National Objectives vs Balance

@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?  :?

That one change alone would be enough, China collects Infantry at the End of her Turn would result in +1 infantry a round at least most of the time.

Remember guys, China’s not a “real” nation to be played.  The game is Germany, Italy and Japan vs England, America and Russia.  China’s just there to slow down Japan but not to give America an unfair economic advantage. (before it was American soil, but now we’re talking 12 IPC worth of ground, that’s kinda a lot of money to be giving America.)  So to prevent America from starting with 50+ (60 with NOs) they created China and made it a different nation.  It’s still slowing Japan, but it’s not giving America added power.

hell, they don’t collect IPC, they can’t build units at factories even if the Axis build one and it’s liberated, they can’t leave their own soil (except Kwangtung/Hong Kong).

We don’t need to turn China into a playable, stand alone nation.  But it does need to be buffed slightly.

Either move the fighter to Chinghai or allow China to collect infantry at the end of their round. (Or better yet, why not let China move with Russia instead of America?  That way they can move their units where they want them and it prevents Japan from having a slightly biased ability to crush China.)

@Cmdr:

Or better yet, why not let China move with Russia instead of America?  That way they can move their units where they want them and it prevents Japan from having a slightly biased ability to crush China

He, that is a good one, Mao making a coup in early 40’s and taking control of nationalist armies. I like it  :-D Ahistorical, but rebalances the game a bit in 1941 (not of great use in 1942  :|). Use “chinese” inf from AAPacific for added flavour  8-)

He, he, very good  :lol:

+1 karma  :-D

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  tongue, and why should not be able of attack FIC?)  and no reason for balance (China is enough weak even without this needless rule)

Well, I guess the idea here is that chinese forces wouldn’t be able to retake India or launch other major operations outside of China. I think this is quite historically correct. The Burma Road wouldn’t exist if the Japanese conquered India etc and I doubt the Chinese would’ve spent forces on major operations outside of their home country.

I think the production-boost would be enough. That is, if extensive play shows an Axis advantage with NOs. Then a stronger China would divert more Japanese resources and rebalance the game. But we’re not there yet, let’s give some time to finding the best Allied strats!

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.

My point is China needs that fighter NOW.  As soon as possible.  Unless you can devise a way China gets that fighter round 3, you’re better off going Australia -> India -> China.

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

The first half of that sentence shouldn’t even be there.  As Funcioneta said, China WILL lose their fighter turn 1.  There’s nothing they can do about it.

–—

Something we can all agree on is that the Chinese Fighter needs to moved to a safer spot.  That’s the Only way to start; everything else is secondary.

Builder_Chris,

Nope.  China collects inf during the purchase units phase

Well, I guess the idea here is that chinese forces wouldn’t be able to retake India or launch other major operations outside of China. I think this is quite historically correct. The Burma Road wouldn’t exist if the Japanese conquered India etc and I doubt the Chinese would’ve spent forces on major operations outside of their home country.

True.  Not that it ever happens, but I can’t see China liberating India or parts of Russia.  It just doesn’t feel right.

I think the production-boost would be enough. That is, if extensive play shows an Axis advantage with NOs. Then a stronger China would divert more Japanese resources and rebalance the game. But we’re not there yet, let’s give some time to finding the best Allied strats!

Sure beats the heck out of KGF.