China - What have you done here as a modder? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

ny59giants -> China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/15/2018 5:49:48 PM)

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.



durnedwolf -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/15/2018 6:12:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.


Hi ny59giants_MatrixForum. I've seen several discussions regarding combat in China. Since everyone seems to pay political points to move units from Manchuko to China, maybe you could just change a couple of armies on the China side to the Manchuko theater, creating a delay through the mechanism of paying political points?

Another option might be to change the arrival date of Japanese armies assigned to China so they fall over the span of 1942-43.

A third option might be to start many of the Japanese armies stationed in China at a reduced strength (Maybe 50% strength?). Japan would have to spend time building up their assault forces in order to advance.

And a forth option might be to reduce the experience level of some of the armies in China. In this case I think the Japanese player would see increased casualties to their armies.




inqistor -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/15/2018 10:02:03 PM)

It seems lend-lease equipment numbers are lacking, in comparison to historical deliveries. Also, Chinese had quite good German artillery, and not this crap they have in-game. I have also found, that they used their own version of knee mortars, so firepower is probably too low. All that should increase Japanese loses, but I doubt, that will change outcome much.

Recently, I was thinking, about seriously reducing number of Support Devices in Chinese combat units, so they won't use so much supply. Consider, that their logistics is placed in all those HQs, and Corps are made mostly from frontline troops. But that shouldn't make much difference in comparison with extra supply generation.

So, the only logical solution would be to reduce initial disablement (increasing Japanese one, wouldn't change much, as they can repair this in two weeks anyway).



Falken -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/15/2018 10:15:41 PM)

Hi..

Have you ever chatted with Brian, the modder for B-MOD. You might want to take a look at what he has done, or even contact Brian for his thoughts.

Just an idea..

Dave...



m10bob -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/16/2018 3:29:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.



If you want to see very detailed China "modding", check into El Cid's RHS mod..

He is the pro with all things China related.
many decades ago, I was part of that so-called "cult of intelligence" and the info he has provided ref WW2 has been verified by some of my old (and still living) friends.

He got my attention maybe 9 years ago when I noticed he had included a "mock battleship" at Bombay India (which I had never even knew existed!)
His mod includes the planes of the so-called "International Squadron".
(If you are not familiar with them...you may also be unaware of the hundreds of other China details he has put in the game, from economy to map accuracy...?)




DOCUP -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/17/2018 12:37:24 AM)

I am early in a PBEM right now with my changes to China. So take this with a grain of salt.

China:
I decreased disablements for several units across the map. Increased daily supply by 300 or 400 a day. I changed the 200th back into an armored division.

I didn't really touch the Japanese side.



el cid again -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/20/2018 9:42:17 PM)


Mifune and I, aided by a playtester in Seattle, spend years working on this issue. Partly because of
outlandish reports of China being "conquered" in stock and other mods. We did not want that to be possible
in RHS, and it isn't. Chunking has never been attacked, never mind fallen. Sian has been attacked (by me,
all out effort, vs the playtester as Allies) - but it has never fallen.

We did many things. Using the official history (History of the Sino-Japanese War, 1937-1945) and other materials,
we added missing unit types (all sorts - air units, Marines, a riverine navy able to convert vessels back and forth
for different functions, irregular units that "live off the land" etc.) We also researched the economy (partly
from the official history) and solved problems like "where did they get fuel from or oil for refineries?" Turns
out China had natural gas, coal gas, oil and refineries almost entirely not modeled in stock - all of economic
significance. We reworked the 1941 map because China did NOT control Singkiang (or two other provinces in the
NW) - the USSR did. [Russian units and Warlord troops allied with Russia control these areas. In game terms it
effectively prevents Japan flanking the Chinese in the North]. We got rid of fictional roads and RR, and added
real ones. We made the major rivers navigable - sometimes seasonally. China is a nightmare for an Axis invader
not content to limit conquest to the coastal region. Even then, it is very rare for SE China to fall entirely.
But the areas near Kunming and Chunking are never taken, and attempts to invade via Burma always fail.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

I'm currently playing BTS and recently undertook the PBEM game in which Portland, Oregon is captured in mid-Jan '42. One is based on DBB while the second is a stock game (Scen 1). John 3rd and I have done some tweaking in China by increasing garrison requirements for both sides. I've increased Chinese non-infantry devices by 50 to 100% along with increase supplies to help the Chinese.

However, China is in deep trouble in very early March '42. What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.




TulliusDetritus -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/20/2018 10:23:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If you want to see very detailed China "modding", check into El Cid's RHS mod..


+ 1

It's true that China is a mere sideshow but two facts are historically unalterable:

1) the Japanese could not defeat China (1944 blitz in the south à la Wehrmacht summer 1942, ok)
2) the Chinese could not kick the Japanese out in one million years

Stock steamrollers are a pure aberration = I guess to provide - er PBEM [;)]- more toys to fight the real juggernaut (the US).

Said this, on my RHS game, early 1943 2 million of [military] supplies in China ROFL Fort, installations construction, replacement and upgrades on. There's no need at all to risk the US transports sent by FDR to keep the little dragon alive lol



btd64 -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/20/2018 10:30:52 PM)

Tullius, would you be interested in a demonstration game using RHS. You will be part of a tag team. 1/3 of the Allied side. If so, email me....GP



TulliusDetritus -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/20/2018 10:51:16 PM)

pm sent [:)]



Anachro -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/20/2018 11:16:19 PM)

B-Mod's main focus is around fixing the Chinese theater to make it more static and realistic, in addition to various other changes for realism. I would check it out. Brian's website in the B-mod subsection includes a write-up detailing the changes and his philosophy regarding the Chinese theater.

Here is a link - Check out the READ ME Design Notes document.



spence -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/21/2018 2:39:13 PM)

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.





m10bob -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/21/2018 2:53:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.






Sid's mod (RHS) includes those little known roads and navigable waterways in China...not modern, but from the war years.

His research even details the roads which were only good when dry, the effects of weather on them, and the dates the roads were completed, etc.
Too, he has included river junks and has given accurate supply/resource numbers to different cities, etc.



spence -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/21/2018 3:45:44 PM)

quote:

Sid's mod (RHS) includes those little known roads and navigable waterways in China...not modern, but from the war years.


The roads/rivers won't fix the problem by themselves if the "horses" can keep everybody chowing down heartily when they're 300 miles from the nearest railroad.

Another thought comes to mind.

Historically did the 1944 Ichi-Go Offensive or any other Japanese Offensive from 1941-1945 induce any large scale Chinese surrenders? Certainly the way the Japanese behaved in Nanking in 1937 would not been much of an inducement for me to throw myself upon their tender mercies thereafter. Pretty sure "the word" got out regarding how the IJA behaved since the Tokyo Times was publishing daily stories about the beheading contest between a couple of IJA 2nd Louies (forgot their names).

If Chinese corps or armies still surrendered so be it but perhaps if the IJA had to wipe Chinese units out to the "last man" in a similar to what is required of the Western Allies do it may slow the Japanese down some.



el cid again -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 8:36:11 AM)


I seem to be a minority of one (outside Asia - the view in China and Japan is quite different) -
but I do not think China was "a sideshow." From a purely naval warfare point of view, it may
indeed be a side campaign. But the politics and cause of the war make it the primary subject.

World War Two actually begins in 1937 in China - and for China and Japan - the war never stops
until 1945. According to ROC (which we should call NRA but don't) archives, by 1940, China decided
"the US is the last, best hope for China" and set out to orchestrate events such that the US was
drawn into the war. Never mind fighting in Europe erupted in 1939, the US did stay out of the fight
UNTIL 1941. The details of how it got into the fight are also more complicated than "Japan attacked
Pearl Harbor" or even "Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Malaya and the Philippines." IF you ask "why
did Japan attack" you get into the matter of the embargo's imposed in July, 1941. There was zero
prospect "economic sanctions" were going to persuade Japan to leave China at that point - too many
casualties had been lost in 4 years of war (in 1937 it might have been different). Whatever your view
of the merits of US and Allied policy, it is impossible to say that China was not the subject of the
intense negotiations between July and December, 1941. Curiously, Japan didn't actually think it could
beat the US, UK and NEI! But in a culturally unique sense the IJA (which dominated policy) believed it
was honor bound to try. Letting the Allies dictate China policy was a strategic problem in Japanese eyes.
Apart from the lost lives in the war so far, the Japanese believed that if they caved in, the Allies would
have endless other demands. Since they only had oil for 18 months (a figure that turned out to be optimistic)
they would not have enough to fight later - it was cave in forever or fight as soon as it could be organized.

I fail to grasp how the argument was not about China, or requiring Japan to leave China? Nothing on the record
seems to say anything else to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If you want to see very detailed China "modding", check into El Cid's RHS mod..


+ 1

It's true that China is a mere sideshow but two facts are historically unalterable:

1) the Japanese could not defeat China (1944 blitz in the south à la Wehrmacht summer 1942, ok)
2) the Chinese could not kick the Japanese out in one million years

Stock steamrollers are a pure aberration = I guess to provide - er PBEM [;)]- more toys to fight the real juggernaut (the US).

Said this, on my RHS game, early 1943 2 million of [military] supplies in China ROFL Fort, installations construction, replacement and upgrades on. There's no need at all to risk the US transports sent by FDR to keep the little dragon alive lol




el cid again -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 8:46:37 AM)


There WERE motorized UNITS. But the simple code only understands them if classified as "armor" units - ALL squads in
an "armor" unit move differently than in a "regular" unit.

You are quite right about fodder. Indeed, the Pacific war involved bearers - and not just for Japan and China.
My family has pictures of long lines of women supporting the US drive up the Naguilian Road to Baguio City (Luzon)
in 1944. They carry supplies on their heads! And they must be fed.

But China in game terms has problems. The road and rail network is not correct - and it is also not entirely static.
To get this right, one must erase fictional (or destroyed) RR and roads - and add in the ones that are missing. Do that
and logistics gets slightly better. Rivers are a big deal - probably the most important LOC in China are its river
systems. But if you do that (we did in RHS) - China needs to be able to exploit the Rivers - that is it needs river
craft. These should convert between transports, gunboats, minlayers, minesweepers and landing vessels (because
they did convert between all those functions). China also should get its special units - early in the war it has
Marines - and very fine "heavy" (medium) artillery. Usually held in reserve, it mattered - and won major battles
(see Changsha for example) when committed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.







TulliusDetritus -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 12:07:31 PM)

A "sideshow" because that theatre is a pure stalemate (as long as it is not ahistorical). The war needs to be won elsewhere, because the two Asian enemies might be fighting 10 more years for that matter.

This is no WitE, where you know [unless hilarious clownish incompetents are in charge] a) Germans will not get to the Urals, Siberia or Vladivostok lol and b) the Red Army will get to Berlin.

The whole point is can you do better or worse than the historical counterparts?



Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 7:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Since I know next to nothing about programming I suspect that the system mechanics will not abide there being a functional difference between motorized support and (unmotorized) support. Both types of support appear to forward beans and bullets to the infantry, artillery, etc (combat) devices of a unit.

Neither the Japanese nor the Chinese Armies were motorized. Both armies were much like the armies of the First World War and relied on horses and mules to move their supplies once said supplies were unloaded or produced at the (rail) depot. The fact is that horses and mules require proper fodder to haul supplies and that in moving supplies they must carry their fodder with them. That fodder occupies a larger and larger proportion of their supply load the further from the rail depot the horse/mule has to move the "load". Even using the extensive rail network France for its sustenance the World War One British/Commonwealth Army shipped more tons of "horse fodder" into France than tons of ammunition. That is the reason the British/Commonwealth Armies motorized in between the First and Second World Wars (and realized an enormous savings in terms of shipping tonnage it could use to haul other things - although the same logic can be applied to carrying gasoline that can be applied to carrying oats the gas takes up a far smaller proportion of a trucks load than oats would).

In the game motorized supply is a liability: its only difference seems to be that it takes longer to offload in an amphibious assault than regular support. That difference has little effect on "island warfare" since supply lines tend to extend only a few hexes at most and usually extend only within the same hex. But in "continental warfare" such as in China (or Russia) the limitations of horse drawn supply rapidly come into focus.

Seemingly it would require a code change to effect a change such as this but limiting the movement of supply from a rail hex/navigable river (Japanese mostly) or production city (Chinese mostly) would go a long ways to fixing "The China Problem". Make the amount of supply a typical unit receives inversely proportional to the distance in hexes it moves from a rail hex/production city beyond one hex by temporarily disabling support devices within the unit for moving beyond one hex from the railroad. Thus the Japanese will be essentially limited to driving along railroads/navigable rivers since there are no railroads that extend into the Chinese interior. By the same token the Chinese would be limited in the same way from launching an offensive.




In game motorized support exists it seems to increase the load cost of an unit. In my mod every device that cannot be transported by men has motorized support < mot support also represent horses, mules or heavier beasts since they weight quite a bit.



spence -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 7:54:12 PM)

quote:

mot support also represent horses, mules or heavier beasts since they weight quite a bit.


That is simply not true unless an IJA division can get by with a total of 30 odd horses or mules (30 odd trucks seems about right) and an IJA mixed Brigade can get by with no horses or mules whatsoever.




Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/22/2018 8:09:58 PM)

It depends on weight. If you need 5 mules to move a light mountain piece that is almost the weight of a Jeep, if you need 8 bulls to tow a 105mm piece that is probably 4 tons. Of course the decision is what differences in load cost should we consider warrant a change from support to mot.support.

Note that support is classed as a squad so the weights are not equivalent. I think mot.support uses vehicle so is cargo.



el cid again -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/23/2018 7:07:56 AM)

WITP (pre AE as well as AE) basically oversimplifies the entire concept of support. They do
provide the regular and motorized support squad, but that is it. This does NOT simulate the difference in
lift of various kinds of units.

In order to model that, RHS has four kinds of transportation squads -
bearers (humans)
pack (mules or horses)
draft (wagons or carts pulled by mules or horses)
truck
All of these are very peculiar almost unarmed squads and they are matched
by an equal number of support (or motorized support) squads.

Strangely, motorized units are actually smaller than unmotorized units are,
and have fewer "mouths to feed." At the same time, motorized major units have
more firepower (because of bigger artillery tubes). The weakest units - mainly
because they have the lightest artillery - are those supported by bearers.
Non motorized units are much more difficult to "lift" - more squads - and much
more expensive to "feed" - more squads again. Our "transport" units don't
transport anything in game terms - they carry what is needed by the units they
"support." The only game effects of these squads are to show the cost in shipping
and supply a real supply train has on a major unit (e.g. a division). Otherwise,
by increasing squad count, they have a minimal effect on combat. But they have
almost no weapons and no heavy weapons.



Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/23/2018 9:07:32 AM)

Problem is all those squads that do nothing make the other side waste hits on them but don't effect the combat capability of the unit. I prefer to increase the load cost of devices and squads if it is a viable alternative.



US87891 -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/23/2018 1:57:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum
What changes have you done in this theater to make the war more static and a stalemate like it actually was?

There seems to be significant differences in what China has from stock to DBB.

JWE made some modifications to China before we replaced AE with our own programs. The purpose was to present the simulation teams with the sorts of problems that an actual commander would have faced. Focus was on two main areas, movement and infrastructure; movement was too fast and too easy; infrastructure was too lax in modeling the debilitating effects of activity – any activity, from combat down to simple movement.

Movement: edited all roads and railroads down a level. An expansion of the “gnarly roads” variant, this takes all primary roads down to secondary <except in urban hexes> and all secondary roads down to “graded trace” or “trace”. The hidden web of roads in the great Chinese plain <the tracks of “gnarly roads”> were deleted and movement defaults to the terrain rate, except for a few judicious retentions. Other tracks, such as those following railroads, were deleted as well, except for judicious terrain related retentions <certain RRs through mountainous regions>. Major railroads were modified to minor. Minor railroads were broken <half-hex gaps created> at selected intersections.

The “track” type road designation was changed to “trace” and represents unimproved, ‘semi-graded’ surfaces suitable for slow, careful, directionally constrained, movement through otherwise problematic terrain. An additional road type, “graded trace”, was created having movement/supply characteristics half way between a secondary road and a trace. All these combine to constrain movement speed and diffusivity and canalize direction, placing a premium on operational planning.

Infrastructure: Support was conceptually redefined. “Motorized support” is nothing but a text label in the database. The name is irrelevant and can be changed to anything anyone wants. The device data is the only relevant factor. It is important to recognize that “devices” have nothing whatever to do with movement. The movement algorithm is only functional at the “unit” (LCU) level. The two support devices (252 and 253) were modified with different load costs, builds, and characteristics, representing different differences between intrinsic and extrinsic support and different national norms. These can be used in any and all mixes of ‘leg’ and ‘motor’ units for different movement rates.

Support was conceptualized into two main types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic support is that contained within a unit (LCU) itself. This was reduced to the region of 20% to 40% of required levels, depending on respective national norms. This means that LCUs are unable to sustain long term activity, especially in remote regions. Chinese units are clearly at the bottom of the scale, but the Japanese are not very much better off. Their operational norms required support to be concentrated at higher echelons (division HQ or higher), while the “operational” units made do with approximately 25-28% of requirements. The extrinsic support devices (squads) are found in HQ units and/or QM/Sup/Ord/Med LCUs. They provide the “extra” support required by operational units to remain healthy, but according to AE algorithms only “share” functionality at bases. One can see how drastically this effects operations and how much planning (and preparation and time) is required to undertake a major advance, such as Ichi Go.

These are the high points.



Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/24/2018 12:58:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891


(...)

Support was conceptualized into two main types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic support is that contained within a unit (LCU) itself. This was reduced to the region of 20% to 40% of required levels, depending on respective national norms. This means that LCUs are unable to sustain long term activity, especially in remote regions. Chinese units are clearly at the bottom of the scale, but the Japanese are not very much better off. Their operational norms required support to be concentrated at higher echelons (division HQ or higher), while the “operational” units made do with approximately 25-28% of requirements. The extrinsic support devices (squads) are found in HQ units and/or QM/Sup/Ord/Med LCUs. They provide the “extra” support required by operational units to remain healthy, but according to AE algorithms only “share” functionality at bases. One can see how drastically this effects operations and how much planning (and preparation and time) is required to undertake a major advance, such as Ichi Go.

These are the high points.



This is something i have been dealing with for my Med mod . Persistence of units on field and necessity of their rotation out of combat. This would mean that the support of a typical corps should be less than the devices of all units of the Corps, they should have to go to a base that has excess support to recover. That means a city.

The city support is also dependent on city size and industry, these are the base forces in my mod, because i also ended mostly the concept of base forces for field combat. So a land element of a aircraft squadron if it is alone in a base is very vulnerable to a special force attack since they only have air support, some support and 1 or 2 Mg's.
So Base forces are mostly static units at city level with some exceptions.
With sound detectors less performing and radar somewhat too ( i wonder if i should make a "city" radar - careful chosen sites etc- and a "field" radar less performing) i intend to make maneuvering of air squadrons also an eventual solution to defense from air attacks at least in beginning of war forcing the other side to invest in anti-air reconnaissance. The bomber will always get trough was true in earlier war in field. Only a complete radar network in Britain - not sound detector - could stop most of it even then there were many instances of small low level attacks that succeeded before being intercepted even in late war.

I have several militia AA, infantry and coastal units and since they were not capable of fight in the field and i want to retain the capability to move them from city to city i made them without or with a very small support.

Another unit that had a drastic change of support are special forces, they also barely have any. They are go in go out units one time attack. To recover disabled devices only at city base they come from.

Of course only testing will show if all this theory works.



US87891 -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/24/2018 1:05:30 AM)

The thread is speaking about China.



Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/24/2018 3:40:55 AM)

Yes but that support issues are valid for any theater.



US87891 -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/26/2018 1:00:39 AM)

There was also a revamp of the Chinese OOBs to reflect normative practice in the 1942-44 period. The artillery was vetted specifically.

Functional GHQ Artillery Pool as of March 1942:
These were organized in 17 Artillery Regiments, totaling 377 guns in 41 battalions. These were separate and distinct from artillery allocated to division and field army echelons. These were closely held by GHQ and parceled out to War Areas, in battalion (occasionally regiment) packets, for specific operations. These are always listed separately in OPOL returns and are typically not included in War Area, Group Army, and Field Army tabulated returns.

1st Artillery Regiment- 19 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 3 gun batteries each; Bofors 75mm L/20 Mtn
2nd Artillery Regiment- 12 guns in 1 Bn of 3x 4 gun batteries; 76mm Soviet M1902/30 Fld Gun
-------------and----------- 8 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 4 gun batteries; 4.5in QF (Soviet supplied) Fld How
3rd Artillery Regiment- 8 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 4 gun batteries; 76mm Soviet M1902/30 Fld Gun
-------------and----------- 4 guns in 1 Bn of a single battery; 4.5in QF (Soviet supplied) Fld How
4th Artillery Regiment- 24 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 76mm Soviet M1909 Mtn
6th Artillery Regiment- 36 guns in 3 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
7th Artillery Regiment- 16 guns in 2 Bns of 2x 4 gun batteries each; 76mm Soviet M1902/30 Fld Gun
-------------and----------- 8 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 4 gun batteries; 4.5in QF (Soviet supplied) Fld How
8th Artillery Regiment- 36 guns in 3 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
9th Artillery Regiment- 18 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 3 gun batteries each; Bofors 75mm L/20 Mtn
-------------and----------- 12 guns in 1 Bn of 3x 4 gun batteries; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
15th Artillery Regiment- 16 guns in 2 Bns of 2x 4 gun batteries each; 76mm Soviet M1902/30 Fld Gun
-------------and----------- 8 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 4 gun batteries; 4.5in QF (Soviet supplied) Fld How
16th Artillery Regiment- 24 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
18th Artillery Regiment- 36 guns in 3 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
19th Artillery Regiment- 24 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 75mm Mle.1897 Fld Gun
20th Artillery Regiment- 12 guns in 1 Bn of 3x 4 gun batteries; 76mm Soviet M1902/30 Fld Gun
-------------and----------- 8 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 4 gun batteries; 4.5in QF (Soviet supplied) Fld How

Motorized Field Regiments
10th Artillery Regiment- 18 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 3 gun batteries each; 150mm L/32 Rheinmetall
11th Artillery Regiment- 18 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 3 gun batteries each; 105mm leFH18 Rheinmetall
13th Artillery Regiment- 12 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 4 gun batteries each; 105mm leFH18 Rheinmetall
-------------and----------- 6 guns in 1 Bn of 2x 3 gun batteries; 150mm sFH18 L/30 Krupp
14th Artillery Regiment- 18 guns in 2 Bns of 3x 3 gun batteries each; 150mm sFH18 L/30 Krupp

As of March 1942, NRA Central Government Field Armies held 436 artillery pieces in 42 artillery battalions. Of these, 29 were 3 battery (12 gun) bns, 9 were 2 battery (8 guns) bns, and 4 comprised a single 4 gun battery. Six NRA Field Armies had two three-battery battalions, 17 had one three-battery battalion, 9 had a two-battery battalion, and 4 had a single battery.

Additionally, 14 ‘select’ NRA divisions were honored with an integral artillery component. 6 of these had a three-battery battalion, 4 had a two-battery battalion, 4 had a single 4-gun battery, totaling 120 pieces.

About 85% of Army and Division level artillery pieces were mountain guns of various types. The most common were the Krupp 75mm M1903 Mtn, Japanese 75mm Type-41 Mtn (itself a copy of the Krupp M08), and the Chinese Types 12 and 13(Taiyuan) copies of the M1903 and Type-41 respectively. The remaining 15% were Type 13(Liao) copies of the Krupp 75mm M1903 Field Gun, or the Japanese Type-38 Field Gun equivalent, Soviet M1902, and French M1897 Field Guns.

Warlord/Provincial forces to follow.



US87891 -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (5/31/2018 9:14:46 PM)

Warlords, one at a time, because they are all pretty different. Shanxi (Yan Xishan) first.

Yan Xishan (II Military Region, II War Zone)
Shanxi & Suiyuan, N. Shaanxi, Chahar (technically assigned, but obviously not operational)
Shanxi (Yan, II War Zone) forces constituted 8 Army HQs, each nominally comprising 3 infantry divisions and associated Army-level troops. Initially organized with one field and 12 mountain artillery regiments, equipped from local production of the Taiyuan Arsenal, Shanxi forces lost much of their equipment in the 1937-38 fighting. As of January, 1942, the remaining pieces were concentrated in 4 ‘line’ artillery regiments of reasonably similar make-up, and a ‘training/reserve’ regiment holding what medium pieces remained.

The 23rd Regiment comprised 3 battalions; the 1st with 12 type-13 (Taiyuan copy of IJ Type-41 75mm Mtn) mountain guns, the 2nd with 12 type-17[18] (Taiyuan ‘improved’ type-13) 75mm mountain guns, the 3rd with 8 type-18 (Taiyuan licensed copy of Krupp 8.8cm FK Z.A.) field guns.
The 24th Regiment comprised 3 battalions; the 1st and 2nd each with 12 type-13 75mm mountain guns, the 3rd with 8 type-17[18] 75mm mountain guns.
The 27th and 28th Regiments identically comprised 3 battalions; each battalion with 12 type-13 75mm mountain guns.
The training/reserve Regiment comprised one 3-battery (9 guns) battalion of type-16 (Taiyuan license built Krupp 105mm L/12 B.H.) mountain howitzers, and one 2-battery (8 guns) battalion of type-13 75mm mountain guns.

Shanxi forces’ organization, as of January 1942, held constant to the end of the Japanese war. The Jan. 1942 organization is identical to that of Oct. 1944. The following is only the organized ‘field’ force, itself nominally part of the National Army. It does not include ‘provincial’ forces, which were semi-organized militia-type levies formed into 3 ‘defense’ brigades.

6th Group Army – 19th Army (68th, T 37th, T 42nd Divs), 23rd Army (T 40th, T 46th T 47th Divs), 24th Arty Regt.
7th Group Army – 33rd Army (71st, T 38th, T 41st Divs), 34th Army (73rd, T 44th, T 45th Divs), 23rd Arty Regt.
8th Group Army – 43rd Army (70th, T39th, T 43rd Divs), 61st Army (69th, 72nd, T 48th Divs), 27th Arty Regt.
13th Group Army – 83rd Army (66th, T 49th, T 50th Divs), 1st ‘Cav” Army (1st, 2nd, 4th ‘Cav” Divs) 28th Arty Regt. (Cavalry in ‘name’ only, for historical/nostalgic purposes. Organized and equipped as ordinary Infantry.)

Average divisional strength (1944) was 6,711 out of an authorized establishment of 7,502, indicating they were well recruited. The Military Affairs Council (MAC) contributed a Field Army (the 13th) and an independent division (the 21st) to II War Zone. These were the only troops actually answerable to the central government, although the Shanxi forces were well regarded and considered loyal to Chonqing.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (6/1/2018 6:40:18 AM)

Good stuff - keep it coming, Mat!



Dili -> RE: China - What have you done here as a modder? (6/1/2018 10:34:53 AM)

Some good sources also in Axis Forum
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewforum.php?f=101



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.53125