China question.

Generally speaking powers defend together. However in G40 there are powers that start off neutral (Russia and USA) or not at war with each other (like Japan and UK/France). You could have a case at sea when you attack a sz with units from multiple powers, and can ignore the units that belong to a power that you aren’t yet at war with.

Victory in the Pacific is essentially impossible if you lose China.  You need the cash from those territories to be able to to outspend India + ANZAC + US in the theater.  Still, I find if China is making 15 PUs, ANZAC is at 20, and India can get up to 10, it is difficult to make much progress anyway.  There will be more Allied ground units made each round in Asia than you can pump out from 2 factories.  It is possible to build a third Japanese factory on the mainland, but then you are spending almost your entire budget on ground units and can’t compete in the naval battles.

When Yunnan is held strongly, I transition to helping Germany out by forcing the US to keep spending in the Pacific.  It is a huge help if you can hold the Philippines, threaten Hawaii, sometimes take the Aleutians or an ANZAC territory, and prevent India from sending troops West. You can still make 40 PUs without much of China, convoy raid India to keep their economy slow, and force the US to spend 20 PUs a round in the Pacific to prevent things from getting too out of hand.

Herr KaLeun and ColonelCarter,

Thank you also for the added answer and explanation answers for transports offload ( Sorry Chris for diverging your sub topic ).
BH

Well the result is that when Japans DOW in J3 the US is NOT yet at war until the end of her turn. So Japan can do what it wants until US4…

wittmann is right, the Italians can’t participate in the German attack so they are bystanders. By rule the German transport should endure one round of combat, then it can retreat if still alive (unless you are playing a friendly game and allow the German player to rethink his move based on the new info).

1 ipc units are too strong, they would replace infantry.

thanx for clearing that up for me

I thought they had to be at war with japan too

I see the logic now that uk and dutch are at war with germany makes them buddies

@WILD:

I think that if the the allies were allowed to just NCM in to take control of a fallen allied powers tt’s (collect the income) it would swing to much income to the allies and break the game. Plus if your getting paid for all those tt’s why would you Liberate your former allies capital (kinda like how Paris is now). It is better to leave things as they are and they only get paid if they liberate them from the enemy. That makes a pretty good cat & mouse game of how much tt the axis want to take vs how many of them they will be able to hold later on.

Â

If that were the case, then I feel the Axis original TTs should be worth double to Axis powers only.  Sort of like the Russian NO, but reversed.  But yes, I concur with your analysis, in-so-much in regard to Dutch/Netherlands.

I always viewed that rule as a way to not automatically give the income to England but not deny it to Japan either.  It really only plays in the Pacific campaign, as your only chance to get the income is to invest enough to push Japan out (otherwise, Japan will crush any resistance and take it.)