Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 7:01:39 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9784
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

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)


I have... in my mod the KMT have garrison requirements as well. These represent Communists, bandit activities, Warlords etc.


quote:


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



I agree... as has been pointed out part of the "problem" with stock and DBB for that matter is the Chinese player feels emboldened early on because they can form a telephone pole early and go and try to whack a couple of Japanese bases which if successful can put the Japanese in a bit of difficulty - I'm thinking of Sinyang. However if the Japanese player reacts quickly and appropriately he can stop the Chinese and put a serious hurt on them.

Of course all bets are off if the Japanese player decides to transfer much of the Kwangtung Army to China. This leads to one of the other "issues" with the game that helps to unhinge China. The air units, artillery, tanks etc count for very little against the Manchurian Garrison Requirement. So any Japanese player worth his salt either moves them out immediately or buys them with PP if playing with a HR.

I address this in my mod with the standard house rule of not crossing borders unless PP are paid.... the catch is I also looked at the Japanese Monographs and permanently restricted many of those ancilliary artillery, tank and AA units that stayed in Manchuria for the duration of the war keeping an eye on the Soviets. I was somewhat surprised to find that some units involved in the Southern Offensive were actually transferred back to Manchuria a month or two after the war "began", the 8th Tank Regt comes to mind IIRC. I also temporarily restrict the Infantry Divisions by permanently restricting component regiments until a Div HQ or some other sub-component arrives that allows the Division to form and be bought out. The Japanese have a much tougher road in my mod...


_____________________________

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 #: 61
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 7:13:12 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

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.



1) Japan did not have sufficient forces available for a major China offensive in the 2nd half of 1942, because

(a) For political reasons, the Japanese Government did not want to conduct a 'total war' (quite similar to Germany in the first half of the war). Full mobilization of the Japanese manpower and industry did not begin before late 1944. It is quite interesting to notice, that the IJA even stood down one regular infantry division (4th) after the conquest of the SRA.

(b) The movement of several divisions from China for the conquest of the SRA in November 1941 had greatly weakened the combat strength of the IJA in China. Those divisions did not return but were needed to guard the conquered territory. The IJA did raise new formations to replace the divisions that were send elsewhere, but those formations were mostly made up from older reservists (Independent Mixed Brigades, C-Type Garrison Divisions).

(c) The Guadalcanal and New Guinea campaigns in 1942 took a heavy drain on IJA combat forces.

(d) Japan simply lacked the weapons to equip sizeable new combat forces, especially when it comes to artillery. They even struggled to maintain the equipment allocations of existing formations.

(e) The IJA feared a Soviet attack in Manchukuo. Most tank and artillery forces used in the conquest of the SRA were moved back to Manchuria afterwards.

2) Ich-go became possible because in 1944 a threat from the Soviets did not seem imminent. This allowed the IJA to send the 20th Army to China and thus give the China Expeditionary Army the neccessary striking power for Ichi-go.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 62
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 7:27:46 PM   
KPAX


Posts: 682
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline
So, what can be done with a player which rolls up, what like 15-20 Divisions (6k+ AV), gathers them up at Sian, rolls N and then west to Chungking.

Takes another 5-10 Divisions rolls hp north from Hong Kong taking the Burma Road.

Bombs the crap out of Chungking after one month, eating up the supplies in Chungking+ everywhere else. Then by mid to late 1942 camps on Chungking and starts the bombarding and shocking once a week.

Yes, you can break up INF and camp on the supply lines. That does NOTHING to slow them down.

Yes, you can bring in air units from India. So, the IJA gathers up 100+ fighter sweeps and chews them up.

Yes, you can shock your troops which are just about died to resurrect them. But, once Chungking falls China is done, finished, may as well right it off.

China is really broken. HR seems to be the only way to at least slow it down.

So, what HRs are good?


_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)



Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 63
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 7:30:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Sometimes I do PBEM's where its agreed (aka HR'd) that China will be "quiet" meaning both sides will leave it alone.

Remarkable how much not having to stress about China/Manchuria speeds up the game play.


(in reply to KPAX)
Post #: 64
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 7:42:02 PM   
KPAX


Posts: 682
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: Where the heart is; Home of the Fighting Irish
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Sometimes I do PBEM's where its agreed (aka HR'd) that China will be "quiet" meaning both sides will leave it alone.

Remarkable how much not having to stress about China/Manchuria speeds up the game play.




+1, next game will be Quiet China.

_____________________________

"War makes Heros on both sides." Hero (the movie)



Thanks !!

KPAX

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 65
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 9:51:35 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4616
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KPAX


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Sometimes I do PBEM's where its agreed (aka HR'd) that China will be "quiet" meaning both sides will leave it alone.

Remarkable how much not having to stress about China/Manchuria speeds up the game play.




+1, next game will be Quiet China.


Just to show the other side of the medal:

Quiet China allows the Japanese player to reallocate a lot of forces to other TOOs - both from China itself (if allowed) and Manchuria (I wouldn´t accept
a HR to restrict that as Japanese) - so this is not neccesarily an advantage. Expect at least Burma potentially fast-steamrolled as a consequence.

China can be handled, or at least made so costly for the Japanese player that he begins to feel the drawbacks of investing so many ressources into China
which then are then missing on other fronts.

What Allied players often underestimate is how much dedication the Japanese side needs to invest in this theatre to break it open. Many PBEMs where the Allies
were sent back running in disarray are games where the danger of breakthroughs was neglected for too long, or initial high losses where cause by defenses set up
at the wrong places.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to KPAX)
Post #: 66
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 10:03:25 PM   
aphrochine


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

Restrict Airfield bombing
Restrict Strategic bombing

...let the chess match begin.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 67
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 10:26:22 PM   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
As a Japanese player I would happily accept a quiet China anytime. I mean.. thats almost winning this theater without a single shot. Would be another story if one values VPs tho.

_____________________________



(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 68
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 11:11:49 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 3045
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Thanks Kereguelen

From your list the main reasons seem to be this:

(a) For political reasons, the Japanese Government did not want to conduct a 'total war' (quite similar to Germany in the first half of the war). Full mobilization of the Japanese manpower and industry did not begin before late 1944. It is quite interesting to notice, that the IJA even stood down one regular infantry division (4th) after the conquest of the SRA.

2) Ich-go became possible because in 1944 a threat from the Soviets did not seem imminent. This allowed the IJA to send the 20th Army to China and thus give the China Expeditionary Army the neccessary striking power for Ichi-go.

(in reply to Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 69
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 11:13:01 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1962
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


What Allied players often underestimate is how much dedication the Japanese side needs to invest in this theatre to break it open.
Many PBEMs where the Allies were sent back running in disarray are games where the danger of breakthroughs was neglected for too long,
or initial high losses where cause by defenses set up at the wrong places.


+1

The time when the Allied player's who thought they could have an easy ride are over, when they are up against a determined and ruthless Japanese opponent.
China requires the Allied player to think and plan ahead, and actually formulate a strategy against Japanese aggression, rather than to run off whining about how broke the game is.


_____________________________

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 LoBaron)
Post #: 70
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/25/2012 11:34:54 PM   
aphrochine


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Empire101


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


What Allied players often underestimate is how much dedication the Japanese side needs to invest in this theatre to break it open.
Many PBEMs where the Allies were sent back running in disarray are games where the danger of breakthroughs was neglected for too long,
or initial high losses where cause by defenses set up at the wrong places.


+1

The time when the Allied player's who thought they could have an easy ride are over, when they are up against a determined and ruthless Japanese opponent.
China requires the Allied player to think and plan ahead, and actually formulate a strategy against Japanese aggression, rather than to run off whining about how broke the game is.




I'll give that a +1.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 71
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/26/2012 5:43:28 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 1001
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: online
Let's say you lose China as Allies. You lost Chungking and Chengtu (plus all other Chinese cities) and you only have same badly beaten Chinese LCUs left. This means the Chinese reinforcements cannot arrive ( as per manual, page 262) unless you take back either Chengtu or Chungking, but your pools are still producing replacements, right? So when you start a new PBEM campaign, it is probably best to hand-pick some Chines LCUs and march them overland to India, so you can siphon the replacements into them in case of total collapse of China and with that force (and some Allied tanks) try to retake Chungking basin later on.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 9/26/2012 5:44:19 AM >

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 72
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/26/2012 10:57:09 AM   
janh

 

Posts: 1227
Joined: 6/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili
(a) For political reasons, the Japanese Government did not want to conduct a 'total war' (quite similar to Germany in the first half of the war). Full mobilization of the Japanese manpower and industry did not begin before late 1944. It is quite interesting to notice, that the IJA even stood down one regular infantry division (4th) after the conquest of the SRA.


Wow, really? That surprises me indeed, they stood down an ID? Not that they had so many...

I knew that also IJ was too reluctant in its general war plans, and just as the Germans widely underestimated the scope of what they kicked loose (or how to win it, if at all), but also widely underestimated the degree to which their economy and military could lastly be expanded. Ok, the latter may also have been possible due to the dire need in 44-45, but still. But that they would stand down units while pushing forward in Burma and elsewhere still...

About China: I tend to agree -- it binds a lot of IJ forces, even if you ultimately loose it. And perhaps more importantly it can also be a black supply hole for the IJA, which may help the Allies in other theaters and accelerate the IJ breakdown (esp. with the expanded OOBs outside Scen 1). Silent China sounds like forgoing any advantage, though I never played it.

If any IJ player wanted to force China, it won't hold in this game. Maybe it would have in real life either, just some longer; I don't know. Maybe with stacking limits and higher garrison requirements, but I guess LoBaron had a point that stacking favors the side with "higher quality" units. I am curious to see the Treespiders or LargeSlowTargets mods with added small supply bases and changed infrastructure. Supply should be the main limiting factor for both sides in this region, if that can be mimicked... Else it would be a thought to reduce VPs in this region -- my take would be that the Allies would have kept pushing and maybe even faster if China would have crumbled. It should not contribute to a victory by points much. Though all its destroyed squads and planes will add plenty already.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 73
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/26/2012 12:24:25 PM   
Empire101


Posts: 1962
Joined: 5/20/2008
From: Coruscant
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

As a Japanese player I would happily accept a quiet China anytime. I mean.. thats almost winning this theater without a single shot. Would be another story if one values VPs tho.


You are playing the Allies game with a Quiet China, Grafin.
It certainly is'nt winning anything. There is alot of stuff to get your hands on in China, that benefits Japan directly.
Just getting your hands on Sian, Changsha, Kunming, Nanning, Nanyang and Yenan causes the Allied player immense problems, and Japan great benefit.

If you get your hands on Chungking, then the Allies are in real trouble. Play to win!!

Up the stakes and drive on to Victory.......Quiet China scenarios just play into Allied players hands....
they way outnumber Japan both militarily and economically.
Don't give them any more advantage than they already have.


_____________________________

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 Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 74
RE: China for the Allies in a PBEM is stupid. - 9/26/2012 4:48:25 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
I might accept the premise of the Japanese being able to mount a totally a-historical conquest of China if they hadn't been handed an enormous and totally a-historical "boon" already. The IJN and the IJA are allowed to co-operate with perfect harmony in the game..., instead of the total antithipy they desplayed in real life. And please don't start talking about the inter-service rivalries of the Allies as justification. That's like comparing a knife fight in the alley with a diplomatic "bun fight" at the embassy. It's "Major League" vs. "T-Ball".

(in reply to Empire101)
Post #: 75
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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]
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

0.148