ORIGINAL: obvert
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.
What? You and I disagreeing. Naah. [:D]
