War in China - House rules for more historical simulation

[eouellet]

I find that M/WIF are pretty good simulations from an historical perspective, with one big exception: the war in China.

In most games, the Japanese player will empty most of Manchuria (especially the HQ) and will throw the 2 Marines units against China on the first turn in the early scenarios. This leads usually to a lot action in China and a real risk of defeat, and the need for China to have an economy that can keep up with the onslaught. But when the Japanese have their hands full with the Americans and the Commonwealth later on, with time China eventually build ARM, MECH, a full complement of planes, SUBS, and even CVs to reconquer China. All this is seriously off history.

Yet, all the setups in M/WIF (39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44) have the Manchuria and Korea garrison forces on site, and the Marines anywhere but in China. The various setups are historical, and there are good reasons for them.

The Japanese High Command was absolutely terrified at the possibility of a Soviet invasion, and they had a substantive partisan insurgency to deal with in Manchuria. They would had never emptied Manchuria, historically. As well, the Japanese Army and Navy had serious rivalry issues, and never the Navy would have let its Marines forces to be used for “Army’s jobs” in China, except on the coasts.

Lastly, although there was a lot of civilian atrocities committed, the front in China was pretty static, with 3 exceptions: the summer 1940 offensive to capture Ichang, the spring of 1941 where the last coastal cities were taken, and operation Ichi-go in 1944. The Japanese Army had a lot of forces engaged in China, but by and large they were not doing much beyond dealing with partisans, except when it was given strategic priority in those 3 occasions.

So, to have a more historical war in China for MWIF, here is what I use, and the result creates conditions pretty to close the Japanese historical decision-making context.

1. Partisans option on (Japanese need to be serious about garrisoning)
2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)
3. Forces in Manchuria and Korea cannot leave, until at war with the USSR, but units can be swapped once delivered in Manchuria/Korea: HQ for HQ, Army/Corps for Army/Corps
4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
5. Japanese Marines can only be on coastal hexes, or a hex adjacent to a coastal hex (to ensure that Navy troops are not engaged in “Army’s jobs”)
6. Japan has to send one extra corps or army to Manchuria no later than J/F 41 (the Japanese worries were increasing as the global war was unfolding)
7. Japanese Strategic Bombing only available for Chungking, Chengtu, and Lanchow (this provides an extra incentive to take Ichang)
8. Chinese attack weakness option on (to keep the risks for Japan balanced)
9. Chinese production reduced to 4 build points, and it is a hard cap (that can be temporarily reduced by Strategic Bombing, and can be temporarily increased by Burma Road build points trade), with the cap increased by 1 more build point for controlling each of Canton and Shanghai (all this to avoid the completely unhistorical super mechanized Chinese Army of 1944 and 1945)
10. Burma Road can only send build points, or oil to save if the oil option is being used
11. Saving build points option on (to allow China to build more expansive units over time; and to keep the Japanese on their toes for the need of a potential operation Ichi-go in the later part of the war)
12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)

[Centuur]

I don't know if one should force the Japanese in recreating a historical outcome where the war in China is concerned.

After all, World in Flames is a game and why should one simulate history.

If you do this, than you should also don't allow the Euroaxis to DoW Spain, for example, because Hitler wasn't interested to go there.

Or refuse to attack Leningrad with Finnish forces (and don't allow those to exit the Borderlands too), because the Finns were only interested to get there own land back...

And on, and on, and on.

Apart from that, there is a way to make sure the Japanese stay honest in Manchuria. And that's to have a Soviet garrison at the border. If the Japanese go all out in China and it looks like they are making too much progress, have Uncle Stalin DoW them. That will usually stop a conquest of China (but might result in a further withdrawal on the Eastern front). A good offensive by the Soviets in Manchuria will take the heat off the Chinese and will also mean a lot of problems for the Japanese when it comes to getting enough troops available for the capture of the perimeter.

[eouellet]

I honestly thought that a Mod or House Rule is just that, an optional modification to bring a different flavor to the game for those interested. In no way, Mods or house rules are legislation to be imposed on anyone, as if it can be enforced anyway? Is it possible to share genuine yet harmless ideas on this forum without being put down?

[Centuur]

If you think I'm putting you down, that's not what I intended.

I did only give my opinion about this. Personally, I don't think one should aim for a historical game. If only because in reality, nobody knew what the intentions of the warring countries were. That only became visible as the war progressed.

[rkr1958]

ORIGINAL: eouellet
1. Partisans option on (Japanese need to be serious about garrisoning)
2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)
3. Forces in Manchuria and Korea cannot leave, until at war with the USSR, but units can be swapped once delivered in Manchuria/Korea: HQ for HQ, Army/Corps for Army/Corps
4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)
5. Japanese Marines can only be on coastal hexes, or a hex adjacent to a coastal hex (to ensure that Navy troops are not engaged in “Army’s jobs”)[/color][/b]
6. Japan has to send one extra corps or army to Manchuria no later than J/F 41 (the Japanese worries were increasing as the global war was unfolding)
7. Japanese Strategic Bombing only available for Chungking, Chengtu, and Lanchow (this provides an extra incentive to take Ichang)
8. Chinese attack weakness option on (to keep the risks for Japan balanced)
9. Chinese production reduced to 4 build points, and it is a hard cap (that can be temporarily reduced by Strategic Bombing, and can be temporarily increased by Burma Road build points trade), with the cap increased by 1 more build point for controlling each of Canton and Shanghai (all this to avoid the completely unhistorical super mechanized Chinese Army of 1944 and 1945)
10. Burma Road can only send build points, or oil to save if the oil option is being used
11. Saving build points option on (to allow China to build more expansive units over time; and to keep the Japanese on their toes for the need of a potential operation Ichi-go in the later part of the war)
12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)

.

I too feel that the war in China plays out ahistorically and I'm seriously considering adopting your house rules in my next game. I'd like to explore three of them though, which on initial blush I was "opposed" to but after thinking about them maybe no so much.

12. Unlimited divisional break down on (to allow for greater spread and flexibility for the Japanese forces)

I've played with this rule and I feel that it dilutes combat losses (i.e., too easy to have a division in all front-line stacks) and makes it too unrealistically easy for the axis to break units down, use SCS to transport the divisions and then reassembly them back into corps overseas (primarily North Africa). However, in the Pacific and for Japan maybe not so bad. For me I think unlimited divisional break down for Japan only might work.

4. No warlords (tends to favor the Japanese against the Partisans; again they have to feel the stretch)

I like playing with extra units but after thinking a bit about this one I'm really ok with not including warlords.

2. No territorials (Japanese have to feel the stretch)

Again, I like playing with these extra units and removing them not only impacts Japan but would also impact the CW and Italy too. For the CW the impact would be anti-partisan (using Ind, AUS or RSA Terr's) in places like India, Burma and Singapore for garrison. Also, the CW would lose a unit in North Africa and Palestine. For the Italians they would lose a couple of units in Libya. I guess all this balances out somewhat and would force the CW into devoting "additional" non-Terr units to keeping partisans out of India, Burma and Singapore. As I write this I'm thinking about still playing with Terr but not allowing Japan to build any. I guess the issue is the 3 Terr they start the game with? Not sure what to do there to meet the spirit of your #2 house rule. I guess the at-start Japanese Terr's could be moved (via editing game file) to somewhere in the Kurile islands. Doing that and not allowing Japan to build Terr's would satisfy the spirit of this rule don't you think?

Borrowing from the WiF CE rule set I've got some developing thoughts on how might the Battle of the Atlantic, Norway and Italian entry might play out more historically. Also, I have some ideas on how Finland and the Murmansk convoy might play more historical too.

What I want to achieve is a peer reviewed comprehensive set of house rules that "try" to make MWiF play out more historical without forcing it to do so. That is, the house rules "guide" players into the likelihood that they will make more historical choices without forcing them to so. I was wondering if it'd be ok to use this thread for that or would you prefer me to start a separate one?

[brian brian]

I think a simple way to improve the WiF experience in China would be to subject the Nationalists to US Activity Limits, to mirror the ChiComms. This would give the Japanese more of a chance from the middle of the game on, and help start to simulate Chiang's well founded inertia. Given the realities of the looming civil war, there is little need for a true Chinese "player".

Otherwise, major components (Partisan system, Chinese force pool structure, and victory conditions) )have to be altered to simulate Mao's and Chiang's view of strategic priorities.

I like the No-Marines idea. But then I don't commit the Japanese Marines into China anyway, because I want the easy pickings in the Maritime Province, and so does Adolf.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think a simple way to improve the WiF experience in China would be to subject the Nationalists to US Activity Limits, to mirror the ChiComms. This would give the Japanese more of a chance from the middle of the game on, and help start to simulate Chiang's well founded inertia. Given the realities of the looming civil war, there is little need for a true Chinese "player".

Otherwise, major components (Partisan system, Chinese force pool structure, and victory conditions) )have to be altered to simulate Mao's and Chiang's view of strategic priorities.

I like the No-Marines idea. But then I don't commit the Japanese Marines into China anyway, because I want the easy pickings in the Maritime Province, and so does Adolf.

I tend to employ the Marines in southern China during the first one and a half year of the war. But they are never to go to far away from railheads or the ports.

[brian brian]

I can recommend a good book on this subject: “Stillwell & the American experience in China”, by Barbara Tuchman. It was widely printed, even in a trade paperback version, and is easily found used, and cheap.

I would like to read more on this part of WWII, easily the most mysterious part. But much of the history is colored by the participants, from 3 sides in this case.

[palne]

Great ideas eouellet. I find that China is far to easily outmatched by Japan. There is just a play dynamic that make the number of units vs. the map size makes it too easy for a single div to go running around the backfield of either country with devastating consequences. Putting the entire Japanese China forces out of supply with a corp and div (which I have seen) is just awful. Having a Japanese div run around capturing cities and hexes that the Chinese player doesn't have enough units to occupy or mobility to counter japanese movements is pretty rough too. If the Chinese player just bunkers down in cities the cities get picked off one at a time and is effectively eliminated by Dec 41. I love the build cap on China. If Japan doesn't go after China, China starts to get out of hand by '44--just to many units around. Sure, they can't attack much but they don't have to. They are just there to get partisans to pop up by ruining the Japanese garrison due to zoc. Then the partisan sit on RP, factories, or key supply path cities. I don't view your rules as promoting historical outcomes but rather important for the China theatre not overly influencing the outcome of the game.

[Ian R]

What of the extra Chinese cities option? Do you think it makes things too easy for the Chinese? Playing solo, I never seem to have enough Japanese ground forces or HQs to push into/beyond the mountain barrier, so IJA activity is limited to the small and broad push to secure the extra resources. Later in the game, the plentiful Chinese can ooze through all the gaps and there seems to be little the IJA can do about it.

The shift from the Pacific to European map scales in China has changed the way the IJA has to play this.

My personal house-rule for solo games is that the Chinese (rolling separately for the Nationals and CCCP factions) have a zero percent chance of launching attacks against the IJA in 1939, and it goes up 1% per annum after that. So in 1945 there is a 1 in 20 chance they will actually go on the offensive.

[palne]

The Chinese don't have to attack to be very successful in China. And, yes I always play with the extra Cities. Japan can get its supply with three HQ's and sticking with the rail lines. Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city. The key is to keep killing Chinese units where ever they may be because China can not replace troops as fast as Japan can kill them. Also, buy pilots until all of the crappy planes in the reserve pool are on the map. These planes are used for garrison of korea and manchuria as well as china. If China hunkers down in cities use the 3-4 ground strike capable plans to flip. +2-3 on a d10 is a big deal. Japan should buy the mech div asap if China doesn't setup in the mountains. Blitz combat in the plains is very beneficial to the japanese as it reduces the chance of flipping. Buy 1 maybe 2 air transport planes for reorganizing so the japanese can run inf divs around china's backfield. If China has to garrison both interior cities and burma road city, that's three units effectively out of the war. Make sure Japan uses the territorials in combat against crappy chinese units so if the territorial dies, it's cheap to replace and shows up on the continent (doesn't require transporting from japan).

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: palne

The Chinese don't have to attack to be very successful in China. And, yes I always play with the extra Cities. Japan can get its supply with three HQ's and sticking with the rail lines. Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city. The key is to keep killing Chinese units where ever they may be because China can not replace troops as fast as Japan can kill them. Also, buy pilots until all of the crappy planes in the reserve pool are on the map. These planes are used for garrison of korea and manchuria as well as china. If China hunkers down in cities use the 3-4 ground strike capable plans to flip. +2-3 on a d10 is a big deal. Japan should buy the mech div asap if China doesn't setup in the mountains. Blitz combat in the plains is very beneficial to the japanese as it reduces the chance of flipping. Buy 1 maybe 2 air transport planes for reorganizing so the japanese can run inf divs around china's backfield. If China has to garrison both interior cities and burma road city, that's three units effectively out of the war. Make sure Japan uses the territorials in combat against crappy chinese units so if the territorial dies, it's cheap to replace and shows up on the continent (doesn't require transporting from japan).

No land units in Machuria and Korea? Well, Uncle Joe will be very tempted to declare war. No way the Japanese can counter that with only units which get railed into Machuria, especially if the Soviets deploy fast movers there (Siberians, CAV, Zhukov).

[Jagdtiger14]

Japan will use their one ochit taking some mountain city and should buy a 2nd ochit by Saving 3-5BPs a turn for another mountain city.

Two O-chits vs China? And a third O-chit for the super-combined vs CW? That's a lot of production going towards O-chits. Japan has so many needs and so little BP's I never find the BP's to build 1 extra O-chit.

Under your plan as the Japs, is there a naval strategy? If so, it must be very anemic?

[Jagdtiger14]

With this MWiF map I find defending China fairly easy. As the Jap player I don't even try going after China as its a waste of time and energy, and vital resources that are needed to win the game.

[Courtenay]

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.

[Jagdtiger14]

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.

Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?

[Jagdtiger14]

quote:I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does. Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?

My first look was the AAR: GLOBALWAR COUNTER-FACTUAL (W1/WILHELM vs rkr1958/jp). The Chinese set up is fairly standard and the Japs are set up to put pressure on the north. It's in ND and the Japs have yet to attack the commies, but the NAT's are getting butchered. I'm not sure there is a NAT strategy here as it seems they are being mismanaged terribly. Perhaps to keep the Japs busy and off the back of the commies? Sacrificing units in poor defensible terrain is not a good idea.
In sum, this AAR is not a good example.

[Jagdtiger14]

quote:I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does. Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?

The next AAR: News from the front - 4 player game...again a fairly standard Chinese set up, but in this one the Nats were of very little help to the commies and I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs. I will over-look the fact they are playing 1d10.

Almost identical is the "rematch 4 player game" AAR.

I think its more a lack of a good defense strategy vs Japan. None of these AAR's are a good example of defending against a Communist first strategy.

[peskpesk]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14
I'm seeing a couple of defensive mistakes made SE of Sian which is a help to the Japs.

So that we all can learn, what was the defensive mistakes made SE of Sian?

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I find it very very difficult to defend China against a Communist first strategy. If you take a look at AARs, a lot of people have had success with that. Going for the Nationalists first generally doesn't work but going for the Communists often does.

Can you recommend which AAR to read on this?

The first one I found is "Rematch 4 player game (Orm, Peskpesk, jjdenver and Mayhemizer)". This game has reached summer of '41. The communists are out, and the Nationalists are hanging on by their fingernails.

I will find others.