@Tall:
Rammstein,
By the same token, you could have your Infantry(and other units) face into a direction that you are NOT going and have them “fool” the enemy as to your intentions. This works even better when you add some verbal taunts to the mix. I’ve seen this work many times, though not as thoroughly with experienced players.
“Tall Paul”
Been doing this for years.
- DIRTY TIP! when playing face to face. Don’t chip your units up, leave them in a messy pile on the board. Move the clump of units around, and no one will know quite whats in there… I’ve seen this work many a time.
We’ve had a house rule for over 20 years that you must use chips. Just to prevent this sort of thing.
Intresting thought, but I have always thought that China should be seperated from the US not more intergrated with them. You are 100% correct that the US did supply all of the Chinese airforces aircraft (and provided training for their pilots in Arizona) and also supplied massives amounts of other war supplies to the Chinese army. However, the US couldnt get the Chinese to do anything the US wanted them to do with all of it! So bringing the two countries closer together in this regard would be counter to the actual historical situation.
One idea I had heard was to up the size of the Chinese starting force. This would represent the stalement that existed in the China Theater at that time, but since their economy is so small any major loss to them would nigh impossible to replace. This way you could better represent the situation of the Chinese getting support from the allied powers (burma road) but the Chinese not wanting to risk them in an attack on the Japanese (low economy, forces made up entierly of Infantry with little to no arty).
Making the Chinese starting force larger would help but I think there needs to some expense represented to the US for keeping China going. The main reason I saw to combine them is that the US player is already controling China. Then any extra help they want to give China would come out of the US IPC pool. Maybe just reduce the US war bonus a little and bump up China’s starting force is simpler.Near as I can figure the cost to the US for helping China should run about 3-4 IPC’s per turn since the US spent about 2 billion in China during the war. If the Burma road was open this would probly be 2-3 IPC’s per turn. Or maybe allow the US to give China 3 IPC per turn instead. Some things to think about.
@suprise:
If America could deploy in China it would be
GAME OVER !
Note American can’t deploy in China it can only deploy Chinese Infntry in China. Remember once they are there they are trapped in China and can never leave. China had a huge Army but it was ineffective due to poor training and supply. It was the US help that kept them in the fight.
@Young:
@Young:
I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.
By mainland are you refering to the US? Spending 75 woun’t help much if you lose the US in the process will it?
Also,I’m having trouble with the idea te US can simply save 100 IPC’s if that is the case then the US is very much overpowered.
Are you saying if America burns their income for 1 round, their continent is vulnerable to an amphibious assault?
If they did it early in the game yes it’s quite possible. Japan is pretty strong in the begining and the US is weak. The US is no position to spend that amount of IPC’s in China until later in the game. If the US committed everything to China and Japan just pulled out and headed to the west coast I don’t see how the US could stop them without abandoning China in the process which puts us back where we where before. If Germany is doing it’s part to hurt the UK then they won’t be of much help.
What got me thinking about all this is that Japan has a pretty easy time in Asia in the early game which it shouldn’t. At the same time the US is free to build up with little or no drain on it’s resources going to Asia which they should be.
it seems unlikely the US would want to do something like this since it would leave a big hole somewhere else for little real gain
I wholeheartedly DISAGREE Even the OPTION of doing these things is a problem. Because Japan now has to consider this new unique American ability in all of it’s moves.
On the first turn of the game, I would also bolster China, for the sole purpose of holding the Burma road - to allow builds of artillery, “cheap” infantry at 3 and artillery, will quickly prevent Japan from EVER retaking the Burma road.
The US now also no longer has to ship infantry to the mainland, and can spend instant money to secure victory cities preventing victory, without even putting ships on the board.
For the price of an aircraft carrier, I can add 5 infantry to mainland asia.
You also need to understand, that Japan HAS to match builds in mainland Asia, if they want to try and win, meaning less ships, to the less American ships.
Also please do not fail to realize, that within 2 turns America can have roughly the exact same naval power as Japan, only lacking some airforce, from a defensive position, you don’t need much more, if you intend to smash Japan elsewhere and widdle them down.
In the end… it’s all about what the US/China -can- do, irrelevant of what they -do- do. Be careful…
I totaly get your point and I’m studying it. Keep in mind that this oes not kick in until the US is in the war so turn one is not an option.
As I’ve looked at this historicaly Japan was eventualy got hurt in China. By that time China had an Airforce, supplied mostly by the US. Up until then is was something of a stalemate because of a large investment by the allies in China. I currently don’t see the need for this in the game. It may be as simple as raising the cost of Infantry for China to 5 IPC’s if the Burma road is closed. What I’m trying to work out is how much those arlifted supplies really cost the US. I’ve read documents showing that China was begging for more transports but the US simply didn’t have them. This seems to indicate that the cost was very high to supply China, so high that there was a new road built to bypass Burma that wasn’t completed till 1945. So 4 IPC’s for infantry may be too cheap. Again, many thanks for the input.
@Young:
I would spend over $75 in infantry in China, if Japan so much as sneezes on the mainland.
By mainland are you refering to the US? Spending 75 woun’t help much if you lose the US in the process will it?
Also,I’m having trouble with the idea te US can simply save 100 IPC’s if that is the case then the US is very much overpowered.
Good points all around. I ran some more numbers and it seems unlikely the US would want to do something like this since it would leave a big hole somewhere else for little real gain. Lets say they build 25 infantry. That infantry hits @1 so on average they could expect to kill 4.1 units. while at the same time the Japanese defenders would be hiting @2 or more. So no matter what happened the US would be paying a premium for those kills. If I was playing the Japs I would be thinking about invading the west coast since the US now has 100 IPC’s worth of infantry trapped in china that is of no futher use to them.
What would have happened in WWII if the US had turned it’s entire industry to supporting china? no doubt the Japs would have been run out of Asia.
Yes it’s a house rule I am conssidering but I really needed to bounce it off someone before I spend a few dozen hours testing. Thanks for bouncing.
I suggest the rules be modified to have the US receive the IPC’s generated by China after the US enters the war. From then on the US pays for all Chinese builds from it’s own IPC pool.
Hang on… Can’t the us spend 100 IPC’s in China then? Even at 4 IPC’s an infantry being able to spend 1 turn of income, to route all of Japan from the mainland, because one can place it’s builds in China anywhere, will break the game.
This doesn’t make things more realistic.
That is possible but if they did that they’d have not spent 100 IPC somewhere else. At one time there was a limit of not building more than 3 Inf in any given space in China. Something like that might be needed for it to work right. This is exactly why I posted this here. I knew someone would find the holes in it that need to be plugged before it’s tested.
At the start of WII manufacturing in China was minimal. Most war materials where imported from the UK and later from late 1941 on the US was the primary supplier. The Flying Tiger group did not enter service in China until 1941. In July of 1942 the US Army began providing air combat services to China. Throughout the war the US was aiding in the development of a Chinese air force.
It feels like the US is a bit overpowered in the global game as it stands now. A possible reason may be that the drain on US industrial capacity due to lend-lease is not represented in the game properly. Since the US player is already controlling China it’s a simple matter to expand the rules to have the US be partially responsible for building the Chinese military and to allow it to provide additional aircraft to China
After Burma fell to the Japanese the majority of the war materials exported from the US to China had to be flown over the Himalayas from bases in India. There was constant pressure on the US to provide more transport aircraft for this mission. These airlift missions where expensive and aircraft where at a premium. If the Burma road is closed the cost of Chinese infantry should be increased to reflect the additional cost of the airlift. While the US was doing this, the job of getting the Burma road open again was delegated to the British.
I suggest the rules be modified to have the US receive the IPC’s generated by China after the US enters the war. From then on the US pays for all Chinese builds from it’s own IPC pool. If the Burma road is closed I suggest the cost to build infantry in China be increased to 4 IPC’s each. The US would be free to spend as many IPC’s as it wants on Chinese infantry. The rule allowing the purchase of artillery would remain the same. The US could buy artillery for China if the Burma road is open. I also suggest the US be allowed to provide China with aircraft. The aircraft would be built at US Industrial complexes and moved to India. From there they could be flown into China and become Chinese units. The US would still be free to base it’s own planes in China if it wished. The US should also be able to build airbases in China. All the Chinese builds could be done at the same time the US is doing it’s own builds.
The 6 IPC bonus to China for the Burma road should be eliminated if these rules are used since the penalty cost now provides the motivation to keep the road open. The US fighter that China starts with should also be eliminated.
These rules would put a small drain on US IPC’s and add some realism. This could also improve balance. Any benefit to the Axis is mostly offset by the US ability to now buff the Chinese army more quickly. This also gives Japan a strong motivation to keep Burma occupied.