Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The China Problem

 
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 >> The China Problem Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The China Problem - 2/9/2010 9:43:33 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
It's July '43 in my PBEM game. The Chinese have a medium sized army of 1500 AV at Liuchow. The Japanese shock attack and the Chinese lose six months worth of infantry in one turn. Compare the number of Japanese and Chinese squads lost.

Ground combat at Liuchow (74,55)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 43948 troops, 473 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 1427

Defending force 61982 troops, 507 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1515

Japanese adjusted assault: 875

Allied adjusted defense: 177

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Liuchow !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4512 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 266 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 190 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
25077 casualties reported
Squads: 1136 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 716 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 121 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 93 (93 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 20


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
33rd Division
104th/B Division
23rd Division
38th Division
104th/C Division
2nd RF Gun Battalion
14th Army
5th RF Gun Battalion
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
63rd Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
97th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
8th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
28th New Chinese Division
31st Chinese Corps
39th New Chinese Division
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment
7th Chinese Base Force
4th War Area
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
9th Group Army
35th Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
49th AA Regiment
Post #: 1
RE: The China Problem - 2/9/2010 9:58:56 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25305
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's July '43 in my PBEM game. The Chinese have a medium sized army of 1500 AV at Liuchow. The Japanese shock attack and the Chinese lose six months worth of infantry in one turn. Compare the number of Japanese and Chinese squads lost.

Ground combat at Liuchow (74,55)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 43948 troops, 473 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 1427

Defending force 61982 troops, 507 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1515

Japanese adjusted assault: 875

Allied adjusted defense: 177

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Liuchow !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4512 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 266 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 190 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
25077 casualties reported
Squads: 1136 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 716 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 121 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 93 (93 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 20


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
33rd Division
104th/B Division
23rd Division
38th Division
104th/C Division
2nd RF Gun Battalion
14th Army
5th RF Gun Battalion
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
63rd Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
97th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
8th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
28th New Chinese Division
31st Chinese Corps
39th New Chinese Division
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment
7th Chinese Base Force
4th War Area
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
9th Group Army
35th Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
49th AA Regiment

Well, for starters, your "1500" AV is fictious. Once your disruption (previous defeat / retreat?), experience and supply (you must really be low here?) is factored in, the real AV is pretty paltry at 177. The IJA is disrupted too, but not shy of supplies and is shock attacking. Retreating troops from either side take disproportional casualties when kicked out a city (or other) hex, particularly against faster troops that can run them down.

To further the narrative: both parties are tired, dirty and beaten down by fighting. It's just he's got the pride of the Wehrmacht with ample supplies and you've got the 1941 Red Army encircled, cut off from supplies and then routed.

The resulting fight sees much of your Chinese diaspora melt into the countryside or become combat ineffective. Units led by weaker officers fragment and cease to function. They disappear. Others flee from the captured city, dropping equipment and material in their wake to speed their departure. Many are cut down as the Japanese shock attack carries over the roads out of Liuchow. Several armored units rush to the fore and cut down or simply crush the Chinese under their treads as they sweep all before them. A dozen Japanese tanks are damaged by running over Chinese equipment left in the roadway or by having their bogey wheels clogged with the slippery innards of their crushed victims.

Well, some poetic license there at the end, but that's what I see. Liuchow got it's backside handed to it. Looks OK to me.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 2
RE: The China Problem - 2/9/2010 10:00:55 PM   
BeastieDog


Posts: 95
Joined: 12/22/2006
Status: offline
Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Fort Level 0


What were the disruption,experience, fatigue, and morale levels of both sides?
What were the Chinese supply levels?

Edit: Also, what artillery does each side possess?

< Message edited by BeastieDog -- 2/9/2010 10:02:49 PM >


_____________________________

Dog

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 3
RE: The China Problem - 2/9/2010 10:06:26 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
China hasn't had any supply except in a few core cities since early '42 (my opponent wiped out industry through a sustained strategic bombing campaign).

Neither side has much artillery in this engagement.

Disruption and fatigue were high as this occurred at the end of a prolonged seige.  Experience for the Chinese was fairly low.  I don't know about the Japanese.

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month.  I lost six times that many in one day. 

(in reply to BeastieDog)
Post #: 4
RE: The China Problem - 2/9/2010 10:15:54 PM   
BeastieDog


Posts: 95
Joined: 12/22/2006
Status: offline
Assaulting units:
33rd Division
104th/B Division
23rd Division
38th Division
104th/C Division
2nd RF Gun Battalion
14th Army


It looks like your opponent moved the 38th Div and 14th Army HQ to China.

Edit: or kept the 38th in china.

_____________________________

Dog

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 5
RE: The China Problem - 2/9/2010 11:38:46 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25305
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

China hasn't had any supply except in a few core cities since early '42 (my opponent wiped out industry through a sustained strategic bombing campaign).

Neither side has much artillery in this engagement.

Disruption and fatigue were high as this occurred at the end of a prolonged seige.  Experience for the Chinese was fairly low.  I don't know about the Japanese.

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month.  I lost six times that many in one day. 

Ah, I see. Well, sounds like you have some differences of opinion re: the replacement rate of Chinese infantry in the game. Duly noted.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 6
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 12:07:00 AM   
Kiith

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
I know it doesn't help but if want to look at that result in a positive way then at least you don't have to worry about burning supplies to repair your disabled squads (since they were all destroyed). :)

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 7
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 1:01:47 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month. I lost six times that many in one day.

I agree. I think that increasing the Chinese replacement rate is probably the number 1 wish on my list. Destroyed Chinese units respawn due to the ability of the Chinese army to recruit low exp troops. This should also be reflected in the replacement rate.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 8
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 1:05:45 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6635
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month.  I lost six times that many in one day. 


The solution to that is to have the Chinese unit destroyed and have it come back in 30 days at Chungking with 1/3 strength. That has always been the way the practically "unlimited" Chinese manpower has been factored into this game engine.

Alfred

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 9
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 4:38:25 AM   
Cyber Me

 

Posts: 73
Joined: 1/21/2010
From: the Cloud
Status: offline
Yes but the time between destroyed Chinese units spawnning back is very considerable. Much territory can be lost in their absence.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 8:49:28 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month.  I lost six times that many in one day. 


The solution to that is to have the Chinese unit destroyed and have it come back in 30 days at Chungking with 1/3 strength. That has always been the way the practically "unlimited" Chinese manpower has been factored into this game engine.

Alfred


Problem with this is that it sometimes is quite hard to get your units destroyed. I have a Chinese corps that has been forced to retreat 5 or 6 times now, having only a couple of 75mm guns the whole time, yet it survives.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 11
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 9:18:53 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13933
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's July '43 in my PBEM game. The Chinese have a medium sized army of 1500 AV at Liuchow. The Japanese shock attack and the Chinese lose six months worth of infantry in one turn. Compare the number of Japanese and Chinese squads lost.

Ground combat at Liuchow (74,55)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 43948 troops, 473 guns, 186 vehicles, Assault Value = 1427

Defending force 61982 troops, 507 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1515

Japanese adjusted assault: 875

Allied adjusted defense: 177

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Liuchow !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: disruption(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)

Japanese ground losses:
4512 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 266 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 190 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 26 disabled
Vehicles lost 12 (0 destroyed, 12 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
25077 casualties reported
Squads: 1136 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 716 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 121 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 93 (93 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 20


Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
33rd Division
104th/B Division
23rd Division
38th Division
104th/C Division
2nd RF Gun Battalion
14th Army
5th RF Gun Battalion
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion

Defending units:
63rd Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Corps
25th Chinese Corps
97th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps
8th Chinese Corps
94th Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
28th New Chinese Division
31st Chinese Corps
39th New Chinese Division
4th Heavy Mortar Regiment
7th Chinese Base Force
4th War Area
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment
9th Group Army
35th Group Army
57th AT Gun Regiment
49th AA Regiment



that´s nothing unusual, your troops have been forced to retreat. Would you have hold your line you would have lost 1/4 of your losses. Too few destroyed squads for the attacker but that´s always the same. Retreats always have been bloody for the one that is forced to.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 12
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 9:21:09 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13933
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month. I lost six times that many in one day.

I agree. I think that increasing the Chinese replacement rate is probably the number 1 wish on my list. Destroyed Chinese units respawn due to the ability of the Chinese army to recruit low exp troops. This should also be reflected in the replacement rate.



increasing the replacement rate won´t help you much due to the fact that you don´t have the supplies to draw them and get them out of disabled state.


_____________________________


(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 13
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 9:22:53 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 13933
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem really isn't the combat result here, it's the impact. The Chinese only get 200 infantry squads per month.  I lost six times that many in one day. 


The solution to that is to have the Chinese unit destroyed and have it come back in 30 days at Chungking with 1/3 strength. That has always been the way the practically "unlimited" Chinese manpower has been factored into this game engine.

Alfred


Problem with this is that it sometimes is quite hard to get your units destroyed. I have a Chinese corps that has been forced to retreat 5 or 6 times now, having only a couple of 75mm guns the whole time, yet it survives.



yeah, a smart Japanese player doesn´t surround your base and force everything in there to surrender but tries (if possible) to force the defender to retreat a couple of times, which makes the retreating units completely useless, they will never be rebuilt and the Chinese don´t get them as 1/3 strenght unit back.

_____________________________


(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 14
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 11:50:33 AM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
To give myself some credit (if I may) this battle is the end result of failed Chinese offensive in the south of the country.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 15
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 12:41:54 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
Well in my game with Dixon---when I have a Chinese unit trashed...I use the remanants to continuely launch suicide attacks against the Japanese until the unit dies. He cannot ignore the units lest they sit on a rail line causing him supply issues...

Granted it is still early in my game and it was started w/ 1097 and the increased garrison requirements, and the only real HR is you have to pay PP to bring stuff in from Manchuria/Korea. The way I look at it is if he wants to waste resources doing that have at it...in the meantime the Japanese supply burn has to be fairly significant as he is forced into continuely attacking everywhere...

Here is a screenshot of most of Northern China...note - yes I have lost Loyang and Chengchow...but he has lost Nanchang, Kweisui, and will likely lose Mangan while he was busy taking the Loyang/Chengchow area.

Southern China to follow...




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 Miller)
Post #: 16
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 12:46:29 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

China hasn't had any supply except in a few core cities since early '42 (my opponent wiped out industry through a sustained strategic bombing campaign).




There is a reason why 70% of games have the no Strat bombing house rule... without it you have no bullets and get crushed. Also a good idea to send as many units as you can to Burma so they dont suck supplies./

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 17
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 12:47:41 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
In southern China I abandon Chuhsien and Wenchow...but I build Pucheng's airfield and forts ...and when he tried to take Pucheng he was stopped cold. Likewise his brigade and extras near Kukong were roughly handled by the Chinese I have there.

The issue IMO in China is when a Japanese player decides he wants to resolve the China issue by devoting extra resources to its subjugation...








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 treespider)
Post #: 18
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 12:58:09 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25305
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

To give myself some credit (if I may) this battle is the end result of failed Chinese offensive in the south of the country.

Miller, can you tell us more about this failed Chinese offensive? I don't recall hearing much about it...

_____________________________


(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 19
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 1:16:03 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

To give myself some credit (if I may) this battle is the end result of failed Chinese offensive in the south of the country.

Miller, can you tell us more about this failed Chinese offensive? I don't recall hearing much about it...


I'd like to know too since I'm his opponent.

I suppose he's talking about the little Chinese offensive in which they advanced a few units from the west through the jungle and took the vacant Nanning. This forced Miller to withdraw his troops from Liuchow. So the Chinese troops at Liuchow and Kweilin moved south one hex, tried on deliberate attack on the little Japanese stack in the forest, found that it wasn't going to work, and retreated back to Lichow and Kweilin. Then, when the Japanese advanced on Nanning, the Chinese withdrew those troops to Liuchow. The total cost of this "failed campaign" was nil.

Chickenboy, you can read more about this little campaign in my AAR, though it doesn't get much mention because there was very little to it.

The reason for the drastic results at Liuchow is that there were zero supplies there. There are zero supplies at every Chinese city except three. The reason for that is strategic bombing eliminated Chinese industry early in the game. I cannot offer any resistance except at the three cities that have a little supply.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 20
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 1:22:16 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 25305
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

To give myself some credit (if I may) this battle is the end result of failed Chinese offensive in the south of the country.

Miller, can you tell us more about this failed Chinese offensive? I don't recall hearing much about it...


I'd like to know too since I'm his opponent.

I suppose he's talking about the little Chinese offensive in which they advanced a few units from the west through the jungle and took the vacant Nanning. This forced Miller to withdraw his troops from Liuchow. So the Chinese troops at Liuchow and Kweilin moved south one hex, tried on deliberate attack on the little Japanese stack in the forest, found that it wasn't going to work, and retreated back to Lichow and Kweilin. Then, when the Japanese advanced on Nanning, the Chinese withdrew those troops to Liuchow. The total cost of this "failed campaign" was nil.

Chickenboy, you can read more about this little campaign in my AAR, though it doesn't get much mention because there was very little to it.

The reason for the drastic results at Liuchow is that there were zero supplies there. There are zero supplies at every Chinese city except three. The reason for that is strategic bombing eliminated Chinese industry early in the game. I cannot offer any resistance except at the three cities that have a little supply.

Thanks, Canoerebel. I was hoping that Miller might have some additional comments from his POV about the impact of this failed offensive in the Chinese theatre, or at least on this battle. His perspective is something that I cannot discern from reading your AAR.

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 21
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 2:38:22 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7209
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Maybe alot of your problem Canoerebel is the strategic bombing of supplies. In both my games, one as Japan, the other as China, the Japanese have made gains, but after a few months those gains are limited, and tougher to get. But in both games we have a house rule against strategic bombing in China. As China I have local supply problems, but there is one base at least with a nice stockpile.

Both my games are pre-patch 2 and the increased garrison requirements; I suspect that will also be a break on Japanese expansion.

Dan probably did this, but for others are a few things as China you can do to improve your chances:

1. TRAIN units by having them at 100% prep in a home city. You can get most units up 10-15 points of experience this way. That helps.
2. Don't fight in clear terrain; abandon this and establish an MLR on better ground. In particular, the central plain between Sinyang and Loyang should be abandoned.
3. Use lots of small units to threaten the Japanese supply lines.

All that being said, Chinese replacements should be higher

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 22
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 2:51:12 PM   
CapAndGown


Posts: 3204
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline
Without the house rule on strat bombing in China, higher replacement rates are not going to help since replacements need supply to be made.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 23
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 3:03:52 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Yeah, supply is the killer.  I have a modest amount of supply at two of the bases that have been under siege - one under seige for the entire game and the other for many monts.  I've been able to hold those two bases and can continue to do so indefinately.

Most of my bases have zero supply and that's been the case since early '42 when strategic bombing wiped out most of my cities.  With very little industry left, much of the supply I have is coming from Ledo via air transport and that's not a great deal.  I have a little supply at Changsha, Changteh, Chungking and Chengtu - not much, but enough to defend those cities.  I can't really defend anything else.

A house rule against strategic bombing in China is a good idea.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 24
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 3:04:55 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13933
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Miller obviously also has increased his ground combat skills from WITP to AE....

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 25
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 3:59:52 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I understand everyone's facination with having abyssmal supplies available to China.
But as was true in WitP, and evidently so in AE, the Catch-22 is that the replacement Chinese infantry squads cannot be created without supply.

Of course, there are 2 parts to creating squads.
1. Do I have more than my supply requirement to begin with. Without meeting the supply requirement for the hex, I'm fairly certain it will never draw replacement squads anyway. This is going to be a fundamental problem, because of the inherit lack of supply in China to begin with.
2. How much excess supply do I have, with which to create squads? And yet another issue. If you do have supply, you can't create very many because it sucks supply to create them. Maybe it takes 10x supply to create each infantry squad or whatever.

So would it be possible (an engine fix), to actually change the supply requirements to create Chinese squads? Lower their "needed" supplies. Also, you could draw new squads, while even at 70% supply? And the "cost" of new squads would be perhaps 4x supply per squad, instead of 10x supply per squad (or whatever it is).

That might cause additional issues however, because now you're drawing squads in a supply deficit anyway, thus increasing your supply deficit. You'd reach the threshold of 70% (or whatever), and eventually stop ddrawing squads. But drawing squads while at a supply deficit might not really help you.

And...

One consideratino in autovicotry in WitP (my expereince in AE is very limited), was the high VPs generated by the slaughter of Chinese squads. Yes, Chinese squads are cheaper in VPs. But you could generate a lot of VPs by slaughtering a lot of them (it's not like it was very difficult). So will makeing more chinese squads available, potentially make things easier for Japan (considering their lack of experience, lack of supplies, supply draw, and the VP value when dead).

Things to consider.
-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 2/10/2010 4:00:16 PM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 26
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 4:05:52 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 27
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 4:47:40 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21101
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.


Thanks! This is all I really wanted. I know how to defend China, but it's essentially impossible to do so given the current situation.

quote:

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......


I really don't want a ceasfire - that's just as non-historic. I'd prefer a fair fight, but I'm not sure how possible it is at this point. About all you could do was concentrate on the cities that have some supply - Changsha, Changteh are about it in that area. But, honesly, just the acknowledgement that the game is borked in China due to circumstances we weren't aware of at the outset of the game is all I was really asking for. The assertion that my defeat at Liuchow was the result of a "failed offensive" chapped me, but that's now been addressed.

One further note: Here was the supply situation on my MLR - Liuchow 7 (yes, seven), Kweilin 20, Changsha, 15,958, Siangtin 20, and Shaoyang 0. Liuchow and Kweilin have been at 20 or less since early '42.

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 28
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 5:01:07 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 13933
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller
I apologise to Canoerebel with regards to my misreading of the situation in southern China. Furthermore I am well aware my strategic bombing of China has screwed the overall situation there.


Thanks! This is all I really wanted. I know how to defend China, but it's essentially impossible to do so given the current situation.

quote:

I have offered a complete ceasefire on a couple of occasions to him but both times he turned it down. However this time I will, for good, cease any further offensive operations with land units in China. Dan does not want this, but that is the way it will be.......


I really don't want a ceasfire - that's just as non-historic. I'd prefer a fair fight, but I'm not sure how possible it is at this point. About all you could do was concentrate on the cities that have some supply - Changsha, Changteh are about it in that area. But, honesly, just the acknowledgement that the game is borked in China due to circumstances we weren't aware of at the outset of the game is all I was really asking for. The assertion that my defeat at Liuchow was the result of a "failed offensive" chapped me, but that's now been addressed.

One further note: Here was the supply situation on my MLR - Liuchow 7 (yes, seven), Kweilin 20, Changsha, 15,958, Siangtin 20, and Shaoyang 0. Liuchow and Kweilin have been at 20 or less since early '42.



take a port and Miller lets you move in 100.000 supplies unharmed

one more thing, you have turned OFF all repairs on industry, haven´t you? It´s set to repair by default (which is a fault in game design IMO) and if you don´t notice that at the beginning you will lose ten thousands of supplies over the first weeks. That´s what happened to me in China in my PBEM, I´m short 50-60.000 supplies due to this "feature". Industry starts damaged and is set to repair...

_____________________________


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 29
RE: The China Problem - 2/10/2010 5:51:05 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2448
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
Question1: if Japan had really wanted to, could they have destroyed Chinese industry the way the Japanese player can in AE? If so, why restrict Japan from strategic bombing?

Question2: in RL, how much of China's ability to "fight off" the Japanese can be atributed to their inherent supply making capacity versus supplies that were coming in from Russia and Burma?

Question3: Assuming in RL the Japanese had been successful in squashing Chinese industry, what changes (if any) would the Allies have made in their overall grand strategy in the Pacific Theatre? Try to open a port? Try to get more supplies over the "Hump"? Nothing?

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The China Problem Page: [1] 2   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

0.512