That actually is correct based upon the interpalation of the Chinese rules.
I believe that since US / Allies can no longer capture Manchuria and use it properly, because it goes to China and they are basically useless, China should be allowed to "ignore that piece or destroy it. Of course this would have to be agreed upon by all players.
In the original game, US captures Manchuria and builds an IC there and then can build-up fleet/men to capture Japan, launching from Manchuria. In this version they have to come from accross the ocean as there is no country they can actually capture and build an IC on, therefore it falls on UK and Russia to deal with Japan the island, if you want to actually capture it. That actually means Japan is very difficult to capture, and usally the game ends with Victory Cities taken and Japan is usaully still alive and well. It is a bug to me as well.
:-P
That actually is correct based upon the interpalation of the Chinese rules.
I believe that since US / Allies can no longer capture Manchuria and use it properly, because it goes to China and they are basically useless, China should be allowed to "ignore that piece or destroy it. Of course this would have to be agreed upon by all players.
In the original game, US captures Manchuria and builds an IC there and then can build-up fleet/men to capture Japan, launching from Manchuria.
Well, the first is a house rule. Scorched land is a idea in this case. I prefer a full redone of China if using house rules
The 2nd never was so. It’s not totally clear, sure, because Manchuria and Kiangsu should have only the chinese symbol and not also the jap one. Manchuria reverts to China, it doesn’t mind who frees it (USA, soviets, british or the very chineses)
For the conquest of Japan, a idea is researching improved industry so Phi builds 4 and oki, iwo builds 3 :-D
i think you could just ignore the IC when China controls it as far as unit counts, because they can’t use it. FAQ entry perhaps…
i think you could just ignore the IC when China controls it as far as unit counts, because they can’t use it. FAQ entry perhaps…
Yep, it needs a FAQ. As now, ICs are units (even if China cannot use them) so they count for the limit
I agree that China ignoring the IC as far as counting units goes is probably the best way to handle this. China has enough restrictions already.
And also that the Phillipines is the best spot for US to capture build an IC and lunch from there.
8-)
The 2nd never was so. It’s not totally clear, sure, because Manchuria and Kiangsu should have only the chinese symbol and not also the jap one. Manchuria reverts to China, it doesn’t mind who frees it (USA, soviets, british or the very chineses)
Perhaps thats meant for the Axis.
In the admittedly unlikely event Germany liberates Manchuria, it goes to Japan, not Germany.
I believe Manchuria would go to Germany if Germany liberates it from the Chinese.
Also, if Manchuria is ever actually taken from Japan, that means Japan is doing already losing badly, so the fact that China can build a few less inf there doesn’t really matter much at all.
I think representing China as a non industrial power could have been done by limited income and ltd production. A china that makes only 5-9 ipc’sa turn on avg and can produce realisticaly only 2-3 units per turn and usually going to be on the defensive is not going to be building too many (if any) tanks, fig, or bombers. It wouldn’t build any naval units assumint the IC was landlocked.
Besides airplanes built could be symbolic of Soviet and US fighters in China, and China did have a few Sherman tanks so it wouldn’t be out of the question for china
An IC in a Chinese territory doesn’t count as a “Chinese unit” for purposes of restricting Chinese reinforcement placement. While China does control the IC, it can’t use it, so it’s not a “unit” as far as China is concerned.
I believe Manchuria would go to Germany if Germany liberates it from the Chinese.
Correct, though actually Germany would be capturing it, not liberating it.
I think representing China as a non industrial power could have been done by limited income and ltd production. A china that makes only 5-9 ipc’sa turn on avg and can produce realisticaly only 2-3 units per turn and usually going to be on the defensive is not going to be building too many (if any) tanks, fig, or bombers. It wouldn’t build any naval units assumint the IC was landlocked.
Besides airplanes built could be symbolic of Soviet and US fighters in China, and China did have a few Sherman tanks so it wouldn’t be out of the question for china
More Like 0-7 IPCs per turn.
And I see no point in having Chinese ICs, since that would only help the Japs out even more. I believe it China could collect and spend IPCs like all other powers (chinese Inf cost 2 ipcs), they could build what they buy using the same rules as before (build anywhere in china that china controls as long as there are less than 3 chinese units there).
I think the China issue in AA50 is a good example of what happens when the game designers try to hard to put some historical realism into A&A. There is some realism yes, but the point should be to make a fun game within the WW2 theme. A&A are good games, but as I said before, you can only have so much “realism” in a boardgame, too much will be both boring and broken.
I don’t see China as a big problem though, and China was never meant to be an important factor in AA50 anyway.
An IC in a Chinese territory doesn’t count as a “Chinese unit” for purposes of restricting Chinese reinforcement placement. While China does control the IC, it can’t use it, so it’s not a “unit” as far as China is concerned.
Pretty odd and ugly. It was really so difficult make China a normal playable power? Or at least use AAPacific rules and a sane setup?
@Subotai:
I think the China issue in AA50 is a good example of what happens when the game designers try to hard to put some historical realism into A&A. There is some realism yes, but the point should be to make a fun game within the WW2 theme.
Designers failed to put any historical realism. There was no way of China utterly collapsing December 1941. There was no way of italians building 3-5 times more inf divisions than China. There was no way of jap tanks blitzing merrily by non-industrial :-P mountain zones of China. China attacked Burma in real war but they cannot do it in AA50 for some hidden reason. China surely had at least some artillery in real war (some elite KMT and commie units), not a chance in AA50. China is anything you think, but not historical in AA50: buggy, a gift/puppet/boost for Japan, not playable …
Uhm, I believe China may actually place there, even if it has an IC and AA Gun. Why? Because they do not count towards the placing of NEW units.
They would, however, count against the maximum of 5 units total in a territory (and thus no longer being able to build more there.)
For instance;
China has 2 Infantry in Manchuria and is allowed to build 4 more infantry during the place builds phase.
China decides to build 3 Infantry in Manchuria (maximum in one territory) and 1 in Sikang.
China now has 5 Infantry in Manchuria.
If we considered the two originals to be an IC and an AA then China could still place 3 more infantry there to have 3 infantry, 1 AA Gun and 1 Industrial Complex.
That’s not how it works. It’s not that you can only place three units per territory. It’s that you can’t place any new units in a territory that already has three or more units. If the territory has two or less Chinese units when you begin placing new units, you may place as many there as you like.
The 2nd never was so. It’s not totally clear, sure, because Manchuria and Kiangsu should have only the chinese symbol and not also the jap one. Manchuria reverts to China, it doesn’t mind who frees it (USA, soviets, british or the very chineses)
Perhaps thats meant for the Axis.
In the admittedly unlikely event Germany liberates Manchuria, it goes to Japan, not Germany.
Or Italy!
That’s not how it works. It’s not that you can only place three units per territory. It’s that you can’t place any new units in a territory that already has three or more units. If the territory has two or less Chinese units when you begin placing new units, you may place as many there as you like.
So AA Gun and Industrial Complex = 2 Units, therefore, you could build 3 Chinese Infantry there that round.
That’s what I was trying to say, even if I said it poorly.
I’ve found it helpful to move Chinese units into the territory leaving a nearly vacant one next too it to build more units. That way, technically speaking, you could move hundreds of units into a territory. After all, there’s no limit to the number of units China can have, only the number they can build in a territory at a time.
@Cmdr:
So AA Gun and Industrial Complex = 2 Units, therefore, you could build 3 Chinese Infantry there that round.
The IC doesn’t count as a Chinese unit for purposes of new unit placement.
Also - while I agree that the Japanese could not have conquered China entirely in a short space of time this was not because of chinese (KMT or Communist) resistance. It was more because of the logistical constraints of the Japanese army which was understocked with tanks, aircraft and other materiel along the Chinese front.
Despite this the Japanese used their forces extremely adeptly - and were still winning battles in China right up until 1945. Equally the Chinese managed to inflict some heavy casualties on the IJA, though the IJA were still making good amounts of territorial gains.
I wonder whether the situation would be better dealt with by changing the China rules to 1 inf per unoccupied territory. + 1 artillery. Still keeping the ‘no troops added to territories already containg 3 units’ rule. Or would that make China too powerful?
But at the moment she is a bit of a cake walk for the Japanese. I want to see bitter fighting in China. I want the Japansese having to devote (in some cases) annoying amount of IPCs to finally break the country.
Of course. In the other A&A games (Nova’s excepted) she is only represented by two territories and 5 units which suffer pretty quickly too.
Designers failed to put any historical realism. There was no way of China utterly collapsing December 1941. There was no way of italians building 3-5 times more inf divisions than China. There was no way of jap tanks blitzing merrily by non-industrial :-P mountain zones of China. China attacked Burma in real war but they cannot do it in AA50 for some hidden reason. China surely had at least some artillery in real war (some elite KMT and commie units), not a chance in AA50. China is anything you think, but not historical in AA50: buggy, a gift/puppet/boost for Japan, not playable …
Good points here by Func (but I don’t agree with the last two words - “not playable”) China is an improvement on previous A&A installations, however. And it is further improved in the 1940 game(s). China can now occupy Burma, and can build artillery in some instances, and has IPC’s on hand. I guess, just look at China in AA50 as a step in the right direction (way more territories, can build without an IC) and 1940 is another step in the right direction. They’re getting there….
