Modifications to MWiF China Map portion

[Incy]

There's a port named Pakhoi down there (Wosung may have a better name for it), should I add it ?
I'm not bothered by the obbligation to have an HQ on the coast to open the supply to Nanning. Why would it be a problem ? This is a common feature with China in WiF FE.

I would prefer the port there because it allows an operation against Nanning without an HQ, which I think is historical. But most important, I want a port there because it allows Japan to maintain an in-supply defence around Nanning and the nearby resource without an HQ. I think this is important, since it would be a big help for a Japan that gets on the defensive/lacks HQ's. If there's no port Japan will normally not be able to defend this area once it gets on the defensive, and the resource will go back to china. Having Japan thrown into the sea is very common in the late game, and is not good for play balance. If you add Pakhoi (and a port a few hexes northwest of Canton), Japan is able to set a defensive line that will be in supply in clear weather without a HQ, is mostly in mountains, and allows transportation of both southern resources.

For the same reason I'd like Hangchow to be a port. It allows Japan to hold a shorter, better line behind lake Poyang-hu. That to will make it much easier for Japan to maintain a reasonable foothold in China in the late game.

Also for the same reason I'm not 100% happy about the placement of the resource NE of Nanking. As the map is now, Japan can't set a reasonable line that will allow it to transport this resource. The hexes NW and SW of the resource makes for a very good "last stand" line, and it would be much better if the resource could be transportable with chinese west of this line. I don't have a good fix, but maybe a rail/road leading more directly to the sea or directly to Shanghai?

I do like that all 3 resources are in forest hexes, that makes partisans stronger and more effective and encourages Japan to garission it's rear. Btw, there should be a couple of forest hexes sprinkled across the northern half of China, to give partisans some places to hide out in those wide, open plains.

For the added central mountains, I like them (from a game balance perspective, I don't know much chinese geography). Otherwise the central plain becomes just to large and open.

I also like the new silk road. As it is now it's a bit exposed to Japanese raiders, but it also makes it very difficult for Japan to obtain the resource for it's own use. Using a road rather than railroad is very good, since it means Japan CAN continue it's advance along the road, but no units can be railed in/out, and it becomes very, very vulnerable to partisans. I vote to make as much as possible west of Sian into road, we do want to discourage Japan from comletely taking out communist China and putting the northwestern resource into use. If Japan cuts the road, China has supply from Sining to reopen the road by killing the raider

[Ullern]

Hello all. I just added an account just to comment this thread. (Finnaly in here, or what? [8D])
Nils Ulrik

I vote yes to all cities on this newest version Patrice (froonp) posted. Very good. (Nice job by wosung on the names.[:)])

I noticed the newly added city Ankang was left out of the discussion but kept so far. I am absolutely for having this city, both because it’s necessary to keep the Chinese nationalist in front of the mountains in supply, but also because I think it’s a city the Japanese can ignore. (1: In WIF FE nationalist Chinese in front of mountains could trace supply directly to Chung-King in fine weather.) (2: Ankang is that rearwards it should only be a problem for the Japanese if the Japanese are in the Chung King area, but if the Japanese are there China will soon fall, and then Japan should be able to screen the cities until that happens.)

Patrice already pointed out some of my comments; one of them was a question to add more difficult terrain. Actually the only thing Patrice got wrong about me was that I said add difficult terrain in general, not to add lake hex sides, instead I actually debated wehter to remove lake hex sides ;-0. (no harm done.)

On suggested China mountains:
I think they are good but I think that the top four of the mountain hexes encircled in red should be put one hex shout west of where they are. That would put Nanyang in the mountains, but I think that would be correct and also it won’t really be important because Nanyang starts Japanese controlled. (Doesn’t it? Reality check on the Japanese 39 line?)

Shanghai:
After having a look at my own Atlas I think there should be an all sea hexside NE of Shangai. (Was that the question?)

Silk Road:
I didn’t like the long Silk Road.

More comments to follow.

[Ullern]

A short résumé on game balance issues so far, from my own view, and own opinions added:

Iomyring claimed Japan is more aggressive towards China in computer WIF (post 16) and I agree on this and I further claim that this is because the cost of conquering China has gone down while at the same time the benefit of taking China out has gone up, compared to WIF FE. The first claim is easily argued simply by the fact that most people in this forum seems to agree that China is more easily taken out in computerized WIF compared to WIF FE. The second claim I have no experience for myself, but again I believe Iomyring when he says the Japanese has great supply problems in China, and I do think it’s worse than in WIF FE, and because of that, if Japan for some reason does not take China early, the Japanese will be worse of late in the game, and hence have more to gain by conquering China early.

But as Incy pointed out, the cities does help defender whoever he is, because of -1 on combat table and choice of combat type (post 57). However this effect is not enough to get the China campaign to what it should be:
In China, lack of arm-type units will usually leave combat choice to defender anyway, and the effect of -1 in combat a few more places is hardly gonna change the China campaign to what we are used to from WIF FE. It’s still likely that the Japanese will just run around and manage to get a few cities without a fight. The effect that we are seeking is that China must have the ability to stay in supply even when loosing a city like this, and there should be ways to get the units quicker to the front (mless post 64). The suggested cities does the trick I believe, and we actually need that many of them to do so.

I am still not sure that this is enough. Both the Chinese and the Japanese still have a problem with mobility. I’ll add detail to this in the next post, but in general I think the current solution might need some play testing to reveal the answer.

Nils

[Ullern]

China mobility problem (more difficult terrain?):
Incy wrote: (post 57) China should be line upon line upon line upon line, and partisans in the rear if one advances to far...
And Steve replied (post 67): One limiting factor for the Japanese advance is the number of land attacks it can make each turn. If you make every other hex in China an obstacle, or increase the number of defensive lines by a factor of 2 or 3, then you force that many more atttacks to be made to reach each objective.

I think Steve missed the point here. If you make every other hex in China an obstacle does not imply that Japan needs to do more attacks compared to WIF FE. The basic is that in WIF FE the next line was always the next hex row, which meant that the Chinese was always able to get there (except Japanese double impulse), though Chinese often flipped. In MWIF it will be many hexes in between, and Japan have more movement points compared to the Chinese. <think about that> The issue might quickly be that the Chinese realise it’s not possible to fall back to the next line because the Japanese will get there first anyway. (This might be the case even if the new line is just the second hexrow back.) So instead the Chinese have to just stay put with the current line and pray it will take the Japanese that long to get to the next line that the Chinese are able to build a new line with newly produced units.

What I am saying is that if the Chinese have a line somewhere and it’s breached, a possible scenario for the Chinese is that China has to forfeit all the units there and use them only as speed bumps while they build up a new line in the rear.

To be able to build up a line in the rear it’s necessary with both more cities (already taken care of) but also more choices of defensive lines (if not it would be to easy for the Japanese to jeopardise the line). This strategy will still be more costly than what China used to in WIF FE.

(By the way: After a low land or “front” mountain line have been breaced, the three new cities in the mountains does make the creation of a new line in the center of the mountain possible. This didn’t use to be possible because all new units had to walk from ChunkKing and Cheng-tu which means they likely met the Japanese already in the rear (western) part of the mountain area.)

On the up side for the Chinese is that this is a bit theoretical and might not be true. In some cases it may very well be possible to extract some or all Chinese units in a line. Because of that it’s hard to say how much the above arguments should be weighted. MWIF need some play test proper.

[:-]
Japan supply problem, and possible action limit problem (more rail lines or move resources?):
I don’t have any in depth on this. But if the Japanese does really have a harder time with supply (Iomyring claimed this in post 16), which I am ready to believe they have, I think the two solutions that have come up: more rail lines or move some resources closer to the sea both will do fine.

Also someone mentioned that with the more mobile camapaign in China, a Japan may be forced to take spend more action limits in China late game (will influence impulse choise). That might be the case, but again this have to be wighted against how the game is changed in other theatres. If the Pacicif campaign have become easier for the Japanese, then this will be ok, if not then .... (Have anyone really had the opportunity to figure out how the Pacific campaign will unfold, and even if someone had that opportunity in earlier game test, have anyone experience after the more limited break down rule was added? What about considering the number of ports and island in the pacific? _ but that will be an entirely different topic.)

Nils

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Also someone mentioned that with the more mobile camapaign in China, a Japan may be forced to take spend more action limits in China late game (will influence impulse choise). That might be the case, but again this have to be wighted against how the game is changed in other theatres. If the Pacicif campaign have become easier for the Japanese, then this will be ok, if not then .... (Have anyone really had the opportunity to figure out how the Pacific campaign will unfold, and even if someone had that opportunity in earlier game test, have anyone experience after the more limited break down rule was added? What about considering the number of ports and island in the pacific? _ but that will be an entirely different topic.)

Nils

I do not expect a lot of change in the Pacific campaign from WIF FE to MWIF. There will be some due to change in scale, but that is ue to some islands becoming 2 hexes instead of 1, or 4 instead of 2. The number and size of the sea areas is unchanged and there is no change to the ports (aside from what are being discussed in China). This means that naval movement should be the same. The only big effect will be moving air units from land bases into non-adjacent sea areas. That is, when you want to take a naval air unit that has long range capability and have it control/threaten to control several important sea areas at the same time.

For example, the Japanese have some very strong long range naval air units and it used to be possible to position a group of them in a central location and intimidate the Allied player from moving task forces into any of them. My basic strategy for defending Japan, once the US achieves superiority in carrier units, is to have a 'hammer' of a Japanese carrier fleet, supported by naval air and long range fighters, to defend sea areas. That strategy would be weakened by the inability of the naval air units to reach as many sea areas as previously.

In regard to the effect of all this on China, I think it is a side issue. The other topics under discussion are vastly more important for the Japan versus China conflict, and acheiving play balance there.

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Also someone mentioned that with the more mobile camapaign in China, a Japan may be forced to take spend more action limits in China late game (will influence impulse choise). That might be the case, but again this have to be wighted against how the game is changed in other theatres. If the Pacicif campaign have become easier for the Japanese, then this will be ok, if not then .... (Have anyone really had the opportunity to figure out how the Pacific campaign will unfold, and even if someone had that opportunity in earlier game test, have anyone experience after the more limited break down rule was added? What about considering the number of ports and island in the pacific? _ but that will be an entirely different topic.)

Nils

I do not expect a lot of change in the Pacific campaign from WIF FE to MWIF. There will be some due to change in scale, but that is ue to some islands becoming 2 hexes instead of 1, or 4 instead of 2. The number and size of the sea areas is unchanged and there is no change to the ports (aside from what are being discussed in China). This means that naval movement should be the same. The only big effect will be moving air units from land bases into non-adjacent sea areas. That is, when you want to take a naval air unit that has long range capability and have it control/threaten to control several important sea areas at the same time.

For example, the Japanese have some very strong long range naval air units and it used to be possible to position a group of them in a central location and intimidate the Allied player from moving task forces into any of them. My basic strategy for defending Japan, once the US achieves superiority in carrier units, is to have a 'hammer' of a Japanese carrier fleet, supported by naval air and long range fighters, to defend sea areas. That strategy would be weakened by the inability of the naval air units to reach as many sea areas as previously.

In regard to the effect of all this on China, I think it is a side issue. The other topics under discussion are vastly more important for the Japan versus China conflict, and acheiving play balance there.

It was probably my comments on the effects on Japan of adding many cities in China that were referred to.

In the unmodified China, Japan tended to do very well in capturing resources with very few losses. This allowed Japan to allocate more build points and units to their Pacific campaign against the USA and CW.

With the extra cities in China I think Japan will suffer more casualties and have a harder time to get and keep control of the resourses there. This will reduce the Japanese buid point availability for naval and air units needed for the Pacific advances. In this way Japan will be weaker against the USA than with the unmodified China map.

On the other hand it has been my experience in CWiF that Japan has often been perhaps too strong in the Pacific. With that in mind, perhaps the additional Chinese cities will help rectify that as well as help China itself.

Lars

[Froonp]

Thanks for the Comments Nils.

Japan supply problem, and possible action limit problem (more rail lines or move resources?):
I don’t have any in depth on this. But if the Japanese does really have a harder time with supply (Iomyring claimed this in post 16), which I am ready to believe they have, I think the two solutions that have come up: more rail lines or move some resources closer to the sea both will do fine.

About this (Japan supply problem), this is a problem in WiF FE too. Japan must have 3 HQ in China with WiF FE if he wants to be in supply correctly about everywhere.
For me, adding railways is absolutely forbidden.

I vote yes to all cities on this newest version Patrice (froonp) posted. Very good. (Nice job by wosung on the names. )

You vote yes to all cities, but what are "all" ?
The latest maps I posted do not show the cities that were already voted out.

Same question to Incy, who wanted "a lot of cities".


Features to vote YES / NO :

North zone :
Ankang
Sining
Tienshui (was Tianshui)
Tungkwan (was Tongguan)
Yennan
Ningsia (Yinchuan)
Paochi (was Baoji) (not on the latest maps posted)
Paotow (not on the latest maps posted)

More Desert NW & W of the line Lanchow-Taiyuan
Road to Lanchow and resource far away

Coastal :
Wuhan (moved 1 hex NW)
Anking (replacing Hofei)
Hofei (was Hefei) (replaced by Anking) (not on the latest maps posted)
Paoting (was Baoding)
Nanchang
Nanyang (replacing Xiangfan)
Xiangfan (replaced by Nanyang) (not on the latest maps posted)
Suchow
Tsingkow (port) (was Xinhailian (port))

New Mountain (Between Anking & Sian)
New Lake hexside east of Shanghai
New River along the railway Tientsin, Tsinan, Suchow (the imperial channel) (not represented on the map)

South
Chihchiang
Kweilin (replacing Liuchow)
Liuchow (replaced by Kweilin)
Hengyang (not on the latest maps posted, it is a proposal of Wosung that no one supported yet)
Zhanjiang (to provide supply south of Nanning from the sea)

Move resource south

[Froonp]

I would prefer the port there because it allows an operation against Nanning without an HQ, which I think is historical. But most important, I want a port there because it allows Japan to maintain an in-supply defence around Nanning and the nearby resource without an HQ.

On the WiF FE maps, Japanese units south of Nanning are on the coast, so they are in supply from being there.
On the MWiF map, this is not the case, as units south of Nanning are not sure to be on the coast.
For that reason I would agree to add a minot port somewhere around here, but I'd prefer not to add Pakhoi, because it is too near to Nanning, and offers a penetration possibility (the rail is not far neither) to the Japanese that they dont' have in WiF FE.
I would prefer to add Zhanjiang which is in the hex NW of the strait hexside that goes into Hainan. Wosung, would you know a 1940 name for it ?

For the same reason I'd like Hangchow to be a port. It allows Japan to hold a shorter, better line behind lake Poyang-hu. That to will make it much easier for Japan to maintain a reasonable foothold in China in the late game.

Hangchow cannot be a supply source from the sea in WiF FE, so I would not want to make it such in MWiF. Japan can also use HQ to be in supply, and must do, as it must in WiF FE.

[Froonp]

New shot at the southern zone, with the Zhanjiang minor port added.

[Froonp]

Also, in the south portion, I proposed to move Chungking (and the river around it and the factories and the resources) 1 hex SE, so that all hexes on the other side of the rivers would be mountains (well, nearly all), as in the WiF FE maps.

Comments ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Also, in the south portion, I proposed to move Chungking (and the river around it and the factories and the resources) 1 hex SE, so that all hexes on the other side of the rivers would be mountains (well, nearly all), as in the WiF FE maps.

Comments ?

I am not real happy about moving the city just to give it a better view of the mountains.[;)] Yeah, I know, you want to make it easier to defend. Still that seems like a lot. The Chinese have three rows of mountains the Japanese have to punch through before they get to the city behind the river. I don't see this improvement to the Chinese defensive position as being obviously warranted. If play test gives us results where the Japanese run over the Chinese, then we can look at alternatives such as this.

In general, there are a lot of changes being proposed. I would want to test a minimal set that we think is reasonable. Assess how that does and then make adjustments. If there are too many moving parts, it is difficult to determine what is causing what.

On the other hand, I am not proposing a Spartan approach either. Something reasonable, but on the minimalistic side.

[wosung]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I would prefer the port there because it allows an operation against Nanning without an HQ, which I think is historical. But most important, I want a port there because it allows Japan to maintain an in-supply defence around Nanning and to add Zhanjiang which is in the hex NW of the strait hexside that goes into Hainan. Wosung, would you know a 1940 name for it ?

For the same reason I'd like Hangchow to be a port. It allows Japan to hold a shorter, better line behind lake Poyang-hu. That to will make it much easier for Japan to maintain a reasonable foothold in China in the late game.

Hangchow cannot be a supply source from the sea in WiF FE, so I would not want to make it such in MWiF. Japan can also use HQ to be in supply, and must do, as it must in WiF FE.

Ok,

-on the big traffic map of China 1935 by Tang Leang-li Pakhoi is the only named Port between Canton and Haiphong, but

-in the Times Atlas off WW2 the China map (1938-41) p. 35 shows 5 costal cities between Canton and Pakhoi (= modern name Peihai), nearly all with fitting transcription, from north to south:

1. Toushan
2. Kuanghaicheng (for MWIF would be Kwanghaicheng)
3. Tienpai
4. Shuitangshih
5. Hoihong (which seems to be your Zhanjiang)

But please note that all these 5 are much smaller, less important places than Pakhoi.

Quite big and important additional ports between Foochow and Canton would be Amoy (today Xiamen) and Swatow (today Shantou), also see: Times Atlas off WW2 the China map (1938-41) p. 35.

What else?

1. On the last list of additional cities Xiangfan should read Siangfan.

2. for placing partisan friendly terrain, you could stick to provincial border regions, as on the map in Times Atlas off WW2 "China 1926" p. 33. Provincial borders didn't change to WW2, and were classical bandit retreat country. Mao lived half if his life in such border areas.

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
New shot at the southern zone, with the Zhanjiang minor port added.

It looks to me as if this additional port enables the Japanese to have one additional hex from which to attack Nanning with out an HQ. I am assuming that Hanoi and Haiphong are in Japanese hands already. It really seem to be there to support attacking the resource hex northeast of Nanning.

[wosung]

Well,

Nanning in 1941 fell to the Japanese.

Regards

[wosung]

Until 1944/45 (after Ichigo Offensive) Japanese Army reached the line:

Nanning - Kweilin - Changsha - Taiyuan. Sian stayed National Chinese.

Times Atlas WW2 p. 144.

Regards

[wosung]

Correction:

Sian until 1944/45 was still under "neutral" Warlord Yan Hsi-shan.
(which I know is not possible to simulate in WIF)

regards

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

There were 3 new cities that received split votes (2 Yes, 2 No) and you kept them in. I suggest that that there be two variations on adding cities:

A - includes the 3 cities with split votes, and
B - excludes those 3 cities.

A gives the Chinese a stronger defensive position, while B is slightly weaker (though much stronger than in CWIF).

I'm going to chime in on the split votes and vote nay. While certainly not the expert on China others here appear to be I am concerned about the effect on play balance.

One of the GREAT things about WiF and the reason it has such a large and long standing following is that it is a great game to play, not neccessarily a great historical recreation. Having lots of options for both sides is part of what makes the game fun. One of the big what ifs is Japan applying extra resources and efforts into China. We don't want to get to the stage where this cannot happen.

Japanese players who commit to this strategy often go down in flames as they are not prepared for the war with the USA. A good Allied player sees the strategy being implemented and builds against it.

WiF has to remain a playable game at its core, not a recreation of WWII. The beauty of a computer game is that changes can be made if the play testers or early palyers find it an issue but I am betting they will not. China may get smacked from time to time but the USA will more often than not defeat Japan in the end.

And if you like Froonp, you can play Axis in our first game and go for China and we will see what happens

[Froonp]

It looks to me as if this additional port enables the Japanese to have one additional hex from which to attack Nanning with out an HQ. I am assuming that Hanoi and Haiphong are in Japanese hands already. It really seem to be there to support attacking the resource hex northeast of Nanning.

Which means you like this addition or not ?

Having read what Wosung wrote (that Pakhoi is the largest port of the area between Canton & Hanoi), I would prefer not to add any port in this area. Pakhoi is too near from Nanning and the rail.

[Froonp]

I'm going to chime in on the split votes and vote nay. While certainly not the expert on China others here appear to be I am concerned about the effect on play balance.

Vote "nay" to what ?
Split cities were split when there were 4 voters.
Now that Nils voted yes to nearly all, there are no more split votes. Incy voted yes to nearly all too (but I did not accoutn precisely for which cities he voted yes).

Could you be more specific ?

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I'm going to chime in on the split votes and vote nay. While certainly not the expert on China others here appear to be I am concerned about the effect on play balance.

Vote "nay" to what ?
Split cities were split when there were 4 voters.
Now that Nils voted yes to nearly all, there are no more split votes. Incy voted yes to nearly all too (but I did not accoutn precisely for which cities he voted yes).

Could you be more specific ?

Sorry, to the 3 cities that were split 2-2