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 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 7:51:20 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Hankow: Look at your own (in)famous Post 47 on this thread. It appears as Hankow, with no Wuhan in sight. My point is that Chaing Kai-Shek chose to set up his government in Hankow, not Wuhan, so players reading history books while playing the game will be looking for a Hankow. At the time, Hankow is the name that was dominant. Also on my maps (and Post 47) the river is spelt Yangtze.

Resources: If the resources move to factories only via rail, road and convoy, then presumably Chungking and Chengtu only ever use the resources in their own hexes (so cannot be starved out) instead of receiving resources from the Burma Road? So you are saying that the Burma Road daren't be shown going from Kweiyang to Chungking because 1) the Japanese would use it as a supply line for an advance against Chungking and 2) the Chungking/Chengtu factories being fully utilised already, it wouldn't benefit the KMT at all anyway ever. Wow! Quite a fudge factor!

Even taking into account China's very low Production Multiple, it is weird that the design suggests that tiny places like Kunming had half the industrial capacity of a city like Chungking. The history books tell us that, in Western terms, the only truly industrialised city in China was Shanghai, so that great metropolis ought to have ten or more factories!

Burma Road: So the road changing colour refers only to the political closure pre-1942, not physical intervention? I am sure Steve mentioned looking to see where exactly it was cut, or where it could be cut subsequently.

Changsha: What an amazing map! And it shows deposits of copper, iron, mercury, antimony and lead! I suppose the point is this. For me, the Burma Road was the route by which avgas was laboriously transported from the airfield at Kunming to Chengtu to fuel the B-29s from early 1944 onwards. But for military materiel such as jeeps, rifles, small artillery, and ammunition it wouldn't make sense to take them to Chungking first and then back to Changsha.

But here's a new problem, assuming I am not misunderstanding something fundamental. There is one factory in Changsha and two resources to the southwest. So why does Changsha need a road to it? Indeed, while the Burma Road is closed, the Changsha road is most likely to be used east-to-west to take a resource to Kweiyang!

Then again, supposing Britain is extremely generous and sends vast amounts of resources down the Burma Road. China doesn't seem to have any spare factories within reach to utilise them. In the south, I see two resources and three factories, so why would Britain ever send more than one resource? And in the centre and north, every factory has its resource in its hex with it, apart from Lanchow which is within two hexes of a resource.

The Burma Road shipped avgas and war materiel, not resources ... so really what the Chinese player should be receiving is Build Points.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 541

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 8:03:28 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

I see from Post 532 that Build Points can be given to China via the Burma Road (given the differences in Production Multiples, surely the preferred delivery). But to where do BPs have to be shipped to be used?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 542

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 8:10:40 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Steve, are the beta-testers testing the strategies or the programming? How long have all the various China strategies been under the microscope?

Also, I hope you are going to support Vista from the outset. There are many Matrix products I would have bought but will not (e.g. Conquest of the Aegean) because the company is slow to upgrade.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 543

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 8:16:53 PM

wosung

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

For the Yennan/Yenan question both works for WW2. So I don't mind a change at all.

For the Yellow River question I checked a few references. And it's right: The destruction of the dykes at Huayuankou changed the course it had since 1852 for the next 9 years: Southwards through Northern Kiangsu. So, it seems, that in WW2 Yellow River again followed its older pre-1852 course

According to the WW2 maps I found, the course of the Yellow River would be from Kaifeng SE to the Northern tip of Lake Hungtse to unite with River Huai. Then Huangho/Huai moved south of Tsingkow into the Yellow Sea (like Huai is already doing on our map)

To stay in the picture: Nobody's an island. I didn't find that one. Thanks marcuswatney!!!

References:

Jonathan Spence, The search for modern China, New York 1999, pp. 530, 536 (German ed.)

Schlag nach �ber Ostasien. Tournisterschrift des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht Heft 57, Berlin 1942. (Consult about East-Asia. Travel Kit of German High Command).

Regards

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 544

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 8:34:09 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Steve, are the beta-testers testing the strategies or the programming?� How long have all the various China strategies been under the microscope?

Also, I hope you are going to support Vista from the outset.� There are many Matrix products I would have bought but�will not (e.g. Conquest of the Aegean) because the company is slow to upgrade.

I really do not want to go into details on beta testing other than what I post monthly - which isn't much on that topic.
================
As for Vista, the game seems to run ok under XP Emulation. But not under 'native' Vista. I have talked about this some in my monthly reports; re: Theme Engine upgrade to support Vista.

One point I would like to reiterate is that:
(a) if Vista supported XP programs without the software developers having to rewrite their programs to make it compatible, then
(b) Microsoft would never have created an XP emulation capability.

Clearly Vista does not always run XP programs. I.e., Vista does not have backwards compatibility to XP. Your complaints here should be directed at Microsoft, not the game developers.

Or else get use to running older programs under XP emulation(?)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 545

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 10:22:08 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung
For the Yellow River question I checked a few references. And it's right: The destruction of the dykes at Huayuankou changed the course it had since 1852 for the next 9 years: Southwards through Northern Kiangsu. So, it seems, that in WW2 Yellow River again followed its older pre-1852 course

According to the WW2 maps I found, the course of the Yellow River would be from Kaifeng SE to the Northern tip of Lake Hungtse to unite with River Huai. Then Huangho/Huai moved south of Tsingkow into the Yellow Sea (like Huai is already doing on our map)

If we were to change the course of the Yellow River, what would you say of that draft (picture attached -- ignore the Yellow River's north course, it is not deleted on this draft picture). It is not as you describe Wosung, it is based on the map I published in post #47, and on the 1944 Look at the World atlas who show the Yellow River on a similar course than the map of post #47.

But, are we sure we want to do that ?
I'm asking because 2/3 or 3/4 of the maps I see for China during the war show the Yellow River on its north course. Only a small part show it on its South course.
Articles on Wikipedia seems to confirm this is true though :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_river#Flooding_and_changes_of_course

Also, are we sure that the Yellow River did flow ONLY on its south course, and that there were no more flowing on the north one ? This would explain why there are som much WWII China maps that show the northern flow of the Yellow River.

If we are sure that this southern flow is the historical reality, then we are facing a major error on our map, and we can take the energy to change it. It is not a game breaker, nor does it change the game dynamics. It is just more historical accurate, and shows that we did our homework well as said Marcus.
For the technical side, I can generate the changes in the map data files, and I can also generate the river hexes and the riverless coastal hexes for the old Yellow River's mouth, to give them to Steve who would put them in his big river file and his big coastal file. This would relieve Steve of a large part of the work.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 546

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 10:33:55 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

Hankow: Look at your own (in)famous Post 47 on this thread. It appears as Hankow, with no Wuhan in sight. My point is that Chaing Kai-Shek chose to set up his government in Hankow, not Wuhan, so players reading history books while playing the game will be looking for a Hankow. At the time, Hankow is the name that was dominant. Also on my maps (and Post 47) the river is spelt Yangtze.

I'm sorry, but there also are numerous maps with Wuhan on them. There is also a famous battle of Wuhan during the Sino-Japanese war (June-November 1938 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_wuhan), so I stand by this. Wuhan is composed of 3 cities, Hankow being one of the three. I can have the city names "Wuhan (Hankow)" but not simply "Hankow".

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 547

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/2/2008 10:39:36 PM

Froonp

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

Here is another possibility of southward flowing (keep on ignoring the northern flowing, I did not delete it).

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 548

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 12:41:00 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I have found another 1945 map that supports this flowing of the Yellow River.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 549

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 12:53:32 AM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

If we believe the Post 47 map, then Post 546 is the better depiction, because it maintains the correct ratio Suchow-river-Nanking, and the correct distance away from the east-west rail-line as claimed by Post 47.

The trouble is, while my 1942 map doesn't show the change in course, it does mark the old route (now flowing again) criss-crossing the Kaifeng-Suchow rail-line so that it is much closer to the route shown in Post 548.

The other maps I saw years ago showed the old northern course as a double-dotted line, implying it had dried up completely. Also, I was under the impression that the bulk of the deaths came not from drowning but from the famine that followed.

In case you think me a total anorak, the reason I know so much about this period is that my 1982 Pacific Third Reich game, never published, had a 1931-41 scenario in China where the KMT player was given a map overlay and could actually blow the dykes if he wanted to. It is not often in games you get the chance to move a river!

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 550

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 12:59:50 AM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Having looked at Post 549 since my last post, I think that is a decisive vote in favour of the more southerly route: the map actually distinguishes between the two routes, and dates them, so it was clearly drawn up very carefully. So I vote for Post 546.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 551

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 1:01:52 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I have found another 1945 map that supports this flowing of the Yellow River.

Here is another map (1944 Look at the world Atlas) that support the first drawing.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 552

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 1:12:50 AM

Froonp

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

My 1944 Collier Atlas also support the first drawing. I have not scanned this map.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 553

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 5:01:20 PM

wosung

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

I�m fully aware that redoing the Yellow River on the MWIF map takes time and might be an issue for the board gamers.
So I checked again a few references on that with the following questions in mind:
Did it change its course completely after the destruction of the dykes at Huayuankou on June 8th, 1938? Was there only one new river course (the pre-1852 course)? Did the river bed it had from 1852 to 1938 after June 8th 1938 dried out completely?
So what do the references say?

1. �As the water in the Yellow River rose, Hua-yuan-kou East of Cheng-chow was floodeds and the main outflow followed the Chia-lu River into the Huai River. [...] Since then, the two opposing forces faced each other across the flooded area fore six years.�
Hsu Long-hsue and Chang Ming-kai (Eds) History of the Sino Japanese War (1937-1945) Taipei 1971, p 235. (partly a piece of propaganda)
On Map 39 of Hsu and Chang (for 1944) we find both the the Northern and the Southern course. The latter is labelled (�Yellow River flooded area�). Kaifeng is in between these two River arms.

2. A Chinese map about the area in 1944 shows the same picture: both the the Northern and the Southern course. The latter is depicted markedly wider than the former. Kaifeng 开封is in between these two River arms. 中国大白科。军事Zhongguo dabaike quanshu: Junshi, Shanghai 1989 (Encyclopedia of China: Military), p. 517.

3. �...besides the Yellow River left its bed: It did not flow into the Yellow Sea North of the Shantung peninsula as it used to do since the 1850s but changed its course back again to the South crossing Northern Kiangsu before it reached the sea.�
Jonathan Spence, In Search for Modern China, New York 1999, p 536. (Spence is one of the most reputated academic China specialists, German ed., retransl. by me) According to Spences map (p 530) the WW2 course of Yellow river was North of Kaifeng to the Northern Tip of Lake Hungtse and then to the Yellow Sea South of Tsingkow.(I don�t want to scan this map because of copyright issues)

4. A map of German High Command (1942) might support Spences map: There are two courses on it:

to North Shantung.

from North of Kaifeng to the Northern Tip of Lake Hungtse and then to the Yellow Sea South of Tsingkow, labelled �Mouth of the Yellow River until 1852�
Schlag nach �ber Ostasien. Tournisterschrift des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht Heft 57, Berlin 1942. (Consult about East-Asia. Travel Kit of German High Command).

5. Finally another map in a quite recent Chinese publication shows just the northern course for 1944. The text discusses, if it was right to blow up the dykes but not the Yellow river course (p.536).
鄭浪平, 中國之怒吼中華民族抗日戰爭史 Zheng Langping, Zhongguo zhi nuhou, Zhonghua minzu kang Ri zhanzheng shi (China�s rage, History of the Chinese Nations� Anti-Japanese War), Taibei 2005, p. 809.

Bottom line: There seems to be no easy answer. The texts are not explicit for our question. The maps also differ. Almost certainly they are not exact due to the nature of this short-time man made geographical issue. They depicted both river courses relying on history and on actual news, but not on scientific exact measurement in a combate zone. Besides the geographical issues, even the military impact of the flood remains unclear and is (politically) contested. Plus: How wide and deep was the river? Was it easy to cross?
Two possibilites for us:

Depict only the southern course.

Depict both co-existent river courses.

I�ll vote for b.

Regards

< Message edited by wosung -- 2/4/2008 12:01:11 AM >

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 554

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 5:27:30 PM

wosung

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

On Map 39 of Hsu and Chang (for 1944) we find both the the Northern and the Southern course. The latter is labelled (�Yellow River flooded area�). Kaifeng is in between these two River arms.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by wosung -- 2/3/2008 5:37:28 PM >

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 555

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 5:29:45 PM

wosung

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

Grrr. Uploading pictures does not work for me

< Message edited by wosung -- 2/3/2008 5:31:46 PM >

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 556

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 5:36:06 PM

wosung

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

2. A Chinese map about the area in 1944 shows the same picture: both the the Northern and the Southern course. The latter is depicted markedly wider than the former. Kaifeng 开封is in between these two River arms. 中国大白科。军事Zhongguo dabaike quanshu: Junshi, Shanghai 1989 (Encyclopedia of China: Military), p. 517.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 557

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 7:06:03 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Hey, people, this is a computer game. Why not let the KMT player decide at the very start of the game if he did or did not blow the dykes in 1938? Switch on either the north route or the south route. Also...

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

"As the water in the Yellow River rose, Hua-yuan-kou. East of Cheng-chow was flooded

I suggest that if blown, the Chengchow hex should be designated swamp.

There is also something else I would like to draw to your attention: in the Post 47/546 map there is a break in the rail-line south of Chengchow. If, as seems likely, the rail-line was washed away by the flood, that would explain why the Japanese did not make any effort (as shown by that map) to link Hankow/Wuhan to the rail-net. If we think of the Chengchow region as flooded and all transport south of there disrupted, the peculiar bulge in the central sector of the Japanese occupation suddenly makes perfect sense.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 558

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 7:20:23 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

New topic: Has there been any discussion of the navigability of the Yangtze? We know from the Yangtse Incident that warships routinely went upstream at least as far as Nanking, and I suspect could have gone to Hankow. Apart from the fact that the Yangtze was (and is) a major obstacle to any army, comparable to the Amazon, the reason I ask is ...

I have been cataloguing what the resource hexes were actually producing, and there are two stark anomalies in China. First, nothing of any significance came from 1 SW of Suchow (a tiny coalfield). Secondly, China is missing the massive Tayeh iron mines which should be 1 SE, or better at the top-right of 2 SE, of Wuhan. These mines were the source of the bulk of the iron ore exported from Classical China during the occupation.

If the Yangtze were shown as navigable as far as Lake Poyang, then we could shift the incorrect Suchow resource to 2 SE Wuhan and that iron could be taken straight out to sea, as was done historically. This also has the great benefit of giving the KMT a target worth launching an offensive to capture, and giving some meaning to the battles around Changsha.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 559

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 8:03:47 PM

wosung

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Hey, people, this is a computer game. Why not let the KMT player decide at the very start of the game if he did or did not blow the dykes in 1938? Switch on either the north route or the south route. Also...

quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

"As the water in the Yellow River rose, Hua-yuan-kou. East of Cheng-chow was flooded

I suggest that if blown, the Chengchow hex should be designated swamp.

There is also something else I would like to draw to your attention: in the Post 47/546 map there is a break in the rail-line south of Chengchow. If, as seems likely, the rail-line was washed away by the flood, that would explain why the Japanese did not make any effort (as shown by that map) to link Hankow/Wuhan to the rail-net. If we think of the Chengchow region as flooded and all transport south of there disrupted, the peculiar bulge in the central sector of the Japanese occupation suddenly makes perfect sense.

For the players' choice of having blown up the dykes, I would imagine that it won't be realized: Too unwiffy and complicated to program.

I could live with Yellow River swamp hexes in Chengchow and /or Kaifeng and even the hex(es) to the SE. According to another map in Hsu (No 28) the swamp should be in the Kaifeng hex (Swamp symbol some 30 to 80 km SE of Kaifeng). But because it's one of the "complete China maps" it won't help to upload it because of its scale.

For the Chengchow-Wuhan Railway: According to the map in post No. 555 in 1944 the Yellow River flooded area was some 10 to 50 km East to this railway. In the Battle of Central Honan (4.-6.1944) the IJA attacked South along the railway. But I'm unsure about the state of the railway itself. But this is a problem for all Chinese railways.

I like the way you try to combine geography and frontlines. But for the bulge between Kaifeng and Wuhan, the lack of political and economic war aims in Honan alone would explain the long stability of the frontline there. The only meaning the area had was as connection between North and Central China. Therefore its importance only rose in the all out effort of Ichigo.

Regards

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 560

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/3/2008 8:24:12 PM

wosung

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

New topic: Has there been any discussion of the navigability of the Yangtze? We know from the Yangtse Incident that warships routinely went upstream at least as far as Nanking, and I suspect could have gone to Hankow. Apart from the fact that the Yangtze was (and is) a major obstacle to any army, comparable to the Amazon, the reason I ask is ...

I have been cataloguing what the resource hexes were actually producing, and there are two stark anomalies in China. First, nothing of any significance came from 1 SW of Suchow (a tiny coalfield). Secondly, China is missing the massive Tayeh iron mines which should be 1 SE, or better at the top-right of 2 SE, of Wuhan. These mines were the source of the bulk of the iron ore exported from Classical China during the occupation.

If the Yangtze were shown as navigable as far as Lake Poyang, then we could shift the incorrect Suchow resource to 2 SE Wuhan and that iron could be taken straight out to sea, as was done historically. This also has the great benefit of giving the KMT a target worth launching an offensive to capture, and giving some meaning to the battles around Changsha.

For the navigability of the Yangzi for ocean going vessels: No problem from Shanghai to at least Hankow. From then on steam driven or "traditional" river boats were used to Sichuan. AFIR after Ichang it became more difficult (3 gorges etc.). Around 1900 there was an inofficial contest between international ship lines to go to Sichuan by steam boat.

For redoing the placement of ressources I would need to check out I few things. Not sure when. Not sure Patrice will like too many changes.

Perhaps we can perfect the map. One the other hand even then it still will be a representation and an interpretation and not perfect reality.

Regards

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 561

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/4/2008 1:47:07 AM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Pescadores: There should be a port here. It was a significant Japanese naval base. "'A second force (Rear-Adm Hara) with the cruiser Natori, the destroyers Fumitsuki, Satsuki, Nagatsuki, Minatsuki, Harukaze and Hatakaze, three minsweepers, nine submarine-chasers and six transports, sets out on 7 Dec from Mako (Pescadores) and lands 2000 troops of an advanced detachment of the 14th Army near Aparri on the N coast of Luzon early on 10 Dec".

I haven't seen a map of the Kuriles, but I presume you have included a port at Hitokappu (I think the island's name was Etorofu), from where the Pearl Harbor strike force set off.

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 562

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/4/2008 2:36:43 AM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Location of resources in China: I have had this nagging sense of unease about the effect of changing the scale in China, and I have finally been able to pin it down. The relationship which needs to be retained is the distance of a Japanese-held resource from the KMT front-line.

At the start of WiF FE, two resources, the ones either side of Taiyuan, start the game in the front-line and so, in theory at least, could be captured by the KMT or CCP with a single lucky attack. In MWiF, one is now two hexes away, the other three. It seems to me that the prospect of China conceivably denying Japan one or two resources is what makes an Allied Burma Road gift to the KMT justifiable. With all resources now behind the lines, this justification disappears ... and/or the Japanese player does not feel immediately pressured.

I realise now that it was the desire to correct this and get at least one Japanese resource into the front-line which was the subconscious motive for suggesting the Taiyeh iron mines be included. At the moment, I don't see that there is any target hurtful to Japan that the Chinese player can realistically hope to capture.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 563

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/4/2008 5:45:35 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

In 1939 neither the KMT nor the CCP have the strength to attack Japan and seize resources in WiF:FE, even if the resources are on the front line. The Japanese have nothing to fear from China in WiF:FE until 43 at the earliest - and that is only if you are playing with Limited Overseas Supply and the Americans have been rather lucky. There is a resource that the Chinese can stop from being shipped with their ZoCs from the start of the game until the Japanese clear out the threatening hex.

Otherwise, the Chinese have little they can do until about 1944, when they will have superiority in numbers of land units and probably air superiority in the theatre as well.

In MWiF, the larger scale of the map tends to give Japan an advantage in maneouvrability early in the game, and the Chinese are probably asking to get isolated and destoyed in detail if they deploy to ZoC resources at the start.

However, turnabout is fair play, and the Chinese can turn around and really stick it to Japan (which in 43-44 is hurting for land units to fill lines) on the new map scale in the second half of the game, especially since the slow Chinese can move around without disorganizing after a single hex.

While the new map scale presents opportunities for a more historically accurate Chinese campaign, a lot of how it works in MWiF (units, factories, the CCP "military", the ahistorical moving frontline vs. the historical stalemate, big KMT airforce) is based on WiF:FE, and here my impression is that Harry Rowland and the WiF:FE design team have deliberately opted for a less historical Chinese campaign for the sake of a more playable (and most importantly, a more fun) China.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 564

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/4/2008 7:17:59 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

In 1939 neither the KMT�nor the�CCP�have the strength to attack Japan and seize resources in WiF:FE, even if the resources are on the front line. The Japanese have nothing to fear from China in WiF:FE until 43 at the earliest - and�that is only if you are playing with Limited Overseas Supply and the Americans have been rather lucky. There is a resource that the Chinese can stop from being shipped with their ZoCs from the start of the game until the Japanese clear out the threatening hex.

Otherwise, the Chinese have little they can do until about 1944, when they will have superiority in numbers of land units and probably air superiority in the theatre as well.

In MWiF, the larger scale of the map tends to give Japan an advantage in maneouvrability early in the game, and the Chinese are probably asking to get isolated and destoyed in detail if they deploy to ZoC resources at the start.

However, turnabout is fair play, and the Chinese can turn around and really stick it to Japan (which in 43-44 is hurting for land units to fill lines) on the new map scale in the second half of the game, especially since the slow Chinese can move around without disorganizing after a single hex.

While the new map scale presents opportunities for a more historically accurate Chinese campaign, a lot of how it works in MWiF (units, factories,�the CCP "military", the ahistorical moving frontline vs. the historical stalemate, big KMT airforce) is based on WiF:FE, and�here my impression is that Harry Rowland and the WiF:FE design team have deliberately opted for a less historical Chinese campaign for the sake of a more playable (and most importantly, a more fun) China.

The one comment from Harry that sticks in my mind, is that WIF players always attack, while historically, the powers that be did mostly not atttack in China (true for both sides).

That they could have attacked at lot more is likely. And the whole premise of WIF is to provide the ability to see "what if". So, when you put together the possibility of attacking, with war gamers' 'natural' bloodlust, you get a vastly ahistorical war in China. Some optional rules attempt to address this (e.g., Chinese attack weakness, restrictions on Warlords), but without imposing a virtual straitjacket of rules on players, a historical reenactment in China is unlikely.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 565

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/4/2008 7:59:00 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney

Location of resources in China:� I have had this nagging sense of unease about the effect of changing the scale in China, and I have finally been able to�pin it down.� The relationship which needs to be retained is the distance of a Japanese-held resource from the KMT front-line.

At the start of WiF FE, two resources, the ones either side of Taiyuan, start the game in the front-line and so, in theory at least, could be captured by the KMT or CCP�with a single lucky attack.� In MWiF, one is now two hexes away, the other three.� It seems to me that the prospect of China conceivably denying Japan one or two resources is�what makes an Allied Burma Road gift to the KMT justifiable.� With all resources now behind the lines, this justification disappears ... and/or the Japanese player does not feel immediately pressured.

I realise now that it was the desire to correct this and get at least one Japanese resource into the front-line which was the subconscious motive for suggesting the Taiyeh iron mines be included.� At the moment, I don't see that there is any target hurtful to Japan that the Chinese player can realistically hope to capture.

The resources in China were nearly untouched from CWiF, so come from the early days of the design of CWiF, in which Harry participated. We only made sure that each resource had the same possibility for the Japanese to be brought back to home. We did not consider the possibility of the Chinese to take these resources back, which is nearly non existent in WiF FE until at least 43-44. By this date in MWiF, I think that the Chinese will be able to do harm to the Japanese, and even get back some resources.
I don't really want to change that, as there are a lot of natural resources in China and you might be able to place some at various places.

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 566

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/5/2008 2:14:45 PM

wosung

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

Some data and a short reflexion on factories and resources in China. But don't expect an easy answer. I prefer to lay out some facts for discussion how/if to implement.

Resources and factories in China proper (without Manchuria and Formosa):

As far I can see on the MWIF map there are 14 factories (4 of them red) and 11 Ressources

Factories:
1 Peking
1 Sian
1 Lanchow
1 Nanking
2 Shanghai (1 red)
1 Chengtu
2 Chungking (1 red)
1 Changsha
1 Kweiyang
1 Kunming (red)
2 Canton (1 red)
don�t know about Kashgar

Ressources:
1 (3 hexes E of Paotow)
1 (3 hexes NE of Chengchow)
1 Sian
1 (2 hexes NW of Lanchow)
1 (SW of Suchow)
1 Chengtu
2 Chungking
1 (SW of Changsha)
1 (2 hexes SW of Kweilin)
1 Kunming

Hope, I didn�t leave out something.

A few facts and figures about Chinese war economy:

In the 1930s Chinas share (without Formosa) of global output ammounted to:
0,5 % of iron ore (2 Mio to. per annum) The most important iron mines seemed to be Pinghsiang (1 hex SE of Changsha), the areas of Nanking, Wuhan and Taiyuan, the Mouth of Yellow river (Northern Route), and the coastal hex East of Peking
1,6% of coal (25,7 Mio to. p.a.) Most of Chinese coal is not in deep mines but in extensive shallow fields. The provinces with the highest number of big coal fields were: Shensi (11), Shantung and Liaoning (6 each), Anhui (3)
0,00008% of petroleum
Practically all iron and coaking coal for heavy industry purposes was imported.
(Source: Tang leang-Li, The Reconstruction of China, Shanghai 1935, pp. 50-52, Map 2.)

In the 1930�s and 1940�s Chinas� most important raw material exports were
tungsten (37,7% of world production, used for machine tools, armour plates armour piercing shells)
antimony (22% of world production, used as lead hardener)
cotton (10% of world production)
(Source Oxford companion of WW2, pp 1063.)

In the 1930s The KMT regime under Chiang tried to prepare for the coming war with Japan. With German help (Seeckt, Falkenhausen, IG Farben, Junkers), it tried to transform itself into a technocratic development dictatorship. It started to plan and build up a huge ressource and defence bureaucracy and centralized heavy industry in the Hinterland (mainly Hunan, Kiangsi, less in Szechwan). The German advisors esp. pressed for a Chinese industry for small infantry weapons, in case all the exports would stop due to Japanese possession of coastal China.
(Source: Fu Pao-jen Military advisors and German assistance for Chinese Industrialization, in B. martin (ed) The german advisory group in China, Freiburg 1981.)

After the war started in 1937, 639 factories (110.000 tons) and some 43.000 skilled workers were moved to the hinterland, including 230 machine making plants and the equipment of the arsenals in Wuhan and Shanghai. Big problem was: Where�s the hinterland? Thus Free China established a improvised refugee industry, which makes the SU industry exodus look like a perfect planned and executed maneuver.
The Free Chinese hinterland was economical underdeveloped to say the least. Before the war only 4% of the industrial capital went to Szechwan. Till 1938 the regime lost 63% of its tax income but the expeditures rose 33%.
Free China held only 10% of the industrial output of China (including Manchuria). Its production peak was in 1943 (but only 12% of the prewar output of China proper).
In 1944, it produced 49.000 kilowatts (Occupied China: 642.000 kilowatts, Manchuria 600.000 kw).
In 1944 the Kansu Petroleum production and refining Administration was by far the most important oil producer in China. It produced 20 Mio. gallons crude Petroleum (7 Mio. gallons gas, diesel, kerosene) using innovative native technology. In 1943 642.000 gallons were refined from vegetable oil and from trees.
In 1943 Free China produced 10.000 to. of steel (10% of the prewar output).
The numbers for tungsten are 16.000 to (1937) and 9.000 to (1943).
(Source William C. Kirby, The Chinese War economy, in Hsiung/Levine: China�s Bitter Victory, London 1992.)

Bottom line:

It�s not so easy to model the refugee economy in wartime China, mainly for 3 reasons:
1. MWIF uses a static map with fixed ressources and factories.
2. Resources and factories are hex-bound. This fits good to the centralized economy of the industrialized world of WW2, but less good to the decentralized realities for �underdeveloped� China (dispersed industry, coal fields).
3. Under wartime circumstances, not few so called Maps about war time China tended to still represent the prewar situation (lots of heavy Industry in Shanghai and Canton).

Regards

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 567

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/5/2008 5:58:20 PM

marcuswatney

Posts: 279
Joined: 2/28/2006
Status: offline

Wosung, your economic data is really good stuff! I too have been assembling data for the whole Pacific area, but I'll start a new thread for that tomorrow.

In the meantime, I wanted to ask opinions about the resource 1SW Suchow. I see that until 3 June 2006 it was 1NE Nanking, and it was moved to its new position when the rail-line was moved.

I hope very much that Patrice will be incorporating the Yellow River as per Post 552 (without the old northern course), as I do think that green map is very persuasive. But a new awkwardness is that 1SW Suchow is going to be on the wrong side of the river.

I do think it is important that the Japanese resources in China be spread out, so that late in the game Japan cannot shorten its perimeter without paying some resource penalty. As things stand, the course of the new Yellow River will give Japan a fall-back position late in the game with all resources within the protective cordon.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the great Tayeh iron mines are missing, and while I appreciate that the original resource location cannot be tampered with too much, I would like to see that resource as close to Nanking, even in Nanking, as possible. (Well okay I'd like to see it southwest of Nanking, but I know I'm not going to get that...!)

Thoughts?

(in reply to wosung)

Post #: 568

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/8/2008 11:20:37 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcuswatney
Pescadores:� There should be a port here.� It was a significant Japanese naval base.� "'A second force (Rear-Adm Hara) with the cruiser Natori, the destroyers Fumitsuki, Satsuki, Nagatsuki, Minatsuki, Harukaze and Hatakaze, three minsweepers, nine submarine-chasers and six transports, sets out on 7 Dec from Mako (Pescadores) and lands 2000 troops of an advanced detachment of the 14th Army near Aparri on the N coast of Luzon early on 10 Dec".

Well, I'm not sure it is significant enought to warrant a port. Maybe another sheltered gathering area ?

(in reply to marcuswatney)

Post #: 569

RE: Modifications to MWiF China Map portion - 2/8/2008 2:28:42 PM

Mziln

Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline

It is totaly unnecessary to change the Pescadores Islands because there is already a major port in the sea zone.

If you change the Pescadores Islands you have to upgrade Palau Island.

quote:

"Operation M" (The Attack on the Philippines December 1941). The Japanese 3 Fleet Philippine Seizure Force was made up of 4 Surprise Attack forces, the Close Cover Force, and the South Philippines Support Force. The 1st Surprise Attack force departed Formosa for landings at Aparri and Lingayen. Consisting of the Natori (CL), 6 destroyers, a seaplane tender, and 6 transports. The 2nd Surprise Attack force departed the Formosa for landings at Vigan and Caba. Consisting of the Naka (CL), 7 destroyers, and 6 transports. in the Philippines. The 3rd Surprise Attack force departed Formosa for landings at the Batan Islands (not to be confused with the Bataan peninsula). Consisting of a destroyer and several small craft.

The Legaspi or Fourth Surprise Attack Force departed the Palau Islands for landings at Davao, Legaspi, and Jolo in the Philippines. Consisting of the Nagara (CL), 4 destroyers, and 7 transports.

The Close Cover Force departed the Palau Islands to provide surface cover for the landings in the Philippines. Consisting of the Nachi (CA), Myoko (CA), Haguro (CA), Jintsu (CL), and 8 destroyers.

The South Philippines Support Force departed the Palau Islands to provide air cover for the landings in the Southern Philippines. Consisting of the Ry�j� (CVL), the seaplane carriers Chitose and Mizuho, and a destroyer.