Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Unless the various units of the warlords were locked static in some way, China almost requires house rules to keep the mega stacks from forming. China always ends up as a stalemate for the most part anyway, unless the allied player makes those rediculous stacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Barb: that's all very well, but unless Joe & Co. set the ai up to be 'passive' I'm not likely to have the choice but to be "Active" in the Chinese theatre.

Well, at least I can guarantee that AE will be many things, but not boring!

Steve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom1

There is no coordination penalties for offensive cooperation of non-cooperating entities such as exist in TOAW.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom1

This is the most notable example of a more general problem which I do not think is reasonable to address prior to WITP2 if that fabled production ever comes to life. There is no coordination penalties for offensive cooperation of non-cooperating entities such as exist in TOAW. Chinese Nationalist armies should not be able to coordinate with Communist armies at all. Further, recent research convinces me that CCP forces only twice engaged in offensive action (even guerrilla attacks) against the Japanese prior to August, 1945, both attacks being against Mao's orders and prior to 12/7/1941 (the Hundred Regiment offensive being the most famous). In contrast CCP forces and Nationalist forces did attack one another. See Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday.
   At a different level, Nationalist forces and warlord forces could possibly attack the same target, but not without severe penalties or separate combat resolution. And it is likewise unimaginable that British and Chinese forces could coordinate without severe penalties. The lack of coordination between Japanese Army and Navy air and land forces are legendary, though as in TOAW, I'm sure the land forces could stubbornly defend without coordination. Thai force offensive cooperation with Japanese or Manchurian cooperation with the Japanese is likewise hard to imagine.
   Even cooperation between US Army and Marine Corps units should probably be subject to some penalty similar to the lowest level in TOAW. Ultimately, despite improvements, I would suspect that AE is not going to be a sophisticated land warfare engine. If the designers in a later patch do something to restricted command land marches, they might contemplate whether there is any reasonable way to turn off the offensive capacity of certain units such as the CCP and the Thais.

UNRELATED ISSUE - Is there any way to reclaim my old comatose identity as wpurdom, Posts: 162, Joined: 10/27/2000, Decatur, GA, USA? I was moderately active until mid-2004, but then only occasionally lurked until the beginning of 2009 when AE seemed to be approaching. I forgot my password, and the email account I entered under (wpurdom@randomc.com) has been inactive for a few years. And I think I have similar problems on the registered user side of my accounts, so can I qualify as a registered user of WITP when the manual comes out? (I probably still have my original WITP disk).
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Treespider that is my point. AI will not conquer China, so with little attention you can hold what yo uhave there without micromanaging it.

As we are in the subject, can we see some To&E for Chinese Divisions, Corps and Warlord armies from AE?
Can you add Indian 17th Division and 1st Burma Division breakdown (parts to combine) as on map on 07/12/1941?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Most of the full pacific war games I've seen have had "weak" representations of the China Theater. Going all the way back to the original WITP (SPI, 1978). I'd played several games where we agreed to "deactivate" the Chinese Theater - though there were rules about required items which had to be sent - and allowed items which could be pulled out.

Similarly in WITP (Matrix, 2004) with house rules I've had various levels of deactivation. But I've also played long games with China in play. It is a "game within the game" - and at least in some ways - the level of activity - for instance - does not seem to capture the flavor of the original.

What were the real capabilities of the two opposing sides? We can speculate, but we cannot know for sure - except for what we saw them do. The Japanese did have plans, after the fall of Singapore to significantly reinforce central China and try to knock China out of the war - however the Guadalcanal campaign put a stop to those plans. Later in the war - the Japanese did launch a major offensive and knocked the Chinese about a bit - but did not knock them out of the war.

In WITP stock, I've heard players say that the Chinese are too weak. But I've also heard players say the two sides are balanced. One key factor is whether a house rule is used restricting the Japanese forces in Manchuria from being pulled out without paying PP. The balance in China is very much affected by whether this rule is used or not.

If Brian has locked down the Chinese - then I see nothing wrong with that. It was also done in WPO for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong with that representation - and we certainly considered that for AE. But I think one reason we decided to leave things in AE as they are in stock is this allows both sides to react to what the other side does. IMHO the balance in China is achieved by action and counter-action. One side thrusts - the other parrys and often the parry can be a thrust in another part of the country.

I have played AE campaign games through August 42 as the Allies and September 42 as the Japanese - and overall I still think China is balanced - as I do for stock. But it requires an active defense for either side to remain viable.

If players choose not to play the "China game" I think it is just as possible in AE as it is in stock - to put together house rules to control the activity in China. I'm sure a number of forum players would be happy to offer suggestions for same - I would as well.

So, I think the AE interpretation is more flexible (than locking the units down) and puts the players in control - they can then decide how they want to play China - so I think that is our basic reasoning - and possibly this was the reasoning of the WITP designers as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

You are looking at a really old thread. The game has been changed in so many ways since them. A lot of players have moved onto mods that have stacking limits for hexes. This generally turns China into the stalemate that It was. I am talking about game vs human opponents. I don't know about playing the AI. Quiet China does not work as even if you are losing you need to be fighting the Japanese in China for the supply burn that it causes them. Quiet China just gives them a free ride.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cerix

Is China limited in AE, like in I.E Big.B, or can millions of Chinese make an coordinated Offensive at will ?
(despite the fact that the 30 independent war lords with their own army's IRL would have huge problems with the coordination to pull that off)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Welll I disagree with that interpretation I have tested this extensively and China is quite an interesting theatre the lack of combat engineers and supply make China hard to attack with - They have a lot of defensive strength but their offensive kick is very fragile.

Canton maybe if the Chinese player unbalanced himself and the Japanese player made a fatal mistake.

But HK is just to hard.

You need to look at the availability of supply as the key constraint

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cerix

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Unless the various units of the warlords were locked static in some way, China almost requires house rules to keep the mega stacks from forming. China always ends up as a stalemate for the most part anyway, unless the allied player makes those rediculous stacks.

yes, maybe one should made a mod representing the conflict in China better then Matrix Games can represent it, I think Locking Units would be a good solution.