Trashed in China

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
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

Trashed in China

Post by tocaff »

My esteemed opponent has reached Chungking. He's paved the way with massive attacks using Sallys, Helens and any other plane that'll fly. The Chinese have taken massive losses and are now being reduce from the air attacks and artillery. I wonder has anybody managed to escape doom from this type of onslaught and if so what was the plan?

We're using the map with stacking limits and the latest beta.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Trashed in China

Post by spence »

It a really good thing that the real Japanese High Command never realized that they had the solution to their 3 year stalemate in the war against China in their hands. All they had to do was to split their forces and to start a war with the rest of the world.

BTW it happened to me too. Seems modern day IJ commanders don't overlook this obvious solution.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Trashed in China

Post by crsutton »

Hard to stop if the Japanese player is willing to commit so much air power. The only thing you can do is press him in other areas forcing him to use his air force elsewhere. A carrier raid on Palembang might cause him to think twice. Still a competent Japanese player should be able to take Chungking by 1/43. If that is what they are looking to do. Your only choice is to retreat to the mountains to the west and hole up. Remember though that China is the one theater that the Allies can lose and still not have a great effect on the outcome of the campaign. I would rather see those bombers in China than in many other places. Good luck.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Trashed in China

Post by geofflambert »

ORIGINAL: tocaff

My esteemed opponent has reached Chungking. He's paved the way with massive attacks using Sallys, Helens and any other plane that'll fly. The Chinese have taken massive losses and are now being reduce from the air attacks and artillery. I wonder has anybody managed to escape doom from this type of onslaught and if so what was the plan?

We're using the map with stacking limits and the latest beta.

What I've done was curl up into a ball like an armadillo does and even though he had Rangoon it worked. He didn't get to Chungking but I gave up a lot of territory. He said it was the most effective "Sir Robin" he ever saw. For a while I didn't even own the road into Burma on the Burmese side of the border, so supply was a very serious problem.

User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Trashed in China

Post by geofflambert »

I would say though from the Japanese perspective the Chinese are not an existential threat. The US and the Soviet Union are. I use a hold the hordes back strategy and put everything I can elsewhere.

User avatar
obvert
Posts: 14051
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:18 am
Location: PDX (and now) London, UK

RE: Trashed in China

Post by obvert »

ORIGINAL: tocaff

My esteemed opponent has reached Chungking. He's paved the way with massive attacks using Sallys, Helens and any other plane that'll fly. The Chinese have taken massive losses and are now being reduce from the air attacks and artillery. I wonder has anybody managed to escape doom from this type of onslaught and if so what was the plan?

We're using the map with stacking limits and the latest beta.

With SL it's definitely possible, but it also depends on how hard the Japanese player pushes. If they have another 2nd tier objective there can be time to dig and build troops up a bit. If China is the second tier goal and all of the airpower and extra troops go here, then it's tougher to deal with.

If you can get things stalled you have to pick your spots to fight, mostly in x3 terrain, but it can work in x2 with forts built up by the units. Make the river crossing hurt! If you have 3 forts in x2 or at least 1 fort in x3 terrain, the bombing doesn't hurt quite so much.
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
geofflambert
Posts: 14887
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
Location: St. Louis

RE: Trashed in China

Post by geofflambert »

I wouldn't play without stacking limits since there is an alternative. DaBigBabes C with SL and reduced cargo capacity and I think the extended map is a good idea too.

User avatar
AW1Steve
Posts: 14518
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:32 am
Location: Mordor Illlinois

RE: Trashed in China

Post by AW1Steve »

Actually China provides one threat (as IRL). As a base for American B-29's to hit the HI. The problem is keeping them supplied. [:(]
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Trashed in China

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: spence

It a really good thing that the real Japanese High Command never realized that they had the solution to their 3 year stalemate in the war against China in their hands. All they had to do was to split their forces and to start a war with the rest of the world.

BTW it happened to me too. Seems modern day IJ commanders don't overlook this obvious solution.


The real Japanese High Command knew that the Home Front wouldn't tolerate the massive casualties that defeating China would entail. Plus, the Japanese had control of nearly all the major Chinese cities, the prime agricultrual territory and the entire coastline of the country.

Modern IJA commanders don't care about the losses, they won't content themselves with the historical gains and they'll commit far more troops to the fight than fought historically.
spence
Posts: 5419
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Trashed in China

Post by spence »

The real Japanese High Command knew that the Home Front wouldn't tolerate the massive casualties that defeating China would entail.

If they were winning (or in August 1945 even if they were losing) the real Japanese High Command didn't give a rat's posterior about casualties.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Trashed in China

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: spence
The real Japanese High Command knew that the Home Front wouldn't tolerate the massive casualties that defeating China would entail.

If they were winning (or in August 1945 even if they were losing) the real Japanese High Command didn't give a rat's posterior about casualties.

Prior to 1941, Japan isn't engaged in "total war" by any stretch of the imagination. It's involved in a regional conflict with a nation that is percived as being far, far weaker than Japan. Let's not forget the legacy of the First Sino-Japanese war, which lasted eight months and won Japan vast territories for little loss.

It's hard to peddle a massive casualty list in a war with your weak regional neighbour to the Home Front.

It is far, far easier to explain away massive losses when you're engaged in a life-or-death struggle with America and her imperialist ambitions.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Trashed in China

Post by wdolson »

To effectively garrison captured territory when organized resistance has stopped usually require 20 troops per 1000 population. If there is some kind of organized resistance (such as partisans), it will require more troops to keep the peace. Of the post conflict garrisons of the 20th century, most that were below that number failed and those at or above were usually successful.

Japan just didn't have enough men of military age to garrison such a large population and still have troops left over for other needs. The territory captured in China before Pearl Harbor got Japan the resources it needed from China as well as some space in Manchuko to build industries. Taking all of China would have bogged down more troops on garrison duty with no material gain. What they needed most by December 1941 was oil and China had virtually none of it. So they expanded in a different direction where the oil was.

While it may be possible to badly hurt a country with a large population, it is essentially impossible for a much smaller country to completely conquer a big one.

What a player can do in game doesn't really reflect reality. Attempts have been made to make China more realistic, but without a better land combat system (really big job), the game engine just isn't up to it. In the original WitP China was included to give the Japanese player someplace to train pilots. That game didn't have all the skill areas AE has and players could train up pilots bombing peasants in China then send them off to become fighter aces over Rabaul.

The realities of the logistics of an occupation army is also something the game can only touch on with garrison requirements.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Trashed in China

Post by crsutton »

The only real need in China is keeping a active front and forcing the Japanese to attack. It is the long term attrition and supply burn that eventually helps the Allied cause. Even losing Chungking a retreat to the West with some intact forces is still a thorn in the Japanese player's side. It is not the end of the world to get defeated in China if you put up a good long defense in doing so. In the end it is the Allied Navy that is going to kick in the door to Japan.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
Panjack
Posts: 463
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Southern California

RE: Trashed in China

Post by Panjack »

ORIGINAL: wdolson
...The realities of the logistics of an occupation army is also something the game can only touch on with garrison requirements.
I know I'm likely missing some key issue here, but wouldn't simply increasing garrison requirements in Chinese cities do much of the job to make the China theater more like it really was? (Of course, the release of some Japanese units from China because of the perception it ain't worth the effort to conquer that country means more Japanese expansion elsewhere).
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Trashed in China

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Panjack
ORIGINAL: wdolson
...The realities of the logistics of an occupation army is also something the game can only touch on with garrison requirements.
I know I'm likely missing some key issue here, but wouldn't simply increasing garrison requirements in Chinese cities do much of the job to make the China theater more like it really was? (Of course, the release of some Japanese units from China because of the perception it ain't worth the effort to conquer that country means more Japanese expansion elsewhere).

Garrison requirements are quite tricky - too little and the IJA can steamroller the KMT, too much and the IJA can't feild enough troops to contain the KMT.

The other solution has been to degrade the infrastructure in China to make the pace of combat slower. This seems a much better approach, as the fighting in China does seem to be far quicker in game than it ever was in real life.

I've not tried either method, so I can't comment on how effective either have been.

User avatar
bigred
Posts: 3906
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am

RE: Trashed in China

Post by bigred »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Panjack
ORIGINAL: wdolson
...The realities of the logistics of an occupation army is also something the game can only touch on with garrison requirements.
I know I'm likely missing some key issue here, but wouldn't simply increasing garrison requirements in Chinese cities do much of the job to make the China theater more like it really was? (Of course, the release of some Japanese units from China because of the perception it ain't worth the effort to conquer that country means more Japanese expansion elsewhere).

Garrison requirements are quite tricky - too little and the IJA can steamroller the KMT, too much and the IJA can't feild enough troops to contain the KMT.

The other solution has been to degrade the infrastructure in China to make the pace of combat slower. This seems a much better approach, as the fighting in China does seem to be far quicker in game than it ever was in real life.

I've not tried either method, so I can't comment on how effective either have been.

I noted in RHS Sid has turned the yellow river valley into a swamp. He also made ground movement very difficult but river movement very easy. He also added gurrilla units that form in the rear and cut jap supply.
---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
tm.asp?m=2597400
User avatar
Walker84
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:47 pm

RE: Trashed in China

Post by Walker84 »

I'm on my 5th PBEM (4 as Japan) and I've never fought exceptionally hard to capture Chungking, being mostly content to keep the Chinese under attack and secure more resources while preparing my defensive positions for the ultimate Allied push when it comes. The rest of my game is focused on the more familiar Southern objectives and the vain hope of that elusive 'reverse Midway' 42-43 carrier battle.

That said, clearly the objective is to win so am I just being stoopid?

The most advanced nations are always those who navigate the most -
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 -1882)
User avatar
DanSez
Posts: 1023
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 10:02 pm

RE: Trashed in China

Post by DanSez »

The more I read about this, the more I don't agree with the 'it was difficult' comments about Japanese in China. It was more, the IJA didn't have an master plan from the beginning and fumbled around for a couple of years indiscriminately killing and maiming in a doomed attempt to pacify with terror regionally.

In a "game", it is difficult to impose that kind of a limit so let's disguise this as gnarly roads, limited supplies, higher garrison requirements - any combination of all those to try and force the Japanese player to be inert in China. For the purposes of a "game" I am interested in some limited combination of this approach -- but:

Some people like to argue about things being "real life". The problem is that the Chinese can not stop the IJA in taking anything they really wanted to take -- In real life. That is the way it was and if the IJ High Command had decided they wanted to take Chungking or any other city, the KMT was so fractured, corrupt and consumed with internal Chinese politics as to be incapable of halting them -- In real life.

The only way China could be "saved" would have been kicking the KMT to the side, allying with the Communist and moving a few (4-6) US divisions to stiffen the line. Such a solution is outside the parameters or the game. And THAT was not feasible -- In real life.

In Real Life - if the Japanese had decided to commit forces from Mongolia in 41/42/43 when the Soviet Union was being pushed to the limit by the War against Germany, then you probably would have seen similar results to what the game gives --- steamrollered Chinese cities where ever the Japanese decided to march.

That this command decision did not happen -- In real life -- does not mean that it is outside the realm of possibilities.
When the IJA did decide to push deeper into China (to over run the over-hyped Chennault's Bomber Program), what was the results? --- In real life?

The advise above about accepting the losses and trying to extract as big a cost in units and supplies as possible is a good counter. If the IJA is marching around China, that means they are not on boats heading for India or Australia. It is the least of a series of bad outcomes but that does not mean AFBs should give up -- just that you have to pick your battles more carefully, sometimes cut your losses and run and try to bleed and drain the Japanese player as best you can while building up strength elsewhere.

Look on the bright side - if you survive the first couple of years, you won't be able to go to log into the next turn without clogging the toilets with Fletchers... they just keep appearing everywhere.
[:D]

I really enjoy this game. It is a great simulation of some of the problems and decisions that were and should have been made.
A wise JFB does this in '42 instead of waiting till '44 when it doesn't matter much anymore.
That is why I want to play the game - to Change History, not Relive It.

The Commander's job is to orchestrate and direct the three major dimensions of combat - space, time and force. Shattered Sword, the Untold Story of the Battle of Midway
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Trashed in China

Post by el cid again »

It took three years of work, each one with a major rework of China. But my "Chair Three"
Allied Tag Team member, who is responsible for "the British" (aka Left Side of the Map)
"Chair" now says

quote

China may be slightly too strong in 1941, but overall the effect is about right

end quote

Problems remain, mainly due to code. The Chinese ground forces should deteriorate in quality
over time, but instead they gain in experience and benefit from planning and construction as well.
The air force is small but a real factor in 1941 and becomes a big factor late in the war - if
it is not wiped out. But overall, in a game where the Japanese do not move in major ground
and air forces, the effect is to render China a stalemate - except in open country (like Eastern
China well North of the Yangtze basin.

Using the English summary of the ROC official history, especially for unit positions and identities,
we were able to rework the entire order of battle. It was grossly understated. Worse, stock rated
units in such a way I called them "pre-defeated" - with terrible rates of morale, no planning, huge
fractions of squads missing and large fractions of those present disabled. Not to mention in the
wrong place more often than not. To that add that many locations were entirely missing, and still others
were on the wrong side for 1941. Ichang fell in 1940 - in a major battle - and never reverted to Allied
hands - but you can't tell from the game map. Sinkiang (and a Province just SE of it) are effectively
under Soviet control - the only "Chinese" in the area are Mongols in formal alliance with the Russians
and an oilfield is defended by an NKVD regiment. Japanese incursions into that area are problematical
if they don't want the Russians in the war. As well, Japanese command is de facto not unified (although
technically the North China regime is made subordinate to the China Expeditionary Army late in the war,
that isn't the case in 1941 and isn't meaningful even after the nominal change). In fact, the North
China Commmand is a creature of Kwangtung Army, and only once did it properly coordinate with China
Expeditionary Army - early in 1942 to clear the open country in East China. I have simulated this logistically
by using different command assignments for locations - Soviet for the NW, China for the SW,South and SE -
and Kwangtung Army for the NE down to the Yellow River. As well, RHS created the concept of independent
guerilla "regiments" (of battalion size) which are substantially independent of LOC for supplies - they do benefit from supply sources however if they want to attack or rebuild rapidly. These units - which like all Chinese units in the game - automatically return if destroyed - and they are teriffic at disrupting enemy LOC and drawing off many times their numbers in reaction forces. Then too, the entire ROC Marine Corps is missing. [Unlike most formations, it is unrestricted, and may use riverine movement - something fully developed and somewhat seasonal as IRL in RHS.] The river Navy has been fully developed, with minelayers, minesweepers, amphibious craft, gunboats and small river tankers and transports - many of which may convert back and forth between functions. This force, combined with Coast Defense Forts and mines - never lost control of the upper Yangtze basin. The Yangtze, if properly developed, has ocean ships able to move all the way to Wuhan (which has built ocean ships since long before WW2), and to smaller vessels well past Chunking. In the absense of naval forces, coast defenses and mines it would be an attractive invasion route - but in game terms - as IRL - Japanese players are generally unwilling to pay the price to use it. The presence of a Chinese Navy means it can be used logistically, for amphibious and for bombardment operations - as well as for minelaying and mineclearing operations.

Japan RETAINS a huge army. 85% of it was undefeated at the end of WW2 and initially only a tiny fraction was committed to the SRA, while the larger fraction in China was actually reduced to support the SRA operations. This creates the possibility that a player (or Japanese tag team) could transfer huge forces to China and overwhelm by numbers. As well, Japan could in theory commit large air forces. Two factors make this unattractive:
one is that the Russians are active (but not at war) in most RHS scenarios and so have the option to exploit a situation in which Kwangtung Army is stripped for operations deep in China; two is that Japanese pilot pools and aircraft production rates tend to become critical by mid-1942 WITHOUT a major commitment to China - so any such commitment early in the year forces Japanese air power to become very weak by midsummer - unable to sustain offensive operations in any theater. Both committing IJA and one or both air forces (JAAF and JNAF) remain possible - but Japan must hold out until the end of the year to win an auto victory - and with weak air forces this may be problematical - no matter how good things appear in June.

Along the way we added a great deal of delightful chrome. The 200th Division, for example, is a former tank division still fully motorized by 1941 (most of the surviving Russian T-26 tanks are in a supporting Army Corps HW unit; a token three are at ROC HQ]. This is the only unit in the ROC army able to move at "armor speed" in AE.
Numbers of other special units were created - including even the NE China Anti-Japanese Army - a guerilla force.
There is a delightful if small irregular force in the mountains of Hainan Island under a charismatic leader (a problem when the war was over - Mao didn't like charismatic leaders even if communist). IRL a third of the male population of Hainan died fighting for him - where he is still renowned (popular with Peking or not) - and he was not in fact defeated. In game terms, Japan can route him out - but only by a deliberate effort - tieing up troops and air power. AND he will be reborn anyway - 30 days later - at Chunking - as with all Chinese units. Stuff like that.

el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Trashed in China

Post by el cid again »

China is a subject I know a tiny bit about. I first traveled to China in 1968.
I was married there in 1991. I learned to read Chinese script in Viet Nam -
generally more useful than learning a particular language because China has
638 languages and dialetcs and the only truly common language is English.
Singing with missionaries in a Chinese choir, a large and tri-lingual one,
I was astonished to learn their "favorite song" was Amazing Grace in English -
partly because everyone who came to hear could understand the words. My
China bookshelf is four feet long - and that does not count China military
materials - several more feet strewn along 32 feet of military references -
or more than 10,000 pages of articles and papers in filing cabinets (part of
a collection of over 30,000 pages) - nor maps (of which I have over 2000)
nor Chinese materials in general aviation, ship, vehicle or electronic
references.

IMHO it should be very hard to take Sian, or Changsha, or Chunking, or Kunming -
and even major efforts to do so have always failed (except for Changsha before
we made all our changes). It was the collapse of ROC defense in Central China
around Changsha and to the West of it which caused later rounds of reforms in
RHS. Even then, however, moving North of the great barrier of forest along the
main East - West rail line never worked. The logistical capacity of roads are
not sufficient - and there is only one rail line that partially relieves that
problem - so far not sufficiently so to prevent effective defense at its end.
IF China has its FULL army and air force, if SOME of that is in good shape and
planned to defend its assigned locations, China can be a very hard nut to crack.
Post Reply

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