Matrix Games Forums

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

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

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 7:32:48 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9036
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online 		Me too.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 31
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 7:45:49 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
quote:

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

< Message edited by fcharton -- 9/24/2012 8:01:17 PM >

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 32
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 8:26:26 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 14865
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline
quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 33
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 8:54:14 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 311
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 34
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 9:10:28 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 35
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 10:17:22 PM   
KPAX


Posts: 676
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline 		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)



Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 36
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 10:46:35 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3640
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline 		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"

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 37
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/24/2012 11:14:17 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25218
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

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.


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 38
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 12:08:58 AM   
Liebestod

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 39
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 12:58:56 AM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

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

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 40
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 5:13:18 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 4427
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 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. ...


+1

To me the fundamental issue in WITP and any game that attempts to simulate WWII in China is that they all lack the political dimension. Forget all the rhetoric you read in the current histories; the chinese warlords treated the peasants no better, and no worse, than the japanese. If you doubt that, read some pre-Mao histories of the 1850-1930's. Pearl S Buck wrote several great stories with historically accurate back drops. Rape/pillage/kidnapping ... sadly it was standard fare. Anything written from the 60's on ... well there is a clear slant to it.

Chiang Kai Shek's forces were not united, they were all about keeping each warlord in his place. The japanese were hardly any better ... they were carving out fiefdoms ... remember, this was a military junta running Japan trying to bring back the Samurai era. The peasants ... they did as they always did for the previous +2000 years; they worked the land and tried to find food each day. There is a very good reason that the traditional greeting in south china translates as: "Have you have your rice today?" "Yes" meant it was a good day. Ponder that for a moment or two. For that to get ingrained into a language means generations were hungry ... not just a few days.

I don't think there is a good way to model this. Witp is prolly doing as good as anyone has. Far from historical, but then we aren't trying to re-create history. To argue that because IJ didn't do something is proof they couldn't is specious. Almost every game model that I have played ends up with this exact issue: IJ can push the chinese until 43/44. I doubt that every dev in every dev house got his figures wrong, instead I suspect that if the IJ had really focused on doing it, then they had a reasonable chance. Historically they didn't. I have my opinion why, others have theirs, the real reason is moot. What does matter is that force correlations were there.

So what do we do now here. First, let's wait to see the results of some of these AAR's. Yes, we have many recent ones where the IJ is going after China hard. The question yet to be answered though: Is this a good strategy? As several have pointed out, myself included, committing all of those forces in China means they are not elsewhere (like India or OZ). Does this actually turn out to be a disaster for the IJ player? We don't know yet, none of these AAR's have yet gotten to '44 (at least none of the ones I am following). In particular, I am very interested in seeing how QBall v GreyJoy ends up in '44. It's a fast moving game, we won't have to wait too long.


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 41
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:26:02 AM   
Empire101


Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


I don't think there is a good way to model this. Witp is prolly doing as good as anyone has. Far from historical, but then we aren't trying to re-create history.
To argue that because IJ didn't do something is proof they couldn't is specious. Almost every game model that I have played ends up with this exact issue: IJ can push the chinese until 43/44. I doubt that every dev in every dev house got his figures wrong, instead I suspect that if the IJ had really focused on doing it, then they had a reasonable chance. Historically they didn't. I have my opinion why, others have theirs, the real reason is moot.
What does matter is that force correlations were there.




Pax makes some excellent points, and so has Canoerebel in his earlier post.....it really does have the feel of some grand chess game.
I get the feeling that there are many who just want the campaigns to run historically, or close to historical, with virtually no lee way past any given historical point in the game.

Lets face it, the Japanese are under the hammer from day one, so why should they not try and get the maximum usage from their military?

The beauty of WitP AE is that it opens up so many different strategies and approaches in the game, and China appears ( to many Imperial players ), to be ripe for destruction if the IJA wants go after it from day one.

China can reap great benefits to the Empire if things go her way, but China can also be likened to the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby if the Japanese are up against a canny & skilled Allied player.

I must admit to an interest here as I have always advocated pushing the Chinese to destruction in my games, but it has'nt always worked out the way I wanted.
A great Allied opponent that I had the pleasure to spar against many times ( now sadly deceased ) employed a strategy of sucking my Imperial forces further and further into the hinterlands of China, always employing the terrain to maximum advantage, stretching my forces to the absolute maximum, and maximising my losses.
Sometimes it paid dividends for the Chinese, sometimes it did'nt.

Its just the way the cards fall if both players are of a similar skill level, so we should all get used to the vagaries of preparation, planning, lady luck & Mars.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 9/25/2012 6:42:08 AM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 42
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 12:47:19 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 1900
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


To me the fundamental issue in WITP and any game that attempts to simulate WWII in China is that they all lack the political dimension. Forget all the rhetoric you read in the current histories; the chinese warlords treated the peasants no better, and no worse, than the japanese. If you doubt that, read some pre-Mao histories of the 1850-1930's. Pearl S Buck wrote several great stories with historically accurate back drops. Rape/pillage/kidnapping ... sadly it was standard fare. Anything written from the 60's on ... well there is a clear slant to it.

Chiang Kai Shek's forces were not united, they were all about keeping each warlord in his place. The japanese were hardly any better ... they were carving out fiefdoms ... remember, this was a military junta running Japan trying to bring back the Samurai era. The peasants ... they did as they always did for the previous +2000 years; they worked the land and tried to find food each day. There is a very good reason that the traditional greeting in south china translates as: "Have you have your rice today?" "Yes" meant it was a good day. Ponder that for a moment or two. For that to get ingrained into a language means generations were hungry ... not just a few days.

I don't think there is a good way to model this. Witp is prolly doing as good as anyone has. Far from historical, but then we aren't trying to re-create history. To argue that because IJ didn't do something is proof they couldn't is specious. Almost every game model that I have played ends up with this exact issue: IJ can push the chinese until 43/44. I doubt that every dev in every dev house got his figures wrong, instead I suspect that if the IJ had really focused on doing it, then they had a reasonable chance. Historically they didn't. I have my opinion why, others have theirs, the real reason is moot. What does matter is that force correlations were there.



I have to agree. After reading Tuchman's book I came away thinking the developers got China as right as anyone could have. Don't mistake lack of territorial gains in China as lack of capability if the IJA would have invested more in theater. To go along with the starvation point Tuchman writes than in units that weren't in combat troops were suffering and dying of starvation.

I'm a believer that China is given much more capability to resist both physically and politically but it has to be that way or every side one player will invest and conquer the country.

Not to address your post but as I've seen in the past.....

Any kind of ceasefire with hostilities to commence at some point is a comedic solution as it will only allow a already stronger , more cohesive than historical Chinese Army to reconquest that much sooner. The Japanese player needs to make territorial gains, kill off troops and make the Allied player eat supply.



< Message edited by SuluSea -- 9/25/2012 12:59:02 PM >

_____________________________


"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies" ~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 43
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 1:55:20 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1174
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: 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. ...


+1

To me the fundamental issue in WITP and any game that attempts to simulate WWII in China is that they all lack the political dimension. Forget all the rhetoric you read in the current histories; the chinese warlords treated the peasants no better, and no worse, than the japanese. If you doubt that, read some pre-Mao histories of the 1850-1930's. Pearl S Buck wrote several great stories with historically accurate back drops. Rape/pillage/kidnapping ... sadly it was standard fare. Anything written from the 60's on ... well there is a clear slant to it.

Chiang Kai Shek's forces were not united, they were all about keeping each warlord in his place. The japanese were hardly any better ... they were carving out fiefdoms ... remember, this was a military junta running Japan trying to bring back the Samurai era. The peasants ... they did as they always did for the previous +2000 years; they worked the land and tried to find food each day. There is a very good reason that the traditional greeting in south china translates as: "Have you have your rice today?" "Yes" meant it was a good day. Ponder that for a moment or two. For that to get ingrained into a language means generations were hungry ... not just a few days.

I don't think there is a good way to model this. Witp is prolly doing as good as anyone has. Far from historical, but then we aren't trying to re-create history. To argue that because IJ didn't do something is proof they couldn't is specious. Almost every game model that I have played ends up with this exact issue: IJ can push the chinese until 43/44. I doubt that every dev in every dev house got his figures wrong, instead I suspect that if the IJ had really focused on doing it, then they had a reasonable chance. Historically they didn't. I have my opinion why, others have theirs, the real reason is moot. What does matter is that force correlations were there.

So what do we do now here. First, let's wait to see the results of some of these AAR's. Yes, we have many recent ones where the IJ is going after China hard. The question yet to be answered though: Is this a good strategy? As several have pointed out, myself included, committing all of those forces in China means they are not elsewhere (like India or OZ). Does this actually turn out to be a disaster for the IJ player? We don't know yet, none of these AAR's have yet gotten to '44 (at least none of the ones I am following). In particular, I am very interested in seeing how QBall v GreyJoy ends up in '44. It's a fast moving game, we won't have to wait too long.




BASIC PROBLEM with this is that from the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 until December of 1941, Japan had NO other opponant except China. For the first two years they made steady gains, but after that (like Brer' Rabbit with the Tar Baby), they were stuck and went nowhere. In two years, with nothing and no-one else to deal with, they couldn't do "diddly". So when the game says that in December of 1941, after committing themselves to a war with the Western Powers, the same forces that could do nothing for the last two years are now capable of overrunning China in a few months; then the game is obviously faulty in this regard.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 44
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:06:31 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea



Any kind of ceasefire with hostilities to commence at some point is a comedic solution as it will only allow a already stronger , more cohesive than historical Chinese Army to reconquest that much sooner. The Japanese player needs to make territorial gains, kill off troops and make the Allied player eat supply.




+1


_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 45
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:17:36 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: 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. ...


+1






Which contradicts the analysis of Masaru Iwatani in the Japanese National Institute Defense Studies, Military History Studies Annual, Annual Report No.14

Intelligence and Counterinsurgency During the Sino-Japanese War North China in the 1940s (format PDF)




quote:

The Japanese North China Army deployed 250,000 soldiers, including 9 divisions and 12
independent mixed brigades. These forces shared the occupied area with the Mongolian Garrison
Army, the Japanese First Army, the Japanese Twelfth Army and other army troops that were under
command. Since areas without garrisons were very likely to fall to the CCP (Chinese Communist
Party), the IJA tried to dispose garrisons in county capitals (approx. 500 in North China) as much as
possible3. In reality, however, the total number of soldiers per square kilometer was 0.37 and the
Japanese garrisons were dispersed in only 200 places. Thus, the IJA had no influence on the locals
in occupied areas except near county capitals and major traffic lines4.

quote:


3 “Gun Senryo Chiiki Chian Jisshi Yoryo” (Operating Procedure on Security in Occupied Area 12. Dec.1937),
in Rikugunsho, Showa 13 Nen Riku Shi Mitsu Dai-nikki 15 go (Ministry of War, Highly Confidential Daily
Reports on China, 1939 No.15) NIDSMA, Joji Shimanuki, “Hokushi no Taikyosen” (Anti-CCP Warfare in
North China), NIDSMA.
4 Boeicho Boei Kenkyusho Senshi-shistu, Shinajihen Rikugun Sakusen, (National Institute for Defense Studies
Military History Department, Army Operations during War in China), Asagumo, 1975, Vol. 3, pp. 255-256.


My mod resembles this by establishing these "county capitals" with the presence of dot bases....each of which requires a garrison.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 46
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:21:15 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1627
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101


quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea



Any kind of ceasefire with hostilities to commence at some point is a comedic solution as it will only allow a already stronger , more cohesive than historical Chinese Army to reconquest that much sooner. The Japanese player needs to make territorial gains, kill off troops and make the Allied player eat supply.





+1



And let's not forget that KMT and CCP were not actually "allies" as they are in the game...

WitP China is ahistorical mess, but it's still fun. As a japanese player, I've only have success in China when my opponents have done (IMO) strategical mistakes. There's so many Chinese units that if you let IJA encircle 40 units, that's not game's fault...

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 47
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:39:15 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1




BASIC PROBLEM with this is that from the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 until December of 1941, Japan had NO other opponant except China. For the first two years they made steady gains, but after that (like Brer' Rabbit with the Tar Baby), they were stuck and went nowhere. In two years, with nothing and no-one else to deal with, they couldn't do "diddly". So when the game says that in December of 1941, after committing themselves to a war with the Western Powers, the same forces that could do nothing for the last two years are now capable of overrunning China in a few months; then the game is obviously faulty in this regard.



This is a partially flawed analysis as well...study the Japanese Monographs and you will find that China was neither quiet nor stagnant from Dec of 41 through Jan 44. The Japanese launched any number of operations and pushed the Chinese around for the most part.

In my opinion the game is flawed because the Chinese have no fall back positions from which to draw supply in the interior of central and north China behind the Japanese lines. IRL, post Dec 1941, the Japanese would launch an operation, the Chinese would simply withdraw before the Japanese. The Japanese would become overextended and the Chinese would eventually stand and flank the Japanese penetrations into the hinterlands.

Currently there are too few bases and the Japanese can adequately cover their lines of communication with the forces they have at hand. Likewise there are practically no bases from which the Chinese can support themselves to supply the flanking movements behind the Japanese "lines" that would cause the Japanese to withdraw back to their start lines. So the tar baby has no tar.

Also in my opinion Ichigo was successful for a number of reasons. As stated from early 42 through Jan 44 the Burma road was cut which limited the amount of supply transferred to China. Exasperating this was the hording done by Chiang of a substantial portion of what supply did come through. As a result by 1944 the Chinese army in the field was somewhat more depleted than the army in the field in 1941 and 1942.

The Japanese had planned an operation, similar in size and scope to the eventual Ichigo Operation, with the objective of seizing Szechwan in 1943. However events in the south Pacific forestalled the initiation of that operation because shipping resources were required to reinforce the South Pacific and were not available to assist in the build up needed.

Just my thoughts from the peanut gallery.

< Message edited by treespider -- 9/25/2012 2:41:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 48
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:45:13 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl


BASIC PROBLEM with this is that from the Marco Polo Bridge in 1937 until December of 1941, Japan had NO other opponant except China. For the first two years they made steady gains, but after that (like Brer' Rabbit with the Tar Baby), they were stuck and went nowhere. In two years, with nothing and no-one else to deal with, they couldn't do "diddly". So when the game says that in December of 1941, after committing themselves to a war with the Western Powers, the same forces that could do nothing for the last two years are now capable of overrunning China in a few months; then the game is obviously faulty in this regard.



Mike has a point here, but we are not getting the full picture of what caused the Japanese slow down, because it was not Chinese resistance for certain. As has already been pointed out by Pax in his excellent post the Politcal side of the game is, to put it bluntly, a bit limp.

After clashing with the Soviets in 1938 at the battle of Lake Khasan, the Japanese were pulled up short at Khalkhyn Gol ( the Nomonhan Incident, 1939 ). This had the effect of crystallizing Japanese thought on the 'Great Adventure' in China, making some ( although not all ) at High Command consider finding some way of withdrawing out of China without losing too much face, an impossibility in my opinion as by now Japan was in thrall to its military.

So yes, the advance had slowed down as Mike had said, but it was not through the lack of military success in China.
Japan had become wary of her Northern rival for power and influence in the entire region.

The various embargo's that the USA had employed to curb Japanese aggression were definitely working causing near panic in the upper echelons of the Japanese military, and slowing down ( and in some case's stopping ), Japanese expansion in China.
Of course as we all know, the tipping point that caused the Japanese to declare War WAS the oil embargo, an embargo that really did cause panic at the top of the military and made them plunge headlong into the maelstrom.

None of the above is really addressed in the game ( apart from the Kwangtung Army Garrison rules ) in the context of history. Yes, the Japanese have to go after oil at the start, but the reason why Japan is so short is not made clear to many players. There has to be a garrison limit in Manchuria, but only because of activating an old enemy, not the reasons behind it.

So in summary, to go back to Mike's post; 'In two years, with nothing and no-one else to deal with, they couldn't do "diddly",' is a bit of an over simplification of the facts in my opinion, adding only to certain allied players feeling of 'victimhood', and outrage that Japan is much more than a one shot wonder after Pearl Harbour.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

And let's not forget that KMT and CCP were not actually "allies" as they are in the game...

WitP China is ahistorical mess, but it's still fun. As a japanese player, I've only have success in China when my opponents have done (IMO) strategical mistakes. There's so many Chinese units that if you let IJA encircle 40 units, that's not game's fault...


Good point Puhis, yet another fact conveniently forgotten by the 'Shackle Japan to unrealistic HR'S' brigade.

< Message edited by Empire101 -- 9/25/2012 2:59:54 PM >

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 49
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 2:58:31 PM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo
The peasants ... they did as they always did for the previous +2000 years; they worked the land and tried to find food each day.


Very true. The Chinese economy was rural and work intensive, over an area very densely populated (the western half of China is almost empty). This made it very brittle, and it comes to no surprise that most dynasties ended from peasant rebellions, after a few years of bad harvest.

Under the imperial system, peasants mostly fed themselves, with a little overhead from the local mandarin. During the 30s, they had to feed the KMT officials, and the local warlords (several of them in the richer areas), and then the Japanese, and their mules, and the collaborationnists, and...

I believe this explains why the Japanese advance stopped cold once the coastal, and richer areas, were captured. The whole system collapsed, as there were too many "overheads" to feed, and several years of war (civil or against the japanese) had damaged the workforce. It still was possible for Japan or the KMT to act, eg Ichi Go or the various chinese offensives, but a little at a time, and not for long periods of time.

As for garrisons, I don't buy the risk of a CCP coup. This is pure post-war rewriting (by all participants, no one really wanted to accept the fact that operations in the North were mostly famine-driven). Garrisons were certainly necessary, though, if the Japanese wanted to forage for food and fodder.

quote:

There is a very good reason that the traditional greeting in south china translates as: "Have you have your rice today?" "Yes" meant it was a good day. Ponder that for a moment or two. For that to get ingrained into a language means generations were hungry ... not just a few days.


In the north west (Lanchow, Sining), you wouldn't speak of rice, but soup... Have you drunk your soup today?

quote:

I don't think there is a good way to model this. Witp is prolly doing as good as anyone has.


I think a possible solution would be to consider that, in AE, whereas supplies represent ammo and petrol, food and fodder is indirectly modelled through fatigue. A starved unit has high fatigue, which cause its squads to be disabled, to march at a slower rate, to lose morale and battle efficiency. Therefore, the situation could be modelled by making China a "high fatigue zone", where units have high fatigue, recover slowly (or need more support to do so).

Suppose that in China, support works at 1/10th efficiency, for every one. We might get something more historical...

[EDIT]
quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis
And let's not forget that KMT and CCP were not actually "allies" as they are in the game...


Not just KMT and CCP. A lot of the units branded KMT in the game are warlord armies, who might have sided with the KMT, CCP or even the collaborationnists. Same goes with the collab troops, by the way.

Francois

< Message edited by fcharton -- 9/25/2012 3:08:13 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 50
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 3:22:36 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

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.


My question is why Ichi-Go couldn't be made in 1942. Or let's say 2nd half of 42 when the campaign of NE Indias, Malaysia, Philiphines and Burma ended also cutting the Burma road.
I don't see any reason. Japan was certainly worse off in 1944 than in second half of 1942.
Ichi-Go was itself more of a linkage operation between the bulges Japanese army had in China and not a drive into the China Interior.
I think the main reason for not to drive into China deep interior was the extreme poverty of it, except political win from the Japanese POV they wouldn't get anything worthwhile in return.

(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 51
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 3:39:07 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

My question is why Ichi-Go couldn't be made in 1942. Or let's say 2nd half of 42 when the campaign of NE Indias, Malaysia, Philiphines and Burma ended also cutting the Burma road.
I don't see any reason. Japan was certainly worse off in 1944 than in second half of 1942.
Ichi-Go was itself more of a linkage operation between the bulges Japanese army had in China and not a drive into the China Interior.
I think the main reason for not to drive into China deep interior was the extreme poverty of it, except political win from the Japanese POV they wouldn't get anything worthwhile in return.







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 52
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 3:47:15 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1896
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

In my opinion the game is flawed because the Chinese have no fall back positions from which to draw supply in the interior of central and north China behind the Japanese lines. IRL, post Dec 1941, the Japanese would launch an operation, the Chinese would simply withdraw before the Japanese. The Japanese would become overextended and the Chinese would eventually stand and flank the Japanese penetrations into the hinterlands.

Currently there are too few bases and the Japanese can adequately cover their lines of communication with the forces they have at hand. Likewise there are practically no bases from which the Chinese can support themselves to supply the flanking movements behind the Japanese "lines" that would cause the Japanese to withdraw back to their start lines. So the tar baby has no tar.

Just my thoughts from the peanut gallery.


Treespider has, in my opinion, hit on the core problem with China for the Allied player.

+1

_____________________________

Our lives may be more boring than those who lived in apocalyptic times,
but being bored is greatly preferable to being prematurely dead because of some ideological fantasy. - Michael Burleigh


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 53
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 4:37:15 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25218
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider




Which contradicts the analysis of Masaru Iwatani in the Japanese National Institute Defense Studies, Military History Studies Annual, Annual Report No.14


Not really. I didn't say there was NO guerilla ops. What i said was there wasn't a guerila hiding behind every street corner. Further, i'll add that there wasn't a guerilla waiting to disrupt every port, airfield and industry throughout China. Guerilla activity was primary in the CCP dominated areas of N. China and they did becoming a growing threat to the Japanese as time went by. Requiring garrisons for every chinese city is no better an answer IMO than having none. Requiring more garrisons still, not my cup of tea. Not meaning to crap on your mod. Feel free. I just don't favor garrisons myself. Too select, and too all-encompassing.


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 54
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 5:57:14 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		Lol, this devolved. I came back to the thread to see if any new tricks or tips had been posted on actually defending china in the game. But instead found a history lesson. Good reads though!! :-D

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 55
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:03:57 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2579
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		treespider i am suspicious about the lack of sea transport, but only a close analysis could show the difference between sinkingz and transportation , there was much less ships in 1944 than in 1942/43 besides the trip: Japan/Korea to Shangai wasn't a distance like going to Truk and in 1944 things didn't improved.
Another interesting question is why JAAF didn't think capable of interdicting the airfields.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 56
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:04:52 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25218
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		alas young one.....I can only instruct you on what tricks and tips to use if you wish to LOSE in China.....either side.


I am a hapless Warlord/Imperial Staff Officer

I move my ones and zeros and jump up and down when they fail to bring the glory i so richly deserve.

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 57
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:18:04 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

treespider i am suspicious about the lack of sea transport, but only a close analysis could show the difference between sinkingz and transportation , there was much less ships in 1944 than in 1942/43 besides the trip: Japan/Korea to Shangai wasn't a distance like going to Truk and in 1944 things didn't improved.


Just speculation on my part but just be careful not to allow the capabilities given to the Japanese in the game to color the your perception of what the japanese were actually capable of. The Japanese Colonel who prepared the report stated that IGH felt the shipping requirements to support the campaign in the Solomons were great enough to forestall the planned China offensive.

quote:



Another interesting question is why JAAF didn't think capable of interdicting the airfields.


They did...that campaign is covered in a different monograph. If there is interest I can post that as well in a few days. Unfortunately I will be travelling for the next couple of nights and will not access to my library.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 58
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:29:40 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider




Which contradicts the analysis of Masaru Iwatani in the Japanese National Institute Defense Studies, Military History Studies Annual, Annual Report No.14


Not really. I didn't say there was NO guerilla ops. What i said was there wasn't a guerila hiding behind every street corner. Further, i'll add that there wasn't a guerilla waiting to disrupt every port, airfield and industry throughout China. Guerilla activity was primary in the CCP dominated areas of N. China and they did becoming a growing threat to the Japanese as time went by. Requiring garrisons for every chinese city is no better an answer IMO than having none. Requiring more garrisons still, not my cup of tea. Not meaning to crap on your mod. Feel free. I just don't favor garrisons myself. Too select, and too all-encompassing.




Just my personal preference but I think the garrison requirements are a better representation of the CCP than actually placing units on the map. In my mod all of the little dots in the North China plain garrison requirements...not every dot in China. Due to the auto-base flip feature I created CCP political section units as static base holders so the base won't flip unless the Japanese actually move in and occupy the base.

There is an interesting passage in The People's Liberation Army by Samuel B Griffith on IIRC p. 76-77 that addresses the points made about peasants growing crops and feeding the masses and the CCP's "guerilla war. In a nutshell after the Hundred Regiments Offensive the communists essentially adopted a be where the Japanese aren't strategy. As Iwatani pointed out the Japanese could not be everywhere so the communists occupied those areas and denied the production of those areas to the japanese. When the Japanese would move into a town to collect the Communits would withdraw and take the chickens, grains, typewriters and kitchen sinks with them denying them to the Japanese. Hence a passive style of guerilla warfare.

This to me is represented well by the garrison requirement penalties... I'm not thinking of the damage to airfields and facilities as roadside bombs but simply denial of resources to the Japanese. If the Japanese occupy the town the denial of resources stops, if they vacate the denial of resources starts up again.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 59
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 6:39:14 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25218
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		if your going to go that route, you might want to consider doing the same for the KMT side. Their own troops often had to live off the land same as the IJA which caused issues (in Burma as well as China)

From a pragmatic angle, good China players can also over-marshall their forces and conduct sustained ops. If the goal is to create a quiet china, both sides need to be restricted. Just my view of course.

Since your one of the few persons brave enough to mess with the economic engine, what about finding ways to reduce overall at start supply for the IJA forces such that organizing a major offensive would require shipping in thousands of supply points (representing ammunition, fuel etc).

Of course the China side would also need similar restrictions. From my playing experiences both sides can immediately mobilize from turn one onward. I've gotten my head absolutely handed to me in China as Japan simply by sitting still while the China side marches, organizes and conducts huge offensives


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.195