wasted a fighter.  That’s IF India doesn’t fall by J3.

Or you could take the US Fighter from Eastern USA and go: Eastern USA -> United Kingdom -> Russia -> China.  It’s a safer route and also takes three turns.  But again, same problems.

A better idea is to say, “If No Chinese Fighter exists turning the Purchase Units phase, USA may pay 10 IPCs to build a Flying Tiger which can be placed in any Chinese occupied territory during the Mobilized Units phase”

@axis_roll:

Adding a rogue Chinese ftr that can pick off transports only compounds this power swing you are discussing.  I have found in these games that the advantage penduleum swings much more quickly from one side to another … either messing with game set-up or actual game play outcomes.

True.  Especially when you consider the snowball effect of decisions made in the first turn rounds of the game.

The idea was to make it hard to replace the Chinese Fighter.  And if you have a carrier in the Pacific (you ARE engaging in the Pacific right?) then it should only be two turns to get a fighter to China and one to convert it.

Yes, that’s three turns.  But then, Russia is sending help to China right?

The idea was to make it hard to replace the Chinese Fighter.  And if you have a carrier in the Pacific (you ARE engaging in the Pacific right?) then it should only be two turns to get a fighter to China and one to convert it.

Yes, that’s three turns.  But then, Russia is sending help to China right?

Where do you get 2 turns from?

In 1941, the lone US Carrier starts off in Sz 44 and moves to Sz 46.  You’re better off sending your fighter to Australia and not risk you carrier getting sunk.

In 1942, you have a Carrier in Sz 53 (Hawaii).  The best you can do is move your Carrier to the Philippine Sea.  And it’ll get sunk.

The point is, by the time you build up a navy with USA to threaten Japan (turn 3 earliest) and move it, China’s already toast.  China needs that replacement fighter ASAP.

I really like this Idea, It Forces Japan to really deal with China and keeps China as a playable power without being overly powerfull. It DOES advantage the allies a bit though which might affect play balance.

Thank you. ;)  It does give the Allies an advantage but with strings attached.  That fighter still cost 10 IPCs (Not free) and if you’re not careful, the Japanese can still destroy it for a loss.

@Builder_Chris:

the revised A&A has the fighter in china pretty much in the same boat as in AA50.  If I remember right, the “china factor” in AAC and AAR is pretty similar to AA50; china is a speed bump for Japan on their road to world conquest. So on one hand I don’t see what the issue is with were that fighter is placed.  It’s always died J1; hasn’t it?

Well, in first place, you allways can buy another figther or move one to China to replace the lost in Revised. You cannot replace the lost fighter in AA50.

In second place, I’ll not talk about Classic because I never played it, but in Revised, there are some strats that let China alive all the game (a combo of India IC, Sinkiang IC and Pacific fleet). That strat works (I played in many league games with winning result), but the better thing is that is not an auto-win move (there were a couple of games when I got a bit overconfident and lost, DM will remember the last, he played pretty well against me), so, at least in Revised, there was a strat that could let China AND India live the whole game being competitive but not an auto-winner (axis had enough chances of win). Now in AA50, we have lost that strat, even in 1942 scenario, not only because China lost her last fighter China1, but because China is unable of attack or trade terrain, colecting as much 1 inf in most turns, fate to die as much in J5, 1942. 1941 is a nightmare because of total killing J1. In both cases, the death of China makes India unable of hold unless playing 1942 and getting improved industry.

That leads to Godzilla Japan colecting 60 IPCs even if USA builds Pacific navy, and USA simply cannot beat Japan’s navy when Japan colects 15 IPCs more than USA. So, we get few chances of wining with a KJF (opposite to Revised, were you could win about 50% ot times with KJF)

But since a KGF leads 99% of times to axis economic advantage by round 4, we have a game that allies cannot win without massive amounts of luck (rolling a good tech in the proper time and hoping axis doesn’t get another countering the first, per example). And even if I’m wrong and KGF doesn’t lead to axis economic advantage so much times, we have a game that only can be won by allies with KGF, opposite to Revised were there are at least 3 mayor strategies for allies to won. This is a setback from Revised.

My whole point is not only the chinese fighter, is all the rules and setup of whole China who lead to a unplayable Asia mainland as TG Moses said. In best of cases, it’s allies doing 100% of times KGF (I’ll stick with Revised if this is the scenario, KGF bores me to the death). In the worst of cases, is allies losing about 90 % of games. I fear we are closer to 2nd scenario than first, but none of them likes me too much.

My only hope is that we are having a very interesting discussion here and we can all together manage a good fix  :-)

@TG:

@DarthMaximus:

stuff

DarthMaximus consistently gives the most informed and logical explainations at A&A.org.

+1.

Lol @ quoting “stuff”.   :-D

Thanks.

A good start would be giving China a starting artillery in Ningxia to simulate communist forces (communists were the only chineses who could beat japanese units with a decent chance by 1941 because they were experienced veterans from Long March). This is a idea that is flowing in my mind for a soon to be China mod

Well, TG, I think you are confusing time it takes to move a fighter at some point in the game with time to move a fighter there on round 1.

Theoretically, SZ 52, SZ 51, SZ 48, SZ 57 (all easily defensible) would be ideal staging grounds for sending fighters to China.

But really, you’d only be wanting to send a fighter to China in one of two sitautions:

1)  China lost it’s fighter and is doing quite well because of dice.

2)  You have an opportunity to use an American fighter to defend Russians who have liberated a hunk of China so China can build infantry and convert the fighter later.

Both of these wouldn’t even happen until after round 2 anyway.  Before round 2 you really wouldn’t know if it was better to send the fighter to China to replace the Flying Tigers or keep it at sea to protect your own fleet.

And yes, before I get bombarded by “well China will be dead then” China might have been completely conquered.  But as anyone who’s played the game a dozen times or more can attest, China CAN be liberated by Russia quite easily.

Hell, I’ve liberated all of China with Russia 10 rounds after England has fallen and before Germany has fallen (England STILL being German controlled.)  This would be the IDEAL time for America to send a fighter. (Because Japan’s fleet has been destroyed.)

Of all the China fixes the easiest one hasn’t been discussed yet. What about China getting one infantry for each territory controlled? No set-up or fighter rule change and it would really change the dynamic around China, even if China would be eliminated UK and Russia would really have an incentive to liberate Chinese territories to unlock that infantry production!

@Lynxes:

Of all the China fixes the easiest one hasn’t been discussed yet. What about China getting one infantry for each territory controlled? No set-up or fighter rule change and it would really change the dynamic around China, even if China would be eliminated UK and Russia would really have an incentive to liberate Chinese territories to unlock that infantry production!

Yep, this is pretty simple. Still, needs two more changes at least:

• Fighter moved to a safe spot
• Chinese forces able of move and attack any place, even soviet land (imagine if you have italians at your rear in Kazakhstan, Kuomingtan would have a good reason to fight them  :-P)

China able of move out of China is the very first change must be done, even before the fighter. It’s a rule without no reason for history (chinese forces attacked Burma Road area  :-P, and why should not be able of attack FIC?)  and no reason for balance (China is enough weak even without this needless rule)

Oh, and one more: China “colects” inf at end of her turn, not at beginning (as now it gives Japan undeserved advantage trading territories)

China “colects” inf at end of her turn

They do already.  Dont they?  :?