Why are there no Chinese bases further than Sining?

[WiTP_Dude]

This may be a totally stupid idea, but why not make a lot of Chinese units static? That way they only fight if the Japanese show up. Otherwise you can assume they are off killing each other.

[mogami]

Hi, Just another fact to place China in a clearer light. China did lose 3 million troops in the war and Japan over 1.2 million but of these less then 1 million Chinese troops were lost after PH and 500,000 Japanese. So it was rather quiet for the next 4 years.
(The bulk of these post PH were lost in great 1944-45 battles)

[WiTP_Dude]

I think this would be a nice book to get:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 847699390/

[mogami]

Hi, Getting a detailed order of battle is not easy but China had 3.8 million men under arms in 1941. They were organized into 246 "front-line" divisions, with another 70 divisions assigned to rear areas. Perhaps as many as forty Chinese divisions had been equipped with European-manufactured weapons and trained by foreign, particularly German and Soviet, advisers.

From a historic and game view dispite the size China could not just embark on any type of general offensive. Units under control of one leader were often withheld rather then help another.

The war in China is more like a very quiet "Eastern Front" then the Pacific or Western Europe

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Because this is a game about "The War in the Pacific" and not "A Possible Version of a Great Land War in Asia"
Game works great as a game about the Pacific War it does not do well as a game about a land war in Asia.
China is required for several reasons.

1. The impact on Japans ability to fight the Pacific War with 1 hand tied behind it's back.
2. The coast of China is the supply route for material cominbg and going to the Home Islands and so the location of important Japanese bases.
3. The motive for the Japanese going to war against the Western Alliance.

It is not intended to provide a solution to Japans problems. Had that solution been possible the Japanese would have pursued it and not involved the USA.
Pry is going to have to redo the Chinese OB and new rules for Chinese supply invented. (They defend at 100 percent regardless of supply and they replace everything as required)
Perhaps this will restore the historic situation. Stalemate in China. Japan unable to win military victory and so unable to force a diplomatic solution she decides to expand the war in order to

1. Secure resource required to maintain the Empire
2. Isolate China to where the Chinese will finally come to terms and agree to a settlement that leaves Japan in control of the markets she desires.

The problems encountered in WITP with results in China and against Soviets and India are the product of a mindset among certain types of players who desire to transform the game into a Japanese Empire building game. Most of the strategy employed here involves using the map edges. WITP was not designed to resolved battles between forces of 100k+ troops per side but where 1 division fought an equal or smaller force with the out come dependant on other factors such as supply/air/naval support.

This does not mean no large battles should be fought in China or elsewhere only that such battles should be the exceptions and not the norm.
I agree that to a point a player is forced into massing more then historic force in order to get a positive result in a timely manner but these cases should occur in the Pacific/SRA where there exists flanks and rears and supply lines and not on the edges of the map where the map edge becomes a tactical advantage.

Everyone is free to play as they wish but all should understand the intent of the designers and where this intent is not followed no protest concerning results should be made.
If you want to play "Japan Conquers the World" You can do it. But don't expect the results to appear reasonable.

All ratings are objective. Allied ratings for weapons and aircraft and skill in 1941 are set to allow the historic Japanese victories in the SRA. China is made the way is is to reflect both their capabilities and the inclination of her leaders. CHina was not about to fight all out against Japan if by waiting the Western Alliance would defeat the Japanese. Both parties in China were saving their strength for the coming Civil War. China was much stronger then her results in the war but suppose Japan had forced "unifaction" onto the Chinese? They would have hammered the Japanese. In WITP such unifying is considered not possible because the game is made to reflect "The War In the Pacific" and not "The Great Land War in Asia"

If that is the case, then the designers should have just "blotted out" China. You put in the game, you have no defense against the "bitching". If players are able to "play" their way outside the design intent, then the design is fundementally broken.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

The WiTP website says China is covered by the game... can I get refund if this is now official Matrix policy?

Welcome to the "Mogami backslide". See Japanese "research". We find out after the fact that the research engine was solely an "AI assist".

I have one word for this....."crap".

[mogami]

Hi, I was wondering when you'd show up. Thanks for the really usefull insight.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If you want the war in China to be a major event then you need to make it accurate
Take the 3rd Battle of Changsha for example.
Dec 24 1941 to Jan 15 1942 The first major Japanese offensive in China after Pearl harbor.
4 Japanese divisions 120,000 men total advance to Changsha.
They were met by and encircled by 300,000 Chinese.

Unless WITP expands to recreate in it's entireity the situation and special circumstance of China then China should be left as is was. Unimportant as far as resolving the Pacific War.
The Chinese OB would be pages long or we would have to make Chinese Armies with Assault values of 1200-1500 points each. Without some rule to limit them on the offensive they would roll over the Japanese.

However Chinese leaders did not desire to crush the Japanese if it meant losing forces they were saving for later. They made offensive operations in response to Japanese attempts but did not try to force Japan out.

Am I being clear here? The game convers China in regard to it's actual impact in the war. If Japanese players venture out looking for solutions then the Chinese need to have their actual and historic response capabilty added as well.

In the end China will become a back water that plays no major part in deciding the outcome of the war. ()as designed)

To do justise to the war or possible war in China we would need a map the size of the map currently covered by the game and a map scale of 5 miles per hex.
The ground combat in WITP is designed for island and jungle warfare not on a front the size of China and not on the scale players employ.

The emperour of Japan had prior to start of war fired the commander of the Manchurian Army and forbid it to take further action against the Soviets. ()Japanhad just lost over 50,000 men versus the Soviets) That Army was not a source for troops in China untill Allied bombers began using bases in China in 1944. Bases that curently the Japanese can secure in 1942 with little effort. (far less effort and more success then history justifies) But since in the end in has little impact on war no one cares if Japan does cheap in 42 what cost more in 44. But to try to enlarge it into Japan conquers China is something else.


(Hint WITP is a game about air power)

Personally I would love a game that only covered China and left the rest of the Pacific out.
It would be a monster.
By Dec 7 1941 Japan had inflicted over 2 million casulties on the Chinese. At a cost of 700,000 men. (400,00) dead. It isbecause of the cost already suffered that they expanded the war in the first place. Both the Chinese and Japanese knew that Japan could not get a settlement in China unless China was cut off from the outside. It appears only the Chinese realized Japan would lose the expanded war.




In 1944 the Japanese empty the country to mass troops for a 4th try at Changsha. They mass 360,000 troops. After several months they take both Changsha and Henyang but in the process the Chinese retake much of the north. When Japan attempts to retake these areas they are encircled and lose most of the 360,000 troops.

The point here is that after 1940 every Japanese offensive results in a defeat for the Japanese.

If we change WITP to reflect reality then Allied players will drive the Japanese out in 1942. Transfer the Chinese to Burma and retake Malaya. Pay PP for Chinese units and load them on transports and land in PI in 1943.
Unless both sides fight the Pacific War the Land War in Asia will dominate the game.

(and to be fair, if the Chinese forget there is going to be a post Pacific War Civil War then the Chinese in PI is more plausable then the Japanese in India scenarios)

This is a prime example of the fundemental design flaw in games like this. The designers are attempting to provide a rather strict "Historical Simulation", but the reality is that what happenned was nothing more than one extremely rare combination of events among the literally BILLIONS of possible outcomes had either side done even the tiniest thing different and in the game, the designers attempting to drive players down a path that is not supposed to alter, significantly, from the historic. It is an IMPOSSIBLE task! And to pretend that the game accomplishes that is an outright LIE!!!

So what if the Chinese overrun the Japanese in 1942 and Chinese units are allowed to land in the PI in 1943??? That is ENTIRELY REALISTIC if they had been very aggresive! Japan can successfully invade and conquer Hawaii in the game. If they had wanted to, they could have done so in reality in early 1942. So what???

The big mistake you and many make is trying to paint this thing as a "historical simulation" that adheres closely to historic reality. The problem is, there is NO real historic reality. the history is one one literally BILLIONS of posible paths history could have taken. It was a WORLD war. Under many thousands of possible out comes we could have had Germans invading Karachi or Japanese rolling into Tehran! The fact that gamers can force some weird alignments is more REALISM than fantasy.

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, All this ignores history. Are there enough CHinese units on map in place and in condition to dupllicate the 3rd battle of Changsha where 300,000 Chinese defeat 120,000 Japanese between Dec 24th and Jan 15th without lessening the defense of any other Chinese base?

Before WITP is finished with China there will be. SOme scenario designer is going to redo China and when it is adopted for play the whole issue will go away. China will not provide easy VP in 1942.
Then I will be telling Allied players that the CHinese did not attack the Japanese for political reasons and they should not do it or the Japanese player will lose the game in 1943.

I think the thing you and your remaining Mod ilk need to get over is the fact that the Japanese losing in 1943 is perfectly fine, cool, accpetable thing. Chinese divisions freeing up to land in Manilla in 1943 is a perfectly ACCEPTABLE thing. Japan overruning the Soviet Union in 1943 is actually COOL. 2000 Shindens flying in late 1944 is perfectly FINE!

[Hirohito]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Both the Soviet and Chinese OB in the game are incomplete. In North China in 1941 the Communists had over 300,000 troops. (They had 400,000 the year before but during the attack of 100 Regts lost many. It took the Japanese most of 1940 to restore the situation in the north. This was the last time the Communists made a major effort against the Japanese. They conserved their strength for the Civil War but did continue to ambush and harrass the Japanese in a further 11,000 skirmish and minor battle. The Japanese never tried to take the North after the battle of 100 Regts) They are not in WITP. There is no Soviet Fleet
I don't think Japanese players want the 90+ submarines that were there active in 1941.
Fixing the OB will fix the problems.

Except of course we will then have the Chinese problem. They will win the war because they will agree not to fight their Civil War and be the manpower for the Allies.
Just march 500,000 of them to India and dump supply on them for a year.

If Japanese players wish to go all out in China that is fair. But China should be China and not "fixed" to make it act like China.
We will give it it's real (but unused) power to place against Japans real (but unused) power and let it rip.


There were 1.2 million armed Chinese Communists by 1945

China lost around 3 million troops in combat/ Japan over 1 million
To lose 3 million in combat and have 3 million in the field at the end means the Army in China was around 3 times the size used in WITP. The Japanese in WITP are about accurate.

The situation in China was EXTREMELY complicated. The idea of a "supreme" China commander who can just order Chinese divisions to do what he wants is preposterous. One of the best military minds in the US military, General Stillwell, wanted to just write off the entire China front as a waste of resources. He advised against giving Chang Kai Chek (spelling?) any more assistance because in his view the weapons were being used to perpetuate a tyranny against the Chinese people and not to fight the Japanese. Chang's nickname in Mandarin is translated into English as "the butcher" and they weren't talking about cows.

It is difficult to even summarize all the factors that made the chinese situation so complicated, but I will give it a shot. First, you have the communist vs nationalist (Mao vs Chang) civil war. The communists got hammered several times, once by the nationalists, more than once by the Japanese, but they kept coming back because they could swim in the sea of peasants as Mao put it. Mao read Sun Tzu and stopped engaging the Japanese (or the Nationalists) in stand up fights and fought a protracted guerrilla war. Many areas behind Japanese lines were "red areas". The Japanese seemed in control on the surface but the communists were really in control beneath the surface.

Mao was more interested in pressing the war against the Japanese than Chang but did it as a mostly guerilla war. There was a sort of cease fire for long periods of time between the Japanese and the Nationalists because the Nationalists wanted to conserve forces for the civil war they knew would come later.

The red areas were not under Mao's control, there were communist leaders who were more or less indpendent of Mao, he couldn't just phone them up and say "move your divisions to such and such a place". They might obey, they might not. IF Mao could get in touch with them in the first place which was not always possible.

Chang had a much worse issue. China has had a regional warlord system for thousands of years, no matter what form of government China has the regional warlords are there in some form, even under communism, they were just the communist bosses. These warlords might agree to follow Chang's orders, but then again they might not.

Chang of course had his own agenda which was to horde supplies, arms, money, and men so he could defeat the communists after the allies defeated Japan. Stilwell was theoretcially Chang's boss, but Stillwell complained constantly that Chang would not cooperate in joint operations with the allies.

"Order" 500,000 Chinese troops into Burma? They won't go. Chang won't let them.

"Order" the communist armies to mount an offensive of stand up battles? They won't do it. Mao won't let them.

So, the really tough challenge for the game developers is "how do you model a mess like this"?

What will the Chinese do if the Japanese launch a major offensive? Will they cooperate and fight together to defeat it? Maybe. Maybe not.

Will the Chinese mount offensives of their own, in collaboration with each other? Maybe, probably not.

To be honest, I have no idea how you write a computer program to reflect the realities of such a screwed up situation.

Then there is the $64,000 question. Why didn't the Japanese conclude the "China question" prior to expanding the war? I think the answer is because they couldn't. Why not? Lack of supply? The Chinese are too tough an opponent? I remember reading once a quote of a Chinese general in reply to a question put to him by Stillwell concerning the Chinese general's tactics, which was, "when the Japanese attack, we retreat". On the surface this sounds like a goofball answer, but when you look at the problems that creates for the Japanese, you see the genius in it. The Japanese advance farther and farther into the wasteland of no railroads, no supplies, and no roads, engulfed by millions of potential guerilla fighers, no way to have a contiguous front, suseceptible to counter attack and being outflanked at every turn, farther and farther away from logistical bases.

Personally, I bought this game because I wanted to test out alternatives to "conquer a bunch of stuff right away, make a defensive perimeter and defeat the allies in a spectacular battle according to a battleplan that we pick for the allies and then they surrender". In my opinion the Japanese' only hope is in knocking out India, China, Australia, and Russia, and doing it quickly. India because you gain enormous manpower, hi, and production centers and you threaten the west Indian ocean which cuts off shipping coming round the horn bound for the persian gulf and the suez or leaving the persian guf or the suez bound for the horn. THAT has serious consequences for the British Empire. Also, the Indian population was overwhelmingly anti-British and pro-Japanese in many places, a Japanese landing on Indian soil has very serious consequences for the British ability to hold the Indian population in check. Australia because if you don't knock them out early on they are going to build up armies and come after you, I like Australian soldiers in Japanese POW camps better than in offensive operations in Papua New Guinea in '43/'44. China because Japan needs the manpower centers, hi, and oil production. Russia for the same reason.

If the game makers are now saying that the Indian, Chinese, and Russian fronts are "edges" that were not meant to be played, then this is not the game I thought.

Hirohito

[mogami]

Hi, I'm sorry. I didn't mean India and China are map edges and should not be targets for the Japanese.
I mean the Japanese should not target them because they are edges.

Can anyone see the difference?
If you plan on knocking out China and then withdrawing forces because the map edge protects you, you are doing wrong. If you plan on knocking out China and then garrisioning it your oK.

Taking China and India are fine. Leaving them empty when you are finished is exploiting.
I think leaving the Philippines empty is exploiting.
I think leaving malaya empty is exploiting

[mogami]

"I think the thing you and your remaining Mod ilk need to get over "

Hi, I think the thing you need to get over is that in the end the game will be what the designers want it to be.
I can't understand the hostile nature of some people when it comes to the Mods and designers trying to fix bugs and add features.
Also you misunderstand me completly. The game already works the way I want it to. I'm not complaining. Fix a few bugs and I'll be fine.
I don't address issues to change how you or anyone else plays the game or thinks.
I post so people understand why when they do things one way they get results.
Some feel China goes down too fast. I explaned why. China works fine for me and for the designers.
To make the game more realistic concerning China being an active front the Chinese OB needs to be modified. Thats all. Thats simple.
But the game works fine.


It is a game. Japan can win the game. It is not easy. For people wanting to use WITP as a means of showing how Japan could have won the war I have no answer.
Anyone who thinks Japan could have defeated all the countries it engage in WW2 after 50 years of history is not going to listen to any thing I say.
My own feeling is most games between egual skilled players will be over by mid 1944.
Maybe not over as far as there will still be turns left but the issue will not be in doubt. It will be the Allied player working to get his 2-1 ratio and he will make it before he runs out of turns.

It is interesting to me that in UV I was always the Allied player. In WITP my friends (?) have been making me Japanese.

[AmiralLaurent]

Why not reinforce the Chinese Army and include two China Commands ? One being able to operate against Japanese and one not being able to do this (restricted to Chinese held territory at start) ? The first command will be led by Stitwell and will be responsible for units both engaged on the Burma Road and on offensive operations in China... so it will have the choice to be commited on the Burma or the China side. The other Command will be led by Chang-Hai-Tcheck (oops, it's morning here, can't remember exactly) and will have the bulk of Chinese forces, most of wich were engaged in anticommunist operations or kept in reserves.

So launching offensive operations with Chinese units on a large scale will need to spend much PPs.

On the other hand, China will have enough troops to hold much of the land. And still some troops to advance if Japan retires troops. By the way, Japan also needs to spend PP to retire troops from China.

So Japan will still have the possibility to win in China.... if he sends here the troops that are usually sent to SRA or Pacific.

[ChezDaJez]

I can not speak for other players as I have only played against the AI.

I am now on my 4th game as the Jap versus the AI and am using the "very hard" setting to see if that changes anything. In my other games, I have been able to conquer China by Sep 42 each time. When I say conquer, I mean take every single city with just a few Chinese unit remenants left in the countryside and they dry up once their supply is gone. The one game I played as the Allies versus the AI, I was able to take and hold the rail line. The AI made little attempt beyond building fortresses to stop me. I have not played beyond the end of 1942 as the Japs because I have met the automatic victory conditions each time.

The problem is the way land combat is resolved. A retreating unit can take horrendous losses in China but the attacker basically only gets disrupted. Occasionally, they will loose some troops but not enough to affect anything. As soon as the fatigue and disruption wears off, they are combat ready again. It would be far more realistic if actual losses were incorporated for the attacker and the defender. That way, units would have to pull back for refit and replacements. This would cause land combat in China to slow down greatly enabling a more historical outcome.

Historically, offensives in China resulted in tens of thousands of casualties on both sides. One illplanned attack could and did result in the decimation of many a unit. Changsha is a particualrly good example as the Chinese fended off 3 attempts by the japanese to take and hold that city. Both armies were rendered combat ineffective due to heavy losses for a long time.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

I just do see how Japan could defeat china, when they tried as hard as they could for a few years and could not do it.

That's just it. The Japanese never tried to defeat all of China. They took the portion they wanted and hung on to it. The issue is that they did have the capability IF they had devoted most of their combat power to it instead of starting a war with the US. The Chinese units prior to 12/7/41 were very poorly trained, equipped and led. They were able to gain some victories but only through overwhelming use of manpower, not firepower. They improved considerably after 1942 but still could not match the Japanese forces one on one.

Also, remember that China was a divided nation. In many ways, it was a 3-way war; the Nationalists fighting the communists and both fighting the Japs. If the Japanese had concentrated their efforts on one of either the Nationalists or the communists, I believe the other would not would not have protested too greatly.

Basically, the Japanese had the capability to defeat China but did not see the necessity for it.

Chez

[Gen.Hoepner]

Hi all,

playing a Pbem started with v.1,3 i've had very big losses in attacking in China.It's true that by the end of March 42 i've been able to free the railways, but, especially in Canton Area i lost something like 30,000 men during december 41. For some mistakes my opponent let his troops being sourronded and finally he lost 300,000 men. But these casualities may have been easily avoided with a bit more attention. Now that i'm trying to advance towards the middle of china i'm experiencing extreme difficulties. Most of my units are 30% or more understrenght and each of them have problems with supplies and support. I'm quite sure that with the variations made in the v.1,4 it will be tough even to conquer the railroads.

[ChezDaJez]

I am currently playing as the Japs vs the AI with V1.4 on the "Very Hard" setting to see what difference that makes. I've just started the scenario. Its 12/13/41 and Changsha has already fallen, Chinese troops are retreating from Nanking and the Canton area is free of the enemy. I do not intend to bring in any outside troops into China.

In all of my previous games, the only major effect I suffered in China was fatigue but I was still able to conquer China by Sep 42 each time.

I believe that this was possible because the Allied AI doesn't seem to anticipate my movements and allows me to cut them off time and again. Against a human player, I doubt that I would be able to do this anywhere near as effectively, probably not at all.

Chez

[Tom Hunter]

I am seeing a trend here that counter attacking is a key part of conducting a successful defense. My fight in China is going pretty well and I have launched an number of deliberate attacks as well as many bombardment attacks.

Are the China defenses that are folding up launching attacks or just playing defense?

Tom

[moses]

What is sad is that this game is so close to being perfect but there is one obvious glaring flaw that people are emotionally unwilling to accept even though it is easily fixed.

The problem is not that Japan is to strong for the allies or that the allies are to strong for Japan. It is simply that the ground combat model is grossly biased in favor of the attacker.

Some facts from my current game: I have lost 66 ground loss VP's which equates to 396 items destroyed in over 4 months heavy fighting. The vast majority of these losses occured when the occasional small unit of mine was retreated. For example an armored unit of mine was operating independantly on the Chinese flank and was bombed heavily and then retreated by a chinese force. This caused me to lose 20 or so of those 66 VP's. Three other retreats caused the bulk of the remaining 44 VP's. I really doubt that my main force divisions have taken more then a squad or two of losses apiece for the entire campaign. In any event the entire campaign has caused me the loss of around 4000 men.

In contrast China has lost 1827 VP's which equates to 21,924 items destoyed equating to losses of 219,240 men. So I'm killing Chinese at over a 50 to 1 kill ratio.

Thats because the Chinese are retreating and that is the only time that you take significant losses in this game. All the losses that appear in the combat reports are just disruptions and are quickly recovered.


Easy to fix: Just change a good chunk of these disruptions to kills. Balance it out by making retreats less deadly both in casualties and in morale loss. No the attacker takes greater losses and the defender takes less. Balance is restored.

Japan should be able to go pretty much where it wants in China. But now they have to accept that if they want to go to Chungking its going to cost them 100-200K losses.

This fixes China, as well as Burma and Russia. Japan can still win in these areas they just have to pay an historically accurate price.

Some other simple minor fixes that would help:
1.) Slow things down by allowing combat to be canciled a certain % of time in all non-atoll hexes. Easiest is just to have a % chance of combat occuring which is determined by the weather in the hex. Doesn't have to be much to give the defender a little extra breathing room to recover.

2.) Add some extra supply usage for the attacker in combat. Currently the unit supply requirment doubles when you are fighting but this is not very much and certainly not historical.

[mogami]

Hi, I think the best fix is to place the 3.8 million Chinese troops that existed in 1941 on the map.

Japan tried several major offensive operations in China after Dec 1941. All failed. the 1944 offensive captured 2 cities and lost the north of China. When Japan tried to retake the north they lost the Army that had won the southern battle.

Just make sure there are 316 or so Chinese combat units each with 12,000 men and you'll be close.

Then along with "receive replacements" add a toggle "recieve supply"

Where does the notion that Japan could go where ever it wanted in China come from? They had lost the Sept 1941 battle for Changsha they lost the Dec 1941 battle for Changsha. They made no major effort in China untill USAAF bombers weredeployed there and then only by massing force and drawing from Manchuria (they paid the PP) did the attack capture the airfields but the areas they drew troops from were captured by the Chinese (but contained no airfields used by USAAF)
Japan had not "went where it pleased" in China since 1939. Thats the entire reason they went into Indo China and then the SRA. If Japan could have "went where it pleased" there would have been no Pacific War.
China is the reason the IJA did not want to go to war. It was the IJN that required the SRA. That is why so few IJA units were alloted for the Pacific War. And why you find the IJN defending most of the bases.

I will conceed Japan had what it wanted in China by 1939. After that all they wanted was for the Chinese to agree to let them keep it. This the Chinese would not do and the Japanese were unable to force them into agreeing. So they tried to isolate China and ended up in a larger war. The Chinese knew the Japanese would lose the Pacific war and go away so they waited and prepared for the post Pacific War Civil War.
If you make CHina as it was as far as strength and then let it loose you'll be sorry if you are Japan.