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.
Harold27
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 9:20 am

Japan China and Manchuria

Post by Harold27 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:34 pm

Hello Krieghund

Just wanted to verify some things about China.
If Russians take over Manchuria is it returned to China.

The three troop limit per territory; does this apply to the chinese fighter as well.

Also is the troop limit only for Chinese units, or does it extend to allies?

Thanks,

Harold

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

Re: Japan China and Manchuria

Post by Krieghund » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:55 pm

Hello, Harold.
Harold27 wrote:If Russians take over Manchuria is it returned to China.
Yes.
Harold27 wrote:The three troop limit per territory; does this apply to the chinese fighter as well.
Yes.
Harold27 wrote:Also is the troop limit only for Chinese units, or does it extend to allies?
It applies to Chinese units only.
A&A Developer and Playtester

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

The_Doetzel
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:54 am

Post by The_Doetzel » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:06 am

The three troop limit only applies when placing units. I can still move all my troops to one spot if I want. Am I right?

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

Post by Krieghund » Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:00 am

You are right.
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 » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:13 pm

So, I understand why Manchuria would “revert” to being owned by China instead of being owned by Russia if Russia was to take Manchuria.

But if the Japanese built a factory in Manchuria and the Russians took Manchuria; effectively “liberating” Manchuria for China, now that Manchuria has a factory, why can’t China utilize it? :?

I know the OBVIOUS :roll: answer according to the rule book is because China doesn’t collect IPCs. And the reason they don’t collect IPC’s , which is only vaguely mentioned in the rule book, is because China was not an “industrial nation”. I get that.

But if Japan was to build a factory in Manchuria, effectively making it an industrialized territory, and since Manchuria is China's territory, why does the fact that the presence of an industrial complex, built by another nation in a Chinese territory (that did work perfectly well for the builder of that IC) not now make China an industrialized nation?

Shouldn’t the fact that Japan made China an industrial nation by building them an IC change the rules for China at that point?

I understand "historically" that China was not an industrial nation, at least not a strong enough one to count as one in the game. Makes cool “historical” and “gaming” sense to make them work the way they do in AA50. And I’m not sure of this, but I don’t think “historically” speaking that Japan ever built an IC in china. But, if the game allows to build IC’s in any territory with an income value of at least 1 (effectivly rewritting history), why cant China, effectively converted to an industrialized nation by the gernaosity :lol: of Japan, not make China able to now collect IPC for their territories and start building units like any other Power in the game?.

I don’t know if that question ever came up in play testing, but with the cool 8) addition to the game of National Objectives, I was wondering why/if one could have/should have been added to the US that said something like this;

If the Axis build an IC in an original Chinese territory, and the Allies capture/liberate that territory/ IC, China can now collect IPC and build units as per the standard rules.

Just a thought. :)

All things considered, I like the way China is “in the game now”. And I understand the reasoning behind having them not collecting IPCs. And I like China as a “Minor Power”, and I think they are a great addition to the game. I was just wondering about the…lack of follow through?...with the gaming mechanics/system after game play had changed the “starting conditions”.

However, on the other hand; I think it is kind of cool :| that any factory that the Axis builds in a Chinese territory, when captured/liberated by the Allies is useless to them. Makes for some tuff going against Japan if the only IC that can be built/utilized by the Allies on the mainland is one that UK would have to build.

Anyway, cool change with China being made a Minor Power.
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

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

Post by Krieghund » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 pm

Just capturing an IC wouldn't necessarily allow China to use it effectively. The lack of using IPCs can be seen as the absence of any kind of industrial base in the country, such as modern roads and trucks to transport raw materials to the factories and other infrastructure necessary to support industry. The territories generate income as others do, but it can't be efficiently and centrally utilized.

Now, you could argue that Japan's building of an IC provides this, and that would be true to an extent, but only locally. Building an IC in Manchuria won't instantly transform the entire country of China into an industrial power. Maybe Manchuria could generate IPCs, but the rest of the country still would not. Also, capturing an IC doesn't automatically give the capturer knowledge of manufacturing processes, especially for building complex things like tanks, planes and ships.

An interesting house rule might be for China to collect IPCs from only Manchuria under these circumstances, but continue to collect infantry from all of its other territories as usual. This would allow China to save a few IPCs over some number of turns and actually build a very limited number of artillery or tank units. This would give Japan an even better reason to not lose control of an IC if they build it in China.
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 Dec 26, 2008 3:08 pm

Yeh that might be a cool house rule and your “explanation” of why/why not China can/can not collect IPC even if Japan would build them an IC makes sense.

But house rules or box rules, I think China as a Minor Power and with more territories is a really cool addition to the game. :P
Construimus, Batuimus -- "We Build, We Fight.".....we party all night!

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

Post by Builder_Chris » Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:44 pm

In a recent game, my Chinese forces had lost the territory of Fukien early in the game to the Japanese. (no surprise there) :roll: A few rounds later the Chinese managed to take Kiangsu from the Japanese. (a little suprise there) :) The Japanese also had 3 transports in sea 61 unprotected by any surface warships. My Chinese fighter (flying tigers) was in Ningxia and as I understand the rules they could not attack sea zone 61 for two reasons.
One; the three moves it would have taken it to get to sz61 would have left it without enough moves to make back to Hupeh or Suiyuan
Two; because they could have landed in Fukien (if I still owned it at the start of the Chinese combat movement…which I did not that turn) the Chinese fighter could not attack sz61 BECAUSE they cant leave any of the Chinese territories. Right?

However, that same turn I chose to move/use my Americans first than I move/used my Chinese forces next. After my Chinese took their turn, I realized that IF I had used my Chinese forces first that they would have occupied Kiangsu at the START of the US forces turn. My US forces had a bomber in the Westeran United States that could have reached sz61 (and sunk those defenceless transprots) and would have been able to land in Chinese controlled Kiangsu.

IF the Chinese would have taken that territory before I used my US forces and than I used my US bomber to sink the transports in sz61 could I have landed my US bomber in Kiangsu? Or would they not be able to land there because China took it that round? I only ask because isn’t china now technically its OWN power? Yet it is controlled by the US; so do the "same air unit landing rules apply to the US and China as one Power or as SEPERATE Powers?

The rules on page 10 say this…

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. The U.S. player takes China’s turn at the same time as the U.S. turn but Chinese unit combat and movement are done separately from the U.S. forces. The U.S. player must complete the Combat Move and Conduct Combat phases for Chinese forces before beginning the Combat Move phase for U.S. forces, or vice versa.

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests