CLOSED The old world vs the new: Cannonfodder (Allies) vs Quixote (Japan)

[Capt. Harlock]

The allies need to grab the initiative to be able get out of this mess....

Sir Robin has clearly outlived his usefulness.

[KenchiSulla]

9-may-1942

China

China, terrible. Units get plenty of supply, even if not connected by road so should have defended the area northeast of Chungking earlier. Sadly did not have the troops to spare at that moment and got caught in the open (vulnerable to Quixote his bombing campaign. China is now all about getting as much AV into Chungking as possible. I should at least be able to get 7000 AV into the city before its isolated. Even while low on supply that will be a hard stack to destroy.

[KenchiSulla]

India

Quixote is pouring troops and guns into Madras. Troop count is now 55.000 with 500 guns and vehicles. The RAF and FAA tried to put a stop to the resupply actions but CAP was to heavy (including the first batch of Tojo's) and losses were terrible (60 fighters and 60 bombers, mostly Swordfish and Albacores for 30 destroyed Japanese aircraft). Luckily fighter losses were distributed evenly among the types used (Martlet, Hurricane IIb and Is, P40s and H81s) and I had several Albacores in the pools so the threat is still present at Bangalore, forcing Quixote to keep Madras stacked with fighters.

I've attached the text file of the combat report for people who would like more details on the events.

[KenchiSulla]

Plan

The allies need to grab the initiative early. Hard as that is it is not entirely impossible. The only weakness the Japanese currently have is the largeness of the Empire.

I'll have to apply pressure to all corners of the empire to try and scatter Japanese defenses prior to the end of 1942 hammer blow...

Stay tuned

[obvert]

I'm curious on your map of China above why you're not sticking to the river crossing areas below Chinkhiang and Kweiyang. If you leave it will not make him cross and lose a bunch of troops, maybe not gain the hexes. Chungking can and on as he can't make a siege work without good road access. You're just giving that to him in the South Central Areas. Make him fight for it. The longer it takes the more he has to commit.

He could also just turn and try to take the mountains before taking Chunking. That's what I would do. Then you're screwed.

[KenchiSulla]

Quixote is not really conventional. He is making good use of the ability to supply units without a decent road network (I mean, the 1st Burma division is FULLY supplied and it is deep behind enemy lines, 500 miles, in an unroaded hex. I have no reason to believe the 2000 AV and 1200 AV on the way down the road being out of supply).

Yes, I could stick to the river crossings. In fact, I am sticking to the hex he is committed in with 4500 AV with about 2000 AV. But those units are out of supply (30%) and almost nothing coming through. Quixote tried the mountains and now has pulled back from that mostly. I've counted about 9000+ AV in the south and around Chungking. He has almost nothing near the mountains... Trust me, he doesn't need the mountains... and he knows it. The reason he is now between that area and Chungking is to prevent a buildup of forces in the city....

[obvert]

What I'm saying is that although he has supply now, holding the line in the South Central part below Chungking will STOP him from taking Chungking. It's a bear anyway, and after 1-2 attacks he won't be able to draw sufficient supply when you're sitting there actually having some and able to fully defend.

Keep your line in the South and do not simply retreat from bases, even out of supply. It's the most welcome sight imaginable for a Japanese player to see dug in Chinese units in full retreat before even being engaged. One bad attack in +3 territory and he'll be waiting over a month to start again.

[KenchiSulla]

Ok, I hear what your saying but he only has to push through in one spot. Right now he is committed to Chinkhiang (which I am defending, only units with high disablements are retreating) with more then 4000 AV.. The crossings to the west are still being defended by enough AV to prevent a crossing. He only has about a 1000 AV at each location + troops in his rear.

Your probably right about the stack to the east of Chiankhiang (although it is also very low on supply). I'll position a couple of corps there again, just enough to make a crossing very costly.

[obvert]

Obviously you know the situation best, just trying to add what I know from to campaigns as Japan. In my second there are some spots where the line was held and I silly cannot break through at all, no matter what I could bring. Also, although he may have good supply, the longer you drag it out the more he'll have to keep committing, makin it harder to send elsewhere and update what he needs to do in R n D and factories at home. Sounds like he's pretty spread out, so the more this costs the better.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert

Keep your line in the South and do not simply retreat from bases, even out of supply. It's the most welcome sight imaginable for a Japanese player to see dug in Chinese units in full retreat before even being engaged. One bad attack in +3 territory and he'll be waiting over a month to start again.

The problem with China as the allies is that once out of supply that nice AV of troops sitting behind comfy forts suddenly is worth only a tenth. Do you stay knowing you will suffer an adjusted AV of perhaps a few 100 tops against fully supplied Japanese army of 5 divisions and a couple of Tanks you can´t hurt? Or do you withdraw hoping to at least get SOME supply into the units so you are not giving them away completely for free. Not always an easy choice. Personally I prefer to try and get at least some supply to them. Getting a 0.5 adjusted AV instead of a 0.1 is a big deal.

There is simply not enough supplies to sustain combat in China. Once the bombs start dropping and the combat start supply just skydives and the troops farthest from the Central plain will have a very hard time getting any kind of supply at all.

There are very few AARs where the allies have maintained control in China (I know of only 2?). And I´m guessing in those the Japanese commitment in China has been very low. If Japans wants China its just as sure grab as Luzon or Java. And I doubt its because all allied players suck in China. [:)]

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: obvert

Keep your line in the South and do not simply retreat from bases, even out of supply. It's the most welcome sight imaginable for a Japanese player to see dug in Chinese units in full retreat before even being engaged. One bad attack in +3 territory and he'll be waiting over a month to start again.

The problem with China as the allies is that once out of supply that nice AV of troops sitting behind comfy forts suddenly is worth only a tenth. Do you stay knowing you will suffer an adjusted AV of perhaps a few 100 tops against fully supplied Japanese army of 5 divisions and a couple of Tanks you can´t hurt? Or do you withdraw hoping to at least get SOME supply into the units so you are not giving them away completely for free. Not always an easy choice. Personally I prefer to try and get at least some supply to them. Getting a 0.5 adjusted AV instead of a 0.1 is a big deal.

There is simply not enough supplies to sustain combat in China. Once the bombs start dropping and the combat start supply just skydives and the troops farthest from the Central plain will have a very hard time getting any kind of supply at all.

There are very few AARs where the allies have maintained control in China (I know of only 2?). And I´m guessing in those the Japanese commitment in China has been very low. If Japans wants China its just as sure grab as Luzon or Java. And I doubt its because all allied players suck in China. [:)]

For the defense do you really want to keep those troops if there is not enough supply? [;)]

Let them have the potential to slow the Japanese advance and if they're lost they become the Chungking garrison in a month. Absolutely no reason to move them back to Chungking. You never know the result of the attack without seeing it happen, and if wiped out you get free troops almost immediately to replace them. Even a winning attack by Japan will still cripple his troops and slow his pace dramatically, plus making him pay in supply and replacements for the losses.

Torsten has continually had enough supply to stop moves against this area of Central China in the +3 territory, even having a (-) supply modifier. If you have 4k AV of Chinese dug in in +3 the Japanese need at least 3:1 raw AV advantage So (12k AV) if fully supplied to break through. The Japanese are rarely fully supplied in this area either. So with much less supply the Chinese still could hold. Chinese troops also build forts quickly and get up to +3 much faster than my Japanese units, and that really helps in the pre-battle arty phase in addition to the main attack.

You're wrong about commitment. You have to commit a LOT to China if you want to take it, regardless of what the Allied player does or doesn't do. Don't downplay it until you've tried. [;)] That's probably why for the first years of AE there weren't so many all-ins for China. After rader-GJ especially it's a consideration for everyone. When I went in our game I used not only the IJAAF but the IJNAF as well. I used free divisions that could have gone to Ceylon, India proper or taken Perth when I actually had a real shot at it. I bought out ALL of the armor, many bases forces and engineers from Manchuria and a bunch of air groups, bought another bunch of air group upgrades to 2E, and spent hundreds of thousands in supply not to mention the amount of troop replacements, pilots and airframes.

China is all about time and territory. The longer it takes to fall the more the Japanese player will suffer the consequences.

[obvert]

One last and very important thing. Although a certain pile of troops might have a (-) combat modifier for supply, this is only known after they are engaged. It's pretty tough to risk a river crossing without knowing this, so as the Allied player, deception and the perception of strength is often as important as actual strength in China. If you stay at the river hex, he assumes you have enough supply to do that. even if I see a (-) modifier, I don't know how much is in deficit. It could be at 80% supply or at 10%.

[KenchiSulla]

Hi guys, thanks for the discussion. To give you a better picture of the state of my front line Chinese units I've attached a screenshot that serves as a very decent typical.

In short, high experience, decent AV, no supply. The units did do quite wel even at low supply. But as you can see low supply is about to turn into no supply... I fear the next deliberate attack...

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert

For the defense do you really want to keep those troops if there is not enough supply? [;)]

Let them have the potential to slow the Japanese advance and if they're lost they become the Chungking garrison in a month. Absolutely no reason to move them back to Chungking. You never know the result of the attack without seeing it happen, and if wiped out you get free troops almost immediately to replace them. Even a winning attack by Japan will still cripple his troops and slow his pace dramatically, plus making him pay in supply and replacements for the losses.

The problem with this is that you are giving away VPs. The Chinese troops constitute a huge amount of VPs. And take into account they can actually be destroyed more than once... dangerous game. And the troops arrive with zero supply so they still have to draw a full amount. So unless you manage to actually stop an attack once in a while the only thing you have done is to give away VPs and lost more supply.

ORIGINAL: obvert
Torsten has continually had enough supply to stop moves against this area of Central China in the +3 territory, even having a (-) supply modifier. If you have 4k AV of Chinese dug in in +3 the Japanese need at least 3:1 raw AV advantage So (12k AV) if fully supplied to break through. The Japanese are rarely fully supplied in this area either. So with much less supply the Chinese still could hold. Chinese troops also build forts quickly and get up to +3 much faster than my Japanese units, and that really helps in the pre-battle arty phase in addition to the main attack.

Hmm, I´m not so sure about that. Obviously Torsten must have some supply left or he wouldn´t get so good adjusted AV. In my experience even when not completely out of supply a 30% AV adjusted of raw AV is pretty common. And thats in x3 terrain. Keep in mind its raining bombs causing about 1k of casualties per turn. If this rains down on a stack for a week or so disruption and supply makes sure it won´t have any staying power.

ORIGINAL: obvert
You're wrong about commitment. You have to commit a LOT to China if you want to take it, regardless of what the Allied player does or doesn't do. Don't downplay it until you've tried. [;)] That's probably why for the first years of AE there weren't so many all-ins for China. After rader-GJ especially it's a consideration for everyone. When I went in our game I used not only the IJAAF but the IJNAF as well. I used free divisions that could have gone to Ceylon, India proper or taken Perth when I actually had a real shot at it. I bought out ALL of the armor, many bases forces and engineers from Manchuria and a bunch of air groups, bought another bunch of air group upgrades to 2E, and spent hundreds of thousands in supply not to mention the amount of troop replacements, pilots and airframes.

China is all about time and territory. The longer it takes to fall the more the Japanese player will suffer the consequences.

Well, you have to commit a lot to OZ/India too if you wanted to go there. [:)] But whats the point of doing that when a massive chunk of VPs and industry is sitting just by the doorstep? And it has a 95% guaranteed success with it. And its also in a location where the allies can´t hit back. I would much rather have had all those troops you sent to China in OZ or India. There you can fight back and the Japanese have a lot longer LOC to support.

If China was so costly and whatnot and on the expense of so much else. Why is everyone doing it right now? Why doesn´t everyone go for India or the WC or something? [:D]

I really hope Joseph doesn´t read this or I´ll be in big doodoo. But he probably figured out I´m out of supply anyway! [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: obvert

For the defense do you really want to keep those troops if there is not enough supply? [;)]

Let them have the potential to slow the Japanese advance and if they're lost they become the Chungking garrison in a month. Absolutely no reason to move them back to Chungking. You never know the result of the attack without seeing it happen, and if wiped out you get free troops almost immediately to replace them. Even a winning attack by Japan will still cripple his troops and slow his pace dramatically, plus making him pay in supply and replacements for the losses.

The problem with this is that you are giving away VPs. The Chinese troops constitute a huge amount of VPs. And take into account they can actually be destroyed more than once... dangerous game. And the troops arrive with zero supply so they still have to draw a full amount. So unless you manage to actually stop an attack once in a while the only thing you have done is to give away VPs and lost more supply.

...and those out of supply troops over stacked in Chungking yield VP when they are destroyed from lack of supply. They don't have to be destroyed in combat.

[obvert]

You're still missing the main point. It's a massive commitment to take all of China, and it should take a long time. Look at crsutton and viberpol. Not AARed but it's mentioned enough if feel like I read through the battles. It took until later 43, and by then the Allied were already moving back. Dan Nichols had a fantastic defense going until he disappeared. If it falls quickly the VPs will be lost anyway when he takes all lot Chungking and Chengtu. The point is if it takes longer it's costing Japan more VPs as well (and Japanese troops cost more than Chinese) plus a lot of industrial output, supply and other stuff. it doesn't cost VPs to hold the rivers as long as you can. It costs VPs to lose China, but the ratio is less if you hold it longer as the Japanese will obviously lose more if the battles are fought and occasionally take a chunk out.

Unless you know the Japanese side you can't really grasp what all of this means, and most players aren't even familiar with the late game, so they might not know what the implications are of using that stuff. I am starting, but only starting to learn.

It doesn't matter if Torsten is low on supply or not. The point is he is staying put where he has to. His troops are still holding even though they might collapse any moment. Bombing helps little in +3 terrain. I just never know the actual situation, so I can't make decisions based on that. Those rivers are death to an attack. I've crossed a two and that shut the entire operation down for a month or two, even though I got a 1:1 in both major crossings.

By the way, many players are going for India. Not China. West Coast? Really?

The reasons for China are mostly about AV or not AV, although it can be a big part of an AV try as well. Overextension or not. But if you want to have a more set defense and not over-reach, it makes a lot of sense to get ALL of China and then use those troops along the coast and in the mountains. Tough to break that. And the biggest reason of all; it doesn't cost fuel but in fact gains oil centers and production if you can get the whole thing.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: obvert

You're still missing the main point. It's a massive commitment to take all of China, and it should take a long time. Look at crsutton and viberpol. Not AARed but it's mentioned enough if feel like I read through the battles. It took until later 43, and by then the Allied were already moving back. Dan Nichols had a fantastic defense going until he disappeared. If it falls quickly the VPs will be lost anyway when he takes all lot Chungking and Chengtu. The point is if it takes longer it's costing Japan more VPs as well (and Japanese troops cost more than Chinese) plus a lot of industrial output, supply and other stuff. it doesn't cost VPs to hold the rivers as long as you can. It costs VPs to lose China, but the ratio is less if you hold it longer as the Japanese will obviously lose more if the battles are fought and occasionally take a chunk out.

Unless you know the Japanese side you can't really grasp what all of this means, and most players aren't even familiar with the late game, so they might not know what the implications are of using that stuff. I am starting, but only starting to learn.

It doesn't matter if Torsten is low on supply or not. The point is he is staying put where he has to. His troops are still holding even though they might collapse any moment. Bombing helps little in +3 terrain. I just never know the actual situation, so I can't make decisions based on that. Those rivers are death to an attack. I've crossed a two and that shut the entire operation down for a month or two, even though I got a 1:1 in both major crossings.

By the way, many players are going for India. Not China. West Coast? Really?

The reasons for China are mostly about AV or not AV, although it can be a big part of an AV try as well. Overextension or not. But if you want to have a more set defense and not over-reach, it makes a lot of sense to get ALL of China and then use those troops along the coast and in the mountains. Tough to break that. And the biggest reason of all; it doesn't cost fuel but in fact gains oil centers and production if you can get the whole thing.

I'm not missing the point of how long it takes - see my own AAR! I agree with your analysis. Once IJ has achieved those positions even without taking Chungking, then Chinese units will cycle through arrival->destruction->arrival->destruction and so on all on their own, as long as IJ leaves enough force there to prevent them from breaking out. I'm not suggesting that is the best situation for IJ, as it does tie up forces guarding besieging Chungking. But it's only one step worse than taking it all including Chungking.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: obvert

You're still missing the main point. It's a massive commitment to take all of China, and it should take a long time. Look at crsutton and viberpol. Not AARed but it's mentioned enough if feel like I read through the battles. It took until later 43, and by then the Allied were already moving back. Dan Nichols had a fantastic defense going until he disappeared. If it falls quickly the VPs will be lost anyway when he takes all lot Chungking and Chengtu. The point is if it takes longer it's costing Japan more VPs as well (and Japanese troops cost more than Chinese) plus a lot of industrial output, supply and other stuff. it doesn't cost VPs to hold the rivers as long as you can. It costs VPs to lose China, but the ratio is less if you hold it longer as the Japanese will obviously lose more if the battles are fought and occasionally take a chunk out.

Unless you know the Japanese side you can't really grasp what all of this means, and most players aren't even familiar with the late game, so they might not know what the implications are of using that stuff. I am starting, but only starting to learn.

It doesn't matter if Torsten is low on supply or not. The point is he is staying put where he has to. His troops are still holding even though they might collapse any moment. Bombing helps little in +3 terrain. I just never know the actual situation, so I can't make decisions based on that. Those rivers are death to an attack. I've crossed a two and that shut the entire operation down for a month or two, even though I got a 1:1 in both major crossings.

By the way, many players are going for India. Not China. West Coast? Really?

The reasons for China are mostly about AV or not AV, although it can be a big part of an AV try as well. Overextension or not. But if you want to have a more set defense and not over-reach, it makes a lot of sense to get ALL of China and then use those troops along the coast and in the mountains. Tough to break that. And the biggest reason of all; it doesn't cost fuel but in fact gains oil centers and production if you can get the whole thing.

Well, I think we can agree to disagree here. Yes its a commitment. But so is everything. Its a big commitment compared to doing nothing. But why do nothing when you can get China? Obviously the gains are well worth it or no one would do it. Right?

My reasoning is still that its pointless to give troops away for free. If you have zero supply and you know the troops is going to fold on the first attack. Then whats the point of holding on giving away free VPs? Even a small amount of supply can make the AV go from 10% to 50%. Thats a huge difference.

And even if you manage to do get a 1:1 the disruption and lack of supply simply mean there will be very little damage inflicted to the Japanese forces. And I can assure you that bombing in +3 terrain does cause casualties. And that cost supply. Once supply is gone you can´t really hide it from you opponent. Seeing those (-) supply in every CR is kind of a big giveaway.

And keep in mind that once a Chinese squad is disabled is a supply drain. Japanse troops can rest and recover. Chinese troops can´t. So if you fight a battle. Get 500 AV disabled for 500 Japanese. Those 500 and gone after that. Most likely you can never recover them. The Japanese side can.

Many players might be going for India. But everyone also goes for China. That says enough. You can argue the cost and commitment but the simple fact remains that if it wasn´t worth it no one would do it. Its close, its easy, its safe, it has industry, oil and loads of VPs.

You can´t think I was serious with the WC comment? [:)]

[obvert]

Sorry, I should have linked and quoted! [:)]

I was referring back to Jocke as he is adamant China is a lost cause for the Allies. it's definitely not fun or easy, but I still think, as with any part of the game, it can be used against the japanese and the way to do this is through the time it takes to capture it all.

[obvert]

Well, I think we can agree to disagree here. Yes its a commitment. But so is everything. Its a big commitment compared to doing nothing. But why do nothing when you can get China? Obviously the gains are well worth it or no one would do it. Right?

To disagree is fine. We do it all of the time! [;)]

I'm trying to help the Allied players have insight to the Japanese system as a whole, not argue that China should be able to be held. I think with enough commitment in this game it cannot be held. (I believe Cannonfodder has a lot of experience on the Japanese side so sorry this is all happening in your AAR, as it's not really much new info for you, I'm sure). Those who have played Japan through to the end of a campaign will know the cost of each choice better than I will at this point. It's always a decision about the economy, really. How much will it cost?

China is not an easy choice and maybe doing nothing (no big campaigns after the DEI) would be better for the Japanese in the long term. China in the war offered a stiffer test than it does in game for many reasons, but the Japanese did not move troops from Manchuria to take it, did not bring troops back from the PI and Malaya to take it, and did not commit huge air forces to suppressing it's industry, armies and air forces. Why not? Maybe they realized the commitment all of that would take, and it wasn't worth it.

My reason for saying stay in place in China is that you simply cannot calculate how territory, supply, troop experience, leaders and the rest will all combine to produce a result, especially with the disruption involved in river crossings. You also never quite know what is on the other side, what that force is made of and how much lack of supply, fatigue, disruption and the rest take away from it's result.

Cannonfodder will decide based on his knowledge what to do, as will you and I, but the players who have done well have stayed put, taken the blows and made it costly.