A simple fix for China…

@Ryuzaki_Lawliet:

France WILL still fall.

Germany has 4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, 6 Tanks, and 4 Mechanized Infantry that can hit Paris.

4 Infantry, 2 Artillery, and 3 Tanks from Holland Belgium, 4 Mechanized Infantry from Western Germany, and 3 Tanks from Greater Southern Germany.

34 ATK with 16 Units versus 26 DEF with 12 Units.

Just means that some German Tanks might be taken as casualties.

You could also be a bit more assured and send the Tactical Bomber from Poland as well.

Any Maginot Line Rule should also include the French/Italian border IMO. This section was known as the Alpine Maginot line, and had many fortifications along with natural mountain range defenses. The French defenses on the Italian border held the Italians at bay until the the armistice was signed and Vichy was set up.

So IMO the 3 tanks from Southern Germany shouldn’t be able to attack France through Italy either. Those 3 tanks going through West Germany into France would also hit the Maginot line.

Maybe instead of saying German (axis) units can’t go through the Maginot Line, the rule should give any attacking ground units -1 for all rounds of battle that cross the Maginot line (West Germany/France, and Northern Italy/France or S France). That way those units could still invade, but wouldn’t be as effective because they are facing more resistance. Yes you would have some inf with no attack value, but could still be taken as a casualty. If that proves to harsh (which I think it might), then maybe have all attacking ground -1 only for the first round of battle when attacking through the Maginot lines.

So if the Germans were to back out after a couple rounds, the Italian units would also be -1 in attack when they go for Paris.

This could also be a good lead into a Vichy Rule

Just completed 3 rounds playing this rule and I like it - alot! Germany took France Rd1 so had two tech rolls starting RD2. US purchased a RF RD1 so also had 2 tech rolls RD2. Out of 22 rolls we only had three hits and 2 of the 3 ended up Radar hits (could possibly be helpful for Germ, not so much for the US) and of course I’m playing the allies! This is why I don’t believe you need to add any more costs, maintanence or otherwise, to this rule. It hasn’t had a major effect (yet!) on our game and it’s really cool to roll a tech dice for each country (especially Anzac!) each turn.

@calvinhobbesliker:

You’re the one who started the discussion by saying  that japan doesn’t need to take 8 chinese territories.

How is my math fuzzy? China starts with 12 infantry. Killing 3 kills 25% of their power. Japan starts with 14 fighters. Taking one out is taking out 7% of their fighter force and 3.5% of their entire air force.

What I was talking about was in reguards to the Chinese NOT the Japanese. I dont believe Japan needs to focus on taking all those Chinese tt early on, its got better things to do. But this isnt really the place to discuss it at lenght. I made a passing comment, you are the one who turned this thread into another J1 attack fan boy rant. Also, anyone with a bit of sense would never make an attack with 6 planes and 1inf, if they can avoid it. Most people would better support their attacks so they wouldnt have to take fighters as casualities, which you can easily do in China as Japan. A  fighter is more useful, just because you have alot of them, dosnt mean you should be looking to lose them, its a waste of resources

@Praetorian:

Thus, at the start of the Chinese turn both the USSR and US bid.  the USSR secretly bids $2.  The US secretly bids $4.  The bids are revelaed simletaneously.  The US wins and now immeditaely transfers the winning $4 to China’s cash.

(the goal of this is to represent the schizophrenic nature of the Chinese forces - its not quite modeling history since it treats the Chinese as a cohesive whole, but does model the conflicting goals of the US and USSR and their intervention in China).

Unless there are seperate victory conditions for the Soviet and US player, there’s still no conflicting goal.  The US could simply bid an excessive amount of money as they have better position and economy to stick it to Japan, and now they have essentially a free infantry factory in China.  For it to really work you’d have to choose two somewhat passive-aggressive people to play the USSR and the US who have some sort of bet going on between for who controls the most territory at the end of the game.  Maybe the bill for pizza & beer at stake, but even then I can’t imagine Russia choosing to give themselves another front when they’re already going to be needing that cash to halt Germany.  And add another rule that if US units enter Russia they immediately become Russian but are unable to use or participate in combat for a full round (to emulate lend lease training, plus they refused to return the b29s that made emergency landings so reverse engineering and research)

Try this house rule for China to have IPC’s like other allied countries:
1941 China Modifications
These changes enable China to function like a 4th allied country. China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country. China starts the game with $7 IPCs. $2 inf for China, other unit costs are unchanged. China can save unspent IPCs. China gets to Non Combat Move their fighter and place their IC before start of game play (start of round 1). China gets an IC for mobilization of new units. The IC can move one territory per turn and place units into the just moved into territory even if China just took the territory this turn (no unit limit on placement of Chinese units).
If China or her allies capture a Japanese IC in Manchuria or Kiangsu or ANY original Chinese territory, the IC is immediately destroyed. If China captures a Japanese IC in French Indo China, the IC is destroyed. If any allied country captures a Japanese IC in Burma or Kwangtung, it would revert to UK control. If any other allied country (besides China) captures a Japanese IC in French-Indo China, the IC is not destroyed, and control would be reverted to the capturing country. If China’s IC is captured, it is destroyed, and China no longer can ‘purchase’ units. Without the IC, China can get new infantry units per out of the box rules. Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

China has its own National Objective:
The Burma Road If the allies control Burma and 2 of these 3 territories: India, Yunnan, and Hupeh, China receives an additional $2 during their collect income phase.
China Modifications FAQs

Are all Chinese units limited to China and Kwantung? (as per AA50)
• Chinese units may now be engaged outside of China in Burma and/or French Indo China.

Can China roll for Tech?
There is no restriction on how China spends its money.

Can the axis conduct Strategic Bombing Raids on a Chinese IC?
No, since the IC has unlimited development. The Chinese IC is limited by the fact that China has few IPCs to spend.

May Chinese infantry be placed the same as AA50? (i.e. not just at the IC)
If China still has its IC, new units may only be mobilized in the territory where the Chinese IC resides. Since the IC can move into Allied territories not under Chinese control, reference "Handling when China moves their IC out of territories under Chinese Control.” Once the Chinese IC is lost, AH original Chinese rules apply.

Can the Axis use the captured Chinese IC to build?
No. When the territory where the IC resides is captured, the IC would be destroyed.

What happens when China loses its IC but still has Chinese units / territories under Chinese control?
When China’s IC has been captured and destroyed, China reverts to getting more infantry as described in the AA50 rules. They no longer collect income in the form of IPCs, nor can they ever get any other unit than infantry

China just lost it’s last territory and still has IPCs in her bank. What happens to the IPCs?
Any Chinese IPCs go to the conqueror.

Can the Chinese fighter (the Flying Tigers) attack units in sea zones outside China if it returns to China in the same turn?
No, it can’t leave China/Burma/French Indo-China/Kwangtung, even temporarily.

@Argothair Funny thing is, this is a example of an idea coming along early - Oztea’s Garrisons are mostly the same thing as A&A&Z’s Recruitment Centers. Main differences being that Garrisons can make more than just infantry and when Recruitment Centers make infantry, they do it at normal price. Of course, the fact that this thread is 10 years old may mean that it’s just you and me in here for now.

-Midnight_Reaper

Cmdr,

TG:

In anniversary, the only way to have a submarine threat is to have your submarines scattered about.  So far it has been my experience that usually you are attacking from at least two different sea zones, this would encourage you to attack from three or more to get the wolfpack bonus.

I disagree.  One of the best reasons to buy subs is that they’re cheap and can take hits during a naval battle.  If you’re subs are scattered in different sea zones, you negate this fodder ability in a defensive battle.

Secondly, I’m all about simplicity.  Forcing the player to attack from 3 Different Sea Zones adds an unnecessary complexity to the game.

Weren’t we trying to make subs A LOT better, as you claim they are “Bogus?”

3)  Submarine captains spent long times lining up shots in the security of knowing they were not seen and had plenty of time.  They could be choosier.

Okay, you clarified it for me.

tekkyy,

well both principles (1. a ratio whatever it is 2. each destroyer roll one die) encourages players to build more destroyers
the actual numbers can be tuned

I like ratio better because it doesn’t add to the combat sequence
its also something players are used to (from placing infantry on 1 or 2 on the battle board)

Agreed.

Joe,

I would think if you’d want to fix the role of submarines, then fixes should be directed to possibly to biggest impact subs had on the war - attacking shipping and supply lines.

How about a “SBR-type” rule for subs in key sea zones?  Maybe against shipments to UK and Japan only since they were most dependent on outside resources?  Destroyers protecting these sea zones get a “AA” type role to defend so that subs have a chance to live and there is incentive to build subs?  I would think that this could open up the Atlantic and Pacific a little more for something more than just sea unit stacking.

Seconded.  +1 for an inventive idea.

remember the 4X rule in these places and also the variations on costs for infantry depending on VC.

1.  Is there a limit as to the number of infantry that can be built at VCs?

yes of course, the 4x rule…

2.  If China is incapable of replacing American aircraft or building armor, why are they given a factory in the game?  In reality, China had only the capability to build infantry - which was poorly trained and equipt.  The presence of a factory in the game allows for China to build any type of unit.

4x rule allows them to only build artillery or infantry ( or mech)

As infantry are built at victory cities, I propose removing the factory from China.

but what about artillery? China had artillery and they are but an army of misfits w/o them