China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by treespider »

You want a more stagnant feel like your stuck in the mud China...just wait till I'm finished with my mod...

All those "little" dotbases you see are IRL substantial population centers that provide a small stream of daily supply...so no more getting "cut-off" behind the Japanese lines.

Plus a supply cap of 300 has been placed in all of the bases in China...the more developed bases will actually draw more supply than 300...

...and stacking limits are in place.



Image
Attachments
ScreenShot062.jpg
ScreenShot062.jpg (397.63 KiB) Viewed 80 times
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
aztez
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:32 am
Location: Finland

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by aztez »

Never lost the whole China in my PBEM games but can admit that it was close call.

Whether it was pure luck or the Chinese were stubborn enough... well only my opponents can tell.

However definately do have some sort of an hate feeling towards China..
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

I'm experimenting with a similar approach [:)]. I use different cap values depending on transport infrastructure - rail lines have highest cap, undeveloped forest/jungle hexes lowest. I have also cut the rail lines crossing the Yangtse, since there were no bridges over the middle and lower parts until after the war. On the other side I have added the destroyed rail lines in China. They start with low supply caps, but building-up the bases on the rail lines and roads will simulate repairs and thus will increase the supply cap. The bases have a potential port size for building-up (in order to avoid strings of monster airbases) - these landlocked ports are useless but for increasing the cap. House rule states that no strategic rail movement is allowed unless all bases along the intended route have at least a size 1 port. Also added a bunch of Eng units like Railroad Eng Rgts for both sides for construction purpose. In the same way I have added the Burma Road and Burma Death Railway for building-up. Hope it works like intended - not done yet.



Image
Attachments
CBI.jpg
CBI.jpg (491.04 KiB) Viewed 80 times
User avatar
Miller
Posts: 2226
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:14 am
Location: Ashington, England.

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Miller »

How about raising the minimum AV from 8k to 11k in Manchuria? It would mean six less divisions available to go into China......
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Nikademus »

China is defensible in the game from my experiences. But then again, i've had the pleasure (or displeasure) of playing against the best China player (Allied or japan) ever. China is a micromanager's dream and the person who's willing to plan it down to the nittiest detail will preservere. I'm not a micromanager in my PBEM's....hence i get my head handed to me in China regardless of which side i play. [:D]
User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Gridley380 »

One thing that seems to me like it might help would be to increase the garrison requirements, especially in cities that start in Japanese hands. This would represent the guerrillas tying up troops.

From the AARs I've seen China can only hold out in PBEM with the commitment of unrealistic Allied units (swarms of Hurricanes for example) or by a Sir Robin-esque withdrawal to a line much further back than the historical 'stop' line the IJA actually achieved.
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by JocMeister »

Oooh! This is something close to my heart!

Yes, yes and yes! China is a mess balance wise. Its very possible for the Jap player to clear out China in about 6 months and probably even faster. I don´t even think its that hard if you go for it. That being said I have never played the Japanese side so all my comments are based on being on the receiving end.

But we are seeing and have seen in many AARs and games that the Jap player quite easily can steamroll China. There are some exceptions of course but in those games we don´t know what level of commitment the Jap player have thrown into China. Also you should have to be in the absolute top of the Allied players to even have a chance to hold China. Then something is wrong.

To all of those who are adamant that China is just fine and refuse to look at it I will ask the following question. Why have taking out China become a "standard move" in all PBEMs lately? If it was hard, frustrating and the outcome would hang in the balance why does everyone do it? Its because its certain victory and almost completely risk free. Move in the airforce and bomb away. The number of bombers decide how fast China will fall. Bombers cause disruption and burn supply. Disruption means even bigger supply burn. My experience is that this is a downward spiral the Chinese can never recover from. There is simply not enough supply. The non existant AA and AT for the Chinese is also real killer. The Jap player can simply bunch up a number of tanks to an unhistorical tankette armies that the Chinese have no defense against. Its like hitting puppies with a baseball bat.

Does this look kosher to anyone?
Ground combat at 83,57 (near Kanhsien)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1815 troops, 0 guns, 279 vehicles, Assault Value = 161

Defending force 13189 troops, 134 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 353

Japanese adjusted assault: 115

Allied adjusted defense: 139

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:


Allied ground losses:
730 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 39 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled


Assaulting units:
4th Tank Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
21st Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
3rd New Chinese Corps

I had higher adjusted AV, The Japs got 1:2 odds. I have 10 times the troops, 150 Guns in a bloody forest and I take 730 losses. The Jap don´t loose a single tankette? They are made of paper for Christ sake. Stuff like this is all that is needed to take out China. Add bombing causing 1k-3k losses per turn and its a done deal.

From my point of view China is one of the most messed up things in AE. How people can believe its fine is beyond me.

I have had the good fortune of having an opponent that saw the problems with China (obvert) and we settled for the solution he outlined in his post #19. It at least simulates are real need for the Jap player to keep a garrision. The build in requirements are a joke once China is captured and splitting some units and using them for garrisons its certainly possible for the Japs to move out A LOT of troops.

I don´t mind the fact that China can fall. But it should require a MASSIVE effort bleeding the Japanese Empire dry for at least two years or so. Now its just a freebie with the added bonus of traning up a bunch of pilots and troops.

My 2 kronor.


Image
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Nikademus »

Hate garrison requirements. Not really realistic and its not even across the board. Plus there simply were not guerrillas hiding behind every street corner.
China is an overly "active" front for both sides. Limiting supply is the best way to go to slow things down. It was logistics that kept the front largely static.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Canoerebel »

China may be tough and it may be possible for a good Japanese player to conquer the country against a good Allied player, but it's not going to happen in six months. I think a best-case scenario is a late '42 or '43 capitulation in a contest between opponents who are decent players.

I like the war in China very much, though I agree that there are some imbalance problems there. Right now, I think the major problem for the Allies is supply. With a decent amount of supply I think I could hold China against just about anybody - or else force Japan to commit such a huge army that the Allies wouldn't be pressed elsewhere. That would be a fair trade-off, IMO.

The air war in China is out of whack, too, but that's mainly a funciton of supply. Japan can bomb supply out of existence and the Allies have a very tough time countering. Anytime the Allied player puts fighters in bases with low supply, the damaged planes won't repair and thus are lost. This creates a one-sided air war in a place where the Allies would have ramped up things in the real war had Japan gone "all in" against China.

China is actually a great chess match. A few tweaks could resolve the problems.

I don't think I like the stacking limits. It seems to have unintended consequences that really detract from the good aspects. For instance, creating overstacking when units are forced to retreat into an ajacent hex.

Adjust the supply rules to guarantee the Chinese have some reasonable minimum amount and that Japan has suitable problems. I think that's all that's needed.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
China is actually a great chess match. A few tweaks could resolve the problems.


No wonder I lose in China.......i suck at Chess. [:D]
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Canoerebel »

Me too.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
fcharton
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: France

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by fcharton »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister
Why have taking out China become a "standard move" in all PBEMs lately?

For the same reason Palembang fortress was the standard a year ago, and Java defense two years ago, and... AAR writers tend to be AAR readers, and fashions spread quickly. I tried a China-first strategy 18 months ago, and there were very few AAR focusing on it (Fletcher vs Cantona was the only one, as far as I remember). I tried another one this year, and found out that most contemporary AAR use the same.

I think it is more fashionable than standard...

Still, there are two good reasons why it should become a typical move, just like "fighting robins" or "festung sumatra" for the Allies. From a JFB point of view, if you want to do more than just the historical perimeter and northern Australia, China is by far your easier option. Australia or India need a quick conquest of the Indies, to benefit from the amphibious bonus, and a lot of preparation so that the right troops are in the right place by March. You can go for China later, or turn to it if you realize India/Australia won't happen, or you just lost half the KB to some silly move, or...

Another reason, I think, is that we're beginning to see quite a few AAR, getting into 1944, that started before China was the dish of the day. And many of them point to a very difficult time for Japan once the Burma road is reopened, often by mid 1943, if the KMT is left with significant forces. Once supplied, the Chinese are very strong, and a competent Allied player will complement them with the armor, AA and guns they lack. Calculating the bases you need to strat bomb the Home Islands from China is left as an exercise for the reader...

To me, this is the main problem with China: the balance problem goes both ways.

Francois
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

China may be tough and it may be possible for a good Japanese player to conquer the country against a good Allied player, but it's not going to happen in six months. I think a best-case scenario is a late '42 or '43 capitulation in a contest between opponents who are decent players.

I like the war in China very much, though I agree that there are some imbalance problems there. Right now, I think the major problem for the Allies is supply. With a decent amount of supply I think I could hold China against just about anybody - or else force Japan to commit such a huge army that the Allies wouldn't be pressed elsewhere. That would be a fair trade-off, IMO.

The air war in China is out of whack, too, but that's mainly a funciton of supply. Japan can bomb supply out of existence and the Allies have a very tough time countering. Anytime the Allied player puts fighters in bases with low supply, the damaged planes won't repair and thus are lost. This creates a one-sided air war in a place where the Allies would have ramped up things in the real war had Japan gone "all in" against China.

China is actually a great chess match. A few tweaks could resolve the problems.

I don't think I like the stacking limits. It seems to have unintended consequences that really detract from the good aspects. For instance, creating overstacking when units are forced to retreat into an ajacent hex.

Adjust the supply rules to guarantee the Chinese have some reasonable minimum amount and that Japan has suitable problems. I think that's all that's needed.

Or...HRs against early strategic bombing could guarantee that the Chinese can still produce that modicum of supply. This is the way this is handled in many HRs.
Image
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5035
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Yaab »

Losing China doesn't mean that the Allied player won't win the war. Actually, conquering China gives some sort of accomplishment to Jap player in the war in which Japan is destined to lose anyway.
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Dili »

Why couldn't Japan make the Ichi-Go operation earlier? That is the question everyone should ask. It was a very successful campaign albeit done in 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go
User avatar
KPAX
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:19 pm
Location: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by KPAX »

If no offensive action wwas taken in China, for say, 6-9 months, would that be enough time for the Allies to build forts and LCU and slow down the conquest of China ?

What would be a favor time frame for a cease fire in China?
"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Image

Thanks !!

KPAX
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by spence »

Both Japan and China were pretty much dependent on those forms of supply that existed in 1900: railroads and ships/barges on the rivers. Neither one had any trucks to speak of: witness the bicycle advance on Singapore that almost ran out of ammunition before Percival surrendered.

Any fix of the "China Situation" that aspires to some form of historical relevance needs to address logistics.

BTW Francois, to quote a great Yankee thinker; "It ain't over til it's over"
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Why couldn't Japan make the Ichi-Go operation earlier? That is the question everyone should ask. It was a very successful campaign albeit done in 1944.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go


Several reasons. Japan's goal was to force China to agree to a negotiated settlement favorable to Japan, which would then allow them to withdrawl the bulk of their army for other concerns, one of the biggies which remained the USSR. By 41 Japan was looking for a way to deescalate the situation, not escalate it. Such an escalation would require a massive effort from the army involving logistics needed for other projects on the burner......that of course being the Southern route (SRA capture and war with the West)

The KMT and IJA were also practicing essentially an unofficial cease fire at that point too as each side husbanded it resources. The KMT was hoping to get the West to drive out the Japanese for them allowing Chiang to horde his strength to fight the Communists and the Japanese were content with the Status Quo for the time being while decisions were made to resolve the Move North vs. Move South drama going on internationally.

China remained largely static while the expanded war blew up. FDR had hoped that China would become a major player, essentially making the "Big Three" into the "Big Four" but Chiang's empty promises and demands eventually wearied even him and despite a huge amount of Lend Lease shipped to him, the Chinese made little moves against the IJA. What forced the Ichi-Go was the advent of USAAF 4E bomber bases springing up attempting to bomb the HI's. That situation could not be tolerated. Hence.....Ichi-Go. Ichi-Go was the nail in the coffin for FDR's vision of a Big Four Alliance vs. the Axis.

Chernobyl
Posts: 602
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:51 am

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by Chernobyl »

I don't really see the problem for the Allies if they lose China. Especially if it takes until mid 1943. Those units require PP to move to other areas, and given the ridiculous numerical superiority in all types of ships, aircraft, troops, and the better quality of these forces, how exactly is the Allied player supposed to lose the game even if China falls?
User avatar
aphrochine
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 5:18 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by aphrochine »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

China may be tough and it may be possible for a good Japanese player to conquer the country against a good Allied player, but it's not going to happen in six months. I think a best-case scenario is a late '42 or '43 capitulation in a contest between opponents who are decent players.

I like the war in China very much, though I agree that there are some imbalance problems there. Right now, I think the major problem for the Allies is supply. With a decent amount of supply I think I could hold China against just about anybody - or else force Japan to commit such a huge army that the Allies wouldn't be pressed elsewhere. That would be a fair trade-off, IMO.

The air war in China is out of whack, too, but that's mainly a funciton of supply. Japan can bomb supply out of existence and the Allies have a very tough time countering. Anytime the Allied player puts fighters in bases with low supply, the damaged planes won't repair and thus are lost. This creates a one-sided air war in a place where the Allies would have ramped up things in the real war had Japan gone "all in" against China.

China is actually a great chess match. A few tweaks could resolve the problems.

I don't think I like the stacking limits. It seems to have unintended consequences that really detract from the good aspects. For instance, creating overstacking when units are forced to retreat into an ajacent hex.

Adjust the supply rules to guarantee the Chinese have some reasonable minimum amount and that Japan has suitable problems. I think that's all that's needed.

++1 for Canoerebel

The biggest failure I've seen of AFBs is lack of appropriate opening moves in China. From day 1, your troops have no Morale and very little exp. You MUST get to 3X terrain asap and then sit there (for months), with as many troops as possible in Reserve or off the front line training. As your troops get to 44 Exp and 99 Morale you can start doing something with them like taking more forward positions. It only takes 2 or 3 battles to get Exp over 50, then you lose the Experience(-) penalty.

Those troops scattered around the plains of central china. I dont keep them there and immediately move them to the Sian theatre to reinforce my lines in 3X terrain. Consolidate troops between Changsha and Wuchang and take advantage of the 3X there. Find good terrain in the south and bunker up. Reinforce your Central Reserves with the supply stocked in Chungking. Take your ezmode victory at Ichang then get out, diverting many of those troops south to defend Changsha.

Place some picket line troops where movement might happen. Those troops can get destroyed, but if they are divisions of a depleted corps, you'll only lose 75 or so squads and a few other devices.

As far as reopening Rangoon in '43, for me in my current PBEM, this isnt realistic. I put up such a big fight in Burma that the IJA had to bring in a very large force. Now that very large force is of permanant residence in the jungle so I'm not retaking Burma anytime soon. :-( But keeping the Burma road open for a good part of '42 allowed my KMT troops to recover quickly. In fact, to took limited offensives in August of '42 with trained, enabled and moraled troops. I even got a signficant force to just 3 hexes away from Shanghai, forcing a large redeployment by my opponent who pushed me back.

If I had to bullet point the fight in China, I would list:

1) From Day 1, get your forces to 3X terrain ASAP and plan your defensive line, including strategic reserves forces and locations.
2) Put as many LCUs on Training to get to 44 Exp/99Morale as you can. (45 Exp takes to long to get too, settle for 44)
3) There is nothing wrong with a formal russian style Front Line, but make sure you are flexible and have strategic reserves.
4) Every turn, every day...comb the map and look for IJA movement along the front and shift your forces as necessary. This is vitally important, as you if you allow your opponent to break through your line somewhere, you'll have tanks and all sorts of trouble in your back court. Since the KMT has almost zero attack capability, you cant close a breach once its opened and if its opened on a major road or rail line god help you.
5) Control Hexsides. Be the first to any contended hex and force the IJA to bleed for every inch of ground they take in 3X terrain.
6) Dont be afraid to move air forces into China, but limit your operations. They use supply afterall.
7) Mind closely your AV ratios. You can be slightly below 1:1 ratio in 3X terrain, once you're moraled. You need 1.5:1 or higher in 2X terrain. Dont go into 1X terrain at all. If bombers find you there, you'll regret it.

China does require, imo, HRs around IJA bombing. In my current PBEM, we have 2 rules:

1) No strategic bombing in China
2) No Airfield bombing unless Allied air units are detected. (airfield bombing = free supply destruction and can cripple China)

I dont fear DeathStars, as the KMT can put big stacks of men in front of that and has the numbers the severely threaten the deathstar's flanks and LoS.

I would say that the tone of the war in China is set in the first 2-3 months.
VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”