RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

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] >> World in Flames >> RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 6:32:13 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

Allied strategy with new MWIF map.

'40 DoW Japan with USSR.

Nationalist Chinese : 15 Corps sized units + 1 divisions + 1 Gun
Communist Chinese : 4 Corps sized units.
USSR: 9 Corp sized units including reserves. + 1 Gun + 2 Div

Total: 28 Corps +2 gun + 3 div

Japanese in China proper : 10 Corps sized units + 2 divisions + 2 Guns.
Japanese in Manchuria / Korea : 7 Corps sized units.
Japanese in Japan : 4 Corps sized units + 1 division + 1 Guns.
Japanese in free setup : 1 Corps sized units + 1 division.

Total: 21 Corps + 4 Div + 3 Gun

The allies can just walk forward no need to attack as there will not be a continous frontline anyhow and sieze japaneese territory.

USSR production can be focussed on building units for the war with Japan, Garrision against Gemrany needs to be held throughout '40 but in '41 defend in the rear, like around Sverdlovsk, fall back to Tashkent/Chita if Germany looks to threatining. By '41 Japan should have been kicked of the mainland and defense against Germany can start again.

USSR will probably loose all the european map, but it doesn't really matter as japan will be so weak that they should be kicked out of the war soon after US enters the war.

Half of the victory points are on the asian map so as long as Germany and italy cannot take the whole of europe victory will fall to the allies.

How does this strategy sound workable?

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 331

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 9:38:44 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

How about using optional rule #50: Compulsory USSR-Japanese Peace?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 332

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 9:53:58 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Quick reminder :
Russian troops are restricted by the Foreign Troop Commitment rule for entering China, even the part controlled by Japan.

So expelling Japan from the mainland (I assume this means china) seems impossible to me by the sole Russians, before they become victims of the German steamroller.

This combined to the Compulsory USSR-Japan peace, plus the price in US Entry, makes me think there is not more a problem with MWiF map than with the WiF FE map.

In 1939-1940, the Russians can play havoc in Manchuria, even in WiF FE pacific scaled map.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 333

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 10:10:35 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from walking all over China.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 334

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 10:18:54 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from�walking all over China.

But the argument put forth above is that China walks all over Japan, if the USSR lends a hand.

While others say Japan walks all over China - wiping out the Communists by driving all the way past Lanchow.

Both of these visions seem to me to depend on the the other side curling up in a fetal position and begging not to be hit too hard.

I believe their are opportunities for each side to do well or do poorly, depending on how well they play - and the ever present fear of the roll of the dice.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 335

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 10:33:13 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from�walking all over China.

You're incredible Panzer ! Because you said that China & Japane needed 20+ extra units to have a good China War, then this means this is the "real problem" ????

Excuse me, but the US Entry is part of the problem, and the optional rules too, because they are here to model a factor that units cannot model, that is the WILL of both belligerent to not wage war one on the other.

Now, if you want to talk about the "real problem", this thread was about the modifications to be made to the China map, because the "Play balance in China" thread came up with modifying the china map by adding it cities was part of the solution.

So, Panzerjaeger-who-got-the real-problem-in-mind, have you got comments about the map and the cities added & geographical features shown in it ?

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 336

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 10:51:13 PM

Hortlund

Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from�walking all over China.

You're incredible Panzer ! Because you said that China & Japane needed 20+ extra units to have a good China War, then this means this is the "real problem" ????

Excuse me, but the US Entry is part of the problem, and the optional rules too, because they are here to model a factor that units cannot model, that is the WILL of both belligerent to not wage war one on the other.

Now, if you want to talk about the "real problem", this thread was about the modifications to be made to the China map, because the "Play balance in China" thread came up with modifying the china map by adding it cities was part of the solution.

So, Panzerjaeger-who-got-the real-problem-in-mind, have you got comments about the map and the cities added & geographical features shown in it ?

Uuh...

Apparently I have said something that upset you. Normally I would apologise for that, but this time I dont have the slightest idea what I have said that caused you to become upset.

I think I have stated my case pretty clearly in my posts in this thread. The proposed solutions I have seen (other than my proposed solution) are:

1) have divisions extend a zoc partisan-wise in China.
2) add Warlords
3) change US entry so that it becomes more dangerous for Japan to take Chinese cities.

And while all these three ideas have their merit, they do not solve the basic problem. And the basic problem is that when you change the map by increasing the number of hexes by orders of magnitude without adding more units to cover this terrain, that part of the map will become unplayable.

You have taken a portion of the map that in WiF was along the lines of 20x20 hexes, and made it 80x80 hexes (or whatever, you get the idea) and you expect the same units that fought over those 20x20 hexes to fight in the 80x80 area. CLEARLY you see the dramatic change in gameplay this will lead to. Now the problem is how do we fix this. The suggestions given so far by others in this thread does not fix this problem. The other suggestions are more along the line of stop-gap measures to just keep China from imploding in the first turn.

I will tell you why the US entry-hit is not a big factor. Because as Japan, I always know that I will have to face the US sooner or later. It doesnt really matter if I have to go to war against the US in early 1941 instead of late 1941 If I have conquered all of China. I'll gladly take that hit. Besides, when China is gone, the US entry is a matter of (short) time anyway, since the US will draw two chits per turn (if I remember correctly) after China falls.

The map, froonp, the map looks great. Do you want to talk about the map? I love the graphics, I love the layout. Personally I think it would be a good idea to add a couple of more cities, and maybe break up the mountains somewhat. But hey, thats just me.

THE MAP IS NOT THE PROBLEM. THE LACK OF UNITS INHABITING THE MAP IS THE PROBLEM.

Adding 5-10 warlords does not solve this problem. Letting divisions extend zoc's does not solve this problem. Changing US entry does not solve this problem.

And this is not a problem for China alone. This is a problem for Manchuria and Korea too.

Now, will you please tell me what exactly you have against the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia. Territorials that can only be used in China/Manchuria/Korea/SovietFarEast. Such a solution would solve the problem with the lack of units and at the same time it would not affect gameplay outside those areas.

I just dont understand what your problem with that is. I really dont.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 337

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 11:16:19 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Well, it's true that you have upset me, I'm sorry to have lost my temper.

quote:

Now, will you please tell me what exactly you have against the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia. Territorials that can only be used in China/Manchuria/Korea/SovietFarEast. Such a solution would solve the problem with the lack of units and at the same time it would not affect gameplay outside those areas.

I just dont understand what your problem with that is. I really dont.

What I have "against" this idea, is that it is not part of the WiF FE rules & habits. There is no existing rule mechanic to tie down such a huge part of a Major Power military forces to a theater. This is not elegant, that is foreign to the WiF FE mechanics, and this is not historical. This is why I prefer the Warlord / MIL system, as it already exists in WiF FE and is pretty much elegant and historical. But it is just a matter of naming things, what I name Warlord you name units, where is the difference ????

quote:

Adding 5-10 warlords does not solve this problem. Letting divisions extend zoc's does not solve this problem. Changing US entry does not solve this problem.

First, let me point that I did not speak of changing US Entry (just to lower the us entry cost for conquering cities, because there are lots of new cities, but not lower too much).

Now, you say that those things that I quoted does not solve the problem, but maybe all of them (plus the Chinese attack weakness, the mandatory USSR/japan peace WiF FE optional rules) can help avoiding the problem.

And tell me, how can 5-10 warlords (units tied down to Chinese cities) not solve the problem, and 20+ new units tied down to China will solve it ? Is the resolution of the problem only a matter of 10 units ???

Playtest will tell if more units are needed, and if so, playtest will tell how many of them, and of which type.

But, for playtest to even begin in China, we all have to first agree to a starting point to how China will loook in MWiF. So, after some iteration, is the latest MWiF map presented here seems good to you all as a starting point for China war Playtest ????

Modifying the MWiF map is not an easy task (modifying if as a picture in my picture editor is far more simple), so the closest to the best version we come, the better.

(in reply to Hortlund)

Post #: 338

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 11:19:50 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

Woops, something that I missed in your post.
You wrote :

quote:

the idea to add 15-20 territorials to Japan and China and Russia

I agree that Territorials may also be part of the added units too. They are good too because they switch side on conquest, and are in supply from the Minor Country capital.
They are part of the WiF FE mechanics. I would agree to add some of them, but not 15-20 of them, as there are only 5-6 of them already existing in WiF FE.

So if units should be added to the game, I bet they will be Warlords, MIL & TERR.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 339

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 11:23:48 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can we focus on the real problem here instead of talking about optional rules and fiddling with US entry so as to discourage the Japanese player from�walking all over China.

But the argument put forth above is that China walks all over Japan, if the USSR lends a hand.

While others say Japan walks all over China - wiping out the Communists by driving all the way past Lanchow.

Both of these visions seem to me to depend on the the other side curling up in a fetal position and begging not to be hit too hard.

I believe their are opportunities for each side to do well or do poorly, depending on how well they play - and the ever present fear of the roll of the dice.

CWiF play with the same map as in the present version of MWiF has often shown a China that was conquered or lamed and a Japan that captured and used many resources at little cost resulting in a very strong Japan in the Pacific war.

With the proposed cities added in China, the land there is much more easily defended even though there will not be a contiguous front line but rather sectors where most of the fighting will take place, just as in the CWiF game. Japan will also have a more difficult time to get control of some of the China resources and they are likely to suffer more losses in their China fighting. This ought to result in a Japan that is a little less strong in the Pacific later in the game war. And all this without additional units for either side.

It is my feeling that Japan has been a bit too strong with a bit too many resources available to it in CWiF and so it may well be a beneficial side effect of a stronger China as proposed in this forum. Personally I think that China is getting a few too many new cities from a play balance viewpoint but the overall result may well be the desired one for a good game not just in China bau also in the rest of the war.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 340

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/6/2006 11:35:43 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

I realize there is the other thread about play-balance in China, but this is the current thread. Perhaps we should all wander over to the other thread. I think the map should be realistic and the game should be balanced in other ways. But which and where to place a city ties in to that in a major way.

I posted once as 'trees' but the Forum doesn't seem to get along with my browser software (Safari on a Macintosh). To participate at all I have to create a new userid and stay online. The next time I try and use a given ID the Forum software always instantly logs me in as "Guest" and doesn't seem to display any button anywhere to Log In. I have used computers since the early 80s and this is driving me crazy but I can't find a way around this. Any help from the users out there would be most appreciated.

Here is the content I would like to add to the discussion:

I think everyone in this discussion is discussing something they haven't tried: playing a game of WiF in China on a euro-scale map, with the exception of those that played cWiF. Last year I printed the cWiF map on paper and tried a few games. Unfortunately, only solitaire, but a single land campaign is not that hard to play solo in WiF. I was trying to come up with a way to make it a simple scenario to play, giving the Japanese victory points based on amount of construction spent for units to use vs. the US, units sent to South-East Asia, and giving the Japanese points for sending deterrent units to frontier with the USSR. For the purposes of testing I went with historical outcomes in terms of US Entry options and in the 'off-map' areas (i.e. anywhere except China), as long as the Japanese met historical minimums in terms of commitment, based on my readings of history and also somewhat the other regular WiF scenarios. I also went with a die roll to control what impulse the Japanese could take, which of course changed completely after N/D '41 and required a naval at some point each and every turn, starting in J/A '40 actually. I also used a similar system for the Russian impulse choice (occasional air or combined with no ChiCom moves) for the Communists units, and have a system we have been testing in regular WiF games for the Chinese, which I'll get to in a bit.

When people are stating that the Japanese or the Chinese don't have a chance to defend their lines solely because of force pool size they are forgetting a couple key systems in a wargame: terrain and supply. China is still jam-packed with great defensive terrain. If you insist on a front line through clear terrain, well good luck with that. The major limitation to 'overwhelming' the other side is supply. There are only a few rail lines available. There are only a few HQs available. So it's not a whirling free-for-all like the Russian front. The Japanese on the cWiF map had a lot of trouble clearing the resource south of Chang-Sha for use, because the rail lines that haul it out run through a valley and they had to clear a lot of overlooking mountain hexes of Chinese to use the railroad. Seemed quite realistic to me. The Japanese were able to take Chang-Sha in 1940 but it was a difficult campaign. The monsoons hurt. The Japanese are slow too. Supply is difficult. (It's been awhile but I think there may be more mountains on the cWiF map...I gave my copy to a player in another state and haven't made a new one yet). Advancing on Si-An in 1941 was a difficult battle. The Japanese were able to take it but advancing to Lan-Chow didn't look too feasible afterwards. After that the Japanese tried to advance on Chunking in the winter of 41 but quickly realized they'd never make it. Remember, this is all _without_ unlimited divisions, which I don't think is a good idea for WiF. WiF already has a problem with three units in every hex; we don't need any more divisions. A lower counter density is a more playable game and I think this would be true on the computer as well. The Chinese army certainly couldn't just send out independent divisional forces as easily as western armies could; the Chinese officer corps just couldn't handle that.

I think Chinese cities should be added to the map with great care. Both sides were very logistically challenged in comparison to western armies, but none more-so than the Chinese. (In reality, did the ChiComs even have to trace supply? The Nationalists were sent into the field about expected to find their own supplies at least in terms of food). Making a city a base for supply and placing reinforcements is a powerful thing in WiF. Could a Chinese cavalry raid really liberate a city for a new Infantry army to appear? Not very realistic at all. The only city I would add would be Yennan for historical flavor, though even that is questionable, but then you could use regualr WiF rules for the Communists to have a home base without compromising and giving them Si-An instead (not realistic). When the Nationalists took Yennan in the late 40s even Mao said, "Well it was just a bunch of caves anyway."

The ideas about set-up aren't too accurate. If the Chinese are weak in the north the Japanese can't rush their Manchurian and Japanese units in and make hay like they can in WiFFe. By the time they arrive winter will be setting in. In the south, things are somewhat similar as the Japanese start in Canton only. Having China set-up first is perfectly fine; it's not like China had much in the way of military intelligence that obsessively tracked enemy formations the way a western army would. Letting China set up second would not be a good idea at all. If changing set-up becomes an option to help balance things the only way to do it would be to allow each side to set up one unit at a time, taking turns alternately. I don't think most players would even want to bother to add that time to an already long game.

Adding units I don't think is a good solution either. Perhaps a few more Warlords, but that is all.

WiF still needs a lot more work to model the Chinese front. You have to remember that WiF is set up to be a GAME. Second, one of the players of that game is supposed to be a Chinese player. And WiF is designed to give each country options to do what it's leader thinks best. So there are Chinese naval units in the force pools, for example. And WiF in places keeps the players tied down by historical limitations. This is why the German player can't just say "I order my troops to be nice to the occupied areas and don't send in any Gestapo, so can I get out of Partisans now?" But this is where WiF fails somewhat in China. There is no need to keep watch on that other 'side' in China. In WiF the ChiComs and Nationalists are nearly best buddies. Having the Nationalist air force ground strike in front of a ChiCom offensive is good WiF tactics, but just plain crazy historically. Perhaps the only way to truly model the situation is in a three-way game of Democracies vs. Fascism vs. Communism, which of course has to bend reality in making Mao get along with the Soviets. But WiF has to be made in to a two player game. So after reading "Stillwell and the American Experience in China" here are some optionals we are trying in a game of regular on-map WiFFe right now:

Option (g) ��Chinese Reserves
Nationalist China�s units are subject to U.S. activity limits.

China may not align a minor country unless they share a land border.

Chinese non-HQ white print units may not leave China and Manchuria or voluntarily enter an Axis ZoC (units already in an Axis ZoC may move into a different ZoC).

A land unit may not leave China and Manchuria unless it can trace a basic supply path to the Stilwell or Mao HQ-I�s at the end of a land or rail movement step. Additionally, if at the start of a land movement step more than half of a Chinese faction�s land units on the map are in an enemy ZoC or outside of China and Manchuria, a unit may not voluntarily enter an enemy ZOC or leave China and Manchuria (units already in an enemy ZoC may move into a different ZoC). Option 40: Units tracing a basic supply path to Stilwell are not subject to Chinese attack weakness.

To build the Stillwell HQ-I or any pilot, SYNTH, or other oil-dependent Nationalist Chinese unit (but not the Chiang or Mao HQ-I), the U.S. must be at war with Japan or have selected U.S. entry option 17, and at least one build point per unit must arrive in China from another Allied Major Power in the current turn. U.S. entry option 1 is a pre-requisite for option 17. Alternatively, the Stilwell HQ-I may be built in the United States. The Stilwell HQ-I and any unit tracing a basic supply path to it cooperates with Chinese and U.S. units. The 'Mao' HQ-I is the only oil dependent Communist unit that may be built; remove the others from the Force Pool.

Option (h) � Chinese Nationalist/Communist Truce
Chinese units may only enter Chinese and Manchurian cities controlled by their faction or by the Japanese. For each city controlled by a faction without a friendly land unit, two units are counted as outside of China when using Option g.

Some comments:

When you want to change a game of WiF to make it feel more historical to you, I've found it best to keep things short and simple. No one wants to add complicated rules subsystems to an already detailed game.

The Nationalists should be a rather more ponderous force than they are in WiF. Since the ChiComs are already ahistorically part of Russian activity limits, why not just get rid of this fiction of a Chinese "Major Power" and a Chinese "Player" (who would ever play them alone?). Make them part of US limits and the Chinese front quickly slows down. But the US can heat it up if he pro-actively makes the necessary decisions. Another option here would be to go back to "Limited War in China" as it was in 5th Edition and DoD 1. Four land moves an impulse (US combined impulse) might be rather tough on the euro map; planning in advance would be very necessary as it should be in WiF. But then Chiang didn't have total, WiF-player like control over his armies either.

China aligning anything is a gamey tactic in WiFFe that should be abolished.

The Chinese reserved their best forces for the coming Civil War. When those shiny new American 105mm guns came in via Lend-Lease Chiang carefully squirreled them away. We don't use the White Print rule on the WiFFe map though.

Chiang really didn't want to use his units in Burma until he finally believed that they would result in a better flow of Lend-Lease. If Stilwell and American Expediton to China hadn't been there, forget it. One nice way to simulate the reserves is to treat the Chinese armies like minor country units leaving their home country when they approach Japanese lines. A familiar system to every WiF player. The Chinese could still keep them near the front for a defense in depth, which turns out to be their best strategy on the euro-scale map anyway. The Japanese can of course put as many of them as they want in their ZoCs. We don't use this in WiFFe though.

The Chinese Attack Weakness rule is necessary and realistic. I think it should apply to the ChiComs as well. This is part of regular WiF simulating the Civil War, though I think more needs to be done, thus the above rules on committing to a Japanese ZoC. Letting Stilwell cancel this out puts some flavor back in to the game in this theater, and has a strong basis in reality.

Let's face it: any Chinese war machine with a motor in it came from overseas. This is abandoned in WiF for two reasons: playability, and to make more of a game of it for the Chinese 'player'. But in reality for an airplane to take off in China the Allies had to make a major commitment of resources. I originally wrote it that a BP had to arrive from the US only, which is probably more realistic. The British had no desire to see China succeed as a competitor to their Empire in Asia, but you can be a more liberal Churchill if you want. But if the Nationalists re-take Shanghai it does get added to the US score. India wasn't that great of a logistical base for the Allies, it still required a lot of shipping not represented in WiF again for playability reasons. This also requires an optional to allow ATRs to move BPs, so you can still fly them in over the 'Hump.' Your average WiF player doesn't much care for logistical subsystems or limitations though. During the Civil War the Communists developed Motorised units from defecting Nationalist units, but until then the Communists had little hope of this happening, or of having the gas to run them.

The Nationalist/Communist 'Truce' has a basis in history. And it used to be an option in DoD. I wrote that option to prevent the gamey tactic of giving Cheng-Tu to the Communists to keep them on the map. Not real at all. And I also wrote it to simulate the Nationalists poor political control of China...they were basically a fascist dictatorship that ruled from the barrel of a gun. So they need to garrison cities as well. And I wrote this before knowing much about where the Nat./Com. front-line was. There are regular references to the amount of troops each tied down watching the other rather than the Japanese; this is one more limit.

I can hear the key-clicks of disbelief now. No way can the Chinese stand-up to the Japanese with these limits. But all those mountains.... Actually I think another problem with WiF in China is the Partisans aren't nearly well represented enough. WiFFe is a game about China, not a simulation. Three turns out of ten to even possibly appear? Japan had a huge problem in China due to their ideology. They were going to take everything they found. This is what kept the front stationary. The Japanese acted so evil there was no way they could ever occupy the whole country. Many WiF players have proposed rules for this theater saying the Japanese had nothing left to conquer. This is not true. The Japanese goal was to turn China into a puppet state with a docile population and consumer economy doing everything for the benefit of Japan. There was no way they could achieve this goal without a much larger army to control everything. They could not understand why China did not give in to their obvious superiority. There was plenty more for them to gain by advancing in China, even just in agriculture. But the Chinese would never accept Japanese rule, so the war was never going to end diplomatically.

Some ideas are to bring back the Friction markers that came out in the late 90s but were dropped from RaW 7. Another would be to disallow Japan to use hexes not in their ZoC; the Chinese wouldn't control them but the Japanese couldn't trace supply through them. Then you would really need a lot of the puppet troop units as actual pieces that aren't there now. And up the PARTisan chances. The euro-scale map will already help greatly in this regard already, the PARTisan horde in the Gobi hopefully will become a thing of the past. Japan will have big trouble in rear areas. This combined with the realistic, historic limitations on the Chinese forces proposed above will make the theater far more stationary, as it was historically. Chinese attack weakness, slow units, and limited action limits should prevent major Chinese counter-offensives seen so often in WiF despite their ahistorical nature. But if the US wants to send in Stilwell and build enough shipping and send in some airplanes and raise some hell in China, it can.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 341

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 12:13:44 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I have no help for your problems with the Matrix forum system - sorry.

Your ideas are good, well thought out, and presented clearly.

They do, however, fall into the category of "house rules" which I have no intention of implementing in MWIF. Thousands of house rules exist for WIF and every one of them, to someone, is a fine rule that should be used when playing WIF. I do not have the luxury of encoding them into MWIF though.

So, I remain firm in my opinion that changes to the rules to provide play balance in China will depend on there being a proven (though play test, not through hypothetical 'facts') need for rules changes. Any that are made will be done so with great reluctance and will be optional.

On the current list of optional rules that affect play balance in China are: additional Chinese cities, Warlords, Unlimited breakdown into divisions, Off-city reinforcements, Chinese attack weakness, Japanese command conflict, and USSR-Japan compulsory peace.

You know, that list seems to provide a lot of ways to affect play balance in China without adding more stuff.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 342

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 12:55:14 AM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

I realize those are ideas more for MWiF 2.0 perhaps. I gave them to Australia a long time ago. I think MWiF should just be a port of WiF 7.m as much as possible, and the game can evolve from there in the future. I've been hoping there will be a way to override things to use House Rules but the more I thought about that from a programming angle the quicker I forgot about it.

But changing the scale opens the can of worms. (oops wrong thread again). Of those optionals you mentioned, two are new proposals for MWiF only ... additional Chinese cities and unlimited divisions, so I thought I'd throw mine out there.

Of the others, most everybody uses them all the time in paper WiFFe, except maybe Japanese Command Conflict as it just doesn't make much difference (you always want the Marines anyway, and the LND-3s for strat bombing, you just get them a bit slower, but then later on you get more of them you normally wouldn't build and the Chinese regret that).

Unlimited Divs gives an edge to the Japanese I would think. I hope it is an "option" you can pick in the game. In a way the limited Division force pool is kind of like action limits. With as many Divs as you want I think some weird things will begin to happen. Maybe I'll try it in my next game of paper WiF to see what happens. I hope in the playtesting the regular WiF divisions are tried as I think unlimited was a permanent feature in cWiF.

If Japan doesn't push China back in WiFFe now they begin to regret it later. With more Chinese cities as bases to continue an advance back against them they have more incentive to push hard in China.

What I was trying to point out that WiF is a great game, but it doesn't do as good a job of simulating China as the other theaters. It's great fun to have Chinese A-20 "Boston" ground attack planes. WiF is like Chennault's fantasy scenario, and Stilwell's too, and maybe even Tojo's with the small partisan threat. WiF players never stop attacking because there is no reason not to, unlike in history. I think there is plenty of 'game' and fun to be had everywhere else in WiF, so I would someday like to see China be a more realistic theater instead of this fantastical theater just to make the game fun.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 343

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 1:59:13 AM

CBoehm

Posts: 113
Joined: 10/31/2005
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

speaking of houserules (that wont be implemented anyway ...)

For a while our group played with a rule saying that:

China doesnt get +0.25 for enemy in homenation...instead:
China got an accumulating bonus +0.25 for attacks vs. them in their homenation up to max +0.75 ...which decline by a rate of -0.25 per turn where no attacks are made ... ei. if JP goes allout CH gets +0.75 PM ...but if JP stops then CH doesnt get any bonus PM at all ...this rule together with chinese attackweakness means that CH is a bit stronger defensively but also that JP is not forced to continue the offensive in order to break CH ...as per normal rules where JP pretty much has to try to really hurt CH or CH will get too strong and put the hurt on JP...

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 344

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 5:58:52 AM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Both of these visions seem to me to depend on the the other side curling up in a fetal position and begging not to be hit too hard.

I believe their are opportunities for each side to do well or do poorly, depending on how well they play - and the ever present fear of the roll of the dice

The problem with the new map is that it is easier to achieve a blowout victory, for both sides.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 345

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 6:11:19 AM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Quick reminder :
Russian troops are restricted by the Foreign Troop Commitment rule for entering China, even the part controlled by Japan.

With this startegy you can dedicate three HQ's to enter China zhukov, Tioshenko and Yeremenko. So you could have up to 13 corpsized units in China, together with the Chineese units that would be enough to kill the germans.

quote:

So expelling Japan from the mainland (I assume this means china) seems impossible to me by the sole Russians, before they become victims of the German steamroller.

USSR will not be the victim of the German steam roller as she will not defend europe. The whole point is to kill Japan as quick as possible and sacrifice European USSR for it, and it is very far for the germans to advance thoughout siberia to be able to help the japaneese.

quote:

This combined to the Compulsory USSR-Japan peace, plus the price in US Entry, makes me think there is not more a problem with MWiF map than with the WiF FE map.

US entry cost is -17 which might be seen as steep, but it's only half a chit more than decalring war against Italy which is not that uncommon. If you do not take occupy three resource hexes that were japanese only isolate them. Japan can not opt for Compulsory USSR-Japan peace.

quote:

In 1939-1940, the Russians can play havoc in Manchuria, even in WiF FE pacific scaled map.

Sure they can but japaneese can usually create a stalemate in good terrain stopping them before entering China proper.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 346

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 7:19:07 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

c92nichj, you must be kidding, such a plan will only achieve the utterly destruction of USSR.

Rail moving the Russian army from Manchuria back west to even the Urals would be very very long, and if the Germans pass the factory line (Stalino Kharkov Kursk Tula Moscow), which they will pass in the second and third impulses of the Barbarossa turn, the Russians are dead. Russia will lose about 12-13 factories & 6-7 resources in 3 impulses, with only a couple of factories being railed. Their production will fall to about 10 as soon as the Germans will reach to "Siberia Map" (Kazan, Kyubyshev, Perm) which will come very very fast if there are no Soviet army to stop them. And there won't be, because it is too long to rail move units east to west in USSR. Then they will lose all their oil in the Caucasus and live on their reserve and the last oil in Perm, which they should loose quite fast too...

Sending 3 HQ & 14 corps to Siberia & China in 1939/40 seems to me totaly crazy.

We cannot base analysis of the play balance in China upon such scenarios, because it would be exactly the same anyway in WiF FE. The map has nothing to do with it. If you do crazy things, you'll obtain crazy results, so why not a complete eradication of Japan from Mainland Asia, but teamed with a complete eradication of the Red Army from the European map and probably the Urals. The WiF FE map would result in the same. In one game we played, we forgot about the Foreign TC rule, and in 1945 the red army was devastating China. Sure this was possible, even on the WiF FE map which is full of blitz terrain too. But in 1939/1940, that's crazy.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 347

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 8:05:55 AM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

Strategy might be crazy but will it be effective?

It doesn't really matter if USSR production reaches 10, it will gain a bit with manchurian factory and two japaneese resources, including lendlease from China. How many VP cities are lost by abandoning European Russia? More than will be gained by an early kill of Japan?

I don't think this startegy could be effective in WIFFE? I have rolled the german armour all the way to Sverdlovsk and outside Tashkent in CWIF, before my opponent gave up, it is much further away than in WIFFE, and just to march there will take you a long time.

It is also harder to actually kick japan of the mainland in WIFFE as manchuria has some quite decent terrain and you can keep a continous frontline of 6-7 hexes.
With the new map you can just walk around any defenders.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 348

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 8:22:34 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
Strategy might be crazy but will it be effective?

It doesn't really matter if USSR production reaches 10, it will gain a bit with manchurian factory and two japaneese resources, including lendlease from China. How many VP cities are lost by abandoning European Russia? More than will be gained by an early kill of Japan?

I don't think this startegy could be effective in WIFFE? I have rolled the german armour all the way to Sverdlovsk and outside Tashkent in CWIF, before my opponent gave up, it is much further away than in WIFFE, and just to march there will take you a long time.

It is also harder to actually kick japan of the mainland in WIFFE as manchuria has some quite decent terrain and you can keep a continous frontline of 6-7 hexes.
With the new map you can just walk around any defenders.

How much of England are you willing to lose? How much of the Med? If Germany doesn't have to fight the USSR it might find something else to do with all those build points. I certainly would. If the USA entry is being delayed because the Japanese are not taking any Chinese cities, etc., then the CW justs has to hold on by its lonesome I guess. And China is doing lend lease to the USSR?

I agree with Patrice. Your strategy would be a nightmare for the Japanese but a wonderful bonanza for the Germans and therefore a nightmare for the CW and therefore a bonanza for the Italians. Without the USSR to put pressure on from the east, all of Europe becomes Axis.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 349

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 9:17:51 AM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

What I was trying to point out that WiF is a great game, but it doesn't do as good a job of simulating China as the other theaters. It's great fun to have Chinese A-20 "Boston" ground attack planes. WiF is like Chennault's fantasy scenario, and Stilwell's too, and maybe even Tojo's with the small partisan threat. WiF players never stop attacking because there is no reason not to, unlike in history. I think there is plenty of 'game' and fun to be had everywhere else in WiF, so I would someday like to see China be a more realistic theater instead of this fantastical theater just to make the game fun.

You are absolutely right about the China part in WIF. It is fun, but bizarre.

Probably everybody would scream, if beloved and well-known European and Pacific Theater in WIF would be fiction in the way the unknown sideshow China is.

In WIF maybe China is abstracted for play-balance, maybe it's in parts badly reasearched.

BTW: There is no monography about China in the bibliography in (official?) WIF scenario.text. But there are 547 posts about "warlords" only in the yahoo WIF discussion group. Not few of them were posted in 2006.

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/wifdiscussion/msearch?query=warlords&submit=Search&charset=ISO-8859-1

Because of blowing up the China map to WIF European scale, things are in a - minimalistic - flow. Thanks to Shannon's/Steve's approach we, as customers, can participate, discuss and sometimes even vote about China in MWIF.

Some people here seem to think, Japanese conquest of China is mandatory everytime.

So please trees trees don't stop posting your ideas, before they conquer not only WIF-China but also this thread.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 350

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 12:03:19 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

trees trees I really appriciate your post and think it might be a good way of solving the China issue.

I especially like the nationalist using US action limits.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 351

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 5:48:12 PM

Manic Inertia

Posts: 51
Joined: 2/7/2006
Status: offline

Sigh. This is all very, very interesting for me, and also very confusing. I played Nationalist China (only) in an 8 player 36-49 DoD III/WiFFE last year, which really stimulated my interest in exactly how 'realistic' - at least in military-political terms - WiF is for China's conflict with Japan.

As I see it, the problem is how to promote the ideal (historical) conditions for a rapid stalemate whilst still leaving options available to the more imaginative, risk-taking player to gain the upper hand: there are those who insist this is a game, afterall. I'm not sure that I've heard anyone give a comprehensive overview so far on how this might be acheived, although I too was very impressed with 'Trees Trees's thoughts, even if God (no sarcasm intended, Shannon) felt that burdening MWiF with non-Rowland berthed addendums means resorting to a sort of House Rules virus.

It will be very interesting indeed to see what happens when the WiFFE OOB is playtested on the the MWiF China hexes. Perhaps all our concerns are essentially superflous prior to that.

WiF isn't a matter of life or death. It's more important than that.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 352

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 7:59:03 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

To get back to commentary on the China map, I've been perusing it some. One city I would vote against would be Nanyang. This one puts a strong threat against the center of the Japanese front. Let's say the Japanese are driving on Yennan in their latest bandit suppression campaign, or Nanning, or both. The Chinese place some new cavalry units in Ankang. The first impulse the Japanse are compelled by the US to move some ships and can do nothing in central China. The second Chinese impulse the cavalry sweeps in and captures Nanyang. Maybe even after a lucky attack against a weak Japanese unit, with that convenient combat supply from the rail/river junction at Tungkwan. The next turn starts up and Chinese infantry reinforcements appear in Nanyang. Where did they come from? Where does their ammunition come from? Maybe some Nationalist airplanes fly in. Fuel? The Japanese hold Wuhan and Chengchow. Yet Nanyang is now a fully functional base for the Nationalists. The next turn more reinforcements might appear. The Chinese performed amazing logistical feats without motor transport, but are they that good to field an army that far from Chungking?

I would make a similar argument against Ankang, and possibly Kweilin and Chihkiang. Without a strong background in Chinese geography in the early 20th Century I am at a loss here. If these cities were major provincial capitals perhaps they are realistic. But with few transportation links I have to question their status as supply sources and reinforcement depots.

One problem WiF has in China is the rivers can't be used for transporting anything. So Anking and Nanchang make more sense realistically as far as their logistic capabilities.

The reinforcement system is nutty at times too. If the Burma Road was cut on both sides of Chihkiang, how long could the Chinese hold out inside? For as long as the Japanese couldn't achieve a "2S" result against it and as long as the Chinese had a new unit to place inside each turn? I don't think so.

So my point is new cities should only be added where the transportation links warrant it (and how defendable those links are). Perhaps this would mean some large cities should be excluded, while some smaller than those should be included due to their strategic locations. (I get a sense that this is how the WiFFe cities were selected).

But on the defense the Chinese need bases too. Kweilin goes a long way towards aiding the Chinese in defending against a Japanese advance out of Canton. Without trying it with units on the map I would say it changes the whole southern theater completely. But like Chihkiang to the north, if it's rail connections were cut would it still be a supply source in reality? If it wasn't there I think the Chinese would be forced to commit the Chiang HQ to contest this area at all.

(in reply to Manic Inertia)

Post #: 353

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 9:13:59 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

One city I would vote against would be Nanyang.

Does this mean that all other cities for which you do not vote "no" are cities for which you vote "yes" ?
This is for my records.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 354

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 9:21:37 PM

wosung

Posts: 692
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: trees trees

To get back to commentary on the China map, I've been perusing it some. One city I would vote against would be Nanyang. This one puts a strong threat against the center of the Japanese front. Let's say the Japanese are driving on Yennan in their latest bandit suppression campaign, or Nanning, or both. The Chinese place some new cavalry units in Ankang. The first impulse the Japanse are compelled by the US to move some ships and can do nothing in central China. The second Chinese impulse the cavalry sweeps in and captures Nanyang. Maybe even after a lucky attack against a weak Japanese unit, with that convenient combat supply from the rail/river junction at Tungkwan. The next turn starts up and Chinese infantry reinforcements appear in Nanyang. Where did they come from? Where does their ammunition come from? Maybe some Nationalist airplanes fly in. Fuel? The Japanese hold Wuhan and Chengchow. Yet Nanyang is now a fully functional base for the Nationalists. The next turn more reinforcements might appear. The Chinese performed amazing logistical feats without motor transport, but are they that good to field an army that far from Chungking?

I would make a similar argument against Ankang, and possibly Kweilin and Chihkiang. Without a strong background in Chinese geography in the early 20th Century I am at a loss here. If these cities were major provincial capitals perhaps they are realistic. But with few transportation links I have to question their status as supply sources and reinforcement depots.

One problem WiF has in China is the rivers can't be used for transporting anything. So Anking and Nanchang make more sense realistically as far as their logistic capabilities.

The reinforcement system is nutty at times too. If the Burma Road was cut on both sides of Chihkiang, how long could the Chinese hold out inside? For as long as the Japanese couldn't achieve a "2S" result against it and as long as the Chinese had a new unit to place inside each turn? I don't think so.

So my point is new cities should only be added where the transportation links warrant it (and how defendable those links are). Perhaps this would mean some large cities should be excluded, while some smaller than those should be included due to their strategic locations. (I get a sense that this is how the WiFFe cities were selected).

But on the defense the Chinese need bases too. Kweilin goes a long way towards aiding the Chinese in defending against a Japanese advance out of Canton. Without trying it with units on the map I would say it changes the whole southern theater completely. But like Chihkiang to the north, if it's rail connections were cut would it still be a supply source in reality? If it wasn't there I think the Chinese would be forced to commit the Chiang HQ to contest this area at all.

Most of the cities on map, but not all of the ones you questioned, in WW2 were provincial capitals. Usually they governed from 10 Million to 50 Million people. These places were per se important traffic, economical, and political centres. This was even the case without railways, because of the then very important river traffic, which isn't simulated in WIF.

Kweilin e.g. was capital of Kwangsi province, ruled by antijapanese warlords (P'ai Chung-hsi and Li Tsung-jen) who in WW 2 cooperated with Chiang Kaishek's Chungking Governement. In WW2 it was also a major traffic centre for traffic from Costal China to Nationalist Hinterland (Kunming, Chungking), because of the railway and because of several smaller, but shipable rivers

Regards

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 355

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 9:23:56 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

One city I would vote against would be Nanyang. This one puts a strong threat against the center of the Japanese front. Let's say the Japanese are driving on Yennan in their latest bandit suppression campaign, or Nanning, or both. The Chinese place some new cavalry units in Ankang. The first impulse the Japanse are compelled by the US to move some ships and can do nothing in central China. The second Chinese impulse the cavalry sweeps in and captures Nanyang. Maybe even after a lucky attack against a weak Japanese unit, with that convenient combat supply from the rail/river junction at Tungkwan. The next turn starts up and Chinese infantry reinforcements appear in Nanyang. Where did they come from? Where does their ammunition come from? Maybe some Nationalist airplanes fly in. Fuel? The Japanese hold Wuhan and Chengchow. Yet Nanyang is now a fully functional base for the Nationalists. The next turn more reinforcements might appear. The Chinese performed amazing logistical feats without motor transport, but are they that good to field an army that far from Chungking?

The same is true for a lot of cities in the whole game.

The Japanese have to guard their rear areas, and screen direct roads to big accident like the Chinese dash from Ankang to Nanyang.

This is the mechanic of WiF FE that a city is a supply source and a reinforcement center, and in other fronts you can see the same. A besieged Paris, who just lost 50 000 mens in a battle, and manage to muster 50 000 more, with weapons and amunitions in a few weeks. This is about the same. Please note that there is an Optional Rule in the WiF FE rules about limiting reinforcements in each city.

Someone proposed that there exist a second kind of cities, used for Chinese cities.
I would agree if that was the case for all the map. As it will only be the case for China, I'll disagree with this proposal.

(in reply to trees trees)

Post #: 356

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 10:20:24 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

I think it is time for a refreshing about the votes for the cities.

I'm keeping tracks of your votes about them, and I remind you that Steve (Shannon) would have liked to have 2 versions of the Modified MWiF China Map : one with few cities added, and one with lots of cities added. Those votes might allow to decide which city is on the "few cities" map.

North portion
New Cities on the map
Ankang (5 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : lomyrin, Trees)
Ningsia (was Yinchuan) (4 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern | NO : Yohan, lomyrin, Shannon)
Sining (4 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern | NO : Yohan, lomyrin, Shannon)
Tianshui (was Tienshui) (6 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomeryn, Shannon)
Tungkwan (was Tongguan) (5 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : lomyrin)
Yennan (4 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern | NO : lomyrin, Shannon)

Cities Refused (not on the map)
Paochi (was Baoji) (was 2 hexes W of Sian) (deleted) (0 YES, 5 Voters) (NO : Froonp, Wosung, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)
Paotow (End of the rail going NW from Taiyuan) (deleted) (0 YES, 5 Voters) (NO : Froonp, Wosung, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)

Cities Proposed (not on the map)
Kweisui (hex E of Paotow) (proposal) (0 voters)

Coastal portion
New Cities on the map
Anking (4 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern | NO : Yohan, lomyrin, Shannon)
Kaifeng (hex E of Chengchow) (2 YES, 2 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung)
Nanchang (5 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : lomyrin)
Nanyang (6 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon | NO : Trees)
Paoting (was Baoding) (6 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)
Suchow (should be named Soochow ?) (5 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin | NO : Shannon)
Wuhsing (3 YES, 3 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy)

New Minor Ports on the map
Chefoo (Minor Port) (2 hexes NE of Tsingtao) (1 YES, 1 Voters) (YES : Froonp)
Tsingkow (Minor Port) (was Xinhailian) (5 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : lomyrin)
Wenchow (2 hexes NE of Foochow) (1 YES, 1 Voters) (YES : Froonp)

Cities Refused (not on the map)
Hofei (was Hefei) (1 hex NW of Anking) (deleted, alternative to Anking) (0 YES, 6 Voters) (NO : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)
Siangfan (was Xiangfan) (1 hex SW from Nanyang) (deleted, alternative to Nanyang) (0 YES, 6 Voters) (NO : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)

Existing Cities modified
Hangchow becoming a Minor Port (not done) (2 YES, 3 Voters) (YES : Incy, ullern | NO : Froonp)*
Wuhan Moved 1 hex NW (should be named Hankow ?) (6 YES, 6 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Mzlin, Shannon)
Macao becoming a city (not done) (2 YES, 3 Voters) (YES : Wosung, Incy | No : Froonp)*

* So I should put it on the map if I'm democratic, but I prefer to wait for more opinions :-)))

Cities Proposed (not on the map)
Chinkiang (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Ichang (3 hexes W of Wuhan) (proposal) (0 voters)
Kalgan (hex NW of Peking) (proposal) (0 YES, 1 voters) (NO : Froonp)
Ningpo (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Shasi (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Weihaiwei (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Wuhu (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)

Coastal portion
New Cities on the map
Chihkiang (was Chihchiang) + river south moved (5 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : lomyrin, Trees)
Kweilin (6 YES, 7 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon | NO : Trees)

New Minor Ports on the map
Amoy (port) (2 hexes SW of Foochow) (1 YES, 1 Voters) (YES : Froonp)
Pakhoi (Port) (3 YES, 4 Voters) (YES : Incy, ullern, Shannon | NO : Froonp)
Swatow (3 hexes E of Canton) (1 YES, 1 Voters) (YES : Froonp)

Cities Refused (not on the map)
Liuchow (2 hexes SW of Kweilin) (deleted, alternative to Kweilin) (0 YES, 6 Voters) (NO : Froonp, Wosung, Incy, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)
Kwangchowan (Port) (Wosung say Hoihong - 2 hexes S/SE of Nanning) (deleted) (alternative to Pakhoi) (1 YES, 4 Voters) (YES : Froonp | NO : Incy, ullern, Shannon)

Existing Cities modified
Chungking moved southwards (not done, alternative solution partly adopted because of Incy comments with Google Earth) (1 YES, 3 Voters) (YES : ullern | No : Froonp, Shannon)
Kunming moved 1 hex SW (2 YES, 2 Voters) (YES : Froonp, Incy)

Cities Proposed (not on the map)
Hengyang (2 hexes S of Changsha, on the rail) (proposal) (1 YES, 5 Voters) (YES : Wosung | No : Froonp, ullern, lomyrin, Shannon)
Kiukiang (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Wansien (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Wuchow (position ?) (proposal) (0 voters)
Dianquan/Dianqian (port) (2 hexes SW of Foochow) (proposal) (0 voters)

< Message edited by Froonp -- 6/7/2006 10:22:43 PM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 357

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/7/2006 10:21:20 PM

trees trees

Posts: 125
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: Manistee, MI
Status: offline

It's hard to decide on a vote. I think I would vote against Ankang, Nanyang, and Chihkiang. Maybe you convinced me on Kweilin.

If you keep the city's connections to the rest of the country in mind that is what I was hoping to illustrate.

There is nothing that can be done about the mechanics of reinforcements in WiF. But where to put a Chinese city can still be decided.

I'm not completely convinced the Chinese need more cities, even on defense. If you want to defend that far from your bases, that is a risk you take. Chiang didn't take that risk. It's not too unlike WiFFe ... you can start out defending in the mountains, or you can come down to the plains and try and play. There are pluses and minuses. On the plains, you force the Japanese to do things, using their limits and rolling dice to evict you. The gamble is whether you can replace those units before you need them in the mountains. Let's say the Chinese set up like they frequently do in WiFFe, already in the mountains, ceding the plains in the south to the Japanese. The Japanese won't be able to reach them before the summer of '40, just in time for some Partisans to appear behind them (though I still feel a 30% chance isn't strong enough but that doesn't seem to be an option to alter). By then the Chinese will have a few reinforcements probably and in a strong position. The Japanese can assault a river or mountain hex but can't get a great attack. Roll poorly and... Roll well and... Perhaps the new map scale won't be so different after all.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 358

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/8/2006 12:10:40 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Here are my votes on those places I had not covered by vote before:

North portion
Kweisui NO

Coastal portion
Kaifeng NO
Wuhsing NO

New Minor Ports
Chefoo YES
Wenchow YES

Existing Cities modified
Hangchow YES
Macao YES

Cities Proposed (not on map)
ALL NO

Coastal portion - New minor ports
Amoy YES
Pakhoi YES
Swatow YES

Cities refused (not on map)
Kwangchowan NO

Existing Cities modified
Chungking moved NO
Kunming moved NO

Cities Proposed (not on map)
Kiukiang NO
Wansien NO
Wuchow NO
Dianquan NO

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 359

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 6/8/2006 12:46:35 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline