Treespider's CHS - China Revisited - 1st look

[el cid again]

It is a bit confusing - partially because the data is not technically precise (in general). As a rule - most reference books will give you the "maximum range" WITHOUT telling you anything about the drop tanks. Sometimes they do tell you. [Francillon often does in the text, sometimes in the loadout notes, sometimes not]. Regardless, IF you can find (or estimate) the "ferry range" - you have the "transfer range" in game terms - and that is WITH drop tanks. Further - note - in WITP there is NO reserve fuel - that is built into the "normal range" and "extended range" fractions. You give the data for the full transfer range. [Nevertheless, I approve of a reserve in the data. I proposed to add a 5 or 10% reserve - but always had very limited support in the Forum for changing the WITP convention - and never did.]

The problem then becomes that WITP does not have real drop tanks. These drop tanks add endurance at the same rate regardless of the plane. I think the function is one gallon = 1 minute of added endurance - no matter what the real rate might be. So everyone working with drop tanks works the problem backwards. You reduce the endurance of the plane, check the game calculations, and adjust until you get the correct range with the tanks on board.

Drop tanks do NOT increase the range of an aircraft. If you don't bother to put them in the loadout, but you give the plane its correct transfer range, it is exactly the same as if you do put them in the loadout, and reduce the endurance until the range is still correct. What DOES change is that you get (a) no bombs or (b) fewer bombs at extended range.
Exactly how that works is not entirely clear - but it looks like you get 2/3 of the bombs at extended range - if your bombs are in multiples of three (otherwise you get 1/2) when NO drop tanks are involved. IF drop tanks are involved, it should be done by weight - but probably isn't. Probably you reduce the number of bombs by the drop tank count, or some equally crude method (which is the GG approach - rough and ready - simple but in the ball park).

This is for normal drop tanks. RHS has a more complex system, whereby a bomber may exist with different loadouts (for the same aircraft slot). A recon unit with a bomber may have "drop tanks" instead of bombs (I call them "internal drop tanks" and they represent internal tanks common for ferry or recon missions). Again, the actual maximum range of the plane does not change - and endurance must be adjusted downward to insure it is correct. What almost certainly happens is that a long range mission costs more in supply points - drop tanks being treated like bombs in that respect.

In all cases, drop tanks are probably only used IF the aircraft is on an extended range mission. At normal range, they are ignored, and the normal load is carried. Probably. This means that drop tanks - if added - reduce the extended range weapons load (or more often entirely eliminate it). For fighters it means they carry bombs only at normal range, in the usual case. I like this complexity because it is realistic.

[treespider]

I've completed the speed and endurance changes to the Allied aircraft and thrown in Drop tanks.

However now that I have completed that part I have some questions/observations -

#1-
The problem with Drop tanks is the way the code implements them. As an example lets look at the F5A Lightening. By most accounts I've determined that its max range should be c. 2050 statute miles miles with a cruise speed 280 knots. This equates to an endurance of 440. However this range includes the fuel carried by 2 - 300 gal drop tanks - Effect of DT's = 600. A drop tanks effect is added to the planes endurance. Because 600 is greater than 440 you would need to assign the plane an endurance with a negative number to arrive at the correct value of 440. Which is a problem. In any event I'm looking at halving the effect rating of the drop tanks and seeing how that impacts the game.

#2-
Why has CHS incuded so many late war planes/toys that will likely not have any impact on the game? I'd much rather see some different variants of pre- or mid-war planes as opposed to using slots on the Tigercat or Bearcat or Shinden or the speculative Liz...

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I've completed the speed and endurance changes to the Allied aircraft and thrown in Drop tanks.

However now that I have completed that part I have some questions/observations -

#1-
The problem with Drop tanks is the way the code implements them. As an example lets look at the F5A Lightening. By most accounts I've determined that its max range should be c. 2050 statute miles miles with a cruise speed 280 knots. This equates to an endurance of 440. However this range includes the fuel carried by 2 - 300 gal drop tanks - Effect of DT's = 600. A drop tanks effect is added to the planes endurance. Because 600 is greater than 440 you would need to assign the plane an endurance with a negative number to arrive at the correct value of 440. Which is a problem. In any event I'm looking at halving the effect rating of the drop tanks and seeing how that impacts the game.

#2-
Why has CHS incuded so many late war planes/toys that will likely not have any impact on the game? I'd much rather see some different variants of pre- or mid-war planes as opposed to using slots on the Tigercat or Bearcat or Shinden or the speculative Liz...

#1 You are dead on right. Some combinations of drop tanks IRL are impossible because we cannot have "negative" endurance - and I tried it too! The recon mossy could carry three 200 gallon tanks - but in RHS it only carries two - as a compromise that works.

#2 CHS (honoring the way stock does it) assumes a war well into 1946 as a possibility. That makes these aircraft significant. RHS shortened the war in the direction of history - in large part as a way to gain slots. Not just aircraft slots - also air groups slots (e.g. no Tiger Force) - ship slots - land unit slots. Almost no games reach 1945 anyway - the need to program for 1946 is minimal. If you mod the date back - you can get rid of many of the late war planes safely. And units associated with them. Giveing a richer selection to players during the real war period.

[treespider]

As the original author of the China presented in CHS...I am going to revisit it....Here are my proposed changes:

Change #1 -
I have identified at least 25 slots (there are more) where I can add bases to China. Most transportation route hexes in Northern/Eastern China will have a base. There will also be some bases not on a transportation route.

The effects of more bases - with an AF size of 1 the Japanese need to place 10 points of garrisons to alleviate the effects of guerillas. 25 bases times 10 equates to 250 garrison points required to secure the bases. Some of these new bases may have larger airfields requiring more of a garrison.

What happens when the bases are not secured - the airfields get damaged but more importantly supplies start to get destroyed.

Change #2
Chinese Guerilla units will be made "Para" capable. In the current iteration of the game guerillas once destroyed reappear in Chungking and it is nearly impossible for them to infiltrate back behind the lines once this happens. Allowing the Allied player to drop the Guerillas behind the Japanese lines after they have been rebuilt will create some more impetus for the Japanese to leave sizable garrisons in their rear area. Coupled with many more bases to defend this should create a nice strain on the Japanese juggernaut in China.

Change #3 -

A re-evaluation of the Allied OOB - eliminating any duplicates and the late war reinforcements. I have identified 19 LOC slots that arrive after October 1945.

Change #4 -

A re-evaluation of the Chinese OOB. The above 19 slots plus the other 99 available slots may allow me to represent the Chinese as a combination of divisions and corps. Increasing the number of units but decreasing their strength.

Change #5 -

Revisiting fort values in China. China should not become a Maginot Line. China should be a very fluid area that is constantly requiring the Japanese to shift forces hither and yon ...but never really stop the Japanese when they want to go somewhere.

Change #6 -

A re-evaluation of the Japanese OOB. Many of the NLF's are duplicates of the IJA Squad component of some of the Base Forces. In addition the Tank Divisions and some of the INF Divisions that arrive later are simply reformation of IMB's and Tank Brigades. One or the other needs to be eliminated.

Lots of work but I think the end result will be favorable.

[Big B]

Hi Treespider,
As a fellow modder with an interest in China, I will be looking this over with interest when it's finished. [;)]

B

ORIGINAL: treespider

As the original author of the China presented in CHS...I am going to revisit it....Here are my proposed changes:

Change #1 -
I have identified at least 25 slots (there are more) where I can add bases to China. Most transportation route hexes in Northern/Eastern China will have a base. There will also be some bases not on a transportation route.

The effects of more bases - with an AF size of 1 the Japanese need to place 10 points of garrisons to alleviate the effects of guerillas. 25 bases times 10 equates to 250 garrison points required to secure the bases. Some of these new bases may have larger airfields requiring more of a garrison.

What happens when the bases are not secured - the airfields get damaged but more importantly supplies start to get destroyed.

Change #2
Chinese Guerilla units will be made "Para" capable. In the current iteration of the game guerillas once destroyed reappear in Chungking and it is nearly impossible for them to infiltrate back behind the lines once this happens. Allowing the Allied player to drop the Guerillas behind the Japanese lines after they have been rebuilt will create some more impetus for the Japanese to leave sizable garrisons in their rear area. Coupled with many more bases to defend this should create a nice strain on the Japanese juggernaut in China.

Change #3 -

A re-evaluation of the Allied OOB - eliminating any duplicates and the late war reinforcements. I have identified 19 LOC slots that arrive after October 1945.

Change #4 -

A re-evaluation of the Chinese OOB. The above 19 slots plus the other 99 available slots may allow me to represent the Chinese as a combination of divisions and corps. Increasing the number of units but decreasing their strength.

Change #5 -

Revisiting fort values in China. China should not become a Maginot Line. China should be a very fluid area that is constantly requiring the Japanese to shift forces hither and yon ...but never really stop the Japanese when they want to go somewhere.

Change #6 -

A re-evaluation of the Japanese OOB. Many of the NLF's are duplicates of the IJA Squad component of some of the Base Forces. In addition the Tank Divisions and some of the INF Divisions that arrive later are simply reformation of IMB's and Tank Brigades. One or the other needs to be eliminated.

Lots of work but I think the end result will be favorable.

[el cid again]

Since there were no guerillas before CHS introduced them, this must be some sort of abstract effect. It seems peculiar to put so many locations in parts of China not of economic or population significance. It cannot be done in RHS - where we have added so many locations in places like Burma, Thailand, Australia, Philippines, Russia, name it. But even if we get hundreds of more slots (which I hear we may) - I don't think this is the best use for them. If it is, it is due to their economic effects (you can move along trails for example if there is a town every 3 hexes) and military effects (you will retreat better).

HOW does increasing the garrison requirement do anything useful in itself? What goes wrong for Japan if it does not garrison? The garrison "requirement" re the Soviets is virtually meaningless. How is this one better?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Since there were no guerillas before CHS introduced them, this must be some sort of abstract effect.

I was the one who introduced the Guerilla Unit to CHS.

It seems peculiar to put so many locations in parts of China not of economic or population significance. It cannot be done in RHS - where we have added so many locations in places like Burma, Thailand, Australia, Philippines, Russia, name it.

There are many places in China that were/are significant that are not represented on the map curerently - Linyi, Kweiteh, Pangfou, Tehchow etc...All were significant rail junctions/towns in the Kaifeng, Tsinan, Hsuchow area.

But even if we get hundreds of more slots (which I hear we may) - I don't think this is the best use for them.

I think any base added to China has much more impact than a base added to say the Soviet Union or Canada.

If it is, it is due to their economic effects (you can move along trails for example if there is a town every 3 hexes) and military effects (you will retreat better).

You don't need a base every three hexes for a trail to be useful...and yes more bases may change some of the retreat dynamics.

HOW does increasing the garrison requirement do anything useful in itself?

It "quasi-" ties down japanese forces. I say "quasi-" because the Japanese can choose to ignore the garrison requirement.

What goes wrong for Japan if it does not garrison?

From the manual -
If this value in assault troops is not kept at the base, then the base facilities and industry facilities are subject to damage (similar to demolition upon capture). This includes damaging port and airfield facilities, supplies, fuel, oil, resources, and all industry items (except manpower).

The key word is supplies. If the Japanese fail to garrison these bases then there supplies start to get destroyed by the Chinese partisans.

The garrison "requirement" re the Soviets is virtually meaningless. How is this one better?

There are actual economic effects for failing to garrison bases in China adequately. part of the "problem" in china is that the current garrison requirements are too low IMO and the Japanese can easily position forces to garrison the rear and eliminate the partisans. After the garrisons are in place the Japanese can create the uber-stack and start steamrolling.

My theory is to create so many places to garrison that the japanese will not have enough units left to create the uber stack without fear of having their supply destroyed from insufficent garrisons.

[Halsey]

How far have you played into the CHS in China?

I'm playing one game as the IJ and another as the Allies, and I find China completely different from the way you describe it.

As the Chinese, I can steamroll the IJ in 42.[;)]

As the IJ, I have had to reinforce China a lot.
Just to stalemate them.

The Chinese Corps should have started with more disablements and with less engineers assigned to their TO&E.
Or, with understrength TO&E's.

After a week they are almost impossible to root out, unless you have an overwhelming amount of attackers.
They dig in too fast.
Too many coolie engs with whicker baskets is my guess.[;)][:D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

How far have you played into the CHS in China?

I'm playing one game as the IJ and another as the Allies, and I find China completely different from the way you describe it.

Different in what way?

As the Chinese, I can steamroll the IJ in 42.[;)]

In PBEM or vs AI? As the Japanese vs. Spence I've made slow but steady progress through July of 1942 with minimal reinforcement. I just brought in the 65th Bde and before that some artillery and took my time moving the 4 ID out.

As the IJ, I have had to reinforce China a lot.
Just to stalemate them.

Not my experience...

The Chinese Corps should have started with more disablements and with less engineers assigned to their TO&E.
Or, with understrength TO&E's.

After a week they are almost impossible to root out, unless you have an overwhelming amount of attackers.
They dig in too fast.
Too many coolie engs with whicker baskets is my guess.[;)][:D]

I agree on the engineer aspect...not sure if I added them or where they came from perhaps AB added them later because people complained about a lack of engineers...[EDIT} Checked the Scenario design notes and they were included at start...I agree on the need to tone them down as well as well as a reduction in chinese forts.

Curious how you've been able to beat the Japanese.

I'm not looking to create a stalemate via forts which is the current rule of thumb....I want the japanese pinned down trying to keep their rear area clear....

[spence]

In PBEM or vs AI? As the Japanese vs. Spence I've made slow but steady progress through July of 1942 with minimal reinforcement. I just brought in the 65th Bde and before that some artillery and took my time moving the 4 ID out.

Let me be the first to admit it though; I $uck at playing the Chinese.

I suppose it doesn't matter now since I've gone to work already, but shouldn't you be moving some of your troops back into garrison.[:D]

[ctangus]

I agree with Halsey. In CHS 2.x a competent Chinese leader can easily mass more quickly than Chiang would have allowed IRL and start steamrolling the Japanese. I've done it as China & was close to having it done to me as Japan but that game ended early.

I do like your idea of additional bases - particularly if they were mostly on the Chinese side to begin with. That would disperse a Japanese uber-stack of death if it developed.

But I think more should be done to prevent a Chinese uber-stack of death as well, which could be done with more static units like there were in the CHS 1.x versions. I'd suggest one change. CHS 1.x had the "fortification" devices in both the original OOB & the TOE so they ended up becoming static again in odd places. Big B's mod has the "fortification" devices in the original OOB but not the TOE so once a static unit becomes mobile, it's mobile for the rest of the game - I'd suggest copying that. That would make a Japanese player "release" a Chinese unit at his own risk.

I hope I don't sound too critical 'cause I think your China changes have improved the game a lot. But I do think they're a little too much in the allied player's favor.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: ctangus

I agree with Halsey. In CHS 2.x a competent Chinese leader can easily mass more quickly than Chiang would have allowed IRL and start steamrolling the Japanese. I've done it as China & was close to having it done to me as Japan but that game ended early.

I do like your idea of additional bases - particularly if they were mostly on the Chinese side to begin with. That would disperse a Japanese uber-stack of death if it developed.

But I think more should be done to prevent a Chinese uber-stack of death as well, which could be done with more static units like there were in the CHS 1.x versions. I'd suggest one change. CHS 1.x had the "fortification" devices in both the original OOB & the TOE so they ended up becoming static again in odd places. Big B's mod has the "fortification" devices in the original OOB but not the TOE so once a static unit becomes mobile, it's mobile for the rest of the game - I'd suggest copying that. That would make a Japanese player "release" a Chinese unit at his own risk.

I hope I don't sound too critical 'cause I think your China changes have improved the game a lot. But I do think they're a little too much in the allied player's favor.

Appreciate the feed back!

I was intending to make a few more Chinese static as well so that should serve to help with the Chinese steamroller. Hopefully the new bases should make retreats much more logical but I will heed your advice and follow big B's example on the fortification devices which will be renamed Chinese Warlord for the Chinese.

IMO part of the Chinese steamroller likely stems from their ability to build key places up to Level 9 forts quickly....thus requiring smaller forces to hold a given base freeing up more for offensive action.

To correct the Fort building extravaganza aspect I will likely remove the engineers entirely from the chinese corps and replace them with some Engineering Regiments.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Since there were no guerillas before CHS introduced them, this must be some sort of abstract effect.

I was the one who introduced the Guerilla Unit to CHS.

Before my time. Kudos. I changed their composition and added many more. Lately I have been cloning your idea - so we have the Viet Minh for example. The latest example was a version added in Alaska called ATG - only today.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It seems peculiar to put so many locations in parts of China not of economic or population significance. It cannot be done in RHS - where we have added so many locations in places like Burma, Thailand, Australia, Philippines, Russia, name it.

There are many places in China that were/are significant that are not represented on the map curerently - Linyi, Kweiteh, Pangfou, Tehchow etc...All were significant rail junctions/towns in the Kaifeng, Tsinan, Hsuchow area.

I misunderstood your meaning. I thought by "Northern" you meant "upper" on our map - and that you were putting them in the vast empty trail systems there. Everything near Kaifeng or Tsinan is full of towns - and we could put one in every hex if we had the slots. This is the population heartland of China.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

HOW does increasing the garrison requirement do anything useful in itself?

It "quasi-" ties down japanese forces. I say "quasi-" because the Japanese can choose to ignore the garrison requirement.

What goes wrong for Japan if it does not garrison?

From the manual -
If this value in assault troops is not kept at the base, then the base facilities and industry facilities are subject to damage (similar to demolition upon capture). This includes damaging port and airfield facilities, supplies, fuel, oil, resources, and all industry items (except manpower).

The key word is supplies. If the Japanese fail to garrison these bases then there supplies start to get destroyed by the Chinese partisans.

This was my impression. It does not seem to be meaningful. I think your idea of guerillas (or the stock idea of militia units appearing in certain conditions - even if that isn't working it was a great idea) are much better. Which is why I have added more guerillas. In China I made them semi-static - and semi- independent of the need for supplies (but stronger if they get them). These units can be problems for the Japanese. And they also gather "intel" in their hex. Great invention.

Other ways to make China stronger are to give it more units and specialized units, and a better economy. Your towns may provide a chance to do that. But then they can also be captured - and feed the enemy!

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The garrison "requirement" re the Soviets is virtually meaningless. How is this one better?

There are actual economic effects for failing to garrison bases in China adequately. part of the "problem" in china is that the current garrison requirements are too low IMO and the Japanese can easily position forces to garrison the rear and eliminate the partisans. After the garrisons are in place the Japanese can create the uber-stack and start steamrolling.

My theory is to create so many places to garrison that the japanese will not have enough units left to create the uber stack without fear of having their supply destroyed from insufficent garrisons.

Places can be captured, become enemy bases and supply sources. My theory (really your theory of guerillas writ large) is to have so many enemy UNITS (guerillas and otherwise) that the Japanese will not have enough units to deal with them all and - the farther the go - the longer LOC become harder to keep open. Remember - every actual UNIT you add is a unit that regenerates if lost - in only 30 days if I remember right. It is not just a unit - it is a unit that does not stay dead when killed. One player of my system posted he has given up on offensives in China - he cannot control the supply situation. And while Nemo writes he has conquered India - he has not written he has conquered China - in spite of certainty it would be "easy" in my system.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: ctangus
But I think more should be done to prevent a Chinese uber-stack of death as well, which could be done with more static units like there were in the CHS 1.x versions.

I reduced the number of Chinese LCUs that were static between CHS 1.x and 2.x. I did this because I thought that China was still too vulnerable in CHS 1.x. I was concerned that doing so might tip the balance too far in the other direction, but it was hard to know whether that was the case without thorough playtesting.

If it is believed that the Chinese in CHS 2.x are too powerful, then converting some of the LCUs back to static ones is a good idea. Reducing the number of engineers sounds like a good idea as well.

Andrew

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: treespider
the fortification devices which will be renamed Chinese Warlord for the Chinese.

While the name won't affect gameplay, I must say I like the color. [:)]

IMO part of the Chinese steamroller likely stems from their ability to build key places up to Level 9 forts quickly....thus requiring smaller forces to hold a given base freeing up more for offensive action.

To correct the Fort building extravaganza aspect I will likely remove the engineers entirely from the chinese corps and replace them with some Engineering Regiments.

Never thought of that - that should certainly help. It would still allow the Chinese player to build a strong defense in a critical area (Changsha for example) but it wouldn't be all over the map.

While we're on the subject of China, there's an erratum I've noted (though it's far from game-breaking). Y-force starts the game in Kunming as a static HQ with the range of 1 hex. IIRC Y-force wasn't formed until sometime in 1944. And it took part in the drive on Lashio. Either the command radius should be extended, or it should arrive later, but not as a static unit.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Places can be captured, become enemy bases and supply sources.

Indeed they can, which is why, whenever I revised base economic values for CHS, I used the principle that a captured economy can be run at 50% potential at best. This is done by using daily resources and supply allocations equal to about 50% of the output from the bases that produce this output. The other effect of this is to make the economy less able to be completely knocked out with a bombing campaign, which IMHO is a tactic that can be too effective in WitP, especially in China.

[treespider]

Here is my first pass with the new bases in China - 31 new places....