China problem

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 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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> China problem

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

China problem - 1/29/2021 2:58:06 AM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

For 1939 scenario PBEM games, the defense of China is a bit of a dilemma.

Historically, China was able to defend Sian and Chungking throughout the War while Changsha only fell in the 1944 IJA Ichigo offensive. The 1942 and 1943 scenarios reflect this, but for 1939 PBEM games, good axis players can always capture Changsha by early 1940 and both Sian and Chungking in 1941. All the best players would agree this is inevitable as the scenario stands now.

Sure, this game isn't supposed to be just an historical reenactment, but it should resemble the war somewhat and this is the most glaring historical inconsistency which also degrades enjoyment. No fun playing China when they always lose.

On the flip side, in the game, if it survives, China can pose an existential challenge to Japan and drive them out of mainland Asia. This isn't historically accurate either.

Sure, maybe Japan could have made better progress against China if it overcame divisions between its army and navy about war strategy and prioritized the effort in China more. Supposedly there is a trade off in the game with a warning for Japan not to concentrate solely on the war with China. But in the game Japan already has enough naval forces and other resources to hold the allies at bay while conquering China, attacking the USSR, and threatening India to support a consistent Axis war winning strategy- Aside from some critical research and maritime bombers, Japan can afford to devote resources against China with little downside.

Ideas to address this- 1939 scenarios-

1. weaken Axis forces in China somewhat- instead of two 11 and one 12 strength Armies- maybe just one 11 strength Central Expedition Army.

2. Consider US - Axis tension increase for Japanese conquest of Sian and Chungking and early imposition of oil embargo. Hypothetical, but likely that the US would have been alarmed by such progress had it occurred and taken action to oppose. This won't stop Axis conquest of China but may delay it somewhat and/or provide a better trade off.

3. Limit Chinese progress in Inf weapons to 1. (can't advance to 2). This may help balance the game in which a surviving China can hurt Japan later in the war to a greater degree than historically relevant. Also, limit supply for non-Chinese allied forces- i.e. U.S. bombers out of China cannot be fully supplied- also probably historically accurate.

A more radical method would be to consider how poor the infrastructure was in interior China and limit the ability of units of both allies and axis units to be in full supply in China. Logistics was historically a challenge in China for both sides- difficult for units to be fully supplied there especially in the interior. Degrading the ability of units of both sides to be in full supply in China may slow offensives and led to other regional focuses in a manner better matching historical facts. May need to play this one one a few times though. Regardless, US/UK air units supply in China should be limited.

Post #: 1

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 4:25:50 AM

EarlyDoors

Posts: 548
Joined: 12/16/2018
From: uk
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jackmck

For 1939 scenario PBEM games, the defense of China is a bit of a dilemma.

....

A more radical method would be to consider how poor the infrastructure was in interior China and limit the ability of units of both allies and axis units to be in full supply in China. Logistics was historically a challenge in China for both sides- difficult for units to be fully supplied there especially in the interior. Degrading the ability of units of both sides to be in full supply in China may slow offensives and led to other regional focuses in a manner better matching historical facts. May need to play this one one a few times though. Regardless, US/UK air units supply in China should be limited.

i agree that the solution may lie in supply

perhaps in a similar way that UK/US units don't get full supply in USSR

_____________________________

18-17 PBEM++
-----------
Honours the game
-----------
http://scwaw-rankings.s3-website.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 2

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 1:51:28 PM

Marcinos1985

Posts: 430
Joined: 1/22/2020
Status: offline

Very good opening post.

Against very good player, Chonqing falls in 1941, no matter what, and then it's all downhill from there, because out of sudden Chinese in their own country suffer supply problems. Everything else is a mopup operation with few units, and then Japan can do whatever it wants, even attack US mainland.

I fell the major problem is that Japan doesn't have to devote much resources to Pacific and SE Asia, except aforementioned maritime bombers. They get huge amount of stuff for free, they just have to pack them into transports and are free to go. Therefore, they may concentrate solely on China and achieve their goals in about 2 years.

And then they may do anything they want, apart from usual SE Asia-PH stuff. They may go for Russia or India. If they take some time, even for mainland US. They will of course not conquer US, but may seriously hamper US effort against Germany, and therefore give Axis more time to kick Russia around. These are all scenarios form games against formidable oponents, not some hipsters. That JAP ability to influence game so much is probably the least historical thing in SC:WaW. Things would be different, if China didn't collapse that quickly.

But why does China gets so much beating? Several factors:

1. Japan has fantastic forces near Changsha - experienced, with better tech and air support. They kill everything in their sight, esp. exposed corps SE of city dies always, like always in first turn. They just slowly roll through, and gain more XP in process, becoming even more unstoppable.

2. Due to HQ chaining, JAP has no supply issues, even going through mountains. It takes time of course, but progress is consistent.

3. China doesn't have an HQ in the South, leaving like third of their army without command. Allied players have to resort to "shift-click" tricks with fighters, to bring some HQ quickly.

4. National Morale snowballs against them, with no many possibilities to regain some.

5. Japan is able to quickly operate most of Manchurian units to China proper, leaving garrisons there in exchange. IRL, it would be an invitation for USSR but sadly, unmobilized Major cannot DOW.

6. In the beginning, experienced Japanese carriers offer a lot of support for infantry.

7. China's MPP is "not great". When cut off from US help, they can't rebuild lost armies and then die. And they have to fight around 1,5 year without US funds.

8. Did I mention that JAP gets a lot of free stuff? Therefore, they don't have to buy units, maybe some artillery and maritime bombers, but not much more.

All these points combined make China's life though, a lot tougher than IRL.

There are sideeffects of course. Having free hands, Japan can attack Russia, take Vladivostok (cutting off US help) and go for Irkutsk, Soviets have to organize some defense. Also, dynamic of Pacific is heavily skewed in JAP favour. They have a great, experienced fleet, which US won't be able to attack on their own in 1942 or 1943 even.

Some players complain about UK ambushes on Japanese transports. But this 'cheese' is not performed for fun, it's because there aren't that many options to harm Japan before they attack themselves. It's war, if you are sendind transports uncovered and don't even try to hide them, they will be sunk. I will not even count in how many games I had transports close to India and could only look at them, because I would be penalized (US mob) for attacking them.

_____________________________

WaW ELO Tournament
3 Tips to improve your game now

(in reply to EarlyDoors)

Post #: 3

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 2:16:18 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

Playing the Allies, I've not often had China defeated by the Japanese in PBEM; at worst, they're driven back into the interior. The object is to be aggressive with the Chinese where you can and hold the line otherwise. Not over the top where you wear out all your Chinese units, but bleed the Japanese to force them to spend their mpp's on reinforcing units and if you can capitalize on an error, replace destroyed ones. As most Axis players empty Manchuria of line units and replace with garrisons, I pull the Russians back slightly, to give the Axis player a false sense of security, but keep most of them there. If things are manageable on the Eastern Front, I start producing units near Manchuria and invade to support the Chinese when ready. Historically, Stalin waited till the bombs dropped, but if Germany was faltering in 1942, Stalin might have considered it, and no love lost between the two for 1905. I'm not sure it was likely, given his habit of only doing what benefitted him, but it is a possibility.

(in reply to Marcinos1985)

Post #: 4

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 9:00:42 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Sure, this game isn't supposed to be just an historical reenactment, but it should resemble the war somewhat and this is the most glaring historical inconsistency which also degrades enjoyment. No fun playing China when they always lose.

On the flip side, in the game, if it survives, China can pose an existential challenge to Japan and drive them out of mainland Asia. This isn't historically accurate either.

Hi Jackmck,

Very interesting and informative post, but:

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean when you say the game isn't supposed to be an historical reenactment, followed by saying that when China loses badly or survives to the point where Japan gets in serious trouble for it. If either of these two outcomes don't happen, wouldn't that amount to an historical reenactment?

I get your point about whether this aspect of the game is balanced or not, but I see no reason why Japan shouldn't be able to knock out China, or for that matter, China aggressively hold out against Japan. I have had both happen to me and vice versa to my opponents in a number of PBEM games, so at this point, I'm not sure it is a simple matter of nerfing Japan and/or China, especially limiting China to Infantry weapons level 1, which I think would be too drastic because most of the time and by the time China gets this and is able to upgrade some units, Japan already has almost if not all its units upgraded to level 2, plus high levels of accumulated experience. It would be a slaughter. Also, my impression of supply in China is that it is already quite poor enough.

Of course this is up for discussion/debate, so don't just go by what I think.

Cheers,

C

< Message edited by Christolos -- 1/29/2021 9:08:44 PM >

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 5

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 9:14:12 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jackmck

Sure, maybe Japan could have made better progress against China if it overcame divisions between its army and navy about war strategy and prioritized the effort in China more. Supposedly there is a trade off in the game with a warning for Japan not to concentrate solely on the war with China. But in the game Japan already has enough naval forces and other resources to hold the allies at bay while conquering China, attacking the USSR, and threatening India to support a consistent Axis war winning strategy- Aside from some critical research and maritime bombers, Japan can afford to devote resources against China with little downside.

Their navy won't be able to withstand a substantial US naval buildup if the IJN doesn't get many new builds. But, as I mentioned in another thread last week, the US income is likely far below historical, so they almost always have to buy units to attack Germany (esp. if the Russians are on the ropes). My guess is that the US, in SC terms, from Dec 7 1941 to Dec '43 likely bought well over 10,000 MPPs of just ships only. No way a US player will be doing that in this game.

quote:

A more radical method would be to consider how poor the infrastructure was in interior China and limit the ability of units of both allies and axis units to be in full supply in China. Logistics was historically a challenge in China for both sides- difficult for units to be fully supplied there especially in the interior. Degrading the ability of units of both sides to be in full supply in China may slow offensives and led to other regional focuses in a manner better matching historical facts. May need to play this one one a few times though. Regardless, US/UK air units supply in China should be limited.

My Pacific map is going to have partisans coming out of every pore. The IJA simply didn't have the manpower to police a country as big as China, and they knew it. In my scenario they will have to commit to building a substantial number of garrisons + other stuff, which will add up quickly, esp. since I will also ensure that the US can buy out most of their navy without much issue. In vanilla they just need to cover a few hexes, and they're golden. Annnd since they need Logistics for their naval invasions, that will also have a nice side-effect of increasing their land supply too.

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 6

RE: China problem - 1/29/2021 9:27:50 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

My Pacific map is going to have partisans coming out of every pore. The IJA simply didn't have the manpower to police a country as big as China, and they knew it. In my scenario they will have to commit to building a substantial number of garrisons + other stuff, which will add up quickly, esp. since I will also ensure that the US can buy out most of their navy without much issue. In vanilla they just need to cover a few hexes, and they're golden. Annnd since they need Logistics for their naval invasions, that will also have a nice side-effect of increasing their land supply too.

I'm playing a PBEM game right now where I have China seriously on the ropes, and have noticed quite a lot of Partisans as it is. I have been building a lot of garrisons as a result, so I'm not sure there are not enough in the vanilla version...

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 7

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 2:09:47 PM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

Playing the Allies, I've not often had China defeated by the Japanese in PBEM; at worst, they're driven back into the interior.

If you play the top rated players, China will be defeated by Japan. Even when the top rated players play against each other, China is defeated- at worst surrender or at least lose both Sian and Chungking. Furthermore, those players would ensure that the USSR is struggling for survival such that for them to keep and/or build units in Siberia would be folly.

Eventually the techniques and strategies of the top players will be adopted by most, and China will be defeated in nearly every game. I would like to see more costs/trade offs associated with Japan's conquest of China so that there is more variety in games. I don't think this will affect a consistent winning Axis strategy that much- the game is still won in Russia.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 8

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 2:29:12 PM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

I'm not sure I follow exactly what you mean when you say the game isn't supposed to be an historical reenactment, followed by saying that when China loses badly or survives to the point where Japan gets in serious trouble for it. If either of these two outcomes don't happen, wouldn't that amount to an historical reenactment?

I get your point about whether this aspect of the game is balanced or not, but I see no reason why Japan shouldn't be able to knock out China, or for that matter, China aggressively hold out against Japan. I have had both happen to me and vice versa to my opponents in a number of PBEM games, so at this point, I'm not sure it is a simple matter of nerfing Japan and/or China, especially limiting China to Infantry weapons level 1, which I think would be too drastic because most of the time and by the time China gets this and is able to upgrade some units, Japan already has almost if not all its units upgraded to level 2, plus high levels of accumulated experience. It would be a slaughter. Also, my impression of supply in China is that it is already quite poor enough.

My point about historical reenactment is that the challenge should for the Axis to do better than they did historically- but the game should still be based on historical premises. It should be more of a challenge for Japan to defeat China and/or there should be some more trade-offs. Right now it is too easy for Japan to do this and if they don't, they will be in serious trouble.

Regarding infantry weapons level 2- as it stands now, China is either defeated before researching them or it would be a too little too late to make a difference. If Japan is weakened somewhat or more trade offs faced and they pursue a different strategy, allowing China to get level 2 would allow it to pose a more significant threat. As an allied player, if I could trade away the ability to obtain level 2 inf for a better chance to survive past 1942- I'd take it.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 9

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 3:46:58 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

You do make a valid point and I get what you are saying, but I'm just wondering, and because this has not been my experience yet, whether China would lose badly every time with players of equal skill, which is also not an easy thing (relative skill level that is) to calibrate/assign empirically.

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 10

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 5:14:37 PM

Jackmck

Posts: 68
Joined: 6/15/2019
Status: offline

quote:

You do make a valid point and I get what you are saying, but I'm just wondering, and because this has not been my experience yet, whether China would lose badly every time with players of equal skill, which is also not an easy thing (relative skill level that is) to calibrate/assign empirically.

For the grand masters with the current game settings it is Axis checkmate in China. Now it is only a matter time before everyone figures out the right moves. Again, the best players playing against themselves would agree China is a lost cause, as it stands right now. Grand masters... feel free to comment...

That said, China is a sideshow and the game is always decided in Russia. China's survival doesn't make a difference if Russia surrenders in 1943.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 11

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 6:34:02 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

For the grand masters with the current game settings it is Axis checkmate in China. Now it is only a matter time before everyone figures out the right moves. Again, the best players playing against themselves would agree China is a lost cause, as it stands right now. Grand masters... feel free to comment...

As I am not a Grand Master at this game, but rather between a beginner and an intermediate player, you could be absolutely right, and since I don't know what your experience level is at playing the game, I am assuming you are and that you have conferred with other masters of the game on this point. If so, I would conclude that this aspect of the game could indeed use some balancing tweaks, but it may make it impossible for Japan to ever fully conquer China (the huge amount of plunder MPPs are fun to get and sure come in handy if the US is seriously breathing down Japan's neck) when two masters play against each other. I guess the best that could be expected then, between two highly skilled players, is stalemate in China every time...but then, and in keeping with your chess analogy, the whole game should be balanced to the same point, or at least to an end game position where one side will eventually win.

In my experience, there is always a tipping point where the game can be seen to be lost by both parties, which could happen as early as 1942 or as late as 1944. But despite when it happens, it is still loads of fun, for me anyways, to keep playing till the eventual end, regardless of whether it is me who will lose, or my opponent.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Cheers,

C

_____________________________

(in reply to Jackmck)

Post #: 12

RE: China problem - 1/30/2021 9:53:29 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

I'm playing a PBEM game right now where I have China seriously on the ropes, and have noticed quite a lot of Partisans as it is. I have been building a lot of garrisons as a result, so I'm not sure there are not enough in the vanilla version...

C

I just checked. Looking at the 1942 vanilla front line, I count 13 supply partisan hexes & 3 spawning partisans. They can be covered by 10 units. Many of the required IJA units can cover more than 1 partisan hex, and in many cases these units can either be front-line units, HQ's, and/or air units. To be honest this is an terribly low number, one I can EASILY cover with just 4-5 garrisons. OK, start an offensive, maybe I need 4-5 more to take Chungking, which is usually the beginning of the end. Annnd Indochina has ZILCH. Yes, the same place where tons of insurgents fought the US 25 years later. India has only two of any significance (3 in the west, which is no big deal since the IJA holding them means the Indians are toast).

My reference books make it clear that any areas that were not occupied in force by IJA units reverted to warlord control as a matter of course. You want a rationale for why China is such a pushover, welp there ya have it.

There needs to be a tradeoff-want to have a big push in China, ya gotta buy the forces necessary to hold it. The equivalent of one heavy cruiser is nothing, really, and the garrisons easily pay for themselves in fairly short order.

Part of this is due to the small map scale as well, note.

< Message edited by Elessar2 -- 1/30/2021 9:56:24 PM >

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 13

RE: China problem - 1/31/2021 5:06:19 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

China should be a quagmire for the Japanese. It is just too easy for Nippon to crush China early on before any meaningful help can come their way in my experience. If the Japanese want to make a big thing there and spend the MMPs to make it so, then it should mean a deficit in other areas of Japans position..such as research, their navy, or other things.

As its designed right now...I don't see any hard decisions for the Japanese to make if they want to go all in on China. It just seems like the default decision now.

Otherwise...love the game!

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 14

RE: China problem - 1/31/2021 3:05:54 PM

pjg100

Posts: 369
Joined: 4/8/2017
Status: offline

To me China feels about right as it is. It is very difficult to defend, but that is as it should be. In my experience, if JA makes a sustained, committed effort during 1939-41 to push to Chungking and Sian (which, as I understand it, did not happen IRL) then absent atrocious luck I will take both, with Sian possibly holding out into 1942 with the help of the Communists. However, the cost associated with this effort is substantial, and does slow down my research, constrain my ability to build out a larger fleet and hamper my ability to optimize my invasions in late 1941. And, after Chungking and Sian are taken, there is another slog through the mountains to get to Lanchow if you want to really put CH on the ropes.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 15

RE: China problem - 1/31/2021 5:29:00 PM

calcwerc

Posts: 124
Joined: 8/8/2019
Status: offline

Agree with pjg100

(in reply to pjg100)

Post #: 16

RE: China problem - 1/31/2021 10:55:57 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

China should be a quagmire for the Japanese. It is just too easy for Nippon to crush China early on before any meaningful help can come their way in my experience. If the Japanese want to make a big thing there and spend the MMPs to make it so, then it should mean a deficit in other areas of Japans position..such as research, their navy, or other things.

As its designed right now...I don't see any hard decisions for the Japanese to make if they want to go all in on China. It just seems like the default decision now.

Otherwise...love the game!

You are seeing my deficit in our current game. As I went all in on China I have less units helping in the Pacific and am very late to the game in Malaya and Burma...Also research spent here is a deficit in other theaters...

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/1/2021 1:25:26 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 17

RE: China problem - 1/31/2021 10:57:31 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pjg100

To me China feels about right as it is. It is very difficult to defend, but that is as it should be. In my experience, if JA makes a sustained, committed effort during 1939-41 to push to Chungking and Sian (which, as I understand it, did not happen IRL) then absent atrocious luck I will take both, with Sian possibly holding out into 1942 with the help of the Communists. However, the cost associated with this effort is substantial, and does slow down my research, constrain my ability to build out a larger fleet and hamper my ability to optimize my invasions in late 1941. And, after Chungking and Sian are taken, there is another slog through the mountains to get to Lanchow if you want to really put CH on the ropes.

Agreed I have had to crash through wall after wall in China and it has come at a cost in research and participation in other theaters...

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 1/31/2021 10:58:16 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to pjg100)

Post #: 18

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 1:47:15 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

China should be a quagmire for the Japanese. It is just too easy for Nippon to crush China early on before any meaningful help can come their way in my experience. If the Japanese want to make a big thing there and spend the MMPs to make it so, then it should mean a deficit in other areas of Japans position..such as research, their navy, or other things.

As its designed right now...I don't see any hard decisions for the Japanese to make if they want to go all in on China. It just seems like the default decision now.

Otherwise...love the game!

You are seeing my deficit in our current game. As I went all in on China I have less units helping in the Pacific and am very late to the game in Malaya and Burma...Also research spent here is a deficit in other theaters...

Yes...this is true! I stand corrected......

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 19

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 1:56:33 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: pjg100

To me China feels about right as it is. It is very difficult to defend, but that is as it should be. In my experience, if JA makes a sustained, committed effort during 1939-41 to push to Chungking and Sian (which, as I understand it, did not happen IRL) then absent atrocious luck I will take both, with Sian possibly holding out into 1942 with the help of the Communists. However, the cost associated with this effort is substantial, and does slow down my research, constrain my ability to build out a larger fleet and hamper my ability to optimize my invasions in late 1941. And, after Chungking and Sian are taken, there is another slog through the mountains to get to Lanchow if you want to really put CH on the ropes.

Agreed I have had to crash through wall after wall in China and it has come at a cost in research and participation in other theaters...

Tanaka,

Alas..I was hasty with my earlier post....and I did give you a rough time in China for the first 2 years at least.
I have been reading the reports on Japan diligently throughout. It was probably the 2nd 'Pearl Harbor' I suffered by your hands that clouded my opinion on this matter.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 20

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 10:26:00 AM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Very interesting discussion all round, and it shows that we need to be very careful with any changes.

One thing I have been wondering is whether it would be beneficial to move one of the starting Chinese HQs from the Sian area to the south, so that Changsha's defenders have a HQ commanding them right from the start.

I'm not sure offhand if we should change the name of the HQ too in that case.

Would this help keep things more historical without upsetting balance?

_____________________________

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 21

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 11:38:00 AM

Marcinos1985

Posts: 430
Joined: 1/22/2020
Status: offline

quote:

One thing I have been wondering is whether it would be beneficial to move one of the starting Chinese HQs from the Sian area to the south, so that Changsha's defenders have a HQ commanding them right from the start.

I think it would be a great start and make Chinese life a bit easier from the get go. And all these shift-clicking through mountains would not be needed anymore. And if I remember correctly, Xue was Changsha commander, so he would be able to 'do his job' form the start.

_____________________________

WaW ELO Tournament
3 Tips to improve your game now

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 22

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 2:31:19 PM

Calaf

Posts: 55
Joined: 7/25/2015
Status: offline

Yes yes yes.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 23

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 4:22:57 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

One thing I have been wondering is whether it would be beneficial to move one of the starting Chinese HQs from the Sian area to the south, so that Changsha's defenders have a HQ commanding them right from the start.

Yes. With that change, my initial fighter could be used for something else other than as a baggage handler and trail spotter for the HQ staff that I have to move over mountain ranges to get south.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 24

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 6:30:38 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

Very interesting discussion all round, and it shows that we need to be very careful with any changes.

One thing I have been wondering is whether it would be beneficial to move one of the starting Chinese HQs from the Sian area to the south, so that Changsha's defenders have a HQ commanding them right from the start.

I'm not sure offhand if we should change the name of the HQ too in that case.

Would this help keep things more historical without upsetting balance?

Agreed. The whole air unit dance to move HQ trick needs to go and this is a simple and historical fix to help China.

_____________________________

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 25

RE: China problem - 2/1/2021 9:44:01 PM

Mithrilotter

Posts: 216
Joined: 2/18/2016
Status: offline

I like the idea of moving a Chinese HQ to the South.I have to do it in all of my games.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 26

RE: China problem - 2/2/2021 2:59:58 AM

Cpuncher

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I'm not sure offhand if we should change the name of the HQ too in that case.

Would this help keep things more historical without upsetting balance?

I've always wondered why Xue was not commanding the Changsha front as he was historically responsible for all 4 battles of Changsha, the first one began in mid September 1939. A quick online research showed he was appointed deputy commander of the Ninth Front on Nov 28, 1938. The Ninth Front was headquartered in Nanchang initially then moved to Chenzhou (a place south of Hengyang). Xue commanded until the end of the war.

I see in both the 42 and 43 campaign he is already stationed to the Changsha front, except in the 39 one where he is west of Wuhan. To the Dev's credit he indeed was involved in the battle of Wuhan. But that battle ended in late Oct 1938. The Ninth Front involves anything south of Wuhan to somewhere north of Canton.

Since the China theatre has very limited impact on the outcome of the whole war anyway, I'm all for making it more historical. The 1st battle of Changsha was the first major objective that Japan tried hard and failed, and they had to try 3 more times, to only take it in 1944 during Operation Ichi-Go.

There is a danger of making China too strong and able to push the Japs back. So I think to start Xue near Changsha (but 1 of the 2 HQs near Xian needs to be moved to west of Wuhan, and may require a name change), make the 2-star Jap army only 1-star (I really think the most elite Axis units cause a bit too unrealistic battle outcomes), and perhaps give a star to 1 or 2 Changsha defenders , may allow Changsha to be held 2 or more turns longer. These might just give China enough room to hold out a lot longer for the whole war.

< Message edited by Cpuncher -- 2/2/2021 3:08:19 AM >

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 27

RE: China problem - 2/2/2021 3:30:04 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

There is a danger of making China too strong and able to push the Japs back. So I think to start Xue near Changsha (but 1 of the 2 HQs near Xian needs to be moved to west of Wuhan, and may require a name change), make the 2-star Jap army only 1-star (I really think the most elite Axis units cause a bit too unrealistic battle outcomes), and perhaps give a star to 1 or 2 Changsha defenders , may allow Changsha to be held 2 or more turns longer. These might just give China enough room to hold out a lot longer for the whole war.

This idea maybe really helpful....I did quite a few practice runs via a hotseat while doing a match with an opponent who was really aggressive in China for the first 2 years and had the sense that the Japanese were a little to robust and/or the Chinese weren't.

In this match (which is still ongoing), I had to get aggressive with the Chinese also, but not immoderately so, and had him pushed back into Canton and Pokhai...plus some shoving up north just south of Peking.
I was under unrelenting air bombardment by both his land and sea airpower of course..but his 2 pip Infantry Armies finally ground my valiant Chinese up...with the resulting pell-mell retreat into the interior.

So, while having an HQ in the south for China would be great... the addition of your proposal listed above seems to feel right also.

(in reply to Cpuncher)

Post #: 28

RE: China problem - 2/2/2021 4:59:48 AM

Cpuncher

Posts: 354
Joined: 3/26/2019
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

I'm not sure offhand if we should change the name of the HQ too in that case.

Here is a map of different Chinese Fronts(Theaters/Military Regions) and their commanders (sir names first here) in a relevant period. Different Chinese fronts were established/removed/adjusted throughout the war, and this map was drawn up in Nov 1938, after the loss of Wuhan, with the exception of the 6th, which was re-established in Oct 1939 (was removed in Feb 1938). The 9th was initially established for the defense of Wuhan in June 1938, with Chen Cheng as commander. After Wuhan it was adjusted to what's shown in this map. Chen Cheng was commander in name only, with deputy commander Xue Yue to be actually in charge (This may be the reason why Xue is mistakenly placed west of Wuhan in the 1939 campaign).

So from north to south, for the 4 Chinese HQs in the 1939 campaign, should be Zhu (Shaoliang, 8th) west of Paotow, Wei (Lihuang, 1st) for Chengchow, Chen (Cheng, 6th) west of Wuhan (though 6th was officially re-established in Oct 1939 but close enough), and Xue (Yue, 9th) at Changsha.

Just some information. Hope it helps.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 29

RE: China problem - 2/2/2021 8:48:11 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

There is a danger of making China too strong and able to push the Japs back. So I think to start Xue near Changsha (but 1 of the 2 HQs near Xian needs to be moved to west of Wuhan, and may require a name change), make the 2-star Jap army only 1-star (I really think the most elite Axis units cause a bit too unrealistic battle outcomes), and perhaps give a star to 1 or 2 Changsha defenders , may allow Changsha to be held 2 or more turns longer. These might just give China enough room to hold out a lot longer for the whole war.

This idea maybe really helpful....I did quite a few practice runs via a hotseat while doing a match with an opponent who was really aggressive in China for the first 2 years and had the sense that the Japanese were a little to robust and/or the Chinese weren't.

In this match (which is still ongoing), I had to get aggressive with the Chinese also, but not immoderately so, and had him pushed back into Canton and Pokhai...plus some shoving up north just south of Peking.
I was under unrelenting air bombardment by both his land and sea airpower of course..but his 2 pip Infantry Armies finally ground my valiant Chinese up...with the resulting pell-mell retreat into the interior.

So, while having an HQ in the south for China would be great... the addition of your proposal listed above seems to feel right also.

You guys have to remember that Japan has been fighting in China since 1936. They have a very veteran unit there for a reason...

_____________________________

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 30