War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

eouellet -> War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (7/15/2019 6:30:31 PM)

I find that M/WIF are pretty good simulations from an historical perspective, with one big exception: the war in China.

In most games, the Japanese player will empty most of Manchuria (especially the HQ) and will throw the 2 Marines units against China on the first turn in the early scenarios. This leads usually to a lot action in China and a real risk of defeat, and the need for China to have an economy that can keep up with the onslaught. But when the Japanese have their hands full with the Americans and the Commonwealth later on, with time China eventually build ARM, MECH, a full complement of planes, SUBS, and even CVs to reconquer China. All this is seriously off history.

Yet, all the setups in M/WIF (39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) have the Manchuria and Korea garrison forces on site, and the Marines anywhere but in China. The various setups are historical, and there are good reasons for them.

The Japanese High Command was absolutely terrified at the possibility of a Soviet invasion, and they had a substantive partisan insurgency to deal with in Manchuria. They would had never emptied Manchuria, historically. As well, the Japanese Army and Navy had serious rivalry issues, and never the Navy would have let its Marines forces to be used for “Army’s jobs” in China, except on the coasts.

Lastly, although there was a lot of civilian atrocities committed, the front in China was pretty static, with 3 exceptions: the summer 1940 offensive to capture Ichang, the spring of 1941 where the last coastal cities were taken, and operation Ichi-go in 1944. The Japanese Army had a lot of forces engaged in China, but by and large they were not doing much beyond dealing with partisans, except when it was given strategic priority in those 3 occasions.

So, to have a more historical war in China for MWIF, here is what I use, and the result creates conditions pretty to close the Japanese historical decision-making context.

1. Partisans option on (Japanese need to be serious about garrisoning)
2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)
3. Forces in Manchuria and Korea cannot leave, until at war with the USSR, but units can be swapped once delivered in Manchuria/Korea: HQ for HQ, Army/Corps for Army/Corps
4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
5. Japanese Marines can only be on coastal hexes, or a hex adjacent to a coastal hex (to ensure that Navy troops are not engaged in “Army’s jobs”)
6. Japan has to send one extra corps or army to Manchuria no later than J/F 41 (the Japanese worries were increasing as the global war was unfolding)
7. Japanese Strategic Bombing only available for Chungking, Chengtu, and Lanchow (this provides an extra incentive to take Ichang)
8. Chinese attack weakness option on (to keep the risks for Japan balanced)
9. Chinese production reduced to 4 build points, and it is a hard cap (that can be temporarily reduced by Strategic Bombing, and can be temporarily increased by Burma Road build points trade), with the cap increased by 1 more build point for controlling each of Canton and Shanghai (all this to avoid the completely unhistorical super mechanized Chinese Army of 1944 and 1945)
10. Burma Road can only send build points, or oil to save if the oil option is being used
11. Saving build points option on (to allow China to build more expansive units over time; and to keep the Japanese on their toes for the need of a potential operation Ichi-go in the later part of the war)
12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)



Centuur -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (7/16/2019 11:12:54 AM)

I don't know if one should force the Japanese in recreating a historical outcome where the war in China is concerned.

After all, World in Flames is a game and why should one simulate history.

If you do this, than you should also don't allow the Euroaxis to DoW Spain, for example, because Hitler wasn't interested to go there.

Or refuse to attack Leningrad with Finnish forces (and don't allow those to exit the Borderlands too), because the Finns were only interested to get there own land back...

And on, and on, and on.

Apart from that, there is a way to make sure the Japanese stay honest in Manchuria. And that's to have a Soviet garrison at the border. If the Japanese go all out in China and it looks like they are making too much progress, have Uncle Stalin DoW them. That will usually stop a conquest of China (but might result in a further withdrawal on the Eastern front). A good offensive by the Soviets in Manchuria will take the heat off the Chinese and will also mean a lot of problems for the Japanese when it comes to getting enough troops available for the capture of the perimeter.






eouellet -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (7/16/2019 1:09:18 PM)

I honestly thought that a Mod or House Rule is just that, an optional modification to bring a different flavor to the game for those interested. In no way, Mods or house rules are legislation to be imposed on anyone, as if it can be enforced anyway? Is it possible to share genuine yet harmless ideas on this forum without being put down?



Centuur -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (7/16/2019 4:32:38 PM)

If you think I'm putting you down, that's not what I intended.

I did only give my opinion about this. Personally, I don't think one should aim for a historical game. If only because in reality, nobody knew what the intentions of the warring countries were. That only became visible as the war progressed.




rkr1958 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (9/2/2019 4:03:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eouellet
1. Partisans option on (Japanese need to be serious about garrisoning)
2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)
3. Forces in Manchuria and Korea cannot leave, until at war with the USSR, but units can be swapped once delivered in Manchuria/Korea: HQ for HQ, Army/Corps for Army/Corps
4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
5. Japanese Marines can only be on coastal hexes, or a hex adjacent to a coastal hex (to ensure that Navy troops are not engaged in “Army’s jobs”)
6. Japan has to send one extra corps or army to Manchuria no later than J/F 41 (the Japanese worries were increasing as the global war was unfolding)
7. Japanese Strategic Bombing only available for Chungking, Chengtu, and Lanchow (this provides an extra incentive to take Ichang)
8. Chinese attack weakness option on (to keep the risks for Japan balanced)
9. Chinese production reduced to 4 build points, and it is a hard cap (that can be temporarily reduced by Strategic Bombing, and can be temporarily increased by Burma Road build points trade), with the cap increased by 1 more build point for controlling each of Canton and Shanghai (all this to avoid the completely unhistorical super mechanized Chinese Army of 1944 and 1945)
10. Burma Road can only send build points, or oil to save if the oil option is being used
11. Saving build points option on (to allow China to build more expansive units over time; and to keep the Japanese on their toes for the need of a potential operation Ichi-go in the later part of the war)
12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)


quote:

.

I too feel that the war in China plays out ahistorically and I'm seriously considering adopting your house rules in my next game. I'd like to explore three of them though, which on initial blush I was "opposed" to but after thinking about them maybe no so much.

quote:

12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)

I've played with this rule and I feel that it dilutes combat losses (i.e., too easy to have a division in all front-line stacks) and makes it too unrealistically easy for the axis to break units down, use SCS to transport the divisions and then reassembly them back into corps overseas (primarily North Africa). However, in the Pacific and for Japan maybe not so bad. For me I think unlimited divisional break down for Japan only might work.

quote:

4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
I like playing with extra units but after thinking a bit about this one I'm really ok with not including warlords.

quote:

2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)
Again, I like playing with these extra units and removing them not only impacts Japan but would also impact the CW and Italy too. For the CW the impact would be anti-partisan (using Ind, AUS or RSA Terr's) in places like India, Burma and Singapore for garrison. Also, the CW would lose a unit in North Africa and Palestine. For the Italians they would lose a couple of units in Libya. I guess all this balances out somewhat and would force the CW into devoting "additional" non-Terr units to keeping partisans out of India, Burma and Singapore. As I write this I'm thinking about still playing with Terr but not allowing Japan to build any. I guess the issue is the 3 Terr they start the game with? Not sure what to do there to meet the spirit of your #2 house rule. I guess the at-start Japanese Terr's could be moved (via editing game file) to somewhere in the Kurile islands. Doing that and not allowing Japan to build Terr's would satisfy the spirit of this rule don't you think?

Borrowing from the WiF CE rule set I've got some developing thoughts on how might the Battle of the Atlantic, Norway and Italian entry might play out more historically. Also, I have some ideas on how Finland and the Murmansk convoy might play more historical too.

What I want to achieve is a peer reviewed comprehensive set of house rules that "try" to make MWiF play out more historical without forcing it to do so. That is, the house rules "guide" players into the likelihood that they will make more historical choices without forcing them to so. I was wondering if it'd be ok to use this thread for that or would you prefer me to start a separate one?



brian brian -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (9/5/2019 1:52:16 AM)

I think a simple way to improve the WiF experience in China would be to subject the Nationalists to US Activity Limits, to mirror the ChiComms. This would give the Japanese more of a chance from the middle of the game on, and help start to simulate Chiang's well founded inertia. Given the realities of the looming civil war, there is little need for a true Chinese "player".

Otherwise, major components (Partisan system, Chinese force pool structure, and victory conditions) )have to be altered to simulate Mao's and Chiang's view of strategic priorities.

I like the No-Marines idea. But then I don't commit the Japanese Marines into China anyway, because I want the easy pickings in the Maritime Province, and so does Adolf.



Centuur -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (9/5/2019 1:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think a simple way to improve the WiF experience in China would be to subject the Nationalists to US Activity Limits, to mirror the ChiComms. This would give the Japanese more of a chance from the middle of the game on, and help start to simulate Chiang's well founded inertia. Given the realities of the looming civil war, there is little need for a true Chinese "player".

Otherwise, major components (Partisan system, Chinese force pool structure, and victory conditions) )have to be altered to simulate Mao's and Chiang's view of strategic priorities.

I like the No-Marines idea. But then I don't commit the Japanese Marines into China anyway, because I want the easy pickings in the Maritime Province, and so does Adolf.


I tend to employ the Marines in southern China during the first one and a half year of the war. But they are never to go to far away from railheads or the ports.



brian brian -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (9/13/2019 3:12:17 PM)

I can recommend a good book on this subject: “Stillwell & the American experience in China”, by Barbara Tuchman. It was widely printed, even in a trade paperback version, and is easily found used, and cheap.

I would like to read more on this part of WWII, easily the most mysterious part. But much of the history is colored by the participants, from 3 sides in this case.



palne -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/14/2020 4:54:53 AM)

Great ideas eouellet. I find that China is far to easily outmatched by Japan. There is just a play dynamic that make the number of units vs. the map size makes it too easy for a single div to go running around the backfield of either country with devastating consequences. Putting the entire Japanese China forces out of supply with a corp and div (which I have seen) is just awful. Having a Japanese div run around capturing cities and hexes that the Chinese player doesn't have enough units to occupy or mobility to counter japanese movements is pretty rough too. If the Chinese player just bunkers down in cities the cities get picked off one at a time and is effectively eliminated by Dec 41. I love the build cap on China. If Japan doesn't go after China, China starts to get out of hand by '44--just to many units around. Sure, they can't attack much but they don't have to. They are just there to get partisans to pop up by ruining the Japanese garrison due to zoc. Then the partisan sit on RP, factories, or key supply path cities. I don't view your rules as promoting historical outcomes but rather important for the China theatre not overly influencing the outcome of the game.



Ian R -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/14/2020 7:55:41 AM)

What of the extra Chinese cities option? Do you think it makes things too easy for the Chinese? Playing solo, I never seem to have enough Japanese ground forces or HQs to push into/beyond the mountain barrier, so IJA activity is limited to the small and broad push to secure the extra resources. Later in the game, the plentiful Chinese can ooze through all the gaps and there seems to be little the IJA can do about it.

The shift from the Pacific to European map scales in China has changed the way the IJA has to play this.

My personal house-rule for solo games is that the Chinese (rolling separately for the Nationals and CCCP factions) have a zero percent chance of launching attacks against the IJA in 1939, and it goes up 1% per annum after that. So in 1945 there is a 1 in 20 chance they will actually go on the offensive.



palne -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/14/2020 3:52:23 PM)

The Chinese don't have to attack to be very successful in China. And, yes I always play with the extra Cities. Japan can get its supply with three HQ's and sticking with the rail lines. Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city. The key is to keep killing Chinese units where ever they may be because China can not replace troops as fast as Japan can kill them. Also, buy pilots until all of the crappy planes in the reserve pool are on the map. These planes are used for garrison of korea and manchuria as well as china. If China hunkers down in cities use the 3-4 ground strike capable plans to flip. +2-3 on a d10 is a big deal. Japan should buy the mech div asap if China doesn't setup in the mountains. Blitz combat in the plains is very beneficial to the japanese as it reduces the chance of flipping. Buy 1 maybe 2 air transport planes for reorganizing so the japanese can run inf divs around china's backfield. If China has to garrison both interior cities and burma road city, that's three units effectively out of the war. Make sure Japan uses the territorials in combat against crappy chinese units so if the territorial dies, it's cheap to replace and shows up on the continent (doesn't require transporting from japan).




Centuur -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/15/2020 11:11:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: palne

The Chinese don't have to attack to be very successful in China. And, yes I always play with the extra Cities. Japan can get its supply with three HQ's and sticking with the rail lines. Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city. The key is to keep killing Chinese units where ever they may be because China can not replace troops as fast as Japan can kill them. Also, buy pilots until all of the crappy planes in the reserve pool are on the map. These planes are used for garrison of korea and manchuria as well as china. If China hunkers down in cities use the 3-4 ground strike capable plans to flip. +2-3 on a d10 is a big deal. Japan should buy the mech div asap if China doesn't setup in the mountains. Blitz combat in the plains is very beneficial to the japanese as it reduces the chance of flipping. Buy 1 maybe 2 air transport planes for reorganizing so the japanese can run inf divs around china's backfield. If China has to garrison both interior cities and burma road city, that's three units effectively out of the war. Make sure Japan uses the territorials in combat against crappy chinese units so if the territorial dies, it's cheap to replace and shows up on the continent (doesn't require transporting from japan).




No land units in Machuria and Korea? Well, Uncle Joe will be very tempted to declare war. No way the Japanese can counter that with only units which get railed into Machuria, especially if the Soviets deploy fast movers there (Siberians, CAV, Zhukov).



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/20/2020 4:07:35 AM)

quote:

Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city.


Two O-chits vs China? And a third O-chit for the super-combined vs CW? That's a lot of production going towards O-chits. Japan has so many needs and so little BP's I never find the BP's to build 1 extra O-chit.

Under your plan as the Japs, is there a naval strategy? If so, it must be very anemic?




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/20/2020 4:10:43 AM)

With this MWiF map I find defending China fairly easy. As the Jap player I don't even try going after China as its a waste of time and energy, and vital resources that are needed to win the game.




Courtenay -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/20/2020 5:02:12 AM)

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/20/2020 5:22:51 PM)

quote:

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.


Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/21/2020 4:43:37 AM)

quote:

quote:I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does. Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?





My first look was the AAR: GLOBALWAR COUNTER-FACTUAL (W1/WILHELM vs rkr1958/jp). The Chinese set up is fairly standard and the Japs are set up to put pressure on the north. It's in ND and the Japs have yet to attack the commies, but the NAT's are getting butchered. I'm not sure there is a NAT strategy here as it seems they are being mismanaged terribly. Perhaps to keep the Japs busy and off the back of the commies? Sacrificing units in poor defensible terrain is not a good idea.
In sum, this AAR is not a good example.




Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/21/2020 5:09:47 AM)

quote:

quote:I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does. Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?





The next AAR: News from the front - 4 player game...again a fairly standard Chinese set up, but in this one the Nats were of very little help to the commies and I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs. I will over-look the fact they are playing 1d10.

Almost identical is the "rematch 4 player game" AAR.

I think its more a lack of a good defense strategy vs Japan. None of these AAR's are a good example of defending against a Communist first strategy.











peskpesk -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/21/2020 10:17:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs.

So that we all can learn, what was the defensive mistakes made SE of Sian?



Courtenay -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/21/2020 12:44:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.


Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?


The first one I found is "Rematch 4 player game (Orm, Peskpesk, jjdenver and Mayhemizer)". This game has reached summer of '41. The communists are out, and the Nationalists are hanging on by their fingernails.

I will find others.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/21/2020 5:31:34 PM)

quote:

quote:ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs. So that we all can learn, what was the defensive mistakes made SE of Sian?





My pleasure! And my apologies to any one individual player. My purpose is to debate the Communist Chinese first strategy here.

AAR: News from the front - 4 player game.

As I mentioned, the Chinese set up is fairly standard. My first issue with the Chinese is their reaction when the Jap set up is revealed and it is obvious they are making a push for the north. The main NAT body in the center is hunkered down facing off vs one, then later two out of supply Jap units, while the main body of the Jap effort begins with the encirclement and taking of Chengchow. Chengchow is taken on the Axis impulse 11 of SO'39...plenty of time for the NATs to react northwards (see page 4 of AAR).

The key to the defense of Sian from the south are the Tsinling mountain range (the 4 hex spur jutting eastwards). These mountains are not being defended. By early ND'39 it is obvious the NATs in the south will be cut off from any assistance (page 5 of AAR). The key mountain hex to finally fight for is the hex SW of Tungkwan. All these hexes were given to the Japs for free. The Japs needed only take the one mountain hex adjacent to Sian and the writing is on the wall from there.

My point here is that this is not a valid AAR example to the Communist Chinese "problem" being expressed.


AAR: Rematch 4 player game. Much the same as above. The NAT main body is even further to the south in the "center"...the Tsinling mountains have been abandoned other than adjacent to Sian, and to make matters worse, no NAT help in the far north which lead to Jap runners into the back field (note: the above AAR has at least one unit in the Mountains north of the Communists).



Majorball68 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/22/2020 1:44:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

quote:ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs. So that we all can learn, what was the defensive mistakes made SE of Sian?





My pleasure! And my apologies to any one individual player. My purpose is to debate the Communist Chinese first strategy here.

AAR: News from the front - 4 player game.

As I mentioned, the Chinese set up is fairly standard. My first issue with the Chinese is their reaction when the Jap set up is revealed and it is obvious they are making a push for the north. The main NAT body in the center is hunkered down facing off vs one, then later two out of supply Jap units, while the main body of the Jap effort begins with the encirclement and taking of Chengchow. Chengchow is taken on the Axis impulse 11 of SO'39...plenty of time for the NATs to react northwards (see page 4 of AAR).

The key to the defense of Sian from the south are the Tsinling mountain range (the 4 hex spur jutting eastwards). These mountains are not being defended. By early ND'39 it is obvious the NATs in the south will be cut off from any assistance (page 5 of AAR). The key mountain hex to finally fight for is the hex SW of Tungkwan. All these hexes were given to the Japs for free. The Japs needed only take the one mountain hex adjacent to Sian and the writing is on the wall from there.

My point here is that this is not a valid AAR example to the Communist Chinese "problem" being expressed.


AAR: Rematch 4 player game. Much the same as above. The NAT main body is even further to the south in the "center"...the Tsinling mountains have been abandoned other than adjacent to Sian, and to make matters worse, no NAT help in the far north which lead to Jap runners into the back field (note: the above AAR has at least one unit in the Mountains north of the Communists).



See how you go defending Sian Sept/Oct 39 when you don't draw the 7-3 infantry and the weather is terrible every other impulse except last Axis impulse. Lanchow can be taken or near taken in a double move by a Division 4mp which can move through mountains in bad in bad weather and the desert hexes stay clear. Meanwhile impulse 2 you start moving nationalist Chinese to support the Commies only to have them stuck in Mountains, OOS unable to move in the bad weather for the rest of the turn. When the turn does end about impulse 13 Sept/Oct 39 the commies are near done and Sian becomes impossible to hold. The enemy of the Chinese Commies is bad weather.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/22/2020 5:07:47 AM)

quote:

See how you go defending Sian Sept/Oct 39 when you don't draw the 7-3 infantry and the weather is terrible every other impulse except last Axis impulse. Lanchow can be taken or near taken in a double move by a Division 4mp which can move through mountains in bad in bad weather and the desert hexes stay clear. Meanwhile impulse 2 you start moving nationalist Chinese to support the Commies only to have them stuck in Mountains, OOS unable to move in the bad weather for the rest of the turn. When the turn does end about impulse 13 Sept/Oct 39 the commies are near done and Sian becomes impossible to hold. The enemy of the Chinese Commies is bad weather.


Playing with extra Chinese cities? If so, supply wont be much of a problem? I think you are complaining about a specific occurance ? I am in no way saying that the Communist Chinese should never be taken out, of course it will happen...and there are probably numerous ways it can happen. But I think with good Chinese play, it should happen less than 50%. With your luck (and mine), it probably happens 75%?;-)



Centuur -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/22/2020 12:48:20 PM)

I don't agree on the fact that the Chinese are always going to go get conquered if the Japanese go for the Communists first.
In most games in which the Commies are being put under a huge amount of pressure, there is no response by Uncle Joe on the Manchurian border at all. In some games, there is even a neutrality pact being agreed on at start of the game.

To me, the solution is clear: whenever the Japanese capture Sian, the Red army should be in position to declare war on Japan. They should do so and force the Japanese to send troops and planes to Manchuria.

If I'm playing the Japanese, I would agree every time Uncle Joe is stupid enough to offer a neutrality pact. After that's done, I would go all out against the Chicomm, because I've just got two years to conquer China without Uncle Joe getting involved.

And there's another thing which the Chinese can do too, to upset things. And that's to send the Communist CAV south and take over Chengtu to be sure to have a communist city in the south in which Communist troops will arrive...



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/22/2020 6:27:01 PM)

Agree with Centuur. From the initial set up, the Soviets should also keep an eye on Japan to see if they are ready with Peacekeepers for Persia.



brian brian -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/22/2020 8:17:15 PM)

Japan’s best Return on Investment is from fighting the Russians. That ROI doubles if Russia activates Persia for them without the CW taking the ports.

If a hard drive vs. Mao automatically brought in the Russians, all the better for the US entry swing; good upsides for the whole Axis team. Japan’s best play is to knock Mao as far back as possible anyway.


China’s best play is to have the Nationalists hold Chengchow with 3 units and keep both CAV on Chiang’s northern flank as well. These must not be lost due to their mobility in the mountains and are fairly safe there as long as they remain stacked together. Chengchow + lurking CAV have to be dealt with for Japan to seriously drive on towards Mao. The big variable is how much clear weather there is in S/O 39, particularly if Japan rolls well vs. Chengchow and gets clear weather afterwards. The ChiComms nearly automatically bulk up over the first winter due to the structure of the China force pool.

In the south, the Nationalists need to retreat some, _before_ the slow moving Japanese units can mass perfectly for an attack.

An even bigger key is that when there is a retreat path, China should pick the Blitz table. A “/R” result is a loss for the Japanese as they have likely used air, artillery, and HQ assets to get it. Even on a hex as valuable as Changsha, the Nationalists should pick blitz and try and live to fight another day and build out their entire land unit force pool.

But gamers gonna game and it is more fun to try and get the attacker to roll the magic 14. It’s almost like playing some ancient Asian strategy game or something. Go figure.



Jagdtiger14 -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/23/2020 4:33:10 AM)

quote:

Japan’s best Return on Investment is from fighting the Russians. That ROI doubles if Russia activates Persia for them without the CW taking the ports.


As USSR I would not DOW Persia if the Japs were ready with Peacekeepers (corps, HQ, cp's). These units would have to be on standby and not used against the Chinese. If Peacekeepers are not ready, and the entire Jap land force is either on the offensive vs China and blocking elsewhere, USSR will have gained 3 oil. Then USSR can start to build up on western Manchuria, fast div's elsewhere and force the Japs to counter this...taking away units in their effort vs China.

Bottom line is: Japan is a paper tiger. Japan needs every bit of production it can muster without losing units, and saving oil all at the same time. Even under perfect results/conditions, and also depending on Allied strategy, Japan will probably get crushed. Now if Japan goes after China, the best result it can get is to take Lan Chow and Chunking, and survive the war...these are the goals if undertaking a campaign in China. Anything else by the end of the game is worthless and a waste of time and resources. I personally do not think a campaign in China is worth it. The paper game using the Asian map is a different thing as everything is condensed using the same units.

I agree with everything else you wrote...perhaps I might debate the value of USSR taking Manchuria and its resources vs US entry hit if Japan has to give it up knocking Mao back (how far?).







brian brian -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/24/2020 2:41:37 PM)

All Japan really needs in reserve for possible use in Persia is a face-up TRS at all times in Canton and some CPs there. Canton always has to have a non divisional unit garrisoning it anyway, vs. either low odds Nationalist gambles or similar from newly created PARTisan units. Also very useful is a division on Hainan, which also must be garrisoned anyway, and one SCS there. That unit could potentially break a lackadaisical Russian effort vs. Teheran on some die rolls.

Anything else Japan eventually needs in the Persian Gulf can be echeloned in over multiple impulses faster than Zhukov can do anything about it. Canton garrison can be quickly replaced from elsewhere.

Probably as important in terms of potential needs vs. Russia is not getting the Japanese MARines mired deep in the mountains of China. Use them to garrison Korea and Stalin will notice. Japan can pivot into war in Manchuria fairly easily as it operates on interior lines; the Russians are on exterior lines. Manchurian TERR units are also extremely mobile inside Manchuria. If Japan seeks a USSR attack, the MAR units can be moved inland carefully with rail access and re-org capacity in mind.

All of such calculations are totally different if Germany attacks Spain in the 2nd half of 1940 though.



peskpesk -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/24/2020 5:47:05 PM)

MWIF optional house rules:

Pre USSR-Japan pact trade agreement.

Description:
Until a USSR- Japanese pact is sign the following rules are imposed
• Japan must trade two none oil resources to USSR
• USSR must trade Japan one oil resource and one none oil resource
• If the optimal Siberians rule is in play, reduce the number of resources that Japan must trade by one for each Siberian unit that leaves the Asian map.
• If Zhukov leaves the Asian map reduce the number of resources that Japan must trade by one.
• If Japan has fewer than 5 points of garrison rating in Manchuria/Korea reduce the number of none oil resources that USSR must trade by one.
• If Terauchi leaves Manchuria/Korea reduce the number of oil resources that USSR must trade by one.

The pre pact trade agreement rules are cancelled if one of the following apply
• Japan is at war with USA
• Japan is at war with the USSR
• USSR - Japanese pact is signed
• USSR is at war with Germany



Reason:
Many Japanese players refrain from garrisoning Manchuria and instead bring the troops into china and tipping the balance there heavy in Japanese favour.
Also, Many USSR players do the same in Siberia, relocating the troops to other locations.
Its possible, but highly unhistorical.
These options keeps the players honest and give them trouble if they try to remove too many units from the area.

Historical Note:
The Japanese command conflict was mostly about which choice of strategy Japan should choose for the future. Hokushin-ron ,"Northern Expansion Doctrine" which stated that Manchuria and Siberia were Japan's sphere of interest and that the potential value to Japan for economic and territorial expansion. It was widely support within the Imperial Japanese Army
Nanshin-ron, "Southern Expansion Doctrine" , which regarded Southeast Asia and the Pacific Islands as Japan's political and economic sphere It was widely support within the Imperial Japanese Navy
The Army lost, due to its failures in Soviet–Japanese border conflict and in the ongoing Second Sino-Japanese War. Japan made the shift towards Nanshin-ron.
Due to the recent Soviet–Japanese border conflict both sides was weary about the other, for the world it came as chocking news that Japan and the USSR signed the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact in April 1941, the treaty would allow both Japan and the Soviet Union to avoid risk of fighting on multiple fronts
and freeing Japan for preparations for the Pacific War. This had a direct bearing on the Battle of Moscow, where the absence of a high Japanese threat enabled the Soviets to move large forces from Siberia and throw them into the fighting against the Germans.



paulderynck -> RE: War in China - House rules for more historical simulation (3/25/2020 3:10:36 AM)

What defines "the Asian map" in MWiF?



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.328125