Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

China

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> China Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
China - 4/15/2014 5:01:47 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Ok, getting tired of the "let's take China" gamey stuff. So we have a new paradigm for China. A paradigm that forces the IJA to keep significant forces in China and makes China an operationally more significant area. The Chinese were lots more grainy than the game allows. So we went with more graininess. We looked at what was and went accordingly on a divisional scale. Then we adapted the various divisional scale units to the Chinese Corps system to keep the slot uses in line.

~35 of the Generalissimo’s Own
8 German trained: German TO&E
11 Chinese trained: German TO&E
16 Chinese trained: Hybrid German TO&E
~55 more under Central KMT control: Nominal Central Army TO&E
~85 more under ‘Loyal/Allied Warlord’ control: Hybrid Central Army TO&E
~130 more under various commands: the Provincial Army
So one gets ~305 Divisions or division equivalents for the Chinese forces (excluding Mao’s Red forces)
.
The game has 15 Divisions and 120 Corps in active slots. Plus, there’s a ton of open/empty slots interspersed through the Chinese OOB. So plenty of room to make the Chinese more grainy. Several of the Chinese divisions were fairly muscular and commanded by men of perception and distinction. Some of these were perfectly capable of fighting an IJN division to a standstill.

The political aspects of the deployment and use of these high-value units need not concern us. But it is important to realize that they did, indeed, exist. There were some highly trained, highly capable, highly motivated, Chinese units, commanded by highly competent graduates of Whampoa.

So there’s a three tiered Chinese structure: About 35 divisions that are pretty darn good and not to be taken lightly. About 140 more that are sort of ok, but without a lot of support weapons. And about 130 more that suck in every significant way. Given this, an intelligent Chinese player can immediately see what their imperatives are and how to use their different assets.

Understand that specific Chinese units went to India to be trained and re-equipped on a US scale and the game recognizes this and sets that ‘upgrade’ for those specific units. But gamers know this too and simply let this upgrade happen ‘in-place’ no matter where the ‘place’ is. We have done some nasty tweaking to those specific units such that they are presumed to go to India and will only appear there after a significant withdrawal period (time for training). It’s an abstraction, yes, but better than what the ‘gamers’ are doing.

So China is going to have to be dealt with on a totally different paradigm. No more pulling Divisions/Armies from China/Korea to invade Australia/India. China will be a significantly harder nut to crack, and if the Japanese player ignores his Chinese theater, or drains his continental resources, he will get a red hot, flaming, telephone pole, up his little keester.


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.
Post #: 1
RE: China - 4/15/2014 5:13:05 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		Bravo

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 2
RE: China - 4/15/2014 6:00:33 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

When can we donwload the new DaBabes scenario version?

_____________________________

WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 3
RE: China - 4/15/2014 6:06:59 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline 		Symon, I read on the internet some interesting stuff about the chinese military and the, I think they had a 30 division plan and some others that I can't remember, But this is good stuff. Looking forward to it.
GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Blind Sniper)
Post #: 4
RE: China - 4/15/2014 8:52:26 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Well done sir!!

You really should stop by JAX sometime, drinks and dinner are on me.

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 5
RE: China - 4/16/2014 1:59:48 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Hi Symon

Does this mean compared to current Bigbabes versions the Chinese get more troops? Or better trained? Or better TOE? I am asking because I often feel the loss of China is not due the Chinese units, neither their
number, TOE or actual unit strenght but mostly due to what the Allied player is doing, most often wrong which results in the loss of China. China is all about supply. If China got supply, an equally skilled IJ player
won't beat the Allied player in China. Without supply it's just like playing domino when the Chinese are kicked from base to base to end up in the Chungking area usually.

How many AARs have I read and how often have I seen Allied players doing a Sir Robin in a way to get back to rear areas as fast as possible with as much as one can bring out. Defending Burma? Defending Rangoon?
Nah, who is going to do this and why? Because if you bring supply to Burma, then China is supplied too. And if China has supplies it is a giant. My last Allied PBEM saw me bringing hundreds of thousand tons of
supplies to Rangoon of which something like 250,000 were flowing to China when I finally had to give up Rangoon and the railroad to Lashio. Now the supply flow might be due to the supply routine not working as
one desired but that's how it works all around the map. These 250,000 tons of supply were easily enough to bring the Japanese to a halt soon, building forts and getting troops out of disablements. I never take
new replacements but guns for the Chinese the rest is just stockpiled until the day the Allied retake Burma which means full supply for the Chinese hordes.

Now my concern. I then focused on taking back Burma, something that usually ends up the same way the Allied player has done a Sir Robin, the IJ player now retreats to the line around Moulmein, which opens the supply
path to China again. This has happened in late 42/early 43 and the Chinese now were fully supplied. What did that mean? It meant there was around 30,000 Chinese assault value ready for offense! One can build three
death stars fully prepped for three targets and firepower or not, the Chinese just overrun any Japanese position easily if not urban heavy. I could have driven my Chinese hordes into Korea if I would have liked to.
Nothing else needed than just click and go. With the Japanese having at best 10,000 av in China (of which a portion is stuck due to garrison requirements) it is domino time again. Get one or two Japanese Armies
retreated and there is no stop anymore.

Long story short, all the Chinese need is supply. If they have enough supply, then they can hardly be stopped (again thinking about two equally skilled players). To me, the question is just how much supply the Chinese
should get to a) not get overrun (which usually is also result of strategic decisions the Allied player is doing = abandoning Burma as fast as possible) and b) not to get too strong so they overrun the IJ in late 43
at will. If they get more units or "different" units then this won't help them much if they don't have the needed supply. As a sidenote, I always play with a hr about not bombing Chinese industry. In my current
IJ PBEM my opponent has done exactly what I have described above and I never came within 300 miles of an Allied combat unit in Burma. We even had a hr about a truce in China until 3/42 to give the Chinese a chance
to regroup but all this didn't help at all because now in 6/42 domino has started and every Chinese unit that is attacked shows a (-) supply in the combat reports which makes it not too hard to rout the Chinese
Armies. Something I just couldn't do if they would have at least enough supply to live and fight a defensive war.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 4/16/2014 3:06:50 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 6
RE: China - 4/16/2014 2:21:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Another concern I would want addressed is the forts of Chinese bases at start. Should more be at 3 or 4 to slow down an aggressive Japanese player?? Maybe static construction units at bases that can only build up the base.

Overall, I like the idea of making China more static rather than be easily overrun and allow Japan to pull out battered divisions cheaply (cut their purchase price by half).

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 4/16/2014 3:23:27 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 7
RE: China - 4/16/2014 2:43:14 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline 		I like Symon.  He's got his...act...together

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 8
RE: China - 4/16/2014 2:49:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael and I have spoken about this many times. I plan to raise the Fort level in all Chinese cities/bases in all three of my Mods. Should certainly serve to SLOW things down.

Like the ideas John!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 9
RE: China - 4/16/2014 4:32:13 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Thank you all for the comments. I will take them to heart. Although some (hi CT ) are a bit out of scope for the project, they have much useful info that will certainly be considered. Anyway, a bit more background stuff and nonsense.

There actually is an ‘official’ organizational TO&E for the better (sometimes termed ‘new’) divisions of the Central KMT Command, prior to the proposed re-organization tables established under the Y-Force concept, March 1942. It is ‘official’ only on paper and serves as a benchmark target. However, units in the field were often only at 60-70% of establishments.

China had the capabilities for manufacturing everything up-to, and including, light 75mm) artillery, and did so to a remarkable degree. They produced their own small arms (copies of M98k and G98), light machine guns (copy of the ZB26, the original of the Bren), medium machine guns (copies of MG08 and Browning M1917), grenade launchers (copies of IJA 50mm T-10 and T-89), and mortars (copies of 8cm sGrW-34, 81mm SB Mle 27/31, 82mm PM-36/37 – itself a copy of the SB Mle 27/31).

There was production capability for AT guns (copy of Rheinmetall 3.7cm PaK 36), and artillery (copy of Krupp M08 Mtn Gun), but half of these centers were over-run in 1941, so actual production was reduced to a trickle that barely replaced losses. Unfortunately, indigenous mortar production was mainly directed to the Soviet 82mm type, which could not effectively fire 81mm ammunition provided through lend-lease.

It is notable that over 78% of all small arms provided to the reorganized Y-Force Chinese divisions was indigenously produced. Indigenous mortars were only 24% of the total because of the 81mm/82mm discrepancy. AT and Artillery was not indigenous, but provided by Lend-Lease, because of ammunition supply vs gun chambering; again, the ammo discrepancy. It is also notable that China quickly converted its small arms production facilities to re-chamber Allied cartridges, first to the Enfield .303 pattern (7.7 x 56 mm) and then to the .30-06 pattern (7.62 x 63mm).


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: China - 4/16/2014 4:42:45 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I have dot-based and supply-caped and garrison-required a large part of China in my personal mod, downgraded the roads and eliminated railroad bridges at the big rivers. Together with static warlord devices and Chinese guerillas I hope there are ample "brakes" to keep both sides from overrunning the other. Curious about the TOE changes made by John - permission to borrow them?

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 11
RE: China - 4/16/2014 11:37:19 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		Just thinking a bit about China. The war in China had largely become a mutual stand-off by late 1941. The Japanese made some advances after 1941 and the Chinese had some minor offensives, but the lines were more static than anything else. It was the most static theater of the war.

Chaing saw that the US was going to destroy Japan and he had a domestic enemy in Mao, so the Chinese tended to hoard preparing for the coming civil war rather than fight the Japanese.

Ultimately the Japanese were not able to run the board in China because they didn't have enough troops. The Japanese could hold the cities, but they didn't have enough boots on the ground to control the countryside. Ultimately Japan was too small a country to successfully conquer a country the size of China.

The Chinese political situation is essentially impossible to model and while it may be possible to model Japan's weaknesses in game, I have another idea.

I like the idea of starting with high fort levels in many Chinese cities. This combined with weaker Chinese units would make the Chinese stronger on defense than on offense. The Chinese would not have much punch if they decided to go on the offensive, but they would be a tougher nut to crack if they stayed in their fortress cities and let the Japanese come to them.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 12
RE: China - 4/17/2014 12:12:57 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline 		The problem is that we're comparing a game with history, and one will never play out as the other.

In real-life, Chiang Kai-shek was more interested in building up for the showdown with the Communists than throwing the Japanese out, while the Japanese were more than content to hold the major industrial areas, until the prospect of air raids on the Home Islands from China presented a problem.

That's hard to re-create in-game, where the Japanese player will not be content to take a passive approach, nor will the Allied player have to worry about losses impacting the outcome of a future civil war.

If there's to be more Chinese troops, what good with that do? The KMT's problem is supply, not number of troops.

What is needed is a better representation of the inability of Japan to control the countryside, either through higher garrison requirements, or more small Chinese partisan groups, or a combination of both.

In pitched battle, the Japanese should have the upper-hand in the majority of cases, but the Chinese should have partisan units tearing up the Japanese rear and pinning down units in prolonged games of catch-me-if-you-can.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 13
RE: China - 4/17/2014 12:38:45 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Bill,

My initial reaction to that is "the Chinese units already start out weak." With few exceptions, the experience and morale of the Chinese units is in the dumps. And good leaders are fairly hard to come by. The Chinese units don't upgrade to the anti-soft/hard strength of most other Allied units, so even after gaining significant experience they are still quite weak on offense.

The best thing that supply seems to do for Chinese units is allow them to repair squads, of which many start out disabled. Of course that is not the only thing, as supply is needed for morale increase and for squad upgrades (they are modest by Allied standards but they still help), aside from operations.

The optional stacking limits in China are quite important and have a heavy impact on the supply-starved Chinese armed forces. In other places the Allies can over stack when appropriate and when supply is available. In China "when supply is available" is a major limiting factor.

Most of the over stacking in China that I've seen in my current PBM falls into three categories:

1) In the mountains near Burma with China's Allies carting and air-lifting in as much supply as they possibly can to bolster China's last line of defense. Even in this circumstance the over stacking is balanced as much as possible to provide enough troops to hold the line while burn as little supply as possible.

2) When there is (literally) zero supply available and so there is no supply penalty to be had! This occurred in several places where #3 (below) came into play in other hexes and consumed all supply. This was (obviously) as temporary a situation as possible to stave of destruction of large forces. It could not be sustained for terribly long.

3) When retreats caused large-scale over stacking and vaporized prodigious amounts of supply. This is a very significant factor, although partly hidden from the opposing player (who might not have solid recon of the troop levels in hexes not in contact). The clogging of the road network with units when large number of troops simply must move (or be destroyed) is a secondary cause of this. Huge amounts of supply were eaten up by over stacking penalties in my current PBM. I think these two factors together serve as an analogy for the issue itself and for the transport impact of large numbers of refugees also on the roads. This is most significant when a defending force is being battered and retreated, and so less directly bears on your point about Chinese units going on the offensive. BUT - the game is time-limited and this is a significant loss to the Chinese forces in terms of being thrown down a deeper hole that they must climb out of. That takes longer, to the degree that it can be done at all.

This is a great discussion, and I certainly do not want to see the problem reversed instead of corrected. I just advise "caution" with respect to weakening the Chinese forces, lest that undo whatever other progress is made.

BTW, maybe apply the higher starting forts to the Japanese bases in China as well?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 14
RE: China - 4/17/2014 12:55:10 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		I think the problems in China are different when playing against the AI vs PBEM. I've never played PBEM, but against the AI it's pretty easy for the Chinese to take over all of the mainland by mid to late 1943. In a couple of games I had B-25s bombing southern Japan from Korea. Keep enough supply flow coming in and the Chinese army is unbeatable. Though that may be some limitations in the AI. It is well known the AI gets confused if things start getting too ahistorical.

In my last game the Chinese went on the offensive around March 1942. They were only halted by the monsoon season in Burma which caused supply to pile up in Rangoon. The AI was also stopped at Pegu in Burma. When I last played the game I was waiting for the monsoon season to end to continue the offensive.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 15
RE: China - 4/17/2014 2:05:43 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline 		The allies planned and started to build a road from Ledo to china. Can a mod or some kind of system be built into the game were you use engineers to build roads in the game? For example; 4 eng batt can built a 1 hex road through a jungle hex in 6 months with x amount of supply. And the map will update to show the road.... Just some random idea. But if we could build a road hex in game it would make things interesting.
GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 16
RE: China - 4/17/2014 3:44:31 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

The allies planned and started to build a road from Ledo to china. Can a mod or some kind of system be built into the game were you use engineers to build roads in the game? For example; 4 eng batt can built a 1 hex road through a jungle hex in 6 months with x amount of supply. And the map will update to show the road.... Just some random idea. But if we could build a road hex in game it would make things interesting.
GP


Don't think it's possible. I recall several occasions when this was brought up in the past

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 17
RE: China - 4/17/2014 4:11:54 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
I think the problems in China are different when playing against the AI vs PBEM. I've never played PBEM, but against the AI it's pretty easy for the Chinese to take over all of the mainland by mid to late 1943. In a couple of games I had B-25s bombing southern Japan from Korea. Keep enough supply flow coming in and the Chinese army is unbeatable. Though that may be some limitations in the AI. It is well known the AI gets confused if things start getting too ahistorical.

In my last game the Chinese went on the offensive around March 1942. They were only halted by the monsoon season in Burma which caused supply to pile up in Rangoon. The AI was also stopped at Pegu in Burma. When I last played the game I was waiting for the monsoon season to end to continue the offensive.

Bill

Hi Bill. Don't count your assumptions before they hatch, my friend. Didn't say anything about giving China more, or fewer units. Heck, there's approximately 375 division equivalents in the current OOB already: 120 Corps (roughly 3 Divs each), 15 separate Divs, then some brigades and cavalry.

China will be more grainy. There will be differences between (and among) Chaing's core units, "loyal" NRA, the provincial forces like Kwangsi, Kwangtung, Hunan, Shensi, Szechuan, Anhwei, Yunnan, Kweichow. Some will be better, some worse.

I have a listing of the divisional level breakdowns between the Central and various Provisional forces for 1939 and 1943, taken from –¯š ŒRŽ–Žj—ªe (Military History of Republican China) vol. 3. [shoot, thought the characters would show up. Guess they didn't. Oh, well] It's complete enough to allow for intelligent interpolation to the December, 1941 time frame. Then, it's just a matter of building the various Jun from their component parts.

Bottom line is that some Chinese will perform better than other Chinese. BigBabes isn't really an AI scenario anyway. Despite being part of a "game", it's primarily a learning tool. As in all "games", the system can be exploited, if not in one way, then in another. Can't be prevented. So ... use the tools as intended and you might have fun (and different forms of frustration) .

Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 4/17/2014 5:23:26 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: China - 4/17/2014 4:30:07 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

The allies planned and started to build a road from Ledo to china. Can a mod or some kind of system be built into the game were you use engineers to build roads in the game? For example; 4 eng batt can built a 1 hex road through a jungle hex in 6 months with x amount of supply. And the map will update to show the road.... Just some random idea. But if we could build a road hex in game it would make things interesting.
GP




Well, you can create a set of different pwhexdat files which model the road building progress by creating resp. upgrading trails to secondary to major roads. So at the historic date the road was opened for business, you just switch the pwhex file. I think the RHS mod uses this approach.

Or you can create strings of dot bases along the road with supply caps - which will be raised by each level of fortification, airbase and port, requiring Eng units to do the construction work.

I use this approach in my personal mod. My Asian roads and railroads - even when landlocked - have dot bases with potential port sizes and supply caps for the express purpose to a) slow down the supply flows and b) provide the opportunity to increase the supply cap through port expansion when necessary for operations. I use ports to avoid creating strings of monster airbases or monster fortifications. A base with a supply cap of say 10 and size 0 port can reach 100 supplies with port size 9. By setting different supply caps and potential port sizes depending on what you intend you have some control over the maximum limit the supply cap can be pushed by base expansion. Of course expansion consumes lots of supplies, ties down Eng assets and it takes time, so it is more an option for the Allies than for the Japanese and the player should think twice where to build and to what level.

I use this approach not only for the Ledo road but also for the Bengal-Assam Railroad to Ledo which started as a 600-tons capacity "garden railway" and was upgraded by US Railroad Engineers (added to my game) to 3000 tons/day during the war, for the Thailand-Burma "Death Railway" and the "Second Death Railway" in Sumatra and for the railways the Chinese did destroy on the retreat but which I think could have been rebuilt if deemed worth the effort.

Granted, all this is a poor substitute for a real construction ability. Furthermore this approach requires house rules (like no strat movement of troops until there is an unbroken string of level-x ports from start to destination along the railway). But I am modding for h2h play so for me this is no issue.





< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 4/17/2014 5:34:59 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 19
RE: China - 4/17/2014 4:30:16 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		For LST and the other interested folks, I'll use this thread to detail some of the reorganizations, redefinitions, and additions to the data files. And yes, LST, you can use any and all that you want three bags full.

Ciao. JWE

[ps] I like your dot approach. Always disliked the pwhexe thing because as soon as you switch to a new one, the other side knows about it and there's no way of monitoring what else might have been done by an unscrupulous opponent. We play with umpires and they have lots of fun utilities at their command. One side will wish to do something, consult with the umpire, and the umpire makes it happen (sometimes, not exactly like what the player team wanted, but close). Both sides do their turns and the umpire runs tham with his 'tweaked' files. All the teams know, when they get their results, is that "data has changed". They could figure it out after a loooong time looking, or just deal with it until it becomes obvious from the adjusted operational axes of the other team. It's "surprise" writ large

< Message edited by Symon -- 4/17/2014 5:52:14 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 20
RE: China - 4/17/2014 4:39:58 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Or you can create strings of dot bases along the road with supply caps - which will be raised by each level of fortification, airbase and port, requiring Eng units to do the construction work.



LST,

nice appraoch using ports inland like that. Sorry to inform you that I am "borrowing" your concept (in a Lend-Lease fashion) for my own mod.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 21
RE: China - 4/17/2014 4:52:26 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		No objections .

The very idea of posting was sharing the concept for anyone who may find it useful - or to be brought down to earth by more knowledgable people explaining "this won't work"

I have borrowed many things for my mod from the forum as well - it is a great asset that there are so many players spreading useful information, ideas etc. and you can pick and take what you want.

Btw, thanks John, can't wait to see your data

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 4/17/2014 5:53:26 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 22
RE: China - 4/17/2014 6:14:42 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Ok, so digging into the details, Squads:
Germany had a Military Mission to China. The scope and details are immaterial to this thread. But it had an impact on the squad level makeup of the NRA. The basic squad, organizationally, was supposed to consist of 14 men, each squad with an LMG, the remainder armed with bolt-action rifles. But the Chinese used the grenade launcher extensively and the Germans had no experience with the weapon, so off it went into company level echelon, along with the troops. Thus, Chinese squads went from 14 to 10 men, due to echeloning.

Concatenating the weapon systems, much like the IJ paradigm, one can envision an “A” level Chinese squad with an LMG and an abstraction of grenade launchers. This is reasonably utile, given the records of incoming units to Yunan-Force, where the standard armament was an equal number of LMGs and GLs (54 each, per Regt). So, just like what was done with the IJA, there’s a “first tier” of Chinese squads that are abstracted into a game organization.

And then there was a “second” tier that might have been organized, but wasn’t equipped to that standard. This is where the lack of English language sources comes home to roost. Apocrypha says the main Central units were using a quasi-Western organization: a company with rifle platoons and an MG platoon and with GLs interspersed throughout.

So … there’s two different kinds of nominal Chinese squads. Golly. And there’s two more different kinds. Golly. And they evolved over time. Golly. Talk about grainy. Woof !!!


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 23
RE: China - 4/17/2014 6:19:48 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline 		Symon. I LOVE it. The idea that the Japanese could suddenly conquer China during the middle of the war when they hadn't been able to do it during the 5 years when it was all they had to deal with (1937-41) seemed ludicrous.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 24
RE: China - 4/17/2014 7:39:20 PM   
Blind Sniper


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/9/2008
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline 		Symon, do you have a released date?
NO pressure at all, I will start a new PBEM CG game (DaBabes 28C) and I'm just wondering if can be feasible waiting your mod

_____________________________

WitP-AE - WitE - CWII - BASPM - BaB


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 25
RE: China - 4/17/2014 8:04:57 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Symon. I LOVE it. The idea that the Japanese could suddenly conquer China during the middle of the war when they hadn't been able to do it during the 5 years when it was all they had to deal with (1937-41) seemed ludicrous.

Thank you Mike, but maybe they still can. It's the tension between playing it right or playing like usual weenie suspects. We ignore the 'gamey' weasels. Our paradigm is for those who wish to play things "righteouly". Squirrels, and gophers, and rabbits need not apply.

Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 4/17/2014 9:07:57 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 26
RE: China - 4/17/2014 8:28:19 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

The allies planned and started to build a road from Ledo to china. Can a mod or some kind of system be built into the game were you use engineers to build roads in the game? For example; 4 eng batt can built a 1 hex road through a jungle hex in 6 months with x amount of supply. And the map will update to show the road.... Just some random idea. But if we could build a road hex in game it would make things interesting.
GP


quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy
Don't think it's possible. I recall several occasions when this was brought up in the past


During development we had a long discussion about adding the ability to builds roads and railroads. It would have been a tremendous amount of work and ultimately it was dropped. Not only is the road thing relevant to Burma and Thailand, but the Can-Am highway was built during the war too.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 27
RE: China - 4/17/2014 10:34:09 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Symon. I LOVE it. The idea that the Japanese could suddenly conquer China during the middle of the war when they hadn't been able to do it during the 5 years when it was all they had to deal with (1937-41) seemed ludicrous.

Thank you Mike, but maybe they still can. It's the tension between playing it right or playing like usual weenie suspects. We ignore the 'gamey' weasels. Our paradigm is for those who wish to play things "righteouly". Squirrels, and gophers, and rabbits need not apply.

Ciao. JWE


But at least you made an effort to make it more difficult for the weasels to get away with such stupidity,

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 28
RE: China - 4/18/2014 12:27:14 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 29
RE: China - 4/18/2014 5:06:08 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		This is very simplified, suitable for abstraction, but in no way detailed or complete. The main difference between Central and Provincial forces is that Central forces came from the nation at large: they were raised, trained (kinda), equipped (kinda) and paid (rarely) by the Central Govt, so their loyalty (such as it was) was to Chaing. Provisional forces were raised, trained (maybe), equipped (kinda) and paid (more rarely) by the Provincial Governors. PGs might have been warlords in the Nationalist period, but were nominally appointed by, and variably loyal to, the KMT regime. However, since the troops were armed paid by the PGs, their loyalty lay with whoever filled their rice-bowl: they bore watching.

There were warlords (PGs) and then there were warlords (PGs). Just being a PG does not imply incompetence, per se. Venality, corruption, and efficiency were pretty evenly distributed. The main effect was in the distribution of the highly scarce support weapons and lend-lease equipment, as it became available. All that stuff went to Chiang’s supporters. But that doesn’t mean that Provincial units were always peasants with rifles: several of them got the good stuff, while Central units got bupkis.

Anyway, at the beginning of 1943, there were 235 identified divisions, of which 94 were nominally Central Army forces, 134 were nominally Provincial forces, and 7 are of indeterminate or miscellaneous origin. In addition, there were 11 Reserve Divisions and 51 Provisional Divisions. All 11 ResDivs and 21 of the ProvDivs were Central Army forces, 14 were Sichuan Provincial forces, 5 were raised by the NW Army and the remaining 11 came from diverse provincial sources. They were more like specific, directed manpower reserves than front-line operational units. So, technically, there were 297 identified divisions, of which 126 were nominally Central Army forces, and 164 were nominally Provincial forces.

Central Army:
1 Honor, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 34, 36, 40, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 67, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 109, 110, 117, 118, 121, 140, 185, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, N1, N3, N22, N23, N26, N28, N29, N30, N33, N34, N35
Quasi Central Army:
5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 44, 47, 54, 56, 75, 76, N24, N27
NE Area:
105, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 130
NW Area:
20, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 74, 81, 100, 106, 132, 143, 168, N4, N6
Hunan Area:
15, 16, 19, 62, 63, 107, 192
Henan Area:
64, 65
Yunnan Area:
179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, N10, N11, N12
Shanxi Area:
66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 101, 139, 141, 142, N2, N31, N32
Shaanxi Area:
17, 42, 86, 128, 165, 166, 169, 177
Sichuan Area:
104, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 133, 134, 136, 137, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 161, 162, 163, 164, 167, 178, N7, N9, N13, N14, N15, N16, N17, N18, N21, N25, N37
Guangdong Area:
59, 90, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 186, 187, 170, N19
Guangxi Area:
131, 135, 138, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 188, 189,
Guizhou Area:
102, N8
Status Indeterminate:
41, 45, 46, 82, N5
Puppet Troops that Defected
N20, N36

[ed] Oh, yes, N just means New Division. It's merely an identifier for historiacl clarity. It has no bearing whatsoever on the unit's TOE, training, or anything else.

< Message edited by Symon -- 4/18/2014 6:12:56 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> China Page: [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

0.906