@Argothair:

1. removed because of system prohibition

2. Borneo and East Indies have high IPC values to reflect the astonishing importance of their crude oil to the Japanese war effort. Hitler’s tanks may not have run without gasoline, but at least his infantry could carry on shooting their submachine guns when the oil ran out. When Hirohito ran out of gas, what were the troop transports going to do, row with oars? I agree that China as a whole should be worth more than 4 IPC, but I’m not sure that Szechuan all by itself should be worth 3 IPC. Probably 2 IPC, from what I know of China’s economic history. I’m willing to be educated if you know the specifics.

Thanks for the link!

I just finished teaching in China for four years and will move to Indonesia this August for at least two years, so the comparison is interesting.

As for Szechuan. It is essentially the resource rich area of China. “Anhwei” is the core of China, no future of Emperor could hope to conquer China and claim the mandate without first taking Szechuan. If you look at the map of China Chongqing is a city in the municipal province of the same name. It is difficult to tell since the map is skewed, but does it appear the Chongqing would be in “Szechwan” province. An argument could be made, however, that “Anhwei” psychologically would be equally important. It is satisfactory to have split the value between both provinces. In the war most of the Japanese efforts were in the south (Changde and Changsha). This is where Chiang-kai-shek headquarters were located adding to the importance of the region.

To summarize: Szechuan is an important region for resources (both human and raw materials). It was the center of Chinese nationalist resistance and the headquarter of Chiang-kai-shek. Strategically, it would signal the last real area of resistance apart from the CCP in the North. You consider this for “Anhwei” plus the psychological effect of losing the “core” of China.

@Argothair:

Hi Pike,

Your observations are very sharp for someone who’s been out of the game so long – glad to have you on the forum!

Thank you!

@Argothair:

1. I agree with you, China should be tougher. In the “House Rules” section I discuss some setups that could help fix this problem, including a slightly different setup that gives the Allies extra troops in east Asia (1 extra artillery in Buryatia goes a long way), and a radically different 1939 setup that cuts the starting Japanese forces in half and makes Chongqing a victory city.

Do you have a link to it, because I am trouble finding it.

@Argothair:

2. If you want to make a stand in China using the out-of-the-box (“OOB”) rules, nobody can stop you. America can build an industrial complex in Sinkiang and is guaranteed to get at least one build there – usually more like three builds if you’re playing proper defense. Britain’s starting fighter off the coast of India can hit and will usually sink one of the two starting Japanese transports, which helps slow down the Japanese attack. If the British fighter survives, it can land in China (Yunnan) for extra defense, and Britain can stack 4 infantry in Burma on turn 1, which will have to either be killed by Japan or else they become extra Chinese reinforcements. Russia can bring 3 infantry, 2 tanks, and 1 fighters into China on the very first turn without throwing the game away. None of these strategies are considered optimal, because China is only worth 4 IPCs, but it’s worth keeping in mind that abandoning China is a choice, not a requirement. Perhaps in the real historical war, if Britain and the USA had spent fewer resources ferrying supplies to China, they would have been able to start Operation Torch a few months earlier, cutting short the war in Europe.

3. The OOB game is widely considered to be favorable to the Axis, so many players will give the Allies some units that they can choose to put where-ever they like at the start of the game, called a “bid.” If you want, you can use your bid to put extra units in China. I like to put an American artillery in Szechuan if I have the resources to spare.

4. If you want to have a house rule tweaking the starting setup, you could put several extra units in China without ruining the game. Be aware that no matter how much you buff up China, some players will pack it all up and send it straight to Moscow, abandoning China anyway. One way to deter such shameless cowardice would be to give Tokyo a couple extra starting tanks – that way if you leave the plains of east Asia vacant, the Japanese can sweep through them quickly to threaten Moscow. Another way is to avoid giving the American Chinese extra tanks/fighters and to put the extra American infantry mostly in Anhwei and Yunnan, so they start farther from Moscow.

My preference to make minimal, but as vital changes that are as closely aligned to historical realities. For example; Adding infantry to Chinese provinces and creating a victory city; Changqing in Szechuan. The idea of placing an IPC in Szechuan is also enticing to prevent retreating Chinese armies mentioned. I am little surprise of the low value of Szechuan especially considering the value of Borneo and East Indies are so high. I am sure it is owning to its resources, but if you know anything about China and its history Szechuan is of no less important. It should be a “3” but in this case, an IPC at setup would create an imbalance for sure.

My worry about placing units in Sinkiang historically was a ‘factionalized’ during the war with a significant (at times) Soviet presence. It would almost be accurate to have Soviet troops deployed here than “US” Chinese troops. When I noticed the space was empty I smiled.

On a side note (FYI) the game has some interesting spellings:
Anhui is spelled Anhwei (‘hui’ and ‘wei’ are two different pronunciations).
Sichuan or Szechuan is spelled Szechwan <– Honestly, I have never seen this spelling anywhere.
Sinkiang is the anglicized version of Xinjiang. The game does the same thing with Kiangsu, which is Jiangsu
Kuangtung is Guangdong in English (Or Canton if you prefer.)

Hello,

I played Axis and Allies way back when I was a kid. I am guessing in the late 80s. I also owned other great games produced by the same company; Conquest of an Empire, Shogun, Fortress American (with Saddam Hussein on the cover), and of course, Axis and Allies.

Anyway, I recently purchased the second edition. I set the game up and ran through one round to get a feel for how the game plays out. I noticed something while playing as Japan. It seems a little too easy to roll up China. I played one round and easily advance one province and I see no reason why I cannot take all of China. This seems very unrealistic. China should be a meat grinder. For example there was several battles for Changsha and the coastal regions were taken through bloody hard fought battles. I am debating whether or not to add units to the Chinese regions. I am not sure how that effects balance of play. I would be interested in anyone’s point of view.

On a side note: I am a little disappointed that Chongqing was not a victory condition. It could be argued that if China lose Chongqing to Japan then China would had been more or less defeated.

Thanks
Pike