The Burma Road: A Chinese National Objective?

Thank you for the clarification and the welcome.

Yes, it may enter any territory that Chinese units may legally enter.

@Xayd74:

@calvinhobbesliker:

All Chinese units can move to Bruma at any time, even if the UK is still neutral

Calvin, I remember needing to verify this just recently. And your reply didn’t jive with what I recalled. So I’m looking it up again. The rulebook states the following…

“Kwangtung and Burma are special cases. While they are not Chinese territories and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack Axis units there and occupy them, but the IPC’s generated go the United Kingdom (unless India is under Axis control). These are the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can occupy.”

The phrase “can attack axis units there and occupy them” suggests they can only enter Burma to attempt to retake it (from the Axis) on behalf of the UK. I suppose it then becomes a matter of what the word occupy actually means. From a wartime perspective, I think of the word denoting an occupying force that previously invaded and has now established control. So I think of the Chinese as invading Axis controlled Burma to occupy it, on behalf of the UK.

If occupy simply means to exist in, I wish the sentence was worded differently to establish that it is not a cause and effect relationship.

Here was the question in the FAQ:
Two Quick Questions:

1.)  If UK / ANZAC are not yet at war with Japan, can China Enter Burma / Kwang during its non-combat movement?

2.)  At what point can the US capture a Dutch territory?  Only after Japan has occupied it?

Thanks in advance

Here was Krieg’s answer:

Yes.

The US can take ownership of Dutch territories only by capturing them from Japan.

Here is the thread: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=16870.45
Replies #47&48

@SSPanzer:

Yes well forgoing a J1 attack is out of the question, and giving the US 40 IPCs up front is a bid, which is not optional on this forum. The question posed is objectives, our group prefers to give a few bonus objectives here and there, so if you would like to contribute please address the topic at hand.

Well, the option I mentioned simply allows the US to use their wartime NO right away in the case of a J1 DoW, which is not technically a bid since there would be no placement of units beforehand, it just gives the US 57 IPCs to spend on their first turn instead of the OOB 17; leaving the rest of the game untouched.

I mentioned it since your second US NO gives the US extra IPCs but basically increases the OOB US NO from 40 to 45; which, as Tralis stated, doesn’t do much for the US as they can’t really build much more with 5 extra IPCs per turn besides accumulating it for later use anyway as the US needs boats and planes to contest Japan on the water and actually get their land units in range of anything.

The Chinese NO is significant for China, but I don’t think that’s necessarily bad as China still does relatively poorly against Japan.  The UK NO would allow for 1 extra infantry per turn for UK, which will also be further annoying to Japan.  However, I voted that it will help the Allies, but not much because with the J3 India Crush method, 2 extra infantry to India will not make that much of a difference, and the couple extra infantry that China can accumulate will still only delay the Japanese a little.

The simple thought of new players is why money should have been included. The experienced players don’t need the money. In the base AA42 game money should have been included as a learning tool. In the AA40 games the complexity goes way up. For a newer player the more help to simplify things the better. These games at the very least should have offered a tracking chart in the rule book that could be copied. I would suggest to newer players to use poker chips, money from other games, or make up a chart to track money including NO’s by nation.

Indeed he did. In fact, I’ve just asked him for a larger one similar to my larger one.

@C_Strabala:

Why didn’t WotC print each nations’ original IC’s, airbases, & naval bases on the gameboard similar to the original A&A Pacific. It would save space and you wouldn’t have the risk of accidently knocking the cardboard chits everywhere.

There will be another setup in the global 1940 game.

@Tralis:

I’m just using the old Pacific chart. Kamikaze slider… goes up very high… its working pretty well. The VP track of course isn’t used.

Good idea, I have the original AAP but I’ll probably just soldier on with the chart they gave us for this game. What really pisses me off is the battle board, some units aren’t on there and then some are there that shouldn’t be!