2013 - AAG 40 League

I do not believe the decision was arbitrary as I put quite a bit of thought behind it.

While it is true that if you play the game per the rules in the box, you may not have any of those units for your bid, it is likewise true that if you play the game per the box rules you cannot have any units for your bid.

Likewise, the game specifically adds in units just for the sake of units, despite barring China from being able to build them or replace them when lost.  Admittedly, it represents a historical unit, it is still using an American token to represent a Chinese piece.  Taking this as precedent, why not allow American tokens represent all Chinese bid for units?  After all, what is good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. (Page 10, Pacific 1940 Rule Book, Second Edition)

However, the most important consideration I had was this; is there any reason to BAR a player for bidding such units?  To this question, I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer.  However, China IS specifically barred from owning Industrial Complexes, therefore, no amount of bidding will be allowed to which China may have an Industrial Complex of either Major or Minor status (not to mention, they don’t start with any territories that qualify for the unit per the rules of the unit.)  Subquestions of this category are:

• If China were to be allowed a tactical bomber, would this give the allies an unfair advantage? 
  ** Not that I can think of, although, Japan may be a bit more interested in moving some of their AA Guns around, which would be nice, or they could choose to not change their game play at all.
• If China were to be allowed to have tanks or mobile infantry (I don’t like the term Mechanized, deal with it) would it have an effect on the game disproportionate to allowing any other bidded unit? 
  **I cannot think so.  Yes it would allow for China to blitz liberate some of their own territories, and that could really be a thorn in Japan’s side, but there is nothing stopping Japan from blitz-blocking as every other nation is encouraged to do.
• What about naval units?
  ** Well, China is not specifically barred from bidding on naval units, the problem is, the rules stipulate you could only place said units in sea zones you start with naval units and since China does not start with any naval units, there’s no where for them to place any they bid for.  That also solves the whole, China not being allowed to have units outside of Chinese approved territories.
• What about bases?
  ** Well now, if your opponent allows you to bid that high, and you are so inclined, then feel free to put them on the board for China.

As for AA Guns, yes, China could place them on the board.  Other than Yunnan round 1, not really seeing a need to use them for China, but if you are okay taking the risk, I am okay with letting you.

Units BARRED for China in the bid:

• Submarines
• Transports
• Destroyers
• Cruisers
• Aircraft Carriers
• Battleships
• Minor Industrial Complexes
• Major Industrial Complexes

@Boldfresh:

@Cow:

Gamer what is preventing you from being a moderator? You are active. Doing stuff for the site already. What is going on here… lol

Cow this makes infinite sense.  Im starting to think you are jekyl and hyde!  Bravo for this insight.  When I approached dave jensen suggesting the same I got a one word answer like “great” but no action.  That was probably over a month ago.  Gamer should be a moderator there is no doubt.

G’luck with that.  I still need my mod powers fixed on some boards and it’s been over a year.  He’s got a liaison tag, and I trust him to make routine decisions which are good until I negate them in league (if I confirm them, they’re good forever, right?)

@Cow:

Well here is the thing about 1 unit per territory that makes sense. A place like yunnan which has 12 ipc already on it and is part of a China NO… becomes defendable. I put an aa gun, an inf and fly russian air on it… all of a sudden Japan’s 8 unit attack is outgunned.  When Japan cannot hit yunnan in the first round, that is it. May as well call the pacific off.

Honestly, until this morning, a Round 1 attack on Russia by Germany wasn’t even in my thought processes.  Yes, a fighter, tactical bomber and a Chinese built AA Gun or hell, even a couple Chinese infantry would make that attack significantly harder.  Of course, I would be kicking Germany in the balls so hard he’d never have kids if he opened me up to that kind of hell in a game. lol.

We can discuss a 1 unit per territory/sea zone restriction for 2014 or even the tournament.  I feel it is far too late in 2013 to impose new restrictions.  I only mentioned China being allowed other units because I did not think anyone else had thought of it and I saw nothing, as written NOW, that prevented it.  I am more than willing to bar said units for next year’s league.

@Cmdr:

3 - You must play at least 4 games against 3 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.
Amended: You must play at least 8 games against 6 different opponents to be eligible for the playoffs.

3a (Major League) - If 4 or more players end up playing 14 games (in the league) or more then a separate grouping and playoff schedule will be created for these players.
Minor League (8 to 13 games played)
Major League (14+ games played)
Amended: 8 players to replace 4 or more players.

Since this was the rule, in 2012, would there be issue in restoring it for 2013?  It is in answer to the 20 game +/- 5 that was suggested earlier.

@Gamerman01:

@Gamerman01:

A G2 attack is pretty much required anyway.

I didn’t mean required, I meant anticipated.

Yes, but I’m interested in seeing this game I am in with a Round 1 German invasion of Russia.  It’s been my experience that they usually focus on hitting Europe round 1, and attack round 2 - and by doing so, negate any Russia air cover for China!  (Thus destroying the need for a 1 unit per territory bid.)  Perhaps this is in part why the axis want to limit the amount of units bid, because their strategy is sub-optimal?

I am neither saying that is why, or that is not why.  However, the question was raised in my mind.  Is the 1 unit per territory (and sea zone) necessary, or is it because of some flaw in Axis strategy that is better suited to having the strategy amended?

@Boldfresh:

Jenn, I strongly feel - like many other veteran players - that a 1 unit per
territory rule should be instated immediately, not in 2014.  Trust me, it’s much better for the game.  As stated before, the yunnan bid caps the amount that should EVER be given to the allies at 8 effectively.

cheers

Why do we need a 1 unit per territory rule?  Is only because if a chain of events happens, Japan’s attack on Yunnan is too costly?  It seems to be the only issue being raised currently.

Why does Germany have to go to war with Russia round 1?  They get money if they don’t.  They get time to prepare a proper invasion if they don’t. Russia is denied reinforcing China if they don’t.  Without reinforcing China, how do your numbers play out for a Japanese attack on Yunnan if there are 2 units bid there (say infantry units since I’m pretty much decided the rules are going to include Infantry/Artillery units for China only, or perhaps a moratorium of any units for China.)

Is this a matter of game play, or is this an issue of bad strategy?  That’s what I am getting at.  Would 2 infantry in Egypt be such an issue?  What about 2 infantry in Belarus or 2 Artillery in Buryatia?  Are these of equal importance, or is it only a concern about Yunnan?  As far as I can see, Yunnan is easily solved by Germany holding back for one round.  Is this holding back a round going to cause significant damage to the Axis?  Perhaps the bid is too high, maybe you need to consider lowering it to prevent a Yunnan disaster?