Additional Chinese cities option

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.

[/quote]
Good idea IMO, to keep in mind.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

The whole Chinese theatre is going to need in depth play testing due to the change in scale.  For example, you may find it's too easy for Japan to out flank the slower and fewer Chinese, thus meaning a higher chit chance to encourage a slow down.

Wholeheartly and completely agreed by me.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

For a Japan hold the line in China, I would expect only Chang Chow (sp.) to fall --- 1 or .4 chits

With the additional cities, the same line means that Japan has to take :
- Chengchow.
No more cities.

For a Japan moderate offensive in China, I would expect the above plus Si-An (the E. Commie city) and the E. most nationalist factory --- 3 or 1.2 chits

With the additional cities, the same line (E. most nationalist factory is Changsha) means that Japan has to take :
- Sian.
- Tungkwan.
- Chengchow.
- Nanyang (to secure flank).
- Changsha.
- Maybe Hengyang (to clear the way to Canton).
That's 6 cities instead of 3.

For a Japan serious offensive, I would expect the above plus 2 more cities in S. China plus Chungking --- 6 cities or 2.4

With the additional cities, the same line (the 2 more cities in S. China are Kweiyang and Nanning) means that Japan has to take :
- Same as above (6 cities), plus
- Kweiyang
- Nanning
- Kweilin
- Chihkiang (to allow supply to Kweiyang).
If the Japanese go as far as Chungking, that's an extra city.
This makes 11 cities (instead of 6).

To conquer China, you would need all of the above plus 3 more factory cities --- 9 or 3.6.

With the additional cities, the same objective (conquer China) means that Japan has to take :
- 3 additional factory cities as well (Lanchow, Chengtu & Kunming), plus perhaps :
- Tianshui (on the road to Lanchow)
- Ankang (to protect the Sian - Lanchow supply route)
- Yennan (to protect the Sian - Lanchow supply route)

Thats 6 extra cities to conquer, which comes to a total of 17 if I count correctly.

So, as a rule of thumb, it looks like that if Japan want's to achieve the same advance in China, it has to conquer twice the number of cities that are necessary in WiF FE.

So maybe simply halving the US Entry cost (to 2) would even the US Entry cost of the operation.

This said, I think that keeping the US Entry cost quite high (say 3) should be considered because it is a quite realistic way to achieve a realisitic China War.

The reality of the War in China was that neither the Japanese nor the Chinese really tried to take ground to the enemy. This is achieved in WiF for the Chinese side by the Chinese attack weakness, and for the Japanese side by US Entry and Partisans (Partisans that become a really bigger threat in MWiF than in WiF for the Japanese).

Perhaps the best way is to assume that Japan is going to conquer China. On MWiF, how many cites would Japan need to take the factories assuming it cleared the rear of its supply lines? Divide 9 by that and make calculations accordingly.

9 x .4 = cities needed to conquer x new die roll

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Orm
We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.

Agreed. It would seem non consistent.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I like the analysis of twice as many cities needing to be taken for the same penetration into China. And I would recomend 2 instead of 4 for the US Entry die roll.

This gives Japan a slightly easier time of it at the start (i.e., taking just 1 city). On the other hand, it appears that Japan is going to have to ferret out the Chinese from twice as many cities as previously. That Land CRT Assault table can be rather unpleasant for taking all those cities. The mountains are also tough to take but if the Japanese can isolate Chinese units in the mountains, they become easy targets. In the cities, the Chinese are always in supply and can potentially bring in reinforcements every turn.

I think the difficulties the Japanese will experience needing to capture double the number of cities justifies using 2 instead of 3 for the US Entry.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I like the analysis of twice as many cities needing to be taken for the same penetration into China. And I would recomend 2 instead of 4 for the US Entry die roll.

This gives Japan a slightly easier time of it at the start (i.e., taking just 1 city). On the other hand, it appears that Japan is going to have to ferret out the Chinese from twice as many cities as previously. That Land CRT Assault table can be rather unpleasant for taking all those cities. The mountains are also tough to take but if the Japanese can isolate Chinese units in the mountains, they become easy targets. In the cities, the Chinese are always in supply and can potentially bring in reinforcements every turn.

This said, the Chinese reinforcements are scarse at best. Don't expect to fill in a city with troops in 1 turn [:D].

I think the difficulties the Japanese will experience needing to capture double the number of cities justifies using 2 instead of 3 for the US Entry.

[peskpesk]

If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

[Froonp]

peskpesk, you should use this (it has transparent corners) instead of yours.
Keep it GIF, or the white corners will appear.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

I like 1), I like 3), and I like your last proposal, let's call it 4).
I don't like 2).

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

I like 1), I like 3), and I like your last proposal, let's call it 4).
I don't like 2).

I think that it is time to ask if there is enough proposals and try to come to an consensus and decide what to recommend to Steve.

Personally I like proposal 4 best.

It can also be written as this in the US entry actions:

Japan occupies Chinese city - 2*
Notes:
* +1 for each factory in the hex


-Orm

[terje439]

I honestly believe that this is a matter that needs playtesting to decide, what seems fine on paper might not work out too well in an actual game...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

I like 1), I like 3), and I like your last proposal, let's call it 4).
I don't like 2).

I think that it is time to ask if there is enough proposals and try to come to an consensus and decide what to recommend to Steve.

Personally I like proposal 4 best.

It can also be written as this in the US entry actions:

Japan occupies Chinese city - 2*
Notes:
* +1 for each factory in the hex


-Orm

What is nice about #4 is that all of the additional cities are then worth 2.

There are 4 proposals here. let's let each person have 4 votes that they can allocate however they like. So if two of them appeal to you, you can cast 2 votes for each of them. But if one is your overwhelming favorite, cast all 4 of your votes for that one.

To repeat, the choices for the US Entry roll when Japan occupies a Chinese city are:
1) US Entry roll is 4 for the first 2 cities taken, 3 for the next 2 cities, and then 2 for the remaining cities.
2) US entry rol is 4 but only applies to the original (not additional) Chinese cities.
3) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities.
4) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities with the addiition of +1 for each factory in the city/hex.

[lomyrin]

My vote:   2 for #1   and 2 for #4
 
Lars

[terje439]

#1 -> 3 votes
#4 -> 1 vote

but as I stated earlier I believe this should be playtested before anything decisive is decided.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There are 4 proposals here. let's let each person have 4 votes that they can allocate however they like. So if two of them appeal to you, you can cast 2 votes for each of them. But if one is your overwhelming favorite, cast all 4 of your votes for that one.

To repeat, the choices for the US Entry roll when Japan occupies a Chinese city are:
1) US Entry roll is 4 for the first 2 cities taken, 3 for the next 2 cities, and then 2 for the remaining cities.
2) US entry rol is 4 but only applies to the original (not additional) Chinese cities.
3) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities.
4) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities with the addiition of +1 for each factory in the city/hex.

#4 -> 4 votes.

I prefer 4 over 1 primarily because you do not have to remember how many cities already captured. And of course playtesting is required but it has to start somewhere. I also doubt there can be enough testing on this before release.

-Orm

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There are 4 proposals here. let's let each person have 4 votes that they can allocate however they like. So if two of them appeal to you, you can cast 2 votes for each of them. But if one is your overwhelming favorite, cast all 4 of your votes for that one.

To repeat, the choices for the US Entry roll when Japan occupies a Chinese city are:
1) US Entry roll is 4 for the first 2 cities taken, 3 for the next 2 cities, and then 2 for the remaining cities.
2) US entry rol is 4 but only applies to the original (not additional) Chinese cities.
3) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities.
4) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities with the addiition of +1 for each factory in the city/hex.

#4 -> 4 votes.

I prefer 4 over 1 primarily because you do not have to remember how many cities already captured. And of course playtesting is required but it has to start somewhere. I also doubt there can be enough testing on this before release.

-Orm

I think that, too: 4 votes to No. 4.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There are 4 proposals here. let's let each person have 4 votes that they can allocate however they like. So if two of them appeal to you, you can cast 2 votes for each of them. But if one is your overwhelming favorite, cast all 4 of your votes for that one.

To repeat, the choices for the US Entry roll when Japan occupies a Chinese city are:
1) US Entry roll is 4 for the first 2 cities taken, 3 for the next 2 cities, and then 2 for the remaining cities.
2) US entry rol is 4 but only applies to the original (not additional) Chinese cities.
3) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities.
4) US Entry roll is 2 for all Chinese cities with the addiition of +1 for each factory in the city/hex.

As I said, I like #2 and #4. #3 disappear before #4 now that you have found it I prefer it.
But the problem for me with #1 is that the player will have to remember if the city he is about to take is the second, the third, or else.

So, for this reason, I cast 4 votes for #4.

But as Terje said, we should be ready to change that if playtest show it is not appropriate.

[michaelbaldur]

4 points for number 2 ...

[sajbalk]

There are more cities in China now, but there are no additional factory stacks. Thus, I would vote for USE effect per city of +2 with +1 for any printed factory stack. This is important, even if it is very very unlikely that China may build factories.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

There are more cities in China now, but there are no additional factory stacks. Thus, I would vote for USE effect per city of +2 with +1 for any printed factory stack. This is important, even if it is very very unlikely that China may build factories.

There is no need to splt things this fine, is there? You are talking about a 10% increase in the probability of the US drawing a chit when the Japanese capture a city that has a newly built Chinese factory in it. In the grand sweep of things, let's just lift up the corner of the rug and say "all Chinese factories".[:)]