Why are we still playing as China instead of the UK?

[jpinard]

Besides the AI, this is one of the things that really grinded me about the first game. I'll still be buying this expansion... but this is a feature I wish would have been changed for us.

[Uncle_Joe]

Due to the way the game system works, unfortunately, China has to be its own player. All units for a specific power share the same stats and there is no way that China's troops measure up to WAllied of Soviet troops (thus preventing them from being rolled into one of those). China is a major enough player that they cant be reduced simply a neutral nation. So, they need to be there own player.
 
As for England, I think the current setup is fine for how the war progresses. England and the US enjoyed a level of cooperation unmatched by any other nations in the game. This is refected quite well by having them be one player. About the only thing I dont like about it is that shared stats cause problems with UK vs US carriers. UK carriers and CAGs are being accorded the same power as US Pacific Fleet carriers and that is just not accurate. But for everything else, it works out pretty well (each had areas where they might have been stronger, but it averages out). Making them separate powers would degrade their performance immensely as they would not be able to cooperate on offensives in the game system.
 
The good news for AWD is that French and Italian units are now flagged as such, making for easy recognition of what will disappear if that nation surrenders.

[jpinard]

Thanks the response.  My particular reason for wanting a separate UK power is their African and Middle Eastern war effort.  Though the US and UK shared a great deal, the African and Middle Eastern scenarios, British forces were limited by UK funding.  The shared US/UK capability means the UK has an advantage in these areas they shouldn't have.

[Syagrius]

Don't forget the British XIVth Army in Burma: the Imphal battle had been the worst land defeat for the Japaneses. Its really a bad WAD that UK and Empire forces are not a player of their own.

[jpinard]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

Don't forget the British XIVth Army in Burma: the Imphal battle had been the worst land defeat for the Japaneses. Its really a bad WAD that UK and Empire forces are not a player of their own.

I'd also would have liked to see how Hong Kong and Singapore could have played out diffeently with British vs. Japanese forces. Britain was just too massive to not be their own playing party

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: jpinard

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

Don't forget the British XIVth Army in Burma: the Imphal battle had been the worst land defeat for the Japaneses. Its really a bad WAD that UK and Empire forces are not a player of their own.

I'd also would have liked to see how Hong Kong and Singapore could have played out diffeently with British vs. Japanese forces. Britain was just too massive to not be their own playing party

Most of the games will indeed show separate forces between Britain and the US because they always had their own front and didn't mixed their units between one. I don't recall any major battle where British units and US units were mixed together. Each invasion they had their own beachheads, each battle their own objectives,...

Now in WAW this can't work as it's a strategic game. If UK and US are 2 separate players then you wouldn't be able to recreate the liberation of France unless you manage a system to borrow troops and planes under one command but this would complicate everything a lot.

All in all it's working well as it is.

[Timmeh]

The icons are clearly marked distingishing the two countries so its easy to (and most satisfying ) to try and keep them organized in a realistic sense.

Playing the Italians is also more reconizable now with the little flag icons on the sub country's units.

With the icons changing now when units upgrade you get treated to two lines of separate units for the British and Americans and this will even be modable. Throw your own icons in and have F18's fighting bi-planes if you want [;)]