Chinese army's in AE

[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)

[Yamato hugger]

Personally I think China should be removed outright, but no, nothing stopping the Chinese from attacking. In fact I question Japans ability to even hold Canton/Hong Kong.

[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

[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.

[steveh11Matrix]

But Joe, now we have to play the Chinese theatre, whether we want to or not, if we play against the ai. We can't turn it over to 'our own side's ai' to look after, and we can't ignore it because our ai opponent surely won't.

Not a criticism as such, but it will necessitate a change in play for me, at least.

Steve.

[Yamato hugger]

Well, China should not be a game within a game in my opinion. I have never seen a game that represents both the war in the Pacific and the war in China both in the same game well. The biggest issue is the inability to keep the player from using China as a unified entity. Until that hurdle is overcome I will ALWAYS be against having China represented in any manner in any game.

[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.

[treespider]

Well before we draw any conclusions about AE in China IMO we need to see about 100 games played to see what the balance is...On the whole China starts as a convulted mess that is completely unclear as to what will happen...and is largely dependent on playing styles.

I have my own opinions about China...others have theirs...some agree in part ... some disagree is part....should be fun finding out what happens.

[EUBanana]

It seems quite a common Allied tactic to leech Chinese troops and attach them to the CBI theatre, anyway.  This is probably a factor in the 1943 Burma reconquests we see so often. 

Still, it does show that China is usually the bottom priority for the Allies at least.

[Cerix]

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.

[Dili]

I guess limiting supply and replacements will mean that forces could not make many attacks. I like the China Theatre.

[Barb]

Well since I am just now reading about Stilwell and CBI on ibiblio (It is extremely interesting) I could throw few things into discussion.
Chinese were pretty unwilling to commit themselves against Japanese in China - Chiang-Kai-Shek was thinking that 1000 plane air force coupled with ample modern equipment, tanks, artillery, Garand rifles will push Japs into China sea automatically once delivered. But there was no way to send it to China not to resupply them.
CKS treated each War area as separate strategical entity - Allied player could do the same.
CKS deployed american Lend-Lease 1000+ artillery pieces evenly into his 300 divisions. This already is at game.
CKS dont wanted to commit his troops. Even with 22nd and 38th China divisions retraining in India after 1st Burma campaign sent their COs message stating "Do not weaken yourselfs".
On many places no front line existed - Japanese simply held a city and Chinese held another say 50-100 miles away!

Japanese: Many divisions not many were "Elite-combat tested" as you can say. Many were still "square" divisions with 2 Infantry Groups (+) - in garrison duties. As you can make out garrison troops do not require much artillery - so these divisions were not combat troops in any way.
Japs were holding rivers, railroads and capital roads and cities. They had no means to control waste rural areas between. Their main concern was LOC. The first thing japanese player usually do in China is to get rid of all those "Partisan" units all around - This Japs didnt do IRL.

Japs were not mounting big offensives until Ichi-Go in 1944 where 17 divisions participated (better say elements of 17 divisions):
3rd Changsha (1942) - 3,6,40th div + 9 Ind Bde
Zheijang (1942) - probably 4-5 divisions
West Hubei (1943) - 7 divisions
Changde (1943) - 5 divisions, 1 Bde, elements of 3 other divisions

The conclusion is that situation in China through the war was stalemate (but not really by combat means) - And both sides accepted this as their advantages - China was waiting to get promised weapons and equipment to use them in Civil War and wait untill allies dealt with Japan and Japan was happy there was no need for big unit, manpower and supply commitments in China (as troops were living off-hand and were needed elsewhere). This "Equilibrium" was broken few times only - Japs launched offensives for other reasons than knocking China out of war (Zheijang to close airfield for possible Doolitle raid repeats, Ichi-Go to open ground supply LOC to Indo China, ...)

While both players are in "Passive" China is modeled fairly. Once one player switched to "Active" the other is forced to switch too.
All you need is right Oponent: So find someone who will do reasonable things or you could make house rules about it. Simple HR can be max 2 limited offensives per year in China per side. And as Allies will not be "hot" to commit his weak, understrenght, undertrained, underequipped, underleaded, unsupplied units into offensive you have almost historical setting [:D]

[Barb]

As to Chinese Divisions in Burma: China assigned 3 armies (5th, 6th and 66th) with 9 divisions total under Stilwell.
At First British didnt want them in Burma. After Japs got across Sittang River (mauling two Indian Brigades) China Divisions went into Burma upon British Request.
6th Army (Temp 55th, 49th, 93rd) Divisions strung along Burma-Thai border from Sittang river to Kengtung. Retreated back to China the same way it came into Burma.
5th Army (200th, 22nd, 96th) was strung from Tuongoo to China Border along Burma Road (200-Tuongoo, 22nd Lashio, 96th China) - retreated to Myitkina and India and China
66th Army (38th, 28th, 29th) Divisions counterattacked Japs along Burma road - so the Japs didnt enter Yunnan province.

These Divisions were assigned to Stilwell to DEFEND BURMA ROAD (Later 38th and 22nd retreated to India reorganize, reequip and retrain) - other 7 divisions went back to Yunnan where they guarded borders with Burma - later with few other divisions they were used to reconqere Burma in 1944-1945.

So using this 3 Armies (in WITP they are assigned to SEAC IIRC) in Burma is what I would call "historical use of historical force" [:)]. As for additional Divisions I would find some resources and use ONLY those divisions used there - on a presumption JAPS will also use aproximate UNITS USED THERE. But If I find 5 more Jap divisions in the area I will feel free to use whatever units I will want (Or better consider offensive in another corner of WITP world [:D] ).

[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.

[treespider]

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.

The AI in China will not alter the outcome of the game...its active but not a game changer. I can't see a player losing China on either side to the AI...losing battles - yes...but not the country.

[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?[:)]

[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).
 

[Andy Mac]

I am now away from my comp for a few days - home visit so I cannot but I am sure they are alreay on the forum somewhere did you look ?

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: wpurdom1

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

Actually that something I have given much thought to the past few nights at work. Seems to me there should be a "coordination table" in respect on how well units operate together. There was not only lack of cooperation and coordination within the various Chinese factions, but the IJN/IJA as well. Even between US army and US marines (read about the battle of Saipan). Coordination penalties for units not attached to the same HQ is another thing that should be in there. It WAS in there in PacWar, no idea why they did away with it.

[Shark7]

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).
 

Historically the biggest problem with coordination were the egoes of the commanders involved. D-Day was impressive not only because of the scale, but also due to Eisenhower's ability to get the various pompous, self-absorbed glory seekers to actually work together in some capacity.