A simple fix for China…

@hengst If this feels too strong for the Allies, move the SZ 96 cruiser & destroyer to SZ 81. Otherwise, it forces the UK to choose between prosecuting the war against Italy & liberating the Vichy boats. If they don’t turn them all Free French, they may have a serious issue on their hands on G2. Similarly, it forces Germany to decide: do I want to kill French ships or force the UK to make a play for them.

After that, France will be a very minor yet present actor in the campaign for North Africa & eventually the retaking of Europe. If the UK ensure to liberate Syria, they may also fight in the defense of Cairo.

I haven’t seen somebody gamble on a Vietnam play, but that is also possibly in the cards.

@Baron:

@SS:

Ya I like it too.
2 inf = A2 A25.0% total
1 inf+1 art = A4 A50% total makes up the drop for sure.
Cost ya 7 instead 6 icps.

Do you know how many Art are bought in a game on average for China ?

I hope it will be at least Arty A3 D2, so chinese Inf will get A2+A3 for 5/8 or 62.5% which is nearer the OOB 4/6 (66.7%) combined arms.

This little case also shows that China might be better with a strong Arty A3 D3 because defense 5/8 (62.5%) will be nearer OOB 66.7% for Art+Inf.
Otherwise, 50% 4/8 combined defense is a whole D6 pip below OOB 66.7%

China need something because japanese Fighter and TcB keeps their usual OOB 50% attack per unit.

Interesting idea about Chinese Inf at cost 2.
Mostly the case with AA50.

Baron Munchhausen have been using the ENIGMA (vann) FORMULAS on these proposals???

@WILD:

@Imperious:

Well if you allow BB and CV to take 2 turns to build and pay half each turn, it makes alot of sense to buy cruisers. The 3 move is great, but not sure to give it a 4 MOVE if from a naval port.

I’m also experimenting with many more convoy zones (UK convoy routes) mostly in the Atlantic, around Africa, and the Med. I’m hoping that giving the cruiser 3 moves (4 from nb) allows the axis to use it as a convoy raider at times because it can out run (or keep pace) with the allies ships. Adding more convoy zones is also making German subs more viable as commerce raiders.

To Baron Munchhausen, yea escort or light carrier would probably be a better terms then support carrier. I’ve been using A0, D1, M2-3, C12-carries 1 plane.  You bring up a good point about many of these light carriers were built on cruiser hulls though. Being this is a new ship for me at a relatively low cost (12 IPCs) I think I will keep it with the standard move of 2-3 for now (to warrant the cruiser at 12 IPC as the only fast ship), but will probably take a 3-4 move light carrier for a spin at some point.

PS: I’m really liking the 2 turn capital ship builds, and it is making ship building pretty interesting.

I’m also thinking about limiting 2 turn capital ship builds to major ICs (exception of USA who’s minors will be majors at some point). You can drop a capital ship at one of your minor ICs, but it takes an extra turn for delivery (3 turns to build). This is basically to stop the US or Japan from building capital ships in remote places. I would allow the UK Pac, Anz, Canada etc to build capital ships at their minor ICs, but theoretically they pay for the ship, it is built in England and delivered to the minor IC over 3 turns (same concept for the other powers building at their minor ICs). I realize that you could make a point that any ship built at a minor IC should be +1 turn because most ship yards would be at in the home territory where the major IC is (looking at that too lol).

Adding CVL to Cruiser, both at M3-4, makes a way to depict the historical US Fast Task Force fleet in PTO.
I made a house rule for Convoy Raid. It works well with 1942.2 and AA50.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=35687.msg1467061#msg1467061

@Cmdr:

I would be concerned in allowing the UK to can open like that for the Americans.

What if the turn order ended:  USA >> Italy >> Germany (Germany being first in the turn order)?

That at least permits Italy to blitz some tanks from N. Italy into Denmark to save Germany’s arse at the last minute.

London is at risk, Calcutta is at risk, Moscow is at risk… Why shouldn’t Berlin and Rome be at risk?

@Chicago:

China receives special treatment in the Chicago Rules Anniversary Edition.  China begins the game with an IC and has different rules while China controls the IC and different rules after the axis take control of and destroy the Chinese IC.

China and its units are controlled by the U.S. player, but for game purposes it is considered a separate power and its resources cannot be mixed.  Chinese combat and movement are done separately from the U.S. forces.

Chinese units have a limited range of occupation, displayed by the colored border.  They can also be moved into the Japanese occupied territories of Kiangsu and Manchuria.  China can take control of these territories and have them count toward their new infantry placements.  Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.

Kwangtung is a special case.  While it is not a Chinese territory and cannot be controlled by China, Chinese forces can attack Axis units there and occupy it, but the IPC’s generated, go to the United Kingdom.  This is the only non-Chinese territory that Chinese units may occupy.

Before the start of game play China places their IC in any Chinese controlled territory. The IC works like the mobile industry National Advantage (for Revised edition): the IC can move one territory per turn and place units there (no unit limits on placement of Chinese units).  Since, the IC has unlimited production it is not subject to axis strategic bombing.  
Before the start of game play China may also move their fighter to any Chinese controlled territory. The fighter represents the American volunteer group- the Flying Tigers. This fighter is considered part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and combat.

While the IC is in play, China collects income at the end of a turn just like any other country.  China starts the game with $7 IPC’s.  China may purchase infantry for $2, other unit costs are unchanged.  China can save unspent IPC’s and spend IPC’s on technology research if the optional rule is agreed upon.

After the Chinese IC has been captured  The Axis power that takes control of the Chinese IC must destroy it immediately.  The Chinese player must also surrender all of their IPC’s to that Axis power.  China no longer receives IPC’s for income and can no longer purchase units. China may never rebuild this IC.

Instead, China gets one new infantry unit per turn for every two Chinese territories that are not under Axis control during the Purchase Units phase of the U.S. player’s turn. The U.S. Player places the new Chinese units on any Chinese- controlled territories. However, those units cannot be placed on any territory that already contains three or more units.

Excuse my old eyes.  :wink:

There are a lot of good ideas here that’s for sure. Some, like IL’s ideas are great theme based ideas that real capture the essence of the China theater and others, like Gar’s are great from a game play mechanic point of view. I think any of them would be an improvement to the existing state of affairs for China’s movement restrictions.

@Yavid:

why not let china place there inf. in any original chinese territory even if they don’t control them. if it’s unoccupied then they gain control, if it is occupied then combat insues as soon as the territory is attacked by an allied power or on Japan’s combat phase which ever one comes first.

I like this idea, but it would need to be controlled. Making it so that the Chinese could mobilize new units (maybe 1 or 2 infantry) in any original Chinese territory that is unoccupied might make this better, and again, a great way to represent the guerrilla and partisan warfare that was a major part of the fighting in China during WW2.

@Young:

Chinese units may move into any friendly, hostile, or neutral territory during the combat or non-combat movement phases. However, they may never enter Russian territories for any reason.

I see the thinking here, but I think its entirely to arbitrary, Japan should not have a way to “opt out” of Fighting China. I think having something in place that would want Japan to keep some portion of China under occupation (I would have thought the victory city would have been reason enough but I guess i’m just old fashioned  :| ). Placing a penalty on Japan for doing so by removing China’s movement restrictions is a good idea and giving China the ability to become more of a threat is even better.

Perhaps making it so that once China captures all of its original territories it’s movement restrictions are lifted. This was Japan will want to keep at least one Chinese territories under its control to keep them in check. However, lets up the ante here, if Japan is pushed off the Asian mainland (for sake of argument lets keep it to all non Soviet land territories) China can place an IC in Shanghai which will be their capital for the remainder of the game and can purchase units normally. This way even if China is able to move and attack where ever she wants, Japan still has a chance to push them back before China gains the ability to deliver the knock out blow to Japan.

and just to note, I would have to believe that by the time either of these instances were to happen, the game would be all but over for Japan anyway.

actually I was Japan so I was pretty happy with his decision :mrgreen:

El: Of course I´m serious. The US can build an IC in China in AA (although they probably won´t have China by the time it´s their turn), so the question seemed weird. Kinda like: Can the UK put its troops on US transporters? The answer to both questions is: Sure, go for it.

But then again, Bradford DID say it was a Pacific question……