Treespider's CHS - China Revisited - 1st look

[Halsey]

I only play PBEM.

The AI is no challenge.[;)]

Maybe more should be static also.

After the last revamping of CHS, the Chinese combat LCU's became too powerful.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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 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

Largely in response to Treespider's ideas, I made ALL Chinese units (other than guerillas) non-static. And I made guerillas only semi-static. The result is a much stronger China. But while it is hard to conquer - it is NOT dangerous under AI control. It takes two of the three Wuhan hexes and stops. The front then remains pretty stable for years. I think the difference between regulars and guerillas is that the regulars ARE able to move - albiet not effectively if there are no supplies.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Engineers are wierd. Because of extensive work with supply sinks - originally made ONLY of engineers - I can say that only two kinds of engineers build things: engineer and engineer vehicle (by whatever name). OTHER engineers HELP but ONLY IF one of those two is present. You can have 32,000 other engineers (by whatever name) and get ZERO build if there are no engineer or engineer vehicle squads. So ALL you need do is limit the number of units with true engineer squads in them and no building extravaganza. Probably no unit in China gets engineer vehicles - which also will slow things.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: 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.

My solution was to revise bomb devices (also shells from BB) using a square root function for soft effect. Gone are "nuclear bombardments." I think an economy SHOULD be at risk to capture - and bomb damage too - if enoough effort is put in.

I have found you can supply a UNIT directly - rather than a location. I do that for guerillas. ROC need more than they get "off the land" while Red guerillas are somewhat better off. ROC units will tend to shrink to 2/3 size if unsuppied - and be stable. Red units will tend to be full size if unsupplied. Both are more effective if they can suck supply locally.

[Big B]

Looks impressive, I like it.[8D]

ORIGINAL: treespider

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

[treespider]

China research nearly completed...here is a view...each counter is a division (Don't bother counting I have my own corps markers on m the map as well)...Clumps correspond to corps locations... Yellow Units represent Warlords ...Blue Units ref Nationalist Army... Now onto Data Entry

[el cid again]

Will you do away with the distinction between a group army (3 divisions) and a field army (2 divisions)? Granted they are only a feature of RHS, they also are a feature of history.

Will you do away with Andrew's concept of immobile units? If not - how do you make divisions immobile?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Will you do away with the distinction between a group army (3 divisions) and a field army (2 divisions)? Granted they are only a feature of RHS, they also are a feature of history.

The translation of the Chinese history I am using refer to the units as Divisions grouped into Corps assigned to Army Groups assigned to War Areas. Dorn's work uses the same structure. The Japanese Monographs I have refer to the Corps as Armies. The Osprey books refer to a nationalist Structre of Divisions - Corps - Army - Army Group. Tuchman's work on Stillwell references - Divisions- Armies - Army Groups. I have chosen to follow the Chinese history translation and Dorn.

The "Corps" are very nebulous creatures...about 1/4 to 1/2 the time the Divisions comprising the "Corps" change identity and/or the Corps changes identity. My plan is to represent the Nationalist or Central Army divisions as divisions. This will necessitate the elimination of some Corps from CHS which will be replaced with their Component Divisions. These will be mobile.

The other units will be represented by Corps...more than likely comprised of two division units. Some will be stronger, some will be weaker.

They way I determine what will be what is to look at what comprised the Corps and when and where that Corps was reported to have been throughout the war.

As an example lets look at The 51st Corps -

In 1937 during the battle of Hsuchow the 51st Corps was comprised of the 113th and 114th Divisions. In 1940 the 51st Corps is reported as part of the Shantung - Kiangsu War Area, operating in Northern Kiangsu and Shantung Provinces affiliated with a person refered to as a Guerilla CinC. The narrative also describes guerilla activity of the 51st Corps in and around Tai-an, Teng hsien and Chusien all of which happen to be in the Shantung-Kiangsu border region around Tungshan(refered to as Suchow on AB's map). In 1944 the 51st Corps is still comprised of the 114th, 113th and 14th Provisional Divisions and is assigned to the 15th Army Group of the 10th War Area. The 10th War Area's region of responsibility is the area between Tungshan and Nanking. On September 9, 1945 the 51st Corps is located due east of Hsinyang (Sinyang). Based on all of the above information I have chosen to make the 51st Chinese Corps a gueilla outfit and it will be positioned in or around Suchow on AB's map.

I have performed a similar exercise for each Chinese Corps.

Will you do away with Andrew's concept of immobile units? If not - how do you make divisions immobile?

Nope. In fact there may be more units that will be immobile...but there will also likely be more units that will be mobile.

My intention is to use the same mechanism - the Fortification Device. The only difference is i plan on creating a new device called Chinese Warlord.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Will you do away with the distinction between a group army (3 divisions) and a field army (2 divisions)? Granted they are only a feature of RHS, they also are a feature of history.

The translation of the Chinese history I am using refer to the units as Divisions grouped into Corps assigned to Army Groups assigned to War Areas. Dorn's work uses the same structure. The Japanese Monographs I have refer to the Corps as Armies. The Osprey books refer to a nationalist Structre of Divisions - Corps - Army - Army Group. Tuchman's work on Stillwell references - Divisions- Armies - Army Groups. I have chosen to follow the Chinese history translation and Dorn.

REPLY: Translation is tricky - because literal and usage in English may differ. I prefer literal - and if it is somewhat awkward - it preserves the flavor better. In both Chinese and Japanese an "Army" is equal to a Western Corps - and most translators (including Dorn) say that at some point. What you are missing is that there are two different kinds of "Armies" - the standard "Field Army" (most cases) - a traditional Chinese idea - and the newer "Group Army". And the distinction is number of divisions (2 or 3 respectively). If you don't group them in this way, you lose the flavor of actual oganization, both Red and ROC. [IRL I am a historian of the PLA and ROC armies, and I have compiled the most elaborate order of battle of them in their current form in the world, according to both US and ROC intelligence experts. I have the help of a Chinese PLA historian who uses Chinese language materials.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Will you do away with the distinction between a group army (3 divisions) and a field army (2 divisions)? Granted they are only a feature of RHS, they also are a feature of history.

The "Corps" are very nebulous creatures...about 1/4 to 1/2 the time the Divisions comprising the "Corps" change identity and/or the Corps changes identity. My plan is to represent the Nationalist or Central Army divisions as divisions. This will necessitate the elimination of some Corps from CHS which will be replaced with their Component Divisions. These will be mobile.

REPLY: The sheer number of divisions being as high as it is, and the mechanics of the way code handles corps, may make it better modeling to go the CHS way. Chinese units are not very flexable - and the exceptions are well modeled by calling them divisions or new divisions. Corps should not easily subdivide and spread out into different hexes - each of which represents something like 2500 square miles.

Separately, I suggest elimination of the term "corps" altogether. It was still not in favor as late as 1990, and it does not create the "feel" you are talking about a Chinese army organization. Since it also is not used by the Japanese - it creates better sense of balance to have "Armies" facing "Armies". Since there were historically no corps in China, on either side, why confuse the issue by using it? No player of WITP is wholly unwilling to come to terms with the terms in use during the period. Clearly all are students of Chinese and Japanese military forces of that era.

While I doubt you can recreate the whole number of divisions just of ROC (never mind the warlordys) - for which see War of Resistence for a fine order of battle by stripe - you probably can create all the "corps" - and you can name them "field armies" or "group armies" - as they really were. And this has been translated already into WITP terms in RHS - if you are interested. [I ignore the warlordy's except insofar as they were nominally part of ROC]

[el cid again]

The fortification device as a means to make a unit static has problems:

1) It inflates the unit size by 9999 men per device

2) Adding only one means the unit is semi-mobile - and it will often move. Adding several (Andrew's trick to overcome this issue) also means unit size is reported greater by tens of thousands. And if it ever loads to move, it is horribly inefficient.

A better way (code wise) to make a unit immobile (with neither issue) is to call it a "coast defense unit" and then "fort"
See the Soviet fortified zones for example.

There is considerable merit in making large portions of ROC immobile. There may be some merit in making them semi-mobile. I ended up making only guerillas semi-mobile - and some of those start out mobile and later "plant" - by not listing he static device in the unit but listing it in the formation.

All for your consideration - not to make your choices.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Will you do away with the distinction between a group army (3 divisions) and a field army (2 divisions)? Granted they are only a feature of RHS, they also are a feature of history.

The translation of the Chinese history I am using refer to the units as Divisions grouped into Corps assigned to Army Groups assigned to War Areas. Dorn's work uses the same structure. The Japanese Monographs I have refer to the Corps as Armies. The Osprey books refer to a nationalist Structre of Divisions - Corps - Army - Army Group. Tuchman's work on Stillwell references - Divisions- Armies - Army Groups. I have chosen to follow the Chinese history translation and Dorn.

REPLY: Translation is tricky - because literal and usage in English may differ. I prefer literal - and if it is somewhat awkward - it preserves the flavor better. In both Chinese and Japanese an "Army" is equal to a Western Corps - and most translators (including Dorn) say that at some point. What you are missing is that there are two different kinds of "Armies" - the standard "Field Army" (most cases) - a traditional Chinese idea - and the newer "Group Army". And the distinction is number of divisions (2 or 3 respectively). If you don't group them in this way, you lose the flavor of actual oganization, both Red and ROC. [IRL I am a historian of the PLA and ROC armies, and I have compiled the most elaborate order of battle of them in their current form in the world, according to both US and ROC intelligence experts. I have the help of a Chinese PLA historian who uses Chinese language materials.]

No doubt your Curricula Vitae is impressive however,

My primary source is:

History of the Sino-Japanese War (1937-45) Compiled by Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, Transl;ated by Wen Ha-hsiung, Revised by Kao Ching-chen, Hu Pu-yu, Liu Han-mou, Liu Ih-po and Lu Pao-chung, Published by Chung Wu Publishing Co.

Throughout their text they refer to "Corps". In addition in the accompanying maps units are represented with the traditional military symbol of a "Corps" - a box top by 3 "X's." In addition at the the start of the "Second phase", the text describes how the Chinese abolished the Army HQ's and the Brigade HQ's and that "the 'corps' was used as a strategic unit in order to reduce the number of command levels and achieve flexibility". As I stated previously Dorn also refers to Corps.

Other sources and yourself (since you purport yourself to be an oracle) refer to them as Armies. I have chosen to use Corps.

[el cid again]

Your choice may be more useful to a casual user familiar with standard English usage re military units. My preference is to help a more fanatical type user who seeks to immerse. Whenever possible I use either a literal translation or even the native language term. This sort of choice is the sort of thing that distinguishes CHS and RHS - and since one cannot simultaneously do more than one thing - it probably is good to offer differences for users to choose among.

Similarly, CHS (and you apparently) have chosen to make many units static. RHS has made all divisions and corps (in your sense) mobile, limiting the guerillas to a semi static status (only one static device). Both choices are compromises and have advantages and flaws. [I like the way guerillas will retreat after the static device is lost, but later "plant" in an area - meanwhile the player can assign it to move to the next "base area."]

Interestingly - I see not a word - nor a trace of MILLIONS of Chinese troops who served in Japanese allied forces in your conception. I put the more important ones in - but made THEM totally static (no static device at all). So in a sense RHS is using a truly static form of Chinese troops - but not on the side you are looking at. World War Two Nation by Nation opines that "the sheer numbers involved must have made these forces significant" - yet I am not seeing much interest in them here. In particular they secured Bejing [The Provisional Army], Nanking [The Reformed Army] and Kalgan [The Mongol Army]. For some reason the mobile equal - the Mongolian Cavalry units of IJA - are in stock, CHS and RHS - but not the infantry. There were many other such formations - but those three were large enough and effective enough that they should count toward garrison values and security of their cities even in the absense of regulars.

A problem we all share - and no one has yet proposed a solution for (unless it be the static device you are using for corps) - is that many nominally ROC units are NOT ROC units at all. They are not exactly troops under command. Yet another problem is that many more battles were fought BETWEEN Chinese factions - particularly ROC and Red - than with the Japanese. I considered making the Red's Soviet controlled - but it still does not let ROC fight them - nor give an Allied player any reason to want them to do - never mind they really did.

If ANY part of the game is truly complicated - China is it. And it is not the sideshow to WITP most Western players think it is. It is the REASON for the WITP. No China? No war.

[MineSweeper]

Treespider, found this on the net.....might help you.[;)]
http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... lantz4.asp

[el cid again]

This is one of at least two Leveanworth Papers on August Storm - but it sheds light on only Soviet and Japanese (and Japanese allied) forces - not on Chinese units as such. I am a big fan of these. A lot of RHS material comes from them - including the details of Houtou Fortress (where there is, among other things, a 16 inch gun - intended for coast defense but not used because the Washington Treaty made 16 inch naval guns available instead).

[treespider]

Mod is now complete and posted at AB's site..

I'm sure there are a 1000 things that could be tweaked... in the end I opted not to touch the Soviet navy as that was not the intent of the mod...

Here are the big changes...

1. Type 00 device (aircraft cannon) accuracy values are 70% of CHS.
2. Pilot Experience cut by 20 across the board.
3. Aircraft rated in terms of Knots
4. Drop tanks implemented
5. Airbase ratings dropped across the board
6. Additional bases in China and Burma
7. Complete rework of Chinese and Russian OoB.
8. Partial tweaking of Japanese OoB - Eliminated NLF's which are part of Sp. Base forces, Reworking of Ind. Mixed brigades and 56th Div and 56th Bde.
9. Inclusion of Nanking Army units in China for the Japanese.
10. Put the Hickory back in in place of the Theresa - 59 ki-59s were built before being replaced by the Ki-54c - with over 1300 built. This necessitated the Art file change.
11. After going through the Witpchk file their were a number of leaders that were assigned to multiple units I eliminated those duplications.
12. Likewise some units were assigned suffixs from other unit types. So you you may now see 7th Armored Tank regiment instead of 7th Armored Regiment. - Not a biggie IMO.

I would appreciate any and all playtesting and suggestions based on playtesting... Likewise there are slots out there for some things if you have any other suggestions that can be documented with sources.

I would prefer to eliminate many of the late-war toys and introduce mid- and early- war toys in their place. However since I am not an art guy I opted not to pursue this since it would require aligning tops and shils...not my forte'....any volunteers?

[DuckofTindalos]

What sort of toys were you looking at adding?

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I would prefer to eliminate many of the late-war toys and introduce mid- and early- war toys in their place. However since I am not an art guy I opted not to pursue this since it would require aligning tops and shils...not my forte'....any volunteers?

I may be able to help out. Let me know if you want anything [:)]

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: treespider

12. Likewise some units were assigned suffixs from other unit types. So you you may now see 7th Armored Tank regiment instead of 7th Armored Regiment. - Not a biggie IMO.

The suffix doesn't determine the unit type. You can call a tank unit a "regiment" rather than a "tank regiment" and it'll still work as armour...

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What sort of toys were you looking at adding?

Hadn't given it too much thought ...I just don't see much utility in adding some of the late/post war craft that take up slots that could be used for other craft that were present during the actual fighting but are now an amalgamation of one type.

So to answer your question - possibly breaking out the F6F... Or representing the P-40 somewhat differently.... Or creating multiple variants of the same plane...ie the Betty suggestion of a torp carrier and a bomb carrier (although my base changes will limit that aspect)

I also noticed that when I ran WitpChk there were more than a few devices that are not referenced in the database. Some of these I know are used by the Soviets for August storm...others I'm not so sure about.