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
KPAX
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 7:19 pm
Location: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish

China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid.

Post by KPAX »

With an aggressive (and probably for one that is not very aggressive, China is very broken.

I find there is really nothing (outside of HRs) that can prevent an aggressive IJA player from taking all of China by mid 1943. Once Chungking is gone it is over.

What are your experiences? Or maybe suggestions for the future?
"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)

Image

Thanks !!

KPAX
rev rico
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 12:01 pm

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

Post by rev rico »

I would like to know, too. I lost China during 1943 in a PBEM earlier this year and now just took Chungking from KPAX in Feb 43.

Rev Rico
Bob
User avatar
rjopel
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:32 pm
Location: Charlottesville, VA, USA

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

Post by rjopel »

I'm not sure China can be saved if the IJ player wants to take it without some house rules. I also lost China in 43.

Some thoughts on house rules:

1. Play with the stacking limints map.
2. Kwantang army units must be bought out to move into China.
3. For every 2 arty units must buy a division equilivant of infantry.
3. Same rule for attacks, limit 2 arty for division of infantry.
Ryan Opel
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

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

Post by dr.hal »

Is not a good defense of China to try and make things difficult in other areas of the map so that the IJ player has to divert forces? Holding Java and/or stopping the westward expansion at Rangoon?
User avatar
Fallschirmjager
Posts: 3555
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:46 am
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee

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

Post by Fallschirmjager »

I hate to hate on the game since it is one of the best war games ever. But China is probably the weakest part of the game. The game just does not simulate the details of the Chinese Civil War well enough.

I don't think there is an easy fix that can be applied in a future patch. But a good starting point would be to make it harder for the Japanese player to move supply around inside China. Another idea would be as the Japanese player does better the Allied player gets more and more formations of guerrillas that pop up behind the Japanese lines.

The Chinese formations should also get 'emergency' supply and experience boosts as the Japanese player does better.

I think the biggest problem is that once the IJA wins in a location then that is that. There is no base damage from resistance operations, no supply line raiding, and guerrilla activity.
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 »

Considering that Japan had 4 years of fighting with China without any significant interference from anyone and still failed to force some sort of negotiated settlement it really seems kind of outlandish that declaring war on the rest of the world was a realistic solution that a few different airplanes and a more aggressive tactical stance would have solved.

Neither were the Chinese ever in a position to smash the Japanese Army. The war in China was never "black and white". Shades of gray is something that the current model can't handle.

Maybe it is just a small sacrifice necessary to keep the JFBs playing the game...realistic portrayals of WWII are not at the top of their list of priorities.

BTW I am presently getting my a$$ kicked in China...maybe it's my fault.
I do have to question certain aspects of the IJAs logistics...somehow a "Red Ball Express" sort of operation keeping an advance by 20 divisions running at full steam 750 miles from the nearest railhead seems more of a JFB wet dream than anything that really relates to the IJA's capabilities. Perhaps I overlooked all those truck companies in the OOB.

I am having fun playing THE GAME though.
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

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

Post by dr.hal »

I certainly agree that the "land" aspect of the game leaves a lot to be desired. The China, Burma and Indian frontiers are really the only areas where large land movements can be made. Thus the difficulty of that simulation. The game is really about naval and air warfare. That's why this game wouldn't translate well to the European theater (will the possible exception of the Med). Compromise is the order of the day and in that case it looks like land warfare took a hit. Given how much the game got things right, I think overall it is a great deal of gaming fun.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

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

Post by wdolson »

The problems with China is a major reason why there is the "Quiet China" scenario. The game engine is pretty good at aerial and naval combat and with AE we were able to fine tune these even better. The land combat model was originally introduced for Uncommon Valor where it was rare to see land combat on any large land mass. The model was adequate for modeling combat on relatively small islands.

With the introduction of the original WitP, China was included to help the Japanese train. You could set air units in China to attack targets and build up skill. That "exploit" was eliminated with AE and a whole new pilot training scheme was built in.

We did what we could to improve land combat, but there were limits to what we could do short of a complete rewrite of the whole system. Land combat is still OK for islands, and it works in Burma with the new monsoon and supply movement limitations, but it was just not possible to fix China completely. It fell off the priority list.

This game is not really a land combat game. It's first an air combat game, then a naval game. Sorry, it's just the way it is.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3447
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

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

Post by dr.hal »

ORIGINAL: spence

I am having fun playing THE GAME though.
You are certainly not alone Spence.
ADB123
Posts: 1559
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:56 pm

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

Post by ADB123 »

Check my Allied pbem AAR (Last Stand in San Diego) if you want to see China being held by the Allies quite nicely in September 1943.

In my two Japanese pbems (sorry, no AARs for them) I captured most of China by 1943 while leaving most of the Manchurian forces in place. But what my two Allied opponents did in those two pbems that I didn't do in my Allied pbem was to go on early Allied offensives in China. That allowed me to cut off and destroy most of the Allied Chinese forces piecemeal while they were still very weak.

User avatar
SqzMyLemon
Posts: 4239
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 2:18 pm
Location: Alberta, Canada

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

Post by SqzMyLemon »

I don't think the problem in China has anything to do with the ground combat design. I think the problem is the ridiculous supply routine that will not release supply from a base until 3x the base's required need is met. That is why China can't hold. The supply is stuck in rear bases and never gets forward to the troops. Get more supply forward to troops by reducing your rear area garrisons. It's a Catch-22 though, you need to defend supply producing bases, but if you do, you also guarantee supply won't flow elsewhere because every base in China is trying to meet the 3x supply requirements. Get rid of that and I believe you have a chance in China.

Just my thoughts from having played both sides now.
Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)
User avatar
Dan Nichols
Posts: 863
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:32 pm

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

Post by Dan Nichols »

Stacking limits helps a lot. Not fighting with the Chinese forces at the start helps. Get all the units you can into +3 terrain as fast as you can helps. Only putting the minimum garrison in cities helps.
I think that the two obligations you have are to be good at what you do and then to pass on your knowledge to a younger person
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

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

Post by ny59giants »

Use stacking limits to avoid the "Death Stars" and get out of the clear terrain hexes quickly. I'm playing DBB scenario 30 (stock #2 transferred to DBB) and holding onto a good defensive line (see my AAR) in May 42. If you play without stacking limits, then you will lose China to a decent Japanese player.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9795
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

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

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Stacking limits helps a lot. Not fighting with the Chinese forces at the start helps. Get all the units you can into +3 terrain as fast as you can helps. Only putting the minimum garrison in cities helps.
+1

Forward defense in China works right into IJ strategy. China needs to fall back to between Xian and Chungking in all the 3x terrain. Use forward units to interdict supply. In '43, allies need to be able to take back Burma and open Burma road ... if they do, then china is saved.

With the new AV requirements, I think that the allies now have a better chance to regain Burma in '43. To me, this means more games will have the allies holding china. Granted, not as they did historically, but still holding it.

Not suggesting this is easy, but if you try to defend Xian, china is doomed. IJ can get there too early for your troops.

BTW: if the allies do hold china, the IJ is in real trouble as they will have trained up all those China ID's. And those really are hordes.
Pax
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

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

Post by LoBaron »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Stacking limits helps a lot. Not fighting with the Chinese forces at the start helps. Get all the units you can into +3 terrain as fast as you can helps. Only putting the minimum garrison in cities helps.
+1

Forward defense in China works right into IJ strategy. China needs to fall back to between Xian and Chungking in all the 3x terrain. Use forward units to interdict supply. In '43, allies need to be able to take back Burma and open Burma road ... if they do, then china is saved.

With the new AV requirements, I think that the allies now have a better chance to regain Burma in '43. To me, this means more games will have the allies holding china. Granted, not as they did historically, but still holding it.

Not suggesting this is easy, but if you try to defend Xian, china is doomed. IJ can get there too early for your troops.

BTW: if the allies do hold china, the IJ is in real trouble as they will have trained up all those China ID's. And those really are hordes.

Agree on the strategy and tactics needed to successfully defend China, although it has always been an area where the Allied player needs
to be alert right from the start, more so if the Japanese player has a plan.

But I am not sure if stacking limits contribute to anything beneficial to the Allied player, especially in this theatre.

Stacking limits usually favour the player who can mass more AV per troop count, which is easily the Japanese, and the impact of routed troops moving into hexes
which are already stacked to the max (which I personally regard as the biggest problem of the stacking limit map) also hurts the Allies more because China is already
extremely sensible to the supply situation. Early war as Japanese you can force both those situations, and I can imagine that it actually makes conquering China easier.

Without stacking limitations I always found the broad front concept very useful against any attempt of implementing a Japanese Death Star. If Japan moves in with a DS,
move forward everywhere else.
Image
1275psi
Posts: 7983
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 10:47 pm

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

Post by 1275psi »

Cantona and myself just basically played "quiet china" until deep into 43, by then his Chinese armies were in good enough shape to resist well.
Might be a solution, no jap offensives until 6/43, gives the allies a good chance. (but I think we both hate china)
big seas, fast ships, life tastes better with salt
User avatar
RogerJNeilson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:21 am
Location: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK

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

Post by RogerJNeilson »

I have to wonder what a Jap fanboy would say if upwards of ten Allied divisions with support units aplenty were operating beyond Paoshan into China and able to move at will and conduct combats day after day?

Given everything I have seen from a photographic and narrative of the whole Burma Road and The Hump it would seem that Allied supply logistics were extremely strained to provide even a trickle of succour to the Chinese forces in reality.

My own experience in the game is that the japanese can pretty well knock out China, then send massive land forces via Paoshan (the only supply link for them) and into Burma. I am also amazed at the ability of the Japanese Red Ball Express.

It may well provide a way for the Japanese to counter the Allied progress on other fronts, but it is not the reality of the war at all.

Roger
An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
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 »

Hi,

I believe China is defensible (it happens in several AAR, against decent JFB), but it is a lot of work for the Allies, and many players of this game (JFB and AFB alike) enjoy the Pacific war better than the land war. Also, keep in mind, as others have said, that as Japan, you have no choice but fight in China. If you don't, you will have a huge chinese army to battle in late 1943, once the Burma Road reopens and disruption is repaired, and your game will look like a Chinese propaganda movie from the 1970...

I believe the status of China as a lost cause will change as we play the game more. A couple of years ago, JFB never seldom focused on China, and defending it was not a problem. Now, everyone wants Chungking, and lots of experience about it is shared in AAR, whereas there is less information about defending it. But a counter will be found, I am sure, and the status of China will change once again, and Indian ventures will become fashionable again...

From a japanese perspective, I think many AFB play in our hands by:

1- launching inconsiderate offensives early in the game. The KMT should defend, and launch small offensives, to conserve supplies. Cutting the communication lines in the North, threatening Sinyang, or small bases near Nanking, makes sense. Launching 10 chinese corps against Ichang is very wrong. You will burn LOTS of supplies, for, at best, a base that won't help you much. And if Japan decides to make a stand, you will trash those good units, and leave the door open in Changteh, ready to pocket Changsha and the industrial basin.
2- trying to hold the plains with big stacks, instead of cutting Japan's supply lines: a big stack in Loyang or Nanyang only has a chance if the railway network is blocked by many small units. If Japan can sweep those away, well... Supply can be very easy or very difficult for Japan, depending on whether you hold the railroads AND the major roads.
3- trying to fall back on a nice russian-like front line: a nice front line, with no enemies behind, is what Japan wants in China...

As for supplying offensives, it is only simple if you progress along major roads, and hold enough bases in the rear (supply flows from hubs to bases to units). Without rear bases and roads, nothing works. By retreating to form a front, and stacking small units together, the KMT is helping Japan. Now, one could object that supply flow "too well". That might be true, judging from China and Burma, and flows mught be made a bit more viscous. If this was modable, I think it would go a longer way into slowing the tempo than increasing garrison requirements, which is pure design for effect (any babe person reading this?). But note that this would cut both ways. In China, it would slow the japanese, but make the economy even more difficult to supply, as resources would have more difficulty to flow. In Burma, it would make capture diffiicult for both sides. And late war reconquest would be much slowed.

Now is this historical? Certainly not. The only way to have a "historical china" would be to disable most of the LCU in this theater, so that nothing significant can happen there in 1942 and 1943. It would create a new series of problems, of course : what happens if Allied troops from Burma move into China? What about the soviet invasion? But those would be less visible, as we mostly play 1942 again and again.

But then, we are observing a-historical effects in AE because AE is a successful game, played by many. As we play more, new ideas appear, and new counters are found, and the war moves away, from what it was into what it could have been.

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

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

Post by obvert »

+1

What Francois says.

Although in the clear I don't think those units trying to break rail connections will work for long. I agree putting them in big stacks doesn't work. It's really about time. Make the IJA clean them up one at a time. The useless ones in the clear blocking the rail. The decent ones in the forests behind lines. Even moving toward the rail can make the IJA have to react, without even getting a unit onto it. In the East there is a lot of good terrain. Keep many units in it and let the IJA try to get them out. It all takes time.

To conduct a war in China the IJ has to send a good amount of supply, fighters and bombers that could be used in other areas, and must (usually) use PPs to buy out armor and troops from Manchuria. So there is some strain on the IJ economy and prospects in other areas by focusing on China.

Dan Nichols hits it on the money earlier though. Defend immediately to settle in and build forts in good defensive terrain. Give up everything below Sian in clear territory, even the supply centers. The troops lost there or disabled will outweigh supply created. Wenchow is the one base behind lines that is a bear because of it's good terrain and supply production.

My two opponents and I are using a system by which we agree that China will always be a part of the war. If China is threatened with complete annihilation, and Chungking/Chengtu threatened, a ceasefire will be agreed and a 'safe zone/protectorate' created in the center of China including Chungking, Chengtu, Neikiang and Kienko. This means the IJA cannot completely neglect to keep troops in China. Some can be moved out but a good portion must protect against a breakout from the million Chinese still on the map. This idea came originally from Torsten (Historiker).

This situation has occurred in my game with JocMeister and is working as intended. I must also keep some air forces there to watch the Chinese and make sure i have something to hit them with at a moment's notice.

While it took me a while to warm to this idea, I think it's good for game balance. If the devs realize this area is not ideal, why not bring it closer to a realistic outcome if possible?

If we had used stacking limits, it would likely have been another year before I was able to get so far, if I could at all, and then I'm not sure if I could have achieved this as the Allied air power would have begun to affect progress in the central clear hexes as well as flying in some supply.

Image
Attachments
chineseprotectorate.jpg
chineseprotectorate.jpg (303.04 KiB) Viewed 89 times
"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill
User avatar
GreyJoy
Posts: 6750
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 12:34 pm

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

Post by GreyJoy »

Guys, with Stacking limits China is more than defendable. If you are in a good defensive terrain (say +3) Japanese firepower or AV won't matter much.
A typical stacking limit in China is 45,000 men. For Japan this means 3 Divisions and 1 HQ. Not more. The chinese can easily mass 3-4 corps in the same hex and, despite the japanese AV is probably double than the chinese one, the bonus terrain won't let them reach the 2-1 needed (not always!) to dislodge the enemy...and you can repeat the process many many times cause the terrain there is almost everywhere a +3!
 
Stacking limits solve the problem. Both in China and in Burma imho.
Post Reply

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