Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: WarHunter
For China or Japan to be victorious there are a few guildlines that i keep in my mind, while setting up and playing.

ORIGINAL: wosung
Can partisans only move in enemy controlled hexes? If yes, this probably would mean, Japan is better off to leave the Chinese partisan controlled coastal area (Chekiang/Kwanghsi provinces) behind the frontline as it is, to avoid partisans there?!

Can partisans change the affiliation of Warlords? Even if not, regular Chinese/Chicom play could take into account the possibility of "harvest" additional land units by occupation of warlord cities (Peking, Shanghai).

Is this taken from CWiF play, or from WiF FE play experience ?

ORIGINAL: Greywolf
... China could DOW Italy
...
China could also DOW Vichy ...

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Hum, so basically the Japan accept to surrender large area and ressource in order not to spent more...

Except that he already spend a lot to get them when you start the game in 1936 with Day of Decision.

Why would the Chinese AIO see it as a benefice to accept Japanese peace offer ? he is part of the Allied team and his job is to keep Japan occupied as much as he can.

I am not sure either that Japan would really really appreciate to have US fleet airplanes and troups based in China where he wont be able to attack them. China could DOW Italy to stay active, receiving support and LL from US to build up air and naval(sub) power. It would require Japanese garrison to protect Manchuria and Hainan/Formosa ( if he keep one of them ). Any effort of the Japanese toward India would be made far more difficult to sustain if troups have to start from Japan and Neutral Chinese can help garrison CW possession before the US can take the entry, making any landing harder.

China could also DOW Vichy and take French Indo-China perhaps even before Japan could make his claim, but I need to check the map and chinese counter to be sure.

All in All, accepting a peace treaty doesnt sound like the best thing to propose for Japan, but perhaps not as bad to accept for China. But I think the AiO will never ever consider it.

ORIGINAL: Subetai

There is an important possibility for the China - Japan theatre that MWIF allows for more than the boardgame, and that is mutual peace between China and Japan (this might have been discussed elsewhere but can't find it).  Why this might occur is addressed below.

CC and NC will have one AIO (which I agree with), but in a board game the CC are played by the RU (and the NC usually by the US). This means that if (for whatever reason) the JP player offers a peace, it rarely happens, because its not in the RU or US interest for a peace. The point of this post is to suggest that if the JP players offers a peace (lets say back to 1936 borders - so just Manchuria and none of Occupied China), that the Chinese AIO (CC and NC) would most times agree. (Happy to have historial discussion off line).

The CC and NC would then try to occupy the vacated cities, and importantly Shanghai (Victory City). This is then consistent with the AIO trying to do the best for ITSELF (and not be abused by the RU or US player)!

Why would JP offer this? Cost benefit analysis! The cost to conquer, or at least capture more resources in China, is high. As is the effort to garrison China. The JP player could well assess that, in say early 1942 (to use historial timelines) that the new resources captured (importantly oil - none in China) in the south are enough to maintain the war effort (bearing in mind a reduced land unit requirement).

THis is not a gamey strategy, but entirely plausable and within the rules of the game.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

I seem to recall a rule change that says that on map militia (and reserve?) units, when a major power becomes neutral, are moved to the reserve pool and treated as reserve units the next time the major power goes to war.

I am to tired to go looking for the rule now. But I am pretty sure one of you can tell me if I am mistaken or not.

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I see a big drawback for Japan that should not be ignored, this is that suddenly Japan becomes neutral, which means :
- Forced to choose combined actions until at war with another major power. No more naval nor land actions.
- Forced to put back all MIL and reserve units in the force pool, which represent a good amount of lost BP.

Both of which for me are reasons why I would never ask that as the Japanese.

I seem to recall a rule change that says that on map militia (and reserve?) units, when a major power becomes neutral, are moved to the reserve pool and treated as reserve units the next time the major power goes to war.

I am to tired to go looking for the rule now. But I am pretty sure one of you can tell me if I am mistaken or not.

only reserve militz

If you are now a neutral major power, remove any MIL units you have on the map or on the production circle that have ‘Res’ on their back and place them in the reserve pool. Remove all your remaining MIL units from the game until you are next at war (see 4.1.2).

ORIGINAL: Subetai

There is an important possibility for the China - Japan theatre that MWIF allows for more than the boardgame, and that is mutual peace between China and Japan (this might have been discussed elsewhere but can't find it).  Why this might occur is addressed below.

CC and NC will have one AIO (which I agree with), but in a board game the CC are played by the RU (and the NC usually by the US). This means that if (for whatever reason) the JP player offers a peace, it rarely happens, because its not in the RU or US interest for a peace. The point of this post is to suggest that if the JP players offers a peace (lets say back to 1936 borders - so just Manchuria and none of Occupied China), that the Chinese AIO (CC and NC) would most times agree. (Happy to have historial discussion off line).

The CC and NC would then try to occupy the vacated cities, and importantly Shanghai (Victory City). This is then consistent with the AIO trying to do the best for ITSELF (and not be abused by the RU or US player)!

Why would JP offer this? Cost benefit analysis! The cost to conquer, or at least capture more resources in China, is high. As is the effort to garrison China. The JP player could well assess that, in say early 1942 (to use historial timelines) that the new resources captured (importantly oil - none in China) in the south are enough to maintain the war effort (bearing in mind a reduced land unit requirement).

THis is not a gamey strategy, but entirely plausable and within the rules of the game.