Problems with CHS India/ANZAC HQ mod

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: treespider

So when can expect to see the revised scenario?

At least a week. Several things need attention and haste makes screwup (as I well know). Besides, I think Spooky is having site troubles so delivery might be an issue.

Speaking of Spooky, let's all say Thanks again. Just think where we would be without him.

Anyway, other than ANZAC HQ stuff, the changes will primarily revolve around aircraft production. A few other corrections and tweaks, at least one class adjustment, and maybe some work on the Americal division if I can find some more data.

Don

[Jim D Burns]

Have you given any thought to China and the fixed units I recommended in another thread (page 8 of this thread tm.asp?m=824615&mpage=8 )? With the massively larger Japanese divisions in CHS, China doesn't really have a prayer now. Per this source http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm, China had 316 divisions under arms in 1941, granted many were very poorly equipped and trained, but the fact is they existed and that's what prevented Japan from conquering China in five years of war from 1937-1941.

Here's the relevant passage:

"One key recipient of this support was the Chinese Nationalist Army. Despite Chiang's apparent unification of China by military force, his army incorporated many units more loyal to their former regional warlords than to his new central government. Nationalist Army units were not only uneven in loyalty but also in quality. On paper 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. The rest of the units were under strength and generally untrained. Overall, the Nationalist Army impressed most Western military observers as more reminiscent of a nineteenth- than a twentieth-century army."

If you're not willing to tweak the Chinese to historical levels, then perhaps cutting the Japanese army by half as well would help balance things there (I mean common 600 squad divisions?). Make all their divisions brigade strength or something, similar to the way the 4 division Chinese corps are now just 2 division corps.

Also why not bump the units in Hong Kong up to 100 PP to try and give them a tad more staying power?

Jim

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Have you given any thought to China and the fixed units I recommended in another thread (page 8 of this thread tm.asp?m=824615&mpage=8)? With the massively larger Japanese divisions in CHS, China doesn't really have a prayer now. Per this source http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/72-38/72-38.htm, China had 316 divisions under arms in 1941, granted many were very poorly equipped and trained, but the fact is they existed and that's what prevented Japan from conquering China in five years of war from 1937-1941.

Here's the relevant passage:

"One key recipient of this support was the Chinese Nationalist Army. Despite Chiang's apparent unification of China by military force, his army incorporated many units more loyal to their former regional warlords than to his new central government. Nationalist Army units were not only uneven in loyalty but also in quality. On paper 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. The rest of the units were under strength and generally untrained. Overall, the Nationalist Army impressed most Western military observers as more reminiscent of a nineteenth- than a twentieth-century army."

If you're not willing to tweak the Chinese to historical levels, then perhaps cutting the Japanese army by half as well would help balance things there (I mean common 600 squad divisions?). Make all their divisions brigade strength or something, similar to the way the 4 division Chinese corps are now just 2 division corps.

Also why not bump the units in Hong Kong up to 100 PP to try and give them a tad more staying power?

Jim

We have a full China OB rework on the list of future efforts, currently this might be in "CHS v2" with a release date hopefully before the end of the year, also hopefully Andrew will have a chance to do another iteration of his map to support changes in China ( and other items ). We can say that it doesn't look like a divisional level Chinese OB is possible, "not enough slots" ... we'd need about 666 and we have about 60 left give or take a few ... so it will be corps level and hence superficially resemble the current OB, though it will be based on bottoms up research and not at all based on the current OB. Also there is still ( even in CHS v1.0 ) significantly too much transport net in some areas of China ( along the coast and around Yenen to name a couple ) Andrew and I have dialoged about this and these changes are on his list to be done in the future.

Also, so far in 2 CHS games I've been playing, neither side has been able to gain a decisive advantage across the entire Chinese theater, mostly because movement is slower now due to less rail. I won't claim two tests are definitive, but things do seem slower, which favors the Chinese initially. I'm playing Japanese side in one game and Allied side in the other, so I can see both perspectives.

Have you had Japanese overrun China in CHS ?

Hong Kong has gone back and forth, too weak ... too strong ... not sure it is "just right" yet ... but against AI it was falling in late December consistently, however against players it was falling in late January 42 consistently hence the "level 50" fort was cut back to level 9. When have you seen HK fall in CHS v1, what forces were used by IJA ?

[treespider]

Hong Kong has gone back and forth, too weak ... too strong ... not sure it is "just right" yet ... but against AI it was falling in late December consistently, however against players it was falling in late January 42 consistently hence the "level 50" fort was cut back to level 9. When have you seen HK fall in CHS v1, what forces were used by IJA ?

I am Jim's PBEM opponent and I overcame Hong Kong within the first 10 or so days under 1.6 river shock attack rule. I only used the Artillery, Engineers and the 38th Division all of which are in Canton at start.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

so it will be corps level and hence superficially resemble the current OB, though it will be based on bottoms up research and not at all based on the current OB.

The problem with giving China its full OB in maneuver type units is that once they train up they will be too strong. That's why I recommended putting about half their overall strength (160 divisions or so) into fixed immovable fort units located at each base. This represents the warlords who horded their best units and did not allow them to fight under a more nationally organized command. They provided some units for unrestricted KMT use, but their best units were kept in their home provinces for local defense and power politics.

I guess another possibility would be to simply fortify Japanese bases to level 9 and then limit engineers to 12 or so per corps to hamstring the Chinese ability to reduce forts, thus making them poor attackers. So you'd have large corps with tons of squads but very few fortress busting type advanced equipment allocated to the corps. This fix would still be too mobile for the Chinese in my opinion, but if it works in preventing them from being able to counter-attack bases why not use it?

As to Japanese strength in CHS. In my current standard WitP PBEM game I am barely hanging on by the skin of my teeth against the much weaker 300-400 squad Japanese divisions (I'm going to be overwhelmed and lose eventually though), and this is in just the first couple of months. It doesn't take rocket science to realize the Japanese will overrun anything they want in CHS once those humongous 600 squad divisions flesh out. One or two of these divisions wouldn't be a huge change, but there are a lot of these new monster divisions, China won't stand a chance. Terrain may slow the advance some, but once they make contact China is doomed.

Remember historically China held off the Japanese for 5 years all on their own with very little allied aid getting into the country. The intent for CHS shouldn't be to slow Japans ability to ‘attack’, but rather to reach a level of stalemate as the situation was historically.

So far CHS has basically increased the Japanese overall strength by about 50% or more in China and changed the road net a bit. They’ve also added more bases to defend thus diluting China’s strength even more. This is a huge increase to Japanese strength with no help at all to the already overmatched Chinese.

China is worse in CHS than standard WitP as things stand now in my opinion. Supply is far too plentiful and easy to get to the front for Japan, and far too many of their units are available to fight at the front. Historically most of Japans units in China were tied down trying to keep the supply lines open due to the massive hostile population in their rear. I’d triple or quadruple garrison requirements if possible and add the fixed Warlord fort unit’s juts for starters. That or simply just remove those units that were historically tied down fighting partisans from Japans OOB, thus preventing a Japanese player from taking advantage of the systems failures and bringing too many units forward to fight the Chinese.

Jim

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

so it will be corps level and hence superficially resemble the current OB, though it will be based on bottoms up research and not at all based on the current OB.

The problem with giving China its full OB in maneuver type units is that once they train up they will be too strong. That's why I recommended putting about half their overall strength (160 divisions or so) into fixed immovable fort units located at each base. This represents the warlords who horded their best units and did not allow them to fight under a more nationally organized command. They provided some units for unrestricted KMT use, but their best units were kept in their home provinces for local defense and power politics.

I guess another possibility would be to simply fortify Japanese bases to level 9 and then limit engineers to 12 or so per corps to hamstring the Chinese ability to reduce forts, thus making them poor attackers. So you'd have large corps with tons of squads but very few fortress busting type advanced equipment allocated to the corps. This fix would still be too mobile for the Chinese in my opinion, but if it works in preventing them from being able to counter-attack bases why not use it?

As to Japanese strength in CHS. In my current standard WitP PBEM game I am barely hanging on by the skin of my teeth against the much weaker 300-400 squad Japanese divisions (I'm going to be overwhelmed and lose eventually though), and this is in just the first couple of months. It doesn't take rocket science to realize the Japanese will overrun anything they want in CHS once those humongous 600 squad divisions flesh out. One or two of these divisions wouldn't be a huge change, but there are a lot of these new monster divisions, China won't stand a chance. Terrain may slow the advance some, but once they make contact China is doomed.

Remember historically China held off the Japanese for 5 years all on their own with very little allied aid getting into the country. The intent for CHS shouldn't be to slow Japans ability to ‘attack’, but rather to reach a level of stalemate as the situation was historically.

So far CHS has basically increased the Japanese overall strength by about 50% or more in China and changed the road net a bit. They’ve also added more bases to defend thus diluting China’s strength even more. This is a huge increase to Japanese strength with no help at all to the already overmatched Chinese.

China is worse in CHS than standard WitP as things stand now in my opinion. Supply is far too plentiful and easy to get to the front for Japan, and far too many of their units are available to fight at the front. Historically most of Japans units in China were tied down trying to keep the supply lines open due to the massive hostile population in their rear. I’d triple or quadruple garrison requirements if possible and add the fixed Warlord fort unit’s juts for starters. That or simply just remove those units that were historically tied down fighting partisans from Japans OOB, thus preventing a Japanese player from taking advantage of the systems failures and bringing too many units forward to fight the Chinese.

Jim

Jim, we will take all play results into account when trying to design the new Chinese OB .. and we appreciate your comments above. I haven't been involved thus far in working with the Japanese OB in China .. but obviously working with the Chinese OB will overlap onto the Japanese OB ... apparently more "Square" Divisions were added in CHS thus far ... and if this is supportable ( which I assume ) then it will probably stand - however we also have to make the game work.

In "stock" I've found ... and mostly read .. that without aggressive play on both sides .. that one side or the other is doomed. And that is probably still true in CHS, at least in my limited ( 2 PBEM game ) experience ( with CHS .. I've got 7 PBEM campaign game starts in stock though only 2 active at this point - and so far ... I've never lost in China ... though I have won ) ...

As to history, the "warlord" armies certainly were primary in the late twenties and up through the late thirties, though by the early forties, more "allegiance" was given to the KMT for 2 reasons ... some key warlords withholding allegiance had been "eliminated" and the other being survival ... but I certainly hear the case for static forces ... and there is a lot to be said for that ... regardless of loyalty ... it was difficult to get large numbers of Chinese units to move at the drop of a hat ... and some static units simulates that. We will take this under advisement as we devise the new Chinese OB.

In the mean time - be as aggressive as you can ... get out and "dance" even if you are bluffing !!! I had an opponent divide his units - just to confuse me - because game recon places a high value on "unit count" ... and don't be afraid to commit aircraft from Burma if you can ... US 2nd line fighters ... or even Brits ... the battle for the initiative ... is the battle .. in China as things now stand .. in both stock and CHS ...

It might have even been you ( in another thread several weeks ago ) who gave the advice - as China - ATTACK - ATTACK - ATTACK !!!

( if I'm wrong - I apologize - but whoever said that was correct !!! ... and the same goes for the Japanese !!! )



OBTW - we can't change garrison requirements directly - they are a ( hardcoded ) function of the other attributes of the base ( air field, port, industry etc. ) they are NOT correlated to population of the immediate area ( which would've been my default - had I gotten a vote ! )


And finally - part of rebuilding Chinese OB will be to "tweak" Japanese OB ... if some units should not be full strength they will be set accordingly ... but one interesting fact is that Chinese records ( which I have some of - which is why I've gotten involved ) don't focus on dates we think are key ... like 7 Dec 1941 ... so inferring "exact strength" as of 7 Dec 1941 .. has to be done by tracing activities prior to 7 Dec ... from a known base line ... other than 7 Dec ... this is for example, what led to the Nanning area being reverted back to the Chinese ... in CHS .. while the Japanese had invaded this area ... and fought a 1 year campaign to take it ... the Chinese had .. it this case .. reacted harshly and somewhat effectively and held their own .. and further ... subsequent agreements with Vichy obviated the rationale behind Japanese incursion into this area ( to sever supply line between Haiphong and China ) ... hence Japan had evacuated well before 7 Dec 1941 ...


Do you guys have an AAR ? I'd like to follow any action in China.

[Lemurs!]

Jim,

I disagree with China being too weak. We actually did strengthen Chinese forcesa a tad. Also, there are only something like 5 Japanese divisions that get anywhere near 600 squads and 1 is in Malaya and 2 or 3 in Manchuria. If you move even one out of Manchuria you will go below garrison requirements. Also, if i remember right they will mostly go back to a 3 regiment TOE so once those early squads are gone they will not come back.

I feel that a good Chinese player will not lose more than one base in '42. Many players are losing more but it is their tactics not the forces. I as a Japanese player have yet to take any base against a competent Chinese defense.

If i did add more divisions i would also lower exp to 10 or so for 3/4 of the army.

Mike

[velkro]

Wouls adding more supply to Chunking and Chengtu help the Chinese more? All my guys are already starving in late Dec 41...

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

It might have even been you ( in another thread several weeks ago ) who gave the advice - as China - ATTACK - ATTACK - ATTACK !!!

Nope wasn't me sorry, but I agree aggressive play does help slow Japan down. But in the end if you're evenly matched (in stock at least, haven't gotten that far in CHS yet) Japan will overwhelm the Chinese within 1 year for sure.

In my current stock scenario I'd say my opponent and I are very evenly matched and were are both pretty good WitP players. I have had some early successes and he has had some as well. I managed to fight him to a standstill in Yenen and Changsa, but he is now consolidated and on the move. He's adapting and has converted from a static assault to a mobile one.

In a large mobile battle the Chinese are doomed. Without the help of the static fort levels that bases give and sufficient supply, the Japanese win 9 out of 10 meeting engagements and will eventually surround a large chunk of the Chinese and kill it, no matter how good the Chinese opponent is. Once that happens China cannot recover and it's just a matter of time. Japan only needs to kill one large 100k+ army and it's all over in China.

The air war is predictable, I had some very early successes but once he brought about 50 zeros into China, it was just a matter of a couple of weeks before all allied air opposition was defeated. Now he's reduced almost 80% of in country supply production and the Chinese are just beginning to crack as needed supply dries up. And it's ONLY March of 1941.

No China is overmatched as long as the Japanese player dedicates some thought and effort to the campaign there. If he's a dedicated naval enthusiast and simply moves along the rails with only 5 minutes of thought put into his moves each turn, then the allied player should thank his lucky stars for the huge break he's getting.

Jim

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Jim,

I disagree with China being too weak. We actually did strengthen Chinese forcesa a tad. Also, there are only something like 5 Japanese divisions that get anywhere near 600 squads and 1 is in Malaya and 2 or 3 in Manchuria. If you move even one out of Manchuria you will go below garrison requirements. Also, if i remember right they will mostly go back to a 3 regiment TOE so once those early squads are gone they will not come back.

I feel that a good Chinese player will not lose more than one base in '42. Many players are losing more but it is their tactics not the forces. I as a Japanese player have yet to take any base against a competent Chinese defense.

If i did add more divisions i would also lower exp to 10 or so for 3/4 of the army.

Mike

I think there are at least 3, maybe 4 - 600 squad Japanese divisions in China to start. Additionally all the Japanese divisions are about 40-50 squads stronger than stock. The Chinese Corps are about 40-50 squads stronger as well, but 70-85 experience squads vs. 30-45 experience means that Japans strength increase was worth far more than Chinas.

I have no idea what the raw firepower values are for the two squad types either (would have to look in the editor I guess), but I'd presume Japans infantry squads are probably twice as powerful as Chinese ones from a strict firepower value standpoint.

Now let’s just look at 3 - 600 squad divisions. Stock has them at 447 squads, so that means three divisions add a total of 459 (153 per div) squads to China. That’s the equivalence of an entire stock divisions squads added to the OOB in China. Japanese divisions are the strongest units in the Game, so that’s a significant increase to their overall strength.

Now I have nothing against getting it right. If that’s what Japan had then so be it. But lets be fair and give China what they had as well, otherwise it’s a total blowout. The only problem is going about giving China what they had without letting them use it offensively.

China (Chiang Kai-shek) had no intention of fighting an offensive war against Japan. They new the allies would win and they simply wanted to preserve their strength for when the war was over so they could resume their civil war.

Even when the allies finally talked Chiang into attacking on a large scale in China, he insisted the 30 - 40 divisions be raised and trained from scratch. This allowed him to get even more war material out of the allies. That’s all Chiang really wanted, was as much war material as he could get to fight the Communists later. He was perfectly happy to let the allies win his war against Japan for him.

So what CHS needs is a defensively strong China that is very difficult for Japan to overcome (remember most results we see are happening in only the first year of game time), but offensively weak at the same time. Hence my suggestion of static fortress units. Basically it should be impossible to conquer China in a year or two. Offensives to capture a base or two were possible, but the conquest of the entire country wasn't even on the Japanese agenda anymore by 1941.

Here’s a good read concerning the difficulties in getting China to act offensively:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA ... index.html

Jim

[treespider]

Perhaps another solution for the China question would be to reduce the transportation net throughout the entire country by a level, ie the railroad to a road and the roads to trails. This change would certainly slow down any movement by the Japanese inland.

I have to agree with Jim on the static units in China. I haven't looked at the Allied side of CHS in depth, but from what I've read on the forum the same thing was done in India. The change of the Chinese units to static formations, coupled with a change in the transportation net, which would also affect the Japanese, would serve to slow down the entire campaign.

In anothe thread J. Burns did some reasearch on the supply situation in China. What he found is probably accurate in terms of history. In a synopsis of the campaign, found in The Oxford Campanion to World War II, I came across the following quote:

For most of the war, therefore, the nationalist military had to rely on what the broad hinterland of China could provide. Since industry in the interior was woefully undeveloped, the nationalists used plentiful manpower in an effort to compensate for other deficiencies.

From the same source...

...By the end of the pacific war nationalist forces numbered 300 divisions, with a nominal strength of 10,000 men per division, but many were seriously undermanned...

The problem is how to translate this into game turns. If I understand the game correctly, supply is used to replace losses and HI and manpower are used to create the units used to replace losses. So in game turns, the production engine is not suited for the Chinese situation, where Manpower should be the driving force for rebuilding Chinese units. Does the game have a seperate HI and manpower pool for the Chinese? If so, and not having the stats in front of me, perhaps the Chinese should be given an infinite (or other suitably large number) of HI points to couple with manpower to create a never ending flow of Chinese units. There supply should also be plentiful to help them replace any losses. To compensate for these increases the Chinese firepower and experience should also be reduced, except for a cadre of higher experienced units.

As in history, bending the game engine to simulate the history in China will probably be a very difficult situation to solve.

I'm just throwing out some ideas to chew on. You never know when there might be a good one.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Perhaps another solution for the China question would be to reduce the transportation net throughout the entire country by a level, ie the railroad to a road and the roads to trails. This change would certainly slow down any movement by the Japanese inland.

I have to agree with Jim on the static units in China. I haven't looked at the Allied side of CHS in depth, but from what I've read on the forum the same thing was done in India. The change of the Chinese units to static formations, coupled with a change in the transportation net, which would also affect the Japanese, would serve to slow down the entire campaign.

In anothe thread J. Burns did some reasearch on the supply situation in China. What he found is probably accurate in terms of history. In a synopsis of the campaign, found in The Oxford Campanion to World War II, I came across the following quote:

For most of the war, therefore, the nationalist military had to rely on what the broad hinterland of China could provide. Since industry in the interior was woefully undeveloped, the nationalists used plentiful manpower in an effort to compensate for other deficiencies.

From the same source...

...By the end of the pacific war nationalist forces numbered 300 divisions, with a nominal strength of 10,000 men per division, but many were seriously undermanned...

The problem is how to translate this into game turns. If I understand the game correctly, supply is used to replace losses and HI and manpower are used to create the units used to replace losses. So in game turns, the production engine is not suited for the Chinese situation, where Manpower should be the driving force for rebuilding Chinese units. Does the game have a seperate HI and manpower pool for the Chinese? If so, and not having the stats in front of me, perhaps the Chinese should be given an infinite (or other suitably large number) of HI points to couple with manpower to create a never ending flow of Chinese units. There supply should also be plentiful to help them replace any losses. To compensate for these increases the Chinese firepower and experience should also be reduced, except for a cadre of higher experienced units.

As in history, bending the game engine to simulate the history in China will probably be a very difficult situation to solve.

I'm just throwing out some ideas to chew on. You never know when there might be a good one.

The manpower is simulated, possibly poorly, by the huge build rate of Chinese Rifle Squads. However you need supply to draw those squads from the pool, so manpower isnt enough, you need manpower + supply.

[treespider]

The manpower is simulated, possibly poorly, by the huge build rate of Chinese Rifle Squads. However you need supply to draw those squads from the pool, so manpower isnt enough, you need manpower + supply.

I am aware of that...that's why I suggested increasing Chinese supply but reduce the firepower and experience of most of the Chinese army to compensate, as well as, reducing the overall chinese transportation net.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: treespider

The manpower is simulated, possibly poorly, by the huge build rate of Chinese Rifle Squads. However you need supply to draw those squads from the pool, so manpower isnt enough, you need manpower + supply.

I am aware of that...that's why I suggested increasing Chinese supply but reduce the firepower and experience of most of the Chinese army to compensate, as well as, reducing the overall chinese transportation net.

Reply to Jim as well ...

1. We will look at static units for Chinese OB when we rework Chinese OB ( slated to happen this year ) as a way of simulating difficulty in getting large numbers of Chinese to move.

2. We think there are only 2 of the 600 pound ( squad ) monsters in CHS Japanese China OB at start ... but there are also some 500 pounders ... we are looking at "triangularizing" ( reducing squads ) everything at start.

3. Andrew has also slated additional rework of Chinese transportation net as we have more data indicating it is still too "capable". Reducing the trans-net is a key to slowing things down.

4. Jim is correct in that balance in China is delicate and giving Chinese additional supplies or anything that can be used in mobile offensive campaign may shift balance to where now China wins too easily.

5. As to opinions, I guess I can have some also, so I have two. (1) It is not clear to me in stock or in CHS that either side has clear built in advantage. I've run through this start 5 times in PBEM stock and 2 times with CHS { only counting against human play }. My opinion is that it is like 2 guys drawing pistols in the street, the first guy who draws and shoots straight wins ... but I do agree it is too easy for either side to win/lose big in China. And (2) second opinion is that it should be possible for Japanese to take cities, their '44 offensive is proof of this, yes it required reinforcement, but it should not be "impossible". And it should not be "impossible" for Chinese to take a city or two as well. They kicked the Japanese out of the Nanning area during a year long campaign ( nov 39 - nov 40 ) showing that they could fight back. If the Allied player detects Japanese reinforcement of China he needs to try to exploit this elsewhere. Everything the Japanese do rides on a shoestring, if the Japanese can afford to send reinforcements to China, this should open a hole elsewhere in the Pacific.

So paraphrasing, what we need to do is reduce offensive power on both sides relative to defensive power, this will remove the pistols from the street fighters and make them fight with their fists. They can still hurt each other, but the 5 second "death blow" will be more difficult without those pistols !

[Lemurs!]

Oneof the worries i have with adding more supply to China is that much of China's manpower advantage was ephemeral.

The Chinese peasants were recruited, chained together, dragged to a division, given something like a bolt action rifle and told they were soldiers. There was essentially no basic training and limited food and brutal 'officers' who were usually local notables.

Chinese soldiers deserted in huge numbers and it is assumed that many soldiers were rerecruited many times. They also suffered enormous attrition.

The one and only way i can represent some of these limitations is by keeping supply limited.
I really believe many players need to learn more about how China fought; it was not a stand up war past '37 or so because the Chinese could not stand up to the Japanese. It ws a war of narrow Japanese advances (all Japan could do with limited forces) being stopped by a blocking force of Chinese in front who inevitably took very heavy losses. Then, the Chinese would move forces on to the flank of the Japanese advance and start raiding supply lines.

This tactic is very suitable to WITP play.
Japan facing a China that attempts to fight a stand up war should win and take cities.

Mike

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
2. We think there are only 2 of the 600 pound ( squad ) monsters in CHS Japanese China OB at start ... but there are also some 500 pounders ... we are looking at "triangularizing" ( reducing squads ) everything at start.

I've found the 3rd, 13th and 116th divisions with just a quick look around; I haven't done a comprehensive breakdown of the Japanese yet.

3. Andrew has also slated additional rework of Chinese transportation net as we have more data indicating it is still too "capable". Reducing the trans-net is a key to slowing things down.

I think slowing things down too much actually helps the Japanese. They have mobile units that can move up to twice as fast as any Chinese units off road, making surrounding them much easier as China will find it hard to respond.

4. Jim is correct in that balance in China is delicate and giving Chinese additional supplies or anything that can be used in mobile offensive campaign may shift balance to where now China wins too easily.

Additional supplies? China starts with too few supplies to even fight a defensive campaign to start with. They have a daily usage of 2k just for standing still in place. Any kind of combat can double or triple this requirement easily. If Japan just bombs Chinese supply production into the Stone Age by Jan-Feb, Japan doesn't even need to attack. The Chinese will whither and die just from lack of sustenance levels of supply. I guess I should add up what usage in combat will be as people don't seem to be as alarmed as I am at the severe shortcomings of the supply situation in China.

Remember China needs over double their required supply levels to even be able to draw from their replacement pools. No wonder China gets stomped by any kind of competent Japanese play. Their supply isn't even sufficient in an untouched state. Once Japan attacks it, it simply accelerates the inevitable decline of the on map Chinese units.

Chinese supply is not on some tight rope of balance where it's almost right. It is TOTALLY insufficient as things stand now.

Chinas ability to attack should not be handled by limiting their supply, the game system is too borked to allow that tweak to be controlled well enough. Instead I think the best solution is to simply put the majority of Chinese strength into static forces. Then allow China sufficient supply to actually use things like their replacement pool etc. at combat levels of consumption.

5. As to opinions, I guess I can have some also, so I have two. (1) It is not clear to me in stock or in CHS that either side has clear built in advantage. I've run through this start 5 times in PBEM stock and 2 times with CHS { only counting against human play }. My opinion is that it is like 2 guys drawing pistols in the street, the first guy who draws and shoots straight wins ... but I do agree it is too easy for either side to win/lose big in China. And (2) second opinion is that it should be possible for Japanese to take cities, their '44 offensive is proof of this, yes it required reinforcement, but it should not be "impossible". And it should not be "impossible" for Chinese to take a city or two as well. They kicked the Japanese out of the Nanning area during a year long campaign ( nov 39 - nov 40 ) showing that they could fight back. If the Allied player detects Japanese reinforcement of China he needs to try to exploit this elsewhere. Everything the Japanese do rides on a shoestring, if the Japanese can afford to send reinforcements to China, this should open a hole elsewhere in the Pacific.

So paraphrasing, what we need to do is reduce offensive power on both sides relative to defensive power, this will remove the pistols from the street fighters and make them fight with their fists. They can still hurt each other, but the 5 second "death blow" will be more difficult without those pistols !

(1) I can't make it any clearer than this. Chinas best possible supply production is 5270 a day. The standing army will consume more than that per day once combat starts, to say nothing about any kind of air force presence. Japan can reduce Chinas supply production to 1700 day within 2 months guaranteed, 1200 when the Burma Road is closed. China does not stand a chance against competent play.

(2) I agree totally, but conquest of all of China is what we see now, not year long campaigns to take a single city.

Jim

[Don Bowen]

Other than the ANZAC/India HQ changes (posted earlier in this thread), we will be making some adjustments to aircraft and aircraft engine production plus some miscellaneous mods.

The production changes are still in the works. Here are the other proposed changes for review:

Adjustment of Fortification values for Canadian Bases:
270 - Victoria to 2
891 - Vancouver to 2


Correct Vanguard secondary Armament
Class 1448 - Weapons 3 and 4, number adjusted to 8
Ship 3181 - Refresh from class


Add DE Tomich to OOB:
4005 - Tomich, Cannon Class, arrives 450718 at Panama



Adjustments to Kitty Hawk Class:
Class 422 - Adjust light AA to 8 20mm, no 40mm. Set upgrade to new class 1509
Class 1509 - New Upgrade for Kitty Hawk Class, copy values of previous class 422, set upgrade date to 8/44
Ship 6732 - Alter name to Kitty Hawk



Australian OOB Adjustments:

Remove two late arriving divisions - these were just newe command organizations over existing formations
2852 - 5th Australian Division, remove
3137 - 11th Australian Division, remove

Add two additional brigades - these were formed in early 1942 from garrison units (most of which are not now in the OOB)
2852 - 31st Australian Brigade, arrives 420115 at Sydney
3137 - 32nd Australian Brigade, arrives 420215 at Newcastle



Correct Position of M3 Stuart Tanks
Device slot 517 has been shown to not have pool capability. The M3 Stuart Tank with Upgrade to M4 Sherman Tank will
be moved from this position to slot 492, overlaying the unused BT-7 Light Tank.

Adjust the following Locations to reflect this change:
2018 - USMC Infantry Division TOE
2160 - United State Base Force

Correct Assignment from Device 470 (M3 Stuarts with Light Tank Upgrade Path) to new Device 492:
3020 - 3rd Marine Div
3108 - 4th Marine Div
3170 - 6th Marine Div
3237 - 5th Marine Div


Correct Position of 383rd Heavy Bomb Squadron - must be in slot 1618 to handle atomic bomb:
Switch positions of VMF-215 (in slot 1618) and 393rd Heavy Bomb Sqd (in slot 1686)


Adjustments for correct Marks and arrivals of British Liberator Bombers:
145 - Change from Liberator VI to Liberator III. Copy all particulars from B-24D (aircraft 198) except for icon - leave as 145. Set upgrade to new Liberator VI, aircraft 210,
210 - New Liberator VI, copy all values from existing aircraft 145 except availability date - set to 1/44.



Airgroup Max Size adjustments:
355 - G2/4th Daitai correct max size to 27

[The Dude]

Adjustments to Kitty Hawk Class:
Class 422 - Adjust light AA to 8 20mm, no 40mm. Set upgrade to new class 1509
Class 1509 - New Upgrade for Kitty Hawk Class, copy values of previous class 422, set upgrade date to 8/44
Ship 6732 - Alter name to Kitty Hawk

What is the Kitty Hawk? The only one i know of is the 60s carriers.

[Don Bowen]

What is the Kitty Hawk? The only one i know of is the 60s carriers.

The World War II Kitty Hawk Class comprised three aircraft transports converted from train ferries.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
2. We think there are only 2 of the 600 pound ( squad ) monsters in CHS Japanese China OB at start ... but there are also some 500 pounders ... we are looking at "triangularizing" ( reducing squads ) everything at start.

I've found the 3rd, 13th and 116th divisions with just a quick look around; I haven't done a comprehensive breakdown of the Japanese yet.

You're right a third one ( 116th ) was added in CHS v1.0 .. both my ongoing CHS games are Beta-2 .. however we are looking at triangularizing everything .. so this issue should be addressed.

3. Andrew has also slated additional rework of Chinese transportation net as we have more data indicating it is still too "capable". Reducing the trans-net is a key to slowing things down.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I think slowing things down too much actually helps the Japanese. They have mobile units that can move up to twice as fast as any Chinese units off road, making surrounding them much easier as China will find it hard to respond.

You mean tank units ? Two at start I believe, more could be brought in ... I haven't seen this problem in any of my games to date. In one game I brought in 4 more tank units and tried to use them as mobile Corps and Chinese stomped them. One component of Chinese defense was to break down Corps to provide more units.

4. Jim is correct in that balance in China is delicate and giving Chinese additional supplies or anything that can be used in mobile offensive campaign may shift balance to where now China wins too easily.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Additional supplies? China starts with too few supplies to even fight a defensive campaign to start with. They have a daily usage of 2k just for standing still in place. Any kind of combat can double or triple this requirement easily. If Japan just bombs Chinese supply production into the Stone Age by Jan-Feb, Japan doesn't even need to attack. The Chinese will whither and die just from lack of sustenance levels of supply. I guess I should add up what usage in combat will be as people don't seem to be as alarmed as I am at the severe shortcomings of the supply situation in China.

Remember China needs over double their required supply levels to even be able to draw from their replacement pools. No wonder China gets stomped by any kind of competent Japanese play. Their supply isn't even sufficient in an untouched state. Once Japan attacks it, it simply accelerates the inevitable decline of the on map Chinese units.

Chinese supply is not on some tight rope of balance where it's almost right. It is TOTALLY insufficient as things stand now.

Chinas ability to attack should not be handled by limiting their supply, the game system is too borked to allow that tweak to be controlled well enough. Instead I think the best solution is to simply put the majority of Chinese strength into static forces. Then allow China sufficient supply to actually use things like their replacement pool etc. at combat levels of consumption.

I assume you use default of replacements off for Chinese. I use this as default for Chinese and Japanese. I haven't had real painful supply shortages as either side, though I do see red at some bases occasionally .. and this is true on both sides. That tells me I'm trying to do too much .. so I shut something down .. construction, replacements, air ... but if we add more Chinese troops as a part of the Chines OB rework .. we will have to look at the impact on supply.

5. As to opinions, I guess I can have some also, so I have two. (1) It is not clear to me in stock or in CHS that either side has clear built in advantage. I've run through this start 5 times in PBEM stock and 2 times with CHS { only counting against human play }. My opinion is that it is like 2 guys drawing pistols in the street, the first guy who draws and shoots straight wins ... but I do agree it is too easy for either side to win/lose big in China. And (2) second opinion is that it should be possible for Japanese to take cities, their '44 offensive is proof of this, yes it required reinforcement, but it should not be "impossible". And it should not be "impossible" for Chinese to take a city or two as well. They kicked the Japanese out of the Nanning area during a year long campaign ( nov 39 - nov 40 ) showing that they could fight back. If the Allied player detects Japanese reinforcement of China he needs to try to exploit this elsewhere. Everything the Japanese do rides on a shoestring, if the Japanese can afford to send reinforcements to China, this should open a hole elsewhere in the Pacific.

So paraphrasing, what we need to do is reduce offensive power on both sides relative to defensive power, this will remove the pistols from the street fighters and make them fight with their fists. They can still hurt each other, but the 5 second "death blow" will be more difficult without those pistols !

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
(1) I can't make it any clearer than this. Chinas best possible supply production is 5270 a day. The standing army will consume more than that per day once combat starts, to say nothing about any kind of air force presence. Japan can reduce Chinas supply production to 1700 day within 2 months guaranteed, 1200 when the Burma Road is closed. China does not stand a chance against competent play.

(2) I agree totally, but conquest of all of China is what we see now, not year long campaigns to take a single city.

Jim

I agree in theory with ability to pound front cities and reduce supply - however - Japanese player has to ask self - why go to the trouble if I don't get the benefits - in other words - capturing the resources and HI capability intact would be huge benefit to Japanese capturing burned out cities much less so - especially if I have to bring anything else at all in to accomplish - which I probably do. Sally, Lily, Nell, Betty all have important uses in securing SRA and Chinese resources and HI are not enough to survive that maximum amount of time as Japanese, they must have the oil of SRA. Hence, I've only seen China overrun by Japanese in one of my 7 PBEM campaign games, because there were higher priorities.

That said, if the Japanese could overrun China, without starting WWII in the Pacific, they certainly would've done so - and then they would've have had to start WWII in the first place. Further I agree that if Japan is only fighting China, with all her Naval and Military power, then she will certainly roll over China, in the game. And this must be wrong, because could they have done that, they would have.

So, I have only seen China overrun by Japanese in one of my games, but agree that balance vis-a-vis history is too much towards Japanese. This is key reason I signed on to CHS Team to rework Chinese OB. So I hope to have that ready for Beta by end of Oct with release in December.