China:

Marking the 50th anniversary of Avalon Hill, Wizards of the Coast published this very special version of A&A. I hope you enjoy it.
User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by Krieghund » Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:00 pm

Builder_Chris wrote:Which makes me believe if Chine took it first on their turn the US could have landed their bomber there on their turn even in the same round of play that CHina took it. Correct?
Unfortunately, no. While Kiangsu was controlled by an ally of the US at the beginning of the US Combat Movement phase, it was controlled by an enemy power at the beginning of the US turn. This disqualifies it as a landing space for either US or Chinese planes, regardless of who captured the territory or in which order the powers conducted combat moves and combat, as both powers begin their turns at the same time.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

User avatar
Builder_Chris
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Post by Builder_Chris » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:09 pm

bummer...good thing i didnt land there than...I would hate to cheat...but...now I know...and "knowing is half the battle" (GI Joe).

thanks
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

User avatar
adlertag
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:28 pm
Location: norway

Post by adlertag » Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:33 pm

China should have the same rules as the rest. This is a game, for Christ sake, not a history lesson. Also the neutrals should be in play. Why this protection of neutral Sweden ? What have Sweden done for you ? Nothing ! Now gimme a break.

User avatar
Builder_Chris
Posts: 487
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:57 am
Location: Englewood, Colorado

Post by Builder_Chris » Fri Jan 23, 2009 6:32 pm

aldertag
China should have the same rules as the rest. This is a game, for Christ sake, not a history lesson. Also the neutrals should be in play. Why this protection of neutral Sweden ? What have Sweden done for you ? Nothing ! Now gimme a break.
Yes…….and……..No.

I agree; this is a game. BUT it is based (how ever loosely some may believe it to be) on the “history” of WW2 so one could argue that it IS a “Historical Game”. In fact, I think it falls under the realm of “Historical Strategy Games”. (I might be mistaken about that …I’ll have to google it to be sure…after all…google is next to godliness…or is that cleanliness is next to godliness?); anyway.

However, I also agree with you that it is Not a history lesson and to a small degree I would think that to make china a FULL Power just like all of the other Powers could make gaming sense…BUT…since this is a historical strategy game…I think it also makes good gaming and (loosely based) historical sense to have made China a minor power.

In both the classic and the revised versions of A&A China has been “owned/occupied” by the US (like Brazil and Cuba). The historical facts (and I don’t know ALL the details) are that the US did “support/supply” China in a limited fashion and that china much to the US’s discouragement did very little with that “help” except to benefit their own cause; which from the little I understand of that history was of very little help to the global conflict.

So, while I agree that it would be logical gaming sense to make China a Power all of its own just like the other Powers, it just does not make Historical sense nor would it be keeping the precedence of the first two games to suddenly make China its own power.

Once again, it boils down to the simple…truth?...that A&A has NEVER clamed to be something other than what it is designed to be. A lot of players that I find posting on this and other A&A sites (and that I find gaming A&A in local game stores) often seem to forget this in their attempts to make A&A something other than what it was designed to be by creating their own house rules.

I have nothing against house rules, I’ve read several that do a good job of keeping the…and I hate using this phrase…“The big picture” in mind when they attempt to “adjust/correct” A&A rules to their personal liking. I see nothing wrong with players attempting to capture the part(s) of history that they know and often love by creating a rule that was not thought up to cove those often small details.

But to say china should be made into its own power that follows the rules just like any other power is giving more historical and gaming strength to a part of WW2 that A&A is not designed to capture.

In other words…to do anything other that what has been done with them…would not be keeping china in the “scale” with the game of A&A.

The most I would personally consider doing to make China something even close to its own Power would be to do something along the lines that was brought up earlier in this topic about an IC being built by the Axis (and only the axis) in a China territory could make THAT territory collect IPC and than china could start making units with that small sum of IPC that they could collect from that one “industrialized territory.

But, I’m not much of a “house rule” kind of players so though I can respect your comments, I think China is a great addition to the game…just as it is.
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

Blackhat
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:42 pm

Post by Blackhat » Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:40 am

Personally I'm thinking China could do with a House Rule that they round up the infantry:territory 1:2 count as long as the Burma Road is open, i.e. India, Burma and Yunnan are in Allied hands.
Also when the road is open the Americans can replace (not add to) the Flying Tigers fighter at normal cost / placed in Yunnan.

Otherwise pretty much OOB...unless we're looking at some KMT/CPC sim.

User avatar
eggsaladsandwich
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:53 pm

Re: China:

Post by eggsaladsandwich » Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:54 pm

So what is the maximum number of infantry china can get if they control all 9 of their territories and occupy Kwangtung? Would it be 5 infantry or just 4 as they are only in control of 9 of their original territories?
War is hell, Peace is hells waiting room.

User avatar
Krieghund
Posts: 2664
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 9:18 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: China:

Post by Krieghund » Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:25 pm

If China captures Kwangtung and gains control of it (rather than liberates it) because the UK capital is in Axis hands, it will count toward China's infantry production. In this case, it could receive five infantry.
A&A Developer and Playtester

"War is much more fun when you're winning!" - General Martok

FleetAdmiral
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:32 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: China:

Post by FleetAdmiral » Mon Aug 17, 2009 6:42 pm

Well one could argue for the larger number of Chinese units in 1942 is due to the Y and Z-Force plans (each creating 30 modern divisions), plus the addition of the New Army (2 divisions) - for a grand total of 62 divisions numbering 10,000 men each - of which were to be completely trained and equipped by the United States. Historically, the New Army achieved this, but the Y and Z Forces were only started before the war ended.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest