Chinese army's in AE

[Chris21wen]

I don't know how many of you have bothered to played the scenario that starts in the Summer of 44 but its very interesting? Nearly all the allied shipping and many of the allied LCU are in very stange places. E.g. 90% of the PT boats are in Eniwetok, anf LCU are mainly split between Noumea and Port Moresby. As the Allies I'm also completely in contol of the Pacific with very little Japanese activity in any theatre. SE Asia is a bit more sticky due to the problems of getting to the Japanese before he can bolster his defences.

My real point on this ramble is China. For China the Scenario starts with few fortification (3 or 4 level), few biult up A/F and it seems fewer units but I've not looked into this. My oppenent decided that he has no chance of doing much damage anywhere but China and has launched a major offensive in the North capturing all N China bases (bar one) and has now turned his attention to Changsha and the rest of the south. Up to this point China has been totally incapable of putting up much other than delay. At the last count Japan has 21 units in Changsha which includes at least 12 full divisions. Chinese attacks don't do anything other than produce disruption and fatigue for the Chinese. I've reinforced Changsha as srongly as I can but would love my SE Asia div back.

As things are going it is conceivable that the whole of China could fall but I don't how the dice will drop until he actually attacks Changsha.

Note we are not using any house rules just passing the time until AE.

[Barb]

LCU: Dont you think all of the allied divisions were concentrated on front lines? [:D] What about Rest and Replacement facilities? Guard duties? Also there is hardly a place on atol to accomodate division not speaking of 3 ...
Before Marianas the only places where it was possible to gather 50,000+ men in Central Pacific were Guadalcanal, New Caledonia and Oahu.

China was IRL target of real japanese operation in april - decembet 1944 - Operation Ichi-Go with elements of 17 division took part (400,000 men total). Altough the target was southern China not the northern.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: Barb

Treespider that is my point. AI will not conquer China, so with little attention you can hold what yo uhave there without micromanaging it.

As we are in the subject, can we see some To&E for Chinese Divisions, Corps and Warlord armies from AE?
Can you add Indian 17th Division and 1st Burma Division breakdown (parts to combine) as on map on 07/12/1941?[:)]

Is this still true with current beta version?

[crsutton]

You are looking at a really old thread. The game has been changed in so many ways since them. A lot of players have moved onto mods that have stacking limits for hexes. This generally turns China into the stalemate that It was. I am talking about game vs human opponents. I don't know about playing the AI. Quiet China does not work as even if you are losing you need to be fighting the Japanese in China for the supply burn that it causes them. Quiet China just gives them a free ride.

[Big B]

Hi,
Just for the record, what I did for China in WITP was to lock down a significant number of Chinese units.
However, I also researched (as best I could) the size of Chinese power available and differentiated KMT troops from Warlords troops - and effectively STRENGTHENED China and it's supply situation. The key being that enough Chinese strength was mobile to punish the Japanese if they pulled troops out of China - so as to keep the Japanese Army there... yet not enough to defeat the Japanese outright.
On the other hand, there was enough Chinese strength left under wraps (static) that if the Japanese player decided to conquer China - he would unwittingly free up the Chinese Army to move against him - creating a situation that would probably see Japan ejected from China altogether eventually.
My solution seemed historically more accurate numbers/unit wise, and I thought it also better portrayed the situation politically .... The Japanese Army is forced to remain in China and engage the Chinese Army, yet neither side should decisively defeat the other unilaterally unless Japan frees up the Chinese manpower.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Most of the full pacific war games I've seen have had "weak" representations of the China Theater. Going all the way back to the original WITP (SPI, 1978). I'd played several games where we agreed to "deactivate" the Chinese Theater - though there were rules about required items which had to be sent - and allowed items which could be pulled out.

Similarly in WITP (Matrix, 2004) with house rules I've had various levels of deactivation. But I've also played long games with China in play. It is a "game within the game" - and at least in some ways - the level of activity - for instance - does not seem to capture the flavor of the original.

What were the real capabilities of the two opposing sides? We can speculate, but we cannot know for sure - except for what we saw them do. The Japanese did have plans, after the fall of Singapore to significantly reinforce central China and try to knock China out of the war - however the Guadalcanal campaign put a stop to those plans. Later in the war - the Japanese did launch a major offensive and knocked the Chinese about a bit - but did not knock them out of the war.

In WITP stock, I've heard players say that the Chinese are too weak. But I've also heard players say the two sides are balanced. One key factor is whether a house rule is used restricting the Japanese forces in Manchuria from being pulled out without paying PP. The balance in China is very much affected by whether this rule is used or not.

If Brian has locked down the Chinese - then I see nothing wrong with that. It was also done in WPO for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong with that representation - and we certainly considered that for AE. But I think one reason we decided to leave things in AE as they are in stock is this allows both sides to react to what the other side does. IMHO the balance in China is achieved by action and counter-action. One side thrusts - the other parrys and often the parry can be a thrust in another part of the country.

I have played AE campaign games through August 42 as the Allies and September 42 as the Japanese - and overall I still think China is balanced - as I do for stock. But it requires an active defense for either side to remain viable.

If players choose not to play the "China game" I think it is just as possible in AE as it is in stock - to put together house rules to control the activity in China. I'm sure a number of forum players would be happy to offer suggestions for same - I would as well.

So, I think the AE interpretation is more flexible (than locking the units down) and puts the players in control - they can then decide how they want to play China - so I think that is our basic reasoning - and possibly this was the reasoning of the WITP designers as well.

[Ian R]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

You are looking at a really old thread. The game has been changed in so many ways since them. A lot of players have moved onto mods that have stacking limits for hexes. This generally turns China into the stalemate that It was. I am talking about game vs human opponents. I don't know about playing the AI. Quiet China does not work as even if you are losing you need to be fighting the Japanese in China for the supply burn that it causes them. Quiet China just gives them a free ride.

A search of this subject does not turn up any recent threads.

I am not using quiet China, or the modded map; I am still playing the original version (as allies against the AI)(slowly), and have basically ignored China, up to now (February 42). I should pay more attention to it. In the original game I put it on computer control until the late war period.

[Misconduct]

In the 8+ games I played in a campaign, most of the time China is a waste of manpower and resources until mid 1944 - assuming you are playing a human. Few games I did try to mount a limited offense, one for example to retake hong kong. In one game, John decided to level up his tanks in China, considering they have limited anti tank guns, out in the open his tanks simply smacked me aside and drew thousands of casualities. On the other hand, he accidently shock attacked at Canton and lost most of his tanks attempting to siege it.

I never found China to be useful until B-29s and long range american fighters arrive - and we are talking LATE 1944. The supplies you can bring from India simply cannot sustain any form of offense.

To keep things interesting, the very last game we played (I was allies) we decided to put China as "neutral" - meaning I would not start any offense until July 1944, and he had to maintain a certain level of troops there. For what its worth, it didn't matter in the end.

I honestly see no advantage of taking China, only if you were playing against the AI in which you could possibly do it around 1943, if you were bold enough to bring an american carrier fleet around Singapore, and attack say...Rangoon. Then again, the AI wouldn't be much of a fight anyway, the only game I attempted against the ai (after a long vacation) It for whatever reason attacked pearl harbor with every warship it had in 1942.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Cerix

Is China limited in AE, like in I.E Big.B, or can millions of Chinese make an coordinated Offensive at will ?
(despite the fact that the 30 independent war lords with their own army's IRL would have huge problems with the coordination to pull that off)

If China isn't steamrolled by the Japanese right from the start then they end up with 30,000 av in total that will steam roll the Japanese at will in late 43 early 44. But to get to those 30,000 av the Chinese
need supply, lots of supply going to China from day one. And that means the Allied have to hold Burma pulling in hundreds of thousands of supply via Rangoon. Otherwise the Chinese won't be a threat, but with supply...

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Welll I disagree with that interpretation I have tested this extensively and China is quite an interesting theatre the lack of combat engineers and supply make China hard to attack with - They have a lot of defensive strength but their offensive kick is very fragile.

Canton maybe if the Chinese player unbalanced himself and the Japanese player made a fatal mistake.

But HK is just to hard.

You need to look at the availability of supply as the key constraint

Hong Kong is actually easier than Canton because Canton is urban heavy, which makes it near impossible to take.

edit: and then I notice someone has dug up a 5 year old thread? [:D]

editII: just realised Hong Kong is of course urban heavy too, mixed that one with Singapore

[czert2]

ORIGINAL: Cerix

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Unless the various units of the warlords were locked static in some way, China almost requires house rules to keep the mega stacks from forming. China always ends up as a stalemate for the most part anyway, unless the allied player makes those rediculous stacks.

yes, maybe one should made a mod representing the conflict in China better then Matrix Games can represent it, I think Locking Units would be a good solution.

¨
Or just split unified chinese to many diferent chinese warlords, with some chances that if two stack from diferent warlords are in same hex, they will attack each other (and more likely if one side have much bigger av) and dont like much if put outside of thiers area.