1941 New Turn Order: China goes before Japan

Anniversary Edition is well-known for being slanted towards the Axis.  This is partly because of China’s weakness and unnecessary special rules that just make new players confused and us veterans upset.  Let’s fix China with some easy changes:

1.  In both the 1941 and 1942 setups there should be 4 infantry and 1 fighter in Yunnan.  This usually saves the fighter, making China fun to play, and also helps to balance the game.
2.  Remember that rule in which China cannot have more than three units in one space? Scrap that.  It only makes things confusing and too hard for China.
3.  China is no longer limited in movement.  Go ahead and attack Burma, sink a Jap (Nips, Japanese, you know what I mean stupid censor) transport off the coast with the Flying Tigers, and march into Russia.  Who’s stopping you?  insert Bruce Lee photo

i know it was suppose to be funny

interesting might give this a try

IN AAR on the first turn Russia plays first then axis/ allies ( including Russia)

After first turn its axis then allies.  You may have to have Russia go first depending on the game your playing

INDUSTRIAL COMPLEXES

Minor IC COST: 8 UPGRADE COST: 7

Can produce: Militia, Infantry, Artillery, Anti Aircraft Guns, Fighters, Transports, Submarines, and Destroyers

Major IC  COST: 15

Can produce: ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS: Tanks, Bombers, Cruisers, Aircraft Carriers and Battleships

An Industrial Complex (IC) can be built on any territory that your Power has controlled since the start of your turn. Minor ICs may only be built on a territory with a value of 1 IPC or more. Major ICs must be built on a territory with a value of 3 IPC or more. There is a limit of one IC per territory. The cost to upgrade a Minor IC into a Major IC is 7 IPCs.

Newly purchased land and air units must be placed into the territory with the IC. Sea units can only be placed into a sea zone adjacent to the territory with the IC, so long as there is a Naval Base on the territory coastline that touches the sea zone.

For example, the IC in the territory of North Italy is adjacent to two sea zones; SZ 27 and SZ 28. However, as the Naval Base in North Italy is sitting on the coastline that touches SZ 27, newly purchased naval units can only be placed into SZ 27. If the player controlling Italy bought another Naval Base and placed it on the coastline touching SZ 28, then he/she would be able to place new naval units into SZ 28 as well.

IC placement.jpg

IMO, keeping the Japanese focus on the American threat and the Chinese irritant is the preferred way to keep Japan out of Moscow… pretty much the way if happened historically.

If we find those two factors consistently being so minor that strategic adventurism prevails for the Japanese player then I’d lean towards beefing up his Pacific opponents versus “treaty handcuffs”.

@Cobert:

It’s like when people try to incorporate the rules from Europe involving bomber escorts into Revised or AA50 - with each turn representing a period of several months and each territory representing miles upon miles of land or entire countries, I think it’s insane that they want a rule that makes a unit shaped like a fighter accompany a unit shaped like a bomber to actually mean that there are fighter escorts with the bomber.

Well I can see your point ref scale of the action and so I’d support the geographic boundary with no house rule for CAP or any FTRs defending adjacent space etc.

But otherwise, I’m leaning towards the optional escort / interceptor rule as it reflects the operational decision on whether you use your fighter resources defensively or base them forward to project air cover.

you can use Monopoly house pieces to represent your barracks