China wasn’t producing its own combat aircraft until the mid-50’s.
Personally, I am a fan of all ICs, Naval bases and air bases vulnerable to getting destroyed and removed from the board (except for maybe major ICs on capitals).
I agree with you cmdr jen, its a pity and very frustrating losing a complex to China.
So what if we let fate decide and the assailant rolls 2d6 of damage on the complex.
@Young:
Personally, I am a fan of all ICs, Naval bases and air bases vulnerable to getting destroyed and removed from the board (except for maybe major ICs on capitals).
Wouldnt mind capping damage destroying a Minor Complex, Naval Base or Airbase and downgrading a Major Complex to a Minor Complex.
Might get abused though.
@Minor:
I agree with you cmdr jen, its a pity and very frustrating losing a complex to China.
So what if we let fate decide and the assailant rolls 2d6 of damage on the complex.
I think thats the risk the Japs take for building a complex and not protecting it. I believe that purchasing and placing ICs should be a huge decision and an ongoing investment, not something to do whimsically.
I think I saw a rule once where a defender could take hits on an IC that was in a territory under attack. That would be a nice rule change. It would put more teeth in the defense of major areas and also result in more SBR as attackers would have a reason to try and hit an IC before you attacked it.
Also I agree that china should be able to build artillery and fighters at a captured IC.
I like that. Attacking Berlin would give Germany 20 extra hits and it would solve the Sea Lion “problem”
@Cmdr:
I like that. Attacking Berlin would give Germany 20 extra hits and it would solve the Sea Lion “problem”
I don’t think sea lion is a problem, I like the possibility of Germany taking London before they are forced to fight on a second front with Russia. I feel that the Europe theater is far more balanced in that sense (with sea lion) than the Pacific theater.
I will admit this is not a bad house rule, free wounds for a capitals IC. I wouldn’t make them some astronomical number though, perhaps 2 wounds for a Major and 1 for a minor? That way the ablative wounds are just an asset to beef defense and not the backbone of the defense.
I wish I could remember where I saw that rule, I’m fairly sure it was a house rule somewhere. But yeah 20 free hits is an awful lot. Maybe 1 hit generates 5 hits on the IC that would give minors 1 and majors 4, still quite a lot when you are hitting London or Moscow. This might favor the allies too much.
I will admit this is not a bad house rule, free wounds for a capitals IC. I wouldn’t make them some astronomical number though, perhaps 2 wounds for a Major and 1 for a minor? That way the ablative wounds are just an asset to beef defense and not the backbone of the defense.
Or just 3 hits per complex, 1 hit per base
Why not one die roll of damage once the territory is lost on each facility
Would totaly screw germany when it takes over france so there would have to be rules to compensate
I had a Soviet NA that was:
Scorched Earth: For each round of combat that takes place before you are defeated or the enemy retreats, you may inflict one point of strategic damage on any facillities in the territory.
I find myself wondering why China would need a IC? China can only build inf. & art. and can place them in any China teritory they occupy at the end of her turn. This includes the Chinese teritories Japan owns at the begining of the game.
I agree why would china need to build at an IC? That takes away from their ability to pop up in any rice paddy they choose. With China having an IC it just becomes a bigger target for Japan to attack.
China’s main weakness is not being able to march into Korea. In the late game Japan can ignore a resurgent China because they are trapped in their homeland.
I find myself wondering why China would need a IC? China can only build inf. & art. and can place them in any China teritory they occupy at the end of her turn. This includes the Chinese teritories Japan owns at the begining of the game.
Reread the original premise: If China can capture the industrial complex they should be able to build Infantry, Artillery, Armor and Fighters at that complex. I had originally intended that China kept its original ability of building infantry and artillery anywhere it wanted, so the complex would really only be useful in adding a couple armor or a fighter if it could be captured.
China’s main weakness is not being able to march into Korea. In the late game Japan can ignore a resurgent China because they are trapped in their homeland.
Yes, that does make it kind of an issue. I would like to see Alpha 3 add Korea to one of the acceptable pieces of land that China can march into. In Anniversary (AA50) China can move into the Korean territory (it is part of Manchuria) so I am a little unclear why it was not made a permittable territory in 1940. I understand it being Japanese, so they can have a major complex on the mainland, just a little unclear why they stopped China from entering it. It was a Chinese territory, settled by Chinese people after one of their many wars. (pre 1500 BCE).
Remember China is the only power that starts with their capital under enemy control…. Perhaps if Shanghai is liberated they begin to function as a normal power. Although I like your suggestion of build restrictions Jen, I don’t think China should ever be building a navy or bombers.
@Cmdr:
The complexes are not destroyed when China takes them, they just cannot use them.
You’re thinking of the AA50 rules. In AA40, industrial complexes on Chinese territories are destroyed when liberated.
China had not developed it natural resources at that time to be able to make use of the IC. If they cannot use it then destroying it represents scorched earth policy. That said I wonder how they were able to make rifled tubes for modern artillary. Maybe the artillary represents some lend lease from the U.S.
@Cmdr:
The complexes are not destroyed when China takes them, they just cannot use them.
You’re thinking of the AA50 rules. In AA40, industrial complexes on Chinese territories are destroyed when liberated.
China had not developed it natural resources at that time to be able to make use of the IC. If they cannot use it then destroying it represents scorched earth policy. That said I wonder how they were able to make rifled tubes for modern artillary. Maybe the artillary represents some lend lease from the U.S.
Wouldnt they have some materials in process of being made, some raw materials to build more, etc, etc, etc on site at a factory?
@Cmdr:
@Cmdr:
The complexes are not destroyed when China takes them, they just cannot use them.
Your suggesting that the Japanese might have left some material at the IC site. But would the Chinese have had the knowledge to use the machinery?
You’re thinking of the AA50 rules. In AA40, industrial complexes on Chinese territories are destroyed when liberated.
China had not developed it natural resources at that time to be able to make use of the IC. If they cannot use it then destroying it represents scorched earth policy. That said I wonder how they were able to make rifled tubes for modern artillary. Maybe the artillary represents some lend lease from the U.S.
Wouldnt they have some materials in process of being made, some raw materials to build more, etc, etc, etc on site at a factory?
