China balance, current opinions for vanilla?

[LoBaron]

I am always a bit surprised about posts concerning the China theatre of operations.

The general consensus seems to be that in case the Japanese player puts enough force behind a China
attack, he will steamroll the Allies with little to no chance of counter.

The quote is just an example (chosen at random, simply because it was the last I have read)

The Chinese can not stop the Japanese troops in stock, why make it worst. The most unpleasant part of this game is playing as Allies against a determined Japanese foe in China. I just lost 1 1/2 years of inf/support squad production in one battle in a city.

My answer to this post would be something similar to what I write below:

I can´t fail to notice that most Allied players overwhelmed in China seem to think
its vitally important to defend in cities, or to counterstack against enemy stacks.

In our (vanilla) PBEM Rob uses terrain to his advantage, blocks road hexes, threatens flanks, and is able
to keep a frontline which can only be penetrated by using such a mass of forces that he could exploit
a neccesary weakness on other parts of the frontline.
The trick is to pull back into defensible positions. Not to pull back into positions you are forced to.



Bottom line is:
Yes, I believe the Japanese player can steamroll China if he diverts enough ressources.
But against an opponent who fights like, or similar to Rob, he has to divert more ressources
than just the Kwantung army, and this investment will really hurt him on other fronts.

Is this assumption wrong?


Whats the veteran´s assessment on this topic at the moment?
Using terrain, counterattacks, flanking,...can the Allied player hold his own without implementing
HR´s other than bomber limitations?

[Rainer79]

My opinion for whatever it is worth is that Japan can make some quite good initial gains during that opening period. Chinese XP and morale is bad, the troops are not where they are supposed to be, half the squads are disabled, etc. This is IMO the major source of (apparent) Chinese weakness and not some impossible to counter IJA strength.

After a few months most of these problems are rectified and there usually will be a stalemate. If Japan can bring in troops from the Kwantung Army for free (which is usually forbidden by house rules) then I guess some further attacks are possible.

If not, the situation will usually remain static until the Allies open Burma and can dump several hundred thousand tons of supply to Chungking. Then the Chinese can do pretty much whatever they won't and any late war Japanese offensive is a pipe dream. The best one can do is sit in bad terrain and let the Chinese army impale itself when attacking.

My biggest problem is the lack of garrison limits for the Chinese warlords. The CEA has IIRC ~10k AV left for mobile operations if the cities are garrisoned - along the entire front from up north to the south (which isn't really that much when considering the amount of territory involved). The Chinese have double to triple that number with no significant amount of units tied down - and unlike the real war supplies won't be an issue when Burma is freed.

That is assuming no strategic bombing campaign by either side of course.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

My opinion for whatever it is worth is that Japan can make some quite good initial gains during that opening period. Chinese XP and morale is bad, the troops are not where they are supposed to be, half the squads are disabled, etc. This is IMO the major source of (apparent) Chinese weakness and not some impossible to counter IJA strength.

After a few months most of these problems are rectified and there usually will be a stalemate. If Japan can bring in troops from the Kwantung Army for free (which is usually forbidden by house rules) then I guess some further attacks are possible.

If not, the situation will usually remain static until the Allies open Burma and can dump several hundred thousand tons of supply to Chungking. Then the Chinese can do pretty much whatever they won't and any late war Japanese offensive is a pipe dream. The best one can do is sit in bad terrain and let the Chinese army impale itself when attacking.

My biggest problem is the lack of garrison limits for the Chinese warlords. The CEA has IIRC ~10k AV left for mobile operations if the cities are garrisoned - along the entire front from up north to the south (which isn't really that much when considering the amount of territory involved). The Chinese have double to triple that number with no significant amount of units tied down - and unlike the real war supplies won't be an issue when Burma is freed.

That is assuming no strategic bombing campaign by either side of course.

Historically, most Chinese troops belonged to the warlords. The central government didn't have much, which was the reason Stilwell's Ledo Road forces tended to be conserved--they were the best troops the central government had. In game terms, almost all troops were locked to a locality, and the troops that could or would move around amounted to about 1000 AV or so. Note those troops spent time in Burma and India, so borders weren't a big deal.

[Graymane]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I can´t fail to notice that most Allied players overwhelmed in China seem to think
its vitally important to defend in cities, or to counterstack against enemy stacks.

In our (vanilla) PBEM Rob uses terrain to his advantage, blocks road hexes, threatens flanks, and is able
to keep a frontline which can only be penetrated by using such a mass of forces that he could exploit
a neccesary weakness on other parts of the frontline.
The trick is to pull back into defensible positions. Not to pull back into positions you are forced to.

Maybe you and Rob could post some screenshots of what a defensible line in China looks like.

[LoBaron]

You can check a few pages back in our AAR, should give you a rough picture
where our frontline is situated. Hasn´t moved much over the last couple
of months (now May ´43).

I think there were some mistakes made on both sides in the initial stages of
the Chinese theatre, so this could have impacted the current standstill.

Basically, keeping the Japanese from the SE -> NW rail connection is only temporary
possible against a dedicated Japanese attack (maybe except if your name is Nemo or something
similar...).
But beyond that, if you keep the units intact and pull back from dangerous areas where the IJA
can use its advantage to the max (flat terrain NE or the hinterland of Changsha), you can stop
them quite nicely if you block any paths with medium size stacks and reserves.
Without the need for prep as you don´t fight in city hexes (what for? Besieged cities don´t produce
anything and you prevent the IJA disadvantage of another garrisson) the Chinese are quite flexible
and bombers don´t hurt that much in the woods.

In case the IJA shows up with an uber stack somewhere you get moving at the other end of the
country. Chinese unit count is at least equal if not higher than a Kwuantung reinforced IJA, more
so if they have to keep the large Cities garrissoned.

[Chickenboy]

I agree with most of the previous comments about the China front. From my (albeit limited to scenario 1) PBEM perspective, Chinese opening positions are meat on the table. Thereafter, against a quality opponent, defensive line(s) congeal and become more firm-particularly in terrain. Then China becomes manuever warfare and a slog.

In my opinion, the Japanese player CAN take China, provided that he neglects other fronts. This he does at his own peril. I am not at all tempted to use purchased Kwangtung Army units in China proper to do this, as I always can identify more pressing needs for these units. I think we'll see more CentPac / SoPac / Burma collapses as these games progress into late 1943 and 1944. That will result in these Japanese players rethinking their "China First" strategy that seems successful in 1941-early 1943.

[Chickenboy]

One of my main goals for the China front is to inflict 200 infantry squads / month loss on the Chinese. Not disabled, but destroyed. This will allow me to keep pace with reinforcement levels and pull more supply out of Chungking too. If I can do that with piecemeal attacks, whilest pushing somewhere for my main thrust, that's fine. If I can only accomplish this with huge attacks on major defended towns, then that's alright too.

The object of the IJAA in China is to kill Chinese infantry. Everything else is secondary.

[Mike Solli]

Interesting tactic, Chickenboy. I like it.

[witpqs]

One thing that is a major problem for the Chinese Army defending in China is the supply rule that units at a base (city) can only receive supplies from that base. The Beta has improved supply flow overall (even while making it slower, it seems to have smoothed it some), but this point about units in a base is still a concern for me.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I am always a bit surprised about posts concerning the China theatre of operations.

The general consensus seems to be that in case the Japanese player puts enough force behind a China
attack, he will steamroll the Allies with little to no chance of counter.

The quote is just an example (chosen at random, simply because it was the last I have read)

The Chinese can not stop the Japanese troops in stock, why make it worst. The most unpleasant part of this game is playing as Allies against a determined Japanese foe in China. I just lost 1 1/2 years of inf/support squad production in one battle in a city.

My answer to this post would be something similar to what I write below:

I can´t fail to notice that most Allied players overwhelmed in China seem to think
its vitally important to defend in cities, or to counterstack against enemy stacks.

In our (vanilla) PBEM Rob uses terrain to his advantage, blocks road hexes, threatens flanks, and is able
to keep a frontline which can only be penetrated by using such a mass of forces that he could exploit
a neccesary weakness on other parts of the frontline.
The trick is to pull back into defensible positions. Not to pull back into positions you are forced to.



Bottom line is:
Yes, I believe the Japanese player can steamroll China if he diverts enough ressources.
But against an opponent who fights like, or similar to Rob, he has to divert more ressources
than just the Kwantung army, and this investment will really hurt him on other fronts.

Is this assumption wrong?


Whats the veteran´s assessment on this topic at the moment?
Using terrain, counterattacks, flanking,...can the Allied player hold his own without implementing
HR´s other than bomber limitations?

Honestly, after having played the AI almost exclusively lately, I've discovered that the AI does a much better job of defending China than most players appear to. The AI does exactly what you describe, plus it attacks in places that are weak.

Rather than attacking, I spend the first 6 months contracting the IJA lines to a defensible position...An allied player should do exactly the same thing. 1 Chinese corps can easily hold a forested hex against a similar sized IJA formation...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

I am always a bit surprised about posts concerning the China theatre of operations.

The general consensus seems to be that in case the Japanese player puts enough force behind a China
attack, he will steamroll the Allies with little to no chance of counter.

The quote is just an example (chosen at random, simply because it was the last I have read)

The Chinese can not stop the Japanese troops in stock, why make it worst. The most unpleasant part of this game is playing as Allies against a determined Japanese foe in China. I just lost 1 1/2 years of inf/support squad production in one battle in a city.

My answer to this post would be something similar to what I write below:

I can´t fail to notice that most Allied players overwhelmed in China seem to think
its vitally important to defend in cities, or to counterstack against enemy stacks.

In our (vanilla) PBEM Rob uses terrain to his advantage, blocks road hexes, threatens flanks, and is able
to keep a frontline which can only be penetrated by using such a mass of forces that he could exploit
a neccesary weakness on other parts of the frontline.
The trick is to pull back into defensible positions. Not to pull back into positions you are forced to.



Bottom line is:
Yes, I believe the Japanese player can steamroll China if he diverts enough ressources.
But against an opponent who fights like, or similar to Rob, he has to divert more ressources
than just the Kwantung army, and this investment will really hurt him on other fronts.

Is this assumption wrong?


Whats the veteran´s assessment on this topic at the moment?
Using terrain, counterattacks, flanking,...can the Allied player hold his own without implementing
HR´s other than bomber limitations?

No, you assumption is not wrong. My experience is with scen#2 which allows greater resources to the Japanese player and our game started when AE was new and there were some serious issues that benefited the Japanese player which allowed for a great head start. (The most serious was a bug where a massed stack could cross a river hex with only one unit in the stack taking the effect of the shock attack). In our game my oppoennt had to pay PP to move any units from Manchuria into China and we have not had strategic bombing in China. (I think before 1944 but neither of us have done it)

I have faced a very good opponent but am experienced myself. It has been a hard fought campaign and in 3/44 my opponent has finally captured Chungking. I still hold three or four cities around Lanchow, which I expect will fall within the next few months as the forces around Chungking are now free. I still hold two cites west of Kumming leading into Burma and have just opened a corridor to China which is helping a little bit with what has been a pitiful supply situation. I would say the Chinese army is at about 40% of the strength that is stated the war with but is still a strong force.

I am very happy with my efforts and never made what I consider a critical mistake. I really think I did the absolute best to hold off his onslaught but don't think there is anyway I could have prevented the loss of the Chinese captial. The loss of China gives a Japanses player a tremendous benefit as it frees up a lot of troops that can be deployed elsewhere.

If we were playing the stock scenario, then yes, I could have held out longer and there is a good possibility that I might not have lost the captial (this is the key to China) as Ark would not have been as strong in other place. Still, I would say that with PDU on and Japanese control of production, a good Japanese player should be able to take Chungking. The reasons are as follow-and I will in addition list problems that have been corrected.

1. Total Japanese control of the air. With the extra aircraft that Japan get vs the pitiful replacement rate and critical supply situation. There really is no chance for the Allies to fight in the air.

2. Commitment of the Kwantung army. A lot more troops. I have always said that I would like to see a small random chance of Soviet activation with the removal of troops from Manchuria with the chance being very small but increasing with the greater AV pulled out. As it is now with a defined limit, the Japanese player has too much control over the units in Manchuria and suffers no risk.

3. Early issues that have now been addressed (river shock and artillery).

4 The supply flow issue making it virtually impossible to defend about 60% of the cities. These bases should be an asset in any Chinese defense line. Instead they are a liability because any units located in them will soon run out of supply.

5. Chinese replacements. I had at one point a couple of thousand or more Chinese squads in my pools but Chinese units would not take replacments due to critical supply issues. The only solution was to pay dear PP and move fragmented units to India so I could rebuild them.

6. The Chinese reinforcment issue. In theory a good idea where destroyed Chines units would come back in Chungking at 1/3 strength. In practice not so good as good Japanese player will avoid surrounding and destroying Chinese units. Instead it is best to just grind them down to useless fragments and keep pushing them back.

7. The Northern exposure problem. My opponent was able to break through the bottle neck in the north to the east of Lanchow and then using armor take out every Northern city while operating over a road supply line that extened over 1,000 miles. Supply never seemed to be an issues. (This one still makes my stomach turn). I just assumed that working over a supply line that long would have been impossible. Turns out I was wrong.

In the end it comes down to the players. An average or green Allied player can make a big mistake and lose China very fast. A good player (and I think I am pretty good) can probably defeat an average Japanese player in China. However, I don't think that there are enough options to stop a good Japanese player from taking out China if he is willing to devote the resources to it. And, I think the rewards for taking China out are well worth it.

One last point. In mid campaign, my opponent Viperpol, very gracefully agreed to not try to not impeed my attempts to resupply via air transport over the hump. Considering his strong presence in Burma and total control of the air over China and in Burma for most of 1943, to go after my transports and their bases would have been an obvious tactic and I suspect would have ended the Chinese campaign 4-6 months earlier for him-and would have cut a clear path through to Burma from China which would have cause me a great deal of trouble in Burma. So without this generous concession from him, I would have faced disaster. This probably should be in any HR where China is concerned.

My two cents.

[LoBaron]

Great posts! Thank you, very educative.

I agree that the supply system is still holds some room for improvement, specifically
when comparing base supply to open terrain. Sadly I have no proposal how to solve this.
Currently defending away from base hexes is an advantage everywhere where
larger landmasses are concerned or supply situation is critical.

So to me this looks like the Chinese theatre post arty-nerf is well balanced.

During WWII the IJA was always able to go into crushing offensive at a point of its chosing,
but would have had a hard time to penetrate deep without exposing supply routes and historically
had issues garrissoning and defending cities deeper inland.
It was always outnumbered heavily, compensating with advanced training and technology/air supremacy.
This was partly countered by the Burma road and air bridge, getting more modern equipment into China.

To summarize, the IJA was never able to control the whole of China, but always able to keep
key areas under control.

Comparing the game to the above this looks very close to real to me. As long as no ahistorical investement
takes place the game now favors a historical outcome.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
I agree that the supply system is still holds some room for improvement, specifically
when comparing base supply to open terrain. Sadly I have no proposal how to solve this.
Currently defending away from base hexes is an advantage everywhere where
larger landmasses are concerned or supply situation is critical.

+1

This makes some of your defensive lines a bit ahistorical and counter-intuitive as you don't use bases to anchor your lines, but rather just terrain. however, once you get past this anomaly, it works fine in that the outcome (you can create a defensible front) is what you want. This is true in both China and Burma ...

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Great posts! Thank you, very educative.

I agree that the supply system is still holds some room for improvement, specifically
when comparing base supply to open terrain. Sadly I have no proposal how to solve this.
Currently defending away from base hexes is an advantage everywhere where
larger landmasses are concerned or supply situation is critical.

So to me this looks like the Chinese theatre post arty-nerf is well balanced.

During WWII the IJA was always able to go into crushing offensive at a point of its chosing,
but would have had a hard time to penetrate deep without exposing supply routes and historically
had issues garrissoning and defending cities deeper inland.
It was always outnumbered heavily, compensating with advanced training and technology/air supremacy.
This was partly countered by the Burma road and air bridge, getting more modern equipment into China.

To summarize, the IJA was never able to control the whole of China, but always able to keep
key areas under control.

Comparing the game to the above this looks very close to real to me. As long as no ahistorical investement
takes place the game now favors a historical outcome.

I just finished a good book on Chang Kai Shek. The book pointed out one interesting point about Allied assistance to China. Of all the supplies flowing into China in 1944 about 60% went to support the Allied air force, of the remaining amount 90% was allocated to the private armies fighting for the Allies in Burma. (X and Y force?)The remaining trickle went to the millions of Chinese troops actually fighting the Japanese in China. And Chang was very slow to release modern arms and supply to his troops as he wanted to stockpile for the war he knew was coming with the Chinese reds. So basically the regular Chinese army fought the Japanese without outside help and relied on their own, usually local, resources. I did not really know this.